Principle 2: Thorough Investigation dismiss or pursue a complaint. In the election investigation context, adopting too strict a standard for triggering investigations could thwart meritorious claims from being properly examined. On the other hand, adopting too lenient a standard could flood investigators with warrantless claims. Given the need to strike a balance between these two extremes, investigators should rely on an adequate standard to determine whether a complaint has been sufficiently substantiated before proceeding with an investigation. Search and Seizure Investigative bodies have the responsibility to “establish standing orders emphasizing legal safeguards for investigations.”161 An important aspect of these safeguards is the protection of the privacy and property rights of those being investigated. Therefore, the legal framework should clarify any applicable search and seizure rules when investigating the role that individuals may have played in the crime or administrative issue in question. In administrative cases, where the state holds the evidence in question, the administrative body must fully cooperate with the adjudicator in producing and securing evidence. The term “search and seizure” refers to the procedure by which law enforcement officers or other authorities (here, election investigators) examine the property or possessions believed to suggest the commission of a crime or electoral misconduct and then take these articles as evidence. Each country affords police and other law enforcement officials with varying degrees of discretion in carrying out search and seizure activities, although many countries require some type of court-authorized warrant. In civil law (or inquisitional) countries, a judge may play a larger role in leading an investigation and procuring evidence, depending on the type of complaint and the election dispute resolution mechanism in place. EMBs have access to election materials, which generally constitute the majority of relevant evidence. However, if any party to the case, including the EMB, believes that important evidence is in the possession of others, they can request that a judge investigates and orders another party (including third parties) to produce this evidence. It is ultimately up to the judge to determine whether the evidence is relevant and admissible. 161 Human Rights Standards and Practice for the Police, supra note 111. 67