• Declaración del Comisario C. Patten sobre las elecciones en Perú
• Informe Preliminar sobre las Elecciones Generales del Domingo 8 de Abril
• Comunicado de la Misión Electoral de la Unión Europea sobre el simulacro de las elecciones generales
• Primer Pronunciamiento de la Misión de Observación Electoral de la Unión Europea
• Segunda Declaración de la Misión de Observación Electoral de la Unión Europea

PRELIMINARY REPORT - SECOND ROUND OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Lima, 4 June 2001 - This preliminary report on the final round of the presidential elections held on 3 June, 2001 forms part of the series of statements published by the European Union Election Observation Mission (EOM-EU). They can be found on its website (http:/www.moeue-peru.org). This report follows on from the preliminary report on the parliamentary and presidential elections that took place on 8 April, as a result of which a second round became necessary as none of the candidates obtained an absolute majority of valid votes.

This report concerns the electoral process and the campaign between the two rounds and on the Election Day, 3 June 2001. A final report will be published later; this will reexamine the electoral system and the electoral process, and may provide recommendations which could be submitted to the legally appointed government that will result from this ballot. The elections must, however, conform to international standards, and notably to international human rights norms which should underpin the internal constitutional system as well as external electoral observation. 

Preliminary Conclusions

In general terms, this second round of presidential elections, like in the previous round, has conformed to international standards, thereby conferring political legitimacy. The European Mission would like to reiterate its congratulations to the people, the institutions and the government of Peru on the successful conclusion of the electoral process. The challenge posed by Peruvian reconstruction can be addressed in a spirit of optimism, for the following reasons:

1. The transitional government has consistently maintained strict neutrality and impartiality.
2. Throughout the electoral process, the armed forces have acted in a neutral and impartial manner and have efficiently maintained public safety and provided logistic support under the authority of the electoral institutions.
3. For the period between the two rounds, the principal institutions that make up the electoral system, and particularly the National Jury for Elections (Jurado Nacional de Elecciones/JNE) and the State Office for Electoral Processes (Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales/ONPE), conducted the process efficiently, but failed to keep the public adequately informed.
4. The ONPE successfully solved the computer problems encountered during the first round by deciding to use what had been the fallback program. This proved to be ideally suited to the simpler needs of the second round.
5. The JNE and the Subsidiary Electoral Tribunals (Jurados Electorales Especiales/JEE) took a long time to deal with challenged votes, thereby delaying the decision on the date of the second round. This delay was compounded by their determination to guarantee fairness by accepting administrative challenges over and above those specifically provided for in the electoral legislation.
6. Public and private institutions have made greater efforts with regard to civil education and the training of election staff, although there was not enough time between the two rounds to remedy all the deficiencies.
7. Evidence from the second round confirms that party representatives (personeros) can still impose their will at polling stations where institutional or civil supervision is lacking.
8. As there is still no law or statute on political parties, the JNE issued rules regarding the publication of campaign expenses and contributions received by political parties and groups. However these rules have met with little success.
9. As the election campaign proceeded, voter information improved even though there were serious lapses into vindictive personal exchanges and innuendo.
10. The media and advertising provided the public with full access to a wide range of opinions, thereby opening a way to a lively political debate.
11. The ONPE continued to provide the two candidates with appropriate cost-free airtime in the public audiovisual media, as required by law.
12. Polling day was marked by a positive and calm atmosphere. There were some delays and other incidents but nothing of major importance.
13. Attendance of Polling Station staff was still irregular, and their training was often inadequate.
14. Civil electoral supervision initiatives passed off without incident and were even encouraged by public institutions.
15. Counting took place calmly and efficiently. Results were announced much earlier than in the first round, and were accepted in a peaceful manner by both the public and the political parties. 

Preliminary Observations

1.Administration and election expenses
With regard to the electoral process itself, the transitional government maintained its strictly neutral position, which was effectively emulated by all public institutions and in particular by the Armed Forces and the National Police.
The autonomy of the electoral institutions, guaranteed by the Constitution, was scrupulously respected. No attempt was made to influence the timing of the electoral process or the announcement of the results. The Government made no secret of its concern that the long delay between the two rounds might give rise to public lassitude after more than a year of electoral tension. It also feared that international confidence in the electoral process could be shaken.
The electoral institutions were not so sensitive about such political and economic risks. According to the Constitution and the Organic Electoral Law, electoral justice, of a summary and definitive nature, is the responsibility of the JNE. However this body, the highest authority with legal and supervisory powers over the electoral process, decided that candidates should have improved legal and administrative guarantees. Consequently the deadline for challenging results was informally prolonged considerably. Due to the fact that unchallenged voting papers are, in accordance with the law, destroyed at the Polling Stations, it is difficult to verify discrepancies between different copies of the voting records. Increased resources have not led to improved or more acceptable electoral justice. 
As the software program used for the 8 April elections proved to be both unsuitable and inefficient, ONPE decided to replace it with what had been the fallback software. However, the new program could not be tested until all the challenged votes had been dealt with, as the servers were still being used to input data from the previous round. The new program was at last successfully tested on 27 May amid intensive publicity. The question of computer software then rightly dropped out of public attention due to its purely technical nature. Once the problems regarding the software program had been solved, confidence in the performance of the electoral administration during the second round was well merited.

