This would help better safeguard electoral rights and create trust amongst the public in the state’s readiness to prosecute any electoral violations. This chapter presents a number of controversial provisions that should be amended or replaced in accordance with the principles cited above and as part of a broadbased consultative process designed to improve electoral justice in Serbia. To better safeguard electoral rights, regulations in this area ought to be improved by: → legislating new criminal offences against electoral rights; → broadening the scope of applicability of existing offences; → introducing stricter penalties, and → legislating aggravated forms of certain offences already envisaged by Serbian criminal law. 1) Violation of the right to stand for elected office This offence is governed by Chapter XV, Article 154 of the Criminal Code: ‘Whoever, by violation of law or other unlawful means, prevents or hinders one from standing for elected office, shall be punished by a fine or a term of imprisonment of up to one year.’ This wording causes practical issues as it in effect means that the offence captures only ‘violation of law’ but not of secondary legislation, which is hugely important in Serbian elections. To clearly stake out the scope of applicability, the words ‘violation of law’ should be followed by ‘or other regulations adopted pursuant to law’, which would make it a criminal offence to infringe on secondary legislation that governs the right to stand for office. It is interesting to note that this offence was first introduced in 1994, when the penalty was a term of imprisonment of between six months and five years, but the penalties were made much more lenient for many offences, including this one, in the 2005 iteration of the Criminal Code, even though circumstances had not improved much for the exercise of passive suffrage in Serbia. Relaxation of the penalties does not seem to have been justified, and so reintroducing stricter sanctions for this offence, as well as for other offences against electoral rights, ought to be considered. 2) Violation of the right to vote Article 155[2] of the Criminal Code envisages a ‘qualified’ (aggravated) form of this offence, with the provision stating: ‘Whoever, by use of force or threat, coerces another in an election, impeachment vote, or referendum, to exercise or not to exercise his voting right or to vote for or against a particular candidate or proposition, shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of three months to three years.’ However, there is agreement that the current scope of this offence is neither adequate nor appropriate to the current circumstances, as it makes it an offence only to use force or threat as means of coercion. The scope of applicability of the aggravated form of this offence could be extended if the wording were recast to also include other types of coercion, such as: ‘Whoever, by use of force or threat, or by any other unlawful means, coerces another (…)’ Such a provision would make it an offence to exert any kind of influence on voters to cast or not to cast votes for a particular candidate or proposition, even where that influence is not based on coercion or threat, and would serve the purpose of punishment by preventing the perpetration of these offences, ensuring deterrence, providing an avenue for public condemnation, promoting public morals, 36