Chapter 1: International Standards than on a mere balance of probability.”200 Similarly, in a Presidential election petition where the ruling of the court can affect the governance of the nation and the deployment of constitutional power and authority, “a fairly high degree of convincing clarity is required.”201 The gravity and public importance of certain issues involved in a complaint can require that the standard of proof be raised.202 There is no universally accepted or necessary standard of proof; within a defined regime of evidence law, legislatures, judges and arbiters can find a margin of freedom to lower or raise the standard depending on the nature of the claim being made. Each of the three most common standards discussed above might be useful or applicable in a country’s election complaint adjudication system, and each has advantages and disadvantages to its implementation. When creating or revising an election complaint adjudication system, it is important that all of these factors be weighed before settling on the standard or standards to be used. 6. Availability of Meaningful and Effective Remedies A functional complaint mechanism must provide for effective, timely and enforceable remedies. International legal conventions agree that, once a country has designated adequate rights and designed adequate procedures, the process of generating appropriate results is an imperative component of the protections of fundamental rights more generally. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights notes the importance of the “right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”203 This Lewanika v. Chiluba, (1998) ZLR 86 [SC] (Zam.), available at http://www.saflii.org/zm/cases/ ZMSC/1998/11.pdf; see also Mazoka v. Mwanawasa, (2002) S.C.Z./EP/01/02/03/2002 (Zam.). 201 Mazoka v. Mwanawasa, (2002) S.C.Z./EP/01/02/03/2002 (Zam.). 202 Bater v. Bater, [1951] P. 35, 37 (C.A.) (U.K.). 203 UDHR, supra note 10, art. 8. The ICCPR ensures the same guarantee to indivIduals in Article 2, § 3 and adds that “that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.” ICCPR, supra note 11, art. 2, § 3(a), (c). When interpreting Article 2, § 3, the Human Rights Committee consIders that “administrative mechanisms are particularly required to give effect to the general obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies.” CCPR General Comment No. 31, supra note 100, ¶ 15. Moreover, the Committee sees Article 2, § 3 as creating an obligation for the “States Parties to make reparation to indivIduals whose Covenant rights have been violated.” Id. ¶16. 200 67