Election Audits: International Principles that Protect Election Integrity Security: The evidence control area should be a secure location that offers protection from unauthorized access and, when possible, from fire, water, humidity, and other physical conditions that could degrade or destroy the evidence. 35 To guard against the risk of alteration, unauthorized removal, or manipulation of evidence, investigative bodies should limit access to the evidence control area. At a minimum, investigative bodies should use an access log to carefully monitor entry into restricted storage areas. 36 In addition, SOPs should clearly state accountability policies for persons with access to designated control areas and establish disciplinary actions for misconduct, malpractice, or negligence with respect to evidence. 37 Inspection: Maintaining a proper chain of custody of evidence requires auditors to periodically inspect the evidence control area. 38 Inspections serve as an “important internal control” that allow for the early identification of problems in the evidence management system. 39 Inspections should cover key issues, including “security, access control, [and] missing evidence,” “general cleanliness and housekeeping of the area,” and “inventory levels, safety practices, and training of [staff].” 40 To promote institutional learning, supervisors should keep written records of inspections. 41 In addition, accountability mechanisms should be built into the process. When possible, external institutions should be allowed to conduct periodic reviews of evidence management. External reviews can promote institutional integrity, compliance with legal requirements, and adherence to SOPs and policies. 42 To prevent arbitrary external reviews and undue interference with an investigative body’s operations, written policies should set in advance the schedule and scope of external reviews. E. Right of appeal 43 The electoral process must provide complainants the right to appeal the audit findings. The right to an appeal is a key component in ensuring access to an adequate remedy. International human rights conventions all recognize, implicitly or explicitly, the fundamental value of an appeals mechanism. 44 Article 14, § 5 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides for such a right in criminal matters, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee has emphasized that the guarantee of an appeal should not be confined to only the most serious offenses. 45 The outcome of an electoral complaint can be of paramount importance, and an appeals process can reinforce the right to an effective remedy, particularly in situations in which the outcome of the election is at stake. The Venice Commission also recognizes in its code of good practice that a system of appeals is necessary to provide for an effective remedy. Individual citizens and candidates should be able to fully challenge any electoral irregularities before an election tribunal, an electoral commission, or a constitutional court. 46 The ECtHR has stressed that “an effective system of electoral appeals is an important safeguard against arbitrariness in the electoral process.” 47 In the context of audits, the process and procedure by which an audit is conducted must be predetermined and administered consistently and thoroughly. Candidates, citizens, and political parties must also have the right to appeal to protect against arbitrary decision making and to ensure that decisions are based on credible audit findings. Within the context of an audit – particularly when election results are challenged and the electoral commission is starting from a position of weakness – the right of appeal is integral to building trust in election 12