1. Introduction Overview Elections are central to establishing a legitimate democratic government. However, a democratic government’s degree of legitimacy depends on the extent to which elections are trusted and perceived to be free and fair. At the same time, competition is an inherent part of elections, which can tempt actors to engage in various types of misconduct during the many stages of the electoral process, including improper disqualification of voters or candidates, electoral fraud, obstruction of electoral processes by both election officials and voters, and campaign finance infractions. In addition to deliberate misconduct, numerous types of unintended administrative error or mishandling can disrupt election procedures. These irregularities may result in electoral complaints or disputes raised by various stakeholders. The way in which complaints and disputes are handled is one of the important indicators of the credibility of elections. Therefore, free and fair elections necessitate the adoption of efficient and transparent electoral dispute-resolution (EDR) mechanisms that are explicitly defined in legislation. In the period 2013–14, International IDEA conducted a comprehensive global study of EDR systems and developed an online Electoral Justice Database (EJD) to share the findings. The target audience for this database is quite broad. It includes voters, candidates and political parties as the key participants in electoral processes, as well as practitioners, academics, media organizations and other relevant actors working in the field of elections. The main aims of compiling comparative data about EDR systems around the world were to contribute to electoral legal reform processes, raise questions and debate about the functioning of the institutions in charge of electoral justice, and inform voters and other stakeholders about the ways in which electoral disputes are processed in their own countries and abroad. The main focus of the study was the electoral law and other legislation of countries with provisions on EDR mechanisms. So far, the legal documents of 178 countries have been analysed, and the results are now freely available online in the EJD. The data in the database is divided into four parts. Each of these parts covers specific types of election-related disputes. Three have separate sections for presidential and legislative elections, while the fourth deals with criminal offences that are common to both. In total, the database contains 105 data variables. This report provides an overview of the EJD and presents key findings from the study of EDR mechanisms. It also presents a brief discussion of these findings, highlighting important trends and practices from a global perspective. The aim of this report is to provide an introduction to International IDEA’s EJD and promote its utility within the electoral assistance and practitioner communities around the world. 8