Shams observation team had finished monitoring of the
manual re-count and tabulation of the election booths in Baghdad
governorates for the Iraqi parliamentary elections.
Shams had waited the announcement of the final results of the elections
to issue its report in that regard. However, the passage of a long time
before announcing a precise date for the results of the elections had
obliged the observation team to issue its report on the re-count and
tabulation. The report includes preliminary observations waiting on the
final results of the election to be announced. At that stage, a
comprehensive report on the overall electoral process will be issued.

As indicated in its press conference, the network had completed its plan
to monitor the re-count and tabulation stage, including the training of
its high level observers on the regulations and mechanisms of
observation of the re-count and tabulation in Baghdad. The latter
included 11,000 booths, which were monitored at a rate of 8 observers
per day, who were distributed in the halls dedicated for the process.
Shams was keen to let the public and other stakeholders know through its
press conferences and issuing report about the progress of the process
in terms of its transparency and its adherence to the regulation that
were verified by the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC).
IHEC was successful again in implementing this process in defiance of
the challenges that faced the process. It accomplished the process of
manual re-count and tabulation in accordance with a legal provision in
that regard. The process included all the electoral stations of Baghdad
governorate for the parliamentary elections of last March.
Some parties were betting on the legal provision to recount the vote to
confirm worries about the integrity of the electoral process.


These parties had accused the supporting teams of the UN in playing a
role of manipulating the results of the elections through computerized
programs and through satellites and with the alleged support of the
professionals of the team.
In addition, some other parties had accused the IHEC for being impartial
and serving the interest of one party against the other.
Some political parties assured the existence of systematic fraud process
to steal the will of the Iraqi people in order for some parties to
reach power instead of others.
Shams had made the statement frequently that despite the fact that
mistakes happened in the work of IHEC’s staff and the presence of
unqualified and impartial officers, but there were no widespread and
systematic fraud processes.
The preliminary results of the re-count proved the fact that the minor
changes in some of the results doesn’t rise to the level of changing
even one seat in the parliament. This happened when some of those who
were questioning the results, expected dramatic changes in the results
after the re-count. 

Monitoring Team’s Observations
A number of impressions were accumulated with the monitoring teams, we
summarize them as follows;
1.    The voting booths were protected at secure places with appropriate
protection in general with exception particularly in the first few
days.
2.    The place dedicated for the re-count process was not ideal,
however, it was relatively appropriate.
3.    All the writing materials were removed from the place of re-count,
except for some incidents that have been recorded.
4.    The numbers of the keys matched those which were presented before
the process, except for some cases for which complaints were presented.
5.    The voting papers were tabulated to valid or invalid according to
the regulations.
6.    The tabulation of valid and invalid papers matched for the
re-count and tabulation team.
7.    The numbers of the papers in the booths matched those indicated in
the forms except for some cases that have been recorded.
8.    No one other than the count and tabulation team was allowed to
conduct the process, except for some cases that were managed by the
supervisors.
9.    The count and tabulation process didn’t stop except in some
limited cases.
10.    The person in charge of the team announced the results of the
count and tabulation at the end of the process.
11.    The results of the re-count were not so different from what was
indicated in the form except for some cases that didn’t change from the
final result.
12.    The representatives of the political parties presented complaints
about the announced results and many violations were recorded.
13.    No representative of political party was forced to leave the room
except in limited cases.
14.    The work of the officers at the polling station was generally
characterized by professionalism and transparency.




