CDL-AD(2020)025 - 34 - others for a partial one.192 It should be noted that one option (a general invalidation for instance) does not necessarily exclude the other option offered to the judge (a partial invalidation). There are many cases where the competent authority can cancel results in one or more electoral constituencies.193 In other cases, there are provisions that allow for the general invalidation of the elections.194 131. On this sensitive issue of (cancellation of) election results, the role of the electoral judges is crucial, since they are the institution responsible for ultimately deciding on the sincerity of an electoral process. The electoral judge is tasked with an appreciation of the circumstances in which electoral malpractice is taking place and how it may affect the outcome of the elections. Based on such circumstances, the judge has therefore either to confirm or to invalidate the elections, partially or fully. In this context, the role of the electoral judge may differ from that of a “judge of the legality”, who should immediately and unequivocally sanction any shortcoming and/or illegal action. In this regard, circumstances and impact matter as much as the infringement of legal proceedings. 132. In summary, the legislation of most member States of the Venice Commission does not provide for detailed legislation on the decision-making power of the appeal body and leaves a broad decision-making power to courts, in particular regarding the sensitive issue of cancellation of elections. There remains room for improvement in a number of countries where the law does not provide necessarily for the possibility to cancel an entire electoral process, a decision which can be necessary in situations of distortion of election results. This also implies the possibility to modify election results, to order a total or partial recount of the votes. There may be consequently a need to clarify the legislation accordingly concerning the cases of partial or full cancellation of election results and the consequences deriving from such decisions of cancellation. Among the possible consequences, there can be a recount, a repeat voting either with the same candidates or fully reorganised including with a new candidate registration procedure. X. Conclusions 133. The proper settlement of electoral disputes is an essential part of a successful electoral process. This implies ensuring an effective system of challenging electoral violations and examination of election-related disputes, combining an effective mechanism of lodging complaints and an effective decision-making process on such electoral complaints. However, while the legislation of all the Venice Commission’s member States includes legal provisions on complaints and appeals’ procedures, most of the domestic laws and their implementation regarding various aspects of election dispute resolution systems could be improved, as regularly underlined by opinions on electoral legislation as well as by election observation reports. 134. According to most electoral laws, courts are competent to decide on electoral disputes, at least in last instance, in line with international standards. The Venice Commission reiterates its recommendation that electoral legislation provide for judicial bodies to be the final authority to decide on electoral disputes while avoiding at the same time risks of conflicts of jurisdictions. 192 Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Monaco, Morocco, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States of America. 193 Albania, Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Republic of Republic of Korea, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, North Macedonia, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain. 194 Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Poland, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic.