The main conclusion is that in existing socio-political circumstances general election results is not questionable but a range of violations during the election process certainly had its SERIOUS impact on the election results.

Among such factors:

• violation in the field of electoral campaign financing;
• third rate organization of Local Election Commissions and Commissions of Base Level;
• possible impact of 'dead souls' factor on the election results;
• imperfection of electoral law of Ukraine concerning campaign financing, votes polling, commissions formation etc;
• made reapportionment of percentage ratio between results of votes for political parties and blocs that managed to exceed 4% level.

1. The conclusions concerning made reapportionment of percentage ratio of votes have been made on the basis of documented facts of election procedure violations, 10% of invalid bulletins, results of parallel polling of votes that was held by a number of parties/ blocs, that is based on documents of Local Election Commissions (copes of protocols) and the Exit Poll data.
2. Concerning 'dead souls' - Secretariat of of 'Freedom of Choice' Coalition held comparative estimation of official data of CEC (Central Electoral Commission) and State Administration of Statistics. This estimation allows to talk about exceeding of total number of voters on more than 530 000 people, that is almost 3 % of voters. In order to count the number of voters in 2002 experts of the Coalition used data on number of voters in Referendum 2000, people who died during 2001-2002, those who rich the age of 18 to 2002. Besides this number not consider emigration process. In spite of general decrease of population the number of voters increased in 21 of 27 regions of Ukraine. We can only guess to which party/bloc it was added.
3. Concerning insufficient organization of Local Election Commissions - everyone mentioned long lines of voters all over Ukraine. This problem had systematic and maybe even planned nature. Hence number of people who came but didn't vote makes from 7 to 12% of voters. Considering the fact that low activity of voters gives more chances for falsification and that people who failed to vote belongs to separate age and social groups we can make a conclusion that all these factors had quite strong impact on the election results. According to the legislation the responsibility is on the CEC.
4. Concerning law violations in the field of finance - these facts can not be commented. Before the elections we sent documentally based letter to CEC (28.03.2002, registration number 21-37-5778) asking to pay attention on documented facts of exceeding the allowable by the legislation level of political advertisement cost by SDPU(u), Women for the Future and Green Party. These days For United Ukraine party also joined the list. Unfortunately the letter has not been answered yet and even wasn't commented appropriately on Dzerkalo Tyzhnya newspaper request. The only thing the letter made - Mr. Ryabets named mentioned above parties during his press conference in the context of its expenditures - 2,500,000 for each of them but they 'don't exceed the allowable by the legislation level'. Unfortunately, Mr. Ryabets failed to get that we are talking about the expenditures on political advertisement in mass media only and it was useless to justify the parties' actions in the way he did it. We believe that multiple facts of exceeding the allowable level of advertisement expenditures are the facts that allow us to talk about violations that certainly had its SERIOUS impact on the election results.

We think that besides the direct law violations there is a range of other problems connected with different conditions for the election participants. We can only imagine what could have happened with opposition parties/blocs if they exceeded this level while presidential parties stayed unpunished. It proves that legislators make by themselves such traps declaring designedly low level of allowable expenditures on electioneering. Plain nursing the public can later turn to displacing out of election campaign.

The efficiency of political marketing can be evaluated according to the ratio between the expenditures on political advertisement in mass media and the cost of one vote for certain election participants. These are some numbers: KPU spent 0,10 hrn on one vote, Yulia Tymoshenko's Bloc and SPU - 0,30 hrn, Our Ukraine - 0,40, while SDPU(u) - 7,5 hrn. What for outsiders of the election: Popular Movement of Ukraine spent 7 hrn, New Generation - 8,5 hrn, All-Ukrainian Union of Christians - 24,5 hrn, Green Party of Ukraine - 11 hrn and Women for the Future - 12 hrn.

• Majority districts. A lot of surprises on the majority districts are connected with big number of strong candidates and phenomena of unexpected increase of motivation to vote for the representatives of certain parties.
• Sociology. We should mention also strong but not common impact of sociology. According to our remarks a lot of potential electorate of Our Ukraine voted for Yulia Tymoshenko's Bloc and SPU to help them also to carry an election.
• Opposition resource. The hidden opposition resource had appeared during the election. This is one of the important explanations of difference between the sociological questionnaire and election results.
• Politics becomes more real, which means that no political clone or clown wear not elected to the parliament.
• At the first time an important event did not go under the Russian scenario. This shows the European tendencies in the development of Ukraine. Moreover Russian political -technologists proved their professional inability to work in Ukraine.

• To Increase the limit of election campaign expenditures;
• To give strict definition for political and social-political advertisement;
• To enlarge the law norms for visual advertisement, typography etc.;
• To state intellectual property of election campaign actors for certain brands, massages, logos;
• To abolish or regulate by the law manipulation by social-political advertisements;
• To increase parliamentary barrier to 5 %;
• To bring back the ability of corporate donors to deposit in parties' funds and to make the procedure of deposition easier;
• To make changes in Civil and Criminal Codes in order to provide effective mechanisms of sanctions for the certain facts of law violation;
• To obligate parties to declare the expenditures on election campaign in more definite way;
• to broadcast the advertisements during the election time in mass media only under defined periods;
• to obligate mass media to mention names, slogans, geographical and other distinctive features of election process actors proportionally;
• to give the non-governmental organization the right to appeal in court and the right to monitor the election campaign;
• to regulate, state in the law and obligate local governments to provide equal agitation opportunities for all actors of election process;
• to provide special norms for each local election commission in order to regulate their activity adequate condition for voting in the election day;
• to make compulsory the norm to transport bulletins in the presence of official observers and give them possibility of usage of foot and video cameras;
• to provide the possibility to use photo, video, and audio records made in the election day by official observers as proof in courts.

Taking in account the outcome of Election 2002 and the results of 'Public Monitoring of Electoral Campaign Financing' project Coalition of Ukrainian NGOs Freedom working on the proposition for Ukrainian law system and planning to enlarge the project experience for Central-Eastern European Countries also the initiate the complex campaign on Ukrainian NGOs for democratization of election process.