2
HAJILI v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
6. The applicant was registered as a candidate by the Constituency
Electoral Commission (“the ConEC”) for the single-mandate Zaqatala
Election Constituency no. 110.
7. There were a total of forty-one polling stations in the constituency. At
the end of election day, the applicant obtained copies of official records of
election results (səsvermənin nəticələrinə dair protokol) drawn up by all
forty-one Polling Station Electoral Commissions (“PECs”). According to
the copies of the PEC records in the applicant’s possession, he received the
majority of votes in the constituency.
8. On 7 November 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the
Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”), claiming that, after the
submission of all the PEC records of results to the ConEC, the PEC records
for Polling Stations nos. 23, 24 and 25 had been falsified in favour of one of
his opponents.
9. On 14 November 2005 the CEC acknowledged receipt of the
applicant’s complaint and also notified him that, on 12 November 2005, it
had issued a decision to invalidate the election results for the entire Zaqatala
Election Constituency no. 110. The decision, in its entirety, stated as
follows:
“Pursuant to Articles 19.4, 19.14, 25.2.22, 28.4, 100.12 and 170.2.2 of the Electoral
Code and sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Law of 27 May 2003 on Approval and Entry into
Force of the Electoral Code, the Central Electoral Commission decides:
1. To invalidate the election results in Polling Stations nos. 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 15, 17, 19,
20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37 and 40 of Zaqatala Electoral Constituency
no. 110 due to impermissible alterations [“yolverilməz düzəlişlər”] made to the PEC
records of election results [“protokollar”] of those polling stations as well as
infringements of the law [“qanun pozuntuları”] which made it impossible to
determine the will of the voters.
2. To invalidate the election results in Zaqatala Electoral Constituency no. 110 due
to the fact that the number of polling stations in which the election results have been
invalidated constitutes more than two-fifths of the total number of polling stations in
the constituency and that the number of voters registered in those polling stations
constitutes more than one-quarter of the total number of voters in the constituency.”
10. On 14 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal against that
decision with the Court of Appeal, arguing that the findings in the CEC
decision were wrong. He argued that, while the CEC decision stated that
“impermissible alterations” had been made to the results records of nineteen
PECs, in reality such alterations had been made to the records of only three
PECs (in Polling Stations nos. 23, 24 and 25). As for the PEC records for
other polling stations, the photocopies of the same PEC records which were
in his possession did not contain any such alterations or changes. According
to those PEC records (and excluding the PEC records for Polling Stations
nos. 23, 24 and 25), he had obtained the highest number of votes in the
constituency. The applicant requested the court to quash the CEC decision