Requirement for the first-instance electoral dispute-resolution body to issue a reasoned decision Decisions by the EDR body on any electoral dispute should be produced in well-reasoned and justified reports, which conclude with judgements that are delivered in keeping with the proven facts of the proceedings (the principle of congruence) and which assess each party’s claim (the principle of exhaustiveness) (Orozco-Henríquez et al. 2010: para. 379). Acknowledging the importance of this phase of the EDR process, the research included a comparative analysis of how the legislation of countries covers these requirements. The results presented in Figure 3.8 show that legislation in a majority of countries (71 per cent) establishes a requirement for a reasoned decision, while legislation in only 9 per cent of countries does not contain such a requirement. Again, the legislation of 20 per cent of countries makes no clear ruling in this regard. Figure 3.8. Requirement for the first-instance electoral dispute-resolution body to issue a reasoned decision 20% 9% 71% Yes No Not specified Notes: Data for 174 countries. Graph represents the data in EJD as of August 2015. What remedies are available to the first-instance electoral dispute-resolution body? One of the important responsibilities of EDR bodies is to issue judgements or make decisions that are consistent with the complaints or challenges submitted. Clearly stipulated remedies in law and specific conditions for applying such remedies for each type of complaint make this task easier. The research attempted to find out how electoral legislation around the world prescribes remedies for disputes raised regarding election results. The findings (Figure 3.9) show that the two 24