judgements in APDH v Céfe d'ivoire (merits) and in APDH v Céte d'Ivoire (interpretation). 163. Article 17 of the ACDEG stipulates that: “State Parties re-affirm their commitment to regularly holding transparent, free and fair elections in accordance with the Union’s Declaration on the Principles Governing Democratic Elections in Africa. To this end, State Parties shall: 1. Establish and strengthen independent and impartial national electoral bodies responsible for the management of elections. [..]” 164. Article 3 of the ECOWAS Democracy Protocol provides that: “The bodies responsible for organising the elections shall be independent or neutral and shall have the confidence of all the political actors. Where national consultations shall be organised necessary, to determine the appropriate nature and the structure of the bodies.” 165. In its judgment in APDH v Céfe d'ivoire (merits) 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.”"' 166. The Court also held “that institutional independence in itself is not sufficient to guarantee the transparent, free and fair elections Charter on Democracy and the ECOWAS advocated Democracy in the African Protocol. 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.”'2 167. Furthermore, the Court found that “for a body to be able to reassure the public about its ability to organise transparent, free and fair election, its composition must be balanced.”'? 11 Actions pour la Protection des Droits de 'Homme (APDH) v. Céte d'ivoire (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 668, § 118. 12 Ibid, § 123. 13 Ibid, § 125. 36