ELECTION WATCHDOGS 1 5/30/17 11:29 AM This chapter was written in collaboration with Staffan Darnolf, Katherine Ellena, Emily Lippolis, Dan Murphy, Jed Ober, and Naomi Rasmussen. It draws upon a 2015 white paper jointly prepared by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) and Democracy International (DI). For more information, see http://www.IFES.org and http://democracyinternational.com. 2 Material in this section has been drawn from a forthcoming IFES publication on investigative standards in election disputes, supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 3 El-Masri v. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, App. No. 39630/09, 2012-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 263. The ECtHR has reaffirmed the importance of substantiated evidence in several recent election-related cases. In Akatishi v. Azerbaijan, the ECtHR ruled in favor of the applicant, finding that “the applicant’s disqualification [from candidacy to the National Assembly] was based on irrelevant, insufficient and inadequately examined evidence.” 4 Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, App. No. 18705/06, 2010 Eur. Ct. H.R. at ¶ 90. 5 See ‘Access to Records, Books and Documents’ in Commissioner of Canada Elections (2000); see also Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, §§ 24-31(Can.) 6 See chapter 9 ‘Collection, Use, and Preservation of Evidence’ in Commissioner of Canada Elections (2004). 7 Petrov v. Bulgaria, Eur.Ct. H.R., App. nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, Judgment of 11 June 2009, ¶ 63. 8 The Venice Commission is the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional issues, and provides legal advice to the 60 member states (including the 27 Council of Europe states and 13 other countries from around the globe) (Council of Europe 2014). 9 8 See IFES (2011).