CDL-AD(2020)025 - 32 - that aggrieved persons can judge whether to make a formal complaint.176 The requirement that the decision should be reasoned is stipulated in electoral legislation only in a few countries. However, this does not prejudge the application of provisions to be found in the Constitution, general legislation on courts or administrative disputes.177 D. Right to submit evidence and burden of proof 121. The Venice Commission has considered the right to submit evidence as a minimum guarantee for the protection of suffrage rights in a fair procedure.178 In some cases, if the applicant does not have access to documentary proof, the electoral management bodies or other relevant institutions should have the duty to present it to the competent body.179 122. The burden of proof in electoral disputes is an important element, which should be stipulated in the law. There are different possibilities to address the issue. The applicant may have the burden of proof, i.e. of submitting evidence for the arguments the application is based on.180 123. Another solution might be to oblige the competent body deciding on the complaint or appeal to collect the relevant evidence ex officio,181 or in addition to the evidence provided by the applicant. However, it might be in reality problematic to exercise such power in practice due to the very limited time for adjudicating the complaint or the appeal. IX. Decision-making power 124. A successful election dispute resolution system relies on the effectiveness of the decision-making power of the competent body, either administrative bodies – electoral management bodies –, judicial bodies – constitutional, ordinary courts or specialised courts – or other types of bodies – including parliaments. A. International standards 125. As underlined by the Code of good practice in electoral matters, “[t]he appeal body must have authority in particular over such matters as the right to vote – including electoral registers – and eligibility, the validity of candidatures, proper observance of election campaign rules and the outcome of the elections.” In addition, “[t]he appeal body must have authority to annul elections where irregularities may have affected the outcome.”182 176 See for instance 2004 Joint Recommendations on the Electoral Law and the Electoral Administration in Azerbaijan, para. 43. 177 See for instance Estonia, Norway. Factual reasons are required in Albania, Algeria, Austria (disputes on the registration of voters), Estonia, Norway and Slovak Republic (disputes on election results), whereas legal reasons are explicitly obligatory in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ukraine. In Mexico, even though no electoral law explicitly requires reasoned decisions for electoral authorities, Article 16 of the Constitution provides that all decisions of all authorities that may affect rights must be reasoned. 178 See for example 2006 Joint Recommendations on the Laws on Parliamentary, Presidential and Local Elections, and Electoral Administration in the Republic of Serbia, para. 65. 179 The Venice Commission has argued that in such cases, the applicant should have the right to make copies of the documents even if they contain personal data. See 2007 Joint Opinion on the 26 February 2007 Amendments to the Electoral Code of the Republic of Armenia, para. 33. In Albania, Algeria and Austria, the law provides the parties of the dispute the right to submit evidence. 180 Such is the situation in Andorra (disputes concerning voter registration), France, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mexico (Article 15 of the Law on electoral dispute resolution procedures provides that the burden of proof lies on the part that asserts a fact), Slovak Republic. The legislation is similar in Armenia, where the burden of proof lies with the person who makes a statement (with some special rules). In Latvia, the burden of proof lies in the participants in the administrative proceedings. 181 Such obligation is provided in the electoral laws of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Liechtenstein, Mexico and Ukraine. 182 Code of good practice in electoral matters, Guidelines II 3.3. d. and e.