International Foundation for Electoral Systems and Democracy International tions – was increased by concerns that failing to find a mutually acceptable solution would lead to serious instability. The IEC ultimately agreed not to release the final results of the audit as part of the negotiations that led to the National Unity Government that rules Afghanistan today. Representatives of the candidates may be involved in the audit, but it is important to ensure that they do not control the process. If parties or candidates drive the audit, its course will be determined by partisan interest rather than protecting the public’s interest in a legitimate and credible election. B. Predetermination of standards and procedures As noted previously, audit standards and procedures should be clear, publicized in advance, and adhered to strictly. When an audit is part of a preconceived electoral certification process, standards and procedures are likely to be codified in the legal framework. In situations in which an ad hoc audit process is proposed as a means of resolving a legitimacy deficit or intractable electoral dispute, establishing standards and procedures can be challenging. As with any other stage of an electoral process, predetermined standards and procedures are critical to the legitimacy and credibility of an audit. The statutory basis for any audit must be in the legal framework under which an election was conducted. In 2002, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (known as the Venice Commission), which is responsible for providing constitutional assistance to individual countries, adopted a Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters. This code outlines internationally accepted best practices for election management. The Commission affirmed that “stability of the law is crucial to credibility of the electoral process” and that “states should codify language that safeguards fundamental principles of their legal framework.” 7 The conditions necessary for a recount of the votes, a runoff election, or an invalidation of particular ballots should be clear, transparent, and easily understandable under the legal framework before the election takes place. If a decision is made to undertake an audit, electoral bodies must put in place well-defined and consistent standards and procedures to govern the process. This framework needs to be established and publicized before the audit is initiated. This is the same standard that applies to rules and regulations governing the management of elections, as well as those governing the resolution of electoral disputes. The rationale is simple: to be fair, the rules of the game must be clear for all stakeholders before the game begins. A system that does not define audit standards and procedures, or that does so in an ad hoc manner, enables arbitrary implementation of procedures – and erodes public trust in the process. A clear, pre-determined regulatory framework for audits should identify not only which entities will be responsible for conducting, observing, and deciding on the audit process, but also how the audit will proceed. As illustrated by the challenges and disputes that arose during the audit of Afghanistan’s 2014 presidential election, standards and procedures for dealing with sensitive issues such as similarly marked ballots and results sheets must be established in advance, understood by all stakeholders, and applied consistently. This prior planning takes time, which is usually a scarce resource in a fraught political environment. However, failing to take these steps leaves the process and those that must carry it out 7