135. This Handbook therefore prioritizes the regime for bringing electoral challenges as the basis for classifying EDR systems. This regime provides a direct oversight mechanism for verifying that the electoral process complies with the legal framework, and has the effect of preserving or restoring this framework and the electoral rights involved. It therefore constitutes the principal and most effective guarantee of electoral justice. 136. However, there are several criteria by which electoral challenges can be classified. In many cases a single EDR system encompasses several types of electoral challenge (administrative, judicial and possibly legislative and international), and therefore various EDRBs. One criterion for classification could therefore be the nature of the organ that hears an electoral challenge in the first instance. This criterion is not very useful, however, as the vast majority of EDR systems provide that electoral challenges must be brought before the EMB in the first instance. The organs at the higher level may be more relevant to classifying the operation of the EDR system. For more information on bodies that handle challenges at first instance see the International IDEA online Unified Database at <http://www.idea.int>. 137. Another criterion is to look at the nature of the organ that hears and resolves most electoral challenges, at whatever level. Unfortunately, little if any statistical information on this exists on the various EDR systems. There is also a risk that the conclusions would vary from one election to the next. For example, there might be a large number of challenges to the result of one election in contrast to what happened in previous elections, but the EDRB with jurisdiction to resolve challenges to results might be different from the one entrusted with addressing those brought against actions prior to the election. It is often the case that most challenges are related to the electoral register, and the organ in charge of resolving these challenges – even though it is an essential and important aspect of any election – is not always the one that contributes most to the soundness of elections or to the credibility and legitimacy of the EDR system. 59 5. A general classification of EDR systems 134. In addition, some democracies place greater emphasis on preventive measures, others on corrective measures or electoral challenges, and still others on punitive measures or mechanisms for adjudicating liability. There is no clear correlation between the emphasis chosen and the number of electoral disputes (which could also be argued as measuring stability and social cohesion in a society). It can be argued that if a dispute does arise, the electoral challenge is the mechanism with the most potential to produce satisfaction its corrective function revokes, annuls, modifies or acknowledges irregular or wrongful conduct and thus protects or restores the enjoyment electoral rights. By contrast, the liability regime is limited to penalizing the entity or person responsible for the irregularity and setting an example by doing so.