International Foundation for Electoral Systems and Democracy International I. Executive Summary Election audits are increasingly used as a means of settling disputes about electoral results. Audits were used to help verify the results of elections in Afghanistan in 2009 and 2014, in Haiti in 2010, in Kosovo in 2009 and 2010, and in the poll for a new Constitution in Iraq in 2005. In developing democracies, where legal frameworks for elections are sometimes ambiguous, and governance structures and the rule of law may be weak, allegations of fraud are common and often legitimate. When conducted in response to allegations of fraud, a post-election audit can increase the credibility of the outcome. However, such audits should be used only in limited circumstances and according to clearly defined rules. As the international community continues to support electoral processes in developing and post-conflict democracies, it is critical to review and come to consensus on standards that should be applied both to assess the need for a post-election audit and to conduct such an audit. International standards are often presented as a benchmark by which to judge the electoral process, but for these standards to be meaningful in practice it is important to provide proper guidance on implementation. One of the most important considerations in any audit is ownership of the process. Ideally, the entity that conducted the election should also be responsible for administering the audit. If this entity lacks sufficient credibility or capacity, international technical support may be necessary. As seen in the recent elections that will be discussed in this paper, fraud allegations can bring the entire electoral process to a standstill. In these situations, audits are sometimes viewed as a means of rescuing the election by reinforcing confidence in the eventual results. When the international community is involved, audit organizations must balance the interests and concerns of the candidates with respect for the domestic electoral process. Clearly defined standards and procedures are essential. They must be publicized in advance and adhered to strictly, in order to build trust in the process and ultimately in the result. The regulatory framework must clearly identify the triggers for an election audit, how an audit will proceed, and who will be responsible. This can be challenging in a politically fraught environment. If all parties involved – including voters – do not perceive the audit process to be transparent and well organized, the audit can further erode confidence in the election, the electoral process, and the institutions that manage it. Audit investigations must be based on facts, as it is the facts that are in dispute. Investigators must make use of concrete evidence without relying on hearsay, assumptions or suppositions. Investigators are responsible for reviewing all evidence at their disposal and considering the reliability and substance of the evidence. In a challenging environment, this is a difficult but critical task. Audit guidelines must strike a balance between the need for a thorough investigative process and the requirement for timely resolution. The standard of proof must be clearly articulated so that decisions are not subjective and do not appear to be subjective. In addition, international standards recognize the 1