125 the process to actually and physically conducting the elections to adjudicating disputes arising out of the elections, including even those brought against it, the least that is expected is compliance with the law. The laws referenced herein seek to ensure that voters have the opportunity, by the most inexpensive means and avenue available, to inspect the FRR. This guarantees to them the opportunity to exercise of the constitutional right to vote. How does a citizen of voting age and meeting the requirements to exercise the right to vote ensure that his or her name is on the FRR, which would enable him or her to vote, if he or she does not have ready access to the FRR? Indeed, it is to accord the assurance of that opportunity to exercise the constitutional voting right that the provision states that the FRR shall be made available not only to magistrates but also that it will be at each voting place. The publication of the FRR on the appellee's website and the distribution of same on flash-drives to certain designated political parties cannot be made a substitute for compliance with the unambiguous language of the law. Accordingly, we hold that this provision of the law, as interpreted by us, is the correct and applicable interpretation, and that therefore the provision was not fully satisfied and that until is done the appellee will be deemed not to be in full compliance with the publication requirement of the FRR. But whilst we have adjudged the appellee NEC to be in default of the law, we must deal with the question of whether the default was of such a nature as to warrant a rerun of the elections. We do not believe that the default of the NEC in fully complying with the provisions of the law can be said to have reached a level as to warrant a rerun of the entire elections, especially in light of what the NEC has advanced as a misinterpretation of the law, the fact that the legislative candidates of the complaining political parties have chosen not to pursue the appeal taken from the rulings of the CDHO and the Board of Commissioners of the NEC, and the fact that no private citizens came forth with complaints that they had been deprived of the right to vote. But perhaps more importantly because that same law that imposes the duty and obligation on the NEC also provides that a failure by the NEC to comply with the requirement does not invalidate the FRR. Section 3.7 of the New Elections Law, which speaks to instances of defaults by the NEC in regard to Section 3.6, provides thus: