NAMAT ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 27 examination of the applicant's claims by the electoral commissions and courts was effective and devoid of arbitrariness. 83. According to the applicant, the electoral commissions did not even reply to his complaints. The Government, however, presented proof that his complaint had been examined by the ConEC. However, having regard to the documents submitted by the Government, the Court notes that, while the ConEC took as long as sixteen days to deliver its decision (which was considerably longer than the three-day time-limit provided by the Electoral Code), it did nothing more than request written explanations from the relevant PEC chairmen and members. Given that the confirmation of these allegations could potentially entail responsibility on the part of these PEC officials for the election irregularities, it is not surprising that all of them simply denied any wrongdoing using the most general wording. For this reason, and having regard to their content, the Court is not convinced that these statements were particularly helpful in determining the factual accuracy of the applicant's claims. Nevertheless, the ConEC appeared to have relied exclusively on the statements of PEC officials in deciding to dismiss the applicant's complaint, without explaining why these statements were considered to be more reliable than the much more detailed and fact-specific evidence presented by the applicant. In fact, no reason was offered by the ConEC in support of its finding that the applicant's claims were “unsubstantiated”. There is no indication that any detailed assessment of the substance of the applicant's allegations was attempted or that any genuine effort was made to determine the validity of his claims (contrast Babenko, cited above, where a domestic court examined each specific allegation of election irregularity in detail and assessed its effect on the election). 84. As for the complaint lodged directly with the CEC, the Court notes that the applicant has submitted documentary evidence proving that his complaint was received by the CEC on 8 November 2005. However, it appears that the CEC indeed ignored the applicant's complaint and left it unexamined. This is despite Article 112.2 of the Electoral Code, which provided an opportunity to lodge any election-related complaints directly with a “superior electoral commission”, which term appeared to include the CEC. The Court again refers to the OSCE/ODIHR report, which noted that “in the vast majority of cases” the CEC merely transmitted individual complaints to the relevant ConECs without examining them, and that it “did not address most of [the] complaints” it received on and after election day. In the instant case, no explanation has been forthcoming from the Government as to the reasons for the CEC's failure to deal with the applicant's complaint despite the requirements of the Electoral Code. 85. The applicant's subsequent appeals lodged with the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were not addressed adequately either. In particular, both courts relied on extremely formalistic reasons to avoid examining the