the Court as a legitimate political institution.91 Conversely, Carter Center observers of the 2011 presidential elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) were told that many citizens avoided the court system since they believed judges were not impartial in their work and could be swayed by political interests instead of justice. The Carter Center suggested that “[c]itizens’ awareness of the DRC’s inadequate dispute resolution mechanisms is believed to have contributed some to the many street protests and violence that have permeated this election; many voters are frustrated and feel they have no other alternative but to protest in order to have their voice heard.”92 Ultimately, observers considered that the underdeveloped system did not sufficiently protect citizens’ fundamental right to adjudicative remedy for alleged violations of their rights.93 In “Why People Obey the Law,” psychologist Tom Tyler examines the linkage between the perceived legitimacy of institutions and systems, and the compliance with rules and decisions issues by those institutions: Findings consistently suggest that the legitimacy of authorities and institutions is linked to the fairness of the procedures by which they exercise their authority. These findings link legitimacy to the degree to which institutions are “just” institutions. Hence, the pursuit of public support requires institutions and authorities to adhere to lay principles of justice. The effort to create and maintain legitimacy, in other words, causes institutions to focus on those who are being led, and their conceptions of procedural justice. It is only when the perspectives of everyday members are enshrined in institutions and in the actions of authorities that widespread legitimacy will exist.94 Ultimately, Tyler suggests that beyond simply “winning” a case or claim, people care about the justice of outcomes (what Tyler terms “distributive justice”) and of the procedures by which they are arrived (“procedural justice”).95 Additionally, he finds that these elements influence both the perceived legitimacy of the institution providing the remedy, and the remedy itself (independent of whether the remedy is favorable to the person in question). VI. How can effectiveness be measured? As emphasized at the start of this chapter, there is an acute need for evidence-based approaches to measuring and applying effective remedies. Increasingly, weak EDR systems exacerbate problematic elections, and in some instances, cause stakeholders to bypass the formal EDR system in ways that can trigger legitimacy crises, protests, and violence. Further research is needed on just how the effectiveness of remedies might be better measured – and ultimately their application better refined to mitigate these political pressures. 91 James L. Gibson, Gregory A. Caldiera & Lester Kenyatta Spence, Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court, 47 AM. J. POL. SCI. 354, 354 (2003). 92 CARTER CENTER, FINAL REPORT: PRESIDENTIAL AND LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO (2011), http://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/news/peace_publications/election_reports/drc-112811-elections-finalrpt.pdf 93 Id. 94 WHY PEOPLE OBEY THE LAW, supra note 87. 95 Id. at 5.