Well, you can say that yes, the election took place in a transparent fashion.
Our view is that the means by which they undertake elections in Venezuela is fair. They have a professional system of voting, an electronic system.
Our view is that the process itself, the actual vote, was fair. The challengers did not challenge the outcome of the vote. Mr. Capriles was quite clear in what he said: “I accept the vote. Democracy has spoken. We'll move on.”
As well, at 88%, the participation rate was huge. But the playing field cannot be considered fair when, for example, the president monopolizes the airwaves; when the president can take over at will the television stations to promote his message; and when you get massive coverage of the president and almost no profile or opportunity for the opposition to use electronic media.
Then there's this whole question of using state resources for housing programs. All this kicked in before the election, so obviously there were people trying to influence the voter.
The environment wasn't a fair playing field, but the electoral process we believe to have been fair. Most observers would say that. Even the opposition candidate and the members of the electoral council would say that. The opposition member who was on the electoral council said, “Well, if you're talking about fraud, give me some examples, because I don't see them.”
There were issues on voting day, such as people distributing pamphlets outside the polling booths, which isn't supposed to be done, but generally speaking the process itself was fair.
Was the environment in which the election took place fair? That's a different question.