The Commission took however note, in its report, of legislative provisions and related practices, allowed by national political and constitutional traditions, which deviate from this principle, and also observed that “in these countries these practices have been considered consistent with their own constitutions”. In this context, it also briefly referred to the mechanism of recall by electors and acknowledged, in relation to Ukraine, the difficulty to articulate a direct criticism of such mechanisms, “since there are precedents in democratic countries” (para 35). The Commission pointed, in this connection, to a key principle which, in its view, should be a prerequisite for any recourse to recall: when grounds for curtailing the elective mandate imply legal judgments, “these situations should be better dealt with by neutral and independent legal bodies”. This is to say that clear distinction needs to be made between cases involving the legal accountability of the elected official, to be established in court, and situations where the political accountability of the official is at issue, and may be settled, as an exceptional measure, by recall.