International Foundation for Electoral Systems The service of reasonable notice is another essential element of fairness. One illustration of this principle is a 2014 ruling of the High Court of Kenya in the case of Patrick Ngeta Kimanzi v. Marcus Mutua Muluvi & 2 Others, which dismissed a petition challenging the election of the first respondent on the grounds that he was not served with adequate notice. The court concluded that “[w]ithout service, the opposite party is denied the opportunity to defend the case. Service is an integral element of the fundamental right to a fair hearing which is underpinned by the well-worn rules of natural justice… service of the petition is not a mere procedural requirement that can be dispensed with...”67 In this case, the petitioner was a candidate agent challenging the election of the first respondent, and the petition was dismissed due to a lack of service on the respondent. As the court noted, “it is service of process that triggers all the other steps in the election petition,” illustrating the fact that various elements of procedural justice are necessarily interlinked. The principle of equal access to justice can be violated by a failure to provide due process, even when this omission does not result in a material inequality in outcomes. For example, in the case of Bulut v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the defendant, who had been convicted of bribing civil servants at an employment agency, was not given notice during an appeal of relevant submissions on the case made by the Attorney General, and thus had not been given an opportunity to provide a response.68 The court noted that “it is a matter for the defense to assess whether a submission deserves a reaction. It is therefore unfair for the prosecution to make submissions to a court without the knowledge of the defense.”69 The court went on to note that unfairness in the administration of justice “does not depend on further, quantifiable unfairness flowing from a procedural inequality.”70 In several case study countries, the service of notice is established in law and in practice. In the Philippines, the necessity of providing “due notice and hearing” is consistently noted throughout the electoral law.71 In Tunisia, for complaints regarding ISIE decisions during legislative elections, the ISIE must be provided with notice via a court bailiff, and this must include both a copy of the complaint and the relevant accompanying evidence. In Mexico, cases must be publicized by the receiving authority immediately upon receipt, in order to allow interested third parties to become involved in the case.72 Providing notice of a complaint to a defendant or respondent can be a casualty of expedited proceedings. For example, Macedonia has no provisions for service of notice in the legal and regulatory 67 Patrick Ngeta Kimanzi v. Marcus Mutua Muluvi & 2 Others, Election Petition (Machakos) No. 8 of 2013, ¶ 30 and 34. 68 Eur. Court HR, Case of Bulut v. Austria, judgment of 22 February 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 359, ¶ 47. While this case did not concern an election dispute, the conclusions of the court on due process apply equally to the EDR context. The court found that Mr. Bulut’s right to a fair and public hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had been violated because the principle of “equality of arms” had not been respected. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid. 71 Phrase occurs 18 times in the Omnibus Law 72 Federal Electoral Recourses Law, 1996, Article 17.1 24