Elections on Trial: The Effective Management of Election Disputes and Violations Because procedural justice and open justice encompass both the rules in place and the way they are applied in practice, we frame our discussion of comparative EDR examples by first examining in section III of this paper the importance of rules of procedure for electoral disputes, the emerging field of case management, and how emerging case management process and platforms can assist institutions to protect procedural justice. Section IV of this paper then goes on to examine the four elements of fairness, efficiency, effectiveness and transparency and how they encompass key principles of procedural justice and open justice. The key principles of procedural justice and open justice selected for examination are those most relevant to electoral disputes – service of notice; the provision of reasonable time to prepare a response; reasonable deadlines for filing and resolution; an expeditious process from filing to judgment; written, reasoned decisions; access to an appeal mechanism; the provision of effective remedies; open hearings; and publicized decisions.25 IV. Management of Election Disputes and Violations Rules of Procedure Rules of procedure are the foundation for the effective management of disputes, as they set out how each complaint or dispute must be handled. These rules should also generally define the various steps in the EDR process such as registering complaints, assigning cases, collecting and cataloging evidence, providing notice, scheduling hearings (as appropriate), and recording decisions. Procedural justice must be protected in how the rules of procedure are drafted, and by the process or system through which the rules are implemented for each individual case (usually managed by administrative staff of a court, tribunal or administrative body). Judge Suzanne Baer of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has noted that judicial independence requires courts to have power over their own procedural rules. Without this power, government can modify procedure in a way that “can turn a court into a lame duck.”26 In the electoral context, this can have significant implications for the independence and impartiality of election arbiters, or the ability to provide procedural justice in electoral disputes. As noted earlier in this paper, often the institution responsible for resolving many sensitive categories of election disputes (such as nomination disputes or campaign violations) is the EMB operating in a quasijudicial capacity. As such, traditional court mechanisms that protect due process and open justice may be missing, such as rules of procedure. This lack of due process protections is something that IFES has observed globally. IFES has conducted in-depth examinations of EDR systems in multiple countries through a standardized Electoral Integrity Assessment (EIA) methodology or stand-alone EDR methodology. These examinations have found that, uniformly, challenges exist with the provision of clear and consistent procedures and processes for the resolution of election grievances. 25 This paper will not exhaustively cover all elements of due process, particularly those of relevance to criminal proceedings, for example the right to legal advice (if detained), a presumption of innocence, and the right to call and examine witnesses. 26 Suzanne Baer, “Challenges to Constitutionalism: The Role of Constitutional Courts,” report to the 16 th meeting of the Joint Council on Constitutional Justice, July 2017, CDL-JU (2017)002, 4. 13