Election Investigations Guidebook Determining Substance and Urgency Triage The process of prioritizing cases by level of urgency, known as triage, is an integral, yet complicated, component of timely electoral case management— particularly when there are a large number of complaints to deal with in a compressed timeframe and fundamental human rights are at stake. By assigning a level of urgency to each complaint, investigators can determine the order in which complaints should be handled. Like the medical triage system, which facilitates the allocation of services to where they are needed most, the triage approach in the electoral context aims for the most Investigators must bear in mind that individual cases may not immediately appear to have an impact on the results of an election but that an accumulation of similar claims might. For example, one claim of voter intimidation may not impact the outcome of an election but thousands of similar claims might. efficient and effective use of an investigative body’s resources in the reduced timeframe available for the resolution of election disputes. The seriousness of an alleged violation, especially in terms of determinative effect on the results of an election, should be considered when deciding whether to pursue investigation.54 The Uniform Guidelines for Investigation support the prioritization of claims in an investigation by noting that preliminary assessments should “take into account the gravity of the allegation and the possible outcome(s).”55 In addition, in Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, the European Court of Human Rights found that “[i]t is first necessary to separately assess the seriousness and magnitude of the alleged election irregularity prior to determining its effect on the overall outcome of the election.”56 Particularly in places where there are heavy complaint workloads and potential backlogs in the EDR system, there could be circumstances in which a complaint should be given priority because it may have a determinative impact on the election outcome, unlike smaller-scale claims that may not ultimately 54 Jacques C. Morin, Le Droit de la Preuve et la Pétition en Contestation D’élection, 20 Les Cahiers de Droit 153, 153–154 (1979). 55 Uniform Guidelines 2009, supra note 25, ¶ 32. 56 Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, App. No. 18705/06, 1 Eur. Ct. H.R. 74 (2010), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/ ‌search.aspx?i‌=001-98187. 40