With respect to multiple and repetitive irregularities that took place on Parliamentary Elections of October 26 and that were reported by both the international and the local observers, it can be stated without any reservation that some fraudulent schemes [1] could not have been implemented without the involvement of various government institutions.

Specifically, in the rigging of elections a major role was played by the election administration – the CEC and the inferior electoral commissions, which by their acts or omissions contributed to the unlawful and at times criminal acts organized and managed by Georgian Dream, as a result of which we have now the election outcome which does not reflect the wishes of the Georgian people.

For their acts and omissions, as described below, the CEC Chair, Giorgi Kalandarishvili, and other relevant higher officers of the election administration should be held personally responsible.

• Changing the procedure for the division of roles among the PEC members: On August 16, 2024, the CEC adopted a decree stating that the draw aiming to divide functions among commission members at polling stations would be held 7 days before Election Day rather than on Election Day. This change undermined the transparency of the electoral process as it deprived the observers of the opportunity to monitor the process. It also contradicted [2]the Electoral Code which still provides that this procedure is to be held between 7:00 and 8:00 AM on Election Day. This unlawful decision is directly attributable to the CEC Chairman who is a signatory to the decree. Presumably, the purpose of the decision was to give the most important tasks to the most “reliable” commissioners.  By this unlawful decision the CEC Chair paved the way for more other breaches of law.

• Voting with another person’s ID card: During the pre-election period, there were multiple reports about voters, especially public sector employees, being deprived of their ID cards. While the election administration cannot be held responsible for such confiscations, presumably committed by other government institutions like the Ministry of the Interior and the State Security Service, the election administration can and must be held accountable for the unlawful usages of ID cards in the polling stations by the persons who were not the owners of those ID cards. There were multiple reports of such unlawful usages of other persons’ ID cards which could have been avoided had the PEC registrators duly compared in each and every case the photographs on the handed ID cards with the faces of persons claiming to be the owners of those ID cards, and in cases of mismatch, such persons should have been disallowed to vote and appropriate reports should have been communicated to law enforcement. The registrators’ failure to do so should be classified as complicity in electoral fraud.  
• Voting with another person’s personal number: There were also multiple reports about persons coming to the polling stations with their own passports or ID cards but handing to the registrators a piece of paper with another person's personal number on it, placed in their passports or stuck to their ID cards. Some voters were allowed to vote based on a photocopy of the ID card in the phone. Letting such persons vote instead of someone else also qualifies for complicity in electoral fraud. 
• Disallowing the observers to do their job: The above irregularities could have been avoided at least in part had the observers been allowed to monitor the process properly. However, despite the public promise of the CEC that there would be no disruptions in the monitoring of the verification process, the opposite was the reality at the polling stations. Very often the registration desks were stuck to the wall making it impossible for the observers to see the verification screens. When the observers had an opportunity to stand behind the verification machines, the commissioners indicated that they should move away from the screens. In some cases, our observers were expelled from the polling stations just for observing the verification process. By disallowing the observers to duly monitor the verification process, the PEC commissioners allowed the above described unlawful usages of another person’s ID cards or personal data.
• Multiple voting by breaking inking rules: There were numerous reports of voters being allowed to vote more than once. This could be done by violating the inking procedures: sometimes no inking would take place, sometimes the voters would be asked if they wished to be inked, both of which is a direct violation of the electoral law which provides that all voters should be inked on a mandatory basis. Numerous reports were received of the commissioners’ failures to flashlight the incoming voters’ fingers to see whether the ink was there. All these irregularities paved the way for the voters to vote more than once. Multiple voting could have been avoided by proper compliance with the inking procedures prescribed by law. Failure to do so is another sort of conduct that should be classified as complicity in electoral fraud. In addition, there were reports of the poor quality of ink and/or flashlights. With these poor-quality supplies even the previously inked person could enter the same or another polling station the second or more times by washing hands. In such situations even the formalistic compliance with the inking procedures would not prevent fraudulent behavior.

Presence of unauthorized persons in polling stations: Multiple observers reported of unauthorized persons being present in the polling stations. Some would observe voters in the voting booths interfering with the secrecy of vote, some would make noise or otherwise disrupted the normal voting process. Allowing such unauthorized presence and the failure to demand that the unauthorized persons leave the polling station should be interpreted as another variation of complicity in electoral fraud.

• Violation of the secrecy of vote: Lots of witnesses say that the marked circle on a ballot paper could be seen from the back side. Although a ballot paper should be inserted in the scanner with its face down, the commissioners and/or anybody else standing next to the scanners could nevertheless notice the location of the spot and know whether the voter did or did not vote for the ruling party. This, in fact, undermined the secrecy of vote and intimidated the voters. There is a clear – either intentional or reckless – failure of the election administration to take such logistical steps which would ensure the vote secrecy. This failure can directly be attributed to the CEC and its Chair.
• Intimidation and violence against voters and chairpersons’ inaction: There were multiple reports  by observers and media of intimidation and even physical and verbal abuses of voters and observers within and without the polling stations. The election law obliges the PEC chairpersons to maintain order and authorizes them to call out police in such situations. However, in no such case the chairpersons applied this authority. By failing to neutralize the attackers they just allowed the street thugs to interfere with the voters right to express their will freely.
• Depriving the Georgian diaspora of their right to vote: Last but not least, by the unreasoned and unexplained refusal to open as many polling stations abroad as was necessary for tens of thousands of our compatriots to show up and vote, the CEC and its Chairman deprived most of the Diaspora of their Constitutional right. Based on the results of elections from the 67 polling stations opened abroad, where the vast majority of voters voted for the opposition parties, one may presume that this too was done on purpose for the benefit of the ruling party. Moreover, even in those places where polling stations were opened, the voting process was organized extremely poorly, with insufficient number of registrars resulting in congestion outside polling stations and the voters, a substantial number of whom, had traveled from long distances would have to stand for hours in lines for voting.

Based on the above facts and assessments it can be concluded that the CEC Chairman and – presumably under his governance, control and approval – the whole election administration were involved in the commission of a large-scale electoral fraud committed by the State in its entirety, by using the resources of various government institutions, with the purpose of allowing the ruling Georgian Dream to claim victory in the elections. 

The CEC Chairman and other higher officers of the election administration must be held accountable for such conduct.