In addition, it is unclear why the legislators did not determine the criteria and incorporate them directly into the legislation, as this would contribute to legal certainty and enhance legal stability of the criteria compared to the status of regulation or policy, particularly in light of the politically sensitive nature of the matter and risk of political abuse. Moreover, the amendments do not provide a timeline for the NSDC to establish the criteria. Although the Explanatory Note refers to the problematic manner by which the decisions on the impossibility of holding elections in certain areas were made in past elections - resulting in unjustifiable and inconsistent decisions based on non-transparent criteria - and acknowledges the need for clear and objective assessment criteria to be established, the legislators do not go so far as to actually establish them. This is so, even though the Explanatory Note makes references to the type of assessment criteria which should be established, such as geographic proximity of the concerned communities to the contact line, past experience in administering the vote in certain territories, functioning of other aspects of public life in the relevant areas, and objective information (scaled) on any escalation of the security situation in those territories. Consequently, the Venice Commission and ODIHR recommend that the main assessment criteria be determined by parliament after consultation of both the CEC and the NSDC, and within a broadly inclusive and transparent consultation process, and be introduced in the law. At the same time, it would be advisable to leave some scope for the criteria to be expanded on the basis of experience gained on their application in practice.