electoral rights” by including references to violations of candidature, party and campaign rights (4). Mention is also made of the need to reach prompt decisions “within the timeframe of the electoral process” (4.6 and 4.8). In contrast to the UN text, this document explicitly bestows upon electoral commissions the responsibility of resolving election disputes (5.9). For the time being, this Declaration is certainly the most accurate and precise document available in the area of election dispute resolution. From the body of principles established in these documents, two main components can be singled out: (1) The right of every individual or political party to a remedy for violation of political and electoral rights, including the right to vote and to be registered as a voter, as well as candidature, party and campaign rights; (2) The responsibility of States to ensure that complaints relating to the electoral process are determined promptly within the timeframe of the electoral process and effectively by an independent and impartial authority, such as an electoral commission or the courts. In practical terms, the assessment of the manner in which election disputes are resolved and the extent to which they match certain minimum standards involves weighing up the following key elements: Jurisdiction: This a major concern in countries where courts and election commissions share the burden of resolving election disputes. Ambiguous, evasive or incomplete provisions in the election law or other normative acts may generate confusion over the jurisdiction of the courts and election commissions to deal with election disputes. In recent elections in the OSCE region, this has provided opportunities to “forum shop” for a desired result between the courts and election commissions, which was exploited, causing obstruction and delays in the process of installing elected candidates. Timeliness: The election law must guarantee the resolution of disputes within a period of time suited to the electoral process. It is crucial here to ensure that the outcome of elections is not delayed. This implies that the period between the filing of a complaint and when it is dealt with is very short. This requirement is per se a challenge for judicial systems. It involves critical considerations regarding the efficiency of the judicial system and the relation of the courts to the electoral administration. Enforcement: The proper and timely implementation of decisions taken by courts and electoral bodies is critical to the effectiveness of the election dispute resolution system. The more the electoral administration is involved in resolving disputes the more serious the enforcement issue is likely to be. For instance, entrusting the power to pass final decisions on disputes to the highest electoral body is meaningless without effective ways and means by which its decisions can be implemented and corrective action taken. This also raises the question of the role assigned to state law-enforcement agencies within the electoral process. All too often, national legislation does not provide adequate sanctions for non-compliance by state institutions, mass media and state officials over whom the election commissions have no authority, while sanctions such as suspension or cancellation of a party or candidate qualification are subject to abuses. Prosecution: Corruption in the election process can warrant criminal prosecution and result in legal sanctions, including fines or imprisonment, over which only courts hold jurisdiction (with a few exceptions for minor offences). Electoral offences and the legal sanctions 7