Principle 2: Thorough Investigation iii. Investigators must abide by any laws regarding interviews and, if required, must inform interviewees of their rights. Investigators should take care to heed any legal warnings for interviewees that may be required by domestic law—particularly with respect to election crimes. In many interview settings, investigators must inform interviewees of certain rights, like the right against self-incrimination or the right to counsel, and they must clearly disclose how evidence uncovered during the interview could later be used in court. In the United States, for example, law enforcement officers must offer Miranda211 warnings prior to interrogation in police custody. Similarly, in the election context, the Canadian Special Investigators’ Manual instructs investigators on giving “official cautions.”212 By providing any necessary legal warnings, investigators can ensure that their interview findings prove admissible in court later on, providing valuable evidence for the arbiter to adjudicate the election dispute. Analyzing Evidence and Presenting Findings Proper analysis of evidence includes both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence,213 along with a formal written report to the relevant authorities that presents substantiated findings and recommendations. Once investigators have gathered and substantiated all evidence through interviews, document collection, and other means, they “must consider the evidence presented.”214 As the Supreme Court of the Philippines noted, evidence becomes “conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration.”215 Because “administrative decisions against a person must be fully justifiable,”216 investigators have 211 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 494 (1966) (declaring that whenever a person is taken into police custody, before being questioned, they must be told of their right under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to make any self-incriminating statements). 212 See generally Canadian Investigators’ Manual Ch. 7, supra note 174, at 1–12. 213 Exculpatory evidence is favorable to the defendant and evidence favorable to the plaintiff or claimant is inculpatory. 214 Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-46496 (S.C., 1940) (Phil.), http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1940/ feb1940/gr_l-46496_1940.html (emphasis in original). 215 Id. (quoting Edwards v. McCoy, 22 Phil. Rep. 598 [S.C., 1912]). 216 Organization for the Security and Co-operation of Europe, Document of the Copenhagen Meeting on the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE ¶ 5.11 (1990), http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304. 77