13. The ODIHR/OSCE Missions (2004) proposes the lists of electorate and procedures of their make up to be revised thoroughly, decide the issue on contradictions between paper and electronic lists of electorate, adjust the provision on adding extra names in the lists of electorate on the day of election.
the list of electorate are compiled on the eve of the election of the President, deputies of Mazhilis of the Parliament and maslikhats, the members of local self-governance bodies by the local executive bodies. This matter is under permanent control of the Central Election Commission. The procedure of compiling the lists of electorate by the local executive authorities and submission of them to the election commissions is regulated in details by the Election Law. The basis for inclusion of the citizens in the list of electorate on a certain election district is the fact of his/her registration by domiciliary on the territory of this election district.
The lists of electorate on each election district are signed by the appropriated Akim and provided through the act to the relevant election commission twenty days prior to the start of voting. On the election district there is only paper list for voting is maintained, the electronic list of electorate is not maintained. Each citizen has right to verify his/her personal data check in the lists of electorate and appeal non-inclusion or incorrect inclusion in the list or exclusion from the list, and inaccuracies in the list in the data on the voter. It is prohibited to make changes in the list of electorate after the start of votes counting.
Due to the coming Presidential election the Central Election Commission adopted a Message on 11 October 2005, which states that the governmental bodies will provide an opportunity in advance to get to know the lists of electorate and will carry out public agitation among electorate with the appeal to check the presence of a citizen in the list of electorate and that the measures will be taken to ensure online correction of errors in the lists of electorate. The Central Election Commission guides the efforts of local executive bodies to ensure completeness of the lists of electorate. It also recommends to Akims of Oblasts, of the Cities of Astana and Almaty to establish reference information services in the Oblast centers and the cities. They will be responsible for searching the voters in the ID data base of the Ministry of Justice. Local executive bodies use the Methodology of updating the lists of electorate approved by the Central Election Commission. Akimats ensure verification of official list of addresses marked on the maps of the election districts with the addresses available in Akimats in the electronic lists of electorate; ensure by-household tour for the purpose of correcting the errors identified in the lists of electorate. Central election Commission makes all actions needed to ensure appropriate preparation of the lists of electorate in the county.
The recommendation is considered to be fulfilled.

14. The members of ODIHR/OSCE Mission consider it expedient to cancel the norm allowing in the last moment to make decision on cancellation of registration of a candidate.
The supplement on inadmissibility of cancellation of decision on registration of a candidate two days before voting has been made to the Election Law in April 2004 (see Article 89). The ODIHR/OSCE Mission Report was submitted in October 2004. Thus, by the moment the recommendation submission, the ODIHR/OSCE did not take into account the provision already existing in the Election Law.
We think this recommendation should be excluded.

15. The ODIHR/OSCE Missions (2004) considers it expedient to change the borders of election districts to reduce the gap on number of registered electorate.
The borders of election district are specified on a permanent basis. Thus, according to Article 23 of the Election Law the election districts shall be formed by the decisions of appropriated akims with the approval of the election commissions. And the borders of election commissions should be mandatory informed to the electorate awareness (clause 5 of Article 23 of the Election Law).
According to Article 23 of the Election Law the election districts are formed for the purpose of creating maximum convenience for electorate. Here, it should be kept in mind, that creation of election districts is directly related to geographical peculiarities of Kazakhstan, as in Kazakhstan many settlements even within one election okrug are located on a significant distance from each other. The population in the settlements also varies greatly.
In the Republic of Kazakhstan the measures were taken to reduce the gap in number of registered electorate. In April 2005 the Law was adopted on making changes to the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Election in the Republic of Kazakhstan”, according to its Article 23 the requirement was stated that each election district should have “no more than three thousand voters”. As a consequence 202 extra election districts were formed in the Republic of Kazakhstan. And this ordered the work with electorate. It was suggested to implement this recommendation before the regular election in Mazhilis, i.e. before 2009, that is why there was no reason for inclusion of non-implemented recommendations in September 2005. Besides that, this recommendation is not directly related to the requirements of the Document of Copenhagen Meeting in 1990. Nevertheless, the recommendation is considered to the fulfilled.

