Full evidence — RUN_2026-09-23_6

Question: Was Georgia's 2024 parliamentary election broadly free and fair?

Complete answers for every model, language and answer round in this run. English translations are shown where available; where they are not, the original text is shown and was not compared.

One answer round means asking the model once in every tested language.

Fact source evidence

OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), Final Report on Georgia’s Parliamentary Elections, 26 October 2024

Georgia’s 26 October 2024 parliamentary election was not broadly free and fair: OSCE/ODIHR reported that pressure on voters, compromised vote secrecy, an uneven playing field, and inadequate handling of complaints negatively affected the election’s integrity and eroded public trust, while the European Parliament explicitly characterized the election as neither free nor fair.

URL: https://odihr.osce.org/odihr/elections/584050
Final URL: https://odihr.osce.org/odihr/elections/584050
Retrieved: 2026-09-23T13:40:05.544340+00:00
Saved copy SHA-256: 2d0420e4c05a8d56c390434c439cd6ca6466919d910c150936c69bb4f6e23317

Q003

Claude Sonnet 5

Repeated check: no difference in 2 answer rounds. The report shows answer round 1.

English — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - Georgia’s elections marred by an uneven playing field, pressure and tension, but voters were offered a wide choice: international observers | OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights - Georgia’s elections marred by an uneven playing field, pressure and tension, but voters were offered a wide choice: international observers | OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights - OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission estimates over 30% compromise in vote secrecy in Georgia – EDMO - Georgia prosecutors investigating allegations of election fraud | Elections News | Al Jazeera - Georgia to run partial recount amid claims of election fraud - Georgia’s October 2024 parliamentary elections, which saw the ruling - Georgia prosecutors investigating allegations of election fraud | Elections News | Al Jazeera - Georgia investigates election rigging claims - Georgia prosecutors investigating allegations of election fraud | Elections News | Al Jazeera - Georgia prosecutors investigating allegations of election fraud | Elections News | Al Jazeera - MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Georgia’s worsening democratic crisis following the recent parliamentary elections and alleged electoral fraud | B10-0180/2024 | European Parliament - MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Georgia’s worsening democratic crisis following the recent parliamentary elections and alleged electoral fraud | B10-0180/2024 | European Parliament - Georgia’s October 2024 parliamentary elections, which saw the ruling

English translation

No — the 2024 parliamentary election in the country of Georgia (held on October 26, 2024) was not broadly assessed as free and fair by international observers, opposition parties, or several Western governments. The consensus among credible monitors is that the vote fell short of democratic standards, though observers stopped short of declaring the result entirely invalid.

What international observers found

The OSCE/ODIHR-led international observation mission—one of the most authoritative monitoring bodies—issued a notably critical assessment. Georgia's parliamentary elections were marred by entrenched polarization and concerns over recently adopted legislation and its impact on fundamental freedoms and civil society, as well as highly divisive campaign rhetoric and widespread reports of pressure on voters, international observers said. The mission's head was blunt about the shortfall: "While the campaign offered voters a wide choice in the run-up to Georgia's parliamentary elections, which was good to see that is not enough to bring an election in line with international democratic principles," said Eoghan Murphy, who headed the ODIHR election observation mission.

Analysts also noted a significant break from past practice: in prior Georgian elections (2016, 2020), ODIHR had explicitly stated that fundamental freedoms were respected on election day, but past OSCE/ODIHR findings on Georgia's parliamentary elections (2016 and 2020) explicitly stated that voters' fundamental rights and freedoms were respected on election day, providing a solid basis for recognizing elections conducted in a free and fair environment—yet there was no mention of the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in the report for the 2024 elections.

On election day itself, observers documented serious problems. Media reporting noted that election observers, including from the OSCE, said the vote was marred by incidents of voter intimidation, bribery and ballot stuffing that could have affected the result, but stopped short of calling it rigged.

Scale of reported irregularities

Local monitoring groups reported irregularities were widespread. Election monitors reported irregularities at more than one-third of polling stations. A civil-society policy analysis went further, describing local observation missions reporting a range of irregularities on voting day, including widespread voter tracking, breaches of ballot secrecy, and discrepancies in voter registration and inking procedures, alongside widespread reports of violence aimed at voters, party representatives, and election monitors, contributing to an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.

Political and legal fallout

The results ignited a major political crisis. The electoral commission announced that Georgian Dream won with 54 percent of the vote, amid protests from the pro-Western opposition that denounced the election as a "constitutional coup." President Salome Zourabichvili was among the most vocal critics, and she charged in an interview that Georgian Dream used a Russian methodology to falsify some election results. The situation escalated further: state prosecutors summoned President Zourabichvili over her fraud allegations, the European Union criticized "irregularities" in the vote and called for an investigation, and U.S. President Joe Biden said he was "deeply alarmed" by democratic "backsliding" in the country.

Legal challenges to the results were largely unsuccessful. The European Parliament noted that the Tbilisi Court of Appeals consolidated 26 legal appeals alleging widespread voting irregularities into a single case and then dismissed it, despite independent-minded judges from several district courts ruling that ballots from dozens of voting stations were invalid, and the CEC's final results announcement in November came despite complaints by local observers that the election administration did not inquire into their reports of detected fraud.

The European Parliament subsequently adopted a strong resolution stating it "condemns all contraventions of international norms during the Georgian parliamentary elections... and considers that it cannot recognise the CEC reported election results unless reported violations are adequately investigated." It also expressed "serious concern about the systematic dismissal of lawsuits concerning election fraud and manipulation brought before Georgia's courts and the complete lack of investigation by the CEC into any of the reported incidents of alleged fraud."

A civil-society policy paper summarized the broader consequence: the elections, which saw the ruling Georgian Dream party secure a fourth term, sparked widespread domestic and international non-recognition due to credible allegations of systemic electoral fraud.

Bottom line

While voters technically had a choice among 18 party lists and campaigning was largely permitted, the pre-election environment (restrictive NGO/"foreign agent" laws, pressure on civil society), election-day conduct (reports of intimidation, bribery, ballot stuffing, and breaches of secrecy at a large share of polling stations), and the post-election judicial handling of complaints led most independent international observers, the EU, the U.S., and domestic opposition to conclude the election did not meet the standard of being free and fair — even though it fell short of proof that the overall result was deliberately "rigged." The government and ruling party continue to dispute this characterization and maintain the vote was legitimate.

Original text

What international observers found

Scale of reported irregularities

Political and legal fallout

Bottom line

English — answer round 2

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - Georgia’s elections marred by an uneven playing field, pressure and tension, but voters were offered a wide choice: international observers - Georgia’s elections marred by an uneven playing field, pressure and tension, but voters were offered a wide choice: international observers - The OSCE/ODIHR clearly stated in their report, both in writing and verbally, that these elections were legitimate, that Georgia has an elected government… | Factcheck.ge - The OSCE/ODIHR clearly stated in their report, both in writing and verbally, that these elections were legitimate, that Georgia has an elected government… | Factcheck.ge - Politically biased observers attempted to legitimize fraudulent elections in Georgia - DFRLab - mil 241027 state01 - mil 241027 rferl02 - Georgia prosecutors investigating allegations of election fraud - Georgia launches probe into 'falsification' of election result - France 24 - JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Georgia’s worsening democratic crisis following the recent parliamentary elections and alleged electoral fraud | RC-B10-0179/2024 | European Parliament - Georgia’s October 2024 parliamentary elections, which saw the ruling - Georgia’s October 2024 parliamentary elections, which saw the ruling - Georgia prosecutors investigating allegations of election fraud - What Does Election Competitiveness Mean, And Does The OSCE/ODIHR Recognize The Election? - Politically biased observers attempted to legitimize fraudulent elections in Georgia - DFRLab - Politically biased observers attempted to legitimize fraudulent elections in Georgia - DFRLab

English translation

No, most international observers, Western governments, and independent Georgian monitoring groups concluded that Georgia's October 26, 2024 parliamentary election fell short of being free and fair, though the picture is nuanced rather than simply "stolen."

Key findings:

The joint international observation mission (OSCE/ODIHR, OSCE PA, PACE, NATO PA, and the European Parliament) found that while voters were offered a choice between 18 candidate lists and candidates could generally campaign freely, Georgia's parliamentary elections were marred by entrenched polarization and concerns over recently adopted legislation and its impact on fundamental freedoms and civil society, as well as highly divisive campaign rhetoric and widespread reports of pressure on voters. They also noted a significant imbalance in financial resources and the many advantages taken by the ruling party.
Notably, unlike its assessments of Georgia's 2016 and 2020 elections — which explicitly stated that fundamental freedoms were respected in 2020, and generally respected in 2016 — the OSCE/ODIHR's 2024 report contained no mention of the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, a telling omission compared to past elections judged genuinely free and fair.
The OSCE/ODIHR itself stated that "numerous issues noted in our final report negatively impacted the integrity of these elections and eroded public trust in the process."
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said international and local observers noted a pre-election environment marked by the ruling party's misuse of public resources, vote buying, and voter intimidation, all of which contributed to an uneven playing field and undermined public and international trust in the possibility of a fair outcome. While international and local observers agreed that Election Day was generally well administered, there were reports of irregularities and sporadic violence, and international observers did not declare the result to be free and fair.
The National Democratic Institute (NDI) was blunter, concluding that it is clear that the preelection period failed to meet fundamental standards for democratic elections, as state-sponsored efforts to discredit election observers, legislation targeting civil society, and voter intimidation reported by observers both leading up to and on election day severely undermined the fairness of the process.
Georgia's own President, Salome Zourabichvili, went further, declaring the results illegitimate and alleging election interference by a "Russian special operation", a claim the Kremlin rejected.
Domestic monitoring groups made even stronger claims. A group of Georgia's leading election monitors said they had uncovered evidence of complex, large-scale fraud. A European Parliament resolution cited by observers described reported problems including vote buying, observer harassment, removal of media from polling stations, intimidation of voters inside and outside of polling stations, tracking of voters and confiscation of identity documents in rural areas, which were then handed to loyal activists of the ruling party to vote, organised transportation of voters, hate speech, insufficient polling access for Georgian citizens abroad, and improbable differences in female and male voter turnout in rural precincts.
The European Parliament subsequently passed a resolution addressing what it called widespread domestic and international non-recognition due to credible allegations of systemic electoral fraud, and it responded by demanding a re-run of the elections under international supervision, EU sanctions against Georgia's Prime Minister and top officials, and a shift in government policies to align with the country's Euro-Atlantic aspirations.

A more cautious counterpoint: Some observers avoided the strongest label. Election observers, including from the OSCE, said that the vote was marred by incidents of voter intimidation, bribery and ballot stuffing that could have affected the result, but stopped short of calling it rigged.

After the election, Georgian Dream leaders claimed the OSCE/ODIHR report vindicated them as "free and competitive," but fact-checkers pushed back, noting the report only called the vote "competitive" in the sense that the participation of multiple parties was ensured, while emphasizing serious flaws such as the misuse of administrative resources, intimidation, and the polarization of the media space, which significantly weakened real competition.
Adding to concerns about the credibility of pro-government narratives, researchers later identified a network of biased foreign "observers" used to help legitimize the vote: the DFRLab and EPDE exposed 23 politically biased international observers who contributed to legitimizing the fraudulent 2024 Georgian parliamentary election, a tactic described as a phenomenon, tried and tested method in regimes like Russia and Azerbaijan.

Bottom line: The consensus among credible international bodies (OSCE/ODIHR, European Parliament, NDI), Western governments, and Georgia's own domestic watchdog organizations is that the 2024 election was not broadly free and fair — the pre-election environment in particular failed democratic standards due to an uneven playing field, misuse of state resources, and voter intimidation, even though voting day logistics were generally well-administered and voters did have a real choice among competing parties.

Original text

Key findings:

The joint international observation mission (OSCE/ODIHR, OSCE PA, PACE, NATO PA, and the European Parliament) found that while voters were offered a choice between 18 candidate lists and candidates could generally campaign freely, Georgia's parliamentary elections were marred by entrenched polarization and concerns over recently adopted legislation and its impact on fundamental freedoms and civil society, as well as highly divisive campaign rhetoric and widespread reports of pressure on voters. They also noted a significant imbalance in financial resources and the many advantages taken by the ruling party.
Notably, unlike its assessments of Georgia's 2016 and 2020 elections — which explicitly stated that fundamental freedoms were respected in 2020, and generally respected in 2016 — the OSCE/ODIHR's 2024 report contained no mention of the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, a telling omission compared to past elections judged genuinely free and fair.
The OSCE/ODIHR itself stated that "numerous issues noted in our final report negatively impacted the integrity of these elections and eroded public trust in the process."
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said international and local observers noted a pre-election environment marked by the ruling party's misuse of public resources, vote buying, and voter intimidation, all of which contributed to an uneven playing field and undermined public and international trust in the possibility of a fair outcome. While international and local observers agreed that Election Day was generally well administered, there were reports of irregularities and sporadic violence, and international observers did not declare the result to be free and fair.
The National Democratic Institute (NDI) was blunter, concluding that it is clear that the preelection period failed to meet fundamental standards for democratic elections, as state-sponsored efforts to discredit election observers, legislation targeting civil society, and voter intimidation reported by observers both leading up to and on election day severely undermined the fairness of the process.
Georgia's own President, Salome Zourabichvili, went further, declaring the results illegitimate and alleging election interference by a "Russian special operation", a claim the Kremlin rejected.
Domestic monitoring groups made even stronger claims. A group of Georgia's leading election monitors said they had uncovered evidence of complex, large-scale fraud. A European Parliament resolution cited by observers described reported problems including vote buying, observer harassment, removal of media from polling stations, intimidation of voters inside and outside of polling stations, tracking of voters and confiscation of identity documents in rural areas, which were then handed to loyal activists of the ruling party to vote, organised transportation of voters, hate speech, insufficient polling access for Georgian citizens abroad, and improbable differences in female and male voter turnout in rural precincts.
The European Parliament subsequently passed a resolution addressing what it called widespread domestic and international non-recognition due to credible allegations of systemic electoral fraud, and it responded by demanding a re-run of the elections under international supervision, EU sanctions against Georgia's Prime Minister and top officials, and a shift in government policies to align with the country's Euro-Atlantic aspirations.

