UNTERHALTER AJ [44] Accordingly, this Court’s jurisdiction is necessarily engaged. [45] In Phillips, 29 this Court held the following regarding confirmation proceedings that come before it: “Section 172(2) confirmation proceedings are not routine, for it does not follow that High Court findings of constitutional invalidity will be confirmed as a matter of course. This Court is empowered to confirm the High Court order of constitutional invalidity only if it is satisfied that the provision is inconsistent with the Constitution. If not, there is no alternative but to decline to confirm the order. It follows that a finding of constitutional invalidity by a High Court does not relieve this Court of the duty to evaluate the provision of the provincial Act or Act of Parliament in the light of the Constitution. A thorough investigation of the constitutional status of a legislative provision is obligatory in confirmation proceedings. This is so even if the proceedings are not opposed, or even if there is an outright concession that the section under attack is invalid.”30 (Emphasis added.) [46] Accordingly, this Court must conduct its own evaluation and satisfy itself as to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Copyright Act that have been challenged. The pleaded case [47] At the outset, it is important to identify the challenge that Blind SA makes to the constitutional validity of the Copyright Act. The pleaded case in the founding affidavit is this: the application is brought in the public interest and on behalf of persons with visual and print disabilities. This class of persons is taken to fall within the definition of “a beneficiary person” in Article 3 of the Marrakesh Treaty. A beneficiary person is there defined as follows: 29 Phillips v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] ZACC 1; 2003 (3) SA 345 (CC); 2003 (4) BCLR 357 (CC). 30 Id at para 8. 20