International Foundation for Electoral Systems and Democracy International Auditors and other election investigators should take into account the many types of evidence they have at their disposal, from documentary material and physical evidence to witness testimony, such as interviews or written affidavits. This can be challenging in an unstable and developing democracy, and evidence may not be immediately or easily accessible. However, this is critical to the integrity of the investigation process, and investigators should endeavor to secure multiple sources of evidence. More importantly, auditors should not simply accept evidence at face value. Auditors have the responsibility to seriously consider whether the available information is reliable and substantial enough to support or refute the allegation. To aid in this task, states should develop a clearly articulated standard of proof. Chain of custody of evidence. A proper chain of custody is a crucial component of legitimate audit processes, as the quality of the physical evidence may affect decisions of the court or auditing panel. Investigative bodies, including auditors, have the burden to prove that every step in the process of collecting, using, and preserving evidence comports with international best practices. 25 These best practices can be broken down into four categories: the establishment of standard operating procedures (SOPs); continuity of possession; security; and inspection. Standard operating procedures: Investigative bodies should establish clear, written standard operating procedures to guide every step in the evidence chain of custody, including “the submission, receipt, handling, transfer, and disposition of evidence.” 26 The SOPs should clearly define the duties and responsibilities of investigators and should be provided to all parties involved in the investigative process. 27 To ensure that auditors and other investigators are thoroughly familiar with the SOPs, investigative bodies should provide ongoing training on the procedures for the chain of custody of evidence. 28 In addition, investigative bodies should develop user-friendly forms for auditors to properly track the movement of evidence. For example, forms should track the time and date that evidence is submitted to adjudication bodies, the names of the individuals handling evidence, and the names of people with access to designated evidence control rooms. 29 Continuity of possession: The investigative body should maintain a thorough inventory of physical evidence to ensure that all items are properly secured and preserved for adjudication. 30 The inventory process begins with logging evidence as it is received and ends with recording the outcome of the investigation or audit. Inventory lists must indicate the specific location within a designated control area of each piece of evidence at all times. 31 Auditors should routinely cross-check each piece of evidence against corresponding records. When transferring evidence, investigative bodies must monitor the transfer and treatment of the evidence to ensure that it is returned in a timely manner. 32 If possible, the investigative body should require the individual authorized to transfer evidence and the representative from the receiving institution to review and sign an itemized list of the evidence. 33 SOPs should provide instructions for signing out evidence, monitoring the duration in which it is gone, securing and protecting the integrity of the evidence at the external location, and returning evidence to owners or archives after investigation. 34 11