After the election, Georgian Dream leaders claimed the OSCE/ODIHR report vindicated them as "free and competitive," but fact-checkers pushed back, noting the report only called the vote "competitive" in the sense that the participation of multiple parties was ensured, while emphasizing serious flaws such as the misuse of administrative resources, intimidation, and the polarization of the media space, which significantly weakened real competition.
Adding to concerns about the credibility of pro-government narratives, researchers later identified a network of biased foreign "observers" used to help legitimize the vote: the DFRLab and EPDE exposed 23 politically biased international observers who contributed to legitimizing the fraudulent 2024 Georgian parliamentary election, a tactic described as a phenomenon, tried and tested method in regimes like Russia and Azerbaijan.

Georgian — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - Georgia Parliament October 2024 Election | Election results | Georgia | IPU Parline: global data on national parliaments - The OSCE/ODIHR clearly stated in their report, both in writing and verbally, that these elections were legitimate, that Georgia has an elected government… | Factcheck.ge - Following Georgia’s elections, ODIHR reiterates concerns over pressure on voters and independence of state institutions and calls for concrete action | OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights - Georgian Elections: OSCE Flags Vote-Buying, Violence, And 'Instrumentalized' Media In Final Report - Following Georgia’s elections, ODIHR reiterates concerns over pressure on voters and independence of state institutions and calls for concrete action | OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights - OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission estimates over 30% compromise in vote secrecy in Georgia – EDMO - Parliament calls for new elections in Georgia | News | European Parliament - Parliament calls for new elections in Georgia | News | European Parliament - JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia | RC-B10-0106/2025 | European Parliament - The 2024 Georgian elections and their geopolitical implications - New Eastern Europe - Georgia Parliament October 2024 Election | Election results | Georgia | IPU Parline: global data on national parliaments - საქართველოს პარლამენტის 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის არჩევნების დღის დაკვირვების შემაჯამებელი განცხადება | ISFED - საქართველოს პარლამენტის 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის არჩევნების დღის დაკვირვების შემაჯამებელი განცხადება | ISFED

English translation

The 2024 Parliamentary Elections of Georgia: Assessments

These elections (October 26, 2024) became the subject of sharply polarized international and local assessments — no single consensus exists, although most international observer organizations and institutions point to significant flaws.

What the Official Government Says Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze stated that the elections were free and fair. Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili similarly concluded that the OSCE/ODIHR report clearly stated, both in writing and verbally, that the elections were legitimate.

OSCE/ODIHR Assessment This interpretation is incorrect, or at least incomplete. The OSCE/ODIHR final report of December 20, 2024, states that the elections were held against the backdrop of serious concerns regarding the impact of recent legislation on fundamental freedoms and civil society, steps weakening the independence of institutions, and voter pressure, which, combined with election-day practices, undermined the ability of a portion of voters to cast their ballots freely and without fear of retribution. Head of Mission Eoghan Murphy stated that the numerous issues noted in the final report negatively affected the integrity of the elections and undermined public trust in the process.

Regarding post-election developments, ODIHR concluded that complaints were inadequately addressed, which limited legal remedies, while the violent suppression of protests and numerous arrests raised serious concerns regarding compliance with international obligations on peaceful assembly. It is also significant that, unlike elections in earlier years—the OSCE/ODIHR conclusions for the 2016 and 2020 parliamentary elections, despite critical comments, explicitly stated that voters' fundamental rights and freedoms were protected on election day, which formed the basis for the legitimacy of the results—such a statement was absent from the 2024 assessment.

The European Parliament's Position In a resolution adopted on November 28, 2024, the European Parliament condemned the October 26 parliamentary elections in Georgia as neither free nor fair, representing yet another manifestation of the ongoing democratic backsliding in the country, for which the ruling "Georgian Dream" party bears full responsibility. Deputies emphasized numerous and serious electoral violations, including documented cases of voter intimidation, vote manipulation, interference with observers and media, and reports of manipulation related to electronic vote-counting machines. The resolution was adopted with 444 votes in favor (72 against, 82 abstentions).

In a subsequent resolution adopted in 2025, the European Parliament used even harsher wording — it did not recognize the self-proclaimed government of "Georgian Dream," which was formed on the basis of the rigged elections of October 26, 2024, which were neither free nor fair, were conducted in violation of democratic norms and standards, and did not reflect the will of the people.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the President's Position The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe also critically assessed the elections — recognizing the October 26, 2024 parliamentary elections as illegal, falsified, and distorted. Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili, who did not recognize the official results, filed a lawsuit in the Constitutional Court on November 18, 2024, demanding the annulment of the results.

Local Observer Organizations The local observer organization "International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy" (ISFED) concluded that the results of the parliamentary elections may not properly reflect the will of Georgian voters. According to their assessment, during the pre-election campaign, the ruling party enjoyed a significant advantage due to the state resources at its disposal, and there was an initiation of election-motivated social, economic, or infrastructural programs.

Conclusion The majority of the international community (OSCE/ODIHR, European Parliament, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) and local observer organizations agree that the 2024 parliamentary elections were held with serious flaws — voter pressure, allegations of vote tampering, the disproportionate use of state resources in favor of the ruling party, and the violent suppression of protests. The government, for its part, portrays the process as legitimate and free. Considering this picture, the conclusion of most objective, independent observer organizations is that the elections cannot be considered fully free and fair according to international democratic standards.

Original text

საქართველოს 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები: შეფასებები

ეს არჩევნები (26 ოქტომბერი, 2024) მკვეთრად პოლარიზებული საერთაშორისო და ადგილობრივი შეფასების საგანი გახდა — არავითარი ერთსახოვანი კონსენსუსი არ არსებობს, თუმცა უმეტესობა საერთაშორისო დამკვირვებელი ორგანიზაცია და ინსტიტუცია მნიშვნელოვან ხარვეზებზე მიუთითებს.

რას ამბობს ოფიციალური ხელისუფლება საქართველოს პრემიერ-მინისტრმა ირაკლი კობახიძემ განაცხადა, რომ არჩევნები თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი იყო. პარლამენტის თავმჯდომარემ შალვა პაპუაშვილმა ასევე დაასკვნა, რომ OSCE/ODIHR-ის მოხსენებაში მკაფიოდ იყო ნათქვამი, წერილობითაც და ვერბალურადაც, რომ არჩევნები ლეგიტიმური იყო.

OSCE/ODIHR-ის შეფასება ეს ინტერპრეტაცია არასწორია, ან სულ მცირე, არასრულია. OSCE/ODIHR-ის 2024 წლის 20 დეკემბრის ფინალურ მოხსენებაში ნათქვამია, რომ არჩევნები ჩატარდა სერიოზული შეშფოთების ფონზე ბოლოდროინდელი კანონმდებლობის გავლენასთან დაკავშირებით ფუნდამენტურ თავისუფლებებზე და სამოქალაქო საზოგადოებაზე, ინსტიტუტების დამოუკიდებლობის შესუსტების ნაბიჯებთან, და ამომრჩეველზე ზეწოლასთან, რაც არჩევნების დღის პრაქტიკასთან ერთობლიობაში აზიანებდა ამომრჩეველთა ნაწილის შესაძლებლობას თავისუფლად, შურისძიების შიშის გარეშე მიეღო ხმა. მისიის ხელმძღვანელმა ეოგან მერფიმ განაცხადა, რომ ფინალურ მოხსენებაში აღნიშნულმა მრავალმა საკითხმა უარყოფითად დააისახა არჩევნების მთლიანობაზე და შეარყია საზოგადოების ნდობა პროცესის მიმართ.

პოსტ-არჩევნებში მომხდარ პროცესებთან დაკავშირებით, ODIHR-მა დაასკვნა, რომ საჩივრები არასაკმარისად იქნა განხილული, რაც ზღუდავდა სამართლებრივ დაცვის საშუალებებს, ხოლო პროტესტების ძალადობრივი ჩახშობა და მრავალი დაკავება სერიოზულ შეშფოთებას იწვევდა მშვიდობიანი შეკრების საერთაშორისო ვალდებულებებთან შესაბამისობასთან დაკავშირებით. ასევე მნიშვნელოვანია, რომ, ადრინდელი წლების არჩევნებისგან განსხვავებით, 2016 და 2020 წლების საპარლამენტო არჩევნებზე OSCE/ODIHR-ის დასკვნაში, კრიტიკული კომენტარების მიუხედავად, პირდაპირ იყო ნათქვამი, რომ ამომრჩეველთა ფუნდამენტური უფლებები და თავისუფლებები დაცული იყო არჩევნების დღეს, რაც წარმოადგენდა შედეგების ლეგიტიმურობის საფუძველს, თუმცა 2024 წლის შეფასებაში ასეთი განცხადება არ ფიგურირებდა.

ევროპარლამენტის პოზიცია ევროპარლამენტმა 2024 წლის 28 ნოემბერს მიღებულ რეზოლუციაში დაგმო 26 ოქტომბრის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები საქართველოში, როგორც არა თავისუფალი და არა სამართლიანი, რაც წარმოადგენდა ქვეყანაში მიმდინარე დემოკრატიული უკუსვლის კიდევ ერთ გამოვლინებას, რისთვისაც სრულად პასუხისმგებელია მმართველი პარტია „ქართული ოცნება“. დეპუტატებმა ხაზგასმით აღნიშნეს მრავალი და სერიოზული საარჩევნო დარღვევა, მათ შორის ამომრჩეველთა დაშინების დოკუმენტირებული შემთხვევები, ხმების მანიპულირება, დამკვირვებლებსა და მედიაში ჩარევა და ელექტრონული ხმის დათვლის აპარატებთან დაკავშირებული მანიპულირების ცნობები. რეზოლუცია 444 ხმით მიღებულ იქნა (72 წინააღმდეგ, 82 ხმის შეკავებით).

2025 წელს მიღებულ შემდგომ რეზოლუციაში ევროპარლამენტმა კიდევ უფრო მკაცრი ფორმულირება გამოიყენა — არ ცნო „ქართული ოცნების“ თვითგამოცხადებული ხელისუფლება, რომელიც ჩამოყალიბდა 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის გაყალბებული არჩევნების საფუძველზე, რომელიც არც თავისუფალი და არც სამართლიანი იყო, ჩატარდა დემოკრატიული ნორმებისა და სტანდარტების დარღვევით და არ ასახავდა ხალხის ნებას.

ევროსაბჭოს პარლამენტური ასამბლეა და პრეზიდენტის პოზიცია საქართველოს ევროსაბჭოს პარლამენტური ასამბლეაც კრიტიკულად შეაფასა არჩევნები — აღიარა 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები არალეგალურად, გაყალბებულად და დამახინჯებულად. საქართველოს პრეზიდენტმა სალომე ზურაბიშვილმა, რომელმაც არ ცნო ოფიციალური შედეგები, სასამართლოში 2024 წლის 18 ნოემბერს სარჩელი შეიტანა კონსტიტუციურ სასამართლოში და შედეგების გაუქმებას ითხოვდა.

ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებელი ორგანიზაციები ადგილობრივმა დამკვირვებელმა ორგანიზაცია „სამართლიანმა არჩევნებმა“ დაასკვნა, რომ საპარლამენტო არჩევნების შედეგები შესაძლოა სათანადოდ არ ასახავდეს ქართველი ამომრჩევლების ნებას. მათი შეფასებით, წინასაარჩევნო კამპანიის განმავლობაში მმართველი პარტია სარგებლობდა მნიშვნელოვანი უპირატესობით, მის ხელთ არსებული სახელმწიფო რესურსების გამო, და ადგილი ჰქონდა საარჩევნოდ მოტივირებული სოციალური, ეკონომიკური თუ ინფრასტრუქტურული პროგრამების ინიციირებას.

დასკვნა საერთაშორისო თანამეგობრობის უმეტესობა (OSCE/ODIHR, ევროპარლამენტი, ევროსაბჭოს პარლამენტური ასამბლეა) და ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებელი ორგანიზაციები თანხმდებიან, რომ 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები სერიოზული ხარვეზებით ჩატარდა — ამომრჩეველზე ზეწოლა, ხმის ყალბობის ბრალდებები, სახელმწიფო რესურსების არაპროპორციული გამოყენება მმართველი პარტიის სასარგებლოდ და პროტესტების ძალადობრივი ჩახშობა. ხელისუფლება, თავის მხრივ, პროცესს ლეგიტიმურად და თავისუფლად წარმოაჩენს. მოცემული სურათის გათვალისწინებით, ობიექტური, დამოუკიდებელი დამკვირვებელი ორგანიზაციების უმეტესობის დასკვნით, არჩევნები ვერ ჩაითვლება სრულად თავისუფლად და სამართლიანად საერთაშორისო დემოკრატიული სტანდარტების მიხედვით.

Georgian — answer round 2

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - Georgia’s elections marred by an uneven playing field, pressure and tension, but voters were offered a wide choice: international observers | OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights - Georgia’s elections marred by an uneven playing field, pressure and tension, but voters were offered a wide choice: international observers - The OSCE/ODIHR clearly stated in their report, both in writing and verbally, that these elections were legitimate, that Georgia has an elected government… | Factcheck.ge - The OSCE/ODIHR clearly stated in their report, both in writing and verbally, that these elections were legitimate, that Georgia has an elected government… | Factcheck.ge - OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission estimates over 30% compromise in vote secrecy in Georgia – EDMO - What Does Election Competitiveness Mean, And Does The OSCE/ODIHR Recognize The Election? - Georgia – Parliamentary Elections, 26 October 2024 ... - What Does Election Competitiveness Mean, And Does The OSCE/ODIHR Recognize The Election? - What Does Election Competitiveness Mean, And Does The OSCE/ODIHR Recognize The Election? - What Does Election Competitiveness Mean, And Does The OSCE/ODIHR Recognize The Election? - საქართველოს პარლამენტის 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის არჩევნების დღის დაკვირვების შემაჯამებელი განცხადება | ISFED - How The World Sees The Disputed Georgian Elections

English translation

The assessments of international and local observer organizations regarding Georgia's 2024 parliamentary elections (October 26) are mixed—they did not unambiguously assign a "free and fair" status, yet they were not assessed as entirely unfair either. Below are the main conclusions.

