Principle 2: Thorough Investigation verification and corroboration of information. Very few countries provide election investigators with guidance for conducting proper analysis of evidence. Canada, however, specifies a list of criteria that Special investigators should consider when conducting the inspection, review, and analysis of documentary records.225 For instance: › Is the recorded information sufficient, reliable, and substantial enough to either prove or refute the allegations of the complainant? › Does the recorded information comply with relevant provisions of the electoral laws? › Does other evidence corroborate the documents? › Are there explanations for apparent omissions, discrepancies, anomalies, or irregularities? › Do the records appear to contain any false, deceptive, or misleading information? All investigators can ask themselves similar questions when examining evidence. Moreover, investigative bodies should take steps to develop and disseminate comparable guidelines in order to ensure that investigators understand how to properly analyze evidence. Reporting, Referral, and Notification Investigators must present their findings and recommendations in a formal final report, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, and they must refer substantiated complaints to appropriate authorities. According to the Uniform Guidelines for Investigations: “[I]f the Investigative Office does find sufficient information to substantiate the complaint, it will document its investigative findings and refer the findings to the relevant authorities.”226 The UNDP OAI Investigation Guidelines provide a general example of this process at work.227 If evidence obtained during investigation does not substantiate the allegations, then UNDP investigators must prepare a so-called Closure Report—an internal document that does not recommend any further disciplinary or administrative action. Subsequently, investigators notify the 225 See Canadian Investigators’ Manual Ch. 10, supra note 151, at 2. 226 Uniform Guidelines 2009, supra note 25, ¶ 42. 227 See UNDP Investigation Guidelines 2012,supra note 6, ¶ 8.3. 79