- 31 - CDL-AD(2020)025 sessions open to public, the duty to publish sessions’ protocols on the web, streaming of the sessions and so on. 117. More precisely, each act of the election administration should be formally published, broadly available for information to electoral stakeholders and appealable to a court.167 Publicity can be ensured through public media and by immediate publication on the Internet. All decisions of election commissions should be clear and reasoned so that aggrieved persons can judge whether to make a formal complaint.168 Complaints and appeals’ procedures should also be transparent thanks to the accessibility of a number of sources, such as, depending on the countries: the publication of complaints, responses and decisions, for instance through a freely accessible database on the Internet of complaints and appeals lodged, which should not only contain the information on the issues challenged, but as far as possible, also an access to the documents submitted by the parties, as well as the resolutions and protocols of the hearings.169 Transparency provides assurance to complainants and voters that electoral malfeasance has been corrected and serves as a potential deterrence to future misconduct.170 118. In some opinions of the Venice Commission, it has been observed that the procedure for lodging a complaint was too complicated or caused relatively high costs.171 The principle of transparency was addressed in several opinions of the Venice Commission. It requires a written decision by the competent body as well as a reasoning of the decision;172 decisions should be made public;173 and finally, written procedural rules concerning the review of complaints and appeals should exist.174 C. Reasoning of decisions on electoral complaints and appeals 119. Reasoning of decisions on electoral complaints or appeals is a necessity to guarantee the verifiability of the decision and the recourse to a remedy against the decision, if applicable. Due to the urgency of election dispute resolution systems, especially relating to decisions made, actions committed or inactions on election day, i.e. concerning pre-opening, voting and counting procedures, the resolutions cannot be reasoned in detail to a large extent. The necessary promptness of the proceedings may outweigh the requirement of a detailed reasoning. Still, a short reasoning both in fact and in law is required. 120. The Venice Commission has therefore recommended that all election commissions should issue written decisions and duly argue all their decisions. The format of decisions should also be standardised. This should apply to all decisions, whether or not they can be appealed to a court.175 All decisions of election commissions should be clear and reasoned so 167 See for instance 2010 Report on figure based management of possible election fraud, para. 121. See for instance 2004 Joint Recommendations on the Electoral Law and the Electoral Administration in Azerbaijan, para. 43. 169 In some cases, the documents cannot be public in order to protect the personal data (e.g. disputes on the voter’s registration). In these cases, only the relevant personal information should be hidden, while leaving the information on the complaint, arguments of the parties and reasoning of the competent body accessible. 170 See for instance 2013 Joint Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Laws on election of people's deputies and on the Central Election Commission and on the Draft Law on repeat elections of Ukraine, para. 100. 171 See for instance 2009 Joint Opinion on the Election Code of Georgia as revised up to July 2008, para. 109, 115; 2013 Joint Opinion on Draft Amendments to Legislation on the Election of People’s Deputies of Ukraine, para. 66. 172 See for instance 2004 Opinion on the Proposal to Amend the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova (introduction of the individual complaint to the Constitutional Court), para. 43; 2011 Joint opinion on the election code of Bulgaria, para. 56. 173 See for instance 2009 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law No. 3366 about Elections to the Parliament of Ukraine, para. 43. 174 See for example 2011 Joint opinion on the election code of Bulgaria, para. 56. 175 See for example 2011 Joint opinion on the election code of Bulgaria, para. 56. 168