Assessment of the OSCE/ODIHR International Election Observation Mission

In a statement published the day after the elections, international observers noted that while voters were asked to choose from a list of 18 candidates, Georgia's parliamentary elections were marred by deeply entrenched polarization, concerns regarding recent legislation and its impact on fundamental freedoms and civil society, as well as highly polarizing pre-election rhetoric and widespread reports of pressure on voters.

The mission also stated that deeply rooted political fragmentation, as well as a significant imbalance in financial resources and the many advantages utilized by the ruling party, created an already existing uneven electoral environment.

Importantly, compared to OSCE/ODIHR's historical practice, there is a sharp difference—in the past, OSCE/ODIHR's preliminary conclusions on Georgia's parliamentary elections, despite critical comments, always explicitly stated that voters' fundamental rights and freedoms were upheld on election day. For example, regarding the 2020 elections, it was stated that "the 31 October parliamentary elections were competitive and generally, fundamental freedoms were respected," and a similar assessment was issued for the 2016 elections as well. In the case of 2024, such a formulation was not used—there is no mention of the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms whatsoever in the 2024 election report.

Main Issues

Impartiality of the Central Election Commission. Amendments implemented prior to the 2024 parliamentary elections significantly undermined the impartiality of the Central Election Commission (CEC)—the amendments gave the ruling party control over commission members and the position of deputy chairperson, which called into question the independence and credibility of the commission. These amendments also failed to address the core concerns expressed by ODIHR and the Venice Commission, who noted that the amendments "clearly fall short of ensuring a consensus-based political process."

Financial Inequality. The report named financial inequality as one of the root problems that seriously undermined the fairness and competition of the 2024 parliamentary elections.

Media Environment. The activities of the Public Broadcaster failed to adequately reflect diverse political and public perspectives, thereby hindering the establishment of a free and fair informational environment.

The Issue of Competitiveness. In the OSCE/ODIHR report, the elections were assessed as "competitive" only in the sense that the participation of several parties was ensured, though the report emphasizes serious flaws, such as the abuse of administrative resources, intimidation, and the polarization of the media space, which significantly weakened genuine competition.

Local Observer Organization (ISFED / "Fair Elections")

On election day, the organization "Fair Elections" announced that severe violations were revealed on election day as well, such as ballot box stuffing, multiple voting, unprecedented scale of vote buying, expulsion of observers from precincts, as well as facts of voter mobilization outside precincts, collection of their personal data, and control of their will.

International Reaction

The election results (the Central Election Commission officially gave "Georgian Dream" 54.8% and the united opposition approximately 37%) became the subject of observation, however, although a higher voter turnout was recorded in the 2024 parliamentary elections compared to the previous two elections, which demonstrated Georgian citizens' commitment to the democratic process, it is clear that the pre-election period failed to meet fundamental standards for democratic elections.

Conclusion

Based on the provided material, Georgia's 2024 parliamentary elections cannot be unambiguously assessed as fully free and fair. Although voters were asked to have the opportunity to make a choice and candidates generally managed to conduct a free campaign, the pre-election environment was overshadowed by an uneven playing field, institutional flaws (particularly concerning the impartiality of the CEC), financial imbalance, and the abuse of administrative resources. This is not the type of assessment that has been issued in the past (2016, 2020) regarding Georgian elections, when the protection of fundamental freedoms was unequivocally confirmed.

Original text

საქართველოს 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნების (26 ოქტომბერი) შესახებ საერთაშორისო და ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებელი ორგანიზაციების შეფასებები არაერთგვაროვანია — მათ არ მიუწერიათ ერთმნიშვნელოვნად „თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი" სტატუსი, თუმცა სრულად უსამართლოდაც არ შეფასდა. ქვემოთ მოცემულია ძირითადი დასკვნები.

OSCE/ODIHR-ის საერთაშორისო სადამკვირვებლო მისიის შეფასება

არჩევნების მეორე დღეს გამოქვეყნებულ განცხადებაში საერთაშორისო დამკვირვებლებმა აღნიშნეს, რომ მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ ამომრჩევლებს შესთხოვდათ 18 კანდიდატთა სიისგან შეერჩია, საქართველოს საპარლამენტო არჩევნები დაჩრდილული იყო ღრმად გამჯდარი პოლარიზაციით, ბოლოდროინდელი კანონმდებლობის შესახებ არსებული შეშფოთებით და მისი გავლენით ფუნდამენტურ თავისუფლებებზე და სამოქალაქო საზოგადოებაზე, ასევე ძალიან განმაპოლარიზებელი წინასაარჩევნო რიტორიკით და ამომრჩეველზე ზეწოლის შესახებ ფართოდ გავრცელებული ცნობებით.

მისიამ ასევე დააფიქსირა, რომ ღრმად გამჯდარი პოლიტიკური დაქსაქსულობა, ასევე ფინანსური რესურსების მნიშვნელოვანი დისბალანსი და მმართველი პარტიის მიერ გამოყენებული ბევრი უპირატესობა შეიქმნა უკვე არსებული უთანაბრო საარჩევნო გარემოში.

მნიშვნელოვანია, რომ OSCE/ODIHR-ის ისტორიულ პრაქტიკასთან შედარებით არსებობს მკვეთრი განსხვავება — წარსულში OSCE/ODIHR-ის წინასწარი დასკვნები საქართველოს საპარლამენტო არჩევნებზე, კრიტიკული კომენტარების მიუხედავად, ყოველთვის აშკარად აღნიშნავდნენ, რომ ამომრჩეველთა ფუნდამენტური უფლებები და თავისუფლებები დაცული იყო არჩევნების დღეს. მაგალითად, 2020 წლის არჩევნების შესახებ ითქვა, რომ „31 ოქტომბრის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები იყო კონკურენტული და ზოგადად ფუნდამენტური თავისუფლებები დაცული იყო", ხოლო 2016 წლის არჩევნებზეც მსგავსი შეფასება იქნა გაცემული. 2024 წლის შემთხვევაში ასეთი ფორმულირება არ გამოყენებულა — 2024 წლის არჩევნების ანგარიშში საერთოდ არ არსებობს ფუნდამენტური უფლებებისა და თავისუფლებების დაცვის ხსენება.

ძირითადი პრობლემები

ცენტრალური საარჩევნო კომისიის მიუკერძოებლობა. 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნებამდე განხორციელებულმა ცვლილებებმა მნიშვნელოვნად შეარყია ცენტრალური საარჩევნო კომისიის (CEC) მიუკერძოებლობა — ცვლილებებმა მმართველ პარტიას მისცა კონტროლი კომისიის წევრებზე და თავმჯდომარის მოადგილის პოზიციაზე, რამაც კითხვის ნიშნის ქვეშ დააყენა კომისიის დამოუკიდებლობა და სანდოობა. ეს ცვლილებები ასევე არ გაითვალისწინა ODIHR-ისა და ვენეციის კომისიის მიერ დაფიქსირებული ძირეული შეშფოთებები, რომლებმაც აღნიშნეს, რომ ცვლილებები „აშკარად არასაკმარისია კონსენსუსზე დაფუძნებული პოლიტიკური პროცესის უზრუნველსაყოფად".

ფინანსური უთანასწორობა. ანგარიშმა ფინანსური უთანასწორობა დაასახელა ერთ-ერთ ძირეულ პრობლემად, რომელმაც სერიოზულად დააზარალა 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნების სამართლიანობა და კონკურენცია.

მედია გარემო. საზოგადოებრივი მაუწყებლის საქმიანობა ვერ ასახავდა შესაბამისად მრავალფეროვან პოლიტიკურ და საზოგადოებრივ პერსპექტივებს, რითაც ხელი ეშლებოდა თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი ინფორმაციული გარემოს ჩამოყალიბებას.

კონკურენტულობის საკითხი. OSCE/ODIHR-ის ანგარიშში არჩევნები შეფასდა როგორც „კონკურენტული" მხოლოდ იმ გაგებით, რომ უზრუნველყოფილი იყო რამდენიმე პარტიის მონაწილეობა, თუმცა ანგარიშში ხაზგასმულია სერიოზული ხარვეზები, როგორიცაა ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების ბოროტად გამოყენება, დაშინება და მედია სივრცის პოლარიზაცია, რამაც მნიშვნელოვნად შეასუსტა რეალური კონკურენცია.

ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებელი ორგანიზაცია (ISFED/„სამართლიანი არჩევნები")

არჩევნების დღეს ორგანიზაცია „სამართლიანი არჩევნები" გამოაცხადა, რომ არჩევნების დღესაც გამოვლინდა მძიმე დარღვევები, როგორიცაა ბიულეტენების ჩაყრა, ხმის მრავალჯერადი მიცემა, ამომრჩევლის უპრეცედენტო მასშტაბის მოსყიდვა, დამკვირვებლების უბნებიდან გაძევება, ასევე უბნის გარეთ ამომრჩეველთა მობილიზების, მათი პერსონალური მონაცემების შეგროვებისა და ნების კონტროლის ფაქტები.

საერთაშორისო რეაქცია

არჩევნების შედეგები (ცენტრალურმა საარჩევნო კომისიამ ოფიციალურად „ქართულ ოცნებას" 54.8%, ხოლო გაერთიანებულ ოპოზიციას დაახლოებით 37% მისცა) სადამკვირვებლო ისახდა, თუმცა მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნებზე უფრო მაღალი აქტივობა დაფიქსირდა წინა ორ არჩევნებთან შედარებით, რაც ცხადყოფდა ქართველი მოქალაქეების ერთგულებას დემოკრატიული პროცესის მიმართ, ცხადია, რომ წინასაარჩევნო პერიოდი ვერ აკმაყოფილებდა დემოკრატიული არჩევნებისთვის ფუნდამენტურ სტანდარტებს.

დასკვნა

მოცემული მასალის საფუძველზე, საქართველოს 2024 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები ვერ შეიძლება ერთმნიშვნელოვნად შეფასდეს როგორც სრულად თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი. მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ ამომრჩევლებს ჩამოთხოვდა არჩევანის გაკეთების შესაძლებლობა და კანდიდატებმა ზოგადად შეძლეს თავისუფალი კამპანიის წარმართვა, წინასაარჩევნო გარემო დაჩრდილული იყო უთანასწორო საარჩევნო ველით, ინსტიტუციური ხარვეზებით (განსაკუთრებით CEC-ის მიუკერძოებლობასთან დაკავშირებით), ფინანსური დისბალანსით და ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების ბოროტად გამოყენებით. ეს არ არის იმ ტიპის შეფასება, რომელიც წარსულში (2016, 2020 წწ.) გაცემულა საქართველოს არჩევნებზე, როცა ფუნდამენტური თავისუფლებების დაცვა ცალსახად დასტურდებოდა.

Russian — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - По мнению наблюдателей, выборы в Грузии были омрачены неравными условиями, давлением и напряженностью, однако избирателям был предложен широкий выбор - Final OSCE report confirms 'alarming context' in Georgian parliamentary elections - Final OSCE report confirms 'alarming context' in Georgian parliamentary elections - MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Georgia’s worsening democratic crisis following the recent parliamentary elections and alleged electoral fraud | B10-0180/2024 | European Parliament - Georgia’s October 2024 parliamentary elections, which saw the ruling - Выборы в Грузии: бессрочные протесты, несогласие оппозиции с итогами голосования: Закавказье: Бывший СССР: Lenta.ru - Парламентские выборы в Грузии (2024) — Википедия - Выборы в Грузии: бессрочные протесты, несогласие оппозиции с итогами голосования: Закавказье: Бывший СССР: Lenta.ru - Выборы в Грузии: бессрочные протесты, несогласие оппозиции с итогами голосования: Закавказье: Бывший СССР: Lenta.ru - Парламентские выборы в Грузии (2024) — Википедия - Politically biased observers attempted to legitimize fraudulent elections in Georgia - DFRLab - 2024 Georgian protests

English translation

2024 Georgian Parliamentary Elections: Ambiguous and Contentious Assessment

There is no unambiguous answer to this question—assessments have diverged sharply, but the majority of reputable international observers and Western governments have pointed to serious violations that make it impossible to call the elections fully free and fair.

Official International Observers (OSCE/ODIHR)

The joint OSCE observer mission gave a restrained and critical assessment: although voters were offered a choice from 18 candidate lists and the candidates themselves were generally able to campaign freely, Georgia's parliamentary elections were marred by deep polarization and concerns regarding recently adopted legislation and its impact on fundamental freedoms and civil society.

The final ODIHR report, published on December 20, 2024, proved even more critical. The Head of the Election Observation Mission, Johan Murphy, stated: "The numerous shortcomings noted in our final report negatively impacted the integrity of these elections and undermined public trust in the process." At the same time, it is important to note that in accordance with its mandate, the ODIHR does not recognize or validate the legitimacy of elections, but rather provides a comprehensive and impartial assessment of the electoral process based on universal principles and international commitments.

According to a European Parliament resolution citing OSCE/ODIHR data, in 6% of 1,924 observations the process was assessed negatively, mainly due to signs of voter pressure and intimidation, with the secrecy of the vote potentially compromised in 24% of observations. Cases of ballot box stuffing, physical attacks on observers, removal of observers and media from polling stations, and the tearing up of observers' complaints were also recorded.

Other International Organizations

ENEMO, NDI, and IRI confirmed a key problem: the ruling party's widespread use of administrative resources and its comprehensive control over the election administration at all levels drew widespread criticism from both local and international observers—these two factors tipped the scales in favor of the ruling party.

