2009 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Eleventh sitting

Monday 27 April 2009 at 3 p.m.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – I want to start with a few words about Moldova. I presided over the pre-electoral mission just months before the elections, and I asked the interlocutors from the opposition side, “Are you afraid of mass falsifications and inaccurate lists of quotas?” The general answer was, “No, we are afraid of unequal access to television coverage and to the use of administrative resources in the election”.

      What happened after the elections was really surprising. Our observation mission had an adequate picture, and it is worthy of further discussion during this session. There are of course two different aspects to the referendum in Azerbaijan, one of which is procedural. Our observation mission consisted of a small delegation, but the aspect that is much more important for me is the content of the referendum. There were 29 questions, including some significant ones affecting overall distribution of powers between state institutions. Of course, there was the removal of the two-term limit for the presidency, but there was also the limiting of the guarantees of municipalities’ independence. Our Congress of Local and Regional Authorities made a very strong statement about that.

      During the January part-session, I, as the rapporteur of the Azerbaijan monitoring committee, asked the opinion of the Venice Commission. A decision was reached at all levels of the Assembly and the opinion was published, but it was published just a few days before the referendum was held, without any consequences or any possibility of making the changes.

      Afterwards, we rapporteurs visited the country and our message was, “It is better to consult in advance.” In fact, everybody agreed with us. However, my question is: why was that not done? I think I know the answer. Those very authorities knew of the critical position of the Venice Commission. Just five years ago, a similar referendum was held in Belarus and the commission gave a similar critical opinion.

      Of course, Azerbaijan has reached a decision, and there is no clear commitment to a two-term limit, for example. There seems to be a rather soft rule. However, we must be consistent and say with a very clear voice that, from the point of view of democratic development, this decision was a set-back.

Full document: http://assembly.coe.int