I. Introduction Election disputes are inherent to elections. Challenging an election, its conduct or its results, should however not be perceived as a reflection of weakness in the system, but as proof of the strength, vitality, and openness of the political system. Therefore the increase in the variety and number of election-related disputes results partly from an increase in public understanding of the redress process. This trend is, however, particularly challenging where the legal systems and electoral administration are still developing. The fundamental issues in election dispute resolution theories are: • the validity of the result, and therefore the right to challenge the outcome of elections, • the administrative action of election officials to correct a problem, which infers the right to seek redress for violations of suffrage rights • criminal prosecution against those who have corrupted or attempted to corrupt the election process. These remedies are not mutually exclusive, and can be used in conjunction with each other. Beyond this simple demarcation, a variety of approaches and mechanisms, forged by different legal and political traditions, are used by governments in the resolution of election disputes. The system chosen derives primarily from the overall electoral framework, depending upon the institutions and procedures involved in the process. While in most democratically consolidated countries the resolution of election disputes is secured through the ordinary administrative and judicial bodies operating under special procedures (as in the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy), in most developing countries jurisdiction over election disputes is shared between ordinary courts and special – permanent or temporary – election commissions mandated by the election law. Another model is a permanent electoral court commissioned directly with the resolution of election disputes and this model is characteristic of Central America and some countries in South America, but is also used in Greece and in Eastern Europe. There are also a variety of models of legal process through which election disputes are handled. Final decisions on claims can either remain within the hierarchy of election commissions, be dealt with by the ordinary court system exclusively or rest upon the constitutional court, acting as an electoral court. In addition, different remedies may be provided, including among others administrative action by state and/or election officials to correct a problem, and criminal prosecution of an alleged election fraud. Finally, in countries with legal systems based on the socialist civil system, one strikingly unique feature which has an impact on the manner in which election disputes are resolved, is the strong presence of the procurator throughout the proceedings. Obviously, there is no single method that is equally suited to all countries. Which model is endorsed largely depends upon the degree of consolidation reached in the democratic process. However, a country’s discretion in its choices is not unlimited and must be exercised consistently with international standards. The right to a remedy for violation of human rights is itself a human right. The same applies to all rights associated with voting. 5