Election Audits: International Principles that Protect Election Integrity vulnerable to criticism and charges of bias, and may increase the risk that other stakeholders will not accept the results. C. Training and consistent application of standards and procedures Effective training dovetails with the requirement for predetermined standards and procedures. Even if a regulatory framework is established ahead of an audit, officials and investigators responsible for conducting the audit should be properly trained to reduce the risk of inconsistencies in how the standards are applied. Audit investigators must fully understand their mandate, how to implement audit procedures in a consistent manner, and the importance of doing so impartially. They must also understand the provisions of their code of conduct and what enforcement mechanisms are in place should they violate their duty of care under the code. Training can help ensure that audit investigators are equipped to exercise their mandate as governed by the audit framework and that all procedures are carried out properly. Again, this can be challenging where capacity may be low, or where an audit is taking place under both time and political pressures. However, this step is key to garnering the trust of political parties, contestants, and the general public in the audit and its results. In Kosovo in 2010, the election commission adopted procedures in advance of the election that would cross-reference the candidate results form with the results and reconciliation form (party totals). The tabulation system then would automatically detect the instances in which results were compiled incorrectly at the polling station level. When the results forms were processed at the Count and Results Center, however, problems in polling station tabulation became evident. In the end, more than 50 percent of Kosovo’s polling stations had failed the audit. Auditors resolved some common misunderstandings and mistakes made by polling station committees, but the vast majority of these polling stations could not be reconciled and thus were not included in the results. 8 The Inter-Parliamentary Union, a global organization of parliaments established in 1889, has agreed that states are obligated to “ensure that those responsible for the various aspects of the election are trained.” 9 A lack of adequate training on an audit process can greatly hamper the ability of audit investigators to conduct their duties. As with other aspects of the electoral process, consistency is crucial. The public must have confidence that the standards and procedures put in place for an audit will be applied consistently across polling stations, and for individual ballot boxes, results sheets, and ballots. Without this consistent application of standards, the purpose of the audit is defeated, the process may not be accurate or trusted, and these weaknesses may affect media coverage and overall citizen perceptions of the effectiveness of the electoral system. Candidates, political parties, audit observers, and other stakeholders (including the general public) also need to be educated about the audit process. Various stakeholders may need different training or information. It is critical to think carefully about the role various groups will play and how they can be enlisted to support the audit process and outcomes. Deficiencies in training and education leave the system vulnerable, particularly with regard to candidate interaction with an audit process, where it is critical to emphasize the rules around observation to avoid interference. This can make the process even 8