OSCE/ODIHR-Venice Commission Preliminary Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Introduction of Changes and Amendments to the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic
The Draft Amendments propose changes to constitutional provisions on the status of international human rights treaties and their position in the hierarchy of norms, the separation of powers, the dismissal of members of Cabinet, the manner of appointing/dismissing heads of local state administration, the independence of the judiciary and of judges as well as the roles of the Supreme Court, and of the Constitutional Chamber, among others. The OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission note that the proposed amendments to the Constitution may negatively impact the balance of powers by strengthening the powers of the executive, while weakening both the parliament and, to a greater extent, the judiciary. In particular, although the Constitutional Chamber is retained as such, the Draft Amendments would seriously affect its institutional status and role as an effective organ of judicial constitutional review. Moreover, some of the proposed amendments raise concerns with regard to key democratic principles, in particular the rule of law, the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, and have the potential to encroach on certain human rights and fundamental freedoms.
OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia
While the Opinion acknowledges that the Draft Amendments overall improve the transparency of criminal investigations, it also provides concrete recommendations for improvement, in particular to guarantee the impartiality and independence of attesting witnesses during criminal proceedings.
Opinion on the Draft Act on the Crime of Enforced Disappearance of Tunisia
The OSCE/ODIHR notes numerous positive features, which are overall in line with the provisions of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. At the same time, the Opinion provides a number of recommendations to fully implement Tunisia’s obligations under the Convention, in particular on necessary amendments to criminalize additional conducts and to ensure that general procedural rules do not exempt or unduly limit the extent of criminal responsibility or sanctions for the crime of enforced disappearance. The Tunisian drafters were also urged to exclude the possibility to impose death penalty for the crime of enforced disappearance and other crimes in general.
Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Changes to the Electoral Code of the Republic of Moldova
Amendments to the Electoral Code have been made necessary by the 4 March 2016 decision of the Constitutional Court. This decision declared unconstitutional the procedure of election of the President of Moldova by 3/5 of the Members of Parliament, as well as the related rules and laws. It also revived the constitutional provisions on the direct election of the President of the Republic, to be found in Articles 78 (1, 3, 4), 85 and 89 of the Constitution, in force until the adoption of the Law no. 1115—XIV of 5 July 2000, and the corresponding Electoral Code provisions for the election of the President by direct, secret and free vote of the citizens that were repealed by the above law. This decision was consulted in English, directly on the Constitutional Court’s website. All references to the original complaint (48b/2015) and the ruling by the Constitutional Court (Judgment No. 7 of 04.03.2016) are based on the translated documents. On 1 April 2016, the parliament of Moldova voted to hold the presidential election on 30 October 2016.
Joint Opinion on the Draft Electoral Code of Armenia as of 18 April 2016
This joint opinion follows the reform of the Constitution, which was subject to two opinions of the Venice Commission in 2015. The new Constitution entered into force after being endorsed by voters in a referendum on 6 December 2015. According to its Article 210, a new Electoral Code has to enter into force by 1 June 2016.
Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Civil Service of Ukraine (10 May 2016)
Overall, the Opinion welcomes the Draft Amendments to the Law on Civil Service of Ukraine, which aim to ensure the autonomy of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights to recruit his/her staff members. At the same time, the Draft Amendments would benefit from some changes to protect the institutional independence of the Commissioner from any interference from external bodies and ensure a pluralist staff composition at all levels.
Joint Guidelines for Preventing and Responding to the Misuse of Administrative Resources During Electoral Processes
The Guidelines follow the Venice Commission’s Report on the misuse of administrative resources during electoral processes and the conclusions of the 11th European Conference of Electoral Management Bodies that dealt with this topic on 26-27 June 2014 in Helsinki. In these conclusions, the participants to the Conference invited “the Council for Democratic Elections […] to consider developing guidelines aimed at preventing the misuse of administrative resources during electoral processes”. The guidelines also build upon the OSCE/ODIHR’s election observation findings and recommendations in respect of the misuse of administrative resources. The Guidelines are aimed at assisting national lawmakers and other authorities in adopting laws and initiating concrete measures to prevent and act against the misuse of administrative resources during electoral processes. Therefore, they are not intended as a set of hard rules.
Joint Opinion on Amendments to the Election Code of Georgia as of 8 January 2016
From 15 to 18 February 2016, a delegation made up of Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR experts participated in a working visit to Tbilisi. The delegation met with the Speaker of the Parliament, representatives from parliamentary and non-parliamentary parties, the Central Election Commission (CEC), the presidential administration, and civil society as well as international organisations working in the electoral field in Georgia. The scope of this joint opinion covers only the amendments submitted for review and analyses them against relevant international obligations and standards, in particular those of the Council of Europe, and OSCE commitments, as well as good practice from other OSCE participating States and Council of Europe member states. It also refers to the relevant recommendations made in previous OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission joint opinions and previous OSCE/ODIHR and Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly reports from observation missions to Georgia.