3. Challenges related to election results This chapter presents the findings from Part 1 of the EJD, which contains comparative data about EDR procedures related to challenges to election results. The modern history of elections is full of reports about losing candidates or parties challenging the results of elections. Such challenges may be based on alleged irregularities or misconduct during voting, the counting and processing of results or at any other stage of elections. Having clearly stipulated rules in law about how to deal with such challenges is very important, as it helps ensure that all the stakeholders feel that their rights are being fully respected. Part 1 of the EJD covers the EDR procedures that are designed to deal with challenges and disputes that might have an impact on election results. In practice, most disputes that address election results occur closer to the end of electoral contests. As such, resolution of these disputes can be part of the concluding act in the administration of one particular electoral event. Failure at this final stage can ruin the investments and accomplishments made during the preceding stages. However, in some cases the reverse might be true—disruptions and irregularities conducted in earlier stages may be resolved by electoral disputes if the EDR system functions as it should. Therefore, the importance of sound and effective EDR systems that address disputes related to election results cannot be overestimated. Figure 3.1 models the entire EDR process for dealing with disputes related to election results, where most of the questions in Part 1 of the database are located. The following sections present and discuss the answers obtained to some of the key questions raised in the database. Electoral dispute-resolution bodies dealing with disputes related to election results There are several approaches to and criteria for classifying electoral dispute-resolution systems (Orozco-Henríquez et al. 2010: Chapter 5). One of the suggested criteria for classification is the nature of the body that hears electoral challenges in the first instance. However, this criterion may not be very useful given that, in many countries, legislation prescribes that electoral challenges to election results must be brought before the electoral management bodies (EMBs) in the first instance, even though in most cases EMBs are not the bodies that make the final decision. Therefore, in order to provide users with broader information about the instances dealing with electoral challenges, the EJD covers the first- and last-instance bodies dealing with electoral disputes, as well as the number of levels of adjudication. Figure 3.2 shows the distribution of types of first- and lastinstance bodies dealing with challenges related to election results in 173 countries. The lines represent the routes by which the complaints transfer from the first-instance body to the last-instance body. However, in 88 countries (51 per cent) the decisions of the firstinstance body cannot be appealed, which means that there is only one level of adjudication. 16