instructions from the Government; impugned law describes the IEC that it was as “an in fact for this reason that the independent administrative authority endowed with legal personality and financial autonomy”. 113. The Respondent State further maintains that the appointment of members of the Bureau of the IEC Central Commission through election is sufficient proof of the independence and impartiality of this body. 114. Article 17(1) of the African Charter on Democracy on which the Applicant relies, provides that: “State Parties affirm their commitment to regularly holding transparent, free and fair elections in accordance with the Union’s Declaration on the Principle Governing Democratic Elections in Africa. To this end, State Parties shall establish and strengthen independent and impartial national electoral bodies responsible for the management of elections”. 115. Article 3 of the ECOWAS Democracy Protocol also mentioned by the Applicant provides that: “The bodies responsible for organising the elections shall be independent and/or neutral and shall have the confidence of all the political actors. Where necessary, appropriate national consultations shall be organised to determine the nature and the structure of the bodies”. 116. The foregoing provisions show that there are no precise indications as to the characteristics of an “independent” and “impartial” electoral body. 117. According to the Dictionary of International Public Law, “independence” is the fact of a person or an entity not depending on any other authority than its own or NM ‘Z]- 4