In this connection, the case-law of the ECtHR shows that it is sufficient, but also necessary to show convincingly that the results of the elections could have been different in the absence of irregularities.44 When looking at the legislation of the Venice Commission member States on the level of proof, some nuances can be observed. Some member States appear to require probability, in the sense that the judge considering election matters must establish – based on evidence – that it is more likely than not that the irregularities have affected the electoral result.45 Other States use a more open wording allowing for annulment if it is possible that the irregularities have affected the outcome.46 In the view of the Venice Commission, in any case the threshold for annulling an election should be high and it should only be possible if the irregularities raise genuine and objective doubts as to the veracity of the election result. Asking for proof that the election results have been affected would however establish too high a hurdle.