5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Baku. He stood for the elections to the National Assembly (Milli Majlis) of 6 November 2005 as a candidate of the opposition bloc Azadliq. 6.  The applicant was registered as a candidate by the Constituency Electoral Commission (“the ConEC”) for the single-mandate Binagadi Second Electoral Constituency no. 9. 7.  There were a total of thirty polling stations in the constituency. At the end of election day, the applicant was only able to obtain copies of official records of election results (səsvermənin nəticələrinə dair protokol) drawn up by twenty-one Polling Station Electoral Commissions (“ PECs”). 8.  According to the applicant, he received the majority of votes in the constituency. Specifically, he received a total of 3,665 votes. His closest contender received 3,197 votes. All unofficial exit-polls indicated that the applicant had won the election. 9.  An official tabulation of results was carried out by the ConEC after election day, but the applicant was not provided with a copy of the ConEC record of election results. It appears that the ConEC did not officially declare a winner in the applicant’s constituency following the tabulation of results. 10.  On 8 November 2005 a representative of the Azadliq bloc applied to the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) with a request for the invalidation of the election results in Polling Stations nos. 1, 3, 11, 14, 19, 20, 23 and 25 (eight polling stations in total, for which the applicant did not receive PEC records of results) and to declare the applicant the winner of the election as, according to copies of those PEC results records which were in the applicant’s possession, he had obtained the highest number of votes in the constituency. 11.  It appears that, at a later unspecified date, the applicant obtained copies of all the PEC results records, except those for Polling Stations nos. 1 and 19. 12.  On 8 November 2005 the CEC acknowledged receipt of the Azadliq bloc’s request and notified it that it had issued a decision to invalidate the election results for the entire Binagadi Second Electoral Constituency no. 9. The decision, in its entirety, stated as follows:
“Pursuant to Articles 19.4, 19.14, 25.2.22, 28.4, 100.12 and 170.2.2 of the Electoral Code and sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Law of 27 May 2003 on Approval and Entry into Force of the Electoral Code, the Central Electoral Commission decides: 1.  To invalidate the election results in Polling Stations nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 23, 25, 26, 27 and 29 of Binagadi Second Electoral Constituency no. 9 due to impermissible alterations [“yolverilməz düzəlişlər”] made to the PEC records of election results [“protokollar”] of those polling stations as well as infringements of the law [“qanun pozuntuları”] which made it impossible to determine the will of the voters. 2.  To invalidate the election results in Binagadi Second Electoral Constituency no. 9 due to the fact that the number of polling stations in which the election results have been invalidated constitutes more than two-fifths of the total number of polling stations in the constituency and that the number of voters registered in those polling stations constitutes more than one-quarter of the total number of voters in the constituency. 3.  To forward the relevant materials concerning this electoral constituency to the Prosecutor General’s Office for investigation.” 13.  On 10 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Court of Appeal, arguing that the findings in the CEC decision were wrong. He argued that, while the CEC decision noted that “impermissible alterations” had been made to the PEC records of results for Polling Stations nos. 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 26, 27 and 29, the photocopies of the same PEC records which were in his possession did not contain any such alterations or changes. According to those PEC records, he had obtained the highest number of votes in each of those polling stations. As to Polling Stations nos. 23 and 25, he noted that the PECs in those polling stations had refused to provide him with copies of their records of results. Nevertheless, according to the information provided by observers and PEC members, the applicant had obtained the highest number of votes in those polling stations as well. 14.  The applicant argued that the invalidation of the election results had been arbitrary and that the only reason for the invalidation had been to prevent him, as an opposition candidate, from winning the election. He asked the court to examine all the relevant records of election results, quash the CEC decision and declare him the winner of the election in the constituency. 15.  During the hearing held on 11 November 2005, the judges of the Court of Appeal refused to independently examine the originals of the PEC and ConEC records of results which had allegedly contained “impermissible alterations”. The Court of Appeal upheld the CEC decision by reiterating the findings made in that decision and concluding that the invalidation of the election results based on those findings had been lawful. 16.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal. Apart from the arguments advanced in his appeal before the Court of Appeal, he also complained, inter alia, that the Court of Appeal had refused to independently examine the primary evidence (the originals of the relevant official records of election results) and had simply taken the CEC’s findings as fact. 17.  On 25 November 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment as lawful. 18.  On 1 December 2005 the Constitutional Court ordered repeat elections to be held on 13 May 2006 for all electoral constituencies in which the results had been invalidated, including the applicant’s constituency. 19.  In the meantime, criminal proceedings were instituted against the ConEC chairman and the chairman of the PEC of Polling Station no. 20, for tampering with official electoral documents and abuse of official authority. 20.  On 19 January 2006 the Binagadi District Court convicted both defendants under Articles 161.1 (falsification of election documents) and 308.1 (abuse of official power) of the Criminal Code. Both defendants were fined and sentenced to five months’ imprisonment. 21.  The factual findings in the Binagadi District Court’s judgment revealed that the majority of falsifications in the PEC results records had been made at the ConEC level by its chairman, after the submission of those records to the ConEC. These falsifications affected a total of thirteen polling stations and were all made in favour of one of the applicant’s opponents, but not the applicant.