of the House of Representatives and the Senate is required, according to the Electoral Count Act of 1887, for the decision of a state to be overturned regarding the results of the presidential election. In the case of local challenges, this takes place after decision by a state court. 160. The situation is similar in Italy. Article 66 of the 1948 Constitution provides that it is up to each chamber – the Chamber of Deputies or the Senate – to judge ‘the titles of admission of their members and the grounds for incompatibility or disqualification’ once claims and challenges have been resolved by the National Central Election Office, which is part of the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation is made up of a presiding judge and four other judges. There is no judicial remedy against the ruling of the relevant chamber. 161. Similarly, according to articles 105 and 107 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court (Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas) can present its conclusions on whether there were violations of election laws during an election for the President of the Republic or elections for members of the Seimas (Parliament), and the Seimas takes the final decision on the basis of the conclusions of the Constitutional Court. In Latvia, the Law on Administrative Process establishes administrative courts to which the revision of election results are delegated. According to the constitution, it is the Saeima (Parliament) that reviews the qualification of its members. 162. In the Swiss Federation, the National Council (Nationalrat) and the Council of the States (Ständerat) have the authority to make the final ruling on the election of their respective members once appeals over the vote count and verification of the results have been decided by the political authorities in the cantons. 163. In addition to Argentina (see box 5.4) and Switzerland, this category should include the EDRSs of Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands and Norway, as well as certain Central and East European countries which, during their transformation from socialist states to democratic states, preserved for some time the system of self-certification by the presumptive legislators even though they gradually established EDRSs entrusted to one or another judicial organ. Box 5.4. A mixed legislative-administrative EDR system in Argentina Argentina has a mixed legislative-administrative EDR system so far as challenges to the results of legislative and presidential elections are concerned. All other electoral actions and decisions can be challenged before the National Electoral Chamber (Cámara Nacional Electoral), which is part of the judicial branch. The final decision on the validity of elections is a power of a political organ or assembly, once the respective national election boards, which are strictly administrative even though they are composed of 66