Stages of the Investigation Process ✓ A complaint appears to present a prima facie claim and does not warrant additional investigation; ✓ The factual circumstances and current environment justify further action; ✓ Further action is in the public interest; and ✓ The statute of limitations for filing complaints has not expired.34 If considering a formal investigation, a preliminary assessment report could include the purpose of any proposed investigation, the scope and focus of various phases, and the steps of the proposed investigation or inquiry. It could also provide preliminary understanding of the evidence collected, the names of individuals to be interviewed, and any other appropriate follow-up measures that could be considered in deciding how to address each specific alleged offense.35 Burden of Proof The burden of proof refers to the party responsible for proving facts or issues in a given case. As discussed in IFES’ GUARDE, the burden of proof generally lies with the complainant for administrative and civil cases and with the prosecutor for criminal cases.36 However, the burden of proof could be appropriately redistributed in some election cases. As described in GUARDE, petitioners might not have access to evidence that would prove the validity of the complaint. For example, an election management body has access to evidence and information that a losing candidate who has chosen to dispute the result may not have.37 During proceedings, the adjudicator may decide to transfer the obligation to prove a fact or an issue from one party to the other party, which is known as shifting the burden of proof. This shift takes place when certain burdens have been met, meaning 34 See Canadian Investigators’ Manual Ch. 3, supra note 21, at 1–54. 35 Id. at 5. 36 GUARDE, supra note 1, at 60 (“For election challenges, the burden will generally fall on the persons challenging the outcome of the election or alleging misconduct on the part of another. This structure implies that there is a presumption of regularity of the part of officials and official actions. As the party asserting that some aspect of the election should be overturned, the petitioner can reasonably be expected to bring forward evidence to prove the assertion. Requiring the challenged party to affirmatively prove that no misconduct took place or no irregularity occurred would serve as an invitation to losing candidates or parties to bring challenges as a form of harassment.”). 37 Id. 31