16. The ODIHR/OSCE Mission (2004) suggested undertaking vigorous efforts for judicial persecution of the officials and higher officials locally who exert pressure upon electorate or threaten them with the purpose of making them support certain candidates or parties.
Judicial prosecution towards the mentioned persons is provided for according to the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Unlawful interference in election campaign or exertion of pressure upon electorate the criminal (Article 146 of Criminal Code) and administrative responsibility (Article 99-1 of the Code of Administrative Offence) is provided for.
The Document of Copenhagen Meeting does not have direct obligation of the state to make prosecution of officials in case of violation of election legislation. Clause 7.7 of the reviewed international legal act states inadmissibility of violence, threatening towards the parties and candidates in the process of election campaigns. As mentioned above, the law provide for obligation of the law enforcement bodies and courts ensure making answerable this or the other official for criminal responsibility, if violation of norms of election process committed by him comes within the requirement of Article 146 (hindering to perform election rights and work of the election commissions) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. This recommendation should be excluded.

17. The ODIHR/OSCE Mission (2004) considers it necessary to make bilateral training of the members of election commissions of lower levels on amendments made to the Election Law of 2004, and provide sufficient financing for effective training.
The Mission Report 2004 pointed out that “a wide program has been carried out in the country to inform and train the electorate. Special efforts were undertaken to inform the electorate on newly introduced technology of electronic voting. The Central Election Commission issued a meaningful information brochure that was distributed among voters and a number TV-reels”.
The Central Election Commission and territorial election commission continue systematic work to train all participants of the election process. The process of training is provided with all necessary financial funds. Yearly, the Central Election Commission prepares the Action Plan for the coming year that obligatory provides for the activities for methodological guidance of election commissions of all levels and control of conformity of their activities to the norms of the Election Law during the election period. Meetings, seminars, conferences, trainings and other activities with the participants of the election process are obligatory. Special attention to this work is shared during the period of preparation to the election of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

This recommendation does not pertain to the requirements of the Document of Copenhagen Meeting; however, this recommendation was fully accomplished. This recommendation should be excluded.

18. In the opinion of authors of ODIHR/OSCE Report (2004), to strengthen the public trust in the system of electronic voting “Sailau”, the paper accounting should be introduced as well as the opportunity of recounting the votes, application of PIN-codes to be stopped, and independent internal system of certification for electronic voting should be established.
Independent internal system of certification for electronic voting exists. Before acceptance by the State Commission the independent experts were given the opportunity to get to know it and make their conclusions. PIN-code is not used in the system. According to the conclusion of technical experts the system has an appropriate level of protection and transparency.
In AIS “Sailau” the new method in principle has been implemented, when the voter after completing the procedure of registration by its discretion chooses any of proposed unnamed, and absolutely identical activated cards (electronic election bulletins). By that he/she implements the principle of secret vote.
The recommendation pertaining to the need of use or non-use of electronic format of voting is stipulated in the Document of Copenhagen Meeting. Hence, all matters relating to one of the formats of voting are referred to the internal competence of the state. Based on that, recommendations pronounced by the ODIHR/OSCE Missions (2004) on the system of electronic voting are not basing on common international legal norms; therefore the reviewed recommendation should be undoubtedly excluded. At the same time the Central Election Commission permanently and in practice confirms the readiness to cooperation to exchange opinions on the application of electronic system of voting. We have given our consent for the arrival as the member of the Mission of a technical expert on electronic voting.

19. The ODIHR/OSCE Mission (2004) recommended making changes to the system of electronic voting to facilitate accounting of voices and help people with weak sight.
Currently the AIS “Sailau” incorporates proposals made by the participants of election process during the election of the deputies of Mazhilis of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2004. Particularly, the terminal for voting has been made using the sensor technology with large signs and more convenient interface for cecutient voters.
This recommendation was implemented, and at the same time it results from the obligations of the states adopted the Document of Copenhagen Meeting in 1990, therefore it should be excluded.

