BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT see paragraph 86 below) in almost every case, which would radically undermine the efficacy of the section 8(4) regime. 52. Finally, the applicants had argued that the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention applied to investigatory NGOs in the same way it applied to journalists. Amnesty International initially alleged before the IPT that there were likely to be no adequate arrangements for material protected by legal professional privilege, a complaint which was subsequently “hived off” to be dealt with in the Belhadj case (see paragraphs 99-101 below), to which Amnesty International was joined as an additional claimant. No similar argument was made in respect of NGO confidence until 17 November 2014 (after the first and second open hearings). As the IPT considered that this argument could have been raised at any time, in its judgment it had been raised “far too late” to be incorporated into the ambit of the proceedings. 53. With regard to the remaining Article 10 complaints, the IPT noted that there was no separate argument over and above that arising in respect of Article 8. Although the IPT had regard to Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, 14 September 2010, it emphasised that the applicants’ case did not concern targeted surveillance of journalists or non-governmental organisations. In any case, in its view, in the context of untargeted monitoring via a section 8(4) warrant, it would be “clearly impossible” to anticipate a judicial pre-authorisation prior to the warrant limited to what might turn out to impact upon Article 10. Although the IPT accepted that an issue might arise in the event that, in the course of examination of the contents, some question of journalistic confidence arose, there were additional safeguards in the IC Code in relation to treatment of such material. 54. Following the publication of the judgment, the parties were invited to make submissions on whether, prior to the disclosures made to the IPT, the legal regime in place in respect of the PRISM issue complied with Articles 8 and 10, and on the proportionality and lawfulness of any alleged interception of their communications. The IPT did not see any need for further submissions on the proportionality of the section 8(4) regime as a whole. C. The IPT’s second judgment of 6 February 2015 55. In its second judgment of 6 February 2015, the IPT considered whether, prior to its December 2014 judgment, the PRISM or Upstream arrangements breached Article 8 and/or 10 of the Convention. 56. It agreed that it was only by reference to the 9 October disclosure as amended (see paragraphs 33 and 36 above) that it was satisfied the regime was “in accordance with the law”. The IPT was of the view that without the disclosures made, there would not have been adequate signposting, as was 15