This question was posted by ACE on behalf of ACE user Idriss Kamara.

Original Question:

I am seeking examples of laws or policies in different countries regarding the admissibility of an international observer group's report as evidence in court regarding the disputed election. It is my understanding that some countries accept the results of international observer reports the corroborating evidence in deciding election disputes in court, while others do not. For example, in Ghana in 2012, the incumbent party cited the conclusions of international observer groups' reports as evidence that the elections were free and fair, but the court dismissed the evidence as inadmissible.

Summary of responses:

Practitioners agree that the goal of international observers is to evaluate whether or not election processes meet international standards, and these missions also provide added legitimacy to the election in the eyes of voters. Observation gives voters the tools to either trust or question the electoral process and encourages free, fair, and transparent elections.

However, practitioners cite the difficulty of using observer reports in legal arguments as they compile findings over extended periods of time and lack the precision or focus typically required for court evidence. Some practitioners also raise concerns that the use of observer reports in legal disputes negates the observers' ability to act as impartial stakeholders in the electoral process, and others argued that participation in legal proceedings violates the purpose of election observation. Saad al-Rawi, former Vice President of the Office of the Council of the Iraqi elections, emphasized the importance of neutral observation and the preparation of impartial reports. Biased observers delegitimize democracy and give ground for opposition parties and extremists to discount the election results. He states that this has been a problem in several Arab countries.

Some countries, such as Mexico and Cameroon, have no legal precedent for the use of observer reports in dispute resolution. One practitioner raises the concern that election observers may submit conflicting reports as evidence and argues that any laws regarding permissibility in court must be adopted with caveats regarding the legitimacy of the observer. Another practitioner cites the use of observer reports in Kenya and notes that it is up to the court to decide how to weigh different sources. Observer codes of conduct instruct observers to avoid participation in activities which may be viewed as partisan or prejudicial, but any actor in the judicial process can use the reports in Kenya. Reports from the domestic observer group ELOG, the Carter Center, and the European Union were admitted as affidavits before the Supreme Court in a case challenging presidential results in the 2013 Kenyan election but were not used in oral arguments.

Under the Electoral Act in Nigeria, observation from international observers cannot be used as evidence to overturn or uphold an election result. However, observer reports were used successfully in the Constitutional Court case regarding the 2003 Armenian presidential election. The OSCE/ODIHR International Election Observation Mission report was used to invalidate the results from roughly 40 polling stations. The practitioner stated that the OSCE/ODIHR provided the reports but declined to otherwise participate in court proceedings. This allowed the organization to maintain its neutral status as observers.

For examples of laws governing the use of observer reports, one practitioner directs users to Article 269 in the Code of Democracy of Ecuador. Information regarding the National Electoral Institute in Mexico is attached to the original post.

Contributing members:

Francisco Morales Gomez

Saad al-Rawi

Charles Obot

Gloria Abekanmbi

Rebecca K Adjalo

Mulle Musau

Sameer Dwaikat

Stephane Mondon

Rafael Riva Palacio Galimberti

Peter Eicher

Atem Oben Henry Ekpeni

Liqabang Macheli

Achun Owen Teheng

Abdiwahidi Hussein

Juan Jose Lopez Gutierrez

Las disputas sobre la legitimidad de un proceso electoral, que determine la existencia de resultados ajenos al pronunciamiento popular y que produzcan conflictos jurídicos, deben necesariamente remitirse a las diferentes legislaciones electorales de cada uno de los países. Si dentro de los elementos probatorios que garanticen el Debido Proceso judicial electoral existente en los cuerpos legales electorales, èstos deben aplicarse y darse el valor probatorio, sean estos producto de Informes de Veedores u Observadores nacionales o internacionales. estos elementos de prueba que lleguen a determinar que existen elementos que vician el pronunciamiento puro de los electores, deben ser valorados adecuadamente por parte los jueces electorales. La observación Internacional tiene reglas especificas sobre sus funciones en país extranjero, sus informes son tan valederos en un proceso de impugnación de los resultados electorales que pueden llevar a declarar la nulidad de las votaciones, de los escrutinios, nulidad de los resultados y por su puesto de la asignación de dignidades. En nuestra legislación el cuerpo legal que nos orienta se denomina CÓDIGO DE LA DEMOCRACIA, es una ley orgánica, con jerarquía superior sobre las leyes ordinarias, allí existen causales determinadas para la declaración de la nulidad de las elecciones, de escrutinios y de la asignación de escaños, te recomiendo ingresar a la pagina web institucional www.tce.gob.ec  y busca el CÓDIGO DE LA DEMOCRACIA- ECUADOR y encontraras desde los Arts. 269 en adelante muestras de las disposiciones legales sobre la materia.

