Depending on the view, this decision by the PSC reaffirms the primacy of the fundamental right to universal suffrage or places the system on a “slippery slope” on which the integrity of the system could be undermined. In the days following the decision, the press expressed both views. In any event, there are a number of revealing aspects of this decision with regard to the legal framework for elections. Although in many countries polling stations have the exclusive power to evaluate and annul a single vote without any restrictions, in some cases votes may be contested if there are serious doubts about the legitimacy and identity of the voter. These appointments are decided by the higher authorities (Argentina and Uruguay). The IEC plays an important role in reform processes related to the electoral legal framework. In practice, the IEC is: Another contextual factor that challenges the process is demographics. As a small country island with only about 90,000 inhabitants and 60,000 voters, everyone knows everyone and news of what people say will move easily – for better or worse. This has made it problematic to promote legal reform, as people tend to avoid questioning views because words can simply circulate and have repercussions. Otherwise, the legal framework should explicitly prohibit the presence at the polling station of persons other than those whose presence is permitted by law, such as local executive leaders. [ix] Although the legal tradition through which the legal framework is developed is not in itself a concrete conception like the political or state system, its place in this topic is due to its contextual importance. In order to facilitate the smooth running of a polling station, it is essential that even those who are allowed to be present alongside polling station staff clearly understand what they can and cannot do. Training and written materials are useful and, of course, it is preferable that the legal framework also deals specifically with this topic.

Almost all Latin American electoral laws allow the annulment of an election if the candidates are not legally qualified (Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, and Venezuela) or if a candidate has simulated compliance with the legal requirements for the election (Nicaragua and Venezuela). The administration of elections is fundamental and must be taken into account when designing a legal framework. The more effective the management of elections, the more successful the election as a whole will be. In order to achieve efficient and effective electoral administration, several conditions are required: first, electoral legislation must describe in detail each individual phase, phase, activity and procedure in order to avoid errors or illegality; secondly, electoral authorities must be organized according to the political and social specificities of the country or region; Thirdly, these authorities must have institutional powers to carry out their tasks in accordance with the general principles of electoral processes: security, legality, independence, impartiality, transparency and objectivity. In November 2013, the South African National Assembly passed a series of changes to the legal framework governing the electoral process. While most of the changes were primarily technical, two changes had a direct impact on improving the electoral law (particularly for voters abroad and voters serving prison sentences). The CENI is conducting publicity work to publicize the content of its reform proposals. In the absence of a formal mandate for legal reform, CENI participates in the process with other electoral actors. Their main approach over the years has been to present their reform proposals at public hearings organised by parliamentary electoral commissions. These presentations provide the public with a better understanding of the rationale for the proposed amendments to the Elections Act. For example, in the context of the 2005 Electoral Reform Act, the Commission took steps to publicize the content of the bill through presentations at public hearings and partnerships with civil society groups.

Nevertheless, international law and standards establish essential rights, such as the right to genuine elections, as stated above in Article 21(3) of the UDHR and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR 1966). Together with the UDHR, the ICCPR is one of the main sources of international standards. Indeed, Article 25 of the ICCPR has been described as “the cornerstone of democratic governance and genuine elections under international law”. [xii] It should be noted that the ICCPR has been signed and ratified by more than 160 states, making it legally binding in these cases. The term “codes of conduct” can refer to many different things. Three cases of such an expression should therefore be excluded at the outset. These three cases concern not only electoral workers, but also electoral obligations and cannot be considered as codes of conduct legally involved in electoral processes: the choice of an electoral system must be integrated into a legal framework that adequately regulates social structures and political differences. Such a settlement must organize a representative political system responsible for resolving social conflicts through arbitration. It can therefore be said that the choice of an electoral system can be made more easily if certain objectives are set from the outset (e.g. a higher degree of legitimacy or proportionality of the results, or a strong representation of political groups at regional level, etc.). On the basis of these considerations and taking into account the social, political, geographical and historical conditions of each country, electoral systems are chosen.

At the end of its work, the Task Force submits a series of proposals aimed at amending the electoral framework of a draft law for Parliament. The mandate of the REC is to conduct, supervise and monitor all elections held in accordance with the Electoral Act 1992 (Art. 4) in a fair and impartial manner. There is no explicit formal mandate in the electoral law for the EMB`s participation in legal electoral reform processes. However, the Electoral Law stipulates that the Commission “shall perform such other functions as are conferred on it by or under the provisions of this or any other Act, or which are necessary or useful for the attainment of the objectives of this Law” (Article 4(2)(e)). In addition, given the mandate of the CBN, it was wise for the ECN to pursue its own initiatives to consult its stakeholders on legal electoral reforms. The conduct of democratic elections requires independent, non-partisan electoral authorities free from political bias. This is a fundamental issue, especially for countries where a democratic regime has not yet been consolidated and where electoral officials can make and implement important decisions that can have a direct impact on the outcome of elections. Therefore, specific political conditions must be taken into account in determining who will be responsible for the administration of elections and what kind of institution will be empowered to do so. Increasingly, the legal framework recognizes the role of election administration bodies in voter education. Not only do election authorities have the technical expertise to add value to voter education, but there is also an inherent obligation to contribute to such an important undertaking that can eventually result in political participation. The right to be elected is “clearly enshrined in international law.

However, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. [i] In turn, the obligation of the legal framework is to “ensure that all citizens with the right to vote are guaranteed the right to universal and equal suffrage and the right to stand for election without discrimination.” [ii] However, it is crucial to understand the word “eligible” in this context, because just as international law and the international legal framework guarantee these inviolable rights, it remains permissible to apply reasonable limits to the qualifications of candidates, as is the case with regard to the qualifications of voters. The opposite always happens; that it remains unacceptable to apply discriminatory and inappropriate limits to these fundamental human rights. The allocation of airtime is of great importance, given that election campaigns are increasingly conducted by the media. It is therefore essential that the allocation of airtime for state-controlled media be included in the legal framework. In doing so, the following principles should be respected with regard to state-controlled media: Brewer-Carías warned that the reasons analyzed above are based on many legal and undefined concepts (such as “necessary safeguards”, “significant violations”, “malicious acts that harmed the election”, “general distortion of the election count”, “serious irregularities”) that do not support judicial discretion (which is considered a free and prudential power of solution, whichever is most appropriate), but elective judicial activity based on good judgment (such as how judges resolve legal controversies by assessing all the circumstances surrounding the case in accordance with the law). Judicial activity based on good judgment requires a technical application of so-called legal and undefined concepts, which require judges to apply precisely the legal conditions, to carry out a legal assessment of the case in the light of such a condition and to use evidence that must be compatible with the legal situation in order to support the solution.