20. The Mission (2004) proposed to introduce system “Sailau” gradually and accompany it with explanatory work among the voters.
Article 12 of the Election Law stipulates that the Central election Commission conducts training of the members of relevant election commission to use electronic election system, and through mass media organizes trainings for population to use the electronic election system during election.
The systems AIS “Sailau” introduced gradually, stage-wise. During election of Mazhilis of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan the electronic election system covered 961 election districts which made about 10 % of their total number. During the regular election of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan the Central Election Commission in due time made a decision to apply electronic election system at 15 % of election districts. By this the recommendation on gradual introduction of AIS “Sailau” by the Central election Commission was fulfilled.
It should be specially emphasized that all participants of the election process were duly aware that each voter has right to choose a certain format of voting.
This recommendation does not correlate with obligations of the Republic of Kazakhstan resulting from the Document of Copenhagen Meeting. Based on that, this recommendation should be excluded.

21. “The steps should be undertaken to expand the types of ownership of mass media so that their owners would respect editorial independence of editions”, this is the opinion of the ODIHR/OSCE Mission (2004).
Among over 2100 mass media functioning in the media environment of the Republic of Kazakhstan over 80% are private. The range of opinions is from the governmental to distinctly oppositional. For example, the single edition of the newspapers of radical opposition makes approximately 1 million copies, which many times exceed the edition of the governmental printed media. And the number of voters in the country is only around 8.5 million people, i.e. the types of ownership of mass media are permanently expanding.
Recommendation formulated by the ODIHR/OSCE Mission in such form does not correlate to the international legal obligations of Kazakhstan as the OSCE member. Thus, it should be excluded.

22. Besides Central Election Commission the parties and candidates should also participate in decision making on regulation of debates – this is one more recommendation of the ODIHR/OSCE Mission (2004).
According to point 3 of Article 28 of the Election Law political parties advanced the party lists have right to participate in the debates on television, organized by the Central Election Commission in the scope of time determined for them.
It should be noted, that this norm of the Election Law regulates the conduct of political debates paid from the funds of the state.
The Document of Copenhagen Meeting in 1990 does not provide for such obligation of the OSCE member-countries, first of all, because the debates are only one of many forms of competitive activities of the candidates to the elected position. In principle, the debates should be out of legal regulation (enforcement) in intra-state legislation, because participation in debates is only the right, but no the obligation of the candidate to the elected public position.
This recommendation should be excluded.

23. The ODIHR/OSCE Mission (2004) considers that the provisions of the Criminal Code towards slander should be changed to avoid their use for the political purposes, e.g., determining the slander as civil but not criminal offence.
We consider it incorrect to consider making criminal answerable for slander as a political action. By referring the slander to the criminally punishable offence, the law-maker should consider the level of public safety of this offence and the damaged caused by it. Therefore the reasons for making such proposals for de-criminalization of slander are not clear. Let us call on to the world experience on this matter. Criminal Code of Australia in clause 7.4 contains a number of norms prohibiting slander; in criminal Code of Austria в §111 “Slander” is dedicated to fighting slander; Criminal Code of Bulgaria contains a separate section VII “Slander and Insult”; in Criminal Code of Denmark §§ 266с , 267а , 268-275 provide for criminal responsibility for various manifestations of slander; Criminal Code of Azerbaijan Republic has Article 147 “Slander”; Criminal Code of Holland contains a number of articles (261,262,265-271) about responsibility for slander; Criminal Code of the Latvian Republic contains Article 157 “Slander”; Criminal Code of the Lithuanian Republic formulates a ban for committing such offence as slander (Article 154); Criminal Code of the Republic of San-Marino has Article 185 “Slanderous Libel”; Criminal Code of Tajikistan contains Article 135 “Slander”; Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has Article 129 “Slander”; Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany responsibility for insult and slander is stipulated in fourteen paragraphs of Section Fourteen called “Insult and Slander”; in §1 of Article 212 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Poland slander is determined as a criminal offence; according to Article 226-2 of Criminal Code of France slander is qualified as a crime. And this list can be continues.
As we can see, this recommendation from the legal point of view is not justified. Based on that we consider this recommendation should be excluded.

