Chapter 1: International Standards instance, it can be an important component in providing individuals and political parties with a more effective means to access remedies.224 B. A Limited Time Frame for Review As discussed above, setting clear time limits for the review of initial filings and the determination of all required appeals is necessary in order to bring fluidity to the process.225 Furthermore, reviews of claims by the electoral tribunal or electoral complaints commission should be fast and effective. Specific time frames should take into account the need for the adjudication of the claim to take place within the time limits of the election process,226 for the remedies to be implemented in a similar timeframe, and for the decision to be released in a timely manner. Indeed, appeals should not be used to delay the certification of the results or to harass the adversarial party or candidate. Time limits for lodging and deciding appeals must be short. The European Commission for Democracy through Law, for example, has set the standard of three to five days for each at first instance.227 This recalls and buttresses the general principle of expeditious proceedings in the adjudication of electoral complaints. C. Legal Justification of Decisions As previously stated, a transparent right of redress requires that the petitioner be informed of the reasons why the claim was dismissed or denied. Thus, the electoral complaint adjudication body should clearly state the legal basis used or factual determination made when it ruled on the particular case, based on a clear elucidation of the possible electoral offenses in the law. It is even more important to provide explanation for any decisions when there is no mechanism for an appeal, or for choices in remedy.228 Thus, the judge or arbiter should detail in the decision, for Human Rights and Elections Handbook, supra note 9, at 16 (“The right to challenge election results and for aggrieved parties to seek redress should be provIded by law. The petition process should set out the scope of available review, procedures for its initiation and the powers of the independent judicial body charged with such review. Multiple levels of review, where appropriate, should be described as well.”). 225 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Republic of Kazakhstan: Review of the Election Legislation for Election Disputes, Appeals and Penalties 2 (2001) [hereinafter Kazakhstan Report], available at http:// www.osce.org/odihr/elections/kazakhstan/item/14597. 226 Commonwealth Convention, supra note 39, art. 10, § 2(f). 227 Venice Commission Code, supra note 44, at 30. 228 See E.U. Nicaragua Report, supra note 38, at 63 (“This is particularly serious given that this resolution was the last instance and no further appeal was possible.”). 224 73