Election Audits: International Principles that Protect Election Integrity flimsy, insufficient, unreliable and fabricated evidence.” 16 The ECtHR ruled in favor of the applicant, finding that “the applicant’s disqualification was based on irrelevant, insufficient and inadequately examined evidence.” 17 The Court noted that the relevant domestic authorities had not taken into account statements from the voter retracting allegations of bribery, had not heard the voter in person, had not sought corroborating evidence, and had not called witnesses to attest to the alleged campaign disruption. 18 In addition, the evidence submitted by the Constituency Electoral Commission included written complaints from the applicant’s main opponent and political supporters, and thus required “exceptional scrutiny by the courts charged with the task of assessing their truthfulness.” The ECtHR noted that these complainants were not summoned to be questioned in person. 19 In Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, the applicant had submitted extensive evidence in support of his complaint alleging various electoral irregularities, including more than 30 affidavits from election observers, audiotapes, and other documents. The ECtHR emphasized that the need for the timely resolution of electoral disputes does not outweigh the responsibility to undertake a thorough review of the evidence: “[R]elevant domestic authorities may be required to examine election-related appeals within comparatively short time limits in order to avoid retarding the electoral process . . . Nevertheless, . . . it must be ensured that a genuine effort is made to address the substance of arguable individual complaints concerning electoral irregularities and that the relevant decisions are sufficiently reasoned.” 20 Meeting this goal requires countries to establish audit guidelines that strike a balance between timely resolution and a thorough investigative process. “Reasonableness” should characterize the audit timeframe. This was an important factor in the 2014 Afghanistan audit, in which one candidate’s team continued to request changes to the audit framework based on what was being revealed during investigations, while the other team argued for timeliness in order to resolve the deadlock and meet the deadline for presidential inauguration. As this brief discussion indicates, audit investigators should consider multiple sources of information, including affidavits and other documentary evidence and audio recordings of witness testimony. In an election investigation, documentary evidence often takes on particular importance. The Canadian Special Investigators’ Manual – a unique publication that provides clear, detailed guidance for election investigators – lists the types of official election documents Canadian investigators consider in an audit process. These include nomination papers filed by candidates, documents related to revisions to the lists of electors, and various polling station returns enclosed in sealed envelopes, such as the packets of cast, rejected, and spoiled ballot papers. 21 Some countries – including Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru – require complainants to attach supporting documentary evidence to their initial complaint submitted as part of the dispute resolution process. 22 In these cases, investigators must still consider, in the words of the Canadian Special Investigators’ Manual, “whether the recorded information is sufficient, reliable and substantial enough to either prove or refute the allegations of the complaint.” 23 Furthermore, investigators should strive to corroborate the evidence by determining “whether the recorded information cross-matches or corresponds with other related information from documentary records and available sources of information.” 24 10