68. While acknowledging that “there are no precise indications as to the characteristics of an ‘independent’ and ‘impartial’ electoral body”, the Court has nevertheless highlighted some elements which confirm the independence and impartiality of an electoral management body. For example, in Action pour la Protection des Droits de l’Homme (APDH) v. Côte d’Ivoire, the Court held that “an electoral body is independent where it has administrative and financial autonomy; and offers sufficient guarantees of its members’ independence and impartiality.”22 The Court further held that “… institutional independence in itself is not sufficient to guarantee [the] transparent, free and fair elections …. The electoral body in place should, in addition, be constituted according to law in a way that guarantees its independence and impartiality, and should be perceived as such.”23 69. Clearly, therefore, while States have latitude in terms of configuring their electoral management bodies, they bear the overriding responsibility of establishing an institution that is independent and impartial. 24 70. Importantly, the mere act of establishing, by law, an electoral management body as an independent entity is not a sufficient measure to prevent or limit political or other attempts at undermining its impartial and autonomous functions and the general fulfilment of its mandated responsibilities. 25 It is also important to have a legal and institutional framework and sufficient transparency mechanisms meant to secure the independence and autonomy of an electoral management body.26 71. In assessing the possible violation of Article 13(1) of the Charter, the Court acknowledges that the rights protected under the said Article can be limited. However, as was recognised in Tanganyika Law Society and Others v. Tanzania, “… limitations to the rights and freedoms in the Charter are only 22 (merits) (18 November 2016) 1 AfCLR 668, § 118. Ibid., § 123. 24 General Comment No. 25 The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights, and the right of equal access to public service (Article 25), § 20. 25 International IDEA Independence in electoral management: Electoral processes primer 1 (2021) 7-8. 26 Ibid. 23 20