practical benefit. Therefore, the Complainant’s claim challenging the constitutionality of the Interception at Issue is non-justiciable. 3. Regarding the Provision at Issue Interception of Internet lines is conducted through packet interception, through which data packets in the form of electrical signals travelling over Internet lines are captured and reassembled and the content thereof becomes accessible. This form of interception thereby restricts the secrecy and freedom of private life as well as communications. Given the widespread use of the Internet in our daily lives, there is a need to permit the interception of telecommunications made through the Internet for preventing crimes that endanger national security, the public safety, or the safety of property, life, and limb of all citizens; or for investigating crimes that have already occurred. Thus, the Court recognizes that the Provision at Issue serves a legitimate legislative purpose and uses appropriate means. Interception of Internet lines allows State investigative agencies to gain access to data pertaining to personal communications and the intimate realm of individual privacy. Therefore, legislative safeguards aimed at preventing the abuse of power and minimizing the interferences with the fundamental rights by State investigative agencies are required not only at the stage when the court grants permission for communication -restriction measures, but also at later stages, including during and after the execution thereof. Article 5 of the Act at Issue stipulates that the communication -restriction measures shall be allowed only “when there is substantial ground to suspect that…crimes are being planned or committed or have been committed” and only as a last resort. In addition, Article 6 of the Act at Issue provides that the court shall grant permission only for an interception that targets the Internet line used by a specific suspect or person under investigation, to the extent necessary to investigate the crimes committed by the said persons. - 3 -