Криминална хроника

Are the elections for mayor of Velingrad tainted? The court is yet to say yes or no. But while blind Themis decides, facts come to light that refer the February mayoral vote directly to the criminal plots. This was made clear by Atanas Vodev's defense statement at the session of the Pazardzhik District Court (POC), held on February 28. The main points from the thesis of lawyers Evelina Bozhikova and Neli Simeonova we listed in the previous issue of "Tempo". Their conclusion is that there are significant violations of the law in the course of the electoral process, which give grounds for cassation of the elections. In the reverse position is Fidel Beev's lawyer Atanas Zhelezchev, who believes that the listed offences do not significantly change the result of the vote won by Mr. Beev with a lead of nearly 4000 votes.
For the court's decision, it is precisely whether the violations of the law are substantial or not that is of paramount importance. In its practice, the Supreme Administrative Court adheres to the opinion that only those who, if they were not admitted, the election result would be different.
What violations were discovered "behind the scenes" of the elections in the municipality of Velingrad in the course of the thorough check of the vote that started because of the litigation? The most shocking fact is
NINE SELECTION LISTS WITHOUT OFFICIAL SIGNS
Lawyers of Atanas Vodev have found that the electoral lists in 9 sections are not formed in the order specified in the Local Elections Act. It is about the electoral lists on which on the day of the elections each voter has laid his or her signature and on which the results of the vote are de facto counted. The lists are drawn up by the municipal administrations and by law are signed according to the settlement by the mayor of the municipality, the mayor of the town hall or the mayor's deputy and by the secretary of the municipality. In our case, however, this text of the law has been violated 9 times:
* in section 13 (former Detmag store in Velingrad) there is no signature of the mayor of the municipality * in the four sections in Draginovo (from 36 to 39) there is no signature of the mayor of the village
* in Section 41 (Grashevo) there is no signature of the mayor of the village and of the secretary of the municipality
* in section 46 (Pashovo) there is no signature of the village mayor
* in Section 53 (Cvetino) there is no signature of the village mayor
* in section 58 (Bozevo) there is no signature of a secretary of the municipality
The administrative secretary of the municipality of Velingrad, Stoyanka Karpacheva, is adamant that the electoral lists in all 51 sections were duly signed by her. Mrs. Tanya Goncheva, who served as interim mayor of the municipality during the elections, has signed 24 lists of polling stations in Velingrad. After her signature, there were two "controls" - when placing the seal of the municipality and when signing the lists by the secretary. Mrs. Stoyanka Karpacheva explained that during the whole time with the electoral lists a commission was working with the participation of three other municipal employees and that at no time did neither of them have independent access to the lists. Their task was also to remind mayors and deputy mayors of their legal obligation to sign the lists. This has been done and from now on the responsibility lies with the mayors of the villages. The big question of where and how electoral lists came from without the official signatures remains. Such a list is not bought from a bookstore, it is a document, access to which necessarily passes through the municipality! Why are the mayors' signatures missing? Mayor of Draginovo A. Alendarov, who is now a third term, is not making an election for the first time, his colleague in Pashovo A. Krantev too. Strange how the mayor of Graevo M. Alkeev signed the list of Bear Barrel, and failed to do the same for the section in Grashevo, where there is no signature of a secretary - that is, the list is entirely outlawed.
And while we're guessing whether the law was intentionally broken or not, we need to look at the numbers as well. In the 9 sections in question, a total of 4,655 people voted with irregular voting lists from a legal point of view. If we question their vote, then what happens with 3823 votes for Fidel Beev, 807 for Atanas Vodev and 25 for Angel Toporchev? The figures are eloquent enough. From the legal point of view, the presence of electoral lists without official signatures has the consequence of nullity of the election result. An example is the elections in Belogradchik, which last year were also cashed because the electoral lists were not signed by the competent authority.