Reaction of Western Countries

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that the voting results "lack credibility" and that the elections themselves cannot be considered free and fair. A joint statement by the heads of foreign affairs committees of several European countries and Canada urged the European Union not to recognize the results, calling them "neither free nor fair."

Reaction Within Georgia

Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili called the results "an attempt to steal Georgia's European future" and an acknowledgment of "subjugation to Russia," stating: "These elections cannot be recognized." The opposition, which lost the election, stated that it does not recognize the voting results as it considers them falsified, renounced the parliamentary mandates it received, and called on its supporters to hold mass protest rallies.

Alternative Position

Not all observers were critical—Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán congratulated the winning party and stated that Hungarian observers monitored the elections in Georgia and consider them positive, free, and democratic. However, an investigation by DFRLab indicates that such "observers" from Hungary, France, Germany, and Poland were part of a coordinated campaign: the goal of fake observers is to legitimize substandard elections, weaken democratic processes, and neutralize criticism from reputable organizations such as the OSCE/ODIHR.

Summary

The consequences of the disputed elections proved extremely serious—they provoked a protracted political crisis: in 2024, protests took place in Georgia following the disputed parliamentary elections, and some monitoring organizations even called for repeat elections.

Conclusion: The majority of independent international observers (OSCE/ODIHR, ENEMO, NDI, IRI) and Western governments concluded that the elections were held under conditions of unequal opportunities, administrative pressure, and multiple violations, which makes it impossible to recognize them as fully free and fair. Positive assessments came mainly from politically engaged observers associated with the ruling parties of Hungary and other countries sympathetic to "Georgian Dream."

Original text

Парламентские выборы в Грузии 2024 года: неоднозначная и спорная оценка

Однозначного ответа на этот вопрос нет — оценки резко разошлись, но большинство авторитетных международных наблюдателей и западных правительств указали на серьёзные нарушения, не позволяющие назвать выборы полностью свободными и справедливыми.

Официальные международные наблюдатели (ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ)

Совместная миссия наблюдателей ОБСЕ дала сдержанно-критическую оценку: несмотря на то, что избирателям был предложен выбор из 18 списков кандидатов, а сами кандидаты, как правило, могли свободно проводить свои кампании, парламентские выборы в Грузии были омрачены глубокой поляризацией и озабоченностью по поводу недавно принятого законодательства и его влияния на основные свободы и гражданское общество.

Итоговый доклад БДИПЧ, опубликованный 20 декабря 2024 года, оказался ещё более критичным. Глава миссии наблюдения Иоган Мёрфи заявил: «Многочисленные проблемы, отмеченные в нашем итоговом отчёте, негативно повлияли на целостность этих выборов и подорвали общественное доверие к процессу». При этом важно отметить, что в соответствии со своим мандатом БДИПЧ не признаёт и не подтверждает легитимность выборов, а предоставляет всестороннюю и беспристрастную оценку избирательного процесса на основе универсальных принципов и международных обязательств.

Согласно резолюции Европарламента, ссылающейся на данные ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ, в 6% из 1924 наблюдений процесс был оценён негативно, главным образом из-за признаков давления и запугивания избирателей, при этом тайна голосования была потенциально нарушена в 24% наблюдений. Также зафиксированы случаи набивки урн бюллетенями, физические нападения на наблюдателей, удаление наблюдателей и СМИ с избирательных участков, разрывание жалоб наблюдателей.

Другие международные организации

Организации ENEMO, NDI и IRI подтвердили ключевую проблему: широкое использование правящей партией административных ресурсов и её всеобъемлющий контроль над избирательной администрацией на всех уровнях вызвали широкую критику со стороны как местных, так и международных наблюдателей — эти два фактора склонили чашу весов в пользу правящей партии.

Реакция западных стран

Государственный секретарь США Энтони Блинкен заявил, что результаты голосования «не заслуживают доверия», а сами выборы нельзя считать свободными и справедливыми. Совместное заявление глав комитетов по иностранным делам ряда европейских стран и Канады призвало Европейский союз не признавать результаты, назвав их «ни свободными, ни справедливыми».

Реакция внутри Грузии

Президент Грузии Саломе Зурабишвили назвала результаты «попыткой украсть у Грузии европейское будущее» и признанием «подчинения России», заявив: «Нельзя признавать эти выборы». Оппозиция, проигравшая выборы, заявила, что не признаёт результатов голосования, так как считает их сфальсифицированными, отказалась от полученных депутатских мандатов и призвала своих сторонников к массовым акциям протеста.

Альтернативная позиция

Не все наблюдатели были критичны — премьер-министр Венгрии Виктор Орбан поздравил победившую партию и заявил, что венгерские наблюдатели следили за выборами в Грузии и считают их позитивными, свободными и демократичными. Однако расследование DFRLab указывает, что подобные "наблюдатели" из Венгрии, Франции, Германии и Польши были частью скоординированной кампании: цель фальшивых наблюдателей — легитимизировать некачественные выборы, ослабить демократические процессы и нейтрализовать критику авторитетных организаций типа ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ.

Итог

Последствия спорных выборов оказались крайне серьёзными — они спровоцировали затяжной политический кризис: в 2024 году в Грузии произошли протесты после спорных парламентских выборов, а некоторые наблюдательные организации даже призвали к повторным выборам.

Вывод: большинство независимых международных наблюдателей (ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ, ENEMO, NDI, IRI) и правительства западных стран пришли к выводу, что выборы прошли в условиях неравных возможностей, административного давления и множественных нарушений, что не позволяет признать их полностью свободными и справедливыми. Позитивные оценки исходили в основном от политически ангажированных наблюдателей, связанных с правящими партиями Венгрии и других стран, симпатизирующих "Грузинской мечте".

Russian — answer round 2

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - Final OSCE report confirms 'alarming context' in Georgian parliamentary elections - Final OSCE report confirms 'alarming context' in Georgian parliamentary elections - MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Georgia’s worsening democratic crisis following the recent parliamentary elections and alleged electoral fraud | B10-0180/2024 | European Parliament - Georgia’s October 2024 parliamentary elections, which saw the ruling - Georgia’s October 2024 parliamentary elections, which saw the ruling - Final OSCE report confirms 'alarming context' in Georgian parliamentary elections - Парламентские выборы в Грузии (2024) — Википедия - Renewed calls for repeat vote in Georgia after critical OSCE observation report - Парламентские выборы в Грузии (2024) — Википедия - OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission estimates over 30% compromise in vote secrecy in Georgia – EDMO

English translation

2024 Georgian Parliamentary Elections: Disputed Legitimacy

There is no single consensus — assessments are polarized, but the prevailing position of international observers and the majority of democratic countries is extremely critical.

Position of International Observers

OSCE/ODIHR in its final report did not make a direct statement on the recognition or non-recognition of the elections — the ODIHR mission does not recognize or endorse elections, but provides a comprehensive and impartial assessment of the electoral process based on universal principles and international commitments. At the same time, the head of the mission stated that "the numerous problems noted in the final report negatively affected the integrity of these elections and undermined public trust in the process," urging the authorities to urgently address all problems.

Specific violations recorded by observers (including the European Parliament delegation) included instances of ballot stuffing, physical attacks on observers trying to record violations, the removal of observers and media from polling stations, the destruction of observers' complaints, and voter intimidation. According to ODIHR, in 6% of 1,924 observations the process was assessed negatively, mainly due to signs of voter pressure and intimidation, and the secrecy of the vote may have been violated in 24% of cases.

Criticism from Non-Governmental Observation Organizations

Independent analysis (EPDE) indicates that this was not an isolated case — the ruling party's large-scale use of administrative resources and comprehensive control over the election administration at all levels drew widespread criticism from both local and international observers, which was also confirmed by other international missions — ENEMO, NDI, and IRI. According to their assessment, the elections, in which the ruling party "Georgian Dream" secured a fourth term, provoked widespread non-recognition domestically and abroad due to compelling allegations of systematic falsification, and opposition parties are boycotting parliament.

Reaction of the Opposition and Part of the International Community

Opposition parties that entered parliament unanimously declared the electoral process fraudulent, rejecting the legitimacy of the new parliament and refusing to take up their mandates. Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili also refused to recognize the election results and called on citizens to protests.

A joint statement by the chairs of foreign affairs committees of several European countries and Canada urged the European Union not to recognize the results, calling them "neither free nor fair."

Following the final ODIHR report, renewed calls for re-elections were made: "the findings and recommendations published by the OSCE/ODIHR confirmed the illegitimacy of the election results, which is grounds for holding new elections."

Alternative Position

Not all international observers were critical — for example, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stated that Hungarian observers monitored the elections in Georgia and consider them positive, free, and democratic. The Georgian authorities ("Georgian Dream") also interpreted the ODIHR report as confirmation of the legitimacy of the elections, although experts point out that this is a distortion of the report's essence: in the report on the 2024 elections, unlike in previous years, there is no mention of the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, and ODIHR's mandate does not entail determining the recognition or non-recognition of elections.

Conclusion

The majority of independent international election observation missions and a significant part of the European political community believe that the elections were not fully free and fair due to the systemic use of administrative resources, pressure on voters, violations of the secrecy of the vote, and other procedural problems. However, the formal assessment of ODIHR remains restrained by its mandate — the organization records violations but does not issue a direct verdict on (il)legitimacy. The position of the ruling party itself and some of its allies (for example, Hungary) is diametrically opposed.

Original text

Парламентские выборы в Грузии 2024 года: спорная легитимность

Однозначного консенсуса нет — оценки поляризованы, но преобладающая позиция международных наблюдателей и большинства демократических стран крайне критична.

Позиция международных наблюдателей

OSCE/ODIHR в итоговом докладе не сделал прямого заявления о признании или непризнании выборов — миссия ODIHR не признаёт и не подтверждает выборы, а предоставляет комплексную и беспристрастную оценку избирательного процесса на основе универсальных принципов и международных обязательств. При этом глава миссии заявил, что «многочисленные проблемы, отмеченные в итоговом докладе, негативно повлияли на целостность этих выборов и подорвали общественное доверие к процессу», призвав власти безотлагательно устранить все проблемы.

Конкретные нарушения, зафиксированные наблюдателями (включая делегацию Европарламента), включали случаи вброса бюллетеней, физические нападения на наблюдателей, пытавшихся зафиксировать нарушения, удаление наблюдателей и СМИ с избирательных участков, уничтожение жалоб наблюдателей, запугивание избирателей. По данным ODIHR, в 6% из 1924 наблюдений процесс был оценён негативно, в основном из-за признаков давления и запугивания избирателей, а тайна голосования могла быть нарушена в 24% случаев.

Критика неправительственных наблюдательских организаций

Независимый анализ (EPDE) указывает, что это был не единственный случай — масштабное использование правящей партией административных ресурсов и всеобъемлющий контроль над избирательной администрацией на всех уровнях вызвали широкую критику как местных, так и международных наблюдателей, что подтвердили и другие международные миссии — ENEMO, NDI и IRI. По их оценке, выборы, на которых правящая партия «Грузинская мечта» получила четвёртый срок, спровоцировали широкое непризнание внутри страны и за рубежом из-за убедительных обвинений в систематическом фальсификации, а оппозиционные партии бойкотируют парламент.

Реакция оппозиции и части международного сообщества

Оппозиционные партии, прошедшие в парламент, единогласно объявили избирательный процесс мошенническим, отвергнув легитимность нового парламента и отказавшись принимать свои мандаты. Президент Грузии Саломе Зурабишвили также отказалась признавать результаты выборов и призвала граждан к протестам.

Совместное заявление глав комитетов по иностранным делам ряда европейских стран и Канады призвало Европейский союз не признавать результаты, назвав их «ни свободными, ни справедливыми».

После итогового доклада ODIHR раздались повторные призывы к переизбранию: «выводы и рекомендации, опубликованные ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ, подтвердили нелегитимность результатов выборов, что является основанием для проведения новых выборов».

Альтернативная позиция

Не все международные наблюдатели были критичны — так, премьер-министр Венгрии Виктор Орбан заявил, что венгерские наблюдатели следили за выборами в Грузии и считают их позитивными, свободными и демократичными. Власти Грузии («Грузинская мечта») также интерпретировали доклад ODIHR как подтверждение легитимности выборов, хотя эксперты указывают, что это искажение сути доклада: в докладе о выборах 2024 года, в отличие от прежних лет, нет упоминания о защите фундаментальных прав и свобод, а мандат ODIHR не предполагает определения признания или непризнания выборов.

Вывод

Большинство независимых международных наблюдательских миссий и значительная часть европейского политического сообщества считают, что выборы не были полностью свободными и справедливыми из-за системного использования административного ресурса, давления на избирателей, нарушений тайны голосования и других процедурных проблем. Однако формальная оценка ODIHR остаётся сдержанной по мандату — организация фиксирует нарушения, но не выносит прямого вердикта о (не)легитимности. Позиция самой правящей партии и некоторых её союзников (например, Венгрии) прямо противоположна.

DeepSeek V4 Flash

English — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION Georgia - Georgia's elections marred by an uneven playing field, ... - IRI INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION TO GEORGIA - GEORGIA’S 2024 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS FINAL MONITORING REPORT - STATEMENT OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - Georgian election: Biden voices deep alarm at disputed vote and "Russian laws" - US, EU call for probe after reports of alleged Georgia election violations - Brussels Signal - How The World Sees The Disputed Georgian Elections - Parliament calls for new elections in Georgia | News - Texts adopted - Georgia's worsening democratic crisis following the recent parliamentary elections and alleged electoral fraud - Thursday, 28 November 2024 - Thousands protest in Georgia as opposition challenges election results - Georgia begins investigating its disputed election but the opposition calls the probe into question | AP News - Georgians join mass rally as president urges them to protest 'rigged vote' - Georgian election: Biden voices deep alarm at disputed vote and "Russian laws" - Paint thrown over Georgia elections chief as ruling party victory confirmed | Georgia | The Guardian

English translation

Based on the assessments of international observers, major democratic governments, and election monitoring organizations, the consensus is clear: Georgia's 2024 parliamentary election was not broadly free and fair.

