You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pse behet "FAKT I KRYER"
- Thread starter komino
- Data e fillimit
Re: Zgjedhjet
Meqenese keni bere paralajmerime, sa ju kane degjuar shqiptaret?
pyesni ata po do thoja qe KUSH E DI C'MUND TE NDODHTE NESE NUK DO I KISHIN LEXUAR ME KUJDES PARALAJMERIMET TONA. Di qe i kane lexuar me kujdes pasi i kemi diskutuar.
PS ka ngritur shqetesime per procesin e numerimit, c'mendon odihr per kete proces?
Cdo lloj paqendrueshmerie gjate numerimit esthe e pjese e procesi te votimit
kemi ende vezhgues ne qendra po nuk kemi ende informacione
ka shume zona ku kushtet kane qene me pak se te qendrueshme. gjithsesi nuk dua te them me teper
prit se do te nderhyje edhe maltezi i ke
keto ceshtje do te trajtohen perfundimisht ne raportin perfundimtar.
grunet thote se mund te kete nje raport te ndermjetem pas nje jave
Meqenese keni bere paralajmerime, sa ju kane degjuar shqiptaret?
pyesni ata po do thoja qe KUSH E DI C'MUND TE NDODHTE NESE NUK DO I KISHIN LEXUAR ME KUJDES PARALAJMERIMET TONA. Di qe i kane lexuar me kujdes pasi i kemi diskutuar.
PS ka ngritur shqetesime per procesin e numerimit, c'mendon odihr per kete proces?
Cdo lloj paqendrueshmerie gjate numerimit esthe e pjese e procesi te votimit
kemi ende vezhgues ne qendra po nuk kemi ende informacione
ka shume zona ku kushtet kane qene me pak se te qendrueshme. gjithsesi nuk dua te them me teper
prit se do te nderhyje edhe maltezi i ke
keto ceshtje do te trajtohen perfundimisht ne raportin perfundimtar.
grunet thote se mund te kete nje raport te ndermjetem pas nje jave
Re: Zgjedhjet
te te besojme ty apo osce? ( e tha vete ne fillim qe ky nuk ehste raport i osbe dhe bashkepunimi ishte per strukturat)
Po sqaron me ca pune merret dhe ca mandati ka
jemi ketu qe te ndjekim pregatitjen e zhvillimn e zgjedhjeve
pregatisim raporte, vleresojme mbi stadartet te njejten gje ben presidenca e osbe ketu
po flet borgu po mua me shkeputet linja
pyejte e fundit
n24
kur thoni qe nuk ku arriten standartet cila eshte pergjegjesia konkrete e qeverise dhe opozites?
duhet te ndahet
partive i jepet shume fuqi ne proces nga ligji
(kembengul te mosbesimi bla bla bla)
te te besojme ty apo osce? ( e tha vete ne fillim qe ky nuk ehste raport i osbe dhe bashkepunimi ishte per strukturat)
Po sqaron me ca pune merret dhe ca mandati ka
jemi ketu qe te ndjekim pregatitjen e zhvillimn e zgjedhjeve
pregatisim raporte, vleresojme mbi stadartet te njejten gje ben presidenca e osbe ketu
po flet borgu po mua me shkeputet linja
pyejte e fundit
n24
kur thoni qe nuk ku arriten standartet cila eshte pergjegjesia konkrete e qeverise dhe opozites?
