255. The
Court notes the various
efforts undertaken
by the Respondent
State to
comply with its judgement of 18 November 2016 and guarantee its execution,
including through its request on 4 March 2017 for an interpretation of the Court's
judgement and its search for a consensus-based solution to reform the electoral
body
through
the adoption
of Law
N° 2019-708
of 5 August
2019
on the
recomposition of the IEC.
256. The
Court also observes
demonstrated
that the
that it already found
impugned
that the Applicants
law establishes
an
electoral
have
body
not
that is
composed of members who are not independent and impartial. The Court has
also not found that the impugned law provides for a composition of the electoral
body at the Central level or at the Local levels that is manifestly imbalanced in
favour of the ruling party. Neither did it find the electoral body overly institutionally
dependent due to inadequate degrees of administrative or financial autonomy, or
manifestly lacking confidence from political stakeholders in respect of its reform
process.
257. However, the Court noted the manifest imbalance of the number of Chairpersons
of the Local electoral commissions
proposed
by the ruling party, following the
Bureau elections on the basis of the previous law when the electoral body at the
Local levels was still imbalanced
in favour of the Government.
Accordingly,
the
Court found that the Respondent State has not fully complied with Article 17
ACDEG
and
Article
3
ECOWAS
Democracy
Protocol,
and
as
a result,
it
determined that the Respondent State violated these provisions.
258. In addition, the Court noted the absence
process of nomination
of members
of a mechanism
to ensure
that the
of the electoral body by political parties,
especially opposition parties, as well as CSOs, are driven by those entities. For
that reason,
complied
with
management
democratic
the Court
also found
that the
its obligations to ensure
of
public
processes,
affairs
as
well
as prescribed
Respondent
public trust and
as
effective
State
has
not fully
transparency
citizens’
in the
participation
under Articles 3(7), 3(8) and
in
13 of the
56