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
- Each Party may limit the right of access to official documents. Limitations shall be set down precisely in law, be necessary in a democratic society and be proportionate to the aim of protecting: a. national security, defence and international relations; b. public safety; c. the prevention, investigation and prosecution of criminal activities; d. disciplinary investigations; e. inspection, control and supervision by public authorities; f. privacy and other legitimate private interests; g. commercial and other economic interests; h. the economic, monetary and exchange rate policies of the State; i. the equality of parties in court proceedings and the effective administration of justice; j. environment; or k. the deliberations within or between public authorities concerning the examination of a matter. Concerned States may, at the time of signature or when depositing their instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, by a declaration addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, declare that communication with the reigning Family and its Household or the Head of State shall also be included among the possible limitations. 2. Access to information contained in an official document may be refused if its disclosure would or would be likely to harm any of the interests mentioned in paragraph 1, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. 3. The Parties shall consider setting time limits beyond which the limitations mentioned in paragraph 1 would no longer apply.
- 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.