Respondent State claims that since members of the electoral body no longer represent the entities that propose them, the relationship that ties them to those entities ends at the moment of their appointment. Consequently, the Respondent State maintains that the changed method of appointing members of the electoral body established in the impugned law has greatly strengthened the independence of the electoral body. 154. With respect to the criteria on inviting opposition parties to propose members to sit in the electoral body, the Respondent different political Assembly. parties which have State claims they have parliamentary groups invited the in the National In selecting civil society organisations (CSOs) to propose electoral commission members, the Respondent State maintains that it was guided by the principles of inviting organisations based on their representativeness. Specifically, it clarified that umbrella or platform organisations were favoured which together the bring most active human rights organisations working on does not electoral issues. 155. Furthermore, contain any the Respondent provision which State compels notes that the the proposing impugned law entities to select persons from their “sphere of influence”. Thus, they claim that nothing prevents a member being proposed solely based on their competence rather than their political orientation. 156. The Respondent State also insists that it has not used its discretionary powers to reject any proposals by made the designated entities. 157. The Respondent State did not make any submissions concerning the insufficiency of an oath of the members of the electoral body to guarantee their independence and impartiality. 158. However, the Respondent State underlines that to further guarantee the independence of the electoral body, the members of the electoral body at the Central level are appointed for a fixed term of six years. During this term of office, any possible allegiance of the electoral body members to the entity which 34