Quis custodiet custodienses? (Who guards the guardians?)  One of the issues involved in electoral integrity is determining who monitors those responsible for enforcing election integrity rules. As with other aspects of the process, enforcement may be tainted by partisan politics, subverted by money or power, rendered ineffective, or marred by errors. To ensure that enforcement plays its role in maintaining election integrity, it must be monitored and supervised, exactly like any other part of the process.

Most legal systems have a control mechanism to ensure that the administration of justice functions as intended. Police departments usually have an internal affairs office mandated to investigate complaints of police misconduct. Similar mechanisms operate in most prosecutorial agencies. Some legal systems also have judicial inspectors and a procedure for removing a judge from a case if necessary.

Serious cases of judicial abuse or misconduct may result in a judge’s impeachment or removal from office. Impeachment proceedings are often undertaken by the legislative branch. The power to impeach is one of its checks-and-balances on other branches of government. In cases of systemic abuse, where there is no credible mechanism to investigate complaints, an independent judicial commission may be established.

The control mechanism within a law enforcement agency must examine complaints made against investigators. A supervisor may monitor the number of complaints and analyze their content—for example, determining whether a complaint concerns the methods used by a particular person or involves partisanship. Systemic problems are usually referred to the internal affairs office or another official oversight mechanism.

Election observers and monitors also examine the integrity enforcement. Observers should be present at all stages of an activity where integrity is at issue. Their task is to ensure that:

• an official investigation is undertaken;
• investigators act impartially, and have the resources and ability to conduct a proper investigation;
• suspects are located, arrested and brought to trial; and
• the rights of individuals are respected throughout the process.

Holding public trials and monitoring the proceedings may promote judicial professionalism and impartiality. Lack of action by judicial authorities, particularly the courts, can be the subject of an investigation conducted by an independent press. Monitoring may also cover the penalty phase to ensure that persons found guilty are punished and that the punishment fits the crime.