Election Investigations Guidebook at least one of two categories: (1) tally forms suspected of being fraudulent, which were further investigated by the IEC and (2) forms that clearly contradicted set thresholds, such as votes cast in excess of the 600 ballots provided to a polling station or those that were deemed “obviously fraudulent.”119 Based on these triggers, investigations, and subsequent findings, the forms that were deemed to be fraudulent were thrown out entirely.120 Unfortunately, international observation reports and many Afghan stakeholders indicated that, in some cases, triggers were not used merely as a starting point for investigation but as conclusive evidence that justified invalidating votes without substantiating the claims with corroborating evidence. The concern is that valid votes were thrown out solely on the basis of these triggers, without further investigation. Although the available records are not entirely clear on how many ballots were thrown out solely due to the use of these triggers, public perception was that this practice was widespread. Even when rigorous investigations were conducted and corroborating evidence was found, neither the investigation process nor the decisions it generated were known or fully understood by relevant stakeholders. Furthermore, stakeholders did not receive clear explanations on how issues of administrative error and those of clear fraud would be resolved differently. This lack of transparency, whether real or perceived, led to speculation and diminishing trust in the electoral process.121 Afghanistan’s experience illustrates three essential elements of investigation processes: first, transparency; second, proper documentation and disclosure of the steps taken; and third, safeguards to ensure that triggers are only applied as the first step in triage and investigation. Any trigger that has been designed to identify questionable behavior or results must be investigated and corroborated with further evidence before being used to dismiss elections results outright. A thorough investigation also requires investigators to consider multiple types of evidence. Additionally, because the “purpose of an investigation should be to secure independent evidence,”122 an investigator should aim 119 Id. 120 IFES, Afghanistan Electoral Integrity Assessment Final Report 61–62 (2013) (unpublished report) (on file with IFES). 121 Id. 122 Human Rights Standards and Practice for the Police, supra note 111. 58