Executive Summary
The international community has increasingly focused on election disputes in recent years.
This attention results from the political controversy and sense of distrust surrounding the
complaints and appeals procedures in many countries. Not only have judicial systems and
electoral bodies often been at odds with each other, but there have also been instances of
discrepancies and loopholes in domestic laws that have resulted in dual appeals processes,
confusing time-limits, duplicative complaints filed with different bodies, an absence of clear
sanctions for non-compliance with the law, and enforcement problems. One indication of the
seriousness of these concerns is the number of complaints left unresolved months after the
ballot.
This report is based on the outcomes of an International Election Standards Programme,
which the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR)
launched in 1998, with the purpose of outlining best practices in resolving election disputes.
This programme was implemented only in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan but has
resulted in the design of a standard monitoring methodology, which can be used in any
country, regardless of its political, legal and judicial system. This methodology has been
developed from the standardized format of election observation missions mandated by the
OSCE/ODIHR but is equally suited to missions organized by other international bodies.
The main components of this methodology are:
(1) Generic guidelines setting out what is generally accepted as good practice in addressing
election related disputes;
(2) A system to collect, compile, process and analyse information received on election
complaints filed with courts, election commissions, or other state institutions, and to trace
complaints through to a resolution by the relevant entities;
(3) Tools to evaluate the performance of the judiciary in resolving election disputes, which in
turn can be used to identify underlying problems that involve the overall performance of
the judicial system.
The generic guidelines are not intended to describe in detail a model system of election
dispute resolution. They seek only to set parameters for election dispute resolution in
compliance with the rule of law. These parameters have been formulated with reference to a
dual complaints procedure involving election commissions and courts. They are based on
existing international legal instruments and were developed in the light of the emerging
international consensus on minimum standards, reflected in various international documents1.
These guidelines are coupled with a standard election dispute monitoring system with which
to assess the performance of both judiciaries and election commissions in resolving election
disputes. This methodology provides a broader perspective of the election dispute resolution
process in a given country. Its incorporation within election observation missions may result
in a more comprehensive analysis of both the election disputes and the legal system. A
separate endeavour would undoubtedly be less effective in this respect.
The election dispute resolution scheme serves to readily assess whether a given legal system
has the necessary provisions to uphold core principles for election dispute resolution. The
scheme establishes a strategy to assess the ability of a legal system to resolve election
1
See Appendix.
3