Elections on Trial: The Effective Management of Election Disputes and Violations increase of cases rejected due to procedural errors, and disincentivizes the public from engaging with the EDR process. Furthermore, the lack of specialized judges increases the chances of the law being misapplied or applied differently between cases.147 Looking at the benefits of open justice, in the Philippines, interlocutors observed that better communication by COMELEC with the public could be a way to boost the acceptance of electoral results. In relation to a controversial case involving allegations of vote miscounting in the vice-presidential contest: “If we had better communication initiatives explaining to the people the process of how they can verify and audit the votes, it would have made it easier for people not doubt the election results.” The general public’s ability to track the status of ongoing cases happens via updates posted manually to the COMELEC website. This avenue of communication is not foolproof, as the IT Department has no way of independently knowing if a case update has occurred in order to track whether or not it has been posted to the website, relying instead on the departments to notify them. There are no current plans to link the case management system to the public posting of information, and while lengthy legal decisions are written by commissioners, they are not publicly available. Nothing prohibits parties to the case from releasing a decision to the general public after they receive it, though this is rarely done in practice, except occasionally by politicians who wish to publicize their legal victories. VI. Conclusions As noted at the outset of this paper, public perceptions about the results of an election have tremendous implications for the peaceful transfer of power and the viability of governing institutions, particularly in fragile and transitional contexts. Tom Tyler’s research on citizen interaction with legal authorities – referenced at the outset of this paper – ultimately found seven underlying dimensions to perceptions of fairness: opportunity for representation, quality of decision, the honesty, ethicality and motivation of the authorities, lack of bias of authorities, and opportunities for correction.148 Looking at two of these dimensions in particular – the quality of decisions being made, and the opportunity for correction – and applying them to the EDR context, any dismissal of complaints on procedural grounds without any opportunity to correct a claim, or any failure to provide a well-reasoned decision, may not only impact perceptions of fairness, but also the legitimacy of the EDR body and the legitimacy of any remedy provided. Hence, if a court or tribunal concludes an electoral dispute by affirming or overturning electoral results, but fails to ensure procedural justice during proceedings, and/or operates without high levels of transparency, the legitimacy of the judgment – and by extension the acceptance of election results – may be undermined. Analysis of the component parts of procedural justice and open justice demonstrates a variety of strengths and opportunities for EDR institutions in the six countries examined. The principles of fairness, efficiency, effectiveness and transparency necessarily intertwine and occasionally conflict, but a balance 147 Democracy Reporting International, The Competency of the Administrative Jurisdiction in Tunisia 18 (2017). Tom R Tyler “What is Procedural Justice: Criteria used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures” (1988) 22 Law & Society 103, 128. 148 39