IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections Recommendations Successful ADR requires effective design and the inclusion of key elements during the preparation and implementation phases. Based on lessons learned from this research, IFES has identified the recommendations below. They are primarily targeted at EMBs, although some recommendations involve other stakeholders. These recommendations can be used as a checklist for election officials, practitioners, or technical assistance partners. Feasibility and planning 1. Prior to introducing ADR, assess the dispute resolution environment for any shortcomings or areas that ADR could helpfully remedy or complement. Identify the existing mechanisms involved in the formal and informal resolution of election disputes, whether the EMB, courts or specialist tribunals, including their resources, the length of proceedings, the manner and timing for filing complaints, their accessibility and efficiency, and public trust in these institutions. 2. Cooperate with the tribunal or courts responsible for election disputes. When setting up an ADR mechanism, it is important for the EMB to engage in a discussion with the judiciary or other body responsible for EDR to clarify that the use of ADR will not prevent stakeholders from filing a challenge before the court and that the legal deadlines for EDR will be stayed (put on hold) during the ADR process. 3. Consult with the different stakeholders in the electoral process—not only the judiciary or EMB, but also political parties, community leaders, independent professions (bar association, national law society), conflict resolution organizations, and human rights activists to learn more about existing structures for traditional resolution of disputes at the local community level (e.g., peace mediation efforts), and how ADR could complement these processes. Assess whether there is easy access to lawyers and the cost of justice for complainants, and derive lessons from other country experience. 4. Consult or partner with local or international organizations that have led mediation projects at the community level in the country in other areas of disputes (outside elections). 93 They may provide guidelines and lessons that can be relevant to elections. They may already rely on a network of trained mediators. 5. Consider the legal tradition and cultural context of the country and identify potential opportunities for the inclusion of vulnerable groups. Traditional structures can be an important part of indigenous and minority cultures and should be considered in the resolution of election disputes. There is no one-size-fitsall model of ADR, and the mechanism introduced in each country should be context-specific. 6. Provide a specific budget to ensure that ADR mechanisms have sufficient resources to conduct regular meetings and have the communication tools to report on the resolution of disputes by ADR. 7. Distinguish between rural and urban areas and consider access to the EDR bodies and law enforcement and trust in the local administration and national government. Several organizations in Myanmar have led successful mediation projects at the community level. These include Mercy Corps, with which IFES partnered for the design of the EMC training curriculum and selection of trainers/mediators in 2020. 93 42