may become meaningless in the protection of rights, as decisions will effectively have no force to change or deter certain kinds of behavior that threaten the rights of others, or to right a wrong that has already occurred. The purpose of legal remedies in the elections context is to protect the integrity of the process and to ensure that electoral rights (to vote and stand for office) are respected. No election is perfect, but sometimes irregularities can escalate until they violate fundamental rights, and/or threaten the credibility and legitimacy of the election or the election results. Ideally, appropriate preventative measures should be established prior to an election to mitigate this threat, but equally important are effective and timely remedial measures to address allegations of fraud or malpractice when they do occur. There are many different ways to design an effective and efficient system for addressing electoral complaints and providing effective remedies, and these have been outlined elsewhere in the literature.7 It is important that any system adhere to international standards that stem from the fundamental right to participate in government found in the UDHR and the ICCPR.8 Signatories to the ICCPR are committed to ensuring that any person whose right to vote and be elected has been violated will have an effective remedy.9 For a complaints adjudication process to be effective, the judge or adjudicator must be able to grant the complaining party a meaningful remedy that, in addition to righting the wrong at hand, helps to deter future malpractice and fraud.10 , Additionally, there should be predetermined rules in place governing the application of this remedy.11 The role of the judiciary to ensure that the legal provisions protecting fundamental rights are interpreted in such a way as to make them effective has been acknowledged by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In Namat Alieyev v. Azerbaijan, the ECtHR held that the “object and purpose” of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms “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 [emphasis added].”12 American Convention on Human Rights, The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, The Arab Charter on Human Rights, and the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 7 See, e.g., GUIDELINES FOR UNDERSTANDING, ADJUDICATING, AND RESOLVING DISPUTES IN ELECTIONS [GUARDE] [hereinafter GUIDELINES FOR UNDERSTANDING] (Chad Vickery ed., 2011), http://www.ifes.org/Content/Publications/Books/2011/Guidelines-to-Understanding-Adjudicating-and-ResolvingDisputes-in-Elections.aspx.; JESÚS OROZCO-HENRIQUEZ, ELECTORAL JUSTICE: THE INTERNATIONAL IDEA HANDBOOK (2010). . Models include administrative and judicial bodies operating under special procedures; shared jurisdiction between ordinary courts and election commissions; permanent electoral courts; legislative bodies; international and ad hoc bodies. 8 ICCPR, supra note 5, at art. 25. 9 Id. at art. 2(3). 10 GUIDELINES FOR UNDERSTANDING, supra note 7, http://www.ifes.org/Content/Publications/Books/2011/Guidelines-toUnderstanding-Adjudicating-and-Resolving-Disputes-in-Elections.aspx. According to GUARDE, effective systems will provide: a transparent right of redress; clearly defined election standards and procedures; an impartial and informed arbiter; appropriately expedited decisions; established burdens of proof and standards of evidence; meaningful and effective remedies; and effective education and training for stakeholders 11 Id. 12 Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, App. No. 18705/06, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 72 (2010). . (See, United Communist Party of Turk. and Ors v. Turk., No. 19392/92, 1998-I Eur. Ct. H.R. § 33 (1998), http://www.associationline.org/guidebook/action/read/chapter/10/section/jurisprudence/decision/290; Chassagnou and Others v. Fr., Nos. 25088/94, 28331/95, & 28443/95, 1999-III Eur. Ct. H.R. § 100 (1999); and Lykourezos v. Greece, No. 33554/03, 2006-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. § 56 (2006).