Principle 1: Prompt Investigation affect the outcome. In addition to outcome-determinative disputes, high priority cases may include those pertaining to widespread public or parliamentary interests, systemic problems, public safety and national security, or government accountability. Some states have instituted triage measures to address numerous complaints in a reduced timeframe. During the 2009 and 2010 electoral cycles in Afghanistan, for instance, the ECC categorized complaints in order to quickly identify which complaints regarding polling and counting should be adjudicated on a priority basis. Consequently, the ECC classified election complaints according to the following typology: › Priority A claims (e.g., ballot stuffing, counting/tallying fraud, widespread intimidation or violence): the resolution of these claims affects the outcome of the election and needs to be handled immediately. › Priority B claims (e.g., intimidation, threats, campaigning at polling locations): these claims include allegations of offenses that do not alter the outcome of the election but are still serious claims. › Priority C claims: these claims do not require further investigation and may be dismissed because they do not establish a prima facie case, are clearly unfounded, or do not allege an electoral violation as provided in the electoral law. In 2018, the ECC in Afghanistan continued to use this triage process.57 The Afghanistan context has been particularly challenging because thousands of complaints were filed with the ECC, often making it difficult to determine whether claims were duplicate reports of the same issue or whether they were multiple compounding complaints. This distinction is important because, if the latter were the case, this would suggest a more widespread issue that would warrant a “priority A” categorization because it could potentially impact election results. During the French legislative elections in 2007, the Constitutional Council developed a triage mechanism to minimize delays in the election adjudication 57 Law No. 112 of 2014 (Election Law), ‫ هیلدع ترازو‬No. 15/5/1392 of Aug. 6, 2014, art. 22.3 (Afg.) (“The units and expert teams shall study and assess the objections, complaint and relevant evidentiary proofs in terms of authenticity of the document, importance, dimensions and procedural and technical legal characteristics and shall prioritize them into various categories accordingly.”). 41