Convincing proof

In July 25 and September 29 I made statement: "On July 23 in Kyrgyzstan Bakiev finally liquidated the election process and closed up the opportunity for national development under civilized democratic way. Today, the state is managed by illegitimate criminal power that does not recognize basic rights of people to have independent opinion",http://enews.ferghana.ru/news.php?id=1391&mode=snews

OSCE/ODHIR recently released the Final Report about presidential election in Kyrgyzstan.The mission stressed that "One formal challenge to the election results was submitted to the Constitutional Court. The Court decided on 29 July not to admit the appeal of Mr. Beshimov, a parliamentary deputy from SDPK, to recognize the election results unconstitutional. The Court argued that the Electoral Code obliges the CEC to submit the final election results to the Constitutional Court for review. The Court stated that thus the CEC is the only institution entitled to challenge the constitutionality of an election. This appears to be an unsound interpretation of the law, since the law does not forbid other subjects to challenge the constitutionality of an election process.It would mean that the institution tasked with administering the elections is the only one able to request adjudication on their constitutionality, indicating a potential conflict of interest.Moreover, Article 14 of the Regulation of the Constitutional Court provides the right to address the Constitutional Court, among others, to members of Parliament or individuals,should their constitutional rights be violated."http://www.osce.org/documents/html/pdftohtml/40901_en.pdf.html