Ademas considero que, si en Ghana no se valoraron informes de Observadores Internacionales en donde evidenciaban la existencia de elementos que configuraban elementos de nulidad de las votaciones o de los escrutinios y no fueron aceptados por los jueces electorales, se podría presumir que se trato de una resolución política mas no jurídica.

Las disputas sobre la legitimidad de un proceso electoral, que determine la existencia de resultados ajenos al pronunciamiento popular y que produzcan conflictos jurídicos, deben necesariamente remitirse a las diferentes legislaciones electorales de cada uno de los países. Si dentro de los elementos probatorios que garanticen el Debido Proceso judicial electoral existente en los cuerpos legales electorales, èstos deben aplicarse y darse el valor probatorio, sean estos producto de Informes de Veedores u Observadores nacionales o internacionales. estos elementos de prueba que lleguen a determinar que existen elementos que vician el pronunciamiento puro de los electores, deben ser valorados adecuadamente por parte los jueces electorales. La observación Internacional tiene reglas especificas sobre sus funciones en país extranjero, sus informes son tan valederos en un proceso de impugnación de los resultados electorales que pueden llevar a declarar la nulidad de las votaciones, de los escrutinios, nulidad de los resultados y por su puesto de la asignación de dignidades. En nuestra legislación el cuerpo legal que nos orienta se denomina CÓDIGO DE LA DEMOCRACIA, es una ley orgánica, con jerarquía superior sobre las leyes ordinarias, allí existen causales determinadas para la declaración de la nulidad de las elecciones, de escrutinios y de la asignación de escaños, te recomiendo ingresar a la pagina web institucional www.tce.gob.ec  y busca el CÓDIGO DE LA DEMOCRACIA- ECUADOR y encontraras desde los Arts. 269 en adelante muestras de las disposiciones legales sobre la materia.

Ademas considero que, si en Ghana no se valoraron informes de Observadores Internacionales en donde evidenciaban la existencia de elementos que configuraban elementos de nulidad de las votaciones o de los escrutinios y no fueron aceptados por los jueces electorales, se podría presumir que se trato de una resolución política mas no jurídica.

Las disputas sobre la legitimidad de un proceso electoral, que determine la existencia de resultados ajenos al pronunciamiento popular y que produzcan conflictos jurídicos, deben necesariamente remitirse a las diferentes legislaciones electorales de cada uno de los países. Si dentro de los elementos probatorios que garanticen el Debido Proceso judicial electoral existente en los cuerpos legales electorales, èstos deben aplicarse y darse el valor probatorio, sean estos producto de Informes de Veedores u Observadores nacionales o internacionales. estos elementos de prueba que lleguen a determinar que existen elementos que vician el pronunciamiento puro de los electores, deben ser valorados adecuadamente por parte los jueces electorales. La observación Internacional tiene reglas especificas sobre sus funciones en país extranjero, sus informes son tan valederos en un proceso de impugnación de los resultados electorales que pueden llevar a declarar la nulidad de las votaciones, de los escrutinios, nulidad de los resultados y por su puesto de la asignación de dignidades. En nuestra legislación el cuerpo legal que nos orienta se denomina CÓDIGO DE LA DEMOCRACIA, es una ley orgánica, con jerarquía superior sobre las leyes ordinarias, allí existen causales determinadas para la declaración de la nulidad de las elecciones, de escrutinios y de la asignación de escaños, te recomiendo ingresar a la pagina web institucional www.tce.gob.ec  y busca el CÓDIGO DE LA DEMOCRACIA- ECUADOR y encontraras desde los Arts. 269 en adelante muestras de las disposiciones legales sobre la materia.

