Law enforcement should behave in a neutral manner.
- The right to security of the person was enjoyed by all electoral stakeholders, including candidates, party members, and their supporters
- Electoral stakeholders were free from arbitrary arrest and detention as well as intimidation and coercion
- Law enforcement bodies were neutral in their work
- Security personnel played a positive role during the electoral process, providing protection for voters, candidates, and electoral management body personnel without interfering in the process
- Vote counting took place in an environment free of intimidation
- The state prohibited interference with registration, intimidation, or coercion of potential voters
- Law enforcement agencies should behave in a neutral manner.
- Depoliticization may require structural changes to recruitment processes for the particular security force, to encourage the development of a force that is broadly representative and not composed solely of those personally loyal to a leader.
- Political or other bias by the police may result in failures to protect civilians from violence (by, for example, not intervening to prevent physical attacks, or by failing to arrest perpetrators).
- Public security providers should not be engaged in politics, take sides or demonstrate preferential support for any specific party or candidate. They should remain neutral and be perceived as impartial.
- The overall approach to electoral security should reflect the principle that the ultimate objective of ensuring a safe and secure electoral environment is not to impose limitations, but to ensure that fundamental rights are not undermined and that they can be freely exercised. Security concerns should not be misused as justification for unduly restricting freedoms.