Requirement for a first-instance electoral disputeresolution body to hold a hearing The EDR system should guarantee the right to a defence or to a hearing on a challenge both to the complainant and to the person or body complained against. This includes an opportunity to make their arguments as well as an obligation on the EDR body to hear and study them (Orozco-Henríquez et al. 2010: paras 376–79). However, sometimes holding a hearing may not be practically possible, especially when more than the expected number of challenges are submitted after the voting and there is an urgent need to resolve these challenges in a short period before the announcement of results. Some of these challenges may be minor or have no impact on the election results. However, such arguments should not be used as an excuse to eliminate hearings and defence procedures. One solution would be to establish clear requirements or guidelines with regard to the challenges that are admissible. This could help to exclude frivolous or malicious challenges and possibly even punish them. As Figure 3.7 shows, legislation in 55 per cent of countries prescribes that the first-instance EDR bodies should hold a hearing to deal with challenges to election results, while the legislation of 25 per cent of countries does not establish such a requirement. Legislation in 20 per cent of countries contains no specific provisions about a hearing. Figure 3.7. Requirement for a first-instance electoral disputeresolution body to hold a hearing 20% 55% 25% Yes No Not specified Notes: Data for 174 countries. Graph represents the data in EJD as of August 2015. 23