284. Where the organization of the election and the judicial resolution of electoral issues are assigned to separate bodies, the EMB and the EDRB, this debate may then be resolved by distinguishing the composition of the two bodies: the EMB having the input and views of the political parties, the makeup of the EDRB being independent of the political parties. In such a system, it may be easier to prevent electoral disputes and to correct violations by administrative means – thus helping to make recourse to judicial decisions exceptional – and at the same time afford greater legal certainty and help ensure that the actions and decisions of the administrative authorities are always subject to the principles of constitutionality and legality. However, the establishment of two separate independent bodies may raise financial and sustainability issues. 285. To minimize the risks involved in political parties nominating EDRB members, selection by competitive process can be used, as in Iraq. Another approach is to give the power to designate members to the Supreme Court. In countries in which distrust is routine, however, some voices warn of the risk that appointments by the Supreme Court may be called into question. They suggest that its members, in turn, will designate someone who is inclined to support the interests of the political party that appointed them, which merely shifts the problem, perhaps undercutting the prestige of the Supreme Court by the alleged ‘politicization of the system of justice’. 286. A further alternative is to give the legislative organs the power to designate members, but require a special majority (perhaps two-thirds of the legislators, as in Honduras and Mexico, and, for the independent members, in El Salvador and Uruguay). This may help to achieve a consensus at least among some of the representatives who are members of opposition political parties (with the proviso that there shall be recourse to alternative mechanisms to overcome a possible impasse and prevent certain minorities from blocking decision making). Unfortunately, however, under this latter system cases have arisen in which the positions to be filled are distributed among the parties that are able to constitute the required majority, thereby excluding other political parties. 287. The need for consensus in appointing EDRB members by requiring a special majority in the legislative branch is a proven formula in, for example, the appointment of the members of Constitutional Courts in Germany, Lithuania and Portugal. 288. One problem related to requiring a special majority of the legislature is that the public exposure that can be associated with participating in the nomination process, and the risk of not ultimately being elected/appointed, may deter the best-qualified people from participation. It may also be difficult for minorities to secure representation under this system, which is especially important in some countries – bearing in mind that such representation 104