WARSAW, 16 June 2009 - The monitoring of the post-election situation in Moldova brought to light further shortcomings with the 5 April parliamentary elections, concluded the final report on the election process released by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) today.
Adding to the concerns raised by international observers in a preliminary statement issued the day after the vote, the final report - which covers the entire election process - found that the post-election period was overshadowed by violent demonstrations and "revealed further shortcomings that challenged some OSCE commitments, in particular the disregard for due process in adjudicating complaints of alleged irregularities and deficiencies in the compilation of voter lists lodged by opposition political parties."
The report does not include a final assessment of allegations of widespread fraud based on inaccurate voter lists. According to the report, most of the cases compiled by opposition parties appeared credible, but the evidence presented to ODIHR was limited, and an authoritative conclusion on the issue would have needed a comprehensive analysis and thorough investigation by the authorities.
"The authorities now have an opportunity before the new elections to take effective measures to address the lack of public trust in the election process," said Ambassador Janez Lenarcic, the Director of ODIHR.
ODIHR is preparing to observe the repeat parliamentary elections scheduled for 29 July.
Lenarcic added that "improving the voter lists and ensuring an atmosphere free of violence and intimidation will be essential elements in creating an environment for a genuinely democratic election."
The report includes a number of recommendations on how to improve Moldova's electoral framework. ODIHR stands ready to assist the authorities with implementing these recommendations.
The full report is available on the OSCE website at: http://www.osce.org/item/38185.html
The preliminary statement published on 6 April stated that the elections met many international standards, but also highlighted undue administrative interference and lack of public confidence among the concerns noted by the observers.