vi) Disqualification 308. To guarantee that those who judge electoral matters act impartially and are not swayed by any personal or private interest, either their own or that of someone else, the law often establishes grounds for disqualifying a member of an EDRB from hearing a challenge in relation to which some conflict of interest might arise. These differ from country to country, but include: • having prejudice or a strong bias, that is, a preconceived judgement formed without a factual basis; • having a family relationship or an obvious friendship with or animosity towards, or being the debtor or creditor of, any of the parties; • having a personal interest in the matter, or that a member’s spouse or any family member has a personal interest; • having accepted gifts, services or invitations paid for by the interested persons or their representatives; • making a disclosure, that is, revealing facts related to a case under judgement; and • having made promises that imply partiality in favour of or against an interested person or party. 309. When an EDRB member is called to sit in judgement and is affected by any impediment or disqualification (even if not expressly provided for by law), electoral legal frameworks provide that they must take the initiative and declare themselves disqualified from taking cognizance of the matter concerned. Should they fail to do so, it may be desirable for the party affected to have the right to move for their recusal. c) The framework for accountability and liability of the EDRB and its members 310. As an indirect guarantee that every action, procedure and decision related to the electoral process is in line with the law, EDR systems generally provide for a framework of accountability and liability for the EDRB and its members through which the performance of their public function is monitored, allowing 109 6. Principles and guarantees of EDR systems to the importance of their function and the high level of professionalism required. Such remuneration should enable members to live without pressure and with dignity without the need to take another job. Indeed, doing so is often prohibited: the function of EDRB membership at the highest level requires full-time dedication not only because of its complexity and potential workload, but also to ensure independence and impartiality. With these objectives in mind, on occasion the law provides that the remuneration for members of the EDRB should be equivalent to that of judges or members of a high-ranking court such as the Supreme Court – for example, in Mexico.