Kryeziu's Issmet answers Muhammad Mustafa to the ballot papers

Run through a text in his official account on the social network “Facebook” has clarified DnV's commitment to the election process.

He has presented data that, according to him, excludes the possibility of manipulation or criminal damage to balloting to influence the general outcome of the elections.

This is Kryeziu's complete writing:

To the members of the Local Councils. In the meantime, we've had a lot of other media statements that we've asked the CEC to do auditing of invalid paper and we've explained the possibilities of how it could come to this phenomenon. ) From an initial audit the CEC has made to you some of the invalid paper, the main findings have been marked candidates, but the political subject has not been marked, in 48.26% of cases. ) It has been marked more than a political subject or a percentage expression is 39.85%.% Papers that have been unevaluated, or expressed in percentage have reached as much as 0.19% of the ballot. ) The rest of the invalid ballots in percentages of 11.97% have been made deliberately by voters, placing blank ballots in the ballot boxes or damaging them through various drawings as a sign of dissatisfaction with political alternatives. Some of the reasons for invalid balloting; we consider that up to this high number of invalid balloting has come from poor voter education and information, so to speak, there has been nothing from the institutions responsible for managing and organising elections, in this case another factor also important is that political parties have not been taken with voter education at all, but rather have produced the other highly aggressive campaign of political subject candidates, who have offered their citizens numbers for which they should vote for, without initially citing the political target. In addition, the number of voter's education has produced invalid percentages have come from the most aggressive rates of training, and not yet have been able to seal any of the independences that have been sealed, and that is not yet confirmed, and that the mayoral sections have not been sealed. We believe that from our findings and an analytical approach that there was no attempt to break valid votes systematically and organisedly, for example. Especially in the case of votes more than one party, the allegations arose that in these cases it would be easier to add to you and a tic on the part of commissioners to disrupt the ballot. Because other arguments dismiss the theory and worry about deliberate manipulation through debacles of bills at the expense of a subject or candidate. For example, the number of ballots voted exclusively for candidates, if there was an organised structure and systematically designed to manipulate the outcome in this case, it could make those ballot papers valid for a political subject, adding only a tik, to one tik. Even this move would help that the election outcome and the order of parties would be affected by 3.3%. Hence, these facts also rule out opportunities for manipulation or criminal damage to ballotes to influence the general outcome of the elections. Since the election process is not yet complete, we are conveying the work of the Counting and Results Centre (QNR), and so far our observers have not noticed any manipulation of candidates' votes in the CNR. Also, we are in progress of all the observation forms that we have collected from our observers. This will give us an even clearer picture of the nature of invalid balloting and the overall process. All of this will be summed up in a final report. For your explanation and the public, Democracy in Action, but other observer organisations also have no mandate to audit invalid balloting or interfere in any form in the process. This is the responsibility and mandate of state institutions called for election organisation. General auditing by the CEC has not occurred yet, so we are limited to making a final assessment already. We are willing to engage in this process if the CEC offers us increased access.