Figure 6.4. Who carries out the investigation of election-related criminal offences? Public prosecutor 66 (39%) 57 (34%) Police Special investigator 11 (7%) Electoral management body 8 (5%) Other 20 (12%) Not specified 41 (24%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Notes: Graph shows umber (percentage) of countries with each option. Some countries have several types of investigator depending on the nature of a crime. Data for 169 countries. Graph represents the data in EJD as of August 2015. Prosecution of election-related criminal offences Criminal prosecution of alleged electoral crimes or offences should be undertaken in an objective, expeditious and impartial manner by the authority assigned to perform this task (Orozco-Henríquez et al. 2010, paragraphs 371–75). The autonomy and independence of that authority should be guaranteed, but it should also enjoy the support of the various political parties or factions. The findings of the research show that a public prosecutor is the entity most frequently entrusted with prosecuting electoral crime (Figure 6.5). EMBs have prosecuting capacity in only seven countries. The option ‘Other’ includes various bodies, such as the attorneys general in Gibraltar, Sri Lanka, and Trinidad and Tobago, among others, officers of the EMB appointed to serve as prosecutors by the Director of Public Prosecutions in Kenya and a Special Prosecutor for electoral crimes in Mexico. The electoral legislation of 39 countries does not clearly specify which authority should prosecute electoral crimes. Figure 6.5. Who prosecutes election-related criminal offences? Public prosecutor 9 (18%) Electoral management body 112 (66%) 7 (4%) Other 23 (14%) Not specified 1 (2%) 0 20 39 (23%) 40 60 80 100 120 Notes: Graph shows number (percentage) of countries with each option. Some countries have several types of prosecutors depending on the nature of a crime. Data for 169 countries. Graph represents the data in the EJD as of August 2015. 52