353. One essential characteristic of an EDR system is that it offers an integral defence of electoral rights and a guarantee that every action and decision related to the electoral process complies with the legal framework. 354. Access to justice should be guaranteed not only for the person, political party or other claimant bringing the challenge, but also for anyone who upholds a contrary interest – such as an interested third party – so that the latter is afforded a guaranteed hearing. In this way, the system will comply with the principles of due process related to the right to a defence, by virtue of which all parties have the right to engage in the process with an equal opportunity to plead and argue as befits their interests. 355. In addition, it is fundamental that there is a judicial mechanism to defend the constitutionality, and not just the legality, of electoral actions and decisions related to an electoral process, which the persons and entities affected – political parties, voters, candidates – can turn to in order to argue that specific provisions of the law are unconstitutional. This should also enable the EDR system to provide an integral defence of the principles of the constitutionality as well as the legality of electoral actions and decisions. Given the short time frames for resolving electoral challenges under pressure from the timetable of the electoral process, it is advisable for the EDRB to have the jurisdiction to review not only the legality but also the constitutionality of electoral actions and decisions. 356. To facilitate access to the EDR system, the procedure for bringing electoral challenges should be simple. Filing a complaint brief with the appropriate authority (the EMB), for example, should be sufficient to commence the procedure, open a case and, subsequently, have it forwarded to the appropriate decision-making authority (the EDRB) without the person or entity bringing the challenge having to travel from their place of residence in order to file it directly with the EDRB. This can guarantee the geographical accessibility of electoral justice without requiring a wide network of decentralized presences of the EDRB to be established. For example, in France, all challenges relating to national elections are dealt with by the Constitutional Council in Paris, but may be submitted through the Prefect of the département. 357. It is also important to minimize the formalities required for a challenge to be deemed to have been properly filed. Some EDR systems provide for different kinds of electoral challenge, depending for example on the nature of the action challenged, the organ before which it is brought, the person who brings it or their claim. This can lead to the exclusion of challenges that may be valid in substance on technical or procedural grounds, which does not promote the credibility of the EDR system. It is good practice for EDRBs to consider a challenge properly filed if it identifies the action challenged and the reason why it is considered unsatisfactory, even if a mistake has been made regarding the use or name of the means of challenge, jurisdiction or forum. 122