(cont.) have long been viewed as obstacles to the effective and impartial administration of justice. It can be argued that technology has already changed the way courts operate in many places around the world. The most frequent applications of electronic justice concern aspects such as electronic filing systems, automated case management systems, public prosecution services, digital recording of interviews and courtroom technology. In particular, the enhanced ability to use video conferencing tools leads to more expeditious case processing, minimizing the need for the physical movement of judges, plaintiffs and offenders and reducing costs and bureaucracy. However, as in many other fields where technological applications have been introduced, the solution of old problems often opens up new ones, adding new possibilities for bypassing existing procedural legislation. How will these developments in electronic justice affect the administration of electoral justice and in particular the resolution of election-related disputes? Are such developments a logical and welcome consequence? In the administration of electoral justice, the use of modern technologies can have a largely positive effect in terms of efficiency, access to information and evidence, transparency, time-effectiveness and resource optimization. Even more importantly, technological applications as a whole can play an extraordinary gap-bridging role by bringing electoral stakeholders closer to the institutions in charge of the administration of electoral processes and electoral justice, thereby promoting confidence in the institutions. The disadvantages currently attributed to technological applications in electronic justice, such as the difficulties arising from the so-called digital divide, appear set to decrease as Internet facilities become available to a growing number of citizens. Among other positive features, Intranet-based systems with secure access already enable information and electoral case data to be posted electronically in virtual workspaces shared by different territorial offices and different institutions (in case more than one institution is involved at the various levels of government and/or regions), eliminating the need for paper-based systems and reducing costs and lengthy procedural deadlines. The one aspect that apparently remains difficult to overcome with the use of technology is that related to trust in the institutions, and this affects electoral management bodies (EMBs) and courts alike. There is no doubt that technology has already provided electoral administrations and electoral stakeholders with the opportunity to deter electoral fraud at the local level at any stage of the electoral process. However, control of the technological applications is concentrated in the hands of the administering authority. This means that the theoretical possibility of abuse or manipulation at the centre remains. Fears on this count can only be overcome if there is trust in those who administer the process. Can technological applications enhance trust in the administration of electoral justice more than in other facets of the electoral process? The cases of Brazil and Indonesia offer a number of interesting insights in this respect. Brazil’s EMB, the Superior Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Superior Eleitoral, TSE) is probably 116