Republic of Albania

Address: Pallati i Kongreseve

Tel/fax    +355 4 23 53 62

                +355 4 23 53 63

Site: www.cec.org.al

E-mail: infosec@cec.org.al

 

Annual Report 2002 on the activity of

the Central Election Commission to the Assembly of the Republic of Albania

Honorable Mr. Speaker of Parliament,

Honorable Members of Parliament,

   

This time, the CEC’s report to the Assembly on its annual activity comes in a non-election year.

However, regardless of the above, year 2002 involved the CEC in a wide-ranging activity. The CEC had, among other things, prepared and organized seven by-election processes.

By-elections were organized in election zones no. 98, no. 19 and no. 52 for electing MPs in the Assembly, as well as in the Communes of Shushica (Vlora region), Kolsh (Lezha region), Dajti (Tirana region) and Llugaj (Kukes region).

As the preparation, organization, management and supervision of these by-elections was an important part of the CEC’s activity for the year 2002, the efforts to strengthen CEC’s professional capacity, the commitment and concentration to implement the OSCE/ODIHR’s recommendations, the drafting and development of the strategy for the next local government elections were an essential part of last year’s activity.  

Over the course of the last year, the CEC has taken into account the political parties’ assessments, stances and observations. In its own activity, the CEC has ever-increasingly asked and tried to co-operate closely with the political parties across the whole political spectrum.  

As previously stated, in its own activity the CEC has continuously taken into account the OSCE/ODIHR’s recommendations. On the basis of these recommendations, the CEC drafted and submitted to the Special Parliamentary Commission – the so-called bi-partisan commission, the required documentation on the relevant procedures and processes.  

In this material, the CEC has provided [to the commission] all the required material. Hence, it has provided [the commission] with the results’ tabulations, election documentation, different decisions, etc. A complete package of documentation related to Zone no. 60 was also prepared.  

In order to assist the commission’s workings, the CEC also submitted a report on the problems encountered in the 24 June elections. Additionally, the commission was provided, as requested, with the relevant remarks and assessments by the CEC’s members.  

In this context, the CEC has valued the discussions held in the round-tables initiated by OSCE/ODIHR on issues of electoral reform. Through our participation in these round-tables we have made an effort to make a useful contribution to the issues being discussed.

In view of all the above, in year 2002, the CEC has generally operated in the spirit of ODIHR recommendations.  

In this spirit, the CEC has also established its own objectives for the next local government elections.  

For the first time, the CEC has drafted and approved a Strategic Plan on the Local Government Elections 2003, which entails and considers all elements pertinent to the preparation, organization, management and supervision of elections. Hence, the CEC aims to have an organized process of preparations for the elections, which will be accepted in all aspects by both the voters and the political parties, and moreover, a timely-organized process. Furthermore, the plan will enhance the level of election process’s transparency, thus, increasing the electoral subjects and candidates-political parties’ confidence on the electoral process.  

In this way, it is hoped to move away from the tradition of initiating the preparations in two, or the worst case, one month prior to the election day. The concept that elections are a simple process in terms of election preparation and organization, is an out-dated concept that does not comply the standards stipulated in OSCE’s acts and other recognized and accepted European documents.  

The international practice of countries with long-standing and well-established democracies shows that the process of preparation for elections is a permanent endeavor for the election authorities from one process to the next.  

In the CEC Strategic Plan, the CEC has generally outlined its own working program from March 2002 to October 2003. With the accomplishment of this Strategic Plan into practical projects, the CEC aims at achieving certain goals, such as:  

• to consolidate and enhance the professional level of the local election commissions’ activity through training courses of their members and upgrading the election infrastructure;

• to improve the National Voters Registry through developing the list’s revision procedures;

• to continuously raise the citizens’ awareness over the importance of the election process, voting procedures and constant improvement of relationships with the political parties;

• to strengthen the professional capacity of CEC’s staff in order to cope with the duties and responsibilities tasked by the law;

• to enhance CEC’s level co-operation with local government bodies, as well as domestic and international organizations operating in the election field.

For achieving these goals, the CEC has pursued several objectives, and it has worked toward this direction.  

