The constitution provides for free, fair and secret universal suffrage but leaves all other necessary details for the conduct of elections to be regulated through the electoral law, which is highly unstable. Electoral laws often change depending on the political situation, and are passed or modified unilaterally by the ruling party. Two different institutions are responsible for the settlement of electoral disputes: the Constitutional Council (Conseil Constitutionnel) and the administrative tribunals that deal with internal disputes in local elections. The Constitutional Council is composed of a presiding judge whose term of office is unlimited, three judges appointed by the President of Burkina Faso on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, three people appointed by the President of Burkina Faso and three other members appointed by the Speaker of the Parliament. The members serve for a single term of nine years. The independence of the Constitutional Council has been questioned since nine of its members are appointed by either the President (six members) or the Speaker (three members), who both belong to the ruling party. However, the members of the Constitutional Council can only be dismissed in exceptional circumstances. Moreover, the presiding member can be dismissed at any time by the President of the Republic – and cannot hold other positions simultaneously. The administrative tribunals are responsible for the settlement of local election disputes. As magistrates, the judges of the tribunals enjoy a high level of guarantees, including the principles of irrevocability and independence enshrined in the legal instruments. In reality, interference by the political powers, corruption, bribery and difficulties related to funding, professionalism and transparency are all obstacles to the independence of these tribunals, just as is the case with other types of jurisdiction in Burkina Faso. It should be noted that there are usually very few electoral disputes. This is due to the politicians’ poor mastery of the available mechanisms and the prevailing lack of trust in the institutions responsible for settling electoral disputes. Many parties or candidates prefer to expose cases of fraud, irregularities or corruption they claim to know about in the media instead of referring them to the competent institution responsible for settling electoral disputes. Moreover, there is a problem of access to the courts, which are both geographically and socio-culturally far from the people. Such distance can prevent a citizen from appealing against a decision made by an electoral authority, even though the procedure is theoretically free of charge. 72. Similarly, it is a positive factor if EMB and EDRB members can demonstrate a permanent commitment to absolute respect for democratic principles and values and the postulates of the international human rights instruments, without favouring political parties, candidates, voters or representatives of the press and other media outlets. 29 3. Prevention of electoral disputes (cont.)