Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections otherwise, this would lead to grave uncertainty about the outcome of any election and the mandate of the government to continue functioning.179 On the other end of the spectrum, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is generally the standard that must be met by the prosecution in a criminal case, but on rare occasions it is applied in civil cases. Under this standard, the applicant is required to introduce evidence of such a convincing character that one can rely and act upon it without hesitation. It does not, however, mean absolute certainty.180 In at least one U.S. election case, the court applied a reasonable doubt standard when a stricter standard than preponderance of the evidence was required.181 Using a reasonable doubt standard in election cases is appropriate when the remedy is being sought in conjunction with criminal prosecution, especially in countries such as Nigeria that require a reasonable doubt standard even in civil actions if the civil suit would turn on the question of criminal guilt.182  But some jurists and justices in Nigeria have warned that the “percentage of otherwise meritorious election cases which have been thrown out by our election courts and tribunals, on the basis . . . that the petitioners failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable [doubt] is very frightening.”183 In other words, the reasonable doubt standard may be too strict to apply in election cases. In some countries, the only remedies provided for election law violations are criminal sanctions for the offenders, which accentuate the issue of technicality versus justice.184 Specifically, the fair adjudication of an elec See Huefner, supra note 25, at 314. Lord Denning indicated in Miller v. Minister of Pensions that beyond a reasonable doubt does not “need to reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.” Miller v. Minister of Pensions, [1947] 2 All E. R. 372, 372-74. 181 Rogers v. Holder, 636 So. 2d 645 (Miss. 1994). 182 See, e.g., EvIdence Act (1990), Cap. (112), § 138(1) (Nigeria) (“If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”), available at http://www.nigeria-law.org/EvIdenceAct.ht m#ProductionAndEffectOfEvIdence. 183 Mimiko’s Case And The Issues Of Burden And Standard Of Proof In Election Petitions, Compass Nigeria, Feb. 17, 2010, available at http://www.compassnewspaper.com/~compas/ NG/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&Id=41516:mimikos-case-and-the-issuesof-burden-and-standard-of-proof-in-election-petitions&catId=44:law&ItemId=690. 184 See, e.g., Law No. 73 of 1956 (Law on the Exercise of Political Rights), Al-JarIda Al Rasmiyya, 1956 arts. 39-51 (Egypt); see also PresIdent of the Arab Republic of Egypt Legislative Decree No. 220 of 1994 (To Amend Certain Provisions of Act No. 73 of 1956 to Regulate the Exercise of Political Rights), Al-JarIda Al-Rasmiya, 27 Oct. 1994, vol. 37, No. 43 (Supp.), pp. 3-5 (Egypt). 179 180 62