Therefore, first of all, the CEC has worked to establish the ZECs and LGECs. The Election Code tasks the CEC with establishing these commissions, and this is one of the most important duties of the CEC. At the beginning of the year 2002, the CEC, in accordance with Article 32 of the Electoral Code, asked from the political parties to submit their proposals for appointing members to the ZECs on the basis of the outcomes of 24 June elections.  

That invitation was addressed continuously to the political parties, but only 2-3 political parties were able to bring their proposals accounting for about 80% of the ZECs’ members, whereas the rest of them brought proposals accounting for only 4-7% of them. Therefore, the process of establishing the ZECs had come to a standstill.  

In view of this year’s upcoming local government elections, the establishment of the LGECs is considered to be of major importance. Although quite a few of them are considered to be already established (as they were functioning for the elections on 24.06.2001), they do not actually operate.  

It is a legal requirement for the members of medium level election commissions to meet certain qualifications and requirements. This requires political parties to attach the relevant documentation to their proposals that certifies the above qualifications and requirement are met. Yet, it happens that this documentation is often missing, and in order not to damage the stability of the election process, the CEC had, in many cases, appointed the proposed persons even though the documentation was not complete.  

As a matter of fact, the political parties often encounter difficulties in filling out this documentation since their representatives have to look in on different offices, and their requests for documentation are not always fully satisfied.  

Another heavily-debated issue for the CEC and at the discussions with the political parties’ representatives at the CEC was the process of replacing the above-mentioned members. It is not yet clear, because of this debate, whether they will be removed for the same motives as those of applied for the CEC member-as it is generally provided for in the Electoral Code-or in cases when a political party asks for his/her replacement the CEC shall be obliged to endorse the request.  

It is not clear whether the removal only in defined cases is an obligation for the CEC not to abuse with such decisions and to recognize the right of the party in appointing a person of their will, or is it a protection of these structures’ integrity from abusive decisions of the CEC and political parties’ pressure?  

We deem that this discussion shall be brought to your attention as lawmakers in order to find, if possible, a clear and unequivocal solution.  

We consider there shall be found a fairer and more inclusive relationship between the interest of political parties and the political sympathy or responsibility of the members of the medium level election commissions, and the request to technically administer the process as provided by the law. This implies that these persons shall be election officials of this process.  

There is, in fact, a contradiction between what is foreseen in the Election Code and reality. The Code provides for these commissions to be permanent election structures. As a matter of fact, there is no real permanence. Many members of these commissions would change their places of residence in the period in-between two elections.  

Additionally, with few non-essential exceptions, the Code does not provide for any duty for the members of these commissions in the period-in between two elections.  

Due to lack of funds, the CEC cannot organize training courses for these commissioners. Also, due to the fact that the commissioners often move, (be that because of demographic reasons, or because they are replaced by their own party), the CEC is not sure whether the trained person would still be part of the process of election administration.  

All the above are part of the CEC’s findings during its own activity.  

We would like to bring to your attention the fact that the experiences of well-established European and American democracies show that election officials are persons with certain professional and cultural education, which are capable to manage an election process; they are permanently trained; and most importantly, they do have a long experience in exercising the duty of an election official. That is the case for all them, regardless of whether they are part of the election administration, volunteers, political representatives, or part of a mixed structure.  

Certainly, the CEC bears the greatest legal and moral responsibility in an election process; however, it is also important that the local-level commissioners bear their own responsibilities. It is not unintentional that many of the OSCE and ODIHR documents, starting from the Document of Copenhagen, etc., refer to commissioners with extensive knowledge over the election process, as well as the responsibility of the highest election authority for their continuous training.  

In accordance with the recommendations of the Final ODIHR Report, we consider that some issues might be subject to further revision in order to find the best adequate solution for all participating parties.  

Hence:  

• number of members in these commissions;

• maintaining the political composition of these commissions for the time-being, but through improving the selection procedures and their movement (perhaps with alternative candidates and preliminary tests);

• clear identification and ensuring the highest authority of the CEC over these commissions and the dependence relationship;

• definition of deadlines on establishing these commissions and the practical commencement of their activity;

• providing the CEC with feasible possibilities (support from the Assembly and the Government) for training these commissioners periodically.

