Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections Jurists also recognize the importance of due process and the limitations it places on expeditious decision-making, as recognized in the dissenting opinion in Electoral Commission v. Bakireke (Uganda Court of Appeals).168 Justice S.B.K. Kavuma stressed that “what constitutes ‘adequate’ time [the right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of a defense] will depend on the nature of the proceedings and the factual circumstances in a case. Factors to be taken into account include the complexity of a case, the defendant’s access to evidence, the time limits provided for in domestic law for certain actions in the proceedings etc.”169 Justice Kavuma referred to the Amnesty International Fair Trial Manual, stating “the right to trial within a reasonable time may be balanced against the right to adequate time to prepare a defense.”170 In the Ugandan case at issue, appellants were given a mere 20 days to respond to the allegations of the affidavits while the respondents had five months to assemble the evidence that was introduced before the court. While an expeditious adjudication of electoral complaints is key to the effectiveness of the process, the elements that ensure a proper administration of justice, such as the right to prepare a defense, should be taken into consideration and should not be undermined.171 It is important to note that these requirements must be adequately addressed when implementing efforts for speedy adjudication.  For example, after the 2009 elections in Afghanistan, the ECC — due to the extensive scope of the alleged fraud and limited time to stage a potential second round before winter — chose to use a sampling method for the recount in order to reach a quick result.  This approach addressed the specific circumstances being faced by the complaint adjudication body in a post-conflict Electoral Commission v. Bakireke, (2009) U.G.C.A. 12 (Ct. App.) (Uganda), available at http:// lawviatheinternet.org/ug/cases/UGCA/2009/12.html. 169 Id. (Kavuma, J., dissenting) (citing Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Basic GuIde to Legal Standards and Practice 16 (2000), available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pubs/ descriptions/fair_trial.pdf). 170 Id. (citing Amnesty International, Fair Trials Manual § A, ch. 8 (1998), available at http://www. amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL30/002/1998/en/947b99f9-d9b1-11dd-af2b-b1f6023af0c5/ pol300021998en.html). 171 See also Boddaert v. Belgium, 16 Eur. Ct. H.R. 242 ¶ 39 (1992) ("Article 6 [of the European Convention] commands that judicial proceedings be expeditious, but it also lays down the more general principle of the proper administration of justice."). The court reaffirmed that notion in 2007, stating that “as desirable as the expeditious examination of election-related disputes may be, it should not result in the undue curtailment of the procedural guarantees afforded to the parties to such proceedings, in particular the defendants.” Kwiecień v. Poland, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. No. 51744/99, Judgment of 9 Jan. 2007, ¶ 55. 168 58