Elections on Trial: The Effective Management of Election Disputes and Violations procedural justice is well recognized in traditional court systems, but is an equally essential right in the adjudication of electoral disputes. It must be respected regardless of whether an election complaint or irregularity is dealt with administratively (for example, by an EMB or other administrative tribunal), or through the court system.18 This is an important consideration, given the unique EDR context in which jurisdiction is commonly shared by different institutions. For example, in Kenya jurisdiction over various types of electoral disputes and violations resides with both the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) and Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT), while jurisdiction for electoral offenses is with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), and jurisdiction for post-election petitions is with the judiciary.19 Despite this shared jurisdiction, each body has responsibility to provide due process protections when resolving complaints and disputes of all types. Where there is overlap in jurisdiction, principles of procedural justice are even more important to ensure parties, candidates and other complainants and respondents can understand the correct avenue for challenging an outcome or decision or reporting a violation. The right to procedural justice also applies throughout administrative and criminal proceedings – that is, from the filing of an election complaint or dispute through to its disposition. It is not limited to a fair hearing, but encompasses the full process through which a claim is considered and resolved. Open Justice Principles Complementing the right to individual due process or procedural justice is the principle of open justice,20 an emerging area of jurisprudence that emphasizes the importance of courts and tribunals conducting their business publicly to safeguard against judicial bias, unfairness and incompetence, as articulated in Article 14(1) of the ICCPR and the UNHRC General Comment 32 of 2007.21 The principle of open justice means that any institution dealing with the adjudication and resolution of election disputes must operate with a high degree of transparency, independence and accountability. While due process/procedural justice applies to the individuals involved in a case or claim, open justice applies to the wider public and the requirement for transparency of judicial proceedings, particularly in election cases where the public interest may be at stake. This transparency can help with the overall legitimacy of the election process. to administration of justice must effectively be guaranteed in all such cases to ensure that no individual is deprived, in procedural terms, of his/her right to claim justice.” 18 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has also affirmed that the right to a fair trial and access to a remedy is not limited to the courts, but applies to administrative proceedings. See Öztürk v. Germany, App. No. 8544/79, Eur. Ct. H.R. (1984). 19 Depending on the type of election, first instance jurisdiction may reside with the High Courts, Court of Appeal, or Supreme Court. 20 Gannet Co v. Depasqule, 443 U.S. 368, 420 (1979). 21 UNHCR General Comment NO. 32 U.N. DOC. CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007): “The publicity of hearings ensures the transparency of proceedings and thus provides an important safeguard for the interest of the individual and of society at large. Courts must make information regarding the time and venue of the oral hearings available to the public and provide for adequate facilities for the attendance of interested members of the public, within reasonable limits…” 11