The Georgian Central Election Commission (CEC) has reached out to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) with an open letter.
In the correspondence, the CEC explains that this outreach comes five months after the parliamentary elections held on October 26, 2024, as the malicious campaign to discredit both the elections and the Georgian Election Administration shows no signs of abating.
“The final straw in this matter was the concerns raised about the decree outlined in the resolution by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is purely technical in nature. Through this decision, the Election Administration merely clarified a legal provision that has long been established in the Election Code.
We have reviewed your position regarding the decree and would like to emphasize that, given our public statements and numerous explanations on this issue, we had anticipated that, before reaching conclusions about our activities, you would take an interest in our perspective. However, the information presented in your document does not accurately reflect the reality.
Therefore, we wish to clarify our stance on this issue. We inform you that the Election Code of Georgia has always prohibited—and continues to prohibit—the processing and/or disclosure of voters’ personal data.
It is also noteworthy that the OSCE/ODIHR Final Report on the 2017 elections recommended amending the legislation to forbid the collection and further processing of voters’ personal data on election day, without impinging on the rights of observers to monitor all aspects of the voting process.
In response to this recommendation, in 2018, legislative amendments were adopted to prohibit photographing, videotaping, or otherwise processing information or data considered non-public on election day. The OSCE/ODIHR recognized this change in its subsequent reports.
Consequently, the prohibition on the inappropriate processing of personal data has long been understood by all electoral stakeholders, as illustrated by the existence of two versions of the voter list mandated by law: one is a public version provided to all authorized parties, while the other is for the Election Commission, containing all voters’ personal data and not classified as public information. The law expressly prohibits copying or otherwise processing this version.
The rights of observers are clearly delineated in Article 41 of the Election Code of Georgia, and none of these rights have been, nor could ever be, restricted by the CEC decree,” the letter states.
The CEC asserts that the decree served merely to clarify voting procedures and protect voters’ personal data. This clarification was necessary due to numerous incidents reported during previous elections, wherein some stakeholders violated the law by improperly observing election procedures, taking photos and videos, and failing to safeguard voters’ personal information.
“It is also important to mention that the OSCE/ODIHR report included a recommendation concerning photo and video recording, which was implemented through this decree.
In light of the above, it should be clear why the court ruling on this matter favoured the Election Administration at all levels. The complaining political entity and the local observer organization have not—and could not—provide a single valid argument to support their claims, as no such arguments exist.
Thus, it became evident from the start that the intention behind their lawsuit was not to advocate for the “fairness” of the election process but rather to undermine the credibility of the Georgian Election Administration and the electoral process overall, both domestically and internationally. Unfortunately, they have partially succeeded in this endeavour, as the dissemination and endorsement of their unfounded ‘arguments’—without proper verification—have infiltrated the agenda of some international partners and politicians. Critics of the decree, including those who supplied you with information about it, are intentionally attempting to distort reality. It is difficult to comprehend how the high standard of protecting voters’ personal data is being misrepresented as a restriction on observers’ ability to oversee the registration process,” the letter adds.
According to the open letter, it is regrettable that certain interested parties are leveraging the decree to propagate the narrative that elections in Georgia are not conducted to proper standards, thereby fostering a negative atmosphere ahead of the 2025 local self-government elections.
“In truth, all parties involved in the electoral process are acutely aware that the allegations concerning both the decree and the October 26 elections are baseless. We remind you that following the announcement of the October 26, 2024, parliamentary election results—and in response to widespread claims of alleged fraud—the Election Administration voluntarily appealed to the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia to request an investigation to objectively assess these allegations. The Prosecutor’s Office’s interim statement, based on a plethora of investigative methods and witness testimonies, revealed that neither political actors nor monitoring organizations were able to present any concrete evidence to substantiate the allegations made.
It is now clear that the opponents’ objective is to erode trust in the Election Administration and the electoral process as a whole through various unfounded accusations. This strategy of sowing doubt can bear long-term ramifications, inciting distrust and suspicion among voters and ultimately undermining the integrity of the electoral process and the institution’s reputation,” the letter reads.
The CEC underscores that “the reality remains unchanged—the Election Administration conducted the October 26 elections with the utmost professionalism and in full legal compliance, as affirmed, at the very least, by the evaluations of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission.”
