effectiveness must encompass these procedural elements. Hence, the first element to consider when measuring effectiveness is to simply determine if the legal system has the ability to give effect to the legal remedies available by applying them in practice in a manner that will redress the issue at hand. In the elections context, a key part of this process is the expedited provision of a remedy, discussed in more detail in the next section. 2. A remedy must timely It is crucial to resolve disputes or violations in a timely manner while they can still be redressed in a meaningful way. This is particularly true in the electoral context, where rights are tied to the electoral calendar, and results dictate the transfer of power. If the public considers the settlement of disputes too slow, trust in the EMB and judicial institutions (and ultimately in the results of an election) may be lost. Crucially, slow administration of justice may impact public confidence in the peaceful settlement of disputes. As IFES has previously noted, “[b]ecause the legitimacy of the entire government may rest on the validity of election results, complaint proceedings must be expeditious.”54 Most relevant for the purposes of this volume, undue delay can render remedies ineffective. The importance of a timely remedy or resolution to a dispute is widely recognized in international conventions and treaties, even though the language used to describe the requirement for timeliness may vary. In general, the time-sensitivity of elections requires dispute resolution proceedings to take place “within a reasonable time” or “without undue delay.”55 In Nigeria, despite the requirement of Section 148 of the Electoral Act of 2006 that requires an election petition or appeal to have an “accelerated hearing” that has “precedence over all other cases or matters before the Tribunal or Court,”56 the Nigerian court system took nearly two years to resolve a dispute regarding the 2007 gubernatorial election, with a rerun finally ordered in 2009 after the declared winner had spent two years in office.57 According to observers, the delays concerning the 2007 electoral complaints created a deep legitimacy and credibility crisis in the Ekiti State.58 Fast-forward to the 2015 Nigerian elections, where observers from the OSCE noted that “the lack of time limits for filing and adjudicating of pre-election suits, in combination with loopholes allowing lawyers to delay cases unnecessarily, left the majority of cases pending before the courts for after the elections, thus compromising the right to a timely remedy.”59 During the 2013 electoral cycle in Pakistan, the complaints process was “marked by substantial delays at all levels.”60 At the time of this writing, more than two years after the 2013 election, petitions continue to be decided, despite the election tribunals being required by law to dispose of them of within 120 days of receipt. This has caused prominent politicians to be removed from office after many months or years, and widespread protests continue to plague 54 GUIDELINES FOR UNDERSTANDING, supra note 7 at 42. ICCPR, supra note 5 at art. 14 § 1(c); European Convention for Protection of Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms, art. 6, § 1 and the American Convention on Human Rights, art. 8. 56 Electoral Act (2010) § 142 (Nigeria). 57 This provision of the electoral law recalls section 294(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, that “every court established under this Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses.” CONSTITUTION OF NIGERIA (1999), § 294(1). 58 GUIDELINES FOR UNDERSTANDING, supra note 7. 59 OSCE, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, GENERAL ELECTIONS 28 MARCH 2015 AND 11 APRIL 2015: FINAL REPORT (2015), http://www.eueom.eu/files/pressreleases/english/eu-eom-nigeria-2015-final-report_en.pdf. 60 IFES, ELECTION TRIBUNAL MONITORING PROJECT FINAL REPORT (2009); DRI, ELECTION DISPUTE RESOLUTION: AN ANALYSIS OF PAKISTAN’S MECHANISMS PRIOR TO THE 2013 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (2013). 55