International Foundation for Electoral Systems Finally, with respect to legal redress for election irregularities, because the gathering of evidence in annulment cases, and election cases generally, can be extremely difficult, the role of the election commission can be of critical importance.98 In some cases, the EMB will be the only party in a position to investigate irregularities.99 In other cases, the EMB may be best able to determine the impact of the irregularity. Unfortunately, modern data management systems may not produce evidence traditionally accepted in courts or may produce evidence that requires specialized understanding by an adjudicator. For example, there may be digital data logs showing that an event occurred, but adjudicators would need to understand how such files could be easily falsified without leaving a trail, or how they can be signed digitally to clearly establish authenticity. Laws or rules on civil procedure and evidence may not be appropriately drafted to account for specific evidential needs or timelines for election cases, and this may ultimately impact the right to redress and the provision of electoral justice. e) Procedural Exposure Every EMB has a plan for running elections, but if election commissioners do not understand how modern data management systems work, there may be a procedural gap. The proper operation of computerized election systems within an EMB should be formalized through regulations and procedures prescribing a certain level of detail. The main principles related to functionality, operability, and security should all be laid down explicitly. Otherwise, critical issues may occur during the run-up to the election. For example, the design of systems may turn out to be a patchwork of partial plans and there may be gaps or confusion over who does what and when. Formalizing election operations into regulations or bylaws increases transparency, as these provisions are made available to election stakeholders and the public. An EMB that formalizes how they deal with personal voter data can later be held accountable if they do not follow their own rules. However, EMBs can be legalistic or risk-averse and may refrain from interpolating the election legislation with more detailed procedures for fear of being accused of straying outside their remits. Instead, EMBs in many cases go to the other extreme and simply repeat language of the primary legislation. In some cases, the government or legislature must approve administrative regulations, and this may impact the quality of rules adopted. Or, detailed procedures may be developed internally by the EMB but not formalized or widely published. Such internal procedures are neither transparent nor externally tested, and are often not under the full control of the commission as the collective and collegial body. 98 For a discussion of legal approaches to election annulments, see IFES’ forthcoming paper: “Annulling Election Results: How Many Irregularities Are Too Many?” http://www.ifes.org/news/annulling-election-results-how-manyirregularities-are-too-many. 99 To play this role, the EMB must be equipped to properly conduct election investigations within tight timelines and to handle evidence appropriately to ensure it is admissible. General Comment 31 to the ICCPR: “Administrative mechanisms are particularly required to give effect to the general obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies.” IFES has outlined key principles for election investigations in a forthcoming publication Standards, Techniques and Resources for Investigating Disputes in Elections (STRIDE). 26