UNTERHALTER AJ [111] As to costs, Blind SA has had to come to the courts to secure relief for print and visually disabled persons. The Minister did not oppose the application but sought to assist this Court to frame appropriate relief. The Minister did not contest this application of the Biowatch principle that a successful applicant that comes to court to vindicate the rights of those who have suffered the consequences of an unconstitutional statute may look to the state to pay its costs, even if the state has not opposed the application. That principle is not of invariable application but, without well-founded opposition, it should be allowed in this case. [112] In the result, the following order is made: 1. The order of the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria declaring the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 inconsistent with the Constitution is confirmed to the extent provided in paragraph 2. 2. It is declared that sections 6 and 7, read with section 23 of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978, are unconstitutional, invalid and inconsistent with the rights of persons with visual and print disabilities, as set out in sections 9(3), 10, 16(1)(b), 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution, to the extent that these provisions of the Copyright Act limit the access of such persons to published literary works, and artistic works as may be included in such literary works, in accessible format copies. 3. A person with a visual and print disability described in paragraph 2 means a person who— (a) is blind; (b) has a visual impairment or a perceptual or reading disability which cannot be improved to give visual function substantially equivalent to that of a person who has no such impairment or disability and so is unable to read printed works to substantially the same degree as a person without an impairment or disability; or (c) is otherwise unable, through physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move the eyes to the extent that 45