made by the said States under Article 17 of the African Charter on Democracy and Article 3 of the ECOWAS said commitment Democracy Protocol; that implementation of the is reflected in the obligation also emanating from these provisions; that the State Parties, including Céte d’lvoire, have the obligation to establish and strengthen independent and impartial national electoral bodies. 109. The Applicant contends that a majority of the members body represent personalities, groups have special independent from whom this lack interests to protect, of the Ivorian electoral and political parties; that since the latter their representatives cannot or impartial; that an agent is hardly independent he receives the directives required to discharge of independence is valid for all members of the claim to be of his superior his mandate; that IEC representing personalities or political parties. 110. The Applicant argues that, in choosing this mode personalities and political parties for the composition Respondent State violated its commitment of representation of of its electoral body, the to establish an independent and impartial body for management of elections. 111. The Respondent State refutes the Applicant’s allegations. It maintains that the composition of the electoral body integrates all the parties concerned for the proper conduct, transparency and credibility of the electoral exercise; that the current configuration of the IEC was arrived at consensually; that, besides, this practice is consistent with the letter and spirit of the ECOWAS Democracy Protocol, especially Article 3 thereof. 112. With respect to representation of personalities and political parties within the IEC, the Respondent State contends that, within the meaning of Article 5 of the impugned law, representation as a mandate does not bind members of the IEC to the personalities and political parties; that the said members of the electoral commission are not subject to any administrative hierarchy nor do they receive NG on tg ,