Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections Similarly, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights in Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico tied the fulfillment of states’ positive obligations under international law to “the establishment of the organizational and institutional aspects of the electoral processes” and the “enactment of norms and the adoption of different types of measures.”55 The Court went further, recognizing that “if there were no electoral codes or law, electors lists, political parties, propaganda media and mobilization, polling stations, electoral boards, dates and times for exercising the vote, the rights could simply not be exercised.” Again, states are not required to adopt specific electoral rules; instead, the Court “required Mexico to take in a reasonable time the appropriate measures to adapt its domestic law to the Convention.”56 There is no perfect model of electoral complaint adjudication that states are bound to establish; they are free to set up a system that corresponds to their legal traditions and customs. Indeed, “an election is defined not only by the electoral rules but by the social values, politics, religion, history and culture of the people.”57 However, when states ratify international human rights conventions, they are bound to respect the electoral standards enumerated therein, including the responsibility to provide an effective remedy.58 Clearly, both treaties and their implementing courts have recognized that accessible substantive and procedural guidelines for election complaints are critical to the enforcement of basic political rights.  However, the act of creating a clear set of guidelines and endowing them with the force of law is only the first step.  States must also codify the procedural steps necessary to implement those substantive guidelines in a consistent manner.  These procedures must adequately address both the mechanisms through which complaints will be adjudicated and the timeline for enacting the new substantive law or structural shifts. Additionally, the adjudicatory body should be empowered, explicitly or implicitly, to adopt whatever rules and regulations are required and appropriate to implement the system.  The main example of this is a situation in Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, Case 12.535, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Report No. 113/06, ¶159 (2008). 56 Id. ¶ 231. 57 Electoral Institute of Southern Africa, Preventing and Managing Violent Election Related Conflicts in Africa 31 (2009), available at http://eisa.org.za/PDF/symp09cp.pdf. 58 Id. 55 26