 

We believe that the establishment of an association of election commissioners would better serve the interest of consolidating the medium-level commissioners. This initiative has already taken shape and form, with the establishment of the association’s grass-roots structures, and the CEC has so far supported the initiative.  

This process needs to be seriously and open-mindedly evaluated in all aspects. The experience, has proven so far that the tendency to come up with “favorable” solutions only to one side, has damaged certain elements of the election process and it has often turned into a boomerang for those endorsing this solution.

 

Improvement of the Voter Registry has been one of the CEC’s working objectives for the year 2002.  

By stressing the importance of the voter’s list in an election process and the direct connection between this list and the election standards, the CEC had decided to add up the improvement of the list to its own work priorities.  

Consequently, the CEC has initially organized several round-tables, to which it invited representatives of the government, political parties and other institutions connected in one way or the other to the voter register.  

Taking this opportunity, we would like to remind that there was a useful presentation by different political parties, which are understandably interested on the matter. The CEC listened carefully to their representation and remarks, with most of the proposals being incorporated as part of the CEC’s strategy in reviewing the voters list for this year’s Local Government Elections.  

With these round-tables, the CEC aimed to raise the awareness of all the interested parties, especially the government on this matter, and through discussions with all the participants, we hoped to identify problems and define means for improving this list. However, it appears that due to involvement in other issues, especially political ones, these factors had somehow distracted the attention from this issue.  

Nevertheless, through discussions with the political parties across the whole political spectrum, the CEC and IFES Albania had drafted, approved and implemented a pilot-project in Kavaja. This project was supported financially with funds granted by the Dutch and Italian governments.

 

The pilot-project implemented in Election Zone No. 47 – Municipality of Kavaja aimed at:  

1. conducting an improvement of the voters list of this zone by using comparative methods with INSTAT’s database, through verification with the Office of the Civil Registry and verification in the field;

2. identifying as thoroughly as possible the problems with the voters list;

3. drawing/defining recommendations with respect to the ways of improving the voters list throughout the country.

 

In view of the above objectives, this can be considered a successful project. Given the opportunity, I would like to stress that this was made possible thanks to the indispensable assistance and financial support by IFES Albania, as well as the persistent commitment by the structures of the local government of the Municipality of Kavaja and especially, its Mayor, Mr. Veliu.  

The Voter’s List of the 24 June Elections was matched with the registers of the civil registry office following a computerization process of these registers. Therefore, all the data of these registers was stored in a computer. The collected data indicated the figure of 35,346 inhabitants.  

Data resulting from matching this list with the register of the municipality’s civil registry office (CRO) follows:  

• out of 24,270 voters as of 24.06.2001, 30% of them were not found using in the CRO; and after the first verification effort, it appeared that 12% of all the voters had no reference in the CRO’s register;

• there were found 2,241 voters (eligible voters) that were not in the voters list of this election zone. A part of them, around 671 matched fully with the data of other election zones, whereas the remainder had similar data with 12% of the voters found through “door-to-door verification” and not the CRO.

 

Therefore, the matching exercise showed that 1,500 persons, or 6% of the voters in the voters list as of 24.06.2001 are not found in the register of civil registry office of this municipality, and 891 persons eligible voters were found in the civil registry, but were not in the voters list of this election zone. Of the above, 671 persons were found to be voters in other zones and only 220 of them do not appear in any of the voter’ lists.  

In order to carry out the verification of information in the field, the project organized and conducted a “door-to-door” verification method.  

Additionally, the project made use of INSTAT’s database. INSTAT’s database was used for facilitating the process of voters’ identification by using the residential codes assigned by INSTAT. For the implementation of the project, another company specialized in producing digital maps was contracted.  

The project’s ultimate goal was to draw polling centre’ zone maps. The drawing of these maps would lead to the voter casting his/her ballot in the polling centre where he/she resides.  The digital mapping was provided by the above-mentioned company.  

