of unconstitutionality would remove the legal grounds that allow State investigative agencies to carry out investigations through the interception of Internet lines, thus creating a legal vacuum in investigating grave crimes that need to be stopped urgently or endanger the life, limb, and property of citizens. The unconstitutionality of the Instant Provision lies in the fact that a provision monitoring or regulating the use of data obtained through the interception of Internet lines does not exist despite the peculiar nature of such interception. Thus, it is at the discretion of the legislature to determine the details of the amendment to the current legal framework governing such interception. For these reasons, the Court issues a decision of nonconformity to the Constitution for the Instant Provision in lieu of a decision of unconstitutionality, and orders that the Instant Provision continue to be applied until the legislature resolves its unconstitutionality and makes reasonable amendments to the current legal framework. Summary of Dissenting Opinion of Two Justices The communication-restriction measures for criminal investigations, which provide access to the content of communications, amount to direct interference with the secrecy of communications. Thus, the Act at Issue sets out stricter conditions for such measures than for access to “communication confirmation data” that contains non-content information related to communications; and also tightly regulates the use of wiretapping equipment by State investigative agencies. According to Article 5 Section 1 of the Act at Issue, the communication-restriction measures may only be applied to crimes that gravely endanger the property, or life and limb of all citizens, such as insurrection and treason; and permitted only when it is impractical to prevent the commission of such crimes, arrest the criminal, or collect the evidence relating to such crimes through measures other than the communication-restriction measures. In addition, as Article 5 Section 2 - 6 -