This chapter summarizes compliance with international principles, whilst detailed explanations of the statutory framework and procedures are provided, and issues and potential solutions identified, elsewhere in this paper. 3.2.1. Fairness Fair administration of justice includes the right to receive reasonable notice of a claim, reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense, and the right to a fair and impartial fact-finding process, hearing, and decision. This principle is complied with only partially in Serbia due to several factors. Firstly, the right to file objections is regulated broadly and appropriately, and is granted to all voters, candidates, and entities proposing electoral lists. Objections are decided by electoral commissions in the first instance, whilst the Administrative Court rules on appeals in the second instance. Although complainants can be notified of proceedings before the Republic Electoral Commissions (as this body’s deliberations are public), they are not informed of their progress: the outcome of the ruling or decision is communicated only when it is served on them or made public. This is because Serbian electoral disputes are treated as matters of urgency, where time limits are exceptionally short. This jeopardizes adequate time to prepare one’s defense and find facts, since local legal tradition and administrative dispute laws do not allow public hearings, confrontation between parties, or presentation of evidence. This mode of operation is justified by the need for actions in an election to be fast, efficient, and prompt. Electoral commissions hearing objections have no investigative powers or the ability to act ex officio in bringing action to safeguard electoral rights. Instead, they rely on minutes of polling boards as the only indication of misconduct on Election Day, which certainly questions the fairness of this process. In other words, this arrangement means that the REC has to either reject or dismiss an objection made by a voter claiming their electoral rights have been violated if no such allegation is contained in the relevant polling board minutes. In the second instance, the Administrative Court relies on documentation submitted to the court by the REC, and no additional fact-finding takes place, once again due to the extremely tight deadlines. Conflicts of interest are also a major consideration here, since the same body rules on objections against REC decisions or rulings. Lastly, the greatest single factor affecting the fairness of the process is that the character and composition of electoral commissions offer no guarantee of their impartiality or independence. The assessment of the fairness of Serbian electoral justice in the qualitative survey of the community of experts looked at the extent to which: (1) electoral justice procedures and provisions were clear and equally accessible to all; (2) existing procedures permitted the collection and presentation of all evidence necessary to substantiate an objection or appeal; (3) the Serbian electoral administration (the REC and local electoral commissions) resolved electoral disputes brought by election stakeholders without discrimination and in compliance with the law; (4) the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court acted independently and resolved electoral disputes brought by election stakeholders professionally and without discrimination; and (5) institutions responsible for safeguarding electoral rights (the REC, local 10