order to be maximally inclusive, the ODIHR routinely translates its publications, including elections-related reports and handbooks, into other relevant languages, including, in pertinent cases, Russian. In addition, STO briefings conducted in CIS countries are regularly interpreted into Russian. F. ‘Equal treatment’ 131. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the CSCE’s participating States reached agreements that established a new foundation for building democracy throughout a newly unified Europe. In 1990, they undertook to “build, consolidate and strengthen democracy as the only system of government of our nations”81 and added to this project their “conviction that full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the development of societies based on pluralistic democracy and the rule of law are prerequisites for … setting up the lasting order of peace, security, justice and co-operation”. 82 CSCE States took a historic step when they provided a set of criteria for democratic elections more advanced than those undertaken by any other intergovernmental agreement to date. For those States emerging from an authoritarian past, this represented a starting signal to immediately move towards established political norms for democratic governance. The original raison d’être for the ODIHR was thus to ensure that these commitments were attainable in the foreseeable future, and to help in speeding democratic transition in instances where the remnants of autocratic rule continued to be an obstacle to democracy.83 132. Over the past decade, the ODIHR has, just as the entire OSCE, focused much effort, including both monitoring activities and technical assistance, on countries in transition in Central and South-Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Far from being an arbitrary choice, this geographic focus was fully intended by participating States, and has often been commended. The suggestions that the ODIHR’s activities are “out of balance”, as they excessively focus on certain regions, are therefore unfounded. On the contrary, being well aware that States have also expressed their firm agreement that commitments apply equally to all participating States across the region, the ODIHR has, in recent years, expanded its activities across the region more than any other operational part of the OSCE. 133. Participating States have duly recognized that OSCE commitments are binding on all in an equal manner. In 1998, ministers encouraged the ODIHR, “given sufficient resources, to expand its focus to all States in the OSCE area”.84 They noted that the ODIHR can play a key role in assisting States to strengthen judicial structures and electoral systems, and NGOs to develop the capability of addressing human rights and the integration of national minorities into mainstream society, a recommendation the ODIHR has duly followed, within its budget restraints. The ODIHR is therefore adamant to avoid any perception of “geographic bias”. A focus on certain countries can be justified, not out of geography, but out of the real situation on the ground, which continues to differ dramatically across the region. The ODIHR will therefore continue to operate with this combination of foci, where it is justified, while re81  1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe. 82  Copenhagen Document, 1990. 83  This is the specific mandate given to the ODIHR in para. 5c of the Helsinki Document (Decisions VI, 1992), which tasked the ODIHR with fulfilling the objectives defined in the Programme of Co-ordinated Support to recently admitted States. 84  CiO’s Progress Report, Annex 2 (VI.5) to the 1998 Oslo Ministerial Declaration. Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation 43