Election Investigations Guidebook gative bodies in processing complaints impartially and effectively. However, standardized filing requirements should not be used to frustrate legitimate complaints simply because of procedural inadequacies. Detailed complaint forms should merely enable investigators to independently corroborate alleged facts, without imposing procedural barriers to access remedies. Some countries require investigative bodies to notify complainants of any procedural inadequacies found in their submitted complaints in order to allow for correction—and this represents a good practice in terms of procedural justice. It allows complainants to rectify the issue before complaints are dismissed. In Myanmar, the 2015 Election Dispute Resolution Manual stated that the Commission “may also decide to allow the objector to supplement the petition within a reasonable period of time if the objection is deficient or has a procedural defect.”13 Because the voters who are not familiar with the complaints process may file electoral complaints, the opportunity to correct, complete, or amend can inoculate substantively legitimate complaints against summary dismissal on procedural grounds. In Indonesia, the Constitutional Court is responsible for hearing complaints regarding the validity of presidential elections. If a complaint is found to be incomplete, it is sent back to the complainant, who then has 24 hours to rectify procedural deficiencies.14 In Inkatha Freedom Party v. Independent Electoral Commission, the South African Electoral Court held that the Independent Electoral Commission failed in its duty to investigate the factual basis of a complaint that was deemed material to the election result, per the Electoral Code of Conduct.15 The Commission was ordered to ask the complainant to submit missing materials or information that would aid the investigation.16 Given the reduced timeframe 13 Election Dispute Resolution Manual, 2015 General Election, Union Election Comm’ of Myanmar 25 (2015). 14 Regulation No. 04/PMK/2004, art. 6 (Indon.) (stating that completeness of a complaint means “administrative completeness”). 15 Electoral Commission Act 51 of 1996 § 65(3) (S. Afr.). 16 Inkatha Freedom Party v. Independent Electoral Comm’n 2009 (1) ZAEC 3 (S. Afr.) (outlining that Section 65(3) of the Electoral Code of Conduct stipulates that, in considering and deciding the objection, the commission may: “(a) investigate the factual basis of the objection; (b) afford interested parties an opportunity to make written or verbal submissions; (c) call for written or verbal submissions from other persons or parties; (d) call upon the objecting party to submit further information or arguments in writing or verbally; and (e) conduct a hearing on the objection”); see Electoral Commission Act 51 of 1996 § 65(3) (S. Afr.). 26