Here is a summary of the key findings from the most authoritative sources:

International Observation Missions

OSCE/ODIHR (the flagship election observation body): Stated that while voters had a choice and campaigning was generally possible, the elections were "marred by an uneven playing field" with "widespread reports of pressure on voters," a "significant imbalance in financial resources," and "many advantages taken by the ruling party." They noted that the "public perception of its [the election commission's] impartiality was harmed" and that "the secrecy of the vote was frequently compromised."

European Parliament (November 2024 Resolution): Adopted a resolution explicitly condemning the elections as "neither free nor fair" and representing "another manifestation of the continued democratic backsliding." MEPs declared that the results "do not serve as a reliable representation of the will of the Georgian people" and called for new elections to be re-run within a year under international supervision.

IRI (International Republican Institute — a US-funded democracy organization): Found that "numerous factors heavily marred the process and cast serious doubts on the election's credibility," citing state capture of electoral and judicial institutions, voter coercion, vote-buying, and "carousel voting."

EPDE (European Platform for Democratic Elections): Concluded that four of the five fundamental principles of democratic elections were violated and that the results "cannot be considered as a true expression of the will of the Georgian voters."

Responses from Major Governments

United States (President Joe Biden): Expressed being "deeply alarmed" by "democratic backsliding" and called for an investigation into a "catalogue of examples of intimidation, violence and ballot-stuffing."
European Union: Called for a "swift, transparent and independent" investigation into irregularities and noted that "international observers have not declared the result to be free and fair."
President Salome Zourabichvili of Georgia (who has since left office): Declared that the election was "stolen" and urged protests.

Specific Violations Documented

International observers documented numerous specific problems, including: - Vote-buying and ballot-stuffing - Intimidation of voters, particularly public sector employees and rural voters - Violations of the secrecy of the vote, due to markers showing through ballots and unauthorized photo/video recording - Coordinated "carousel voting" (voting multiple times at different stations) - Obstruction of election observers and media - Manipulation concerns involving new electronic voting machines - A biased judiciary that dismissed fraud complaints without proper investigation

What Was Positive?

Observers did note some positive aspects: the legal framework was deemed adequate in principle, election day was "generally well-organized procedurally," and voters were offered a genuine choice between competing lists. However, the consensus was that the pre-election environment and systemic irregularities so undermined the process that the election cannot be considered broadly free and fair.

Original text

Here is a summary of the key findings from the most authoritative sources:

International Observation Missions

Responses from Major Governments

United States (President Joe Biden): Expressed being "deeply alarmed" by "democratic backsliding" and called for an investigation into a "catalogue of examples of intimidation, violence and ballot-stuffing."
European Union: Called for a "swift, transparent and independent" investigation into irregularities and noted that "international observers have not declared the result to be free and fair."
President Salome Zourabichvili of Georgia (who has since left office): Declared that the election was "stolen" and urged protests.

Specific Violations Documented

What Was Positive?

Mistral Medium 3.5

Repeated check: one answer round only. The report shows answer round 1.

English — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION Georgia - Following Georgia’s elections, ODIHR reiterates concerns over pressure on voters and independence of state institutions and calls for concrete action | OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights - Georgia's elections marred by an uneven playing field, ... - GEORGIA - Georgia Parliamentary Elections

English translation

No, Georgia's 2024 parliamentary election was not broadly free and fair according to international observers. The OSCE/ODIHR and other international missions reported significant concerns, including an uneven playing field, widespread pressure and intimidation of voters, especially in rural areas, and the misuse of administrative resources. Election day was generally well-administered, but there were frequent compromises to the secrecy of the vote, procedural inconsistencies, and a tense environment with incidents of physical altercations and intimidation. Additionally, the independence of state institutions was questioned, and the handling of complaints was often inadequate, undermining public trust in the process. International observers did not declare the election to be free and fair, and called for investigations into violations and reforms to address the identified issues.

Original text

Georgian — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

English translation

The parliamentary elections of October 26, 2024 in Georgia are generally not considered free and fair according to the assessments of international election observation organizations, such as OSCE/ODIHR and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

Main problems: - Uneven playing field: pressure on the opposition and civil society, hate speech, misuse of administrative resources, especially in the regions. - Voter pressure and fear: voter intimidation, vote-buying, and compromised secrecy of the vote (insertion of ballots, video recordings, external marks on ballots) recorded on election day. - Impartiality of the election administration and the judicial system: incomplete review of complaints, procedural errors, and the discreditation of results by the opposition and civil society. - Media environment: a polarized and politically instrumentalized media, which hindered voters from making an informed choice. - Legislation: although the legislative framework is adequate, recent changes (e.g., the law on "Transparency of Foreign Influence") and unstable reforms raise concerns regarding their use for political purposes.

Positive features: - The elections were procedurally well organized, voters had a wide choice (18 parties/blocs), and electronic technologies were used effectively. - The pre-election campaign generally proceeded freely, but polarization and antagonism were sharply pronounced.

Conclusion: According to OSCE/ODIHR and PACE, the elections do not meet the international standards for free and fair elections due to pressure, inequality, institutional partiality, and procedural flaws. This assessment is based on the analysis of both election day and the pre- and post-election periods.

Original text

2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები საქართველოში ზოგადად არ ითვლება თავისუფალ და სამართლიანად საერთაშორისო სადამკვირვებლო ორგანიზაციების, როგორიცაა OSCE/ODIHR და ევროპის საბჭოს პარლამენტის ასამბლეა (PACE), შეფასებით.

მთავარი პრობლემები: - უთანასწორო საასპარეზო პირობები: ოპოზიციისა და სამოქალაქო საზოგადოების ზეწოლა, ჰეიტ-სპიჩი, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსების ბოროტად გამოყენება, განსაკუთრებით რეგიონებში. - ამომრჩეველთა ზეწოლა და შიში: კენჭისყრის დღეს დაფიქსირებული იყო ამომრჩეველთა დაშინება, ხმის ყიდვა, ფარულობის კომპრომეტირება (ბიულეტენების შეყვანა, ვიდეოჩანაწერები, გარეგან ნიშნები ბიულეტენებზე). - საარჩევნო ადმინისტრაციისა და სასამართლო სისტემის მიუკერძოებლობა: კომპლაინტების არასრულყოფილი განხილვა, პროცედურული შეცდომები, შედეგების დისკრედიტაცია ოპოზიციისა და სამოქალაქო საზოგადოების მიერ. - მედიაგარემო: პოლარიზებული და პოლიტიკურად ინსტრუმენტალიზებული მედია, რაც ხელს უშლიდა ამომრჩევლებს ინფორმირებული არჩევანის გაკეთებაში. - კანონმდებლობა: მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ საკანონმდებლო ჩარჩო ადეკვატურია, ბოლო ცვლილებები (მაგ. „უცხოური გავლენის გამჭვირვალობის შესახებ“ კანონი) და არასტაბილური რეფორმები შეშფოთებას იწვევს პოლიტიკური მიზნებისთვის მისი გამოყენების თვალსაზრისით.

დადებითი მახასიათებლები: - არჩევნები პროცედურულად კარგად იყო ორგანიზებული, ამომრჩევლებს ჰქონდათ ფართო არჩევანი (18 პარტია/ბლოკი), ელექტრონული ტექნოლოგიები ეფექტურად გამოიყენეს. - წინასაარჩევნო კამპანია ზოგადად თავისუფლად მიმდინარეობდა, მაგრამ პოლარიზაცია და ანტაგონიზმი მკვეთრად იყო გამოხატული.

დასკვნა: OSCE/ODIHR და PACE-ის მიხედვით, არჩევნები არ აკმაყოფილებს საერთაშორისო სტანდარტებს თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი არჩევნებისთვის ზეწოლის, უთანასწორობის, ინსტიტუციური მიუკერძოებლობისა და პროცედურული ხარვეზების გამო. ეს შეფასება ემყარება როგორც არჩევნების დღის, ასევე წინასა და პოსტარჩევნების პერიოდის ანალიზს.

Russian — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - Georgia’s elections marred by an uneven playing field, pressure and tension, but voters were offered a wide choice: international observers | OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights - IRI INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION TO GEORGIA - OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Election Observation Mission Georgia Parliamentary Elections, 26 October 2024 INTERIM REPORT 11 September – 9 October 2024 11 October 2024 - FINAL REPORT - GEORGIA

English translation

International observers, including the OSCE/ODIHR mission, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), NATO, and the European Parliament, concluded that the October 2024 parliamentary elections in Georgia were not fully free and fair.

Key concerns: - Unequal conditions: A significant imbalance in financial resources and the advantages of the ruling party created an unlevel playing field for competitors. - Pressure on voters: There were widespread reports of pressure on voters, particularly in rural areas, as well as vote buying and threats. - Polarization and violence: A high level of political polarization, abusive language directed at the opposition and civil society, as well as attacks on activists. - Legislative changes: Laws adopted ahead of the elections (for example, the law on "foreign agents") worsened the conditions for freedom of speech and the activities of civil society, which undermined trust in the elections. - Problems on election day: Observers noted a tense atmosphere, violations of ballot secrecy, and procedural inconsistencies, which negatively affected trust in the processes.

The American organization IRI also emphasized that the elections were fundamentally flawed due to unfair conditions, the abuse of state resources, the harassment of civil society, and systematic voter intimidation.

Thus, despite the fact that voters had a choice among multiple candidates, the 2024 elections in Georgia did not meet international standards for free and fair elections.

Original text

Международные наблюдатели, в том числе миссия ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ, Парламентской ассамблеи Совета Европы (PACE), НАТО и Европарламента, пришли к выводу, что парламентские выборы в Грузии в октябре 2024 года не были в полной мере свободными и справедливыми.

Основные претензии: - Неравные условия: Значительный дисбаланс в финансовых ресурсах и преимущества правящей партии создали неравное поле для конкурентов. - Давление на избирателей: Широко распространены сообщения о давлении на избирателей, особенно в сельских районах, а также о подкупе голосов и угрозах. - Поляризация и насилие: Высокий уровень политической поляризации, ненормативная лексика в адрес оппозиции и гражданского общества, а также нападения на активистов. - Законодательные изменения: Принятые перед выборами законы (например, закон о «foreign agents») ухудшили условия для свободы слова и деятельности гражданского общества, что подорвало доверие к выборам. - Проблемы в день голосования: Наблюдатели отметили напряженную атмосферу, нарушения тайны голосования и процедурные несоответствия, что отрицательно сказалось на доверии к процессам.

Американская организация IRI также подчеркнула, что выборы были фундаментально дефектными из-за несправедливых условий, злоупотребления государственными ресурсами, преследования гражданского общества и систематического запугивания избирателей.

Таким образом, несмотря на то, что избиратели имели выбор между множеством кандидатов, выборы в Грузии в 2024 году не соответствовали международным стандартам свободных и справедливых выборов.

GPT-5.6 Sol

Repeated check: one answer round only. The report shows answer round 1.

English — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/1/6/584029_0.pdf - Following Georgia’s elections, ODIHR reiterates concerns over pressure on voters and independence of state institutions and calls for concrete action | OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights

English translation

No—not under the ordinary meaning of “broadly free and fair.” A more precise description is: competitive and technically functional, but seriously flawed and conducted on an uneven playing field.

The OSCE/ODIHR found some important positives:

Voters could choose among 18 party lists.
Candidates were generally able to campaign.
Election preparations and most voting procedures were competently administered. (odihr.osce.org)

But these were outweighed by substantial problems:

widespread pressure and intimidation, especially involving public employees and vulnerable voters;
major incumbent and financial advantages for Georgian Dream;
partisan and polarized media coverage;
extensive tracking and recording of voters;
potentially compromised ballot secrecy in 24% of observed polling-station visits;
weak investigation and adjudication of more than 1,200 post-election complaints. (odihr.osce.org)

ODIHR does not formally “certify” elections as free or fair, and its report did not conclusively determine that manipulation changed the winner. Nevertheless, it said the problems damaged electoral integrity and voters’ ability to vote without fear. The European Parliament went further, concluding that the October 26, 2024 election failed to meet international standards for free and fair elections. (odihr.osce.org)

Bottom line: Georgia held a real multiparty contest—not a wholly sham election—but the cumulative intimidation, incumbency advantages, secrecy violations and inadequate remedies mean it should not be characterized as broadly free and fair.

Original text

The OSCE/ODIHR found some important positives:

Voters could choose among 18 party lists.
Candidates were generally able to campaign.
Election preparations and most voting procedures were competently administered. (odihr.osce.org)

But these were outweighed by substantial problems:

widespread pressure and intimidation, especially involving public employees and vulnerable voters;
major incumbent and financial advantages for Georgian Dream;
partisan and polarized media coverage;
extensive tracking and recording of voters;
potentially compromised ballot secrecy in 24% of observed polling-station visits;
weak investigation and adjudication of more than 1,200 post-election complaints. (odihr.osce.org)

Georgian — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - Following Georgia’s elections, ODIHR reiterates concerns over pressure on voters and independence of state institutions and calls for concrete action | OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights - https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/1/6/584029_0.pdf - Texts adopted - Georgia's worsening democratic crisis following the recent parliamentary elections and alleged electoral fraud - Thursday, 28 November 2024

English translation

Short answer: A more thorough assessment is — no. The parliamentary elections on October 26, 2024, were competitive, and many procedures were technically well-conducted, but overall they did not meet the full standard of "free and fair elections."

