section of the opposition and the civil society as to the impartiality of the electoral body...” (Registry translation) 133. The foregoing shows that the Ivorian electoral body does not meet the conditions of independence and impartiality and cannot be perceived as such. 134. In the same vein, independence and the European impartiality Court of Human of tribunals, Rights, with held that “in regard order confidence in the independence and impartiality of the court, appearances to to the maintain may be of importance’”, 135. The Court, in conclusion, consequently holds that by adopting the impugned law, the Respondent State violated its commitment to establish an independent and impartial electoral body as provided under Article 17 of the African Charter on Democracy and Article 3 of the ECOWAS 136. Consequently, African Charter the on Democracy Protocol. Court further holds that the violation Democracy affects the right of Article of every Ivorian 17 of the citizen to participate freely in the conduct of the public affairs of his country as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Charter on Human Rights. b) The allegation according to which the Respondent State has violated its obligation to protect the right to equality before the law and equal protection by the law 137. The Applicant maintains that the impugned candidates instance, at the expense is over-represented and those of the Opposition that out of the 17 members of others; within the law accords advantages to certain that the President of the Republic, IEC whereas are not represented independent for candidates therein; that proof thereof is comprising the Central Commission of the Ivorian ** Case of Findlay v. United Kingdom (Application No. 22107/93), Judgment of 25 February 1995, paragraph 76 NEC p= a 7] a o he