Box 8.2. Alternative EDR mechanisms i. Unilateral: withdrawal by the petitioner or complainant and recognition or acceptance by the respondent ii. Bilateral or multilateral: compromise (transaction) or peaceful settlement between the parties iii. Third-party intervention (judicial equivalents): – Conciliation – Mediation – Arbitration 568. AEDR mechanisms are by nature voluntary and disputants are free to use them at will. Unless they agree to enter into conciliation, mediation or arbitration, they are not bound by the awards or decisions of the relevant bodies. In this they are different from EDR mechanisms, which are mandatory and have binding force even on actors that have opted not to engage with the process. AEDR mechanisms can under no circumstances be a substitute for EDR mechanisms, but the two are mutually reinforcing. Even where AEDR mechanisms are provided for, open recourse to EDR mechanisms must continue to be available. 569. In some countries provisions that regulate EDR systems expressly provide for the possibility of AEDR mechanisms. In some cases, except perhaps in cases of fraud (as legally defined), their decisions are given full legal effect and may even be binding on the parties involved. AEDR mechanisms used in different legal contexts, including in formal court systems in established democracies, range from facilitated pre-trial negotiations, in which disputants are encouraged to negotiate directly with each other prior to some other legal process, to arbitration systems or mini-trials that look very much like a court process. 570. Electoral disputes can be settled outside the EDRB by the withdrawal of an electoral petition or complaint by the petitioner or complainant. This action of withdrawal is tantamount to a renunciation or waiver of a right. Recognition or acceptance of guilt by the respondent can also lead to the dispute being resolved (see box 8.3). Both actions are unilateral, because the will of either the complainant or the respondent is sufficient for the dispute to be considered concluded – although sometimes the law requires consent from the other. Box 8.3. The ‘Winchester Case’: the United Kingdom Andrew Ellis In the 1997 general election in the UK, the two leading candidates each polled over 20,000 votes in the single-member district of Winchester. The margin between them was two votes. Losing candidate Gerry Malone and his party believed that a few votes 186