Specifically, they object to the President’s use of his powers to alter a law merely a few months after it was reformed by representatives of the people on the basis of a so called “inclusive dialogue’. 214. The Respondent State submits, contrary to the written and oral submissions by the Applicants, that the government ensured the legislative reform process was based on inclusive and open political dialogue. 215. The Respondent State referred to the judgment of the Court in APDH d'ivoire (interpretation) where the Court held that it was v Céte the government's responsibility to strike the best form of balance. In its search for the best form of balance, the Respondent State opted for a solution based on consensus. In view of its concern to ensure the appropriate conditions to formulate a law that would guarantee the establishment of an independent and impartial electoral body, the President of the Respondent State issued instructions to the Government to initiate consultations with political parties as well as with CSOs. 216. The Respondent State note that on the basis of various rounds of discussions, a list of aspirations of political parties and those of the civil society were drawn up. At the end of the discussions, a final report was written and signed by the parties involved. In light of the proposals and reform proposal documents forwarded by the parties involved, the bill amending the law relating to the recomposition of the electoral body was tabled before and adopted by Parliament. 217. The Respondent State further notes that the lack of participation of some political parties was not caused by the Government's lack of efforts to invite them to the process. Respond Concerning State the contention maintains that the about the lacking terms objective of reference, of the discussions was the clearly specified in the invitations to the political dialogue. 47