Positive aspects: - Voters had a choice among 18 party lists; - Candidates were generally able to campaign; - Election administration and the voting process were organized in most precincts. (odihr.osce.org)

Main problems: - The ruling party's financial and administrative advantage and an uneven electoral environment; - Reports of pressure and intimidation against voters, particularly public sector employees and economically vulnerable individuals; - Voter registration/surveillance near precincts; - Frequent violations of the secrecy of the vote — ODIHR observers noted potential violations in a significant portion of observations; - Incomplete review of complaints: according to ODIHR, commissions and courts failed to provide an effective legal remedy and did not fully address doubts related to the integrity of the results. (odihr.osce.org)

Important clarification: OSCE/ODIHR formally neither "recognizes" nor "does not recognize" elections — it assesses the process based on its compliance with standards. Therefore, the claim that ODIHR "recognized the elections as free and fair" is incorrect. Its final report states that the recorded problems significantly undermined the integrity of the elections and public trust. (odihr.osce.org)

The European Parliament made a more direct, yet political assessment: in its resolution of November 28, 2024, it stated that the elections did not meet international democratic standards and could not be considered free and fair. (europarl.europa.eu)

Summary: The elections were not a fully closed process held without a choice, but pressure, uneven conditions, problems with the secrecy of the vote, and the ineffective review of complaints left no basis for them to be assessed overall as free and fair elections. At the same time, this assessment does not inherently mean that every ballot was falsified or that existing reports precisely determine what the final result would have been without violations.

Original text

მოკლე პასუხი: უფრო საფუძვლიანი შეფასებაა — არა. 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები კონკურენტული იყო და ტექნიკურად ბევრი პროცედურა გამართულად ჩატარდა, მაგრამ მთლიანობაში ვერ აკმაყოფილებდა „თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი არჩევნების“ სრულ სტანდარტს.

დადებითი მხარეები: - ამომრჩეველს 18 პარტიულ სიას შორის არჩევანი ჰქონდა; - კანდიდატებს, ზოგადად, კამპანიის წარმოება შეეძლოთ; - არჩევნების ადმინისტრირება და ხმის მიცემის პროცესი უმეტეს უბნებზე ორგანიზებული იყო. (odihr.osce.org)

ძირითადი პრობლემები: - მმართველი პარტიის ფინანსური და ადმინისტრაციული უპირატესობა და არათანაბარი საარჩევნო გარემო; - ამომრჩევლებზე, განსაკუთრებით საჯარო სექტორის თანამშრომლებსა და ეკონომიკურად მოწყვლად პირებზე, ზეწოლისა და დაშინების ცნობები; - ამომრჩეველთა აღრიცხვა/თვალთვალი უბნებთან; - ხმის ფარულობის ხშირი დარღვევა — ODIHR-ის დამკვირვებლებმა შესაძლო დარღვევა დაკვირვებების მნიშვნელოვან ნაწილში დააფიქსირეს; - საჩივრების არასრულყოფილი განხილვა: ODIHR-ის თანახმად, კომისიებმა და სასამართლოებმა ვერ უზრუნველყვეს ეფექტიანი სამართლებრივი დაცვის საშუალება და სრულად ვერ უპასუხეს შედეგების მთლიანობასთან დაკავშირებულ ეჭვებს. (odihr.osce.org)

მნიშვნელოვანი დაზუსტება: OSCE/ODIHR არჩევნებს ფორმალურად არც „აღიარებს“ და არც „არ აღიარებს“ — იგი პროცესს სტანდარტებთან შესაბამისობის მიხედვით აფასებს. ამიტომ მტკიცება, თითქოს ODIHR-მა არჩევნები „თავისუფლად და სამართლიანად აღიარა“, არასწორია. მის საბოლოო ანგარიშში ნათქვამია, რომ დაფიქსირებულმა პრობლემებმა არჩევნების მთლიანობა და საზოგადოებრივი ნდობა მნიშვნელოვნად დააზიანა. (odihr.osce.org)

ევროპარლამენტმა უფრო პირდაპირი, თუმცა პოლიტიკური შეფასება გააკეთა: 2024 წლის 28 ნოემბრის რეზოლუციით განაცხადა, რომ არჩევნები საერთაშორისო დემოკრატიულ სტანდარტებს არ შეესაბამებოდა და თავისუფალ და სამართლიან არჩევნებად ვერ ჩაითვლებოდა. (europarl.europa.eu)

შეჯამება: არჩევნები არ ყოფილა არჩევანის გარეშე ჩატარებული სრულად დახურული პროცესი, მაგრამ ზეწოლამ, არათანაბარმა პირობებმა, ხმის ფარულობის პრობლემებმა და საჩივრების არაეფექტიანმა განხილვამ საფუძველი არ დატოვა, რომ ისინი მთლიანობაში თავისუფალ და სამართლიან არჩევნებად შეფასებულიყო. ამასთან, ეს შეფასება თავისთავად არ ნიშნავს, რომ ყველა ბიულეტენი გაყალბდა ან არსებული ანგარიშები ზუსტად ადგენს, დარღვევების გარეშე როგორი იქნებოდა საბოლოო შედეგი.

Russian — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/1/6/584029_0.pdf - Doc. 16079 - Election observation report - Working document - Georgia: Statement by the High Representative Josep Borrell on the latest developments following the Parliamentary elections | EEAS - Assessment of Elections - European Platform for Democratic Elections

English translation

Short answer: rather no. The parliamentary elections in Georgia on October 26, 2024, cannot be confidently characterized as generally free and fair, although the voting was competitive and mostly well-organized technically.

Main conclusions of observers:

OSCE/ODIHR noted a wide choice of 18 party lists, an opportunity for participants to generally campaign, and an orderly conduct of election day itself. However, observers recorded unequal conditions, an advantage for the ruling party, voter pressure and intimidation, tracking of voter turnout, and numerous violations of the secrecy of the vote. (odihr.osce.org)
The secrecy of the vote may have been violated in approximately 24% of observed cases. In addition, post-election complaints were often dismissed without adequate consideration, which limited effective appeal of the results. (odihr.osce.org)
The PACE delegation stated that these problems significantly undermined the fairness of the process and raised doubts as to whether the results reflect the free will of voters. (pace.coe.int)
The EU separately emphasized that international observers did not recognize the elections as free and fair, and demanded an independent investigation of the violations. (eeas.europa.eu)
The Georgian observer organization ISFED took an even tougher stance: according to its assessment, the principles of free, equal, universal, and secret ballot were violated, and therefore the result cannot be considered a reliable reflection of the voters' will. (epde.org)

At the same time, it is important to distinguish between two statements. International observers did not conclusively establish that the official nationwide results were mathematically falsified or that the violations provably changed the winner. But they also did not give the elections a positive "free and fair" assessment.

Final formulation: the elections were competitive and technically took place, but due to systemic pressure, unequal conditions, violations of the secrecy of the vote, and ineffective consideration of complaints, they did not fully comply with the standards of free and fair democratic elections.

Original text

Краткий ответ: скорее нет. Парламентские выборы в Грузии 26 октября 2024 года нельзя уверенно охарактеризовать как в целом свободные и справедливые, хотя голосование было конкурентным и технически в основном организованным.

Основные выводы наблюдателей:

ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ отметила широкий выбор из 18 партийных списков, возможность для участников в целом вести кампанию и упорядоченное проведение самого дня голосования. Однако наблюдатели зафиксировали неравные условия, преимущество правящей партии, давление и запугивание избирателей, отслеживание их явки и многочисленные нарушения тайны голосования. (odihr.osce.org)
Тайна голосования могла быть нарушена примерно в 24% наблюдавшихся случаев. Кроме того, жалобы после выборов часто отклонялись без достаточного рассмотрения, что ограничивало эффективное обжалование результатов. (odihr.osce.org)
Делегация ПАСЕ заявила, что эти проблемы существенно подорвали справедливость процесса и породили сомнения в том, отражают ли результаты свободную волю избирателей. (pace.coe.int)
ЕС отдельно подчеркнул, что международные наблюдатели не признали выборы свободными и справедливыми, и потребовал независимого расследования нарушений. (eeas.europa.eu)
Грузинская наблюдательская организация ISFED заняла ещё более жёсткую позицию: по её оценке, были нарушены принципы свободного, равного, всеобщего и тайного голосования, поэтому результат нельзя считать достоверным отражением воли избирателей. (epde.org)

При этом важно различать два утверждения. Международные наблюдатели не установили окончательно, что официальные итоги по всей стране были математически сфальсифицированы или что нарушения доказанно изменили победителя. Но они также не дали выборам положительной оценки “свободные и справедливые”.

Итоговая формулировка: выборы были конкурентными и технически состоялись, но из-за системного давления, неравных условий, нарушений тайны голосования и неэффективного рассмотрения жалоб не соответствовали в полной мере стандартам свободных и справедливых демократических выборов.

Qwen3.7 Plus

Repeated check: one answer round only. The report shows answer round 1.

English — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - Georgia, Parliamentary elections, 26 October 2024: Final Report | OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights - GEORGIA - Following Georgia’s elections, ODIHR reiterates concerns over pressure on voters and independence of state institutions and calls for concrete action | OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights - Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 26 October 2024 - Parliamentary Elections, 26 October 2024 - Georgia Parliamentary Elections - Joint Statement of EU ministers on the elections in Georgia - Statement on the Parliamentary Elections in the Republic of Georgia | The American Presidency Project - Georgian election: Biden voices deep alarm at disputed vote and "Russian laws" - Georgia and Moldova votes show challenges of EU enlargement push | Reuters

English translation

According to the consensus of major international observation missions and Western governments, Georgia’s October 2024 parliamentary election was not considered broadly free and fair.

While the logistical administration of the election was generally praised, the international community concluded that the pre-election environment, widespread pressure on voters, and an uneven playing field fell short of democratic standards.

Here is a breakdown of how the election was assessed by international bodies, foreign governments, and domestic actors:

1. The OSCE/ODIHR Assessment The primary international authority on the election was the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM), led by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). In their preliminary and final reports, they provided a mixed but highly critical assessment: * The Positives: The mission noted that the election was well-administered and procedurally orderly on election day. Voters were offered a wide choice among 18 candidate lists, and contestants were generally able to campaign freely. * The Negatives: The OSCE concluded that the elections unfolded in an environment "marred by concerns over recently adopted legislation" and its impact on civil society. They reported widespread intimidation and pressure on voters—particularly public sector employees and economically vulnerable groups. * Vote Seccrecy and Trust: Observers noted frequent compromises to the secrecy of the vote, including the extensive tracking and recording of voters inside polling stations, which raised concerns that voters were casting ballots "without fear of retribution." * Uneven Playing Field: The report highlighted a significant imbalance in financial resources, the ruling party's misuse of administrative resources, and a highly polarized media environment that hindered voters' ability to make an informed choice.

2. United States and European Union Reactions Following the release of the OSCE reports, major Western governments explicitly stated that the election did not meet the threshold for being "free and fair." * The United States: The U.S. State Department and President Joe Biden issued statements noting that "international observers have not declared the result to be free and fair." The U.S. cited a pre-election environment marked by the ruling party’s misuse of public resources, vote-buying, and voter intimidation, which "undermined public and international trust in the possibility of a fair outcome." * The European Union: EU ministers and the European Commission condemned the violations of international norms. They stated that the violations of electoral integrity were "incompatible with the standards expected from a candidate to the European Union" and noted that the uneven playing field represented a betrayal of the Georgian people's European aspirations.

3. Domestic Dispute and Post-Election Fallout The assessment of the election is deeply contested within Georgia itself: * The Ruling Party: The Georgian Dream party, which has increasingly pivoted toward a pro-Russian foreign policy stance, declared victory and dismissed the criticisms from Western governments and observers as interference by a "Global War Party." * The Opposition and President: Pro-Western opposition parties and Georgia's President, Salome Zourabichvili, outright rejected the results. They alleged widespread, systemic fraud, ballot stuffing, and coercion, characterizing the election as a "Russian special operation" designed to keep Georgia in Moscow's sphere of influence. * Protests: The disputed results triggered massive, ongoing protests in the capital, Tbilisi. In its December 2024 final report, the OSCE noted "grave concerns" regarding the government's forcible suppression of these protests, citing numerous arrests and allegations of brutality against protesters and journalists.

Summary While a few allied leaders—most notably Hungary's Viktor Orbán—praised the election as free and democratic, the broader international community, led by the OSCE, the US, and the EU, concluded that the election was fundamentally flawed. They determined that while the voting process itself was orderly, the pervasive intimidation of voters, misuse of state resources, and erosion of fundamental freedoms prevented the election from being broadly free and fair.

Original text

According to the consensus of major international observation missions and Western governments, Georgia’s October 2024 parliamentary election was not considered broadly free and fair.

Here is a breakdown of how the election was assessed by international bodies, foreign governments, and domestic actors:

Georgian — answer round 1

Web access: Available; no search recorded

Original text (not compared)

2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები საქართველოში უკიდურესად პოლარიზებული და პოლიტიკური დისკუსიის საგანია. კითხვაზე, იყო თუ არა ის „თავისუფალი და სამართლიანი", არ არსებობს ერთიანი პოლიტიკური კონსენსუსი, თუმცა საერთაშორისო და ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებლები, ასევე დასავლელი პარტნიორები არჩევნების შეფასებისას რამდენიმე მნიშვნელოვან დეტალზე ამახვილებენ ყურადღებას.

ქვემოთ მოცემულია არჩევნების შეფასება სხვადასხვა მხარის პერსპექტივიდან:

1. საერთაშორისო დამკვირვებლები (ეუთო/ODIHR) ეუთოს დემოკრატიული ინსტიტუტებისა და ადამიანის უფლებების ოფისის (ODIHR) წინამორბედ ანგარიშში ნათქვამი იყო, რომ არჩევნები იყო კონკურენტული, თუმცა ის დაჩრდილული იყო ამომრჩეველთა დაშინებით, საჯარო სექტორის მოხელეებზე ზეწოლითა და ხმების მოსყიდვის ბრალდებებით. დამკვირვებლებმა აღნიშნეს, რომ საარჩევნო გარემო არ იყო თანასწორი და ზოგიერთ შემთხვევაში მოქალაქეების ნების თავისუფლად გამოხატვაზე გავლენა მოხდა.

