ELECTION WATCHDOGS 5/30/17 11:29 AM that “in the course of meetings with the EU EEM, the number of polling stations where the results were to be annulled or recounted, or where voting was to be repeated often changed without clear reasons. This seriously undermined the transparency and credibility of the election process” (European Union Election Expert Mission 2011). As briefly noted, the criminal investigation process aimed to increase accountability and compliance by electoral actors, but did not meet best practices for ensuring the right to due process and the collection and consideration of evidence. Observation by domestic and international groups was generally effectively enabled, but the right to appeal available under the law – and by extension the right to an effective remedy – was not fully met, given the discrepancies between remedies applied to similar cases. Conclusions This chapter has highlighted six foundational principles for conducting credible audit investigations in response to large-scale allegations of election fraud and malpractice: domestic ownership of the audit process; pre-determination of standards and procedures; appropriate training of audit actors and consistent application of the rules; clear and widely-understood rules for gathering and maintaining evidence; a reasonable and balanced right of appeal; and external observation of all audit processes. These standards provide a clear structure for a potentially complex and politically-fraught process. They can also reinforce the principles of transparency, accountability, and compliance discussed throughout this volume. We have focused on post-election audits with extensive international participation or oversight. This linkage between election management bodies and the international community is especially relevant for audits in fragile and transitioning environments. Challenging circumstances – such as the allegations of fraud and malpractice that can trigger full-scale post-election audits – can test the very foundations on which nascent democracies rest. This chapter has outlined numerous considerations in the preparation for, and conduct of, large-scale election audits that contribute to – rather than detract from – efforts to ensure transparency of election processes and accountability of electoral and political actors. These principles provide an objective and clear framework for supporting post-election audits to meet the widely-accepted criteria for credible electoral and investigative processes. Although there is no “perfect” election, if they are followed they will provide the strongest possible foundation for a credible transfer of power. None of the three post-election audits that we have considered met all of these criteria; in the case of Afghanistan, only one of the six principles – external monitoring by professional observers – was met, and there were still significant challenges to the work of international observers that likely reduced their efficacy. By the metric outlined in this chapter, it would be impossible to call 20