IFES Practitioner Brief on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Elections to attempt to resolve their disputes internally but, rarely did so, creating a challenge for PPDT when considering the validity of the disputes. 148 The PPDT aims to limit lengthy proceedings and encourage parties to settle their intraparty disputes, rather than involving judges. It aims to limit the role of judges in internal party politics and therefore limit increased political pressure on them. Despite model rules adopted by the PPDT to guide the parties and candidates, the parties’ lack of awareness limited the use of ADR in the 2017 elections. In preparation for the 2022 presidential and general elections, the PPDT reviewed its regulations and guidelines with the support of IFES and further clarified the use of mediation as a first step prior to the adjudication of a dispute. As a guiding principle, “alternative forms of dispute resolution including reconciliation, mediation, arbitration, and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms shall be promoted” by tribunal members. The regulations state that the PPDT can offer mediation or conciliation to the parties to a dispute. Consent is required from parties or candidates before mediation is attempted. The regulations are then more specific, providing that, after close of pleadings, the Tribunal “may hold a scheduling conference to determine the possibility of alternative dispute resolution.” If ADR fails, the tribunal will fix a date for the hearing and decide the case. 149 The PPDT is an interesting initiative, as the members of the tribunal include a judge as a chair and is established by the judiciary; therefore, this could present a successful example of judicial mediation in pre-electoral matters for intraand inter-party disputes. If successfully implemented, this practice could expand to pre-election complaints filed before the judiciary, including hate speech or campaign-related disputes. Sri Lanka Sri Lanka is an example of the need for a clear distinction between EDR and ADR mechanisms to avoid confusion or misplaced stakeholder expectations. This case study also shows the benefits of ADR in providing a quick and decentralized mechanism to complement the formal judicial process. It stresses the importance of voter education to ensure stakeholders are aware of how to use this mechanism and what to expect, and the need for systematic recordkeeping. The Sri Lankan election legal framework provides that the police investigate and the courts hear election violations (defined as offenses and corrupt and illegal practices). Accordingly, the powers of the Election Commission (EC) limited to resolving problems informally and preventing election violations that arise during the election period. The law does not explicitly provide the EC with quasi-judicial functions, nor does the EC have the power to impose remedies or sanctions over election disputes. The district courts, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court are in charge of voter registration, candidate registration, election results petitions, and election offenses, respectively. The PPDT provided some guidelines and issued model rules in the 2017 elections to guide political parties’ internal dispute resolution processes. The Office of the Registrar of Political Parties (ORPP) and the PPDT reported to IFES that political parties often failed to set up these first-step ADR mechanisms, preferring to go directly to the magistrates on the PPDT or the commissioners at the IEBC. The PPDT and ORRP are committed to educating parties further on ADR and encouraging them to establish and use their internal dispute resolution mechanisms for the upcoming 2022 elections. 149 Section 15 and 16 of PPDT draft regulations (procedure). 148 59