Foreword The basic condition of a representative democracy is the holding of free and fair elections. This might, however, be a technical and sometimes daunting task under adverse contexts. Obviously, a prerequisite is to promulgate laws that provide the basis for a fair and equal electoral system which establishes, among other things, how and when elections are to be held, who can vote and who can run for elections, and which body is responsible for the organization of the elections. Nevertheless, the existence of laws providing for the organization of democratic elections does not necessarily guarantee that free and fair elections will be held. For this reason, it is necessary to guarantee access to justice and to have an electoral dispute-resolution (EDR) system to ensure that the law is applied in practice and that elections are held on a level playing field. Also, it is important that the legal and institutional frameworks enable the implementation of sanctions to punish and discourage infractions. Just as there is no ideal model for a democratic state or its electoral system, neither is there a perfect design for all EDR systems. Each system tends to have its own strengths and weaknesses, and the best option always depends on the specific context of the individual country. This report highlights the relevance of the information collected by International IDEA’s staff and collaborators, and uses it to illustrate some interesting trends in the EDR designs applied around the world. It analyses disputes related to election results, the nomination and registration of electoral contestants, and campaign finance infractions, and also mentions election-related crimes and the ways in which countries deal with them. In addition to being a valuable publication in its own right, this report also serves as an introduction to International IDEA’s Electoral Justice Database. This database is a unique tool that provides the user with detailed information on the EDR system in use in practically any country of the world by including step-by-step information detailing the EDR process for legislative and presidential elections, and direct quotes from the relevant legal text, often including a link to the document in question. The Electoral Justice Database can also be used to compare the systems implemented in a certain region or group of countries. Its design facilitates comparisons by using a streamlined vocabulary, including summary tables at the end of the list of selected countries, and providing the user with the option to download the data. This information could be very useful to national legislators and judges— both in countries in the process of democratization and in well-established democracies—as well as citizens’ groups, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders. I sincerely congratulate International IDEA for providing the electoral community with this systematic overview that furnishes valuable information to undertake a comprehensive comparative analysis. Manuel González Oropeza Justice of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary of Mexico 7