11. Although the law has granted the candidate or his/her agent the right to attend the polling and counting process, yet, their absence does not affect the validity of the electoral process. Since, “The right of the candidate or his/her agent to enter the polling hall and attend the counting process means that both are not required to be present. His/her absence thereof does not affect the validity of the polling or counting process as long as he/she was not prevented from attending.” This is evident in Appeal No. (3) against the parliamentary elections of 2006, on 4 December 2006. 12. As for the polling process, the provisions of the Court of Cassation confirmed the secrecy of the voting process, and indicated that the voter is completely free to choose the candidate he deems appropriate without interfering in his/her selection. This was adopted in several principles and rulings. On the session held on 9 November 2002, in the ruling on Appeal No. (15) against the parliamentary elections, the Court affirmed that, “The voter has the freedom to of decision regarding the candidate of his/her choice, since the election is by universal, direct, and secret ballot, away from any influences that may discourage him/her from selecting the candidate he/ she sees fit to represent him/her.” 13. One of the rules adopted by the Court of Cassation on the announcement of results is the ruling in Appeal No. (104) against the parliamentary elections of 2011, on 10 October 2011, to confirm that, “The provincial polling and counting committee (sub-committee) is not able to know the winner of the election, and therefore is not in a position to announce it, considering that this matter is connected with to the collection of all the votes in both the provincial (subcommittee) and public committees as well as the committees abroad.” 14. In Appeal No. (13) against the parliamentary elections of 2002, on 15 November 2002, the Court of Cassation determined that the Chairman of the Supreme Committee for the General Supervision of the Soundness of Elections is responsible for the announcement process. The rule states that, “The Chairman of the Election Safety Supervisory Committee shall announce the results of the election of the members of the House of Representatives in all constituencies of his/her region and the number of votes obtained by each candidate in his/her constituency. A copy of such result shall be sent to the Supreme Committee for the General Supervision of the Soundness of Elections, which undertakes the announcement of the final results.” 15. In a related context, the Court of Cassation explained that the final announcement process does not require mentioning the number of votes and that it is sufficient to declare the names of the winners of the seats in the councils. In Appeals No. (5) and (7) against the parliamentary elections of 2002, on 29 October 2002, it stated that, “There is no requirement that the statement of the Minister of Justice contains the number of votes secured by each candidate; it is sufficient that this statement includes the announcement of the final results and notifies the winners of membership.” 16. The Court of Cassation required that the appeal be based on valid and serious grounds, as well as clear facts and evidence. In Appeal No. (114) against the parliamentary elections of 2014, on 27 November 2014, the Court ruled that, “Challenging the outcome of the elections is required 92