MADLANGA J subject at the end of surveillance, provided that such notification does not undermine the purpose of the investigation.75 Germany adopts a similar approach.76 [47] The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights similarly links notification to whether it no longer jeopardises the purpose of the surveillance. This is captured in this passage from Association for European Integration and Human Rights: “According to the Court’s case law, the fact that persons concerned by such measures are not apprised of them while the surveillance is in progress or even after it has ceased cannot by itself warrant the conclusion that the interference was not justified under the terms of paragraph 2 of Article 8, as it is the very unawareness of the surveillance which ensures its efficacy. However, as soon as notification can be made without jeopardising the purpose of the surveillance after its termination, information should be provided to the persons concerned”.77 (Emphasis added.) orders as the judge determines to be in the interest of justice. On an ex parte showing of good cause to a judge of competent jurisdiction the serving of the inventory required by this subsection may be postponed.” Likewise, section 196(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code RSC 1985, c C-46 states: “The Attorney General of the province in which an application under subsection 185(1) was made or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness if the application was made by or on behalf of that Minister shall, within 90 days after the period for which the authorisation was given or renewed or within such other period as is fixed pursuant to subsection 185(3) or subsection (3) of this section, notify in writing the person who was the object of the interception pursuant to the authorisation and shall, in a manner prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council, certify to the court that gave the authorisation that the person has been so notified.” 75 Denmark, Administration of Justice Act, LBK nr 1139 af 24/09/2013 Gældende, Article 788 (1)(4). 76 Germany, § 5 read with § 12(2) of the Act on Restrictions on the Secrecy of Mail, Post and Telecommunications, June 26, 2001, BGBL. I at 1254, 2298. 77 Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v Bulgaria, No. 62540/00, 28 June 2007 at para. 91 (The Bulgarian case). This mirrors the Court’s ruling in Weber and Saravia v Germany, No. 54934/00, 29 June 2006 at para 135: “However, the fact that persons concerned by secret surveillance measures are not subsequently notified once surveillance has ceased cannot by itself warrant the conclusion that the interference was not ‘necessary in a democratic society’, as it is the very absence of knowledge of surveillance which ensures the efficacy of the interference. [A]s soon as notification can be carried out without jeopardising the purpose of the restriction after the termination of the surveillance measure, information should, however, be provided to the persons concerned.” 32