Election Investigations Guidebook toral laws, regulations, and codes of conduct. A liability framework for electoral investigations would guarantee: (a) the implementation of mechanisms that impose disciplinary measures for improper, wrongful, or negligent conduct by election officials, investigators, and support staff; and (b) that such measures are used only for established violations.371 This framework serves to reinforce electoral laws and regulations, codes of conduct, and investigation standards. In developing such a framework, a state would need to consider what actors and institutions should have the authority to decide on misconduct cases and appeals, on procedural safeguards for protecting the rights of investigators, on grounds for disciplinary action, and on appropriate sanctions. These questions should be answered through clear electoral rules and regulations, promulgated well in advance of an election. As with all disciplinary and crim- Elements of a Liability Framework for Electoral Investigations › Definition of authority for deciding on misconduct cases and appeals › Procedural safeguards for protecting the rights of investigators › Established grounds for disciplinary action › System for enforcing appropriate sanctions inal proceedings, procedural safeguards must be in place to protect the rights of investigators. The European Court of Human Rights372 and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have found that due process rights can apply not only to judicial but also to administrative proceedings, including those related to the rights of civil servants. The Human Rights Committee, in 371 Orozco-Henríquez et al., supra note 101, at 111. 372 See, e.g., Vilho Eskelinen v. Finland, App. No. 63235/00 Eur. Ct. H.R. 57, 62 (2007). The Court finds that access to court review is often accorded to civil servants, enabling claims for salary, allowances, dismissal, and recruitment on a similar basis to employees in the private sector. In these circumstances, there is no conflict between the interests of the State and the right of an individual to protection under domestic law. The Court provides a two-stage test for a respondent state to rely on an applicant’s status as civil servant in order to exclude application of fair trial guarantees: Firstly, the State in its national law must have expressly excluded access to a court for the post or category of staff in question. Secondly, the exclusion must be justified on objective grounds in the State’s interest . . . Thus, there can in principle be no justification for the exclusion from the guarantees of Article 6 of ordinary labour disputes, such as those relating to salaries, allowances or similar entitlements, on the basis of the special nature of relationship between the particular civil servant and the State in question. There will, in effect, be a presumption that Article 6 applies. It will be for the respondent Government to demonstrate, firstly, that a civil-servant applicant does not have a right of access to a court under national law and, secondly, that the exclusion of the rights under Article 6 for the civil servant is justified. (Emphasis added). 110