Elections on Trial: The Effective Management of Election Disputes and Violations in any particular case.140 In many countries where IFES works, access to legal documentation can be extremely challenging. Legal amendments may not be consolidated into the law but spread across numerous amendment acts, administrative rules or procedures may not be publicly available, and publishing of case law may be delayed or inconsistent.141 This can present big challenges with respect to both knowledge of the law, and consistent application of the law. This in turn ties back to the fair administration of justice; that is, the application of procedure and law should be consistent across a country and across different courts. This is another example of how the different elements of due process and open justice are interlinked, and can be mutually reinforcing if legal proceedings for electoral disputes are managed well. In the case of Tunisia, due process is guaranteed to a significant degree through litigation proceedings and case management, however interlocutors point to a lack of sufficient open justice protections. Transparency is limited by the absence of systematically published decisions, a lack of information on cases as they progress, and the absence of information which could facilitate public oversight of cases. While a case is being tried, parties can only track its progress through consultations with their lawyers and press conferences organized by the relevant courts. In comparison to 2011 elections, a fewer number of inadmissible cases and an improvement in the quality of complaints drafting was observed in 2014. Even so, no complaints were brought against the electoral list, despite its faults,142 suggesting individuals might have lacked sufficient information to bring complaints. While interlocutors suggest that a lack of transparency is a contributing cause hindering individual’s ability to bring complaints, this also has implications for the efficient administration of justice by ensuring a right to redress in practice. While the Administrative Tribunal creates a report containing information on its electoral dispute cases and cases linked to election operations, the report is only sent to the president of the republic, the president of the Parliamentary Assembly and the head of the government. It is not made public. In Mexico, there is an active conversation around transparency at the Tribunal, which has identified open justice as a strategic priority. Several judges at the regional level and on the Superior Court are pushing for increased transparency and accessibility, providing institutional momentum for continued reform. The sophisticated case management platform used by the Tribunal provides a significant degree of public access to case information, enabling interested parties and the general public to track cases as they progress through the system. The information posted includes internal rulings, whether a case has been admitted or dismissed, whether evidence has been admitted, as well as notifications when new evidence or documents have been received, and any other relevant notifications. The case information 140 Ibid, 86. For example, in The Gambia the Constitution is publicly available only in its 2002 edition, which incorporates the 2001 amendments, but not those dating from 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2015 (some of which directly impact elections). The Local Government Act of 2002 is similarly difficult to access. It was amended in 2004, 2006 and 2007, but only the initial 2002 text is in wide circulation. The Gambia’s Gazette is published and sold in photocopied paper format only, is not published with predictable periodicity, and editions are often sold out before demand is met. 142 Narjess Tahar, Study of the Case Law on Electoral Disputes Relating to Presidential and Legislative Election Results of 2014 9, 15 and 21 (2016). 141 37