and strengthening compliance with law. In this case, as with violation of the right to stand for office, stricter penalties for the basic form of the offence were envisaged by previous versions of the Criminal Code. As such, it would seem pertinent to revisit the severity of the current sanctions along with any amendments to the wording of the aggravated offence. 3) Voting There is some inconsistency between the Criminal Code and criminal offences in what is generally termed ‘ancillary criminal legislation’. Here, the LEMP envisages the criminal offence of abuse of office in parliamentary elections (Article 104). This offence can be perpetrated by an REC commissioner or a polling board member, or any other person who alters the number of votes cast in a parliamentary election in the course of their official duties. This offence involves adding or removing ballot papers or votes when counting, or publishing election results that do not correspond to the actual vote. There are multiple issues with this provision. Firstly, the characteristics of this offence overlap to a large degree with those of ballot and election fraud from Article 161 of the Criminal Code, with the only difference being the less strict penalty envisaged by the LEMP. This raises the issue of whether an REC commissioner suspected of having committed an election-related offence would be prosecuted under Article 161 of the Criminal Code or under Article 104 of the LEMP. According to current practice, the prosecution would choose the more serious offence (the one set out in the Criminal Code), but it ought to be noted that prosecutorial practice is not entirely consistent even if broadly aligned. 4) Unauthorized collection of personal data Any consideration of criminal law safeguards should not be restricted only to offences set out in Chapter XV of the Criminal Code, since there are also other offences not directly linked with the electoral process but whose prosecution does contribute to protecting electoral rights and freedoms. To ensure compliance with global standards and properly safeguard the vote, amendments ought to be made to the offence of unauthorized collection of personal data (Article 146 of the Criminal Code), which is deemed to exist whenever personal data are collected or disclosed or used for a purpose other than intended. This offence is deemed to be aggravated when the personal data are collected, disclosed, or used by a public official. In the run-up to and on Election Day, political parties and other election stakeholders will often use personal data to contact voters and invite them to turn out, put pressure on them, and keep records of voters who have turned out. How these data are collected and processed is often quite controversial, especially in situations when voters have not authorized the election stakeholders to collect such data or keep records. Given the extent of the danger posed by this criminal offence in the electoral process, stricter sanctions ought to be envisaged for both its forms.57 In addition, for both forms the Criminal Code requires civil litigation, which is at odds with prosecution provisions for other similar offences. In that The basic offence carries a term of imprisonment of up to one year, and the aggravated offence a term of imprisonment of up to three years. 57 37