18 Official Gazette, Issue 24 App (a) on 14 June 2012 considered a concerned party to the constitutional petition and their intervention shall not be accepted. In this case, and if the person requesting to intervene is not represented in the appeal submitted to the Presidential Electoral Commission, they shall accordingly not be considered a concerned party to the submitted constitutional petition and their intervention shall not be accepted. Whereby Article (3) of Law No. 73 of 1956, modified by virtue of Article (1) of the aforementioned Law No. 17 of 2012, stipulates that: “The exercise of the political rights of the following persons shall be suspended: 1- Prisoners, during the period of imprisonment 2- Confined persons afflicted with mental illnesses, during the period of confinement 3- Those who have been declared bankrupt, for a period of five years from the date they posted for bankruptcy, unless their capacity is restored before this time 4- Anyone who during the ten years prior to 11 February 2011 served as the President of the Republic, the Vice President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, or President or General Secretary of the dissolved National Democratic Party or member of its political office or general secretariat, for a period of ten years starting from the aforementioned date” (the referred clause) Whereby direct interest – a condition of acceptance for the constitutional petition – is of the essence, and in line with what has been decided by this Court with regards to the interest upon which the dispute in question has been raised, since the ruling on the constitutional issue is necessary for settling the requests in question related to it, whenever this may be, the decision of the Presidential Electoral Commission issued on 24/4/2012 to remove Mr. Ahmed Muhammad Shafiq Zaki from the list of nominees taking part in the presidential elections was based on the text of Clause (4) of Article (3) of Law No. 73 of 1956, modified by virtue of Article (1) of the aforementioned Law No. 17 of 2012. The ruling on the degree of constitutionality of the text of the first article of this law shall certainly have an effect and be reflected in the subject of the dispute put forward to the Commission and in its ruling thereon. Accordingly, the interest in the submitted petition must be certain. Whereby the ruling of this Court has been taken on the basis that the peremptory nature of the constitutional framework, which is of a higher nature than less important legal frameworks, and its adherence to values which must be upheld by everyone, necessitate the entire legal framework, whatever its date of implementation, from being submitted to the provisions of the existing Constitution, to ensure its harmony with the concepts thereof. This framework does not differentiate in its contents between different systems which contradict each other, which prevents them being followed according to the same subjective standards required by the existing Constitution as a condition for its constitutional legitimacy. This being the case, and whereby the immunity invoked by the referral decision regarding the referred text, was integrated with the subjective appeals based in essence on a violation of a particular legislative text of a framework in the constitutional text in terms of its subjective contents. Accordingly, this court performed its judicial oversight of this text in light of the contents of the provisions of