At the information meetings of the CEC, our observers discovered that the paper used in the test mode left traces on the back side. We had to react to this, however, the Central Election Commission answered us that it was intended for educational purposes and on the day of the elections, it would be the type of ballot that would not violate confidentiality, - GYLA Chairperson Nona Kurdovanidze said about this in the Palitranius program "Resume".

As Kurdovanidze stated, three main problems were identified on the largest scale in various types of violations by GYLA observers. According her, it was a violation of secrecy, the presence of cameras in the room, which intensified the control, and the traces left behind the ballot.

"When we were starting to form the observation mission, among other things, of course, we attended the information meetings held by the Central Election Commission, and at one of these information meetings, our employees, who attended it, discovered that the paper, which was used in the test mode, It left a mark on the back. Our staff on the spot identified this as a problem as the leak was leaving a mark on the ballot paper. On this they were told that it was a paper for educational purposes and that there would be a different type of ballot on election day.

However, when we were clarifying various issues on election day, including how the issue of invalid ballots would be resolved and checking other technical details, one of the questions that we sent to the Central Election Commission was what the ballot would look like, and for example we were given informational meetings. problem. The Central Election Commission replied that it was intended for educational purposes and on the day of the election, the type of ballot that would not violate secrecy and leave no trace of the ballot would be intended - this letter is public and the public has the opportunity to learn about it. We considered it plausible.

When we started monitoring the polling day, our observers reported irregularities throughout the day. There were several distinct issues, but two related ones - it was the issue of cameras, which were located in almost every area where our observer was, and as they found out on the ground, these were the cameras delivered and installed by "Georgian Dream", which looked mainly at the box where The bulletin is folded, and the second circumstance that we shot episodically throughout the day was that it left a trail behind, and it was noticeable. In this regard, we had to react on the spot, in the areas where the observers noticed it. We understood these dimensions when the voting day ended, and we had a clear position on this in our statement, which we released the very next day. We highlighted three main problems of the election day - violation of secrecy, presence of cameras in the room, which intensified this control, and traces left behind the ballot.

We used the following days to start a legal response to this and followed the procedures provided for by the law", said Kurdovanidze.

According to the chairman of GYLA, he has no hope that district election commissions will satisfy the complaints filed regarding the facts. As Kurdovanidze mentioned, the dispute will continue in court.

"We filed a complaint in all districts. Today there was a discussion everywhere. Of course, we do not expect that the district election commissions will satisfy these complaints and we intend to continue these disputes in court, however, it would be easiest to win this case in any independent court. The simplicity of this case lies on the surface, because there are many facts presented in any constituency. The court may not support us, this case may be continued, I mean the European Court of Human Rights, however, despite everything, in the eyes of the voter, this case already has the result that the voter knows that his vote was open, he did not participate in the elections, which It would be hidden," Nona Kurdovanidze said.