Elections on Trial: The Effective Management of Election Disputes and Violations framework, and deadlines for filing and decision-making are so short as to make it virtually impossible for a respondent to receive notice and prepare a defense. For complaints relating to voting procedures and vote counting, the State Election Commission (SEC) is required to make a decision within two hours of receiving a complaint.73 The lack of notice and tight deadlines within which appeals can be submitted continue to impact the ability of a respondent to prepare a defense, and prevents interested parties from appealing. Similar challenges exist in Kosovo, where notice of a complaint is provided to all involved parties within 24 hours in hard copy only,74 but short deadlines make it challenging for respondents to properly prepare a defense. In Namat Alieyev v. Azerbaijan, the ECtHR acknowledged the tension between a fair process and a fast process, with implications for the protection of due process in electoral cases. The court ruled that time limits designed to expeditiously resolve a case “may not serve to undermine the effectiveness of the appeal procedure, and it must be ensured that a genuine effort is made to address the substance of arguable individual complaints concerning electoral irregularities.”75 In this case, the complainants were candidates in the 2005 parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan, who alleged that domestic authorities did not adequately investigate complaints of electoral irregularities. The ECtHR found that actions by the electoral commissions and domestic courts were arbitrary, including rejecting complaints that had alleged breaches of electoral law, cancelling candidate registration, and annulling elections in the constituencies of certain candidates without sufficient reason and without affording procedural safeguards to the parties.76 Ultimately, the court determined these arbitrary actions constituted a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR, which requires “free elections.” A unique challenge related to the compressed timelines for the resolution of election cases is petitioners’ lack of access to evidence to prepare a defense or substantiate a claim. IFES has observed this challenge across the globe, and it can present a particular procedural barrier to petitioners – most often a candidate, party agent or voter – as the burden of proof generally rests, at least initially, with the individual or group making the claim. Because an electoral process is a very specific exercise generally managed by an EMB, the relevant evidence, such as results sheets, rejected ballots, official forms, and voter registry documents, may not be easily obtainable by an individual outside the EMB, or at least not within the tight deadlines that usually exist for election petitions (it can also be a challenge for the EMB as a respondent, as discussed further below). A petitioner is often required to produce evidence supporting his or her claim at the time of filing, and in some countries the complaint will not be considered valid if insufficient evidence is submitted, or it may be dismissed without the adjudicatory body seeking further evidence via an investigation.77 The requirement for at least some kind of evidence 73 This timeframe applies to complaints relating to voting procedures and vote counting, complaints relating to campaign financing. 74 Rregullat Dhe Procedurat, arts. 6.6. and 6.7., Official Gazette of Kosovo (2015). 75 Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, App. No. 18705/06, Eur. CT. H.R. para. 90 (2010).. 76 Ibid at ¶ 90 and 91 77 Rule 11(b)(3) of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complainant must certify that “the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery” 25