Official Gazette, Issue 24 App. (a) on 14 June 2012 11 streams, and inclinations, and encompass them, so that they can carry out their active role in the Assembly performing its constitutional duty provided in Article 33 of the Constitutional Declaration. What contradicts this aim and collides with it is the course taken by the legislature in the provisions appealed against, where they limited candidacy for the two thirds allocated to election by the closed party lists voting system, to those affiliated with political parties, as confirmed by the provisions of Article 6, para.4, of the aforementioned Law 38, of the year 1972, substituted by the Decree Law 108, of the year 2011. This allowed the relevant body in the party or parties to undertake their nomination by an application submitted on the form prepared by the Higher Elections Committee, whereas they did not make applying for the one third allocated to the individual system limited to independent candidates unaffiliated with political parties. They rather left it open for competition between themselves and others members of those parties – contrary to what the constitutional legislature intended – as expressed by Article 1 of the Decree Law 123, of the year 2011, by repelling the provision of Article 5 of the aforementioned Decree Law 120, of the year 2011, and confirmed by the rest of provisions appealed against – as mentioned previously. Hence, they have allowed political party candidates one of two opportunities to obtain the membership of the People’s Assembly, one through closed party lists, and the second through first past the post voting system candidacy, while the only opportunity that was available for independent candidates not affiliated to those parties was limited to the third allocated to the first past the post voting system, where they are competed against and rivaled by candidates belonging to political parties, who enjoy the financial and moral support of the parties to which they belong, which exploit all their available capabilities in supporting them. Something which is not available to independent candidates unaffiliated with any parties, is in violation of the provision of Article 38 of the Constitutional Declaration, and poses an infringement of the content, elements, and guarantee of right to candidacy, and a discrimination between two classes of citizens, which violates the principles of equality and equal opportunity, as it entails discrimination between the two classes in treatment and in the opportunities available to win the membership, without this discrimination being, in all its aforementioned aspects, justified by a subjective rule related in origin to the nature of the right to candidacy and the requirements of practicing it, through which and with which equality and equal opportunity are achieved. This is in addition to the course of the legislature representing a violation of the bases for justice, which are confirmed by Article 5 of the Constitutional Declaration, which does not deviate in aim from the Law as – as established in the administration of justice in this court – an instrument of realizing it. The law shall not be just unless it establishes its goals. If the legislature deviates from them, and violates the true values they embrace, as pursued in the provisions appealed against, they would terminate the accord within the scope of their implementation, and shed in vain every value of their presence, and contradict – accordingly – the bases of justice. This constitutional defect extends to the election system determined by the legislature and included in the provisions appealed against, whether it is the two thirds allocated to closed party lists, or the one third allocated to the individual seats voting system. Whereas in the light of all the above, it is evident that the whole of the first paragraph of Article 3, the first paragraph of Article 6, and Article 9 bis (a) determining their