intentionally Distorts the will of the people. This may manifest as interference with individual votes, or in overall vote counts that impact results. Result Illustrative Remedies Job loss or suspension Blacklist (not to be hired again) Fine Criminal prosecution criminal malpractice, regardless of whether intent is proven) May lead to irregularities in the electoral process, some of which may prevent the election outcome from reflecting the will of the people Corrective resolution (e.g., clarification on correct procedure) Additional training Warning Job dismissal, suspension, or demotion Blacklist (not to be hired again) Fine For criminal malpractice, criminal prosecution In some cases, a practical resolution to a problem or irregularity will actually be more effective in ensuring the integrity of the process and protecting fundamental rights than a formal legal remedy. A resolution can be implemented immediately and fix a problem directly, and may prevent any violations of fundamental rights if implemented early enough in the process. In Grosaru v. Romania, the ECtHR held: for a remedy to be effective it need not always be a judicial remedy or a single remedy. The Court has accepted the possibility of an aggregate of remedies. Furthermore, the notion of effectiveness is construed as ensuring either the prevention of the alleged violation, or the provision of adequate redress, including compensation, for the victim of a violation.29 Grosaru v. Romania illustrates the fact that certain violations (and hence certain remedies) may overlap; an action can be both an electoral violation under electoral laws or regulations, as well as a crime under the country’s penal code. For example, an incident of violence committed with the purpose of intimidating a person to vote a certain way may be both an offense of intimidation under electoral laws, and the crime of assault under the penal code. In such cases the act may be sanctioned (i.e., a remedy provided) under both the electoral laws and under the penal code. The level of evidence necessary for a criminal conviction can make a criminal prosecution more time-consuming, and convicting a person of a crime requires a higher evidentiary standard (generally “beyond a reasonable doubt”), than to sanction a person for an electoral offense. Conversely, there are factors that make criminal prosecution more effective: greater resources for investigation; greater penalties; the power of arrest; and wide powers of search and seizure to obtain evidence. In short, what is being remedied must be determined if one is to measure the effectiveness of a particular remedy. If administrative mistakes have been made, administrative corrections of the mistakes and additional training to ensure the mistakes do not happen again are likely to be considered effective. However, if fraud has occurred, effectively correcting the fraudulent act and its impact on the election could be difficult. Numerous factors need be 29 Grosaru v. Rom., App. No. 78039/01, 2010-II Eur. Ct. H.R. 1 (2010). See also, Kudła v. Pol., No. 30210/96, 2000-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. § 158 (2000).