It can be difficult to determine whether a system provides adequate remedies in response to electoral irregularities, in part because of the politically charged atmosphere inherent to electoral conflict.13 There are two elements to consider: the effectiveness of the election dispute resolution system; and the actual remedies the system applies. International human rights law clearly recognizes substantive rights to remedies and procedural rights of access to remedies. These elements are inextricably linked, but it is helpful to look at them in isolation, as the effectiveness of the system (i.e., an EDR process that establishes guarantees for a timely decision, a legal justification, a final decision that is no longer subject to appeal, and mandates for sanctions and penalties) will contribute to ensuring the availability of effective remedies. Election observers have increasingly emphasized the importance of effective remedies for electoral complaints or disputes, and frequently identify the failure to provide such remedies as a key weakness in the electoral process. In the OSCE Observer Report for the 2010 Kyrgyz parliamentary elections, observers noted that “[t]he failure to provide timely and written decisions on complaints deprived plaintiffs of their right to receive effective legal redress.” 14 In an electoral process where timeliness is critical, when a court or tribunal fails to resolve disputes in an expedited manner, it can indicate that both the dispute resolution process and the remedy it produces are ineffectual. For the 2011 Presidential and Legislative Elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, observers with the Carter Center found that “the underdeveloped [EDR] system does not seem to sufficiently protect citizens’ fundamental right to adjudicative remedy for alleged violations of their rights.”15 The Carter Center also observed that “there are few legal remedies within the DRC available for breaches of electoral law,” illustrating the problems associated with EDR legal and regulatory regimes that do not clearly set out available remedies.16 Ultimately, the legal framework may provide for a remedy, but if the systems and institutions that can provide that remedy are incapable of making timely and well-reasoned decisions, or if the mechanisms used to enforce the remedies are weak or non-existent, then the system does not meet international standards. 13 GUIDELINES FOR UNDERSTANDING, 69 supra note 7, http://www.ifes.org/Content/Publications/Books/2011/Guidelines-toUnderstanding-Adjudicating-and-Resolving-Disputes-in-Elections.aspx. 14 ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE [hereinafter OSCE], KYRGYZSTAN, PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, 10 OCTOBER 2010: FINAL REPORT (2010), http://www.osce.org/odihr/74649. 15 CARTER CENTER, FINAL REPORT: PRESIDENTIAL AND LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO (2011), http://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/news/peace_publications/election_reports/drc-112811-elections-finalrpt.pdf 16 Id.