duhet te ndahet
partive i jepet shume fuqi ne proces nga ligji
(kembengul te mosbesimi bla bla bla)
RAPORTI I OSBE ODIHR
N T E R N A T I O N A L E L E C T I O NO B S E R V A T I O N M I S S I O NRepublic of AlbaniaLocal Elections, 18 February 2007STATEMENT OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSTirana, 19 February 2007 – Following invitations by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Albania to observe the 2007 local elections, the OSCE Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) deployed an Election Observation Mission (EOM)
in Albania and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe deployed a
delegation of European representatives of local authorities. For observation on election day,
observers from OSCE/ODIHR and from the Congress joined efforts to form an International
Election Observation Mission (IEOM).The IEOM assessed compliance of the electoral process with OSCE Commitments, Council of
Europe commitments and other international standards for democratic elections, and domestic
legislation. This statement of preliminary findings and conclusions is delivered prior to the
completion of the election process, including the vote count and the tabulation and announcement of
final results, and the expiry of legal deadlines for complaints and appeals. A conclusive assessment
of the elections will depend, in part, on the conduct of these remaining phases of the process. The
OSCE/ODIHR will publish a comprehensive final report approximately two months after completion
of the process, and the Congress will vote on a report on the elections during its Spring Session.PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONSWhile the 18 February local elections provided for a competitive contest, they were another missed
opportunity for Albania to conduct elections fully in line with OSCE Commitments, Council of
Europe commitments and other international standards for democratic elections. Political parties fell
short of respecting the considerable responsibilities granted to them by the law. While election day
was calm overall, voting was marred by procedural shortcomings and in some places by tension.The electoral environment was marked by uncertainty and a lack of trust between key election
stakeholders, particularly in the period before the 12 January agreement that aimed to resume the
stalled process. This was underscored by the decision of the opposition to initially not participate in
the process. The lack of constructive engagement by political parties resulted in a deadlock. This
revived previous concerns regarding the willingness of the parties to ensure that elections proceed in
compliance with international standards for democratic elections.Albania continues to lack a reliable system for civil registration, and identification, and a uniform
system of addresses. This caused, once again, disputes on the compilation of voter lists and the
identification of voters in polling stations. Until these systems are thoroughly implemented, elections
in Albania are bound to encounter such difficulties. A determined effort by the Albanian authorities
is required, encompassing broad support across party lines, ahead of the parliamentary elections
anticipated in 2009. Parties should refrain from misusing this issue in their political debates.Generally, candidates and political parties could register without impediment, and were able to freely
convey their views. Overall, media provided a balanced coverage of the campaign, which was
dominated by issues of national significance rather than local issues. A genuine competition was
evident, and voters were able to make informed choices among an array of competing options.
N T E R N A T I O N A L E L E C T I O NO B S E R V A T I O N M I S S I O NRepublic of AlbaniaLocal Elections, 18 February 2007STATEMENT OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSTirana, 19 February 2007 – Following invitations by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Albania to observe the 2007 local elections, the OSCE Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) deployed an Election Observation Mission (EOM)
in Albania and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe deployed a
delegation of European representatives of local authorities. For observation on election day,
observers from OSCE/ODIHR and from the Congress joined efforts to form an International
Election Observation Mission (IEOM).The IEOM assessed compliance of the electoral process with OSCE Commitments, Council of
Europe commitments and other international standards for democratic elections, and domestic
legislation. This statement of preliminary findings and conclusions is delivered prior to the
completion of the election process, including the vote count and the tabulation and announcement of
final results, and the expiry of legal deadlines for complaints and appeals. A conclusive assessment
of the elections will depend, in part, on the conduct of these remaining phases of the process. The
OSCE/ODIHR will publish a comprehensive final report approximately two months after completion
of the process, and the Congress will vote on a report on the elections during its Spring Session.PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONSWhile the 18 February local elections provided for a competitive contest, they were another missed
opportunity for Albania to conduct elections fully in line with OSCE Commitments, Council of
Europe commitments and other international standards for democratic elections. Political parties fell
short of respecting the considerable responsibilities granted to them by the law. While election day
was calm overall, voting was marred by procedural shortcomings and in some places by tension.The electoral environment was marked by uncertainty and a lack of trust between key election
stakeholders, particularly in the period before the 12 January agreement that aimed to resume the
stalled process. This was underscored by the decision of the opposition to initially not participate in
the process. The lack of constructive engagement by political parties resulted in a deadlock. This
revived previous concerns regarding the willingness of the parties to ensure that elections proceed in
compliance with international standards for democratic elections.Albania continues to lack a reliable system for civil registration, and identification, and a uniform
system of addresses. This caused, once again, disputes on the compilation of voter lists and the
identification of voters in polling stations. Until these systems are thoroughly implemented, elections
in Albania are bound to encounter such difficulties. A determined effort by the Albanian authorities
is required, encompassing broad support across party lines, ahead of the parliamentary elections
anticipated in 2009. Parties should refrain from misusing this issue in their political debates.Generally, candidates and political parties could register without impediment, and were able to freely
convey their views. Overall, media provided a balanced coverage of the campaign, which was
dominated by issues of national significance rather than local issues. A genuine competition was
evident, and voters were able to make informed choices among an array of competing options.
