Once a state has determined what can be adjudicated and by whom, legal drafters and reformers must consider the broad range of policy options available to them in defining the remedies that apply to specific types of fraud and malpractice. With this in mind, legal drafters have minimal guidance as to how they should determine which remedy to tie to a specific violation or wrongdoing. Legal drafters have to use intuition and comparative examples when drafting the legal code that applies to remedies. There is little to no information available that provides the drafter the tools they need to determine if a specific remedy will be “effective” in producing the outcome for which the remedy is intended. With that in mind, the following section focuses on a proposed framework that can measure the effectiveness of specific remedies in specific situations and give legal drafters the tools they need design an effective EDR regime. V. What are the core elements of effectiveness? There are arguably several core elements comprising the concept of “effectiveness.” As outlined above, these elements concern both the effectiveness of the election dispute resolution system itself, and the actual remedies the system produces. This paper identifies six core elements of effectiveness. Namely, an effective remedy: (1) ensures that the letter and spirit of the law is realized in practice (including to restore electoral rights or otherwise undo the harm caused by a violation); (2) is provided in a timely manner; (3) is proportional to the violation or irregularity in question; (4) is enforceable; (5) leads to deterrence or a change in behavior in question; and (6) reinforces the perception of fairness and credibility of the process. 1. A remedy must be effective in practice as well as in law As illustrated by our field research, even when the right to a remedy resides in the legal framework, access to an effective remedy may remain elusive. Courts and other bodies responsible for adjudicating electoral disputes must give effect to these legal remedies by practically applying them in a manner that will redress the issue at hand. Ultimately, a right has no meaning without a remedy to protect it. As legal theorist Tracy Thomas has noted, “[r]ights standing alone are simply expressions of social values. It is the remedy that defines the right by making the value real and tangible by providing specificity and concreteness to otherwise abstract guarantees.”43 In Petkov v. Bulgaria, the ECtHR ruled that a remedy must be “effective in practice as well as in law in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or remedying the impugned state of affairs, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred.”44 Similarly, in Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, the ECtHR held that “the object and purpose of the Convention, which is an instrument for the protection of human rights, requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective.”45 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has also examined the different components of an effective remedy in Miyagawa v. Peru, where the applicant alleged that the National Elections Board arbitrarily and illegally deprived her of her right to stand for an election as an independent candidate, and further that this violation led to the denial of the right to vote for 43 Tracy Thomas, Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium: The Fundamental Right to a Remedy Under Due Process [hereinafter Ubi Jus], 41 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 6 (2004). 44 Petkov v. Bulgaria, Nos. 77568/01, 178/02, & 505/02, 5 Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 74 (2009). 45 Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, App. No. 18705/06, 2010 Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 72 (2010).