like any paper product. Further, it was impossible for a paper record to eliminate a lack of trust in the viability of the voting machine since it was created by the voting machine. Since the preparation and implementation of the elections were said to be public tasks, it was said to be irrelevant whether this was actually expressed in a “principle of the official nature of the elections”. It was only required that the state bodies provided the facilities and resources and took responsibility for organising the elections. It was said to be unobjectionable that private individuals effected individual actions; in this respect, the state bodies only had to carry out the monitoring required. For instance, the official voting slips were printed by private printers and the election notifications and postal voting documents were sent via private postal companies. It was said to always have been sufficient that the election authority classed the enterprises commissioned as trustworthy in each case. The same was said to apply to the manufacture and supply of voting machines with a declaration of identity of the manufacturer. 53 The voting machines were said to be compatible with the Guidelines for the Construction of Voting Machines. The voting machine software was said to be identifiable at any time by virtue of a comparison of the version number and the checksums with the information contained in the declaration of identity. Also the authenticity of the software was said to be guaranteed by a combination of protective measures. 54 Certainly, any electoral errors were said not to be relevant to mandates. Not concrete information had been put forward indicating that different election results had been achieved in specific polling stations because of the deployment of voting machines than would have been the case with a ballot box election. 55 dd) The German Bundestag rejected the election objections by resolution of 14 December 2006. The resolution recommendation of the Committee for the Scrutiny of Elections of 30 November 2006 (Bundestag document 16/3600, Annexes 1 and 2) considered the objections of both complainants to be manifestly unfounded. 56 The constitutionality of individual provisions of electoral law was said not to be amenable to a review by the German Bundestag since the German Bundestag and the Committee for the Scrutiny of Elections were not called on to find provisions of electoral law unconstitutional. 57 The deployment of the voting machines was said to have violated neither the concrete form given to the principle of the public nature of elections in non-constitutional law (§§ 10 and 31 of the Federal Electoral Act; § 54 of the Federal Electoral Code (Bundeswahlordnung – BWO), nor a principle of the public nature of elections going beyond this. The principle of the public nature of elections was said certainly not to entail each individual act being subject to an individual check. The public nature of the ballot was also said to be heavily restricted in postal voting. The election was said to be operated in the voting machines which were the subject of the complaint in princi- 58 13/37