CNE: High court ruling on migrations in register of voters must be waited
The Vice-President of the National Electoral Council (CNE) explained that some ballots were changed to "make the information easier for voters"
Sandra Oblitas, the Vice-President of the Venezuelan National Electoral Council (CNE), reported that the special regulations for the gubernatorial elections of December 16 were passed on Wednesday. The regulations, she clarified, are like those of previous elections.
Oblitas pointed out that during electioneering, candidates may disseminate messages of up to three minutes on a daily basis on TV and four minutes on the radio. As for the press, candidates may use a page in tabloid newspapers and half page in standard newspapers.
She added that telephone contacts may be made only through SMS. Calls to handsets and mobile phones are banned. A top of three messages a week has been set.
With regard to the change of ballots to include General Henry Rangel Silva as a candidate for Trujillo state government, in the place and stead of Hugo Cabezas, Oblitas argued that pursuant to article 63 of the Organic Law of Electoral Processes, the CNE "must facilitate the information to voters, provided that no election tools have been issued."
Concerning migrations of government authorities who are not candidates in the election of December 16, such as Vice-President and Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro, the CNE Vice-President said that the opposition Unified Democratic Panel (MUD) already made its pleadings at the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ). Therefore, there is the need to await the decision from the high court.
Translated by Conchita Delgado
As late as Tuesday, February 25, there was some visible response from Gabriela Ramírez's office. Representatives of the Office of the Ombudswoman would visit independent human rights watch groups to find what happened in connection with repression of protests. That day, they visited NGO Provea. The next day, they met with the attorneys of NGO Venezuelan Criminal Forum. They pursued specific data because -they argued- no claims of human rights violations of demonstrators had been filed with the Office of the Ombudswoman.