commission. The Respondent State further contends that the Applicants failed to provide evidence in the law, in relation to the allocation of financial resources, that would support their claim that the electoral management body lacks independence. Therefore, the Applicants’ argument should be dismissed. RK 200. In its judgment in APDH v Céte d'Ivoire (merits) of 18 November 2016, the Court held, as shown above, “that an electoral body administrative and financial autonomy; is independent where and offers sufficient guarantees it has of its members’ independence and impartiality.”24 201. In this decision the Court was satisfied to adopt the presumption that there is sufficient institutional independence based on Article 1(2) of the impugned law, considering that the institutional independence was not specifically challenged by the Applicants in the matter of APDH v Céte d'Ivoire (merits).22 In this Application, however, the Applicants do challenge the institutional independence of the Respondent article has Accordingly, not State’s electoral body, even changed the Court can in the latest proceed legal to assess though, reform the abovementioned of the the allegations electoral body. made by the Applicants without necessarily creating legal uncertainty, because no substantive determinations on the electoral body’s institutional independence were made. 202. Regarding the administrative autonomy of electoral bodies, the Court notes that there are various ways of allocating responsibilities between an electoral body and other state institutions in terms of decision-making on electoral matters. The Court holds that the requirement of administrative autonomy of electoral bodies is not necessarily undermined by a regulation that stipulates that they can make proposals to the executive branch on the basis of which the executive branch then makes decisions. 21 Actions pour la Protection des Droits de I'Homme (APDH) v. Céte d'ivoire (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 668, § 118. 22 fhid, § 122. 44