ELECTION WATCHDOGS 5/30/17 11:29 AM Rights 2004). The collection and corroboration of substantiated facts and evidence goes to the very heart of an elections investigation and any subsequent adjudication process that leads to the invalidation of votes. Audit investigators should make every effort to substantiate facts and evidence without relying on hearsay, assumptions, or suppositions.2 An audit of election results based on claims of fraud should be managed according to the same basic evidentiary principles as other fraud investigations. For example, the United Nations General Assembly has declared that investigators have the responsibility to “identify and obtain all relevant information and evidence to establish facts relevant to an allegation, resulting in the facts being confirmed or refuted” (The United Nations Joint Investigation Unit 2012). To do so, investigators should consider multiple types of evidence to corroborate findings, assess the value of the evidence according to a clearly established standard of proof and, as necessary, follow applicable search and seizure policies. International standards currently offer very little guidance on the specific type of evidence needed to validate electoral results. In their absence, we must look to case law of regional bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and international public law documents. In El-Masri v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, for example, the ECtHR defined a thorough investigation on the basis of substantiated evidence. Commenting on the necessity for the “prompt and thorough” investigation of rights violations, the Court explained, “That means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions . . . [and] must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident.”3 In Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, the ECtHR emphasized that the need for the timely resolution of electoral disputes does not outweigh the responsibility to undertake a thorough review of the evidence: “[R]elevant domestic authorities may be required to examine election-related appeals within comparatively short time limits in order to avoid retarding the electoral process . . . Nevertheless, . . . it must be ensured that a genuine effort is made to address the substance of arguable individual complaints concerning electoral irregularities and that the relevant decisions are sufficiently reasoned.”4 Meeting this goal requires countries to establish audit guidelines that strike a balance between timely resolution and a thorough investigative process. In an election investigation, documentary evidence often takes on particular importance. The Canadian Special Investigators’ Manual – a unique publication that provides clear, detailed guidance for election investigators – lists the types of official election documents Canadian investigators consider 7