International standards and in particular the Code of good practice in electoral matters do not recommend a specific model of body competent either in first instance or on appeal, provided that the conflict of jurisdiction is avoided whatever the step of an electoral process challenged. International standards and more specifically the Code of good practice in electoral matters recommend that the appeal body in electoral matters should be either an election commission or a court. For elections to Parliament, an appeal to Parliament may be provided for in first instance. In any case and whatever the system of adjudication of electoral disputes stipulated in the domestic law, a final appeal to a court must be possible. It is also of utmost importance that, as underlined by the Code of good practice in electoral matters, “the appeal procedure and, in particular, the powers and responsibilities of the various bodies […] be clearly regulated by law, so as to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction (whether positive or negative). Neither the appellants nor the authorities should be able to choose the appeal body.” Indeed the possibility for the applicant to choose between various appeals bodies, and in particular between election commissions and courts, may lead to forum shopping. Especially when national legislation provides for the possibility of legal challenges to either an election commission or a court, the electoral law and, if necessary, other pieces of legislation should clearly regulate the respective powers and responsibilities so that a conflict of jurisdiction can be avoided. Thus, the possibility of concurrent complaints procedures is to be avoided. At least it should be ensured that if such a dual mechanism does exist, the national legislation should establish an “alternative” opportunity to challenge the alleged violation to either an election commission or to a court, but not a simultaneous option to lodge complaints to both bodies. Such a dual mechanism is possible if the law clearly distinguishes the body competent based on the type of step, procedure, decision, action or inaction challenged, and provides an effective mechanism to prevent a simultaneous use of both judicial and nonjudicial avenues. This crucial aspect is relevant for the complaints in first instance and is therefore developed below under Section B of Part IV.