minding all States of their commitments and providing advice and assistance wherever pertinent. 134. The OSCE and its missions and institutions do not have a one-sided geographic focus. Tools were, however, jointly developed for specific purposes, from assisting with democratization to providing early warning and post-conflict institution-building and rehabilitation. Spreading institutional responses in an arithmetically equal manner across the 56 States can hardly be reconciled with the imperative of creating a more effective OSCE or that of spending resources in a more efficient manner. When the Panel of Experts recommended “equal treatment of all participating States”, 85 it could not conceivably have suggested the deployment of identical missions to elections in each participating State. This interpretation would render observation a mechanical pro forma exercise and hence miss the point of assisting societies in their transition to, and consolidation of, democracy. Instead, the Panel of Experts’ recommendations guide our understanding of equal treatment as an imperative to hold all OSCE States accountable to the same commitments and standards. 135. The ODIHR can play a useful role in helping States in further developing their electoral practices, both by eliminating long-standing defects and reacting to new challenges and innovations. It has adapted its methodology in order to attend to electoral challenges that arise both in transition democracies and in established democracies. Since the latter usually have well-tested electoral practices that enjoy the overall confidence of their electorates, as well as a free and robust media and a civil society that identify electoral shortcomings for public debate, assessment missions can review the overall legal and administrative framework for elections at greatly reduced human and financial cost. Since 2002, the ODIHR has been deploying election assessment missions on the premise that an election will meet OSCE commitments, but that the ODIHR may comment on specific issues in line with best electoral practice for implementing OSCE commitments. 86 136. The ODIHR has never been provided with the budgetary resources to deploy needs assessment missions to all participating States’ elections. Spreading the ODIHR’s resources thinly across the OSCE region in an ill-conceived effort to apply an identical routine to all States would significantly reduce the effectiveness of this activity. Should States nevertheless consider it appropriate to enhance the ODIHR’s needs assessment activities, the Office is prepared to respond accordingly and to undertake NAMs to more, or all, upcoming elections in the OSCE region, resources provided. G. Reporting and recommendations 137. In line with international best practice, the ODIHR’s methodology offers findings that are non-politicized, impartial, and of a concrete nature. These findings are made public in a transparent and timely manner. The ODIHR reports its findings through periodic interim reports during the pre-election period, a statement of preliminary findings and conclusions delivered on the day after Election Day and a final report at the very completion of the 85  Common Purpose, para. 24(c), note 61 of this report. 86  Since 2002, EAMs have been, or are being, deployed to, inter alia, the United States (2002 and 2006), Canada (2006), Bulgaria (2005 and 2006), the Netherlands (2006), Italy (2006), the United Kingdom (2005), Slovakia (2004), Spain (2004), Romania (2004), Scotland and Wales (2003), Northern Ireland (2003), France (2002), and Turkey (2002). 44 Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation