Election Investigations Guidebook In Canada, Special Investigators acting on “reasonable grounds” are covered under the immunity provisions of the country’s Criminal Code.539 In Mexico, the standard of non-retaliatory immunity is a continuing challenge. While high-level officials associated with investigations do enjoy immunity, low- and mid-level investigators at INE do not have immunity. Although IFES found that these investigators do not perceive the lack of protection as a barrier to performing their duties—as they are not in a position in which they are pressured by external or internal stakeholders—immunity should, nevertheless, be extended to all investigators.540 However, such immunity should be qualified. Given the nature of an investigator’s mandate, a state should balance the need for immunity with its interest in accountability, and neither the state nor the investigator should undermine the integrity of the electoral process. Hence, immunity should not extend to conduct or behavior that is outside of the scope of professional duties and is properly subject to disciplinary action as established in the laws and regulations of a state. Conclusion This Election Investigations Guidebook aims to support public officials and practitioners in addressing the unique challenges encountered in the investigation of electoral complaints and violations. Acknowledging that there is no single approach for every context, the four principles explored in this Guidebook should inform election investigative processes no matter the legal tradition, institutional structure, or procedural rules in place. Building on this Guidebook, IFES has developed training materials and exercises to help public officials and practitioners explore application of these principles and to develop their own procedures for election investigations, tailored to the country context. For more information, please contact: info@ifes.org 539 Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, § 25(1) (“Everyone who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law (a) as a private person, (b) as a peace officer or public officer, (c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or (d) by virtue of his office, is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.”); see also Canadian Investigators’ Manual Ch. 2, supra note 322, at 5. 540 144 Vickery & Shein, supra note 169.