24. The ODIHR/OSCE Mission (2004 and 2005) recommends to consider the possibility of increasing the number of women elected to Mazhilis, including greater number of seats in Mazhilis elected on the basis of proportional representation, quotes to women in the lists of candidates or voluntary agreement between parties about inclusion of greater number of women in party lists.
According to election legislation the election in the Republic are based on free implementation by a citizen of the republic of his/her right to elect and be elected. Women and men are mandated with equal rights, there are no infringements. Advancement of candidate, conduct of election campaign and other election procedures is made on principle of equality. Participation of citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan in election is voluntary. No one has right to force the citizen to participate or not participate in election. Due to low attendance tot eh election districts in Australia, for example, the law was adopted, according to which the voters should come to a relevant election district and get their bulletins, otherwise they will be put under administrative punishment in form of penalty. Similar laws are adopted in Belgium, Brazil and Ecuador.
The Central Election Commission repeatedly made analysis of all 24 recommendations formulated in ODIHR/OSCE Mission Final Report (2004). We assume that out of 24 recommendations 20 should be excluded due to their incompliance with the requirements of the Document of Copenhagen Meeting in 1990. Nevertheless, the most of these 20 recommendations were fulfilled, which is the bright evidence of openness of the Republic of Kazakhstan, its strive for continuous cooperation on the grounds of mutual understanding.