Re: RAPORTI I OSBE ODIHR
However, during the week preceding the polls, the tone of the campaign degenerated due to
personalized attacks against leading contenders. A few violent incidents were also noted.Overall, positive developments include:• The existing legal framework largely provides a basis for the conduct of democraticelections, if implemented in good faith.• To date, the Central Election Commission (CEC) was able to manage the electoral processlargely in line with the law, despite tight deadlines and an uncertain environment.• The process of updating voter lists, although rushed in a number of local government units(LGUs), was generally satisfactory.• Over 1,000 mayoral candidates and over 6,000 council lists were registered in the 384 LGUs,in an overall inclusive process.• Both the CEC and the Electoral College have thus far handled complaints and appeals in atransparent and professional manner.• The media provided voters with extensive election-related information, both before andduring the official campaign period.Shortcomings, including some resulting from the 13 January amendments, were noted:• The 13 January amendments introduced new transitory provisions for voter identification.While these procedures were intended to enhance the integrity of the process, they also have
the potential to disenfranchise eligible voters.• Birth certificates, as a means of voter identification, remained contentious. Attempts toremedy the situation resulted in the adoption of procedures which proved cumbersome for
civil status offices (CSOs), voting centre commissions (VCCs) and voters.• Special provisions for the identification of emigrants, both in voter lists and on election day,were discriminatory, open to abuse, and may have led to the disenfranchisement of voters.• The late and sometimes incomplete appointment of the election administration, including thetwo new members of the CEC, impacted negatively on the process, in particular in the
absence of alternative mechanisms to fill vacancies in case parties do not exercise their right
to nominate members of lower-level commissions.• The possibility to re-rank candidates for councillors after the vote limits transparency.
• In a few instances, candidates who attempted to register as independents appeared to haveencountered undue obstacles.Election day was calm overall. However, this was overshadowed by procedural shortcomings and, at
times, by tensions. It would appear that shortcomings were partly a result of aspects of the 13
January amendments, mostly the need of special registers for birth certificates. In a significant 13 per
cent of Voting Centres (VCs) visited, such registers had not been provided. Late opening was
frequently observed and some 75 VCs did not open. The visible ink used to mark voters raised
controversy. In a high 31 per cent of VCs visited, there was group voting. In Tirana, the similar
colours of the ballots for the various elections may have led to confusion. While the transfer of
voting material to counting centres appeared to have proceeded accordingly, observers have noted
that the vote count itself was being conducted at a slow rate. As of 12:00 hrs. on 19 February, the
CEC had not published provisional results on its website.The organizations represented in the IEOM stand ready to continue their support for the efforts of the
Albanian authorities, political parties and civil society to improve the electoral process in Albania, in
line with OSCE Commitments and other international standards for democratic elections
However, during the week preceding the polls, the tone of the campaign degenerated due to
personalized attacks against leading contenders. A few violent incidents were also noted.Overall, positive developments include:• The existing legal framework largely provides a basis for the conduct of democraticelections, if implemented in good faith.• To date, the Central Election Commission (CEC) was able to manage the electoral processlargely in line with the law, despite tight deadlines and an uncertain environment.• The process of updating voter lists, although rushed in a number of local government units(LGUs), was generally satisfactory.• Over 1,000 mayoral candidates and over 6,000 council lists were registered in the 384 LGUs,in an overall inclusive process.• Both the CEC and the Electoral College have thus far handled complaints and appeals in atransparent and professional manner.• The media provided voters with extensive election-related information, both before andduring the official campaign period.Shortcomings, including some resulting from the 13 January amendments, were noted:• The 13 January amendments introduced new transitory provisions for voter identification.While these procedures were intended to enhance the integrity of the process, they also have
the potential to disenfranchise eligible voters.• Birth certificates, as a means of voter identification, remained contentious. Attempts toremedy the situation resulted in the adoption of procedures which proved cumbersome for
civil status offices (CSOs), voting centre commissions (VCCs) and voters.• Special provisions for the identification of emigrants, both in voter lists and on election day,were discriminatory, open to abuse, and may have led to the disenfranchisement of voters.• The late and sometimes incomplete appointment of the election administration, including thetwo new members of the CEC, impacted negatively on the process, in particular in the
absence of alternative mechanisms to fill vacancies in case parties do not exercise their right
to nominate members of lower-level commissions.• The possibility to re-rank candidates for councillors after the vote limits transparency.
