Chapter 1: International Standards toral complaint should not be put in jeopardy by the weight of formalities: “rules of procedure should be used as handmaidens of justice but not to defeat it.”185 For example, in Pakistan the law does not clearly distinguish between administrative and criminal claims within the range of electoral offenses. The courts follow criminal law procedures and impose the reasonable doubt standard as the burden of proof for most of the electoral cases that they handle. In a system where the focus of criminal prosecution for election law violations is on punishment of the guilty rather than remedy of a flawed election, any action to challenge the outcome of an election itself requires the establishment of a separate process to deal with election complaints.186 The third standard, clear and convincing evidence, represents a middle point between the other standards. It means that the proponent of the evidence must show that it is substantially more likely than not that the asserted claim is true.187 What ‘substantially’ means is not well-defined, but it is universally accepted to be more rigorous than preponderance of the evidence and less rigorous than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In American jurisprudence, the clear and convincing standard originated as the standard of evidence in civil cases alleging fraud or quasi-criminal conduct by the defendant, and has since been extended to cases involving fundamental human rights and many kinds of situations where losing would cause the defendant to suffer irreparable non-monetary harm.188 For example, the clear and convincing evidence standard has been applied in U.S. election cases involving restrictions on campaign advertising and campaign finance because the actions of the regulatory bodies implicate prior restraints on free speech rights.189 In Thailand, the Organic Act for the election of members of the Parliament and of the Senate states that the Hon. Lady Justice Constance K. Byamugisha, Justice of the Court of Appeal of Uganda, Greenwatch, Administering Justice Without Undue Regard to the Technicalities (2003), available at http://greenwatch.or.ug/pdf/news/Administering_Justice_Without_Un_due_Regard_to_Technic.pdf. 186 Craig C. Dosanto et al., Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses (7th ed. 2007). 187 See, e.g., Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991). The modern definition of clear and convincing evIdence evolved in the U.S. legal system, but has since been adopted in international contexts as well. 188 Brandt Distrib. Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 247 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2001); Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 936 S.W.2d 104 (Mo. 1996). 189 Fulani v. Fed. Elections Comm’n, 147 F.3d 924 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Briggs v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 61 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 1995); Pestrak v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 926 F.2d 573 (6th Cir. 1991). 185 63