EDRB should provide reasons to justify its decisions. It is not sufficient to use expediency as an argument. 553. Finally, a small number of countries have established further grounds for annulment of the entire election, be it presidential and/or legislative, such as its having been held without being first being called by the appropriate organ, or its having been held on a day other than the day for which it was called. c) Revoking a candidate’s election because of a failure to meet the eligibility requirements 554. Another possible remedy that a complainant or petitioner might pursue is revoking the certification of a candidate or the declaration that he or she has been elected if it is shown that he or she does not meet the legally established eligibility requirements. This situation arises when annulment of the election is not a legal consequence of failure to meet the eligibility requirements, particularly when the ineligibility extends to only one of the candidates on a given slate (principal and alternate), or in the case of elections carried out using proportional representation. In the latter case, the most common consequence is the election of the next person on the list (where the party lists are closed). In other systems, a complementary or partial election is held, as for example in Thailand. 7. Principles of consistency and the exhaustiveness of judgements or decisions 555. It is important for every EDR system to provide for and respect the general principles of procedural law applicable to judgements and decisions in order to demonstrate the impartiality of the EDRBs. Accordingly, EDRBs should take care (unless there is a provision that expressly provides for a different outcome) that their judgements and decisions are consistent with the complaints of the parties and the issues debated. Decisions should not address matters different from those over which a challenge or complaint has been filed. 556. Similarly, it is important to note that some EDRBs have the power to make up for any deficiencies in the complaint or argument concerning the allegations contained in a challenge. This does not mean, however, that the EDRB can act on its own initiative. What such provisions do is to make up for any deficiency in the argument alleging harm to electoral rights. The EDRB cannot present allegations that are not contained in the original complaint itself. 557. The principle of the exhaustiveness of judgements and decisions requires an EDRB to address each and every one of the positions put forward by the 180