6 Official Gazette – Issue No. 9 (bis) March 1, 2015 express his/her opinion in referendums. To do so, the State shall insert the name of each citizen in the voters’ database without request therefrom provided that he/she satisfies the conditions for voting.” Based on the above, and in light of Article (87) which states that “the State shall enter the name of each citizen in the voters’ database without request therefrom provided that he/she satisfies the conditions for voting”, the plaintiff is an eligible voter since he is a citizen and the papers constituting the present lawsuit do not, in any way, imply that the plaintiff no longer enjoys the voter status for any reason whatsoever. Such papers do not state any impediment preventing the plaintiff from exercising his political rights. The plaintiff brought a lawsuit before the said Court, challenging HEC Decree #1/2015 and requesting that an immediate ruling be issued to suspend and annul the decree in order to prevent the conduct of HoR elections, especially the elections to be held in Al-Darb Al-Ahmar and Al-Sayida Zeinab, which are two constituencies under the individual electoral system. Furthermore, the plaintiff filed the present constitutional lawsuit, requesting that the Decree Law #202/2014 be deemed unconstitutional since Article (3) thereof and the tables attached thereto allegedly violate Constitutional Articles (4), (9), and (102). The plaintiff justified such allegation on the grounds that the division of HoR election constituencies, as provided by such tables, deprives him and all his peer citizens in the said constituency from the right to fair representation. The plaintiff, also, claimed that the provisions regulating constituencies, provided for in Table (I-Individual System) attached to the law referred thereto, affect his legal status in his capacity as a voter and influences his rights since, according to the law, a constituency represents the spatial and geographical framework within which the right to elect and to be elected shall be exercised. Hence, in this lawsuit, the plaintiff does have a direct personal interest qualifying him to challenge Article (3) of the aforementioned Presidential Decree Law #202/2014, within the limits of the provisions related to the individual electoral system and Table (I- Individual System) attached thereto. The scope of the present lawsuit shall only be restricted to such limits since the constitutional matter in question has a definite cause-effect relationship with the demands raised by the plaintiff in his lawsuit and is directly related to the provisions stated within these limits, unlike the remaining provisions. On the other hand, attached to the present lawsuit is the wording of the legislative provision which is allegedly unconstitutional. The lawsuit, also, illustrates the constitutional provisions which are allegedly violated by such legislative provisions and states such violations as previously mentioned, in accordance with Article (30) of the said SCC Law. Accordingly, neither one justification from the two justifications on the grounds of which the State Lawsuit Authority requested that the present lawsuit be rejected is well-founded. Whereas the plaintiff claims that the contested provision violates Constitutional Articles (4), (9), and (102) since such provision does not ensure that each HoR representative is representing an equal number of voters in each of the constituencies assigned for the individual electoral system, hence depriving the plaintiff and all his peer citizens in the said constituency from the right to fair representation of voters, population, and governorates. Based on such, the contested provision discriminates among voters without any objective justification even though they all enjoy the same legal status, hence violating the principle of equal opportunities and equal suffrage.