“The October 26 elections were monitored by a record number of observers—23,342 from 110 domestic observer organizations, 1,712 from 76 international organizations, and 2,827 representatives from 176 media outlets. No complaints were lodged on election day that could have significantly impacted the electoral process. Additionally, out of more than 53,000 members of precinct election commissions, over half were appointed by political parties. Eight of the 17 members in each commission were appointed through the opposition parties’ quota, and only nine commission members expressed dissenting opinions in the summary protocols compiled on election day. Furthermore, after the voting concluded, political actors initially celebrated their election results; however, as the counting process began and the actual outcomes deviated from their expectations, they altered their strategy. For example, the electoral subject Coalition for Change – Gvaramia, Melia, Girchi, Droa, conducting an alternative vote count on its website, abruptly took the site offline upon realizing that its results aligned with those of the Election Administration.
Meanwhile, the local monitoring organization ISFED declined to publish its PVT results when they mirrored those of the Election Administration. They even publicly admitted this, and their actions exacerbated an already polarized atmosphere within the country. This marks the second occasion in which ISFED has reportedly manipulated the results of its conducted PVT. The public is still aware of the incident during the 2020 parliamentary elections when the organization published inaccurate results, thus contributing to heightened polarization.
Returning to the October 26, 2024 elections, the issue that became a focal point for discrediting the elections surfaced three days after the voting. It was then that certain interested parties began to assert that the marker was leaking through the ballot paper, allegedly compromising the secrecy of the vote. This came despite the fact that during the voting and the subsequent two days, only five complaints were submitted to the District Election Commissions regarding this matter. This clearly indicates that the alleged marker ink leakage—especially considering the use of the frame envelope—was not seen as a significant issue. Faced with the inability to identify any other tangible flaws, the interested parties resorted to targeting the Election Administration over this matter—something one of them even candidly admitted on television.
We closely monitor the practices of countries that have adopted electronic voting technologies. Unlike Georgia, many of these nations do not use envelopes at all during the voting process, rendering the voter’s choice visible. Yet, for some reason, this issue is not considered problematic in their cases while in ours—where a ballot is placed face-down in a framed envelope and even the faintest trace of marker ink does not reveal which electoral subject was selected—it is regarded as a violation of the secrecy of voting.
Approaching the issue with such double standards is, to say the least, perplexing. If we refer back to the OSCE/ODIHR report on the October 26 elections and compare it to reports on elections in other countries, we often find markedly harsher criticisms levied against them. Yet, no one voices allegations of electoral fraud in those instances. This naturally leads to a rhetorical question: why? Perfection in elections is unattainable; there is always room for improvement. The Georgian Election Administration also strives to enhance each election beyond the last. It was with this objective that, last year, we undertook extensive efforts and successfully introduced electronic voting technologies in the country,” the letter asserts.
The letter points to an ongoing attempt to undermine this entire process “simply because certain political forces did not achieve their desired outcome.”
“Despite considerable challenges, the Georgian Election Administration has successfully implemented large-scale electoral reforms at the highest level, as attested by the technology compliance audit performed by the election technology testing laboratory Pro V&V. This company boasts years of experience operating in the United States and is one of only two firms accredited by the relevant U.S. institutions. It is also crucial to highlight that during the October 26 elections, the Election Administration enacted additional measures to bolster the transparency and credibility of the modernized electoral process. A key factor was the presence of a ‘paper trail,’ in alignment with European standards, allowing for verification and monitoring of all stages of the vote-counting process. This also provided safeguards against the manipulation of voting procedures. To guard against potential manipulations and eliminate cyber interference, we developed a secure, internet-free electronic election model. If anyone genuinely seeks the truth about the elections conducted in Georgia on October 26, 2024, or about any specific decisions made by the Election Administration, we are fully prepared to provide well-reasoned responses to all inquiries.
The Georgian Election Administration has consistently maintained close relations with international organizations, including representatives from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and remains open to continued cooperation. This is why we felt it necessary to address you in this letter and remind you of the actual facts so that when discussing matters related to us, you can rely on verified information rather than the narratives being aggressively promoted by interested parties. Failing to do so risks diminishing the significance of the longstanding and successful cooperation between our institutions. We kindly request that any information received from interested parties be verified with the relevant authorities—in this case, the Election Administration of Georgia—and that accurate details be sought directly from the primary source.
We respectfully ask that this process not be viewed superficially, as your public statements and assessments can significantly influence the already polarized environment in Georgia. For our part, we express our full willingness—within the scope of our competence—to consider and, where possible, incorporate all recommendations aimed at improving the electoral process.
We firmly believe that now is the opportune moment to initiate this dialogue and engage in constructive discussions among all parties in a calm and respectful environment, rather than exacerbating tensions,” the letter concludes.
