Election Audits: International Principles that Protect Election Integrity IV. International Standards for Partial and Full Audits International standards for post-election audits should address ownership of the process, predetermination and uniform application of procedures, evidentiary requirements, and the right of appeal. All of these elements are required for safeguarding the integrity of elections and their final outcomes. A. Ownership of the process If an electoral audit will be undertaken, the country’s election commission should own the process. If the electoral authority lacks sufficient credibility to stand behind an announced electoral result, however, it may also lack credibility to stand behind the outcome of an audit. Careful consideration of who will conduct an audit is therefore vital. All stakeholders in the election should agree in advance how an audit should proceed and what entities will be responsible for particular decisions about the process. In many cases, it may be necessary for a trusted third party (such as an electoral tribunal) to provide guidance to the audit process, but it is sometimes difficult to identify a neutral actor in nascent democracies. Instead, representatives of the international community may be called upon to assist with a post-election audit, as was the case with elections in Haiti in 2010 and in Afghanistan in 2014. Depending on the capacity of the electoral authority and public confidence in the institution, some level of international technical and financial support may be appropriate, and in nascent democracies the EMB may already be supported by international technical experts. Regardless of the level and types of support the international community provides for the audit, the election commission should have supreme authority over the process, and international stakeholders should endeavor to reinforce this. Ensuring that the final decision-making authority lies with the election commission will help to mitigate the risk of real or perceived foreign interference in the election and its outcome. In addition, a credible audit led by the election commission can help build confidence in the EMB and the election process as a whole. In Afghanistan, the July 12, 2014 political agreement between the two presidential candidates mandated an audit and outlined the National Unity Government to be formed after the conclusion of the audit process. The agreement gave a large role in the audit process directly to international entities. This was challenging for international stakeholders and technical assistance providers, as Afghanistan’s legal framework for elections did not include explicit provisions for an audit process or international involvement, although Article 58 of the Electoral Law provides authority to the Independent Election Commission (IEC) to quarantine and investigate ballot boxes. Through the high-level political agreement, the international community ultimately was vested with significant responsibility for the audit process, but the legal authority remained with the IEC. As the audit unfolded in Afghanistan, some stakeholders complained that the process was subject to the whim of the candidates. Allegations of fraud by both sides brought the electoral process to a standstill. Pressure to find a solution – even one that might be seen as outside the legal framework for the elec- 6