-9- CDL-AD(2020)025 body.”34 Indeed the possibility for the applicant to choose between various appeals bodies, and in particular between election commissions and courts, may lead to forum shopping. Especially when national legislation provides for the possibility of legal challenges to either an election commission or a court, the electoral law and, if necessary, other pieces of legislation should clearly regulate the respective powers and responsibilities so that a conflict of jurisdiction can be avoided. Thus, the possibility of concurrent complaints procedures is to be avoided.35 At least it should be ensured that if such a dual mechanism does exist, the national legislation should establish an “alternative” opportunity to challenge the alleged violation to either an election commission or to a court, but not a simultaneous option to lodge complaints to both bodies. Such a dual mechanism is possible if the law clearly distinguishes the body competent based on the type of step, procedure, decision, action or inaction challenged, and provides an effective mechanism to prevent a simultaneous use of both judicial and nonjudicial avenues. This crucial aspect is relevant for the complaints in first instance and is therefore developed below under Section B of Part IV. B. Competent bodies in first instance and on appeal (second or third instance) 30. At domestic level, a number of electoral laws provide a possibility to lodge a complaint against decisions adopted, actions and inactions by election commissions or any other electoral management body issuing an administrative decision, as well as by other persons, groups or institutions – candidates, political parties, mass media, public authorities and officials. In this respect, electoral laws have to explicitly provide for a single competent body for dealing with complaints in first instance. 31. For a number of steps of an electoral process that can be challenged, the higher or authorised election commission will be the competent body. Others will imply a complaint before a court or, more rarely, before another body – a parliament or another elected body such as a municipal council – or an independent or ad hoc body. In some cases, other bodies can be competent to deal with specific steps of an electoral process, in particular the announcement of election results. 32. According to the Code of good practice in electoral matters, in second instance, appeal should be lodged before a court and if not, a final appeal to a court must be possible.36 Regarding the competent bodies, the possibility of a dual system of complaints, which can be acceptable in first instance, based on the type of step challenged, cannot be envisaged anymore in second instance – i.e. on appeal. Indeed, international standards require a court to deal with an electoral complaint on appeal and as final instance – second or third instance, according to the judicial system of the country. If the body designated by the law for the settlement of electoral disputes in first instance is an election commission, i.e. a higher or authorised election commission, the electoral legislation must therefore provide the right to appeal to a court after exhaustion of the administrative process. It is legitimate to consider this requirement as stemming from the main human rights instruments guaranteeing the right to judicial remedy for the protection of fundamental rights, among them the suffrage rights.37 Although electoral disputes do not fall within the scope of Article 6 (“Right to a fair trial”) of the European Convention on Human Rights since they do not concern the 34 Code of good practice in electoral matters, Guideline II 3.3. c. and Explanatory Report, para. 97. Regarding opinions, see for instance 2014 Joint Opinion on the draft Election Law of the Kyrgyz Republic, para. 120. See also 2011 Joint opinion on the draft law on presidential and parliamentary elections, the draft law on elections to local governments and the draft law on the formation of election commissions of the Kyrgyz Republic, para. 111. 35 See 2006 Report on Electoral Law and Electoral Administration in Europe, para. 170. 36 Code of good practice in electoral matters, Guideline II 3.3. a. 37 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2(3); United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32; 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document, para. 5.10; 1991 OSCE Moscow Document, Section (18); Code of good practice in electoral matters, Guideline II. 3.3. d. Regarding opinions, see for instance 2010 Joint opinion on the electoral legislation of Norway, para. 18-24.