However, Kavaja’s pilot project showed that there is no clear boundary line between the municipality and the communes. Despite the fact that inner city’s maps matched to a great extent with each other, there was no clear boundary line between the communes and the municipality. The area covered by this boundary line appears to be occupied by residences of Kavaja municipality inhabitants and others from the neighboring communes. Hence, it occurs that inhabitants of the Municipality may have built residences in the neighboring commune’s territory.  

By the end of last year, the CEC initiated a project to improve the list for the municipality of Durrës and it is further expanding it in the municipality of Tirana .  

The CEC will take into consideration the final conclusions drawn from Kavaja’s pilot project:  

• Hence, as long as having in place a computerized register of the civil registry office, thus establishing the National Registry of the Civil Registry Office, there will continue to be a revision of the voters’ list of the preceding elections with the registers of the civil registry office. The preliminary list will be the outcome of the whole exercise.

Compared to the process of compiling the voters’ list of 24 June 2001 elections, at present, the project aims at carrying through a complete matching exercise with the register of the civil registry office, and not only with the additions and changes.

This process will be strictly supervised and will enjoy the support of different partners, and training courses will be organized for the servants of the civil registry office.

However, the Government is required to support financially the process, otherwise, if no honorariums are being paid, this process will not lead to the necessary changes.

 

• The placement of voters at the proper polling center makes up one of list’s quality indicators. The voters are often found out of the polling unit. With the application of the GIS techniques in the Municipality of Kavaja and the residential codes as provided for in INSTAT’s database, every voter was able to be placed in the proper polling station. However, even here, the residential code was not possible to be assigned to around 8% of the voters. The reasons for that are as follows:

1. lack of an address’ system,

2. citizens do not report on their movements,

Hence, it is thought that this figure might be higher in major cities. Regardless of this fact, the CEC will carry on working to prepare the digital maps, but this process will not be fully completed for the next elections.  

None of the methods will be able to ensure an accurate voters’ list as long as the above-mentioned problems remain unsolved. In such a situation, the list will be considered as accurate only if it will be compiled on the basis of requests and registrations to vote. This requires changes in the current legal framework. This solution is hardly likely, if not at all, to be adopted in the current conditions.  

With the current circumstances, at least from a theoretical viewpoint, voting could be allowed only in the voter’s own location of the civil registry office. But this solution will have to take into consideration the fact that many citizens have different places of residence from that in the civil registry office.  

As for the above, it is understood that there is no definite or institutional stand by the CEC, and furthermore, the CEC is an institution that does not deal with lawmaking procedures.  

The compilation of the voters’ list by safeguarding the eligible citizens’ right to vote where they reside regardless of where the civil registry office is located, and in order to conduct to the largest extent possible an improvement of the list, will have to take into consideration the fact that the reviewing process should not be conducted single-handedly by political representatives. This is an issue which requires the assessment of political parties.  

 

Raising the CEC’s staff professional level was one of the objectives of the year 2002  

The CEC aims to establishing a professional administration. Over the course of last year, the commission employed new staff members with certain professional qualities and level of general education that will serve to the preparation and organization of an election process as much closer as possible to the European standards.  

Along with the watchfulness applied while employing new staff members, the CEC has also focused on training courses as a means of strengthening its professional capacity.  

Over the last year, with support from IFES, several training courses were carried out by companies specialized in the field of public administration. These trainings were held in continuity and aimed at increasing the administration’s management capabilities.  

An election process cannot be managed without a capable and qualified election administration. For that reason that the CEC sees this as one of its continuous objectives.  

In this case, we would like to bring to your attention the following issue. The CEC is the only Constitutional institution, which even after two and a half years of work has not been sheltered in its own proper and appropriate offices.  

For the last two years ago and before, the CEC has been housed in the Palace of Congress . The CEC members have no offices. The CEC administration is housed in the corridors and warehouses of the Palace of Congress , and it is self-understood that these might be considered acceptable but they are not optimal conditions.  

Both the election documentation and election materials – both of them very important as regards the accurateness of juridical-electoral facts and their monetary value – are not well-administered due to improper housing conditions.  

Following contacts with the Prime Minister where we raised the issue in question, we were promised it will be resolved. In our view, the issue requires a legal solution if it is not to depend on the governments’ will.

