Elections on Trial: The Effective Management of Election Disputes and Violations Transparency The transparent administration of justice requires access to case information (ideally in real time as an electoral dispute is being investigated and adjudicated), open hearings, and decisions that are publicly available (subject to limited restrictions). Judicial transparency is recognized as an important principle under international human rights instruments129 as it supports accountability in legal proceedings and builds public trust in the process, which is particularly important in election cases. As courts and tribunals face increasing pressure from political actors, the requirement to publicly explain their decisions can provide a measure of protection from attacks on their mandate. This is a pertinent consideration for many types of electoral disputes that deal with fundamental rights and constitutional issues, which often attract considerable public interest and, in some circumstances, political pressure on the body making the determination.130 Hence, open justice is fundamental to election cases: there must be a higher level of transparency because – despite who the parties involved might be – the entire state has some interest in how election cases are resolved. Transparency is foundational to open justice, but is also inextricably related to the other principles of due process and procedural justice – fairness, efficiency and effectiveness, as each of these principles can only be properly realized with sufficient information. For example, in Mexico, case information, including written legal decisions and judges’ voting records is freely available. In the Philippines, significant efforts are made to provide updated information on cases before COMELEC as they are being adjudicated via the commission’s website, including a summary of the decision once it has been made. There are strong standards for commissioners’ full written decisions, however, these written decisions are not currently made available to the general public, though they are available upon request. A project to annually publish COMELEC decisions as a compendium is once again under discussion. As disinformation becomes a more prominent issue, the need for accurate information on legal issues is acute. International IDEA has observed that: “[i]t is important for [the EDR body] to reach its decisions transparently and explain them to the parties involved and to society at large. This openness helps prevent the manipulation of information that could delegitimize the electoral process or weaken the electoral authority.”131 International best practices further require transparency in the decision-making process, which is demonstrated through the publication of decisions. In Kenya, decisions of the PPDT are read out in court,132 and while decisions are supposed to be published online, there is a lag in these being uploaded, demonstrating challenges in accessing PPDT judgments.133 In Macedonia, a signed, 129 Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 10; ICCPR art. 14(1); ECHR art. 6(1); American Convention on Human Rights art. 8(5). 130 “Transparency requires that adjudicatory bodies publish their decisions.” Chad Vickery (ed.), Guidelines for Understanding, supra note 95, p. 20. 131 IIDEA, Electoral Justice Handbook, p.31, 2010. 132 Kenya Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (Procedure) REGULATIONS reg. 29(4). 133 Ibid. 35