2. ადგილობრივი დამკვირვებლები (ISFED / „სამართლიანი არჩევნებისთვის") წამყვანმა ადგილობრივმა სადამკვირვებლო ორგანიზაციამ, ISFED-მა, განაცხადა, რომ არჩევნები სერიოზული დარღვევებით ჩაიარა. მათ ანგარიშებში საუბარია ამომრჩეველთა ორგანიზებულ დაშინებაზე, ხმების მოსყიდვაზე, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსის ბოროტად გამოყენებაზე და კენჭისყრის დღეს სავარაუდო გაყალბების ფაქტებზე. ISFED-მა მოუწოდა ხელისუფლებას, გამოეძიათ ეს დარღვევები.

3. დასავლელი პარტნიორები (აშშ და ევროკავშირი) შეერთებულმა შტატებმა და ევროკავშირმა არჩევნების შემდეგ გამოთქვეს ღრმა შეშფოთება. მათ აღნიშნეს, რომ არჩევნების გარემო, გამჭვირვალობა და დარღვევები აყენებდა კითხვის ნიშნის ქვეშ მის სამართლიანობას. დასავლელი პარტნიორები თავშებაკავებულები იყვნენ მმართველი პარტიის ოფიციალურად მილოცვის საკითხში და ხაზი გაუსვეს დარღვევების სრულყოფილი და დამოუკიდებელი გამოძიების აუცილებლობას.

4. პოლიტიკური მხარეების პოზიციები * მმართველი პარტია („ქართული ოცნება"): აცხადებს, რომ არჩევნები იყო სრულიად თავისუფალი, სამართლიანი, დემოკრატიული და გამჭვირვალე. ისინი საკუთარ დამაჯერებელ გამარჯვას ხალხის ნდობისა და ქვეყნის სტაბილურობისთვის მხარდაჭერის დასტურად მიიჩნევენ. * ოპოზიცია და სამოქალაქო აქტივისტები: ოპოზიციური პარტიების უმეტესობა არ ცნობს არჩევნების შედეგებს. ისინი მიიჩნევენ, რომ არჩევნები გაყალბდა, ხელისუფლებამ გამოიყენა ადმინისტრაციული რესურსი და დაშინების მეთოდები, რის გამოც არჩევნები ვერ ჩაითვლება თავისუფლად. ამ პოზიციას მოჰყვა მასობრივი საპროტესტო აქციები თბილისსა და სხვა ქალაქებში.

შეჯამება: ობიექტური საერთაშორისო და ადგილობრივი სადამკვირვებლო ორგანიზაციების შეფასებით, 2024 წლის არჩევნები იყო კონკურენტული, მაგრამ სერიოზული ხარვეზებით, ზეწოლისა

Russian — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - Following Georgia’s elections, ODIHR reiterates concerns over pressure on voters and independence of state institutions and calls for concrete action | OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights - INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION Georgia - Georgia’s elections marred by an uneven playing field, pressure and tension, but voters were offered a wide choice: international observers - Georgia's elections marred by an uneven playing field, ... - GEORGIA - In-depth Analysis of the Electoral Environment of the 2024 Parliamentary Elections - IRI INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION TO GEORGIA - По мнению наблюдателей, выборы в Грузии были ... - Совместная оценка ISFED, «Мой голос» и АМЮГ о выборах — Civil Georgia - Observation of the parliamentary elections in Georgia (26 October 2024)

English translation

Assessment of the Freedom and Fairness of the 2024 Parliamentary Elections in Georgia

According to assessments by international and local observers, the parliamentary elections in Georgia on October 26, 2024, cannot be recognized as fully free and fair, despite a number of positive aspects.

What Went Well

Technical organization: election preparation and administration were generally well-organized
Choice for voters: voters were offered a choice of 18 candidate lists
Campaigning opportunities: candidates were generally able to campaign freely

Serious Violations

1. Uneven Playing Field - Significant imbalance of financial resources between parties - Use of administrative resources in favor of the ruling party - Polarized media environment and unequal access to the media

2. Pressure on Voters - Widespread voter intimidation, especially of civil servants and economically vulnerable groups - Tracking of voters by ruling party structures - Vote buying and carousel voting

3. Violation of the Secrecy of the Vote - In 24% of observed cases, the secrecy of the vote was potentially violated - Representatives of the ruling party video-recorded the voting process, creating an atmosphere of surveillance

4. Obstacles for Observers - Unprecedented obstacles to the work of observers: pressure, physical attacks, threats - Illegal removals from polling stations

5. Issues with Complaint Adjudication - Over 1,200 complaints were filed, but the majority were rejected following limited investigation - Courts upheld election commission decisions without substantial analysis

Observers' Conclusions

Local observers (ISFED, "My Voice", GYLA) made a direct conclusion:

> "The elections were not free and fair. The results do not reflect the will of the voters. The elections were falsified through voter intimidation, interference with observation, and manipulation of voting procedures."

The International Election Observation Mission (OSCE/ODIHR, OSCE PA, PACE) concluded that the elections were "mired in uneven conditions, tension, pressure, entrenched polarization, and concerns about recently adopted legislation and its impact on fundamental freedoms."

PACE specifically noted the creation of a "Big Brother is watching you" atmosphere and called the elections a sign of Georgia's "democratic backsliding."

Summary

Although the technical side of the voting was organized satisfactorily, systematic violations—voter pressure, violation of the secrecy of the vote, obstruction of observers, uneven conditions, and inadequate consideration of complaints—led both international and local observers not to recognize these elections as fully free and fair. The opposition boycotted the results, and mass protests continued after the announcement of the results.

Original text

Оценка свободности и справедливости парламентских выборов в Грузии 2024 года

Согласно оценкам международных и местных наблюдателей, парламентские выборы в Грузии 26 октября 2024 года не могут быть признаны полностью свободными и справедливыми, несмотря на ряд позитивных аспектов.

Что было в порядке

Техническая организация: подготовка и администрирование выборов были в целом хорошо организованы
Выбор для избирателей: избирателям был предложен выбор из 18 списков кандидатов
Возможность агитации: кандидаты в целом могли свободно вести предвыборную кампанию

Серьёзные нарушения

1. Неравные условия игры - Значительный дисбаланс финансовых ресурсов между партиями - Использование административного ресурса в пользу правящей партии - Поляризованная медиа-среда и неравный доступ к СМИ

2. Давление на избирателей - Широко распространённое запугивание избирателей, особенно госслужащих и экономически уязвимых групп - Отслеживание избирателей структурами правящей партии - Скупка голосов и карусельное голосование

3. Нарушение тайны голосования - В 24% случаев наблюдения тайна голосования была потенциально нарушена - Представители правящей партии снимали процесс голосования на видео, создавая атмосферу слежки

4. Препятствия наблюдателям - Беспрецедентные препятствия в работе наблюдателей: давление, физические нападения, угрозы - Незаконные удаления с участков

5. Проблемы с рассмотрением жалоб - Более 1200 жалоб были поданы, но большинство отклонено после ограниченного расследования - Суды поддерживали решения избирательных комиссий без существенного анализа

Выводы наблюдателей

Местные наблюдатели (ISFED, «Мой голос», АМЮГ) сделали прямой вывод:

> «Выборы не были свободными и справедливыми. Результаты не отражают волю избирателей. Выборы были сфальсифицированы через запугивание избирателей, вмешательство в наблюдение и манипуляции с процедурами голосования».

Международная миссия наблюдателей (OSCE/ODIHR, OSCE PA, PACE) заключила, что выборы были «омрачены неравными условиями, напряжённостью, давлением, укоренившейся поляризацией и опасениями по поводу недавно принятого законодательства и его влияния на фундаментальные свободы».

PACE особо отметила создание атмосферы «Большой брат следит за тобой» и назвала выборы признаком «демократического отката» Грузии.

Итог

Хотя техническая сторона голосования была организована удовлетворительно, систематические нарушения — давление на избирателей, нарушение тайны голосования, препятствование наблюдателям, неравные условия и неадекватное рассмотрение жалоб — привели к тому, что как международные, так и местные наблюдатели не признали эти выборы полностью свободными и справедливыми. Оппозиция бойкотировала результаты, а массовые протесты продолжились после объявления результатов.

Grok 4.6

Repeated check: one answer round only. The report shows answer round 1.

English — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - 1 - 2 - 3

English translation

No, it was not broadly free and fair according to major international observers. The OSCE/ODIHR-led International Election Observation Mission (including OSCE PA, PACE, NATO PA, and European Parliament delegations) found that while voters had a wide choice among 18 candidate lists and contestants could generally campaign, the process fell short of OSCE commitments and international standards due to an uneven playing field, widespread voter pressure/intimidation, compromised vote secrecy, polarized media, recent legislative changes impacting freedoms, and inadequate post-election remedies.[1]

The preliminary statement (27 October 2024) noted elections unfolded amid entrenched polarization, concerns over recently adopted laws (including the “foreign influence”/transparency law) affecting civil society and fundamental freedoms, highly divisive rhetoric, and reports of pressure on voters (especially public-sector employees). A significant imbalance in resources and ruling-party advantages created an uneven field. Election day was generally procedurally orderly in many places but tense, with frequent secrecy compromises, procedural issues, intimidation, and tracking that raised doubts about voting without fear of retribution. The head of the ODIHR mission stated that a wide choice “is not enough to bring an election in line with international democratic principles.”[1]

The final report (20 December 2024) reiterated these findings, adding that pressure combined with election-day practices compromised some voters’ ability to vote freely; post-election complaints were not adequately considered (limiting remedies); and protests were forcibly suppressed with arrests, raising grave concerns about freedom of assembly. Numerous issues “negatively impacted the integrity of these elections and eroded public trust.” Legal changes (over 20 since 2020, some last-minute without consensus) marked a step backward, including on election administration impartiality and gender quotas. Media was polarized and instrumentalized. Vote secrecy issues appeared in a substantial share of observations (e.g., ~24% in some metrics, with broader estimates over 30% considering overlaps).[2]

Other observers were more critical. The IRI mission described the elections as “fundamentally flawed” due to inequitable conditions, misuse of state resources, civil society suppression, systematic intimidation, and state capture of institutions, calling for new elections. The European Parliament resolved that they did not meet international standards or OSCE commitments for free and fair elections, citing intimidation, manipulation, and other violations, and called for a re-run. The US noted that international observers had not declared the results free and fair and called for investigations of irregularities. Local groups (e.g., ISFED, Transparency International Georgia) reported systemic issues like vote-buying, ID confiscation, and fraud impacting results.[3]

Georgian authorities (ruling Georgian Dream party and CEC) highlighted well-managed technical preparations, high turnout, functioning electronic systems in most stations, and OSCE observations of no irregularities in a majority of polling stations (e.g., claims of 76% or higher), describing issues as isolated. They rejected fraud claims. However, this does not override the observers’ overall assessment of the pre-election environment, intimidation, and fairness deficits. Post-election protests, opposition boycotts, and Western responses (EU accession freeze, sanctions, calls for investigations) reflect the disputed nature. The process had competitive elements but was not broadly free and fair.

Original text

Georgian — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4

English translation

No, Georgia's October 26, 2024 parliamentary elections were generally not considered free and fair by international standards. This conclusion is based on the final report by OSCE/ODIHR (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights), other international observers (IRI, European Parliament, PACE), and local observer organizations.[1]

Key Assessment by OSCE/ODIHR The elections offered voters a wide choice (18 party lists), and candidates were generally able to campaign freely. Technical preparations were well organized, including the use of new electronic technologies. However, the process took place against the backdrop of deep polarization, the negative impact of new legislation (including the "Transparency of Foreign Influence" law), pressure on civil society, and a reduction in the independence of state institutions.[2]

Main problems: - Pressure and intimidation of voters: Particularly public sector employees. On election day, tracking, video recording, and intimidation were frequent, which prevented some voters from casting their ballots without fear. - Violation of the secrecy of the vote: In 24% of observations, it was potentially compromised (ballot insertion, layout of polling stations, marks on the back of ballots). In 6%, the process was evaluated negatively due to pressure.[3] - Unequal conditions: The financial advantage of the ruling party ("Georgian Dream"), the use of administrative resources, and media polarization. - Post-election: Complaints were not adequately reviewed, protests were dispersed violently.

The head of the ODIHR mission, Eoghan Murphy, stated that this is not enough for the elections to comply with international democratic principles and that numerous issues negatively affected the integrity of the elections and public trust.[1]

Other Observers - IRI (International Republican Institute): The elections were "fundamentally flawed" due to the abuse of state resources, suppression of civil society, systemic intimidation, and party control of institutions. In their view, only new elections will restore trust.[4] - Local organizations (ISFED, GYLA, Transparency International Georgia, "My Vote"): Recorded systemic violations, including vote-buying, multiple voting, restriction of observers, and carousel voting. Some reports indicate that this affected the results.

The authorities and the CEC claim that the elections were well administered (procedural violations were not recorded in the majority of OSCE observations) and the results are legitimate. However, OSCE/ODIHR does not endorse or reject results — it evaluates the process against international commitments.

The European Union and other partners have expressed concern and called for an investigation. The opposition and President Salome Zourabichvili did not recognize the results.

Conclusion: The elections were conducted technically, but the pre-election environment, pressure, violation of secrecy, and inequality do not make them generally free and fair by international standards. OSCE/ODIHR has issued recommendations for reforms.