2.Rights and avoidance of discrimination
Between the first and second round, the EOM-EU benefited from the assistance of the Ombudsman's Office (DP), the Technical Secretariat for Indigenous Affairs of the Ministry for Gender Issues, and the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation. It was able to use the facilities of the NGO Transparencia to hold a seminar and workshop on major electoral issues. This was attended by organizations and representatives of peasant and indigenous communities. They expressed their dissatisfaction with the electoral roll, with the failure to use indigenous languages for communicating electoral information, with the location of polling stations, with the treatment of remote settlements, with manipulation by political parties, etc. One of problems addressed concerned identity documents. The National Identity Document can only be obtained on presentation of a "libreta militar" (military registration card), even though military service is not obligatory. Another referred to the practice whereby a person formally accused of terrorism by a judge is automatically arrested without the possibility of a hearing in presence of a defense lawyer. 
The peasant and native representatives made proposals to solve the problems that they face with regard to political participation. These focus on the use of their own language throughout the electoral process; territorial and cultural decentralization among the various communities in Peru, and civic education in schools through agreements with the electoral institutions and non governmental organizations and not by unilateral action. These demands are in the spirit of the DP's report on native communities in the first round of the elections. This proposed that the electoral organizations should act in coordination with the indigenous authorities.
The DP continued to defend human rights in political participation in an effective manner. As in the first round, ONPE cooperated with the DP to this end. The JNE consistently refuses to acknowledge the constitutional competence of the DP in matters relating to electoral supervision. As has already been inferred, the highest electoral authority still invokes a particularly legalistic interpretation of the electoral regime.
Temporary Residents' Polling Stations should legally be constituted in order to facilitate voting, which is compulsory. These were not established during the first round as they can only be set up when elections are held using a Unitary District System and on that occasion, in the case of the parliamentary elections, a Multiple District System was employed. Neither were there Temporary Residents' Polling Stations for the second round, even though the Unitary District System was used.
The electoral administration undertook to provide all necessary facilities to handicapped voters. The legal provisions regarding special treatment for blind persons were extended to all disabled persons. 

3.The electoral campaign and the debates
The period between the two rounds of voting could have enabled civil and electoral education campaigns to be reviewed and extended. Full advantage was not taken of this possibility. Instead this period was marked by dispersion of effort, and concentration on the publication of material with lesser emphasis on public coaching at the grassroots level. Furthermore, the long period of uncertainty surrounding the final results and the date of the second round affected the evolution of the campaign. The level of debate degenerated and the tendency to cast blank or spoiled votes increased. The lapse of time between the two rounds of the same election tended to weaken the link that should have been maintained between them in order for voters to realize that both rounds are part of the same poll. 
During a significant period between the two rounds, electoral debate fluctuated between two basic issues, namely, the concern that there might be a worrying number of blank or spoiled votes, and the prolonged negotiations on the political conditions and technical details of a possible TV debate between the two candidates, which finally took place 19 May.
After a relatively calm interval, there were several incidents of underhand activity including accusations and allegations regarding candidates' private lives. On very few occasions were programs or policies debated. Instead, the mass rallies of the last weeks of the campaign became mere platforms for making untenable electoral promises.
One political party not included in the second round nevertheless continued to make questionable use of counter-propaganda against a candidate. The parties disputing the second round also had recourse to such practices, but as an additional element in their respective campaigns.
Regarding attempts to encourage blank and spoiled votes, which met with little success in the end, it should be remembered that even though the candidates might not reflect the views of a sizable part of the political spectrum, they had nevertheless been chosen freely by a majority of the Peruvian people in the first round.

