41. Grounds for appeal should be strictly defined in the law, preferably for each phase involving an election dispute mechanism, so that courts and electoral bodies are not burdened with irrelevant or frivolous challenges. 42. The parties authorized to bring election-related complaints or appeals before a court or an electoral body should be strictly identified by the electoral law. 43. Time-limits and procedures governing the admissibility of complaints and appeals should be designed so as to preserve the right of aggrieved parties to seek redress. I. Enforcement 44. Bodies with jurisdiction over election disputes should be vested with the power to enforce their decisions within a reasonable time. Electoral legislation and/or framework legislation governing the administration of justice should expressly indicate the legal consequences associated with the decisions taken by the various bodies which have jurisdiction over election disputes. It should also specify unambiguously the legal sanctions which can be imposed and enforced, including fines, imprisonment, suspension or disqualification of a candidate. J. Consistency in the interpretation and application of election dispute provisions 45. Election laws should expressly bestow upon the highest body of the electoral administration the authority to pass regulations or instructions aimed at securing a uniform interpretation and application of the election law by electoral bodies. 46. The highest body of the judiciary should ensure that all election-related legislation, including framework legislation (such as Civil and Penal Codes, as well as Criminal and Civil Procedure Codes) which is generally considered as having primacy over other legislation, is not flawed with discrepancies, loopholes or gaps. 47. The highest body of the judiciary should also take the necessary steps to ensure the constitution of a coherent set of governing judicial precedents and that judges be acquainted with these precedents and the reasoning behind them. 48. Well in advance of the elections, the highest entity within the hierarchy of the election commissions and the highest body of the judiciary responsible for issuing final and legally binding decisions on election-related cases, should jointly develop instructions, guidelines or resolutions on the various matters involved in election disputes. Where a dual complaint and appeals process applies, both institutions should clarify their respective areas of competence and those of the lower level courts and election commissions. They may also play a crucial role in fostering reforms of the electoral legal framework or judicial practices and standards in the consideration of election-related cases. Conflicts between the institutions or mutual misunderstandings may seriously undermine the uniform interpretation and application of election laws and regulations at lower levels and could threaten the certainty of the law as well as confidence in the electoral process. 14