6. Election-related criminal offences This chapter describes the findings from Part 4 of the EJD, which contains comparative data about how countries deal with electionrelated criminal offences. As discussed in the introduction to this report, formal electoral dispute-resolution mechanisms can be corrective or punitive in nature. Part 4 of the EJD covers the punitive mechanisms of electoral justice that apply in cases where certain types of misconduct or irregularity during the electoral processes are viewed as criminal acts in the legislation of a country. Election-related criminal offences attract so much attention during the electoral processes, and there is an obvious need for comparative knowledge about how countries regulate the procedures for dealing with such offences. The EJD attempts to fill this gap by providing global data on the types of legal documents that address election-related criminal offences, the types of behaviour during electoral processes that are treated as criminal acts, and how criminal acts during elections are prosecuted and penalized. The chapter presents the findings on all the questions included in Part 4 of the EJD. Analyses of the legal documents of the 171 countries included in this aspect of the research show that in only two countries (the Czech Republic and Eritrea) is there no legislation criminalizing any type of misconduct related to elections. In the remaining 169 countries, legal documents classify certain types of misconduct or irregularities performed during electoral processes as criminal offences in some form or another. What types of law provide for election-related criminal offences? In general, there are two schools of thought on the law governing electoral offences with regard to where such provisions should be situated in the national legal system (Orozco-Henríquez et al. 2010: paras 105–109). The first promotes the idea that such offences should be included in the penal or criminal code, whereas the second suggests that they should be included in the electoral law. Proponents of the first position argue that it is better for electoral crimes to be regulated in criminal codes in order to safeguard them from constant changes in electoral law. Those who support the second position argue that electoral crimes should not lie outside the evolving dynamics of elections, and that the definition of such crimes should be re-examined whenever the electoral legal framework is subject to reform. This helps to maintain consistency between the substantive electoral law and the punitive electoral law. Findings suggest that electoral law provides for electoral offences in a majority of countries (72 per cent), whereas criminal or penal codes cover electoral offences in only 21 per cent of countries (Figure 6.1). In some countries (7 per cent), both types of law govern electoral offences. In addition, the research found that in some countries other legal documents also deal with election-related criminal offences. 47