c) That the right to protect confidential sources of information under Article 20 of the Press Law is not in conformity with Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. Further, that the Law requires that where the information concerns offences against State security, public order, all State secrets and national defense, or moral and physical integrity of a person, then the source ought to be disclosed. Such disclosure, it was argued, negates the well-established norm under International Human Rights Law that a confidential source of information ought to be protected and the right should only be restricted when a court has ordered disclosure, and in that regard the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Goodwin vs. UK Appl. No.28957/95 (2009) and Saroma vs. Netherlands, Appl.38224/03 (2010) were cited in support; d) That print media is specifically regulated by Articles 26-35 and 4445 and such an action cannot be in conformity with Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. The submission made in that regard was that, the Press Law creates a restrictive framework and limits who may be appointed a director of any media outlet and the said framework is unduly erroneous and is open to abuse because of the uncontrolled powers given to the National Communications Council which in itself is lacking in independence and is under the direct control of the Executive. In addition, that the involvement of the Public Prosecutor, various Ministries and Provincial governance in media regulation is worrisome. 52. It was also the Applicant’s case that following international norms, only a purely administrative regime for the regulation of print media is permissible and the African Commission on Human Rights Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa was cited in support of that proposition. Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 17