Pakistan’s political environment, despite the 2013 elections generally being considered credible. In Sri Lanka in 2015, the European Union Election Observation Mission (EUEOM) noted that while “legislation provides for complaints and appeals processes that are generally in line with the international principle of judicial review,” nevertheless, “election-related complaints go through regular administrative procedures, with no specific election-related deadlines, which may undermine their timely and effective remedy.”61 In a paper titled “The Right to a Fair Trial and the Council of Europe’s Efforts to Ensure Effective Remedies on a Domestic Level for Excessively Lengthy Proceedings,” Martin Kuijer observed that “[e]very year hundreds of applicants complain before the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the “Court”) that judicial proceedings before their domestic courts have taken too much time and thereby violate Article 6 of the ECHR, which states that “everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”62 When the paper was published in 2013, Kuijer noted that twentyfive per cent of the total number of ECtHR judgments still relate to length of proceedings cases. In Ummuhan v. Kaplan, the ECtHR noted that more than 2700 applications stemming from the same issue in Turkey had been pending before the Court, and ruled that Turkey was required to put in place, within a year, an effective remedy affording adequate and sufficient redress in cases where judicial proceedings exceeded a reasonable time.63 Whether a remedy is effective in practice can be difficult to measure in the time-bound elections context. For example, it can be difficult to restore the right to vote to an individual posthoc in an otherwise credible election. When examining the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the EDHR, and the right to a fair trial “within a reasonable time” under Article 6, the ECtHR has noted that expedited proceedings are paramount, but where a delay has already occurred a remedy should still be provided. In McFarlane v Ireland the Court held that Article 13 allows a State to choose between a remedy that can expedite pending proceedings, or a remedy post factum for a delay that has already occurred. While the former is preferred, “a compensatory remedy may be regarded as effective when the proceedings have already been excessively long and a preventative remedy did not exist.”64 The Court has also noted that the right to a timely and fair hearing is separate to whether a remedy is available in the law. In Kudla v Poland the Court observed that whether the applicant benefitted from a civil rights or criminal trial within a reasonable time is a separate legal issue than “whether there was available to the applicant under domestic law an effective remedy to ventilate a complaint on that ground.”65 The need for the prompt resolution of electoral issues must be balanced with the requirement for due process. Given the high stakes involved in elections, courts and adjudicatory bodies must balance the expeditious disposal of cases and the fairness of the adjudication 61 OSCE, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA, PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS 17 AUGUST 2015: FINAL REPORT (2015), http://www.eueom.eu/files/pressreleases/english/EUEOM_SriLanka_FinalReport_20151017.pdf. 62 Martin Kuijer, The Right to a Fair Trial and the Council of Europe’s Efforts to Ensure Effective Remedies on a Domestic Level for Excessively Lengthy Proceedings, 13:4 HUMAN RIGHTS L. REV. 777 (2013), http://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/About%20EJTN/Independent%20Seminars/Human%20Rights%20BCN%202829%20April%202014/KUIJER_Fair_Trial_Lengthy_Proc_CoE_2013.pdf. 63 Id. at 784. 64 McFarlane v. Ir., App. No. 31333/06, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 108 (2010). 65 Kudla v Poland, App. No. 30210/96, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2000), http://law2.syr.edu/media/documents/2009/3/Kudla_v_Poland.pdf.