A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE TO INCREASING WOMEN’S ACCESS TO ELECTORAL JUSTICE Supreme Court of Mexico developed a protocol on how to apply a gender perspective in making judicial decisions. 95 The guide includes a checklist that judges can use to ensure they employ a gender lens to their cases, because “introducing a gender perspective into legal reasoning can lead to resolutions that may have come out differently without the benefit of such a perspective. The result of judicial decision-making with a gender perspective is access to justice for those who, because of their biological, physical, sexual, gender, or contextual situation, are at risk of having their rights go unrecognized.”96 In addition to this 2014 publication, the Supreme Court of Mexico released a guide in 2022 that gives judges the tools to adjudicate specifically from a gender perspective.97 The guide supports judges to conduct a situational analysis, determine the applicable law(s), give arguments, and make decisions – all with a gender perspective. It notes the need for training for electoral judges and institutions on gender-sensitive adjudication. Despite some attempts to integrate a gender perspective into the judicial system, its absence in judgements still exists and can lead to harmful judgements: “if judges and prosecutors are unfamiliar with the dynamics of gender-based violence crimes and the effects it has on [survivors] beyond the purely physical, they may misinterpret a [survivor’s] actions or demeanor as an indicator of lack of credibility.”98 This example applies to cases that might be brought forward regarding violence against women in elections or politics (or both). In Haiti, an IFES assessment from 2018 found that, in general, women’s access to justice for crimes related to gender-based violence is extremely limited, impeding their ability to seek justice for elections-related violent crimes.99 In Ukraine, an IFES EDR assessment found that “a lack of election-related specialization in the local courts, as well as limited training on election cases (and no targeted training on election violations uniquely impacting women), mean that many judges lack knowledge of electoral law and are not familiar with the expedited procedures applicable until they are asked to adjudicate an election case.”100 In particular, “neither police nor prosecutors seem to have much understanding of the particular challenges facing women candidates, including gender-based harassment and intimidation.”101 In advance of the 2022 Kenyan elections, the country’s Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), attempted to implement a judgement from the 2017 elections, Constitutional Petition No. 19 of 2017 in Katiba Institute vs Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission. In that case, the court ruled that political parties must comply with the constitutional gender quota during the nominations process. When the IEBC took steps to implement the judgement, including by rejecting candidate lists that did not comply with the two-thirds gender rule, it was challenged in court on the grounds that the IEBC’s actions were not in line with the Constitution because these actions did not allow for public participation and stakeholder consultations. Though the IEBC was attempting to uphold its constitutional responsibility to implement the gender quota, the High Court sided with petitioners and postponed the implementation of the two-thirds gender rule with respect to candidate lists for the 2022 elections. 102 The reasoning presented in the ruling is one example of the ongoing need to sensitize judges to the importance of understanding how to properly implement gender quota laws and other gender-specific legislation. 95 Supreme Court of Mexico. (2014, March). Judicial Decision-Making with a Gender Perspective: A Protocol. Ibid. 97 Ravel et al., 2022. 98 Ibid, p. 10. 99 Bardall, G., et al., (2018). Violence Against Women in Elections in Haiti: An IFES Assessment. IFES - The International Foundation for Electoral Systems. 100 Ennis and Ellena, 2018. 101 Ibid. 102 Marube Ombeta, Kamotho Njenga v. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (n.d.). • Page 1 • Election Judgments – IFES. Electionjudgments.org. 96 40