CDL-AD(2020)025 - 30 - five member States, electoral laws explicitly state the possibility to submit applications without a representative.161 However, this does not mean that a representation is explicitly required in all the other countries analysed. 113. Not many countries define in their electoral laws and other laws the persons having the right to be heard in election dispute resolution systems in addition to the applicant.162 Laws on courts’ procedures might provide for additional parties or stakeholders having the right to be heard, in addition to applicants and bodies whose decisions or inactions are challenged. 114. As stated in the Code of good practice in electoral matters, the applicant’s right to a hearing involving both parties must be protected.163 An oral hearing is a means to provide the parties to justify the relevance of their requests in a speedy manner as well as to ask questions to the other parties in order to point out the substance of the dispute. In some cases, an oral hearing is necessary to hear the witnesses in a speedy manner, giving the parties a chance to ask questions to the witnesses. The aims of the transparency – i.e. the overall trust in electoral processes – can be ensured if the stakeholders are able to inspect whether all similar cases have been solved in an equal manner and whether the reasoning of the decisions is verifiable.164 There are not many countries with specific rules on the right to request an oral hearing of the case or the competent institution’s obligation to provide an oral hearing.165 However, this does not mean that an oral hearing is explicitly excluded in all the other countries analysed. 115. If the decision in electoral matters in first instance is made by a non-judicial body, it has to be guaranteed by a specific procedural rule that the core elements of a fair proceeding are fulfilled. Moreover, if the appeal procedure is made before a non-judicial body, the procedure should ensure that the competent body offers sufficient guarantees of its impartiality and afford effective guarantees of a fair, objective and sufficiently reasoned decision, as recently recalled by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.166 In any case, the competent body should have a high-level of expertise on electoral matters, which, depending on the issue challenged, may involve experts or judicial lay members inter alia with a geographical or IT background. B. Transparency of election dispute resolution systems 116. For all electoral processes, the principles of openness and transparency are generally stated in domestic electoral laws as well as in other laws. The specific mechanisms to guarantee the transparency of election dispute resolution systems among election commissions is guaranteed by the working methods of election administrations, such as 161 Algeria, Andorra (cases concerning candidate registration), Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, Mexico. Andorra, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Ireland, Mexico, Ukraine. In Andorra, concerning disputes related to candidate registration, candidates and the Attorney-General’s Office take part in the proceedings. In Azerbaijan, the law explicitly provides that the electoral management body whose decision is contested, takes part in the proceedings. In Mexico, Article 13 of the Law on electoral dispute resolution procedures refers to all persons entitled to lodge complaints and appeals, such as political parties, citizens, candidates and political nongovernmental organisations. In the Russian Federation, candidates or parties concerned have the right to attend the process. In Ukraine, all parties are to be notified about a date and time of examination of a complaint. However, a failure to attend a session of an election commission does not prevent the examination of the case. The same applies to proceeding at courts. 163 Code of good practice in electoral matters, Guideline II 3.3. h. 164 See for example 2009 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law No. 3366 about Elections to the Parliament of Ukraine, para. 43. 165 Armenia, Germany, Peru, Tunisia, Ukraine. In Armenia, an oral hearing is obligatory except in some cases concerning disputes related to election results. In Azerbaijan, the applicant has the right to request an oral hearing. In Ukraine, there is no provision in the law allowing the election commissions to conduct written proceedings. Regarding the judicial proceeding, an oral hearing should be provided, unless otherwise requested by the parties or unless the parties have failed to be present at a hearing. 166 See Mugemangango v. Belgium, 10 July 2020, para. 70, 137. 162