Ademas considero que, si en Ghana no se valoraron informes de Observadores Internacionales en donde evidenciaban la existencia de elementos que configuraban elementos de nulidad de las votaciones o de los escrutinios y no fueron aceptados por los jueces electorales, se podría presumir que se trato de una resolución política mas no jurídica.

Las disputas sobre la legitimidad de un proceso electoral, que determine la existencia de resultados ajenos al pronunciamiento popular y que produzcan conflictos jurídicos, deben necesariamente remitirse a las diferentes legislaciones electorales de cada uno de los países. Si dentro de los elementos probatorios que garanticen el Debido Proceso judicial electoral existente en los cuerpos legales electorales, èstos deben aplicarse y darse el valor probatorio, sean estos producto de Informes de Veedores u Observadores nacionales o internacionales. estos elementos de prueba que lleguen a determinar que existen elementos que vician el pronunciamiento puro de los electores, deben ser valorados adecuadamente por parte los jueces electorales. La observación Internacional tiene reglas especificas sobre sus funciones en país extranjero, sus informes son tan valederos en un proceso de impugnación de los resultados electorales que pueden llevar a declarar la nulidad de las votaciones, de los escrutinios, nulidad de los resultados y por su puesto de la asignación de dignidades. En nuestra legislación el cuerpo legal que nos orienta se denomina CÓDIGO DE LA DEMOCRACIA, es una ley orgánica, con jerarquía superior sobre las leyes ordinarias, allí existen causales determinadas para la declaración de la nulidad de las elecciones, de escrutinios y de la asignación de escaños, te recomiendo ingresar a la pagina web institucional www.tce.gob.ec  y busca el CÓDIGO DE LA DEMOCRACIA- ECUADOR y encontraras desde los Arts. 269 en adelante muestras de las disposiciones legales sobre la materia.

Ademas considero que, si en Ghana no se valoraron informes de Observadores Internacionales en donde evidenciaban la existencia de elementos que configuraban elementos de nulidad de las votaciones o de los escrutinios y no fueron aceptados por los jueces electorales, se podría presumir que se trato de una resolución política mas no jurídica.

 مهمة جدا تقارير المراقبة وبالاخص تقارير المنظمات الدولية لما لها اثر ايجابي في تعزيز الشراكة وقبول نتائج الانتخابات .. ولكن ما نراه اليوم هو مراقبة  من منظمات محلية ودولية وحتى مراقبة الاحزاب جميعها تفتقر الى الحيدة والمهنية ولذا تجرأتالاحزاب او الاشخاص الحاكمة الى تعزيز مكانتها وحكمها الجائر بسبب عدم مهنية مراقبة الانتخابات وعدم اعداد تقارير محايدة تشخص الخلل وتعطي الحلول لعدم تكرارها وتفادي اي خطأ لاحق يؤدي الى التزوير والشكوك وهذا ما  يعزز الانظمة الدكتاتوريةويستمر بقاؤها وهذا ما يؤدي اخيرا الى تعزيز اعداد التطرفين وبالاخير نجد الارهاب يترعرع  ونعود الى  سيطرة المتطرفين وقد يكون لهم تأييد واسع لان الانتخابات فشلت والديمقراطية لا تصلح .. وهذا ما حل بكثير من بلداننا العربية 

   سعد الراوي                                   

نائب رئيس مجلس المفوضية العليا المستقلة للانتخابات في العراق/سابقا

A very important observation reports, especially the reports of international organizations because of its positive impact in strengthening partnership and accept the election results .. but what we see today is the monitoring of local and international organizations and even control all of the parties lacked the impartiality and professionalism and therefore Tgerotalahzab or ruling people to strengthen its position and its verdict unjust because of the lack professional monitor the elections and not to prepare neutral reports diagnosed the defect and give the solutions are not repeated and to avoid any subsequent error leads to forgery and uncertainties, and that is what enhances the systems Acanutatorrehuestmr survival and this is what leads finally to promote the preparation of extremes and the latter we find terrorism grow up and get back to the control of extremists may have them broad support because elections failed, democracy is not suitable .. and this is what much of the solution to the Arab countries

  Saad al-Rawi

Vice President of the Office of the Council of the Iraqi elections / former

There should be international legal framework domesticated across countries that would make election observer reports to be justice-able/enforceable.

 

Nigeria Oct 31st 2016. As good as the role of international observers is a credible election in Nigeria,the outcome of their observation cannot be use as evidence in the law court. Their evidences are not tenable or acceptable to uphold or overturn election result. Nigeria electoral law called Electoral Act does not the interference of the observers (whether local or international) in the process of election. The presence of the observers is to add credibility to election by making the election practitional to carry out their assignment according to laid down rules and regulations. Also allowing the presence of international observer strengthen the relationship between countries or encourages bilateral relationship.

Observation reports ought to be admissible in court for persuasive purposes. The court should then determine the weight to put on it. Becky Ghana Legal practitioner

In Kenya 2013, the report of the domestic observer group ELOG was used in court to defend the result released by the EMB. This was however presented by the EMBs legal team to argue against the dispute over the presidential results. Observer principles and codes of conduct persuade observers not to participate in processes that may be seen to be partisan or prejudicial to the elections. However the information provided can be used by any actor in a judicial process as illustrated in the above case.

Really, that they wanted a free, fair and transparent in the countries of the elections especially the world's least democratic or nascent, the International Observers Bodies are necessary that there be state control and high levels and devoid of political niceties, because these groups of observers have the experience and good knowledge of a more liberated and the force, It frees more power when compared with Local Observers Bodies.

The aim of international observation is to evaluate the level of respect of national regulations as well as international standards for democratic elections. This evaluation is aimed at the voters, to give them elements to reinforce or question the trust they can place in their elections, as well as the "international community" to shape their future relationship with newly elected representatives. 

 

Using international observers reports would not constitute a solid base for a decisive argument, as reports compile findings over a long period of time, usually without the level of precision you would expect a Court to base their decision on. However, in Kenya 2013, reports from ELOG, The Carter Center and the European Union were all admitted as affidavit in the challenge of presidential results before the Supreme Court, but ultimately they were not used in the oral arguments, and the challenge was unsuccessful.

 

 

In term of admissibility of observers’ reports in Courts, I doubt you can find specific provisions in Laws. Better refer yourself to general rules on admissibility of proof in Court and see if observers reports qualify. 

Since 1994 Mexico welcomes international observers for its national elections. Enclosed please find legal framework.

As their rights, they could ask for information to the electoral authorities, as well as political parties and candidates. In addition, they have the right to publish reports, but these reports are not consider part of an electoral dispute.

 

Observers are impartial stakeholders of electoral processes. They offer an outside view of how elections are conducted and how disputes are solved. Their opinions could help EMBs to improve their work. However, I think use an electoral observers report as part of an electoral dispute, brake its impartiality and original aim, and turning it into a tool for political parties' cause.

In the Armenian presidential election of 2003, the Constitutional Court specifically took into account the findings of the OSCE/ODIHR International Election Observation Mission, which I headed. After the first round of voting, the Court was critical of the “shortcomings in the running of the electoral process” by the CEC, in particular with regard to its handling of complaints and its failure to address facts contained in the OSCE/ODIHR first round preliminary statement.

 

Following the second round voting, the Constitutional Court again drew on OSCE/ODIHR observations as evidence when it invalidated the results in some 40 polling stations. It ordered that the votes of the winning candidate at these polling stations be deducted from that candidate’s overall total.

 

 

In line with its mandate, OSCE/ODIHR was strictly an observer of the Constitutional Court’s proceedings; it did not file a complaint or otherwise participate in the court process. The OSCE/ODIHR EOM did, however, provide a substantial amount of evidence of election fraud to the Armenian authorities. 

There is a general consensus on the role of an International EOM (IEOM) in every election, assessing the conduct of elections and adherence to the law based on international and national legal instruments. Most laws relating to electoral disputes including court proceedings are based on substantial evidence without mentioning the source as a legal principle. In many cases it is left to the court to ascertain the credibility of the source of evidence. 

Generally most reports of International EOMs lack detail specificity and thus can hardly be used to substantiate a court case especially when it comes to electoral fraud or nullifying results. The structural coverage of the election by an International EOM, trust and integrity of the mission may gives credibility to its report if detailed in a court proceeding. The presence of some International EOMs are passive and known only to the EMB, seen on E-Day only to few citizen observers/monitors with limited national coverage. Even though missions have progressively improved on visibility, one aspect that is yet to receive considerable attention is the extend to how detail IEOM reports are to be used as a substantial evidence in court proceedings. If the presence of an IEOM contributes to making sure elections are conducted according to international and national legal instruments, their "impartial" reports can as well be used by stakeholders as evidence in court. The applicability of this is however relative.

As such the admissibility of these reports in a court proceeding as evidence remains the prerogative of the judge and court. It will be difficult to find any law that specifically provide for such reports to be admissible in the court of law. 

I think it is wrong to use observer reports as evidence in the courts of law. why would such thing be done? To me, observation is a study and it gives the overall findings resulting from analysis of collected data which indeed included evidence but no longer showing such proof vividly. The court cases need evidence where incidents took place and how so, which I believe is not what is reflected in the observer reports. The court deals with factual information and needs witnesses which I think they might not be observers.

That according to my understanding would be abuse of election observation, as I believe its aim is not to be witnesses to courts but to judge on the basis of principles whether elections were free, fair, credible or not for the sake of authenticating the new elected government and giving voters confidence on the process depending on the international standards and principles as well as local ones. It is meant to determine effectiveness or efficiency of election administration in relation to democracy, whether they were observed or not.

This is my take

In Cameroon, there is no legislation on the admissibility of an International Observer group's Report as evidence in court in a disputed election. Disputed arising from local elections (municipal) are adjudicated upon by the Administrative Courts of respective regions while disputes amanating from Presidential and Legislative elections are handled by the Supreme Court sitting for the Constitutional Council. Considering that such reports could be admitted in evidence before a court, what effects will it have on the democratic evolution of the country in question in the event where two observer groups have conflicting reports? In such a scenario, which report then can the court rely on as being credible? Any laws or policies recognising the admissibility of such reports as corroborating evidence in court MUST, therefore, be adopted with a caveat. My humble opinion.

In my view, observer reports can only presented if the court permits them for persuasive purposes. They are not concrete evidence but purely help to pursuade or create an impression on the overall conduct of an election. In Kenya, for example, the ELOG (local observer group) parallel tally of the 2013 Presidential Election Results was used by the EMB to pursuade the supreme court on the validity or credibility of the results announced by the EMB as the their tally was almost similar to that announced by the EMB. On the hand, another local observer cum NGO named AFRICOG petitioned the results based on their privileged access to the electoral process and played "video tapes" purportedly showing election irregularities in one particular tallying centre to create an impression that the whole election was a farce. Thus it depends on the court to decide what kind of weight they attach to such reports but for me they are not hardcore eveidences. They only serve to create an impression or set a particular tone on the credibility or otherwise of an election

El papel y los alcances de los observadores electorales en México esta regulado por el Instituto Nacional Electoral. Existe un proceso transparente y eficaz para su acreditación, incluso con la figura de "invitado" o como "misión electoral". El Instituto Nacional Electoral participa activamente en misiones de observación electoral en países del Sistema ONU.

Sin embargo, donde desde mi punto de vista los alcances ya no son tan claros es en los impacto que los informes de observación electoral tiene en el sistema de litigio, para ser tomados en cuenta como prueba en escenarios de elecciones cerradas.

Anexo el Manual del Observador Electoral que se encuentra vigente, publicado por el Instituto Nacional Electoral, el cual sufre revisiones y en su caso, modificaciones entre una elección y otra.