When Are Elections Good Enough? Validating or Annulling Election Results governments and exacerbate partisan tensions. For this reason, many jurisdictions have established special timelines and expedited procedures for handling such cases. The suitability of a timeline in a particular jurisdiction will depend in part on the strength of the rule of law and, on the ability of litigants and adjudicators to gather the evidence necessary to resolve the dispute. The natural variability in timelines is undoubtedly why the Venice Commission has suggested only that judicial proceedings related to election results should be “as brief as possible.”96 In Raila Amolo Odinga & Another v. Independent Electoral Commission & 2 Others, the Kenyan Supreme Court pointed out that that the resolution of challenges to election results, especially those involving recounts or the scrutiny of results, could not possibly be conducted in the 14-day period established by the law for verifying election results. The court was sharply critical of legislators for failing to extend this timeframe, since these problems had become clear following the 2013 election and had been raised by the judiciary with Parliament. The court asked Parliament to amend this deadline, stating that “the reasons for doing so are obvious.”97 The importance of clear deadlines for resolving electoral disputes and establishing results are also demonstrated by the situation in Nigeria, where section 285 of the Constitution provides for 180 days for the trial of petitions at the election petition tribunals and 120 days at the appellate courts. The result of these rules is that more than two years after the 2015 general elections, some pre-election matters are still pending in the appellate courts. In Namat Alieyev v. Azerbaijan, the ECtHR acknowledged the tension between a fair process and a fast process, with implications for the protection of due process in electoral cases. The court ruled that time limits designed to expeditiously resolve a case “may not serve to undermine the effectiveness of the appeal procedure, and it must be ensured that a genuine effort is made to address the substance of arguable individual complaints concerning electoral irregularities.”75 In that case, the complainants were candidates in the 2005 parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan, who alleged that domestic authorities did not adequately investigate complaints of electoral irregularities, including because of very short deadlines. The ECtHR found that actions by the electoral commissions and domestic courts – including rejecting complaints, canceling a candidate’s registration, and annulling elections in certain constituencies without sufficient reason and without affording procedural safeguards to the parties – were in violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECtHR, which guarantees “free elections.” In summary, the law in each jurisdiction must strike a balance between the need for electoral violations to be investigated and addressed effectively, and the need for a speedy and final determination of election results.98 Further, the laws governing the investigation and resolution of election petitions 96 Venice Commission, Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters: Guidelines and Explanatory Report, 95, 52nd Sess., Op. No. 190/2002 (May 23, 2003). The Venice Commission points to two pitfalls in delaying and the resolution of an elections appeals process: “appeal proceedings retard the electoral process, and second, that, due to their lack of suspensive effect, decisions on appeals which could have been taken before, are taken after the elections.” Id.; see also Benjamin E. Griffith & Michael S. Carr, “Effective, Timely, Appropriate, and Enforceable Remedies,” in International Election Principles: Democracy & the Rule of Law 373-397 (John Hardin Young ed., 12th ed., 2009), and GUARDE, 46 (Standards of Evidence). 97 Raila Amolo Odinga & Another v. Independent Electoral Commission & 2 Others (2017). 98 IFES, STRIDE, 25. 23