138. Whatever the criterion chosen for classifying EDR systems, it is important to consider the important function played by an EMB that enjoys functional independence, and therefore autonomy, when resolving disputes in the first instance and at the most basic levels of electoral administration. Examples include the EMBs of India (the largest democracy in the world), Mexico and South Africa (see Electoral Management Design: The International IDEA Handbook). EMBs, especially in less mature, independent or autonomous democracies, make an essential contribution to processes of democratic transition and consolidation. They also play a significant and positive role in the operation of EDR systems even when they do not make the final decision in the chain of electoral challenges. 139. This Handbook thus uses the nature of the body that is vested with the final decision or the challenge of last resort for ensuring that electoral results comply with the legal framework as the criterion for the global classification of EDR systems. This body will be vested with such powers in respect of national legislative elections, which are held in each and every democratic country, regardless of the form of government. Using this classification, it is possible to classify the EDR systems of the world into four major types or models (see box 5.2). Box 5.2. General classification of EDR systems • Legislative body (the legislature or other political assembly) • Judicial body – Regular courts of the judicial branch – Constitutional courts or councils – Administrative courts – Specialized electoral courts • EMB with judicial powers • Ad hoc bodies created with international involvement or as an internal national institutional solution to a specific electoral process. 140. Of course, this is not the only classification possible. It is used here, but five points need to be recognized. 141. First, international human rights instruments include provisions for the exercise of electoral rights. As a result, there is a possibility that complaints will be lodged before international bodies with respect to the final actions and decisions of a particular state. However, it appears that no international body has ever made a decision on election results. 142. Second, in some EDR systems jurisdiction over challenges to election results is different from jurisdiction over other electoral challenges. 60