Vetevendosje compares PZAP decision it made in June to a recount in two municipalities

The Vetevendosje movement has reacted again after the PZAP decision to re-count votes in Pristina and Prizren.

According to the VV, there are two types of decisions made by PZAP, in the June elections, and have to do with the recount requirement.

Here's the complete communique:

The first is when specific subjects have filed complaints before the entire counting process is completed, and such complaints have been rejected by PZAP, arguing that the complaint has not met the standards, so it has not completed the process of serious counting and due to the failure of final results. According to the same decision, which is very similar, the preliminary result has not been announced by the CEC and can be changed at any moment. The QNR is also in the phase of proceeding to electoral materials, so the election result has not taken its final form, but at the moment of announcing the final results of the QNR, disgruntled parties can file a 24-hour complaint. See decision 354/17, 339/17, 355/17!

As well as decisions on those complaints which have respected the deadline, which is cited by PZAP, d.m. th They have respected the counting of all votes and the proclamation of preliminary results, and in legal terms they have filed complaints.

The Reason PZAP's rejection of the complaint has been because it has found that the pre-pity of the complaint has offered no evidence to confirm the complaint claims, even though the burden of evidence falls on the complaint indictee. Similarly, according to the same decision, it is said that the presumption of the complaint has given no instructions or details of where evidence can be found, which it has not had in possession of what they claim in complaint. And that the evidence presented according to the PZAP assessment does not present legal reference in support of claims

Quotes: In the absence of concrete and convincing evidence and evidence, the claims filed in the complaint are not enough and therefore the complaint is denied. See decision 369.