28 Official Gazette – Issue No. 9 (bis) March 1, 2015 executive authorities to implement their legislative competence stipulated by the Constitution in default of equal protection of rights for all, whether stipulated or not by Law. It takes into account that equal protection before the Law as stipulated by the Constitution is not regarded as an absolute concept. It regards the Law as an expression of a specific policy instituted by the statuses imposed by its problems. It enriches itself with content that guarantees self-achievement of its aims through mechanisms it has adequately determined. The variability of Law in different situations, statuses or individuals is not a challenge of the reality between them. Its evaluation is based on objective principles and is inspired by objectives bearing no doubt on their legality. It ensures the unity of the legal basis concerning individuals with similar circumstances and not exceeding its requirements. The law falls within the framework of the legislator’s authority and is, therefore, not subject to any suspicion. The law comprises an understandable discrimination, which does not affect its constitutional right-to-be of equality that it favors and thrives to apply as perfectly as possible, without any enforcement affecting its standpoint or representing a breach. The legislator enjoys a virtual authority on the choice of electoral system, according to Article (102) of the Constitution. Yet, this authority is not absolute, and is bound by limitations and guidelines set by the Constitution, the respect of rights and freedoms it pledges to guarantee, enabling public duties and their practice without limitation or burdens likely to affect them or any of their components. Among the limitations and guidelines is Article (102) of the Constitution, which legislators must take into account on determining and dividing conscriptions without neglecting any governorate or human settlements. This is done in accordance to terms and conditions laid out by the legislator and Constitutional guidelines, and may not affect statutory rights in any way. Furthermore, a balanced representation of voters has to be respected in order for an MP in any particular conscription to represent the same number of voters as in any other conscription. This is not meant to be an absolute arithmetic equality in every conscription, but the differences in numbers and the mean of all represented by an MP at the country level should be acceptable – whenever possible. Such provision should also respect Article (4) of the HoR Law, Articles (2) and (3) of Law 202/2014 – within its range of application – and the table of list conscriptions. The Arab Republic of Egypt is divided into 4 conscriptions, of which two are allocated 45 seats: the first 45-seat conscription of Cairo and mid- and southern Delta covers 6 governorates and 21’280’268 voters over a population of 31’826’460 inhabitants. The second covers 11 governorates of northern and midUpper Egypt, with 19’715’314 voters over a population of 33’321’638 inhabitants. The other two 15-seat conscriptions are as follows: the Eastern Delta conscription covers 7 governorates with 6’729’018 voters over a population of 10’747’074 inhabitants, and the Western Delta conscription covers 3 governorates with 7’309’449 voters over a population of 10’918’551 inhabitants. Article (4) of the HoR Law stipulates that the number of MPs elected for each conscription should be proportional to the number of voters and inhabitants. It also stipulates that the number of voters should be a fair representation of the respective population and governorates. The rules thus laid are in harmony with the constitutional guidelines for the number of seats per governorate. We are thus aware that the plaintiff of non-commitment to principles of justice, equality and equal opportunity in such legal provision is unfounded. Consequently, no conflict exists between these provisions and the Constitution and the Court is called upon to dismiss the case within such context.