QUESTION 1

The deployment of facial recognition technology (FRT) in Zimbabwe, particularly through the

software developed by DigiSoft (Pvt) Ltd, has ignited a critical discourse around its legal and

ethical implications. As this technology is increasingly utilized by both government agencies and

private companies, concerns regarding its potential misuse have come to the forefront. Reports

indicate that FRT may perpetuate racial biases, facilitate unauthorized surveillance, and pose

significant risks of data breaches, raising alarms about its impact on citizens' fundamental rights 1.

A human rights group has filed a complaint alleging violations of privacy and non-

discrimination rights, invoking protections enshrined in the Zimbabwean Constitution,

particularly Section 57, which guarantees the right to privacy, and Section 56, which ensures

equality before the law2. Furthermore, the Data Protection Act (Chapter 11:22) aims to regulate

personal data processing but lacks specific provisions addressing the unique challenges posed by

biometric data collection3. The involvement of foreign entities, such as CloudWalk Technology

Co., in the implementation of these systems raises additional concerns about cross-border data

transfers and the adequacy of existing legal frameworks to protect citizens’ information and

1
https://zimbabwe.misa.org/2018/05/29/digest-facial-recognition-technology-privacy-rights/
2
The Constitution of Zimbabwe of 2013
3
Data Protection Act
privacy without fail4. This situation necessitates a thorough evaluation of the legal landscape

governing facial recognition technology in Zimbabwe and the establishment of robust regulatory

measures to ensure its responsible use while safeguarding human rights and promoting ethical

standards in surveillance practices56.

To begin with , under the legal issues the deployment of facial recognition technology (FRT) in

Zimbabwe, particularly through initiatives by companies like DigiSoft (Pvt) Ltd, poses

significant threats to the right to privacy as enshrined in the Zimbabwean Constitution. Section

57 of the Constitution explicitly guarantees every individual's right to privacy, stating that "every

person has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have their person, home, or

communications searched or interfered with."78 However, the implementation of FRT can lead to

pervasive surveillance practices that infringe on this fundamental right. Critics argue that such

technologies enable the government and private entities to monitor individuals without their

consent, effectively transforming public spaces into zones of surveillance where personal

movements and behaviors are continuously tracked and recorded9.

The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) and the Interception of

Communications Act (ICA) are two critical pieces of legislation that intersect with privacy rights

4
Understanding SI 155 of 2024: New Regulations on Data Protection Licensing and Data Protection Officers in
Zimbabwe
5
Advisory on Data Privacy Laws and Regulations in Zimbabwe:
6
https://www.biometricupdate.com/202302/zimbabwe-govt-faces-criticism-over-biometric-surveillance-project-for-new-
smart-city
7
Understanding SI 155 of 2024: New Regulations on Data Protection Licensing and Data Protection Officers in
Zimbabwe
8
See footnote 2
9
MISA Zimbabwe. (2018). Digest: Facial recognition technology and privacy rights. Retrieved from MISA Zimbabwe
in Zimbabwe1011. While AIPPA aims to protect personal information, its provisions allow for

broad interpretations that can undermine privacy protections. For instance, Section 29(b) permits

public bodies to collect personal information for national security and law enforcement purposes,

which raises concerns about potential misuse of data collected through FRT. Moreover, the ICA

legitimizes the interception of communications, including telephonic and internet-based

communications. However, it lacks sufficient oversight mechanisms to prevent over-surveillance

and extrajudicial monitoring. This is particularly concerning given recent reports indicating that

the Zimbabwean government has acquired facial recognition technology from foreign entities

like CloudWalk Technology Co., further expanding its surveillance capabilities without clear

regulatory oversight12.

In Madhuku v. Minister of Justice (2000), the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe emphasized the

necessity for legal frameworks that respect individual rights and freedoms 13. The court ruled that

any infringement on privacy must be justified under stringent legal standards. This case

underscores the importance of judicial oversight in protecting citizens' privacy rights against

potential abuses by state authorities. Another relevant case is Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human

Rights v. Minister of State for National Security (2021), where the High Court ruled against an

unlawful order by the Minister to shut down internet services during civil unrest 14. The court

highlighted that such actions infringe upon citizens' rights to freedom of expression and privacy,

reinforcing the need for accountability in government actions that affect personal liberties.