• In a few instances, candidates who attempted to register as independents appeared to haveencountered undue obstacles.Election day was calm overall. However, this was overshadowed by procedural shortcomings and, at
times, by tensions. It would appear that shortcomings were partly a result of aspects of the 13
January amendments, mostly the need of special registers for birth certificates. In a significant 13 per
cent of Voting Centres (VCs) visited, such registers had not been provided. Late opening was
frequently observed and some 75 VCs did not open. The visible ink used to mark voters raised
controversy. In a high 31 per cent of VCs visited, there was group voting. In Tirana, the similar
colours of the ballots for the various elections may have led to confusion. While the transfer of
voting material to counting centres appeared to have proceeded accordingly, observers have noted
that the vote count itself was being conducted at a slow rate. As of 12:00 hrs. on 19 February, the
CEC had not published provisional results on its website.The organizations represented in the IEOM stand ready to continue their support for the efforts of the
Albanian authorities, political parties and civil society to improve the electoral process in Albania, in
line with OSCE Commitments and other international standards for democratic elections
Re: RAPORTI I OSBE ODIHR
BackgroundThe 18 February 2007 local elections were the third observed by the OSCE/ODIHR in Albania1.They were held in the context of constitutional amendments passed on 13 January 2007, which
extended the mandates of local government bodies from three to four years.The elections were postponed by nearly a month from 20 January 2007, the date initially decreed by
the President, Mr. Alfred Moisiu. The holding of elections on the initial date was delayed by the
continued polarization and uncompromising attitudes of both sides of the political spectrum. The
parties in opposition chose not to register for the 20 January 2007 elections or to nominate their
representatives in the Local Government Election Commissions (LGECs), arguing that they refused
to participate in what they termed an ‘illegal process’.As election day drew closer, it became increasingly clear that elections would not be possible
without some agreement being reached between majority and opposition. This was primarily due to
the bi-partisan election administration structures, which allowed for effective blocking by political
forces, and to the fact that amending the Electoral Code requires a qualified majority of 3/5.Only upon the initiative of the President to bring the two sides together at a roundtable, with strong
international support and with the involvement of OSCE Chairman in Office envoy Ambassador
Jose Pons, was a political agreement finally reached on 12 January. This enabled the adoption of
subsequent changes to the Constitution and the Electoral Code the following day. On 14 January,
President Moisiu decreed local elections for 18 February, two days before the expiration of the
LGUs’ constitutional mandates.Election System and Legal FrameworkMayors and members of councils of the 384 LGUs in the Republic of Albania are elected by popular
vote in a single round of voting. The seats in local councils are allocated on the basis of party lists,
using a proportional-representation system. Independent candidates can also stand. Mayoral
candidates are elected in a first-past-the-post contest.The existing electoral framework can provide a sufficient basis for holding democratic elections if
implemented in good faith. The recent amendments to the Electoral Code pertain, inter alia, to the
election administration, candidate lists, identification of voters, invalidation of elections and
handling of electoral disputes. While some amendments have addressed a number of OSCE/ODIHR
recommendations, especially on the vote count and the complaints and appeals process, other
amendments raise concern. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe was not involved in
the drafting of the 13 January amendments.The extension to local elections of a provision allowing the re-ranking of candidates on multi-name
lists after election day, according to formulas submitted during registration, limits transparency and
impacts on the allocation of mandates within lists of candidates. It was already noted in the
OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission joint recommendations of 2004, that it would be contrary to1The OSCE/ODIHR observed the 1996, 1997, 2001, 2005 parliamentary elections, the 1998 constitutional
referendum, and the 2000 and 2003 local elections. The Congress observed the 2000 and 2003 local elections.Displaying page 3 of 10Previous | Next
BackgroundThe 18 February 2007 local elections were the third observed by the OSCE/ODIHR in Albania1.They were held in the context of constitutional amendments passed on 13 January 2007, which
extended the mandates of local government bodies from three to four years.The elections were postponed by nearly a month from 20 January 2007, the date initially decreed by
the President, Mr. Alfred Moisiu. The holding of elections on the initial date was delayed by the
continued polarization and uncompromising attitudes of both sides of the political spectrum. The
parties in opposition chose not to register for the 20 January 2007 elections or to nominate their
representatives in the Local Government Election Commissions (LGECs), arguing that they refused
to participate in what they termed an ‘illegal process’.As election day drew closer, it became increasingly clear that elections would not be possible
without some agreement being reached between majority and opposition. This was primarily due to
the bi-partisan election administration structures, which allowed for effective blocking by political
forces, and to the fact that amending the Electoral Code requires a qualified majority of 3/5.Only upon the initiative of the President to bring the two sides together at a roundtable, with strong
international support and with the involvement of OSCE Chairman in Office envoy Ambassador
Jose Pons, was a political agreement finally reached on 12 January. This enabled the adoption of
subsequent changes to the Constitution and the Electoral Code the following day. On 14 January,
President Moisiu decreed local elections for 18 February, two days before the expiration of the
LGUs’ constitutional mandates.Election System and Legal FrameworkMayors and members of councils of the 384 LGUs in the Republic of Albania are elected by popular
