to the Supreme Committee for the General Oversight of the Soundness of Elections, which undertakes the announcement of the final results”. 15. In a related context, the Court of Cassation established that the final announcement process does not require mentioning the number of votes and that it suffices 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 includes the number of votes received by each candidate; it is sufficient that this statement includes the announcement of the final result and notifies the winners of membership.” 16. The Court of Cassation required that the appeal be based on valid, serious, and significant grounds, and clear facts and evidence. In Appeal No. (114) against the parliamentary elections of 2014, on 27 November 2014, and Appeal No. (1) against the municipal elections of 2018, on 5 December 2018, the Court ruled that, “Challenging the result of the elections is conditional as it must be based on serious reasons and evidence suggesting that an error has marred the voting or counting process, meaning that the appeal should not be taken as a pretext for the Court of Cassation to order the re-counting of ballots for the mere suspicion that errors have occurred.” In addition, the Court established this principle in its ruling in Appeal No. (3) challenging the 2018 parliamentary elections on 20 December 2018, stating that “The mere fact that a candidate obtained fewer votes than his contestant and not following up on the work of the counting and sorting committee is not considered a sufficient reason to believe that errors have marred the sorting process.” 92