 

 

By-elections held in 2002 were an important part of the last year’s CEC’s activity  

By-elections for electing MPs were held in election zones No. 98, No. 19, and No. 52 and for electing commune chairs in the communes of Shushica, Dajti, Llugaj, and for electing chair for the commune council in Kolsh.  

As opposed to the general elections, these by-elections, also due to the lighter workload, the CEC made an effort to organize a complete supervision of them in conformity with Article 153 of the Constitution.  

In almost all cases, the CEC monitored the majority of the polling stations. The purpose of the presence of CEC representatives in these polling stations was first, for assisting the local commissioners and second, to provide the CEC with accurate information on how the process was conducted.  

Therefore, the CEC aimed to avoid, as much as possible, the occurring irregularities and was later able to verify, on-the-spot, how an election process was conducted under the conditions of being closely monitored and supervised.  

The CEC considers that in view of the preparations, organization and management, these were elections of a higher level. With rare exceptions, the administration of the process was generally in conformity with the law, CEC’s decisions and instructions.  

Hence, conflict situations, which were often very aggressive in previous elections, were not observed. This shows a better level of election administration by the mid- and low-level commissioners in presenting a complete and accurate documentation from the formal-juridical viewpoint.  

However, despite of the progress being made, we stress that there is still noted a spirit of distrust between the commissioners. While exercising their duties as commissioners, they often bring out their political-electoral positions and it was only due to the CEC’s intervention, in certain cases, that the process’s decision-making and administration was not damaged.  

During the administration of the process, the commissioners often find it difficult to get away with the contacts with a political representative, even though in a majority of cases it is noted that they seek not to remain under the political tutelage.  

It is important to understand that the partisan control and supervision of the process and elements linked to it, shall again be an element of the election process, but this does not imply, in any case, the impose, orientation or delivery of command.  

In these by-elections, the CEC, also due to the possibilities, conducted more comprehensive training courses with the commissioners, in view of the participation but also of the knowledge delivered in them. As opposed to previous years, the training was also complete with members of the polling stations.  

Hence, the CEC has already fulfilled one of its legal requirements, which is also in conformity with ODIHR standards and recommendations on elections.  

Election documentation is ever improving. Though the timeframe for announcing the election day was no longer than one month, the CEC has managed to process and improve a great part of this documentation. In this framework, it would be useful for the CEC to be given a defined time-limit for organizing by-elections.  

CEC’s decisions were part of the reviewing procedures in preparing the elections. The CEC aimed to take non-ambiguous decisions which would enable lower level commissioners to better administer the election procedures.  

The CEC made an effort to make a notable improvement to the voters’ list for these elections. Even though the deadlines were tight, the procedures followed by the CEC showed that there were qualitative improvements in the voters’ list. Even in cases when mistakes were noted, the CEC has intervened and made proper changes.  

Despite the fact that these were by-elections, the CEC has paid much attention to the process of civic education. All possible means were used to invite people in the polls, as well as to raise their awareness over the voting procedures. Both local-based and nation-wide media outlets were used to convey the message of participating in the process of verificating the preliminary voters’ list up to the announcement of the polling stations’ addresses.  

In these by-elections, improvements were also noted with the electoral logistics. In all cases by using every objective possibility, the CEC has established continuous communication with the local and zonal election commissions.  

Preparation of ballot boxes remains still a problem.  

The fact of keeping the ballot-boxes closed following the request of the Democratic Party for availing them to the bi-partisan commission for quite a long period of time hampers to a large extent of the CEC’s preparations for this element of the election logistics.  

The CEC has not yet received an answer from this commission, or by the political parties regarding their use. Currently, all the ballot-boxes of 24 June 2001 elections are maintained closed and preserved.  

Their re-cycling or replacement with another model requires a time-limit of 5-6 months, or at the first instance, it would cost worth Lek3,5m and at a second instance around USD600,000.  

According to the possibilities, the CEC requests a quick solution to the matter. In case these ballot-boxes will not be subject of verification by the relevant structures, the CEC can and shall initiate with the preparations for their opening, filing the election documentation and their preparation for the next elections if they will have to be used. It is up to the political parties in co-operation with the Government (to assess the financial possibilities) to come up with a solution in using these election materials.  

