Swedish Ambassador: "By laws of logics and mathematics vote figures do not agree"

The picture is as following: a candiate is given 84% of votes according to the results of the early vote, and Navasyad is on the second position with 7% of votes.

Giving estimation to the recent election to local councils, analysts and experts are trying to look ahead and discourse upon how the next election, the presidential one, would take place according to the new Electoral Code. In an interview to BelaPAN Swedish Ambassador Stefan Eriksson told about teh process of local "elections", and how the results of the presidential elections could influence the relations between Belarus and the European Union.

-- Mr Eriksson, you are one of the most attentive observers in this election. You work duriong the election on April 25 was even mentioned by the chairman of the CEC Mikalai Lazavik. What was your impression of the vote? Why the West is interested in observation over the elections in Belarus: the more observers, the more democratic elections are?

-- Firstly, I would like to underline that I can make statements only proceeding from my own observations. As you know, the Embassy of the Great Britain as the local representative of the chairmanship of the European Union in Minsk has made a general statement already. Besides, I want to remind that the EU diplomats and diplomats of other countries who observed the elections on April 25, are not a full-fledged mission of the ODIHR mission.

I think that every country where elections rae held should be interested first of all for voters to believe that the results of the vote have been really recieved in a just, democratic and open election process. Certainly, there is certain interest for the rest ofthe world to treat the results of the vote with trust. That is why the CEC probably had invited foreign diplomats to take part in the observation over the elections.

It's true, Mr Lazavik has expressed gratitude to me for paying attention to possible violations of the new electoral code. It was a matter of principle for me to ask chairmen of the precinct commissions whether they would announce three results of the vote after the vote count, to know how the candidates stand after the early vote, among those how voted at home, and at the polling station on the voting day.

-- To your mind, were the commissions prepared well?

-- At the first polling station I was told that they understand amendments to the law in a different way, so they would announce only the final result in the polling station. I called the CEC to find out this issue and learnhow they treat this amendment, and the CEC lawyers confirmed that I understood the situation right. Maybe Mr Lazavik learnt about my observing.

Unfortunately, not in every polling station they had an exact understanding how the vote count should be carried out under the new law, but I hope that in its instructions the CEC would specify and explain this extremely important issue.

-- And where have you carried out observation? Have you and your colleagues observe the vote count?

-- I can tell about my observing during the vote count at the 29th polling station in Plekhanau precinct of Minsk. Uladzimir Navasyad was a candidate there, a chairman of the unregistered Party of Freedom and Progress. He is well-known in his precinct and works with voters a lot. There were 6 candidates, and a representative of the Just World party among them, so voters had a real choice.

As for observation over the vote count, I cannot express any claims, as I could stant next to the table where votes were counted. For the entire evening a crew of the Belarusian TV was in the polling station, so I do not exclude that the Belarusian TV viewers would be able to see that observers were standing very near to the tables, and not 5 metres from the tables as in many other polling stations.

The chairman of the commission announced the results of the early vote separately, but only after one Belarusain observer reminded about that. The results of the vote at home and at the polling station on teh polling day were not announced separately, but they could be calculates with the use of the figures of the early vote.

The situation was as following: one candidate recieved 84% votes in the early vote, and Mr Navasyad is second with 7% of votes. Among those who cast a vote on April 25, Navasyad won with more than 50% of votes. It is very difficult fo rme to explain why the results differ so much. According to the laws of logics and mathematics, these figures do not agree, if we do not presume that people from another planet took part in the voting.

The same observations were made at other polling stations of the same precinct, where separate results were announced. At teh polling station were I was an observer, some other surprising things were noticed. Observers kept count of people who were taking part in the vote on April 25, and according to their calculations, the turn-out was at least 200 persons less then it is written in the election protocol. I think that Mr Navasyad would be able to tell about the same observations in other polling station of his precinct himself. I know that he had filed a complaint to the prosecutor's office and probably would demand vote recount.