remain engaged. The role of the CiO is also critical in this regard, as s/he should remind States of the need to implement commitments. For follow-up to be effective, the respective OSCE States have to muster the political will to improve the process and bring it into line with international standards. Reluctance of some States to implement ODIHR recommendations has demonstrated that this political will may be lacking. In such cases, weaknesses previously identified tend to be repeated in subsequent elections. In September 2006, the ODIHR signed an MOU with the Albanian Ministry of Interior that defines the modalities for the provision of expertise to the Ministry’s General Directorate in the modernization of the civil registration and address systems. The MOU constitutes concrete follow-up to recommendation No. 18 of the ODIHR Election Observation Mission Report (parliamentary elections of 3 July 2005), which states that “work on updating civil registers and… voter lists will require a long term commitment if Albanian authorities want a fully functional system of civil registration (and consequently of voter registration) to be in place for the 2009 elections”. 148. A number of countries are working with the ­ODIHR on domestic electoral reform. The ODIHR’s ability to follow up is enhanced by a specific invitation that allows the Office to support the efforts of the authorities in the recipient State with the provision of know-how. In discharging follow-up functions, the ODIHR takes an inclusive and transparent approach that involves the entire political spectrum and recognizes the role of civil society. The Office is, however, cautious not to provide technical assistance immediately prior to an election, which might endanger its role as a neutral observer. It is most useful when States signal their willingness to engage in follow-up dialogue just after the ODIHR report on the previous election is released. Positive precedents have been recently set in this respect. 149. The scope of the follow-up depends on the intentions of the authorities of the recipient participating State to improve the election process. This assistance has included expert visits, provision of legal commentary, and roundtable meetings. Thus far, the ODIHR’s assistance has primarily focused on improvement of the legal framework for elections. Such follow-up exercises have been conducted in a number of OSCE States. Since 1998, the ODIHR has been reviewing electoral legislation, in most cases jointly with the Council of Europe’s Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission).98 In most instances, these reviews have contributed to the improvement of the legal framework for elections and have brought the respective laws closer to meeting OSCE commitments. On several occasions, follow-up has continued beyond the improvement of the legal framework to include the quality of the civil registry and of the voter lists, the performance of the judiciary, law enforcement agencies, and the media. Success has always been a result of cooperative efforts of both authorities and the opposition at critical moments. 150. A few OSCE States have proposed that the ODIHR conduct a comparative review of the election-related legislation of each participating State. The ODIHR could see merit in such an initiative; given the complexity of electoral legislation in most participating States, the volume of such research would, however, engage a significant number of experts in a multiyear effort, exceeding all human and financial resources that are currently available to the ODIHR. At present, the ODIHR reviews, upon request, around a dozen election laws each year in relation to OSCE commitments. Its experience with individual legal reviews, which are published on legislationline.org, add considerable resources that participating States can 98  Since 2000, the ODIHR has reviewed over 80 electoral laws. 48 Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation