The Election Administration considers that EPDE’s latest disinformation statement further raises serious doubts regarding the organization’s objectivity.

The organization’s calls addressed to the CEC, to put it mildly, cast doubt on its competence, as it is inconceivable that an organization which, at a minimum, observed last year’s parliamentary elections in Georgia, would be unaware that the criteria for the registration of election observers and their rights are publicly available and published on the official website of the CEC. The same can be said regarding the expenses related to the visits of representatives of foreign election administrations invited by the CEC. It is also noteworthy that, as a rule, the Election Administration invites only its counterparts from foreign election administrations - rather than international observer organizations - for the purpose of election observation and exchange of experience. In line with this practice, the Central Election Commission of Georgia likewise participates in numerous similar missions abroad - a fact that a competent observer organization should be well aware of.

It is unclear what purpose is served by yet another appeal from EPDE to the Election Administration of Georgia, in which it calls upon the CEC to “recommend that representatives of the election administration refrain from making public qualitative assessments that are not based on a standards-based observation mission. One might need to remind EPDE representatives that inviting election administrations from other countries to observe the electoral process is not only a Georgian but also an internationally recognized good practice. However, for instance, last year - when EPDE itself was observing the electoral process - the organization neither objected to this practice nor considered it any form of violation. Therefore, it is unclear why an issue that was not regarded as problematic in previous years has now suddenly become one. Moreover, among those included in EPDE’s so-called list of “fake observers” were our colleagues from abroad, some of whom did not provide any form of assessment within the framework of the mission, while others evaluated the process solely from a professional and technical perspective. Therefore, it remains unclear by what standard EPDE is guided when it labels our colleagues from various countries as “fake observers,” even merely on the basis of their presence in the country.

Another appeal addressed by EPDE to the CEC is to “join interested stakeholders in encouraging timely and full-scale invitations to ODIHR and in promoting the observation efforts of strong domestic observer organizations during the next electoral cycle”. A competent election observation organization should be aware that inviting ODIHR for the purpose of observing the electoral process falls outside the mandate of the election administration. Nevertheless, the Election Administration has repeatedly expressed its readiness to cooperate with the mission. We would also like to remind EPDE representatives that there is precedent in the history of Georgian elections (2008), when the OSCE/ODIHR observation mission was able to arrive in the country and observe the electoral process within a timeframe similar to that available for the formation of their mission for the October 4 elections.

Moreover, unlike EPDE itself, the Georgian Election Administration does not segregate election observation organizations on any grounds. In this context, it is noteworthy that it remains unclear why EPDE considers, for example, ISFED to be a “strong” observer organization, given that, as is publicly known, during the 2020 parliamentary elections it published incorrect results from its parallel vote count, and in 2024, when it became clear that its data aligned with the official results, it did not publish them at all. The question arises whether ISFED is considered unconditionally reliable by them solely because it is a member of EPDE. It is also relevant to ask which international election observation standards are met by manipulating parallel vote count results, as well as whether EPDE expressed any concern regarding the aforementioned incidents and, if so, whether this was communicated in any public form.

We categorically state that the Election Administration conducts the registration of observer organizations in full compliance with the law, and that for the October 4 elections, every applicant who met the legally established criteria had the opportunity to observe the electoral process. Accordingly, we consider that manipulating this matter and categorizing observer organizations on various grounds - including labeling them as “fake observers” - constitutes a deliberate attempt to undermine the electoral process.

We remind EPDE that the October 4 elections were conducted at a highly professional level and were observed by both domestic and international election observation organizations. Most importantly, the election results were recognized by the political parties that participated in the process. The Central Election Commission of Georgia once again calls upon EPDE to act in accordance with its name and declared values: to ensure objectivity and impartiality and to respect the sovereign institutions of states.

We note that EPDE’s statements cannot be regarded as reliable and are perceived as a deliberate attempt to undermine the electoral process, aimed at obscuring successfully conducted elections and eroding public confidence in the Georgian Election Administration and the legitimacy of the elections.