ELECTION WATCHDOGS 5/30/17 11:29 AM the Afghanistan audit a success: as noted above, the audit results were never released to the public and a brokered agreement by the international community ultimately secured the transfer of power. In addition, and despite the enormity of the audit investigation – including the deployment of 487 international observers, diplomatic staff, and audit personnel, the collection of more than 22,000 ballot boxes and the review of approximately 8 million votes (United Nations Assistance Mission 2014) – the audit investigation only focused on a narrow set of concerns related to the count, tabulation, and movement of ballots and other sensitive materials. It did not investigate other major allegations of fraud and intimidation that had serious implications for the election results (Fischer 2015). - Insert Figure 5.1 about here The final outcome of the 2014 Afghanistan presidential election reflected a delicate political arrangement, resting precariously on a complex electoral framework. The brokered agreement departed from most standards for a credible election process, and official results were never released. Ultimately, concerns about the stability of the immensely fragile country prevailed, despite the resulting attenuation of the electoral process. Similar challenges beset the 2010 Haiti audit, whose process and outcome have been questioned in multiple corners as politically-motivated and methodologically-flawed. The enormous humanitarian emergency created by the 2010 earthquake and its aftermath magnified the infrastructure and resource limitations already facing the electoral process, and further complicated the country’s relationship with international actors. Although political agreements may have been the clearest way to deal with the contentious elections and fragile political and security contexts in these two countries, long-term democratic resilience would be better supported by credible elections and widespread acceptance of genuine results. The 2010 Kosovo audit, unlike the Haiti and Afghanistan cases, was managed by the domestic EMB and met several of the standards outlined in this chapter. Relatively clear standards and procedures could be found in the legal framework to guide the implementation of investigation processes. Criminal investigations and prosecutions, however, were challenged by the poor quality of evidence marshalled and could not be said to meet international standards or best practice. However, the very fact that a considerable number of investigations were undertaken to hold individuals accountable for breaches of the electoral process is significant. As noted above, the Afghanistan audit investigation was essentially a negotiation tool that enabled powerful actors to ensure their places in the government, without any real proof for their allegations or legal accountability for perpetrators of fraud. This was reflected in the lopsided scale of the investigation: extremely broad as measured by the number of ballots considered, but quite superficial in the methods used to investigate allegations of wrongdoing. 21