4.Media coverage and intervention
During the second round of the presidential election campaign, the media distinguished themselves by respecting pluralist principles. As a result, both candidates were able to make their ideas and programs known to the public. Press and TV monitoring by the NGO Transparencia in cooperation with the European Union showed that both candidates were accorded remarkably balanced treatment.
The legislative reform that provided airtime for candidates "on non-cable TV channels and radios, both public and private, at a nation-wide level" allowed ONPE to pay for the political parties' franja electoral . This is a useful publicity instrument even though it only concerns the electronic media.
The major media event of the second round was the debate between the two candidates which was broadcast live on 19 May. Even though it was organized under extremely strict rules, in compliance with an agreement made by the political parties themselves, the debate was an important democratic experience and constituted a milestone. It enabled the people to have a clearer idea about the candidates' proposals before the second and final round. On that occasion all the media behaved in a professional manner that was not always maintained throughout the campaign.
It is worth pointing out that early on E-day both candidates made public appearances on the media. Even though the presence of the media, previously informed about when each candidate would cast his vote, has become an accepted custom, nevertheless behavior that goes beyond normal practice must be condemned as attempted illegal propaganda.

5.The vote and the count
On polling day the EOM-EU deployed forty observation teams throughout eight departments around the country. Observation was carried out at the Polling Stations, at the vote counts, and at the ODPE centers where the results from the polling stations were being aggregated and computerized.
That the Peruvian people were able to vote according to democratic norms was largely due to the excellent management of the electoral system at the voting centers. The general tone of the second round was calm. The armed forces and the National Police provided efficient cooperation.
As in the first round, there were some delays in setting up Polling Stations as some staff failed to show up. However these setbacks did not vitiate the overall success of the operation, with citizens being able to vote freely.
Throughout polling day the MOE-EU observed that the rules, including those governing the treatment of complaints and challenges, were respected by the staff of the Polling Stations. In general officials, including those involved in the count, behaved impartially despite the inadequate training of certain Polling Station staff and the intrusive tendencies of some political party representatives. Cases were observed in which staff resisted and called attention to pressure from political party representatives.
As required by the law, the count in Polling Stations was not open to the general public. However, political party representatives, inspectors, supervisors and observers were present.
The speedy collection of results (ACRA) from Polling Stations by the ONPE, despite reservations expressed by the JNE, worked dependably and efficiently. The computer program had been changed between the two rounds, resulting in better than expected centralized computing and calculating. The MOE-EU did not observe any exceptional occurrences during this phase of the election.
Throughout the electoral process the MOE-EU benefited from coordination with other observation missions, notably, at national level, Transparencia and Consejo por la Paz, and, at international level, the Organization of American States and the National Democratic Institute-Carter Center.

Thanks 
The MOE-EU wishes first of all to thank the Peruvian people who, through the Government of President Valentín Paniagua, invited it to witness this supreme democratic manifestation, the general election. It must express its gratitude to the Peruvian authorities and institutions, and to the Peruvian media, for their hospitality and availability.
The European Mission is also grateful to the other observation missions, both national and international. The MOE-EU particularly wishes to thank the Peruvian organizations, Transparencia, Consejo por la Paz and the Instituto de Estudios Electorales, as well as the international observation missions from the OAS led by Ambassador Eduardo Stein, and the NDI-Carter Center headed by Jimmy Carter himself in the first round, and by Madeleine Albright in the second.
The MOE-EU particularly wishes to thank the Delegation of the European Commission and its head, Ambassador Jean-Michel Pérille, as well as the Embassy of Sweden, currently occupying the council presidency, and the Embassies of the other EU Member States represented in Lima.

Information about the Mission
As for the first round, the European Union Election Observation Mission consists of a core team of six persons, a group of ten election campaign observers, thirty-one polling day observers, eleven members of the European Parliament accompanied by two support staff and three interpreters, all of whom acted as short term observers, and fifteen local volunteers of European nationality.
Throughout the electoral process the MOE-EU was present in the Departments of Lima, Loreto, La Libertad, Lambayeque, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Apurimac, Cusco and Puno. Parts of the Departments of Ancash, Cajamarca, Amazonas, San Martín and Ucayali were included.
The Election Unit is led by the Head of Mission, Mrs. Eva Zetterberg, Vice-President of the Swedish Parliament. The group of European parliamentarians is led by Mr Joaquim Miranda and Mr. Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra.
The permanent core team, composed of Mr. Bartolomé Clavero, Mr. Ulrich Fanger, Mr. Adolfo Cayuso, Mr. Andrea Malnati and Mr. Scipion du Chatenet, 
has been in Lima since 24 February 2001, and will remain until 11 June 2001.


For further information please contact:
Eva Zetterberg, Head of MOE-EU Tel. (+51.1) 211 2545/2574
Andrea Malnati, Media Advisor of MOE-EU Tel. (+51.1) 211 2579, Fax (+51.1) 211 2755/2720, Mobile (+51.1) 8848840, E-mail: amalnati@amauta.rcp.net.pe
Internet http:// www.moeue-peru.org