It is worth stressing that with the preparation of the last by-elections, the CEC enjoyed close co-operation with the representatives of the political parties at the CEC. Their remarks and suggestions, even though of a certain difficulty in some cases, were often part of the decisions and elements of the election documentation.  

The CEC remains a transparent institution, where the participation of the political parties in any discussion, the continuous presence of media representatives in its meeting and other activities of this institution remains an important principle. The political parties have been continuously provided with the documentation and every CEC’s decision. Furthermore, as opposed to previous cases, different informative and explanatory materials have also been dispatched. The purpose was for the political parties to feel confident with the process and additionally to give as much contribution as they could.  

But, regardless of the progress, even these elections did not manage to stay away from political debate and contest for certain reasons. We are aware that the arguments on why does such a thing occur are different for different situations. In addition, the political parties have their own arguments over these problems.  

The CEC has continuously tried to pay attention at, and to be responsible to the parties’ views. This does not come as a sign of good-will but as a legal obligation.  

The outcome of the elections in Zone no. 19 and No. 52 was contested. Even though, in all cases, the election documentation in the formal viewpoint of presenting the facts bared no remarks from the election commissioners or the representatives of the political parties in these commissions, this was not sufficient to assess the elections in these zones as normal.  

Given the nature of contests for both Zones No. 19 and No. 52, the CEC, with its responsibility to verify these contests, assessed that it was out of its legal framework to do that, or it was impossible to be provided with and verify the proofs that would allegedly certify the allegations. What I have just stated refers to the CEC’s official decision and stance.  

With the discussion on the matter, the CEC showed a diversity of stances and viewpoints, and in the end it deemed as a fair stance what was stated in the decision.  

The decision-making over the matter came following the discussions and different views within the CEC by including also the views of the representatives of political parties in these discussions.  

The CEC believes that all parties recognize the fact at an election authority cannot, and shall not be considered part of the electoral game, but as an independent institution in its decision-making, and this shall also be the purpose of the political representatives in their activity.  

These elections showed that there are still many problems left, which contribute to an election’s good administration.  

Issues related to election funding remain still a problem.  

Albanian governments have in fact fully satisfied at any rate the CEC’s requests on election funding. The CEC has also improved the process of financial management by providing more complete and accurate evidence according to the legal acts and provisions on expenditures. But these funds were almost always allocated no sooner than 5-6 days prior to the Election Day. The CEC finds it difficult to proceed with the allocation of these funds. Firstly, there is no sufficient time-limit, and secondly, the procedures of implementing the expenditures are inappropriate. Therefore, at a time-limit no later than 5-6 days, the CEC is obliged to organize procurement procedures. In order to avoid that, we have always asked from the Government to take the relevant decisions.

The issue of election funding and general budget issues for the CEC require to be legally amended and approved. Financial and budgeting independence depends practically on any government’s will. The issue is not that there is lack of budget, but this is more linked to the possibility of the CEC to operate accordingly with its needs in progress. The preparatory election process, as we have previously underlined, is not merely a process to be prepared for a period of 2-3 months prior to the elections. In this view, even by-election require due time.  

There are elements of the preparatory election process that shall be fulfilled quite ahead of time. Especially, the issues related to logistics, training of commissioners, civic education, voters’ list, etc., which require quite some time to be fulfilled. Different international counterpart institutions, in both cases when they are independent or part of another institution, are being periodically allocated funding.  

Therefore, election funding shall enable, in the financial viewpoint, the conduct of elections and it should be a continuous process.  

These elections proved also that many of the issues related to election campaign funding remain debatable. The principal issue of the debate is linked to the fact then whether the current legal means (including the CEC’s authority) are sufficient for ensuring the legitimacy and transparency of this aspect.  

Also the issue of funding the electoral subjects participating in by-elections remains unclear.  

Additionally, another problem observed in the previous elections dealt with the premises of election commissions. In the majority of cases, these facilities were inappropriate. The local government bodies have not always showed serious commitment on the matter. There were cases when the facilities’ parameters did not even comply with the minimum standards.  

