APDH v Côte d’Ivoire (2016) 1 AfCLR 668 691 1(2) of the impugned law, and without examination of the composition of this Commission. Only such an examination could enable the Court to ascertain the Commission’s institutional independence and, hence, its impartiality. 13. In the instant case, it behoved the Court to clearly distinguish between the independence of the Commission and its impartiality. The Applicant itself had taken care to make such a distinction in its submissions and pleadings. In its Additional Observations of 14 April 2015,77 its Additional Brief of 4 November 201588 and in its oral pleadings documents of 3 March 2016,99 it devotes two separate sections to the lack of independence and impartiality of the Independent Electoral Commission. In particular, the Applicant pointed out the close link between the two concepts in these terms: “the one who depends on another is hardly independent of his superior from whom he receives 10 the directives required to discharge his mandate”.10 14. There is, it is true, a dialectic relation between the impartiality of any person and the latter’s independence. As has been rightly pointed out, the impartiality of a person is indeed “a function of his independence, that is, the absence of restriction, influence, pressure, incitement or 11 that may be exercised on (this person) interference direct or indirect,11 by anyone and for any reason”. The Electoral Commission’s impartiality could thus have been measured with the yardstick of its independence. 15. Although closely linked, the concepts of independence and impartiality must, however, be distinguished from each other (see, for example, the distinction made in paragraph 117 of the judgment). 16. Depending on its composition, any organ (judicial, arbitral or electoral) can be both independent and impartial, just as it can be independent and yet partial. Thus, for example, the Protocol establishing the present Court sets out a number of incompatibilities, 13 12 and relative,13 absolute12 designed to ensure both the independence 14 A judge must be absolutely and impartiality of Members of the Court.14 independent, that is, “depend on no other authority than his own”, reason for which Rule 5 of the Rules prohibits him from performing 7 8 9 10 11 12 See pp. 10-12. See pp. 8-10. Oral pleadings document, pp. 21-22. Additional claims, p. 11. Dictionary of International Public Law, op. cit., p. 562 The incompatibilities in question are absolute where they apply to all members of the Court; they are generally aimed at ensuring the independence of the judge. 13 The incompatibilities in question are relative where they apply individually to a member of the Court and in relation to a specific case; they seek rather to ensure the impartiality of a judge in a particular case and to render him unfit to sit in such case. 14 See Articles 16, 17, 18 and 22 of the Protocol and Rules 4, 5 and 8 of the Rules of Court. Similar provisions are contained in the constituent instruments of other international judicial bodies such as the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 21 and 23(4), the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Articles 11, 18, 19, 20 and 21) or the Statute of the International Court of Justice (Articles 16, 17 and 24).