electoral commissions, the ACA, the courts) reject legitimate objections on procedural grounds. Members of the community of experts reported that fairness in resolving electoral disputes in Serbia was not satisfactory for several reasons. Firstly, the root of the problem lay in the institutional design and legislative framework, neither of which allowed the electoral administration to act in accordance with best global practice. The respondents highlighted the marked political slant of the REC and local electoral commissions, their composition, and ‘provisional’ character, which is why decisions were often made under strong political influence, and this affected the fairness of the process. Another related problem noted by the interviewees was the lack of professional, civil, and criminal liability of electoral administrators (especially polling board members), which frequently led to decisions and actions not following the principles of professionalism, fairness, and non-discrimination. Also mentioned were the poor and inconsistent legislation and the frequently narrow interpretation of standards and rules by the electoral administration, which often leads to appropriate protection for active or passive suffrage not being provided for purely procedural reasons. (A total of 14 of the 19 respondents agreed with this statement.) These findings were borne out by the quantitative indicators found in the stakeholder assessment: an absolute majority (11 of the 19) of those polled disagreed with each of the first four statements on the fairness of electoral justice, whilst 2 to 6 respondents agreed, depending on statement (see Table 3.2.1.1). Chart 3.2.1.1. Average agreement with statements on fairness (on a scale from 1 to 5) 4 2.57 2.26 2.36 2.68 Electoral justice Existing procedures allow Serbian electoral The Administrative Court Electoral justice institutions procedures and provisions all evidence required to administration (NEC, city and Constitutional Court (NEC, local electoral are clear and equally substantiate an objection or and municipal electoral act impartially and commissions, ACA, courts) accessible to all (political appeal to be collected and commissions) adjudicates adjudicate electoral reject legitimate objections parties and voters) presented electoral disputes brought disputes brought by on procedural grounds by election stakeholders election stakeholders without discrimination and professionally and without pursuant to law discrimination The least agreement (2 respondents) was found for the statement that ‘existing procedures allow all evidence required to substantiate an objection or appeal to be collected and presented’, but interpretation here requires some local context. According to one of the legal experts, the ability to present evidence was constrained by the urgent nature of electoral 11