The Monitoring Teams Found the Following Observations:
The process progressed in a smooth and transparent way except for some
problems. For example the process stopped in the morning due to the
absence of enough space for the monitors. The officers of IHEC, asked
the monitors to leave the hall foe other monitors to enter. After
negotiations that lasted for about half an hour between the monitors and
representatives of the political parties on one hand and the officers
of IHEC on the other, the monitors were allowed to enter again. Some of
the representatives of the political parties created some noise but the
situation was ended peacefully. One of the monitors stated that the
officers of IHEC are not cooperative because they didn’t answer
questions and they didn’t re-count the counting of votes.      3/5/2010
1.    The presence of some open booths, the locks of which were broken.
Some of those booths were signed by red tapes. When the monitor asked
IHEC officer for the reason of breaking these booths, the answer was
these were broken during the transportation process.
2.    Limiting the movement of the monitors by dedicating a place for
them. They were not able to move from that place. That led to the
inability in part of the monitors to cover the whole process of re-count
and tabulation completely.
3.    The voting booths were not protected in a secure place with enough
protection. Any person was able to pass by those booths. During the
transportation of those booths to the hall through trolleys there was no
supervisor from IHEC to monitor the process.
4.    The writing materials were not removed before starting the
process. They remained n the table particularly blue pencils.    
4/5/2010
1.    Some of the representative of political parties helped the
re-counting team. Nothing have been done to investigate in the
beginning, but they were informed that they should not do so through
loud speakers.
2.    A new regulation was implemented at this day. Every team was
supposed to re-count 4 booths and 2 additional booths for every line.
The original rule was that each team which finishes 4 booths can exit,
however the new rule helped implementing the process fast with equal
performance by every team.     5/5/2010
1.    The existence of some papers that were valid and were regarded
otherwise and vice versa.
2.    Complaints were issues with regard to the unmatched numbers of
locks.
3.    Observing minor errors in the counting of votes.
4.    Observing unstamped voting papers.
5.    Voting booths were dispersed at the entrance of the second hall
without appropriate protection.
6.    the close existence of the table of one team from another and the
large numbers of those tables that led to the closeness of the
representative of the political parties from the voting papers. The
space from the representatives of the political parties and the papers
didn’t exceed one foot. Some of the representatives of the political
parties wrote their notes on the same table that the re-count process
occurred.     6/5/2010
Abandoning the stamps of IHEC on the table before and after work hours
    7/5/2010
1.    The first hall was arranged so that every table can be monitored
clearly.
2.    The administrative regulation by IHEC was good, the officers of
the commission were cooperative.
3.    The second hall was not arranged in a way that can allow
monitoring smoothly. There were large numbers of people at the seats and
at times the representatives of political parties and monitors were
seating shoulder by shoulder without any space exactly like the re-count
officer. This had led to confusing the re-count and tabulation process.

4.    Some interference in part of the representatives of the political
parties was noted to help the re-counting officers. However, there were
special teams related to IHEC which were convoying the halls
continuously to prevent such incidences.
5.    More than one notification was presented to the representatives of
the political parties due to their continuous attempts to intervene in
the counting and tabulation process. This led IHEC to threaten that they
well be expelled from the hall if those attempts were to continue.
6.    The monitoring screens were not activated in the tele-center. When
asked for explanations, the director of the center announced that the
Council of Commissioners made the decision of not giving any partial
results and to give the final results at the end of the counting
process. Complaints were given to IHEC that all the signatures in the
voting papers were similar.
    8/5/2010
The presentation of complaints continued because of un-matching of the
numbers of the locks and missing forms and the large numbers of voting
papers in the booths.     9/5/2010

Some observations on negative points were presented at the last days of
the process after dealing with some short-comings by IHEC:
Conclusions:
The same IHEC that was accused continuously for being established based
on political calculations and for following instructions from major
political parties, came out this time clean and solid in front of those
accusations. IHEC had come a long way close to our expectations of being
a neutral and impartial body within the Iraqi government. IHEC has a
significant role in conducting the electoral process without submitting
to political pressures from any party. The IHEC needs to continue
working on evaluating and correcting its previous work to find solutions
to the problems that face and challenge it’s constitutional and legal
duties and responsibilities. It needs to put a clear and transparent
road map for its future work and for the electoral process in general;
1.    Despite the fact that the re-counting process needed a lot of
time, efforts and money, but it was a necessary step to provide
additional credit to the transparency of the electoral process and the
work of IHEC.
2.    Some of the mistakes in the re-count process showed the limited
abilities of some of the cadre of IHEC in some of the polling stations
and the inability of IHEC to avoid those limitations in the capacities
through its continuous mechanisms of selecting the officers and training
them.
3.    The process showed the weak capacities of the representatives of
some of the political parties and their inability to understand the
rules and regulations of IHEC. That was observation extended to high
ranking members of some of the winning lists which showed their
ignorance about the regulations and rules and the procedures of IHEC.

Recommendations:
1.    Implementing a comprehensive review for all the stages of the
electoral cycle in terms of the rules, regulations and procedures with
the participation of IHEC professionals and a supporting international
team with consultations from the observation teams and representatives
of the political parties to reach to an electoral law that minimizes the
incidences of questioning the transparency and integrity of the
electoral process in general.
2.    Revisiting the mechanisms of selecting the officers of the polling
stations and their training in a way that will ensure a high quality of
performance by the cadre.
3.    Working to implement a legal and legislative framework on one hand
and increasing the electoral awareness on the other hand to prevent
announcements by some of the political parties that may lead to tension
and turmoil in the county which will be difficult to control. 



The National Office
Shams Network
30/05/2010