vote in a single round of voting. The seats in local councils are allocated on the basis of party lists,
using a proportional-representation system. Independent candidates can also stand. Mayoral
candidates are elected in a first-past-the-post contest.The existing electoral framework can provide a sufficient basis for holding democratic elections if
implemented in good faith. The recent amendments to the Electoral Code pertain, inter alia, to the
election administration, candidate lists, identification of voters, invalidation of elections and
handling of electoral disputes. While some amendments have addressed a number of OSCE/ODIHR
recommendations, especially on the vote count and the complaints and appeals process, other
amendments raise concern. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe was not involved in
the drafting of the 13 January amendments.The extension to local elections of a provision allowing the re-ranking of candidates on multi-name
lists after election day, according to formulas submitted during registration, limits transparency and
impacts on the allocation of mandates within lists of candidates. It was already noted in the
OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission joint recommendations of 2004, that it would be contrary to1The OSCE/ODIHR observed the 1996, 1997, 2001, 2005 parliamentary elections, the 1998 constitutional
referendum, and the 2000 and 2003 local elections. The Congress observed the 2000 and 2003 local elections.Displaying page 3 of 10Previous | Next
Re: RAPORTI I OSBE ODIHR
OSCE commitments and international standards to permit a re-ranking or ‘final’ ranking of
candidates after a voter casts his or her ballot. Such a possibility, which exists for parliamentary
elections, was also criticized in the OSCE/ODIHR Final Report on the 2005 parliamentary elections.Furthermore, new transitory provisions, introduced cumbersome procedures for voter identification,
as well as discriminatory rules for citizens who have emigrated. While these procedures were
introduced with the intention of enhancing the integrity of the process, they also have the potential to
disenfranchise eligible voters. Of particular concern is the requirement that, in order to receive a
ballot, emigrants have to show, in addition to an Albanian passport, a second document issued by the
state of permanent residence of the emigrant. Such documents may not be provided by all states or
there may be Albanian citizens who have not been able to register permanent residence abroad.Election AdministrationThe political agreement reached in January 2007 maintained the principle of ‘political balance’ of
the election administration while increasing its membership. A constitutional amendment adopted on
13 January increased CEC membership from seven to nine; the two new members were elected on 6
February by the Assembly. On 9 February, the CEC Chairperson was re-elected by the membership
of the CEC for three and half years. The delay in nominating the two new CEC members, as required
by the electoral law amendments, meant that they were only appointed two weeks prior to election
day. Such late appointments, initially caused by lack of nominations from political parties, also
contributed to increased political tensions.Membership of LGECs, VCCs and Counting Teams (CTs) was increased from 7 to 13, with the six
biggest parliamentary groups from the majority and minority entitled to nominate members. The two
biggest parties, the DP and the SP, retain the right to nominate the chairpersons. The formation of
LGECs was somewhat hindered by difficulties faced by other eligible parties in putting forward
nominations for all positions they had been granted by the amendments. The right of parties to
replace their LGEC members at any time also created problems, as more than one third of LGEC
members were replaced, impacting on the stability of the election administration. On 11 February,
the CEC Chairman publicly called on parties to cease this practice. However, replacements
continued in the week before election day. The late appointment of a significant number among of
some 66,000 VCC members reduced the efficiency of the administration, especially since many of
them did not undergo training.Despite an uncertain environment, a rancorous political climate and tight deadlines, the Central
Election Commission (CEC), was able to manage the electoral process to date in line with the legal
framework.Voter RegistrationFollowing the 12 January political agreement, co-operation between civil status offices (CSOs) in
LGUs and the General Directorate of Civil Status (GDCS) in the Ministry of Interior (MoI) resumed
to a level which allowed for the updating of voter lists and, to a certain extent, the removal of
duplicate entries. Improvements in the accuracy of the fundamental residence register and the broad
use of special software prepared by the MoI appear to have led to more accurate voter lists in many
LGUs compared to the 2005 elections. However, the absence of a proper address system, as well as
the absorption of the temporary register into the fundamental register, have kept the number of so-
called ‘999 entries’ (i.e. citizens without a complete numerical address) relatively high. In Vlora
municipality, for example, 48 per cent of all voters registered in the final voter lists were still marked
as ‘999 entries’
OSCE commitments and international standards to permit a re-ranking or ‘final’ ranking of
candidates after a voter casts his or her ballot. Such a possibility, which exists for parliamentary
elections, was also criticized in the OSCE/ODIHR Final Report on the 2005 parliamentary elections.Furthermore, new transitory provisions, introduced cumbersome procedures for voter identification,
as well as discriminatory rules for citizens who have emigrated. While these procedures were
introduced with the intention of enhancing the integrity of the process, they also have the potential to
disenfranchise eligible voters. Of particular concern is the requirement that, in order to receive a
ballot, emigrants have to show, in addition to an Albanian passport, a second document issued by the
state of permanent residence of the emigrant. Such documents may not be provided by all states or
there may be Albanian citizens who have not been able to register permanent residence abroad.Election AdministrationThe political agreement reached in January 2007 maintained the principle of ‘political balance’ of
