III. DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT NATIONAL ELECTIONS LAW AND THE DRAFT ELECTION COMMISSIONS LAW

J. Forfeiture of Mandate

This possibility in the draft national elections law also seems to contradict the constitutional provision lifting the imperative mandate and reintroduces a disproportionate level of party or faction control over deputies elected by popular vote. This, in turn, contradicts paragraph 7.9 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Paragraph 7.9 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document provides that “candidates who obtain the necessary number of votes required by law are duly installed in office and are permitted to remain in office until their term expires”. The Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR recommend that Article 66(3) be amended to delete provisions that require forfeiture of a parliamentary mandate for “floor crossing” or due to termination of political party activity.[1]

[1] See Sadak and Others v. Turkey, Application Nos. 25144/94, 26149/95, 26154/95, 27100/95 and 27101/95, European Court of Human Rights (11 June 2002) (post-election forfeiture of a mandate due to dissolution of a political party is incompatible with the very essence of the right to stand for election and to hold parliamentary office, and infringes the unfettered discretion of the electorate to exercise free and universal suffrage).