Elections on Trial: The Effective Management of Election Disputes and Violations remedy, in particular in election petitions in which the outcome of the election is at stake.117 In Petkov v. Bulgaria, the ECtHR has stressed that “an effective system of electoral appeals is an important safeguard against arbitrariness in the electoral process.”118 In this case, the applicants, who were candidates in the 2001 parliamentary elections in Bulgaria, alleged that they had been struck off the candidate list and prevented from running for office, despite a successful appeal to the Supreme Court which ruled that their disqualification to be null and void. The ECtHR ruled that the Bulgarian electoral authorities had an obligation to respect the Supreme Court’s judgment by allowing the applicants to stand for Parliament – thus affirming the inviolability of the appeals process. In Tunisia, the right to appeal exists for all types of electoral complaints. There are usually two levels of appeal available, and for the higher-level courts a legal representative is required.119 There is also a clear process of appeals in the Philippine electoral dispute resolution process. COMELEC has appellate jurisdiction over the rulings of the trial courts in municipal and barangay election contests. En banc decisions of the Commission can be taken up by the Supreme Court within 30 days through a petition for certiorari; the ruling of the Commission becomes final after 30 days if not taken up by the Supreme Court.120 There is a well-established process of appeals in the Mexican system. If the initial complaint involves a decision issued by a political party, the case must first be decided by the political party’s internal dispute resolution process. This decision is then appealable to the relevant local electoral court, which can then be appealed to the regional federal electoral court. Decisions of an administrative electoral body are appealable to the courts, and rulings of a local electoral court can always be reviewed by the regional federal courts. The effective administration of justice also requires proceedings that produce just outcomes that are effective in practice. In Petkov, the court ruled that a remedy must be “effective in practice as well as in law” by either preventing a violation, remedying the situation or providing redress appropriate to a violation that has already occurred.121 This sentiment underpins the ECtHR’s ruling in Namat as well, which concluded that the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights must be interpreted and applied in a way that is “not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective.”122 In Miyagawa v. Peru, the complainant alleged that by arbitrarily and illegally preventing her from standing as a candidate, the National Elections Board had violated the rights of hundreds of thousands of Peruvian citizens who would have voted for her.123 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that the obligation of the state is not limited to the mere existence of courts and tribunals, but must provide a And To A Fair Trial, ¶¶ 47-50, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 (Aug. 23, 2007) [hereinafter CCPR General Comment No. 32]. 117 Chad Vickery (ed.), Guidelines for Understanding, supra note 95, ch. 1 118 Petkov v. Bulgaria, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, Judgment of 11 June 2009, ¶ 63. 119 Law n° 2017-7, art. 49 novodecies. 120 Constitution of the Philippines – Article IX, A, Sec 121 Petkov v. Bulgaria, Nos. 77568/01, 178/02, & 505/02, 5 Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 74 (2009). 122 Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, App. No. 18705/06, 2010 Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 72 (2010). 123 Higuchi de Fujimori v. Peru, Case 11.428, Inter-Am. C.H.R., Report No. 119/99, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, doc. 6 rev. (1999) 33