the election administration while increasing its membership. A constitutional amendment adopted on
13 January increased CEC membership from seven to nine; the two new members were elected on 6
February by the Assembly. On 9 February, the CEC Chairperson was re-elected by the membership
of the CEC for three and half years. The delay in nominating the two new CEC members, as required
by the electoral law amendments, meant that they were only appointed two weeks prior to election
day. Such late appointments, initially caused by lack of nominations from political parties, also
contributed to increased political tensions.Membership of LGECs, VCCs and Counting Teams (CTs) was increased from 7 to 13, with the six
biggest parliamentary groups from the majority and minority entitled to nominate members. The two
biggest parties, the DP and the SP, retain the right to nominate the chairpersons. The formation of
LGECs was somewhat hindered by difficulties faced by other eligible parties in putting forward
nominations for all positions they had been granted by the amendments. The right of parties to
replace their LGEC members at any time also created problems, as more than one third of LGEC
members were replaced, impacting on the stability of the election administration. On 11 February,
the CEC Chairman publicly called on parties to cease this practice. However, replacements
continued in the week before election day. The late appointment of a significant number among of
some 66,000 VCC members reduced the efficiency of the administration, especially since many of
them did not undergo training.Despite an uncertain environment, a rancorous political climate and tight deadlines, the Central
Election Commission (CEC), was able to manage the electoral process to date in line with the legal
framework.Voter RegistrationFollowing the 12 January political agreement, co-operation between civil status offices (CSOs) in
LGUs and the General Directorate of Civil Status (GDCS) in the Ministry of Interior (MoI) resumed
to a level which allowed for the updating of voter lists and, to a certain extent, the removal of
duplicate entries. Improvements in the accuracy of the fundamental residence register and the broad
use of special software prepared by the MoI appear to have led to more accurate voter lists in many
LGUs compared to the 2005 elections. However, the absence of a proper address system, as well as
the absorption of the temporary register into the fundamental register, have kept the number of so-
called ‘999 entries’ (i.e. citizens without a complete numerical address) relatively high. In Vlora
municipality, for example, 48 per cent of all voters registered in the final voter lists were still marked
as ‘999 entries’
Re: RAPORTI I OSBE ODIHR
The compressed legal deadlines for the compilation of voter lists were repeatedly violated by a
number of LGUs, mainly with regard to providing preliminary lists to the GDCS and posting the
preliminary or final voter lists for public scrutiny. Political parties actively encouraged their
supporters to check the lists after they were posted. In other cases, for example in Shkodra, parties
submitted requests for corrections on behalf of voters, although this is contrary to the law.In most LGUs, the identification of emigrant voters, in line with the special provisions established by
the 13 January amendments, was performed by the teams in charge of the notification of voters.
There was a lack of uniformity in the implementation of these special provisions, including on the
establishment of the identifications teams, their composition and working methods. The local
government authorities often treated their findings arbitrarily. Such factors may have further
contributed to disfranchisement of citizens.Birth CertificatesWith the continued absence of new national ID documents for the entire population, birth certificates
remain a widely-used form of citizens’ identification. Birth certificates with a picture, along with
passports and old state IDs, are forms of identification documents envisaged by the Electoral Code.The continued use of birth certificates as a means of voter identification has been at the centre of
major disputes between the ruling majority and the opposition throughout the electoral period. The
opposition claimed that there was ample space for manipulation of the issuance and administration of
birth certificates, as well as a lack of safeguards due to poor record-keeping. The Government, for its
part, claimed that the problem was artificially created and that sufficient safeguards were in place to
prevent misuse of certificates. In November 2006, the Minister of Interior issued an instruction
obliging all CSOs to keep a special register in which all certificates issued would be recorded.
However, in some LGUs the special registers were not introduced until the very end of 2006. In most
cases, special registers were introduced between mid-November and early December 2006.The performance of CSOs fuelled disagreements between the MoI and the SP. On 23 January 2007,
the Ministry of Interior issued a ‘reminder’ to all CSOs, which accused some mayors of having
unlawfully hindered the work of CSOs by making the issuance of certificates contingent on payment
of local taxes. The document also instructed CSOs to provide those citizens who did not have any
other identity documents with birth certificates for electoral purposes free of charge. The SP accused
the MoI of facilitating the illicit issuance of certificates for allegedly fraudulent purposes. The
Government responded that according to the Civil Status Law, CSO employees may not issue false
certificates and citizens have to provide the CSOs with genuine data about their identity; according
to the MoI, the existing criminal liability should be a sufficient disincentive for any abuse of birth
certificates.The implementation of new transitory provisions of the Electoral Code providing for the
establishment of teams to monitor the work of CSOs in the administrative centres of the 12 regions
was also controversial. These two-person teams were established by the government-appointed
regional Prefects and had to include at least one member nominated by the opposition at the local
level. In Tirana, the mayors of some boroughs refused to allow the monitoring teams to carry out
their duties, arguing that the Tirana boroughs do not have the status of administrative centres.
