disaccredited because of serious breaches of the Code of Conduct. This is an automatic and technical procedure, and it applies to any individual who violates the Code of Conduct. 114. In order to follow electoral issues in a broader range of participating States, the ­ODIHR introduced in 2002 a new activity: the election assessment mission (EAM). EAMs are deployed to longer-standing and transition democracies on the premise that an election is expected to meet OSCE election commitments overall. However, there may be electoral issues of specific interest or concern, or a focus on the implementation of best practices. The modalities of an EAM derive from the fact that elections in longer-established democracies enjoy higher public confidence, better-tested electoral practices, and checks and balances such as a more robust civil society, pluralistic media, and an independent judiciary. EAMs can therefore meet their essential objectives at a reduced cost, without the need for a long-term or large-scale presence. 115. EAMs consist of a group of experts deployed for a few weeks who carry out an overall assessment of the legal and administrative framework without systematic and comprehensive visits to polling stations on Election Day. EAMs offer targeted recommendations contained in public reports posted on the ODIHR website. EAMs have also been deployed to transition countries. The determination to deploy an EAM has thus far been based upon available resources and analysis of specific electoral issues, sometimes drawing upon previous ODIHR reports. In some cases, the determination has been based upon the conduct of a NAM. 116. In instances in which the ODIHR is not observing a particular election, it may send an election expert support team consisting of some 2-3 election experts. They support the efforts of OSCE permanent field operations, in line with their respective mandates, to follow electoral developments (by-elections, local government elections, repeat partial elections, etc.) and to report on them through their regular reporting channels. In these cases, the ODIHR puts its electoral expertise at the disposal of resident OSCE field missions to assist them, though a separate public report is not issued. D. Resources and accountability 117. The ODIHR funds its election observation and assessment activities from the OSCE Unified Budget, according to agreed contribution scales, and subject to oversight in accordance with the OSCE rules and regulations.73 In 2006, the ODIHR Elections Department’s budget amounted to approximately €4.3 million. With this budget, the ODIHR will have observed up to ten elections and assessed elections in five participating States. In comparison, the European Union, which observes elections worldwide and which contracts all observers, spent €55 million for 21 observations in 2005 and 2006, and deployed around 2,200 observers in this period.74 It appears that the ODIHR, working within the parameters of a modest budget, achieves significant coverage of election processes in any given year within the OSCE region, in a flexible and cost-effective manner. 73  Extra-budgetary funds are not used for observation activities; for election-related OSCE operations outside the OSCE region, they have been used in three cases with a specific PC Decision in each case to define the parameters of the activities (in Afghanistan twice and in the Palestinian Territories). Those were, however, not election observation missions and were carried out following explicit Decisions of the PC. For contributions related to the diversification fund, see infra, para. 127 of this report. 74  This figure includes currently deployed missions. Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation 39