Most investigations result from a complaint from an individual or through the oversight mechanism (see Monitors of Election Integrity). In systems where investigators are not police officers, investigators are not usually authorized to initiate an investigation without a sworn complaint or other authorization. For instance, this is the case in Canada where Special Investigators cannot start an investigation without the approval of the Commissioner or the Counsel to the Commissioner. 336
A complaint process that is nonthreatening 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 deterred from doing so because of cumbersome or intimidating procedures. In general, integrity requires that:
- any person is able to file a complaint if they believe a law has been broken or a violation is about to occur. This helps authorities uncover crimes and can deter future ones from occurring;
- complaints are made in writing, sent to the appropriate office, signed and dated. Some systems require a notarized signature for an official complaint. This is to avoid frivolous, anonymous complaints. At the same time, some persons may be afraid to make a complaint if they have to identify themselves. Each system should have a mechanism to deal with these kinds of situations;
- complaints are made in a timely manner, and within the time limits set in the legal and regulatory frameworks. This helps to ensure evidence and witnesses are still available; and
- complaints are factual, show that a specific violation has occurred, and, if possible, identify the persons involved. The complainant differentiates between statements based on his/her own personal knowledge and second hand information or rumour. Sources of information are identified. This helps ensure law enforcement has enough information to evaluate the complaint and make a determination whether it warrants investigation. (see Decision to Investigate).
Making complaints public
Making a complaint public, or keeping it secret, can raise integrity questions. Does the public have a right to know of significant criminal actions in the electoral process? And if so, at what point? If a complaint is made public, suspects may realize that they are under investigation and destroy evidence. A complainant may also be at risk for having made the complaint and want his/her identity protected.
Whether a complaint will be made public during the investigatory phase usually depends on the system and the nature of the complaint. For instance, 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.' 337 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 the transparency of the enforcement process and ensuring the integrity of the investigation.
