Polling staff showing the ballot to a voter in the quarantine centre before the polling staff marked it on his behalf. This procedure is obviously against international election standards, and it is surprising that any election officials anywhere found it acceptable. While the desire to prevent transmission of COVID19 is understandable, a better mechanism should have been implemented to enfranchise patients and voters in quarantine without compromising their privacy. It is however important to note that ANFREL observers each time reported that voters were still able to cast ballots for the desired candidates, and never seemed to be under undue influence from election officials or any other persons. Despite the inconsistencies noted above, ANFREL has found no evidence to doubt the overall integrity of the ballots cast during the in-constituency advance voting process. Most voters were eager to vote and polling staff was often found to be helpful and accommodating, albeit sometimes unknowingly going against UEC guidelines. Agents of political parties, and less frequently domestic observers, were also present to monitor the operations. Nonetheless, advance voting should be the cause for additional training of polling staff and heightened procedural safeguards in the future in order to reduce the risk of vote manipulation and increase the trust of the public in the process. Unfortunately, several irregularities that may have led to voter disenfranchisement were observed during advance voting at ward/village election sub-commissions. In Tamu township of Sagaing Region, an advance polling station opened only on 2 November, five days behind the original schedule. On a few occasions, mistakes by poll workers led to voters being issued the wrong ballot papers or not given a ballot for the election of a national race minister although they were eligible. 15