In 31 countries, the Constitutional Court, the highest judicial body or a specialised electoral court, is the body competent to review election results. On the contrary, there are nine countries where the competent body to review the decision about the confirmation or cancellation of election results is a court but not the highest court. There are also nine countries where the decision to partially or fully invalidate election results is assigned to the parliament. Seven of them do not allow a judicial appeal on the parliament’s decision to validate election results. In this respect, the European Court of Human Rights underlines in its case-law that decisions by the parliament affecting the distribution of parliamentary seats, without the possibility of appeal to a judicial body, may constitute a breach of the right to an effective remedy in Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. In this respect, the European Court of Human Rights stated in the Grand Chamber judgment Mugemangango v. Belgium of 10 July 2020 that “a judicial or judicial-type remedy, whether at first instance or following a decision by a non-judicial body, is in principle such as to satisfy the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1”. Regardless of which body decides on the validity of election results, the law must guarantee procedural safeguards, such as impartiality, precise norms to limit the discretion of the authority, guarantees of a fair, objective and reasoned decision, in order to prevent arbitrary decisions and to be in accordance with the Convention.