The process of measuring different types of remedies for different categories is complex. For example, measuring the decline in complaints of fraud may help us to draw conclusions about effective deterrence, but this may not provide insights into other elements of effectiveness (for example, redressing rights). Proper analysis of effective remedies requires an examination of the core elements of effectiveness outlined in this paper, to ensure that a 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. In any comprehensive analysis of remedies’ effectiveness, these elements will need to be balanced. For example, we have an intuitive sense of when a legal remedy may be too heavyhanded, but it may be considered effective in the sense that it deters the conduct in question. In Sri Lanka, a heavy and non-proportional sentence of three years of jail time may be imposed on any individual for publicly disclosing a political party campaign finance asset statement (which seems disproportional), but no violation of this rule has ever been reported (therefore, it may be effective as a deterrent). Furthermore, to measure the effectiveness of remedies, data on remedies that have been applied and enforced must be available. Election observers have highlighted the importance of case management systems to provide transparency and visibility of both the EDR system and the remedies it provides. During the 2013 Pakistan general elections, OSCE observers noted that “[t]he lack of a central record-keeping system and routine publication of decisions ma[de] it difficult to assess the extent to which there was consistent opportunity for effective remedy.”96 An effective case management system allows for consistent information on the adjudication of complaints, the reasoning behind decisions, the application of the remedy, and the enforcement of that remedy. The process of evaluation of the effectiveness of remedies should draw on mixed (or multiple) methods, given the multiple variables involved and components of effectiveness. A key benefit of this type of approach is that we can combine multiple perspectives, both qualitative and quantitative evidence, and overcome data limitations inherent to collecting information on the application of EDR remedies in developing democracies. Specificity regarding the desired outcomes (e.g., deterrence or organizational legitimacy) will be essential both to the analysis and to achieving system improvement. ‘Evidence-based practice’ implies that (1) one outcome is desired over others; (2) the outcome is measurable; and (3) the outcome is defined according to practical realities rather than immeasurable moral or value-oriented standards.97 We outline below an agenda for further research based on the elements of effectiveness introduced in this chapter as well as the implicit requirements for developing an evidence base for good practice. 1. Does the remedy reflect the spirit and the letter of the law? In general, answering this question will require comparative legal analysis of both formal 96 OSCE, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, GENERAL ELECTIONS 11 MAY 2013: FINAL REPORT (2013) http://www.eueom.eu/files/dmfile/eu-eom-pakistan-2013-final-report_en.pdf. 97 U.S. DEPT. JUST., IMPLEMENTING EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE IN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS: THE PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION, https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/019342.pdf.