One of the issues involved in election integrity is who monitors the enforcers of election integrity. As with any other part of the process, enforcement can become tainted by partisan politics, corrupted by money or power, be inefficient or make mistakes. To ensure enforcement plays its role in maintaining election integrity, it must be monitored and enforced- just as any other part of the process.
Most legal systems have an internal control mechanism to ensure that the administration of justice functions as intended. Police departments have a department of internal affairs whose purpose is to investigate charges of police misconduct. This would also be true for most prosecution agencies. Some legal systems have judicial inspectors and a mechanism to remove judges from a case.
Serious cases of judicial abuse or misconduct could result in the removal or impeachment of the judge. Impeachments are usually done by the legislative branch as one of their checks and balances. In serious cases of systemic abuse, where there is no existing credible mechanism to investigate complaints, an independent judicial commission could be established.
The control mechanism within the law enforcement agency needs to keep track of complaints made against investigators, or an investigation, either by phone or in writing, anonymous or not. A supervisor can track the number of complaints and analyse their content. Was it against the methods used by a particular person, or was it against the investigation? Were rights of witnesses or suspects being abused, or was the complaint partisan in nature? Systemic problems are usually turned over to the department of internal affairs, Attorney General or other official oversight mechanism.
Election observers and monitors also monitor the enforcement of election integrity. Observers can be present at all stages of an enforcement activity- to ensure an official investigation is being done-- that the investigators act impartially, and have the resources and ability to conduct an adequate investigation; that suspects are located, arrested and brought to trial; and that the rights of individuals are respected in the process.
Having a public trial and monitoring of the trial, can help encourage judicial professionalism and impartiality. Lack of action by law officials, or the courts, can be investigated and reported on by an independent and responsible press. Monitoring can also cover the penalty phase to ensure that persons found guilty are punished and that the penalty given matches the crime. According to the Center for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, 'civil society coalitions, by a synergy of effort, have the potential to effectively combat and eliminate instance of corruption of, and loss of impartiality in the judicial system.'373
