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

W. Complaints and appeals

Prior OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission reports have noted issues with the adjudication of election complaints and appeals arising from four consistently problematic areas: (1) inconsistencies or conflicts in jurisdiction, deadlines, and procedures established by the Civil Procedure Code and election legislation; (2) CEC informality and disregard of legal provisions requiring consideration of complaints and issuance of motivated written decisions; (3) failure of the CEC to adequately consider complaints, thereby potentially failing to provide an effective remedy to complainants; and (4) the consideration of complaints by working groups of the CEC instead of the full CEC, which undermines the credibility and transparency of the adjudication process.[1] The CEC’s failure to adequately address complaints is of particular concern as the right to receive an effective remedy is provided for in Paragraph 5.10 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document and Paragraph 18.2 of the 1991 OSCE Moscow Document. An effective remedy is also required by Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Changes should be made in the legal framework, as discussed below, to address these concerns.  

[1]OSCE/ODIHR Final Report on The Kyrgyz Republic Parliamentary Elections 10 October 2010 (Warsaw, 20 December 2010), at page 18; OSCE/ODIHR Final Report on The Kyrgyz Republic Presidential Election 23 July 2009 (Warsaw, 22 October 2009), at pages 16-17.