由此 - 24 - A B C 76. In para. 65 above, we drew attention to the Special Reference No. 1 of 1955, where it was the executive branch of government which A B C proclaimed that laws were retrospectively valid and enforceable, and the D E role of the judiciary was simply to condone the actions of the executive. See page 34 of Manitoba Language case. Here, the Executive Order was a D E failed attempt to comply with Article 30, and section 33 was a failed F G attempt to comply with Article 39. We see no difference in principle between a failed attempt by the executive or the legislature to comply with F G the Basic Law. Both are unconstitutional. The Order has the same effect H on section 33 as it has on the Executive Order. It gives colour to the I legality of actions taken under section 33 and the Executive Order. Insofar H I as a refusal to make the Order has the same direful consequences, we are J of the view that there is jurisdiction to make the Order in respect of the K Executive Order. L 77. M N The judge also found support in decisions by the Strasbourg Court. He referred to Walden v Liechtenstein (Application No. 33916/96, J K L M 16 March 2000, unreported), where the court recognised that the temporary N preservation of a law by the domestic courts of Liechtenstein, even though O P Q R S it violated the rights of the applicant, served the legitimate aim of O maintaining legal certainty. P 78. Mr Dykes accepted that legal certainty is an aspect of the maintenance of law and order, and hence the rule of law. 79. The judge concluded at para. 167 that: Q R S T T U U V V