UNTERHALTER AJ Second amicus curiae’s submissions [40] MMA submits that copyrighted works often need to be adapted into accessible format copies in order for them to be usable by persons with visual and print disabilities. These accessible format copies include “digital formats that enable the use of screen readers”, and may include “adding audio descriptions to films and broadcasts, as well as subtitles”. It emphasises that modifications and adjustments to original works are required to ensure that persons with visual and print disabilities can enjoy and exercise, on an equal basis with others, their expressive rights and freedoms. [41] MMA submits that South Africa’s current copyright regime is in conflict with the right to freedom of expression and access to information and that a balance must be struck between the rights of copyright and intellectual property owners and the rights of all people to access and impart knowledge and ideas. According to MMA, this balance can be found in the remedy proposed by Blind SA, that is, the reading-in of section 19D of the CAB. Third amicus curiae’s submissions [42] The ICJ submits that the Copyright Act must, in addition to the relevant copyright regime, be interpreted in line with international human rights treaties such as the ICESCR and the CRPD. It submits that Professor Dean’s arguments fail to consider South Africa’s obligations in terms of international human rights law. It supports a reading-in of section 19D as proposed by Blind SA. Analysis [43] The application before this Court takes the form of confirmation proceedings. Section 167(5) of the Constitution stipulates that this Court— “makes the final decision as to whether an Act of Parliament . . . is constitutional, and, must confirm any order of invalidity made by the Supreme Court of Appeal [or] High Court . . . before that order has any force.” 19