A general classification of EDR systems 1. Introduction 127. There is no magic or single formula for ensuring that the electoral process complies with the legal framework or for upholding electoral rights. This leads to a diversity of EDR systems. 128. Each country’s EDR system is generally the result of its own historical and socio-political context and of its own legal tradition. Thus it is not always possible to extract lessons from the experience of one country and export it to different contexts. Nonetheless, a comparative approach does make it possible to identify certain trends, which offer additional elements of analysis for those interested as well as lessons from successful experience or good practice and the strengths and weaknesses of respective systems. 129. Several international human rights instruments establish the fundamental right of all persons whose rights have been infringed to an effective remedy before a pre-established independent tribunal (see, e.g., box 5.1). Box 5.1. Declaration on Criteria for Free and Fair Elections, adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Council in 1994 Paragraph 4.9 ‘States should ensure that violations of human rights and complaints relating to the electoral process are determined promptly within the time frame of the electoral process and effectively by an independent and impartial authority, such as an electoral commission or the courts.’ 57