It is often noted a tendency of the commissioners to choose the location of polling stations in premises which are linked in one way or the other to political, voting strategy or economic interests in the case of polling stations established in private residences.  

The Civil Registry Offices find it hard to recognize that issues related to the correction and improvement of mistakes in the voters’ list are a legal duty of theirs. In some cases, many of them attempt to cause problems in providing the voters with identification papers. This leads to the CEC being put, in some cases, under pressure to allow voters to cast their ballot on the basis of recognition rather than identification papers.  

Another issue observed in these elections, which I will address briefly, deals with the submission of the documentation by the political parties when they are registered at the CEC. With few exceptions, it appears that almost all parties have problems with their documentation. Parties have done changes to their statute or they have changed their leading bodies, but all the above have not been incorporated in the registration decisions of the political parties at the District Court of Tirana.  

 

International activity of the CEC aimed at getting acquainted with the election practices in other countries, especially those with a developed democratic standard, as well as the knowledge gained from these experiences.

Furthermore, the CEC’s international relations, especially with their representatives in the country have aimed at reflecting transparency and recognition on how the CEC faces the required progress and fulfills primarily the ODIHR’s recommendations.

At the beginning of the year 2002, the CEC has signed a memorandum of understating (Sic. agreement of co-operation) with the International Foundation for Election Systems – IFES. This agreement, which will be concluded as of April 2004, includes fields of co-operation and support between IFES and the CEC. Hence, this agreement envisages:  

• co-operation in establishing the Association of Local Election Commissioners;

• CEC’s institutional development by strengthening its management capabilities through different qualification courses or study trips;

• study trips for election commissioners and judges;

• assisting with the Voter Registry, polling station mapping;

• support the training courses for the commissioners, campaigns of civic education, etc.

 

Over the year 2002, the CEC has observed several election processes and has organized several study trips in different countries by gaining first-hand experience with their electoral practices.  

Hence, four study trips have been organized by the CEC itself, two missions were accomplished with the support of the International Francophone Agency, three missions with the support of IFES, and another international seminar organized in Ioannina and three missions sponsored by ODIHR.  

Also, with the invitation of the sponsors, the CEC has participated at IACREOT’s annual conference; at the Conference of Eastern and South-eastern Europe Election Officers; at the annual conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina Association of Election Commissioners.  

The CEC has already co-operation relationships with some counterpart structures, with which it exchanges relevant practices and experiences.  

 

Honorable Members of Parliament,  

The CEC has already approved the work program and the main directions of its activities serving the preparations to the run-up of local government elections 2003.  

All these directions will take shape and form over the course of the year through different projects. We believe we will achieve all elements related to the organization of the next local government elections through these projects. The preparations for this election have already started intensively.  

Hence, the CEC has initiated the process of establishing a database system regarding the location of all the commissioners’ facilities, their comfort and conditions, telephone line connections, situation of roads and communication. The CEC has also asked local government bodies to provide information regarding the current situation of all public facilities in their relevant communes and municipalities.  

The voters’ list; training of commissioners; civic education; improvement of logistics, maintenance of documentation and CEC’s decisions; improvement of tabulation procedures; improvement of complaint examination procedures; are some of the directions upon which the CEC will proceed with special projects.  

The CEC, its members and staff, are more and more recognizing the fact that this institution shall uphold a high professional level and it shall prove that it remains above political interests in its activity and decision-making process.  

The institution of the CEC is fully aware of the fact that if it becomes an advocate and interpreter of a certain political grouping, it will then damage the fundamental principles of the rule of law and on which democratic principles and standards are based.  

The CEC recognizes its obligation and responsibility to work closely with the political parties and other institutional factors.  

But it is of great importance to understand that the talk about co-operation requires open and practical co-operation by all sides. The more intensive and open the co-operation between political parties and all sides with the CEC, the more it helps increasing the institution’s professional level and integrity, and it curbs the tendency to push or drag the CEC towards a certain political wing.  

We recognize the importance of this election in the current situation, and therefore we are committed for conducting an election process within widely-accepted European standards.

 

Thank you,

Signed by Ilirjan Celibashi, CEC Chairman

On behalf of the Central Election Commission