72 IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections Mexico Mexico is an example of how ADR can make the electoral justice system more

Analyzing litigation from France to Samoa and Kenya to Mexico, this paper explores on the legal questions

Electoral Institute, the institutional body in charge of organizing the elections in Mexico at the federal level and coordinating voting processes at the sub-national level

Instituto Nacional Electoral, Mexico

(cases concerning candidate registration), Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, Mexico. Andorra, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Ireland, Mexico, Ukraine. In Andorra, concerning disputes related to candidate

Electoral Legislation of Mexico, Opinion No. 680 / 2012 CDL-AD(2013)021, http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2013)021-e. 14 While judicial interlocutors in Mexico have told us

Electoral Legislation of Mexico, Opinion No. 680 / 2012 CDL-AD(2013)021, http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2013)021-e. 14 While judicial interlocutors in Mexico have told us

Drawing on comparative examples across six countries (Mexico, Tunisia, Kenya, Macedonia, Kosovo and the

Manuel González Oropeza Justice of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary of Mexico 7 1. Introduction Overview Elections are central to establishing a legitimate democratic

specifically, the right to register as an independent candidate. Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, Case 12.535, Rep. No. 113/06, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R. ¶¶ 92,40 (2008). 48

spoiled ballot papers. 21 Some countries – including Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru – require complainants to attach supporting documentary evidence to

candidates and Mexico City mayoral candidates, with the exception of one party. Through these discussions ‒ which were the first-ever in Mexico between presidential

Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 201; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs.

decision in the Inter – American Court of Human Rights Castañeda Gutman v Mexico, Judgment of 6 August 2008 Series C No 184 to the effect that

(1980) (any elector can contest results); N.M. STAT. ANN. §1-14-1 (2004) (New Mexico statute allows a candidate to contest the results of an election in court)

]  y   parlamentarias  de  México  50  (2006)  [en  lo  sucesivo,    el  informe  de  México],   http://aceproject.org/regionsen/countries-­‐and-­‐territories/MX/reports/mexico-­‐presIdential-­‐and-­‐parliamentary-­‐

Mission, Mexico PresIdential and Parliamentary Elections Final Report 50 (2006) [hereinafter E.U. Mexico Report], available at http://aceproject.org/regionsen/countries-and-territories/MX/reports/mexico-presIden

presidential elections as mandated by law Mexico 2006 Electoral Court of the Judicial Branch of the Federation of Mexico Recount of votes ordered in presidential

Alabama (8), Alaska (1), Delaware (1), Hawaii (2), Nevada (1), New Mexico (2), Vermont (1), and Wyoming (1). In addition, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan

GAOR, A/54/40 (vol. I), p. 67, para. 350. See also as to Mexico, insofar as there was no independent body to investigate the substantial

MAURITANIA: POUR LA MAURITANIE: 3a POR MAURITAMA: FOR MEXICO: POUR LE MEXIQUE: S: PS If: 3a MeKCHicy: POR MEXICO: FOR MONACO: POUR MONACO: 3a POR MONACO:

have facilitated democratic development and strengthened electoral justice institutions in Mexico are closely linked to the dialogue between national and international instances.