About recommendations state din the Report of ODIHR/OSCE Mission to assess the needs (2005).
1. In the Needs Assessment Report of ODIHR/OSCE Mission held on 13 - 17 September 2005 it is written that the conditions of voting by method of portable ballot-boxes are not quite clear.
Meanwhile, Articles 20-1, 43 of the Election Law clearly determine the provisions of voting by method of portable ballot-boxes. We highlight, that voting using the portable ballot-boxes is limited (due to health conditions and for the reason of caring after a sick family member, as well as for the reason of election districts located in isolated and difficult-to-reach rayons, where election districts were not formed and who cannot come for voting). Domestic and international observers, and representatives of mass media have right to accompany portable bullion-box during its transportation, they can also be present during the voting itself. When counting the votes on election district the first to be open are the portable ballot-boxes, if the written applications of electorate do not match the request for voting out of election district and bulletins being in the portable ballot-box. All bulletins are acknowledged as invalid. As we can see, the legislation of the republic clearly and distinctly regulates the conditions of voting using portable ballot-boxes for voting.
This recommendation does not necessarily base on obligations of the Document of Copenhagen Meeting in 1990. In some countries the issues of portable ballot-boxes are legally regulated, in the other – not, in number of countries there are no portable ballot–boxes at all. We assume this recommendation should be excluded.
2. In the Needs Assessment Report of the ODIHR/OSCE Mission (2005) it is noted that “the conditions of voting absentee voting certificate are not quite clear” meaning their single use. The Election Law in the Instruction to the Central Election Commission of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the issue of absentee voting certificate for the right of voting “ of 26 April 2005 gives detailed clarifications of the procedure of registering and issue of absentee voting certificates The mechanism of this procedure includes detailed actions on taking a person out of the list of electorate by permanent domiciliary, the procedure of voting for a person received an absentee voting certificate at place of actual location; identification of such person, inclusion of his/her in the list of electorate on a given election district, submission by a person of his/her absentee voting certificate to the election commission by the place of actual location, inclusion in the protocol of results of voting of an number of voters who voted using the absentee voting certificate which excludes possibility of voting by this person once again.
On 11 November 2005 the Central Election Commission adopted a Resolution “On production for the election of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2005 of absentee voting certificates for the right of voting” that states “To the election commissions of Oblast, Cities of Astana and Almaty produce in typographies the absentee voting certificates (hereinafter, absentee certificates) according to the form established by the Resolution of the Central Election Commission of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 26 April 2005 № ½, counting 5% (five per cent) of the total number of voters included in the lists of electorate in relevant Oblasts, the cities of Astana and Almaty, and give them to rayon, city, rayon in the cities election commissions. To rayon, city and rayon in the cities election commissions ensure delivery of absentee certificates to the election districts counting 3% (three per cent) of the total number of electorate included in the lists of voters on appropriate election district”.
As we can see, conditions of voting using absentee certificates are clearly and distinctly regulated by the law and normative acts of the Central Election Commission of the KR.
besides that, the recommendation does not result from the obligations of the Document of Copenhagen Meeting, and therefore it should be excluded.
3. The Mission visited Kazakhstan in September 2005 in its Report writes that by the Decision of the Court the opposing Party Democratic Choice Kazakhstan (DCK) was “dismissed” in February 2005. This fact is presented as the chase after the party for its opposing orientation.
Meantime, Party “Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan” (DCK) was liquidated based on decision of the specialized intra-rayon economic court of the City of Almaty of 6 January 2005. The basis was the application of DCK about “illegitimacy of currently operating powers” and an appeal of the party to the population about committing the disobeyance act. DCK having passed registration in the Ministry of Justice and received an opportunity to acts in the legal environment broke the laws of the country and, by doing so, did not wish to work legitimately. We assume this comment should be noted, as the decision of the court, as all jural states do, should be treated with respect. No one but the court (supreme authority of the court) has the right to revise the court decisions. We assume that the missions of observers, whatever state they are visiting, can show in their reports court decisions as an absolute confirmation of the rightfulness of one party and of guilt - of the other party. We think it would be incorrect for whomever, especially the observers, to give evaluation to the court decisions.
4. In two separate cases occurred in April and May 2005 during the meeting of political leader of opposition, now the candidate to the post of the president, with the people, the Mission Report state further, the group of unidentified persons attacked with infliction of bodily injures. These facts are also presented and persecution of political leader committing opposing actions.
The law-enforcement authorities investigated this fact and judicial sentence was passed. In Kazakhstan, as any other state, everyday crimes are committed, the subjects and objects of which are different, and picking one of them, in our opinion suggests an idea of partiality.
5. The Mission members in their report wrote that many of them expressed doubts that all participants of the coming election will have equal opportunities for communicating with the electorate and that all of them will be equally and impartially presented in the shootings of TV news; the do not hope for equal conditions in the coming election, especially when it touches upon highlighting the events in the mass media on interferences by the sapiential authority and surroundings of the current President.
The reform of election legislation to a significant extent touched upon the activities of mass media during the period of election campaigns. Following the provisions of Article 27 of the Election Law the mass media should provide objective highlights of election campaigns of candidates, political parties without giving preferences to some of them, which is the requirement to ensure the principles of equality of rights and opportunities of candidates. In its Message of 11 October 2005 the Central Election Commission wrote, “the State guarantees, that public television and printed mass media provide all candidates with appropriate timing for presenting their programs and ill be objective in highlighting pre-election activities in the context of news programs; governmental bodies will promote conducting public debates on the issues of election campaign”.
In the current election period all candidates to the post of the President are provided with equal opportunities for the access to mass medial which meets the international legal obligations of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
6. On “clarification” it is said in the Statement of the Central Election Commission of 11 November 2005.
7. In the opinion of the ODIHR/OSCE Missions (2005), requirements claimed for registration of candidates were made stricter, and now, except for other documents, a candidate should present information from the tax services that he (she) and his (her) spouse submitted declarations of income and property statements.
This comment cannot be accepted, as in this case, the information is the receipt of the tax body stating that it (body) accepted from the person willing to become a candidate, an appropriate declaration. And it does not serve an impediment to become a candidate to the post of the President.
The Document of Copenhagen Meeting (clauses 5.1, 6.7 (7.1-7.9), 8, 26) stipulates approximately 11 obligations, to be taken by the OSCE member-countries in the field of election process. The Republic of Kazakhstan does not fully fulfill these obligations. Out of 24 commenting recommendations formulated by the ODIHR/OSCE Mission (2004), 20 do not directly relate to the obligations in the election process, states in the Document of Copenhagen Meeting.
Out of 7 commenting recommendations formulated by the ODIHR/OSCE Mission (2005г .) 3 commenting recommendations are practically implemented, although they do not result from the obligations of the Document of Copenhagen Meeting; on 2 points of comments the Republic of Kazakhstan took actions meeting the norms of the Document of Copenhagen Meeting before making these comments in the ODIHR/OSCE Mission Report (September 2005); 2 comments are insignificant, but they were also implemented.

International Relations Unit
of the Central Election Commission
of the Republic of Kazakhstan