Elections on Trial: The Effective Management of Election Disputes and Violations election cases, while the mechanisms through which these cases are managed and publicized are often overlooked (and hence are examined in this paper). In addition, IFES analysis of common challenges to EDR globally has revealed a need to better understand how specific case management practices can ensure the uniform provision of justice in the resolution of different types of electoral disputes. Case management encompasses the tools and techniques through which a dispute or violation is processed and tracked, with the aim of facilitating the supervision, administration and disposition of the case. To address this knowledge gap, IFES conducted preliminary comparative desk research on the case management of election dispute resolution in six countries: Mexico, Tunisia, Kenya, Macedonia, Kosovo, and the Philippines. The aim of these comparative country studies was to better understand how case management processes and platforms can help translate established procedure into actual practice, and ultimately how these elements – procedure, process and platform – can protect the right to procedural justice and realize the principle of open justice. Analysis of the component parts of procedural justice and open justice demonstrates a variety of strengths and opportunities for EDR institutions in the six countries examined. For example, in the Philippines, detailed decisions on cases are developed by the Election Commission based on the facts and the law, but these decisions are currently not made public as a matter of course. In Kenya, there are established rules for service and response to complaints, but the complaints process for pre-election disputes is highly centralized in Nairobi, impacting access to justice for those complainants and respondents at the county level. In Kosovo, a dedicated case management system was developed in 2015 that provides public access to reports about complaints, but deadlines for filing and resolving complaints are extremely short, resulting in challenges with proving a complaint and receiving a fair hearing. Ultimately, the comparative country examples illustrate that case management practices and platforms can help strike a balance between the different and interlinked elements of procedural justice and open justice, and should be encouraged and adopted by institutions responsible for resolving electoral disputes. Institutions dealing with election disputes and violations face enormous challenges as election litigation increases, and as political actors find new ways to undermine the process or to simply ignore laws and rules in place. In an intensely political environment, and within the pressured and time-critical context of elections, EDR can often be seen as a last priority, particularly for election management bodies (EMBs) who are also shouldering significant election administration responsibilities. It can also be an extremely difficult task to balance all the different components of procedural justice and open justice in a way that ultimately ensures a just and transparent process for all litigants. However, in spite all of this, elections are about fundamental rights, and these rights must be protected by a complaint adjudication process that is fair, efficient, effective and transparent. This will, in turn, help protect the actual and perceived legitimacy of the electoral process. 7