most commonly available remedies in the first-instance EDR bodies are the ‘annulment of results/cancellation of elections’, which is prescribed in the legislation of 56 per cent of countries; and ‘re-run the election’, which is prescribed in 34 per cent of countries. First-instance bodies are also entitled to partially annul results in the constituency where the dispute was raised or order the correction of results in 24 per cent of countries. A total recount can be ordered by the first-instance bodies of only 14 per cent of countries. It should be noted that legislation in most of the countries prescribes several of the above-mentioned remedies. For example, the first-instance EDR body in Burundi can order either a full or partial annulment of the results, and can also order the correction of results if the investigation finds that the irregularity was caused by clerical error. Legislation in 17 per cent of countries does not specify the remedies available in election results-related complaints or disputes submitted to firstinstance EDR bodies. Figure 3.9. Remedies available to first-instance electoral dispute-resolution bodies 99 (56%) Annulment of results/cancellation of elections 61 (34%) Re-run the election Partial annulment of results/partial cancellation of elections 42 (24%) Correction of the results 42 (24%) Total recount of results 24 (14%) Partial recount of results 16 (9%) 24 (14%) Other 30 (17%) Not specified 0 20 40 60 Notes: Graph shows number (percentage) of countries with each option. Some countries have more than one option. Data for 177 countries. Graph represents the data in the EJD as of August 2015. Ability to appeal the decision of the first-instance electoral dispute-resolution body Appeals are hearings that can be invoked before a higher court on the merits of the judicial decision issued by the lower court, or against violations committed in the proceedings of the lower court (OrozcoHenríquez et al. 2010: paras 401–403). Previous research shows that appeals usually account for the largest share of judicial EDR mechanisms (Orozco-Henríquez et al. 2010: paras 401–403). Figure 3.2 provides a general overview of the ‘flow’ of appeals procedures from the first-instance to the last-instance EDR bodies. In addition to judicial EDR processes, when EMBs deal with electoral challenges in the first instance, their decisions may also be appealed either to higher-level EMBs or to judicial bodies. However, in some cases the decisions of the highest-level EMBs are not subject to appeal. 25 80 100