Indeed, the specific administrative-territorial division of the Municipality of Tirana was not taken
into account in the 12 January agreement. However, the approach taken by these Mayors appeared to
undermine what was intended as a confidence building measure.
The compressed legal deadlines for the compilation of voter lists were repeatedly violated by a
number of LGUs, mainly with regard to providing preliminary lists to the GDCS and posting the
preliminary or final voter lists for public scrutiny. Political parties actively encouraged their
supporters to check the lists after they were posted. In other cases, for example in Shkodra, parties
submitted requests for corrections on behalf of voters, although this is contrary to the law.In most LGUs, the identification of emigrant voters, in line with the special provisions established by
the 13 January amendments, was performed by the teams in charge of the notification of voters.
There was a lack of uniformity in the implementation of these special provisions, including on the
establishment of the identifications teams, their composition and working methods. The local
government authorities often treated their findings arbitrarily. Such factors may have further
contributed to disfranchisement of citizens.Birth CertificatesWith the continued absence of new national ID documents for the entire population, birth certificates
remain a widely-used form of citizens’ identification. Birth certificates with a picture, along with
passports and old state IDs, are forms of identification documents envisaged by the Electoral Code.The continued use of birth certificates as a means of voter identification has been at the centre of
major disputes between the ruling majority and the opposition throughout the electoral period. The
opposition claimed that there was ample space for manipulation of the issuance and administration of
birth certificates, as well as a lack of safeguards due to poor record-keeping. The Government, for its
part, claimed that the problem was artificially created and that sufficient safeguards were in place to
prevent misuse of certificates. In November 2006, the Minister of Interior issued an instruction
obliging all CSOs to keep a special register in which all certificates issued would be recorded.
However, in some LGUs the special registers were not introduced until the very end of 2006. In most
cases, special registers were introduced between mid-November and early December 2006.The performance of CSOs fuelled disagreements between the MoI and the SP. On 23 January 2007,
the Ministry of Interior issued a ‘reminder’ to all CSOs, which accused some mayors of having
unlawfully hindered the work of CSOs by making the issuance of certificates contingent on payment
of local taxes. The document also instructed CSOs to provide those citizens who did not have any
other identity documents with birth certificates for electoral purposes free of charge. The SP accused
the MoI of facilitating the illicit issuance of certificates for allegedly fraudulent purposes. The
Government responded that according to the Civil Status Law, CSO employees may not issue false
certificates and citizens have to provide the CSOs with genuine data about their identity; according
to the MoI, the existing criminal liability should be a sufficient disincentive for any abuse of birth
certificates.The implementation of new transitory provisions of the Electoral Code providing for the
establishment of teams to monitor the work of CSOs in the administrative centres of the 12 regions
was also controversial. These two-person teams were established by the government-appointed
regional Prefects and had to include at least one member nominated by the opposition at the local
level. In Tirana, the mayors of some boroughs refused to allow the monitoring teams to carry out
their duties, arguing that the Tirana boroughs do not have the status of administrative centres.
Indeed, the specific administrative-territorial division of the Municipality of Tirana was not taken
into account in the 12 January agreement. However, the approach taken by these Mayors appeared to
undermine what was intended as a confidence building measure.
Re: RAPORTI I OSBE ODIHR
Candidate RegistrationUnder transitory provisions of the Electoral Code, the deadlines for the formation of LGECs and for
candidates’ registration almost coincided. The fact that a number of LGECs were not established
within the legal deadline further limited the time available for candidates’ registration. LGECs
registered a total of 1,073 mayoral candidates and 6,074 party or coalition lists for local councils, as
well as 212 independent candidates for councillors.Occasionally, incumbents and other party activists who did not gain their party’s nomination because
of political agreements within the two major alliances registered or attempted to register as
independent candidates. Independent candidates who are not incumbents or hold a seat in the council
or the Assembly must submit a number of support signatures from voters registered in the
provisional voter list of the respective LGU. In some cases, their registration was rejected by
LGECs, who challenged the authenticity of support signatures submitted.The absence of any instruction or guidance from the CEC on the verification of support signatures by
LGECs raised controversies. Consequently, some of the rejected candidates who appealed the LGEC
decisions to the CEC and the Electoral College were eventually registered.Campaign EnvironmentThroughout the pre-election period, the campaign was characterized by the active involvement of
political parties and independent candidates. Although the general campaign environment remained
calm, campaigning was sometimes fraught with tension, and occasional violent incidents were noted.Both sides of the political spectrum got off to a quick start in the campaign following the re-
decreeing of elections by President Moisiu. The parliamentary majority parties coalesced into a nine-
party alliance, which included six parliamentary parties and three extra-parliamentary parties.