10
Interception of Communications Act (ICA)
11
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA)
12
Zimbabwe Fact Sheet | Data Protection Africa
13
Madhuku v. Minister of Justice, Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe, CCZ 1/2000,
14
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights v. Minister of State for National Security, High Court of Zimbabwe
Moreover, the recent enactment of the Data Protection Act (Chapter 11:22) aims to address

some of these issues by establishing a more robust framework for data protection 15. However,

critics point out that while this Act provides guidelines for processing personal data and

establishes the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe

(POTRAZ) as the Data Protection Authority, it still lacks specific provisions addressing the

unique challenges posed by biometric data collection 16. For example, while the Act

criminalizes unlawful acquisition and disclosure of data, it does not adequately regulate how

biometric data collected through FRT is stored or shared.

While AIPPA has provided a foundation for privacy protection in Zimbabwe, its broad

provisions can lead to significant risks when applied to emerging technologies like facial

recognition. The lack of clarity regarding the scope and limitations of data collection for national

security purposes poses a direct threat to individual privacy rights. As such, there is an urgent

need for comprehensive regulations that specifically address the challenges posed by FRT to

ensure that citizens' rights are upheld in an increasingly surveilled society.

One of the primary ethical issues associated with facial recognition technology is the violation of

individuals' right to privacy. The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act

(AIPPA) allows public bodies to collect personal information for national security purposes,

which can be interpreted broadly and may facilitate mass surveillance practices without adequate

oversight or accountability. The ethical implications of such practices are profound. Citizens

may find themselves monitored in public spaces without their knowledge or consent, creating a

chilling effect on free expression and assembly. As noted in various studies, including those

15
Data Protection Act
16
The Engine Room. (2020). Digital ID in Zimbabwe: A case study. Retrieved from The Engine Room
discussed by TechRepublic, the lack of transparency regarding how facial recognition data is

collected and used raises significant ethical concerns about informed consent and individual

autonomy17.The lack of accountability surrounding the use of facial recognition technology is

another ethical concern. In many cases, there are insufficient legal frameworks governing how

FRT is implemented and monitored. The absence of clear guidelines can lead to misuse by both

government entities and private companies 18. For example, if law enforcement agencies use FRT

without proper oversight, there is a risk that they may target specific groups based on flawed

data or algorithmic bias19.

Zimbabwe currently lacks a comprehensive legal framework specifically governing data

protection and privacy rights related to biometric data, particularly in the context of facial

recognition technology (FRT). The Cyber and Data Protection Act (2021) represents progress

but requires further refinement to effectively address challenges posed by FRT 20. It is essential

for the Act to include provisions that define biometric data as sensitive personal information,

regulate the collection, storage, and sharing of facial recognition data, and establish strict

guidelines for cross-border data transfers, particularly regarding partnerships with foreign

companies like CloudWalk and Digi Soft Technology 21. Without such regulations, there are

significant risks of unauthorized access and misuse of personal data. Given the increasing

deployment of surveillance technologies in Zimbabwe, there is an urgent need for specific

laws that set clear limits on surveillance activities conducted by state authorities, require

transparency about surveillance practices, and mandate regular reporting to Parliament

18
Ethical Compliance for Facial Recognition Technology
19
The Ethics of Facial Recognition - Thales GroupOLOID’s Accurate, Ethical, Unbiased Facial Recognition
Passwordless Authentication Solution
20
Cyber and Data Protection Act (2021)
21
The Ethics of Facial Recognition Technologies, Surveillance, and Law Enforcement:
regarding surveillance activities and expenditures. Such legislative measures would ensure

that surveillance technologies are employed solely for legitimate purposes, such as crime

prevention, while safeguarding citizens' rights against potential abuses 22.

QUESTION 2

As ZimTel embarks on its ambitious project to roll out 5G infrastructure across Zimbabwe, it

faces a myriad of legal and regulatory challenges that must be addressed to ensure a

successful implementation. The telecommunications landscape is evolving rapidly, and with it

comes the necessity for compliance with local laws and international standards. This legal

opinion aims to provide guidance on four critical issues: the acquisition of additional

spectrum licenses, the implications of infrastructure sharing with local competitors,

compliance with data protection laws in the context of cross-border data transfers, and

adherence to net neutrality principles. By navigating these concerns effectively, ZimTel can

not only align itself with Zimbabwe's regulatory framework but also maintain its competitive

advantage in a dynamic market.

