appeal, because “[i]f the electoral law provisions are to be more than just words on a page, failure to comply with the electoral law must be open to challenge.”74 73. Finally, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECtHR) has held that the right to free elections contains positive obligations that require “the existence of a domestic system for the effective examination of individual complaints and appeals in matters concerning electoral rights.”75 It said, in this regard, that the existence of such a system is one of the essential guarantees of free and fair elections, and constitutes an important device in achieving the fulfillment of the State’s positive duty under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.76 It continued along the same lines, finding that for the examination of appeals to be effective, safeguards must be in place to avoid any arbitrariness. These safeguards demand that a petitioner’s grievances must be settled through procedures that offer appropriate, sufficient guarantees to ensure that they are examined conscientiously in keeping with the content of the right to free elections.77 2. Right to judicial guarantees 74. The Court has stated that Convention Article 8 sets guidelines for due process of law, consisting of the procedural requirements that will allow individuals to defend their rights effectively in the face of any type of government act that could constitute a violation.78 Convention Article 8(1) calls for “due guarantees” to be respected in the determination of the rights and obligations of all persons, whether of a criminal, civil, labor, fiscal or any nature, to ensure due process depending on the procedure involved.79 75. Failure to extend one of these guarantees constitutes a violation of this article of the Convention.80 The Court has further maintained that the guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the Convention are also applicable when non-judicial public authorities adopt decisions that violate a person’s rights,81 notwithstanding the fact that, although the guarantees pertaining to a judicial body cannot be demanded of such authorities, they must nevertheless honor guarantees designed to prevent them from making arbitrary decisions.82 Cf. European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, Guideline 3.3 and explanatory report para. 92. 74 75 Cf. ECtHR, Mugemangango v. Belgium [G.S], no. 310/15, 10 July 2020, para. 69, and Davydov and Others v. Russia, no. 75947/11, 30 May 2017, para. 274. 76 Cf. ECtHR, Mugemangango v. Belgium [G.S], no. 310/15, 10 July 2020, para. 69, and Davydov and Others v. Russia, no. 75947/11, 30 May 2017, para. 274. 77 Cf. ECtHR, Mugemangango v. Belgium [G.S], no. 310/15, 10 July 2020, para. 70, Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, 7 May 2008, paras. 54 a 55; Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, 30 September 2010, paras. 44 to 45, and Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 48555/10 and 48377/10, 13 October 2015, para. 143. 78 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8, American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 63. Cf. Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b), American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series C No. 11, para. 28, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 64. 79 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 119, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra para. 64. 80 81 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, Judgment of January 31, 2001, para. 71, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 65. 82 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 119, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 65. 25