taken and decisions made during preparations for election day must usually be resolved within three to six days. 497. The time frame for EDRBs to rule on challenges to election results often varies from one day to 10 days from agreement that a challenge is admissible. For example, in Guatemala, the Supreme Court of Justice has three days to rule on an amparo petition, a judicial protection of an electoral right, and the Constitutional Court has five days to rule on an appeal. However, this period is 50 days in Colombia, and in some common law systems – for example in Bangladesh – there is no maximum time period for the resolution of electoral challenges. Some systems make reference to an event, stating for example that a challenge must be resolved before the outcome of the election is due to be declared, or prior to the swearing in or installation of the bodies elected. 498. Where challenges to election results are made before legislative bodies, as in Argentina and the United States, the regulations of the respective chambers do not provide for any limit. On the contrary, they expressly allow for the challenges to be resolved after the elected body has commenced its session. This means that some legislators may take their seats in the chamber provisionally, subject to the outcome of the respective challenge, and may later be unseated in favour of someone else. 499. This also happens in some EDR systems entrusted to judicial bodies, such as the responsible department (Section V) of the Council of State of Colombia, which has up to one year to annul an election – although in practice this period has been longer. In July 2009 it annulled the results of the election of senators in 2006 and ordered a recount in response to a challenge filed by the Attorney General of the Nation (Procurador General de la Nación), concluding that there had been various irregularities in several polling stations across the country affecting 33,000 votes, which could potentially have modified the results of the election of 102 members of the Senate, with some of them being unseated. In the same session, Section V of the Council of State, under Article 179, section 3, of the Constitution, voided the credentials of one Senator for having entered into contracts with the government within six months before the 2006 election. However, in January 2010, the Council of State in full bench revoked the earlier decision, finding that the contract was signed seven months before the election and that the constitutional provision had thus not been violated. 500. In some EDR systems entrusted to non-specialized electoral courts, such as those regular courts which are part of the judiciary and some constitutional or administrative courts (particularly those that deal with challenges or petitions related to the preparation of an election or challenges to electoral results), it is possible to prioritize electoral challenges in order to resolve them in a timely manner. 164