Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
396 (1994). This appeal clearly could have been, and should have been, decided on other grounds. Furthermore, the majority asserts, without analysis, that each of the criteria for application of the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine has been met. 212 Ill. 2d at 382-83. I see nothing in the record to justify the conclusion that any of the criteria have been met. Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal as moot. Second, the issue in this case concerns whether Girot failed to comply, as a matter of law, with the secure-binding requirement of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/10 — 4 (West 2002)). Where, as here, the issue is a question of law concerning only compliance with the Election Code, due process is satisfied. See, e.g., Ayers v. Martin, 223 Ill. App. 3d 397, 400 (1991) . Consequently, even if this case meets the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the issues are basically questions of law and the trial court has reviewed them de novo due process is provided
B. holding questions of law related to class certification are reviewed de novo
C. holding that in general an agencys conclusion of law that presents mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard but questions concerning whether an agency has followed proper procedures or considered the appropriate factors in making its determination are questions of law which are reviewed de novo
D. holding that issues concerning the sufficiency of an indictment are reviewed de novo
E. holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.