Elections on Trial: The Effective Management of Election Disputes and Violations case of Oló Bahamonde v. Equatorial Guinea. In this case, the plaintiff’s claims of discrimination on the basis of political opinion at the hands of a judiciary that was not independent or impartial were upheld, with the UNHCR finding that “…the notion of equality before the courts and tribunals encompasses the very access to the courts” and systematic frustration of this access constituted a violation of Article 14 of the ICCPR.62 A common thread across many of the six case studies is overlapping jurisdiction for electoral disputes, which could lead to confusion, inconsistencies, and in some instances forum shopping – all elements that can undermine a fair process and access to the courts. Multiple cases from the 2013 Kenyan elections illustrate the ease with which problematic forum shopping can occur;63 in some instances voters or candidates opened cases directly before several jurisdictions to seek the most favorable decision.64 In the Philippines, mandates are clearly defined for each of the bodies that resolve election disputes, but despite the complex distribution of adjudication functions across multiple bodies, there is no referral mechanism for cases filed in the wrong jurisdiction. Furthermore, because of the strict adherence to filing deadlines, if a case is filed in the wrong jurisdiction it is unlikely that the party would have another opportunity to submit their claim before the deadline expires. By contrast, in Mexico, a referrals system built into the case management process ensures that legitimate complaints are not unduly dismissed because they are filed in the wrong jurisdiction. This referrals process also has the potential to prevent complainants from taking advantage of a lack of communication amongst EDR bodies to file multiple complaints with different bodies in the pursuit of a preferential outcome. The rejection of legitimate complaints on procedural grounds can also limit access to courts and impacts the fair administration of justice. In Kosovo, the Electoral Complaints and Appeals Panel (ECAP) accepts complaints that are “well-grounded” and dismisses those that suffer formal or procedural irregularities. Observers in 2014 noted that ECAP adopted a formalistic approach to complaints, rejecting many claims without proactively seeking additional evidence.65 In Tunisia, where courts can reject a case based on its merits or on procedural grounds, procedural errors during the 2014 elections, such as failure to hire a lawyer (for more serious claims and appeals to the higher court) and failing to serve a notice of appeal on the Independent High Authority for Elections (ISIE), tended to be the most frequent causes of rejection.66 62 Communication No. 468/1991, A. N. Oló Bahamonde v. Equatorial Guinea (Views adopted on 20 October 1993), UN doc. GAOR, A/49/40 (vol. II), p. 187, para. 9.4. 63 Political Parties Act, No.11 (2011) The Laws of Kenya § 40(2), HTTP://KENYALAW.ORG/KL/FILEADMIN/PDFDOWNLOADS/ACTS/POLITICALPARTIESACT.PDF. This requirement does not apply to disputes between an independent candidate and a political party, and appeals from decisions of the Registrar of Political Parties. Additionally, parties can proceed without a determination if thirty days have elapsed, or if they have received permission from the Tribunal. 64 In an attempt to limit this kind of forum shopping, the IEBC’s rules of procedure do require each complainant to declare that there is no pending case regarding the same matter before another jurisdiction. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Rules of Procedure for Settlement of Disputes, rul. 9 (4) (i)(i, ii). 65 EU EOM 2014, p 18 http://www.eods.eu/library/eu-eom-kosovo-2014-final-report_en.pdf 66 Narjess Tahar, Study of the Case Law on Electoral Disputes Relating to Presidential and Legislative Election Results of 2014 15 (2016). Other causes had to do with failing to comply with formalities such as filing disputes within time limits and having legal standing. 23