2 NAMAT ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 6. The applicant stood for the elections to the Milli Majlis (Parliament) of 6 November 2005 as a candidate of the opposition bloc Azadliq, a coalition formed for electoral purposes by the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan, with which the applicant was affiliated, together with a number of other opposition parties. He was registered as a candidate by the Constituency Electoral Commission (“the ConEC”) for the single-mandate Barda City Electoral Constituency no. 93. 7. The constituency was divided into forty-two electoral precincts, with one polling station in each precinct. There were a total of eighteen candidates running for election in this constituency. The applicant was the only candidate nominated by Azadliq in that constituency. 8. According to the ConEC protocol drawn up after election day, one of the applicant's opponents, Z.O., a member of the Motherland Party, obtained the highest number of votes cast in the constituency. Specifically, according to the ConEC protocol, Z.O. received 5,816 votes (41.25%), the applicant received 2,001 votes (14.19%), and a third candidate received 1,821 votes (12.92%). The total number of votes cast for each of the remaining candidates was substantially lower. A. The applicant's claims concerning alleged irregularities on election day 9. On 7 and 8 November 2005 the applicant submitted identical complaints to the ConEC and the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”), in which he claimed, inter alia, that: (i) the local executive and municipal authorities, as well as heads of state-funded institutions and organisations, interfered in the election process in favour of Z.O. prior to and during election day (in the form of openly campaigning in his favour and coercing voters to vote for him); (ii) Z.O.'s supporters (mostly State officials of various sorts) intimidated voters and otherwise attempted to influence voter choice in polling stations; (iii) in several polling stations, observers were harassed or excluded from the voting area by the police; (iv) some citizens residing in relevant election precincts were unable to exercise their right to vote due to the authorities' failure to include them in relevant voters lists; and (v) there were instances of multiple voting and ballot-box stuffing in different polling stations. 10. In support of his claims, the applicant submitted to the CEC originals of more than 30 affidavits (akt) of election observers, audio tapes and other evidence documenting specific instances of irregularities complained of. Some examples of the evidence presented are summarised below. 11. The ten-minute audio recording contained interviews with a number of unidentified voters, who stated, inter alia, that prior to election day