International Foundation for Electoral Systems manner that protects procedural justice rights. Conversely, while tribunals or courts dealing with election disputes may have the requisite judicial knowledge and infrastructure, specific understanding of the challenges unique to election cases may be lacking, and courts may be constrained by unrealistic deadlines or procedures that impact the effective management and resolution of election cases. Drawing on comparative examples across six countries (Mexico, Tunisia, Kenya, Macedonia, Kosovo and the Philippines), this paper examines the various elements of procedural justice and open justice, and how case management mechanisms – and the rules of procedure underpinning these mechanisms – can assist EMBs, tribunals and courts to deliver just and transparent processes and outcomes. This examination is broken down into two areas of analysis: the rules of procedure in place to govern the resolution of disputes, and the way these rules are applied in practice. III. Procedural Justice and Open Justice in Electoral Disputes International principles protect the right to be treated fairly, and to receive an effective remedy, through the efficient and transparent administration of justice.16 This involves both the protection of procedural justice or due process (for the individuals involved in an election dispute) and the advancement of open justice (for the public at large who have a stake in the legitimacy of the election process and outcome). Taken together, the various elements of procedural justice and open justice require that courts and tribunals put in place rules of procedure and complaints management practices that strike a balance between the fair, efficient, effective, and transparent administration of justice. In IFES’ experience internationally, procedural justice and open justice is often taken for granted in more established democracies but is frequently missing in countries with less developed electoral and judicial institutions – particularly with respect to the rules and processes followed by quasi-judicial institutions. IFES has also found that significant attention is often paid to the independence and impartiality of judges or arbiters making decisions on election cases, while the mechanisms through which these cases are managed are often overlooked (and hence are examined in this paper). Procedural Justice Principles Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) guarantee the right to due process (or otherwise discussed in this paper as “procedural justice”). That is, all people are equally entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.17 This right to 16 Icelandic Human Rights Centre, The Right to Due Process, http://www.humanrights.is/en/human-rightseducation-project/human-rights-concepts-ideas-and-fora/substantive-human-rights/the-right-to-due-process (last visited Aug. 28, 2017). In addition, one of the core standards identified in 1990 by the U.S. Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards is the requirement for expeditious, fair, and reliable court functions, so that “the public has trust and confidence that basic trial court functions are conducted expeditiously and fairly, and that court decisions have integrity.” See David Steelman, Caseflow Management: The Heart of Court Management in the New Millennium, xvi (NCSC, 3 ed. 2004). 17 UNHCR General Comment No. 32 U.N. DOC. CCPR/C/GC/32, ¶ 9 (2007): “Article 14 encompasses the right of access to the courts in cases of determination of criminal charges and rights and obligations in a suit at law. Access 10