International Foundation for Electoral Systems Hence, the right to receive an effective remedy in the elections context, through the efficient and transparent administration of justice, has become even more fundamental.6 This involves both the protection of procedural justice (for individuals involved in an election dispute or accused of a violation) and the advancement of open justice (for the public at large, which has a stake in the legitimacy of the election process and outcome). In the unique context of elections, where power, governance, and stability may be at stake, the quality of justice matters both privately and publicly. The interests of communities and states are impacted, not only the interests of individuals. For example, an individual accused of vote-buying has an interest in receiving a fair hearing, while the wider public has an interest in the effective prosecution of legitimate violations to avoid a culture of impunity (or conversely, the dismissal of illegitimate accusations to avoid politicallymotivated prosecutions). As another example, an individual has an interest in having clear procedures and reasonable deadlines to file a complaint about a candidate nomination application that was rejected, while the wider public has an interest in the candidate nomination process being conducted in such a way as to protect the fundamental right to stand for election. In IFES’ global experience, procedural justice and open justice are often taken for granted in more established democracies, but are 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 6 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). 6