ed that the ODIHR should play an enhanced role in election monitoring before, during, and after elections. It also underlined the importance of free and independent functioning of the media.44 As mentioned in the preceding chapter, the Lisbon Summit Declaration cites the issue of electoral fraud in the context of a cross-dimensional regional security issue.45 The Istanbul Summit Declaration,46 followed by the Porto and Maastricht Ministerial Decisions, emphasized the importance of prompt follow-up to ODIHR recommendations. This commitment has improved the development of electoral processes in several countries that have taken up the ODIHR’s assistance and have implemented recommendations given in this context. 77. In recent years, the ODIHR has undertaken a review of existing commitments and best electoral practices.47 In 2002, the ODIHR submitted to the OSCE Permanent Council a document called International Standards and Commitments on the Right to Democratic Elections: A Practical Reference Guide to Democratic Elections Best Practice. This document was the basis for a subsequent 2003 document, Existing Commitments for Democratic Elections in OSCE Participating States: a Progress Report, which was considered by the OSCE Ministerial Council that year. 78. On the basis of these developments, participating States have entered into a discussion on whether the existing commitments on elections could meaningfully be supplemented through the development of additional commitments, otherwise known as “Copenhagen Plus”. Ministerial Council Decision No. 5/03 of 2 December 2003 recognized “in particular the need for confidence by the electorate in the entire process, for transparency of election procedures, and for accountability on the part of authorities conducting elections”, and tasked the Permanent Council, “drawing on expertise from the ODIHR, to consider the need for additional commitments on elections, supplementing existing ones”. 79. The need for additional commitments was further discussed at the July 2004 Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting (SHDM).48 In March 2005, OSCE Chairman-in-Office and Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel stated, “bearing in mind the fact that the OSCE Copenhagen Document is almost 15 years old, I see merit in considering whether additional commitments are needed”.49 As a result of the recommendations devised in the subsequent OSCE SHDM of April 2005, the Slovenian Chairmanship proposed that the ODIHR convene an expert meeting to consider the need for additional commitments.50 This meeting took place in Warsaw on 6-7 September 2005. Views on possible additional commitments 44  Concluding Document of Budapest, Decision VIII, para. 12. 45  Concluding Document of Lisbon, Declaration, para. 9. 46  Charter for European Security, Istanbul, para. 25. 47  Considerable work on best practices for elections has also been undertaken during this same period by other institutions, including the United Nations and — specific to the OSCE area— by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and the Association of Central and Eastern European Election Officials. 48  Participants at the July 2004 SHDM generally agreed that there was a need for additional commitments to address ongoing and emerging challenges, including new voting technologies, “particularly as they relate to transparency, accountability and developing public confidence in such systems” (see the Final Report of OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on Electoral Standards and Commitments, Vienna, 15-16 July 2004, p. 2). 49  OSCE PA, 4th Annual Winter Meeting, 24/1/05 (www.oscepa.org/index.aspx?articleid=+496). 50  Final Report of the OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on Challenges of Election Technologies and Procedures, Vienna, 21-22 April 2005. 28 Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation