- 33 - CDL-AD(2020)025 126. Additionally, the OSCE/ODIHR publication Resolving Election Disputes183 lists several recommendations concerning the possibility to nullify election results. Among them: (i) the decision to partially or fully invalidate election results should be assigned to the highest electoral body. This decision should be reviewable by the highest body of the judiciary or the Constitutional Court; (ii) the electoral law should specify whether the entities vested with the power to invalidate the election results can take action without being presented with a formal complaint; (iii) it should be clear from the law whether a general or restricted invalidation mechanism applies; (iv) both the preliminary and the final results should be subject to challenges. B. Authority of the appeal body on the cancellation of election results 127. In order to safeguard and guarantee the integrity of electoral processes as a whole, domestic legislation should grant appeal bodies with the power to cancel elections, partially or fully.184 The central criterion for cancelling elections, recognised by international standards and primarily by the Code of good practice in electoral matters, is the question of whether irregularities may have affected the outcome of the vote. The Venice Commission affirms that “the appeal body must have authority to annul elections where irregularities may have affected the outcome. It must be possible to annul the entire election or merely the results for one constituency or one polling station. In the event of annulment, a new election must be called in the area concerned.”185 Cancellation of election results due to minor misconduct which has not affected the outcome could make the electoral process more vulnerable or would lead to mistrust in the judicial remedies or lead to lower interest in cycles of repeat elections, and possibly a lower turnout. 128. Indeed, considering the extreme effects of cancellation of election results, such a decision should only be concretised in extraordinary circumstances where evidence of illegality, dishonesty, unfairness, malfeasance or other misconduct is clearly established and where such improper behaviour has distorted election results.186 129. The transparency of election dispute resolution systems provides assurance to complainants and voters that electoral malfeasance has been corrected and serves as a potential deterrent to future misconduct.187 A country where the electoral law allows for a tolerance level for fraud, based on a certain percentage of irregular votes,188 or where the allocation of seats takes place before the results of the repeated elections are made public189 does not follow international standards. 130. In a number of countries, electoral laws use rather general clauses concerning the cases of cancellation.190 Some countries provide for a general invalidation mechanism191 while some 183 Resolving Election Disputes in the OSCE Area: Towards a Standard Election Dispute Monitoring System, 2000, Section II. G. 184 See 2009 Report on the cancellation of election results. See also Ace Project, Electoral Dispute Resolution, 2012. 185 Code of good practice in electoral matters, Guideline II 3.3. e. 186 International Foundation for Electoral System, Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections, 2011, para. 104. 187 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. 188 2005 Final Opinion on the Amendments to the Election Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, para. 42-43; 2006 Opinion on the Law on Elections of People's Deputies of Ukraine, para. 84. 189 2010 Joint Opinion on the Draft Working Text amending the Election Code of Moldova, para. 70. 190 Algeria, Andorra, Armenia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, San Marino, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America. 191 Algeria, Andorra, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Malta, Norway, Poland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, San Marino, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine.