Official Gazette – Issue No. 9 (bis) March 1, 2015 29 Similarly, the plaintiff objects to the clause of “chosen for candidacy” in Article (10) of the HoR Law, claiming a contradiction with Article (102) of the Constitution. According to the lawsuit, the right of the candidate to choose the governorate contradicts the provisions of this Article, which stipulates that the candidate should be from the governorate, or born or working or dwelling in it. Article (87) of Chapter (3) in the Constitution, on rights, freedom and public duties, stipulates the rights to run for candidacy and to vote for all citizens. Such rights – as also ruled by this Court – are mandated by the Constitution and are to be keenly practiced by citizens to guarantee their choice of leaders and representatives in charge of the administration, the HoR and public interest. Such rights are also complementary to each other and for parliamentary activity, since they are crucial for democracy in its constitutional form. They also guarantee that parliamentary bodies truly reflect the will of the people and are an honest expression of people’s will. Beyond this guarantee of the Constitution of these two citizen rights, the Constitution ensures their application in public life in its commitment as a national duty to enable the sovereignty of the people stipulated in Article (4) of the Constitution. Such sovereignty can only be achieved in full through such rights and their real and effective application by citizens, without limitations of their content, affection of their subsistence or reduction or forfeiture of their core values. In turn, Article (92) of the Constitution stipulates that rights and freedom of the citizen cannot be subjected to suspension or reduction. The same Article did not allow any room for legislators to limit its core values, as applied to the distribution of constituencies, according to Article (102) of the Constitution. This Article stipulates the fair representation of inhabitants and governorates as well as a fair and balanced representation of voters. Thus, legislators resort to paragraph 1 of Article (10) of the HoR Law on the right of candidates to choose their governorates. This aims at guaranteeing this right and freedom to practice it in achievement of its objective and constitutional frameworks. This is particularly important because it one of the main applications of citizens political rights and a democratic means to freedom of expression and their participation in public life. In this light, this legal text is in no contradiction with Articles (87) and (102) of the Constitution, nor with any other text included, which calls for the Court to reject this lawsuit. Whereas the plaintiff deplores the difference between the amounts mentioned Article (10) of the HoR Law to be deposited in the Treasury of the competent Court of First Instance by the candidate in individual election constituencies and that of 15-seat slates, which represents an unjustifiable discrimination contravening principles of equality. Whereas Article (10) of the HoR Law imposes an EGP 3,000 deposit receipt to be enclosed with each candidacy request, as proof of deposit of such amount at the Treasury of the competent Court of First Instance representing insurance for the candidate in individual system election conscriptions. This amount reaches EGP 6000 for 15-seat slates. As mentioned in Article (26) of the HoR Law, these insurance amounts are intended to cover costs of electoral billboards and will be redeemed in total or the remainder after deduction of such costs by the candidate within a maximum of 30 days from the announcement of election results. The legislator will estimate the insurance amount based on the actual cost of electoral billboard removal