In a thorough examination of the protocols with the election results, another paradox was identified:
RETURNED BULLETINS MORE THAN GIVEN IN SIC
By law, the Municipal Election Commission (OIC) transmits ballots and envelopes to sectional election commissions (SIC) by protocol. After the end of the voting, the SIC fills in a protocol stating the number of received by the OIC, the used and the unused ballots and envelopes. It is legal and logical that the sum of used and unused envelopes and ballots is equal to the number of received. In practice, the picture is different. In Section 53 (Cvetino, where the voter list also lacks a signature of the village mayor) the OIC has passed 450 ballots to the SIC. 107 ballots and envelopes were used. But instead of returning 343 ballots, 452 were returned - that is, 109 more ballots. Similarly, in Section 9 (Municipal Children's Complex), 2,400 ballots were received, 578 were spent and 1992 were returned - 170 more than received.
Frapanten is the case in section 49 in Gorno Dabevo: 450 ballots were received in the SIC, of which 150 were by Fidel Beev. For him, 96 ballots were placed in the ballot box and 149 ballots were sent back! With 150 ballots handed over and 149 ballots returned to Fidel Beev, there should have been 1, not 96 ballots. What happened? It is possible that the answer is in the Local Elections Act, which is explicit in Art. 74 and art. 77: "Pre-distribution of ballots and envelopes is prohibited". In cases where the number of unused ballots exceeds the difference between handed over and spent ones, there is a conclusion for voting with pre-distributed ballots in violation of the ZMI, Atanas Vodev's lawyers told the court. 7 SIC WITH ILLEGITIVE MEMBERS
Another violation on election day, which is for the attention of the court, is related to the composition of the 7 SIC. Members of the SIC are people confirmed by a decision of the OIC of 17 January 2005. Their names are listed in a list of primary and reserve members of the SIC, which has also been sent to the Central Commission for Local Elections (CECMI). A day before the elections, on 11 February 2005, DPS district president Ahmed Hadzhiyski asked for a change of members of the SIC. The OIC refused the change because the persons mentioned were not on the reserve list. The same day on the case came up with a decision and CECMI, which confirmed the position of the OIC. However, on election day, 7 SICs included individuals whose names do not appear on the list of main and reserve members of sectional committees. This happens in sections 7, 11, 14, 17, 24, 50, 62 and so Art. 31 of the ZMI. MORE FACTS ON THEMEDA'S BALLS:
* In 4 sections (Rohlevo, Birkovo, Yundola, Honey meadows) the elections were held with electoral lists that do not indicate a permanent address of a part of the voters. The law explicitly requires the permanent address to be entered in order to have control and each voter to be listed on only one list. In these 4 sections, where a total of 952 people voted (of them 811 for F. Beev), it is impossible to exercise full control over the validity of the vote. * In sections 7, 43, 44, 47, 60 and 65, amendments were made to the electoral lists on the day of the vote. In sections 4, 7, 13, 14, 19, 43, 45, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56 and 59, names of citizens allowed to vote without meeting the requirements that their address registration be in the area of the section or without a permanent address of the voter being indicated at all. This violation has been found 33 times. * 30 people under the age of 70 are allowed to vote with a personal passport and not according to the requirements of the law with an identity card. In this situation, the reality of their vote is in question.
* 14 sectional committees have failed to comply with mandatory instructions to describe invalid ballots and empty envelopes in a separate inventory. Let us recall that one of the grounds for cassing the elections in Radomir were missing 600 envelopes, which according to the court violates Art. 90 of the ZMI and doubts are created about the correct counting of votes.
All the facts listed so far were established even before the two expertises requested by Atanas Vodev's defense were carried out. The first examination ended last week, in Velingrad an expert from the court in the presence of witnesses carried out a check whether the ballots of F. Beev conforms to the established pattern. The conclusions are expected to be announced at the court hearing on March 10. On the second examination, which will be done on the spot in the court in Pazardzhik, for each SIC will be checked the number of transmitted, used and actually returned ballots - 1 (of F. Beev) and envelopes. Should we wait for new surprises? Probably because the secrecy of the Velingrad elections shows unequivocally that if you dig them up, they smell.
Elena Baeva