Domestic and international observers often confer legitimacy of an election and constitute a safeguard against electoral fraud. It is very common that the public places a great deal of trust in their findings. 

Authoritarian regimes will, however, tend to limit international observers’ presence and deny registration to domestic observation groups. In the case of domestic observation, regimes may also resort to intimidation to influence their reporting. Problematic accreditation can be perceived as a part of preparations to rig the electoral results, which may in turn contribute to increased tensions, rejection of the electoral results and/or outbreaks of violence.[1] 

Empirical cases:

• Nicaragua municipal elections 2008. A number of international bodies were denied accreditation to monitor these elections. Furthermore, domestic observers were also denied access to polling stations. Following the announcement of the result, supporters and opponents of the Sandinista party accused each other of electoral fraud (during the balloting and counting processes). This ended in a violent clash resulting in six casualties and two fatalities. The government was criticized for not letting international observers monitor the balloting and counting processes. The party of incumbent President Daniel Ortega won the majority of the votes, however, rejecting criticisms and contending that observers were denied access due to the fact that they were allegedly financed by ‘outside powers’.[2]
  
  Interrelated factors: gender-based discrimination and violence (external).[3]