Chapter 1: International Standards The 2001 presidential elections petitions in the Republic of Zambia also illustrate the need for a timely adjudication of complaints. Following the elections, eleven political parties contested the presidential elections before the Zambian courts to allege irregularities. It was not until 16 February 2005 that the Supreme Court issued its final decision and held that the 2001 presidential election was valid even if some ballots had flaws.145 However, positive steps were taken by the state to avoid the repetition of such long delays in the electoral complaints adjudication process. In 2006, the electoral law was modified to include the stipulation that “an election petition shall be tried and determined by the High Court within one hundred and eighty days of presentation of the election petition.”146 The Republic of Zambia explained this reform in a report to the U.N. Human Rights Committee to show its compliance with the ICCPR.147 Another example of delays in adjudicating electoral complaints is evident in the electoral complaint adjudication system in Pakistan. IFES conducted a project to monitor Pakistan’s complaint resolution process from February to November 2008, and found that roughly 39 of the 220 Election Petitions filed in the 2002 General Elections remained unresolved in 2008.148 While the electoral law sets a time limit of four months to adjudicate an electoral complaint, in practice some of the complaints remained unresolved five years later, rendering them effectively moot. It is clear that Pakistan has not met its obligations under the international treaties and conventions to which it is bound; however, the ECP seems to have U.N. Human Rights Comm., Zambia’s Responses to the List of Issues From the Human Rights Committee Relating to the Periodic Report on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 18 [hereinafter Zambia Response] (“The State party wishes to acknowledge the fact that the some delay did occur in the disposal of the case and the reasons were that firstly, the law at the time did not give a time frame within which election petitions must be dealt with and secondly, there were a lot of adjournments at the instance of both parties to the case.”), available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/AdvanceDocs/zambia_replies90.pdf; U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Zambia: 2005 Report (2006), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/ hrrpt/2005/61599.htm. 146 Electoral Act No.12 (2006), § 102(1) (Zam.) (“An election petition shall be tried and determined by the High Court in open court, within one hundred and eighty days of the presentation of the election petition as provIded under section ninety-seven: ProvIded that where an election petition is not tried and determined within the period specified in this subsection due to a failure by the petitioner to actively prosecute the petition, the High Court shall dismiss the petition for want of prosecution.”), available at http://aceproject.org/ ero-en/regions/africa/ZM/Electoral percent20 percent20Act percent202006.pdf. 147 Zambia Response, supra note 145, at 18. 148 Peter Lepsch, IFES, Pakistan, Post-Election Community-Based Mediation and Adjudication Program: Election Tribunal Monitoring Project, Phases one and two Final Report 6 (2008). 145 53