ELECTION WATCHDOGS 5/30/17 11:29 AM in an audit process. These include nomination papers filed by candidates, documents related to revisions to the lists of electors, and various polling station returns enclosed in sealed envelopes, such as the packets of cast, rejected, and spoiled ballot papers.5 Auditors and other election investigators should take into account the many types of evidence they have at their disposal, from documentary material and physical evidence to witness testimony, such as interviews or written affidavits. This can be challenging in an unstable and developing democracy, and evidence may not be immediately or easily accessible. However, it is critical to the integrity of the investigation process, and investigators should endeavor to secure multiple sources of evidence. More importantly, auditors should not simply accept evidence at face value. Auditors have the responsibility to seriously consider whether the available information is reliable and substantial enough to support or refute the allegation. To aid in this task, states should develop a clearly articulated standard of evidence. A proper chain of custody is also a crucial component of legitimate audit processes, as the quality of the physical evidence may affect decisions of the court or auditing panel. Investigative bodies, including auditors, have the burden to prove that every step in the process of collecting, using, and preserving evidence comports with international best practices.6 These best practices include the development of clear standard operating procedures to define the responsibilities of investigators in maintaining the chain of evidence; maintenance of a thorough inventory of physical evidence to ensure that all items are properly secured and preserved for adjudication (Latta and Giles 2012); a secure location to protect evidence from unauthorized access and degrading physical conditions (Nielsen and Kleffner 2013); and periodic inspections of the evidence control area (Latta and Giles 2012). Right of appeal International human rights conventions all recognize, implicitly or explicitly, the fundamental value of an appeals mechanism (Vickery 2011). In the elections context, the ECtHR has stressed that “an effective system of electoral appeals is an important safeguard against arbitrariness in the electoral process.”7 Within the context of an audit – particularly when election results are challenged and the electoral commission is starting from a position of weakness – the right of appeal is integral to building (or re-building) trust in the process and in the election outcome. In the course of developing standards and procedures for post-election audits, a timely and effective appeals process should be established and clearly articulated. It is important to note here than an election audit can be considered as a fundamental and routine part of an election process (for example, where an audit is required by law regardless of whether the outcome is contested), or it may be an election dispute resolution mechanism, where fraud or malpractice has been alleged, often on a 8