(for example by guaranteeing effective and inclusive access to the electoral justice system). 2. The tendency towards establishing judicial EDR systems 226. Even though the first democratic regimes to adopt an EDR system entrusted the final decision on the certification of electoral processes to the legislative bodies themselves, by the last third of the 19th century a judicial EDR system had been established in the UK, when the regular courts were given jurisdiction over resolving challenges to parliamentary elections (see paragraph 171). Gradually, in the course of the 20th century, authority was transferred to judicial bodies (regular, constitutional, administrative or specialized electoral courts), an EMB with judicial powers or, exceptionally, an ad hoc body as a provisional or transitional arrangement. In general, there has been a marked trend towards establishing judicial bodies to handle EDR, or to including EDR within the remit of existing judicial bodies. 227. Judicial bodies entrusted with EDR may have the formal power to make the final decision on a challenge. However, even where the final decision remains in the hands of a legislative body or political assembly, there is generally provision for prior challenges before judicial bodies. This applies not only to challenges to election results but also to disputes during the preparatory phase of the election cycle. In addition, it increasingly applies to political parties’ internal procedures for selecting their leaders and candidates for office and for disciplining their members, as is provided for in a growing number of countries. Examples can be found in Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Germany, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Spain and the United States. Another indicator of this judicial trend is that several of the members of the body in charge of organizing, administering and overseeing elections (the EMB) either come from the judicial branch or are appointed in a similar way to that of judges, and must meet the same requirements as judges or be accorded guarantees equivalent to those given to high-ranking judicial officers. The trend in the judicial EDRSs that were established in the early 20th century was to give jurisdiction to regular courts that are part of the judiciary – particularly in those countries with a common law tradition, although it has spread to others and continues to be the most widespread system. After the First and Second world wars it became more common to assign responsibility to constitutional courts, particularly in several continental European countries but also in Africa and Asia. Since the third wave of democratization in the late 20th century it has been common to attribute such jurisdiction to specialized electoral courts, especially in Latin America but also in some countries in Africa, Asia and Europe. 228. The judicial approach to EDR systems is also consistent with the right to an effective public remedy before a judge or court with jurisdiction that is 86