The state has a duty to punish cases of electoral fraud.
- Though widespread electoral violations were acknowledged to have taken place, there was a general failure to enforce the law in a number of elections. In some countries, there is still a “culture of impunity” for election-related offences. Of particular concern is the fact that election officials are seldom held legally or administratively accountable for electoral violations. Electoral observers have frequently demanded that election officials found guilty of irregularities should be held accountable and not be reappointed for future elections. The relevant authorities’ general failure to take measures against election violations undermined the credibility of, and public confidence in, elections of several countries. Prompt and radical measures by the authorities are needed to curtail any tolerance for election-related offences as well as to fully restore the rule of law and confidence in the election process.
- [T]he state must punish any kind of electoral fraud.
- The state must punish any kind of electoral fraud.
- The Council of Europe has identified two types of cyberthreats to elections. First, threats to electoral democracy, namely “attacks against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of election computers and data”, compromising voter databases or registration systems; tampering with voting machines to manipulate results; interference with the function of systems on election day; and illegal access to computers to steal, modify, disseminate sensitive data. Second, threats to deliberative democracy, i.e. “information operations with violations of rules to ensure free, fair and clean elections” related to data protection, political finances, media coverage of electoral campaigns and broadcasting and political advertising.