candidates null and void. However, the electoral authorities failed to effectuate this final and binding decision, and therefore, the applicants brought the case before the European Court of Human Rights. The ECtHR acknowledged the failure on the part of electoral authorities, and added that even if the authorities disapprove the findings of the court, they cannot refuse to comply with the judgment in a democratic society abiding by the rule of law. Due to a lack of financial resources or to a lack of will, the enforcement of sanctions and penalties is not always effective in developing democracies. In our survey of IFES electoral experts in the field, the weak enforcement of sanctions was frequently cited as a problem, with only respondents from Georgia and Guatemala saying that remedies are used or enforced within a proper amount of time to make them effective.78 In Burkina Faso, Indonesia, Kenya, Myanmar, and Ukraine, remedies are not used or enforced at all.79 On the whole, experts highlight the significant need for more enforcement, with only respondents in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan saying that the availability and enforcement of these remedies deter other violators, while in Guatemala and Pakistan these remedies work sometimes.80 In other countries surveyed, sanctions do not serve to deter other potential violators, mainly due to a lack of enforcement. With respect to the abuse of state resources, the IFES expert in Ukraine noted that “the sanctions are not enforced, in particular, when it comes to high level officials” while in Kenya, there is a “perception that enforcement is more of a political tool than a legal one.”81 The enforcement of remedies and sanctions is important not only to give substance to rights, but also to deter future instances of malpractice and fraud. The effectiveness of certain sanctions as a deterrent depends in part on enforcement. If the courts, EMB, or other state bodies are unable, or unwilling, to enforce a sanction or implement a remedy, the deterrent effect decreases. To measure this element of effectiveness, we must first ask whether the remedy was clearly defined and if the proper body pursued it in practice (e.g., if a fine was levied, was it paid by the perpetrator and was the fine collected by the proper branch of government?). Once this determination is made, if the remedy was put in place over a period of time (e.g., a jail sentence, or a restriction on candidacy) these cases must be monitored over time to ensure that the actual sentence or restriction remained in place for the time period determined by the body adjudicating the case. 5. A remedy should be effective in deterrence An effective remedy implies the availability of sanctions and penalties, such as issuing a warning to the offender (including political parties), imposing a fine or criminal penalty, decertifying a candidate, disqualifying a political party, suspending the right to campaign, invalidating a ballot, or ordering a recount or a re-run election.82 These sanctions and penalties should be established in a manner that will deter candidates and others from violating electoral law. 78 Internal IFES field office survey, supra note 17 Id. 80 Id. 81 Id. 82 Electoral Law, supra note 31 at art 54 § 1; Electoral Reform Law §§ 22-25 of 2004 (Liber.) (penalizing fraudulent registration and bribery), http://www.necliberia.org/content/legaldocs/laws/elereformlaw.pdf; The New Elections Law, § 10.25, 10.26 of 1986 (Liber.), http://www.necliberia.org/content/legaldocs/laws/1986electionlaws.pdf. 79