However, the Human Rights Union Party pursued a strategy of concluding local alliances. The
parliamentary opposition joined together into a five-party alliance. Each alliance fielded joint
mayoral candidates, but ran separate lists for local councils. Neither side registered as a coalition.Both sides experienced significant problems in maintaining internal party discipline, and the
campaign was marked by a substantial number of ‘independent’ candidates breaking ranks in order
to compete against their former party partners. There was also evidence that in certain cases,
pressure was put upon such independent candidates to withdraw in order not to split the vote. Within
the SP, this issue became a significant element of internal debate, with certain SP deputies
questioning the transparency of the alliance.Interlocutors noted few problems regarding their ability to campaign. However, some instances of
destroying posters by opponents were noted, and in a few cases this resulted in violence. During one
such incident in Gjirokastër, knives were drawn and a gun was waved around. In Tirana, DP activists
alleged being beaten up by an SP member of the Assembly. On 15 February, there was an explosion
at a Tirana restaurant shortly after the SP leader’s departure; no one was injured in the blast and it is
unclear whether the incident was election-related. While campaign messages did focus primarily on
criticisms by each side of the other, they also included some programmatic proposals.Widespread allegations of the misuse of state resources emerged closer to election day. In Korçë, a
health care centre worker was dismissed without prior notice. The person alleged that the dismissal
was due to being an SP activist in a DP administration. The appellant intended to go to court.
Candidate RegistrationUnder transitory provisions of the Electoral Code, the deadlines for the formation of LGECs and for
candidates’ registration almost coincided. The fact that a number of LGECs were not established
within the legal deadline further limited the time available for candidates’ registration. LGECs
registered a total of 1,073 mayoral candidates and 6,074 party or coalition lists for local councils, as
well as 212 independent candidates for councillors.Occasionally, incumbents and other party activists who did not gain their party’s nomination because
of political agreements within the two major alliances registered or attempted to register as
independent candidates. Independent candidates who are not incumbents or hold a seat in the council
or the Assembly must submit a number of support signatures from voters registered in the
provisional voter list of the respective LGU. In some cases, their registration was rejected by
LGECs, who challenged the authenticity of support signatures submitted.The absence of any instruction or guidance from the CEC on the verification of support signatures by
LGECs raised controversies. Consequently, some of the rejected candidates who appealed the LGEC
decisions to the CEC and the Electoral College were eventually registered.Campaign EnvironmentThroughout the pre-election period, the campaign was characterized by the active involvement of
political parties and independent candidates. Although the general campaign environment remained
calm, campaigning was sometimes fraught with tension, and occasional violent incidents were noted.Both sides of the political spectrum got off to a quick start in the campaign following the re-
decreeing of elections by President Moisiu. The parliamentary majority parties coalesced into a nine-
party alliance, which included six parliamentary parties and three extra-parliamentary parties.
However, the Human Rights Union Party pursued a strategy of concluding local alliances. The
parliamentary opposition joined together into a five-party alliance. Each alliance fielded joint
mayoral candidates, but ran separate lists for local councils. Neither side registered as a coalition.Both sides experienced significant problems in maintaining internal party discipline, and the
campaign was marked by a substantial number of ‘independent’ candidates breaking ranks in order
to compete against their former party partners. There was also evidence that in certain cases,
pressure was put upon such independent candidates to withdraw in order not to split the vote. Within
the SP, this issue became a significant element of internal debate, with certain SP deputies
questioning the transparency of the alliance.Interlocutors noted few problems regarding their ability to campaign. However, some instances of
destroying posters by opponents were noted, and in a few cases this resulted in violence. During one
such incident in Gjirokastër, knives were drawn and a gun was waved around. In Tirana, DP activists
alleged being beaten up by an SP member of the Assembly. On 15 February, there was an explosion
at a Tirana restaurant shortly after the SP leader’s departure; no one was injured in the blast and it is
unclear whether the incident was election-related. While campaign messages did focus primarily on
criticisms by each side of the other, they also included some programmatic proposals.Widespread allegations of the misuse of state resources emerged closer to election day. In Korçë, a
health care centre worker was dismissed without prior notice. The person alleged that the dismissal
was due to being an SP activist in a DP administration. The appellant intended to go to court.