Does the EDR system in your country provide effective remedies for electoral violations and crimes? 8 6 4 2 0 Yes No Sometimes Are remedies for electoral problems and violations set out clearly in the legal framework in your country? 8 The law in most countries, regardless of the level of democratic development, establishes a right to seek a remedy for violations of electoral rights, but the legal and regulatory framework articulating that right may be weak or incomplete, and the effectiveness of the actual process may require closer scrutiny. In an effort to collect further data on the provision of effective remedies for electoral problems and violations, the authors conducted a brief survey of electoral experts in ten countries around the world to learn more about the election dispute resolution (EDR) system in country and its practical application.17 Respondents provided insights on EDR systems in Myanmar, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Georgia, Guatemala, Kenya, Burkina Faso, and Cote d’Ivoire. Six out of ten countries were assessed by election experts as sometimes providing effective remedies for electoral violations and crimes, while the rest were not considered to provide effective remedies. Despite this serious weakness, seven respondents indicated that the system in their country did have remedies 4 for electoral problems or violations clearly set out in the regulatory framework. Only the respondents from Myanmar, 2 Guatemala, and Ukraine said that this is not the case. For 0 Ukraine, the expert noted: “administrative fines for many Yes No election-related violations are too small to be considered effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. . . .For certain violations of the election laws, such as distribution of goods and services to voters in relation to election campaigning, no sanctions are provided at all.”18 For Myanmar, the expert observed “for election violations committed during the campaign period or on Election Day, there is no provision in the law regulating this process and no timely remedy.”19 Even in those countries where remedies were provided in the law, challenges were obvious in applying the remedies. In Pakistan for example, while remedies are set out in the law, the application of these remedies is considered poor, due to “a weak implementation mechanism”20 and a failure of tribunals to take timely action. 6 While international law clearly defines the right to a meaningful remedy as essential to the protection of fundamental political rights, in practice, the provision of effective remedies to electoral irregularities or violations remains a widespread challenge. It is important to note that this is not simply an academic challenge. Election stakeholders worldwide are becoming increasingly litigious, but many countries with evolving EDR systems (particularly those in developing democracies) cannot keep pace with the demand; the total number of complaints received generally far exceeds the number that are actually heard and resolved. Many cases may 17 Internal IFES field office survey, February, 2016. Countries surveyed represent aid recipient countries at different levels of development, with locally identified electoral expertise, and capacity to respond to the questions in the survey. 18 Id. 19 Id. 20 Id.