122 do, however, was to show that the evidence permeated the entire spectrum of the elections and that this had the effect of substantially diluting the electoral votes of the appellants that absent such violations and irregularities, the appellants would have been placed differently than as results of the NEC placed them. We have not seen from the records that the appellants were able to demonstrate that there was a conspiracy by the National Elections Commission, as an Institution, or that the NEC sanctioned the conduct of those persons who were alleged to have committed elections violations. We do not believe that the evidence reached that threshold. As important as the evidence was, the fraud and irregularities complained of and shown by the testimonies of the witnesses were limited to the generality of the elections rather than indications of widespread intentional gross conspiracy conduct by the NEC as an Institution. Nor did the evidence point to a single candidate benefiting from the irregularities or fraud, or that the irregularities and fraud were orchestrated for the sole purpose of a particular candidate. Besides the few cases which were testified to and which directly affected the Liberty Party, all of the incidents shown went to the general conduct of the election. This then leave us with the final issue, which is that even in the face of this Court’s opinion that there was not sufficient evidence presented to establish that the fraud and irregularities complained of and substantiated prevailed throughout all or most of the polling places, that the NEC committed and indulged in such violations of the Constitution, the Elections Law and the Regulations and Guidelines promulgated by the NEC for governing the conduct of public elections that as a matter of law the October 10, 2017 elections should be cancelled and a rerun. The primary contention of the appellants in regard to the said issue focuses on the failure of the NEC to publish as prescribed by the various laws the FRR. Let us therefore review some of the challenges advanced by the appellants. In their accusations against the NEC, the second appellants accused the NEC of violating Section 3.6. of the Elections Law, which speaks to the Final Registration Roll (FRR), requires that “the general voters registration roll for each registration center shall be opened for public inspection at the office of the Magistrate of Elections and copy without a fee on any day in a week during the hours the office is opened. A copy of each roll may be kept at such other places as the Commission