EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

Article 202 explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to contest elections: (1) qualified registered voters who participated in the vote; (2) each candidate; (3) candidate lists; (4) representatives of entities supporting an option; (5) delegates of candidates in the relevant constituency; and (6) national observers. The statute clearly identifies distinct categories of entitled parties and specifies their scope of standing (e.g., voters may challenge conduct in their voting precinct or circumscription where registered; candidates may challenge results of their voting bureau or conditions in their candidacy area). This enumeration satisfies the criterion by providing clear, statutory demarcation of who may initiate dispute procedures.

Article 200 clearly specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests by categorizing disputes according to election type. The Haute Cour Constitutionnelle has jurisdiction over presidential, legislative, and senatorial election contests. Administrative Tribunals (Tribunaux administratifs) have first and last instance jurisdiction over territorial election disputes. The statute explicitly designates these courts with their respective competencies, providing unambiguous venue rules that enable parties to know where to file election disputes without discretion or ambiguity.

Article 210 specifies a filing deadline of 3 days for cassation appeals against disqualification decisions, but this applies only to challenges of disqualification rulings by the Administrative Tribunal in territorial elections. The statute does not establish a general filing deadline for election contests following certification or after other defined trigger events. The 3-day deadline is narrowly scoped to post-notification appeal rights for disqualification decisions, not comprehensive election contest procedures. The criterion requires specification of the deadline for filing election contests generally (after certification or after a defined event), which is only partially addressed here. The text also notes that Constitutional Court decisions in presidential, legislative, and senatorial elections are not subject to any recourse, further limiting the scope of contestable decisions.

“dans un délai de trois (3) jours à compter de la notification”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 162 addresses the right to observe voting and ballot-counting operations and to append observations, protests, or contestations to the minutes of those operations. However, the provision does not establish either a standard of proof or evidentiary rules for election contests. It grants procedural access to observers and candidates to lodge objections but does not codify what evidence is required, admissible, or what burden or standard of proof applies to contest claims. The section creates an administrative record-keeping mechanism (a form for documenting irregularities) but does not define statutory standards for adjudicating disputes based on that evidence. This is a right-to-observe and right-to-object provision, not a substantive codification of proof standards or evidentiary rules for contest proceedings.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 157 of Madagascar's Loi organique 2018-008 addresses voting procedures and voter registration on the electoral roster (liste d'émargement), including signature verification and counterattesting by electoral bureau members. It does not establish recount procedures, triggers for recounts, cost allocation for recounts, or the effects of recount findings. The article is focused on the mechanics of casting and registering votes on election day, not post-election dispute resolution through recounting. The criterion RECT.1 requires statutory definition of who conducts recounts, how recounts are conducted, and what evidence triggers them — none of which appear in this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 38 addresses voter list omissions and corrections during the voter registration phase, not recount procedures. It establishes a process for challenging omissions from provisional electoral lists through local election commissions and courts, with specific timelines (20 days to petition, 7 days for commission decision, 15 days for court appeal, 10 days for court ruling). However, this addresses registration disputes and corrections, not recounts of ballots cast. The statute does not enumerate triggers for recounts (such as margin thresholds, margin percentages, or sworn challenge procedures that would initiate a recount of votes already counted). The criterion seeks enumeration of recount triggers specifically—automatic or petition-based mechanisms that determine when votes must be recounted—which this section does not provide.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 162 establishes observation rights and the ability to attach observations, protests, or contestations to official records before or after proclamation. However, it contains no codified language specifying the legal effect of recount findings—whether they are binding on election officials, merely advisory, trigger mandatory amendments to results, or carry other specific consequences. The provision addresses procedural access to observe and document irregularities but does not codify the binding force or mandatory consequences of a recount determination. The section explicitly cuts off mid-sentence ('Des dérogations') without completing the legal framework. This gap precludes satisfaction of RECT.4, which requires that the legal effects of recount findings be codified in statute.

Article 191 establishes that official proclamation of definitive results is performed by the competent court 'within the deadline provided by texts specific to each category of election' (dans le délai prévu par les textes spécifiques à chaque catégorie d'élection). This creates a framework for certification timing but delegates the actual deadline to category-specific legislation rather than codifying it directly in this organic law. The criterion requires the certification deadline to be 'set by statute, not by administrative discretion.' While this provision anchors certification in law (not pure discretion), it does not establish a fixed deadline within the statute itself—instead, it incorporates deadlines by reference to other texts. This represents partial satisfaction: there is a statutory commitment to deadline-driven certification, but the specific deadline is not stated in the present statute, creating potential ambiguity about access to the precise rule.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 212 explicitly provides that cassation recourse (appeal to the Court of Cassation) has no suspensive effect ('n'a pas d'effet suspensif'). This means that pending cassation proceedings do not stay certification. The statute affirmatively negates a stay mechanism rather than establishing one. The section addresses timing and procedural deadlines (10 days for filing) but directly contradicts the requirement for a statutory stay mechanism for pending disputes. There is no codified mechanism to halt certification while a recount or election contest is pending.