Economy and Finance for inclusion by the Council of Ministers in the draft finance bill for of the financial year in question. 196. This means that the electoral body only has the power to make proposals concerning its administrative authority and its financial resources, from which the Applicants conclude that the Respondent State failed to fulfil its obligation to create an independent and impartial electoral body. 197. The Respondent State notes that the Court already ruled on the institutional independence of the electoral body and found that the requirement of institutional independence is met. It notes that the Court based its finding of the institutional independence on Article 1(2) of the impugned law.2° Respondent State this article has not changed, therefore, According to the it argues that to avoid legal uncertainty the Court should not alter its earlier position on this. 198. Regarding the administrative autonomy of the electoral body, the Respondent State refers to its legal system to explain how its parliament is mandated to vote laws whereas the executive branch is mandated to develop regulations implementing these laws. Therefore, the Respondent State concludes that the responsibility allocated to the government to implement the law on the electoral body is entirely constitutional and does not result in a dependence of the electoral body in any way. 199. Concerning the financial autonomy of the electoral body, the Respondent State notes that the budget of the electoral body is prepared by its Bureau which transmits the draft budget to the supervisory ministry for inclusion in the financial bill of the financial year in question which is ultimately adopted by Parliament. The Respondent State therefore argues the fact that the Bureau of the electoral body prepares its own budget underscores the financial autonomy of the electoral 20 Actions pour la Protection des Droits de Homme 668, § 121. (APDH) v. Céte d’lvoire (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 43 | |