Most investigations are undertaken in response to a complaint from an individual or findings of the oversight mechanism. In systems where investigations are not conducted by the police, investigators might not be empowered to initiate an investigation without a sworn complaint or other authorization. This is the case in Canada, where special investigators cannot start an investigation without the approval of the Commissioner of Canada Elections or the Counsel to the Commissioner. [1]

A complaints process that is non-threatening and easily accessible to the average citizen can facilitate the reporting of integrity problems. Citizens should not be afraid of making a valid complaint, or be deterred from doing so because of cumbersome or intimidating procedures. In general, integrity requires the following:

• Any person should be able to file a complaint if he or she believes a law has been broken or a violation is about to occur. This helps authorities to uncover and deter crimes.
• Complaints should be made in writing, signed and dated, and sent to the appropriate office. To avoid frivolous or anonymous complaints, some systems require official complaints to be notarized. However, some persons may be afraid to make a complaint if they have to identify themselves. Each system should have a mechanism to deal with such situations.
• Complaints should be made in a timely manner, show that a violation has occurred and, if possible, identify the persons involved. Complainants must differentiate between statements based on their personal knowledge and second-hand information or rumour. Sources of information must be identified; this helps ensure that law enforcement officers have enough information to evaluate the complaint and decide whether it warrants investigation.

Making Complaints Public

Making a complaint public, or keeping it secret, may raise integrity questions. Does the public have a right to know about violations of the electoral process? If so, to what extent? If a complaint is made public, suspects may realize that they are under investigation and destroy evidence. Complainants may also be at risk for making a complaint and may want their identity protected.

Whether a complaint will be made public during the investigation phase depends chiefly on the system and the nature of the complaint. In Canada, the policy is to “neither confirm nor deny the existence of a complaint and investigation and to not comment publicly on the identity of a complainant.” [2] Other systems may confirm the existence of a complaint but not comment on the ongoing investigation.

Whichever approach is used, a balance needs to be found between ensuring transparency of the enforcement process and ensuring the integrity of the investigation.

NOTES

[1] Commissioner of Canada Elections, Investigators' Manual, 2004.

[2] Ibid.