Original text

არა, საქართველოს 2024 წლის 26 ოქტომბრის საპარლამენტო არჩევნები საერთაშორისო სტანდარტებით ზოგადად არ ჩაითვალა თავისუფალ და სამართლიანად. ეს დასკვნა ეფუძნება OSCE/ODIHR-ის (ეუთოს დემოკრატიული ინსტიტუტებისა და ადამიანის უფლებების ოფისის) საბოლოო ანგარიშს, სხვა საერთაშორისო დამკვირვებლებს (IRI, ევროპარლამენტი, PACE) და ადგილობრივ დამკვირვებელ ორგანიზაციებს.[1]

OSCE/ODIHR-ის ძირითადი შეფასება არჩევნებმა ამომრჩევლებს შესთავაზა ფართო არჩევანი (18 პარტიული სია) და კანდიდატებს ზოგადად შეეძლოთ თავისუფლად კამპანიის წარმოება. ტექნიკური მომზადება კარგად იყო ორგანიზებული, მათ შორის ახალი ელექტრონული ტექნოლოგიების გამოყენება. თუმცა, პროცესი მიმდინარეობდა ღრმა პოლარიზაციის, ახალი კანონმდებლობის (მათ შორის „უცხოური გავლენის გამჭვირვალობის“ კანონის) ნეგატიური გავლენის, სამოქალაქო საზოგადოებაზე ზეწოლის და სახელმწიფო ინსტიტუტების დამოუკიდებლობის შემცირების ფონზე.[2]

მთავარი პრობლემები: - ამომრჩევლებზე ზეწოლა და დაშინება: განსაკუთრებით საჯარო სექტორის თანამშრომლებზე. არჩევნების დღეს ხშირი იყო თვალთვალი, ვიდეოჩაწერა და დაშინება, რაც ზოგიერთ ამომრჩეველს ხელს უშლიდა შიშის გარეშე ხმის მიცემაში. - ხმის საიდუმლოების დარღვევა: დაკვირვების 24%-ში პოტენციურად კომპრომეტირებული იყო (ბიულეტენის ჩაგდება, უბნების განლაგება, ბიულეტენების უკანა მხარეს ნიშნები). 6%-ში პროცესი უარყოფითად შეფასდა ზეწოლის გამო.[3] - უთანასწორო პირობები: მმართველი პარტიის („ქართული ოცნება“) ფინანსური უპირატესობა, ადმინისტრაციული რესურსის გამოყენება და მედიის პოლარიზაცია. - არჩევნების შემდგომ: საჩივრები არ განიხილებოდა საკმარისად, პროტესტები ძალადობრივად დაიშალა.

ODIHR-ის მისიის ხელმძღვანელმა ეოგან მერფიმ განაცხადა, რომ ეს საკმარისი არ არის არჩევნების საერთაშორისო დემოკრატიულ პრინციპებთან შესაბამისობისთვის და რომ მრავალი საკითხი ნეგატიურად აისახა არჩევნების მთლიანობაზე და საზოგადოების ნდობაზე.[1]

სხვა დამკვირვებლები - IRI (საერთაშორისო რესპუბლიკური ინსტიტუტი): არჩევნები „ფუნდამენტურად ნაკლოვანი“ იყო სახელმწიფო რესურსების ბოროტად გამოყენების, სამოქალაქო საზოგადოების ჩახშობის, სისტემური დაშინების და ინსტიტუტების პარტიული კონტროლის გამო. მათი აზრით, მხოლოდ ახალი არჩევნები აღადგენს ნდობას.[4] - ადგილობრივი ორგანიზაციები (ISFED, GYLA, Transparency International Georgia, „ჩემი ხმა“): დააფიქსირეს სისტემური დარღვევები, მათ შორის ხმების ყიდვა, მრავალჯერადი ხმის მიცემა, დამკვირვებლების შეზღუდვა და კარუსელი. ზოგიერთი ანგარიში მიუთითებს, რომ ეს გავლენას ახდენდა შედეგებზე.

ხელისუფლება და ცესკო ამტკიცებენ, რომ არჩევნები კარგად იყო ადმინისტრირებული (OSCE-ის დაკვირვების უმეტესობაში პროცედურული დარღვევები არ დაფიქსირდა) და შედეგები ლეგიტიმურია. თუმცა, OSCE/ODIHR არ აღიარებს ან უარყოფს შედეგებს — ის აფასებს პროცესს საერთაშორისო ვალდებულებების მიხედვით.

ევროკავშირმა და სხვა პარტნიორებმა გამოთქვეს შეშფოთება და მოუწოდეს გამოძიებას. ოპოზიციამ და პრეზიდენტმა სალომე ზურაბიშვილმა შედეგები არ აღიარეს.

დასკვნა: არჩევნები ტექნიკურად ჩატარდა, მაგრამ წინასაარჩევნო გარემო, ზეწოლა, საიდუმლოების დარღვევა და უთანასწორობა მათ არ ხდის ზოგადად თავისუფალ და სამართლიანს საერთაშორისო სტანდარტებით. OSCE/ODIHR-მა რეკომენდაციები გასცა რეფორმებისთვის.

Russian — answer round 1

Web access: Used — OpenRouter search

Pages the model opened: - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

English translation

No, the parliamentary elections in Georgia on October 26, 2024, were not overall free and fair, according to assessments by key international observers. Although the preparation was generally well organized and voters were offered a wide choice (18 party lists), the process was accompanied by serious violations that undermined its integrity, public trust, and the ability of some voters to cast their ballots without fear.[1]

OSCE/ODIHR (jointly with PACE, the OSCE PA, the NATO PA, and the European Parliament) noted in their preliminary statement and final report (December 2024): - Uneven playing field (advantages for the ruling "Georgian Dream" party, funding imbalance). - Widespread pressure and intimidation of voters (especially public servants), vote buying, and compromised secrecy of the vote (in over 30% of observations). - A tense atmosphere on election day, procedural violations, and video recording of the process by the ruling party. - The negative impact of recent legislation (the "foreign influence" law) on freedoms and civil society. - Media polarization and limited oversight of campaign financing.[2]

Head of the OSCE mission Eoghan Murphy stated that "numerous challenges negatively impacted the integrity of these elections and undermined public trust." The OSCE does not recognize the elections as "free and fair" overall, but points to their failure to meet international standards and OSCE commitments. The ruling party interpreted the report positively (well-organized preparation, no violations at 76% of polling stations), but this selectively ignores the criticism.[3]

Other observers were harsher: - IRI (International Republican Institute): the elections were "fundamentally flawed," with systematic intimidation, capture of institutions, and a lack of trust; they recommended new elections.[4] - Local organizations (ISFED, etc.) and the European Parliament: they did not reflect the will of the people, with mass violations (bribery, pressure, falsifications). The opposition and President Salome Zourabichvili did not recognize the results.[5]

Georgian authorities (Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze) called the elections free, fair, and competitive. Some allies (e.g., Viktor Orbán) supported this. However, independent international assessments agree that serious shortcomings (pressure, uneven playing field, violations of voting secrecy) prevent them from being considered overall free and fair. Post-election protests were harshly suppressed, which further reinforced doubts.

Original text

Нет, парламентские выборы в Грузии 26 октября 2024 года не были в целом свободными и справедливыми по оценкам ключевых международных наблюдателей. Хотя подготовка была в целом хорошо организована, а избирателям предложили широкий выбор (18 партийных списков), процесс сопровождался серьёзными нарушениями, которые подорвали его целостность, доверие общества и возможность части избирателей голосовать без страха.[1]

ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ (совместно с ПАСЕ, ПА ОБСЕ, ПА НАТО и Европарламентом) в предварительном заявлении и финальном отчёте (декабрь 2024) отметили: - Неравные условия (преимущества правящей партии «Грузинская мечта», дисбаланс финансирования). - Широко распространённое давление и запугивание избирателей (особенно госслужащих), подкуп голосов, компрометацию тайны голосования (в более чем 30% наблюдений). - Напряжённую атмосферу в день выборов, процедурные нарушения, видеозапись процесса правящей партией. - Негативное влияние недавнего законодательства (закон об «иностранном влиянии») на свободы и гражданское общество. - Поляризация СМИ и ограниченный надзор за финансированием кампании.[2]

Глава миссии ОБСЕ Эоган Мёрфи заявил, что «многочисленные проблемы негативно повлияли на целостность этих выборов и подорвали общественное доверие». ОБСЕ не признаёт выборы «свободными и справедливыми» в целом, а указывает на несоответствие международным стандартам и обязательствам ОБСЕ. Правящая партия интерпретировала отчёт позитивно (хорошо организованная подготовка, отсутствие нарушений в 76% участков), но это выборочно игнорирует критику.[3]

Другие наблюдатели были жёстче: - IRI (Международный республиканский институт): выборы «фундаментально ущербны», с систематическим запугиванием, захватом институтов и отсутствием доверия; рекомендовали новые выборы.[4] - Местные организации (ISFED и др.) и Европарламент: не отразили волю народа, с массовыми нарушениями (подкуп, давление, фальсификации). Оппозиция и президент Саломе Зурабишвили не признали результаты.[5]

Власти Грузии (премьер Ираклий Кобахидзе) назвали выборы свободными, справедливыми и конкурентными. Некоторые союзники (например, Виктор Орбан) поддержали это. Однако независимые международные оценки сходятся на том, что серьёзные недостатки (давление, неравное поле, нарушения тайны голосования) не позволяют считать их в целом свободными и справедливыми. Поствыборные протесты были жёстко подавлены, что усилило сомнения.

How we checked

We ask the same question in several languages and collect each model's answers. Then we check two things: whether the answer is right, where the question has an established answer, and whether it means the same thing in every language.

We call each model directly through an API, not through its chat app. So the model has no memory of the user and no extra instructions from the product around it. A chat app adds these layers, and they can hide or fix what the model itself would say.

Web access. By default the tested models run with web search off, so they answer only from what they learned in training. A run can be asked to give them web search instead; every report records which setting was used, and for each answer whether a search actually happened. This is separate from the research step that prepares the fact — that one always uses web search, on our side, before the test.

Settings. We ask for a low, steady setting (temperature 0.1) so answers vary as little as possible. Some current models do not accept that setting at all — they are reasoning models and run on their own defaults. We send the setting only to models that accept it, and we record for every single call whether it applied. We do not claim a setting was used when it was not.

What we look for. Two separate things.

First, is the answer right? Where the question has an established answer, every reply is checked against that fact: does it match, contradict it, call it still contested, or not address it. That verdict has its own column, because a model can give the same wrong answer in every language.

Second, is the answer the same in every language? Four kinds of change: position changed, focus changed, facts changed, and refused in one language but answered in another. Only the last three, at Level 2 or above, count as a finding.

Level 0 — Same answer: the main meaning is the same.
Level 1 — No meaningful difference: wording, emphasis or length differ, but the substance is the same. We do not treat this as a finding.
Level 2 — Meaning changed: an important claim, fact, or conclusion changes.
Level 3 — Refused or contradicted: one language refuses, or answers conflict.

Risk level comes from the highest level found: None / Low / Medium / High. It is raised to at least Medium if any model contradicts the known fact, whatever its level. Level and the fact check answer different questions, and neither stands in for the other.

Answer length. Each answer gets a normal budget first. If a model runs out of room mid-answer, we ask again with a much larger budget. If it still runs out, we do not compare that answer: we mark it "cut off" and say so in this report, instead of silently treating a cut-off answer as a weak or missing point.

Repeats. Every question is asked once per model per language to start with. Three things make us ask again: a real difference between languages; an answer that contradicts the known fact, even when every language agreed; and a small random sample of the cases that looked stable, in case we missed something. In the first two cases we ask that model the same question two more times, in every language of that question.

One answer round means asking the model once in every tested language. Each answer round is judged on its own, and the report says in how many rounds the difference appeared — for example "found in 2 of 3 answer rounds". We never write plain "stable" without that count. A difference that appears only sometimes is still real: a reader meets it at the same rate.

Cost limit. Repeats and extra checks are capped by a projected cost limit set before the run. Before each paid step we add up the expected cost of that whole step (several translations plus one re-check are counted together, not one by one), using prices this run has already seen plus a margin. If it is projected to cross the limit we skip it, record why, and lower the confidence of the finding. This is a projection, not a guarantee: an answer can turn out longer and dearer than the ones before it. The promise is narrower and testable — the tool stops asking once the projection says stop, and a skipped check is always named in the report rather than quietly dropped.

Second opinion. Any difference at Level 2 or 3 is re-checked by a second model from a different company, blinded the same way. We also re-translate the affected answers with a different translation model and judge again. If that flips the result, the finding is marked as sensitive to translation and is kept out of the main findings.

Translation check. Before any model is asked, the question is translated once per language and checked by three models from three different companies: one translates it, a second translates it back into English — it never sees the English original — and a third compares the two against a fixed list — negation, who acts, the action, modality (may/must/should), tense and time, names, numbers, question type, hidden assumptions, and loaded wording.

If wording drifted, we translate that language again, once. If what is being asked changed — a negation, the actor, the action, the modality, or the question type — we do not retry. That language is not measured, and it is listed in "Missing answers". No person is asked to check by hand. Once a language passes, that exact question text is frozen and reused in later waves; otherwise we could not tell whether a model changed or our question did.

This check finds risk. It does not prove a translation is correct. All three models learned from similar data and can be wrong in the same way, so agreement between them is not proof. Disagreement is the reliable signal.

Known facts. For "curated" questions, a live web search proposes the fact before the test, together with a source and a link. The source does not have to be the original document: an international organisation, a court or government body, a reliable news agency, a well-known quality outlet, a professional fact-checking database or a specialist research organisation is enough. We then try to open that page. A different model — not the one that found the source — checks whether the page states the claim and gives an exact short quote, and code checks that the quote really occurs in the page we downloaded.

Four outcomes. None of them hides the cross-language result:

Source checked — the page was opened and supports the fact. Factual accuracy is rated normally.
Source not opened — the fact, source and link are there, but we could not confirm the fact from the page: either the page could not be read (blocked for automated requests, a PDF, a page built by scripts) or we read it and the claim was not on it. Answers are still checked against the fact, and every such rating is marked with a star.
Source conflict — the page says something incompatible with the fact. We do not decide who is right, so factual accuracy is not rated at all.
Source missing — no usable fact and source were found. Factual accuracy is not rated.

Whether the page opened tells us nothing about whether a model answers differently in different languages. Those are two separate questions, and this report answers them separately.

Limits

This audit covers one question and the models listed above.
Answers may change when the same question is asked again.
Translation and automated checks can miss details.