Whilst judicial review is incompatible with authoritarian ideology, the introduction of such mechanism is key to democratic constitutions. A main challenge faced in this regard is whether to adopt a centralised review, exercised by a specialized institution, or a dispersed one, entrusting ordinary courts with this power. A related issue concerns the design of individual access to constitutional adjudication. This proves especially challenging in the aftermath of regimes that have deprived citizens of remedies for challenging state power. This panel explores, in a comparative perspective, the advantages and shortcomings of different models of judicial review in three young democracies – Slovakia (centralised review with individual access), Bulgaria (centralised review with no individual access) and Brazil (a hybrid model). Through law-in-context, the case studies address the rationale behind the design and performance against the socio-legal background of transitional democracies.