To begin with , in order to proceed with its 5G rollout, ZimTel must navigate Zimbabwe’s

spectrum licensing framework, particularly regarding the acquisition of additional spectrum

licenses. In Zimbabwe, the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of

Zimbabwe (POTRAZ) is mandated by the Postal and Telecommunications Act [Chapter

12:05] to regulate spectrum allocation to ensure efficient use and equitable distribution of this

22
Public Video Surveillance: Is It an Effective Crime Prevention Tool?
limited resource 23. According to Section 35 of the Act, spectrum licenses are granted based on

public interest, technical feasibility, and economic viability, which POTRAZ evaluates before

issuing new licenses.

Transparency in spectrum allocation has been a significant issue, as highlighted in Telecel

Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v POTRAZ (2015), where the court underscored the necessity for fair and

equitable allocation to promote competition 24. In this case, POTRAZ was challenged over

alleged preferential treatment, emphasizing the regulatory body’s obligation to allocate

spectrum in a manner that upholds competition and serves the public good. Drawing from this

precedent, ZimTel should ensure that its application for additional spectrum is backed by a

clear demonstration of how its 5G infrastructure will benefit both the economy and the public.

This approach aligns with the transparency and non-discrimination principles reinforced by

Zimbabwean courts and may strengthen ZimTel’s case for securing the required spectrum

licenses25.

In addressing ZimTel’s concerns about infrastructure sharing, it’s important to consider

Zimbabwe’s telecommunications regulatory framework, which emphasizes fair competition

and universal access. The Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe

(POTRAZ) has the authority to mandate infrastructure sharing under the Postal and

Telecommunications Act [Chapter 12:05] if it serves the public interest and promotes efficient

use of resources26. POTRAZ’s policy on infrastructure sharing aims to avoid unnecessary

23
Postal and Telecommunications Act [Chapter 12:05]
24
Telecel Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v POTRAZ & Ors (HC 3975 of 2015) [2015] ZWHHC 446 (12 May 2015)
25
Licensing Processes - https://baz.co.zw/licensing-overview/licensing-processes/
26
Postal and Telecommunications Act [Chapter 12:05]
duplication of resources, reduce costs, and expand connectivity, particularly in underserved

areas27.

ZimTel’s position against compulsory sharing stems from concerns that sharing its newly

built 5G infrastructure could diminish its competitive edge, as it would allow smaller

competitors to benefit from ZimTel’s investment without incurring equivalent costs. This

issue was addressed in NetOne Cellular (Pvt) Ltd v Econet(Pvt) Ltd(2018), where the court

considered the balance between encouraging competition and protecting proprietary

infrastructure investments 28. The ruling emphasized that while infrastructure sharing is

beneficial to market competition, it must not undermine the incentives for companies to invest

in advanced technologies. Drawing from this case, ZimTel may argue that mandatory sharing

should be approached cautiously to avoid eroding its commercial advantage, especially given

the significant capital investment required for 5G infrastructure. 29Therefore, ZimTel could

propose alternative approaches, such as controlled sharing agreements or phased access,

which would allow it to recoup its investment while meeting regulatory requirements 30.

Engaging with POTRAZ to negotiate fair terms for any mandated sharing arrangement could

help ZimTel protect its interests while supporting broader network access across Zimbabwe 31.

To ensure compliance with Zimbabwe’s data protection laws and maintain adherence to net

neutrality principles, ZimTel must navigate several regulatory requirements, especially in the

context of cross-border data transfers. Zimbabwe’s data protection framework is largely

governed by the Data Protection Act [Chapter 11:22,which establishes obligations regarding

27
See footnote 26
28
Netone Cellular (Private) Limited & Another v Econet WIreless (Private) Limited & Another (Civil Appeal 695 of
2015; SC 47 of 2018) [2018] ZWSC 47 (8 August 2018)
29
National ICT Policy (2016
30
ITU Recommendations on Infrastructure Sharing
31
Competition Act [Chapter 14:28]
the handling, processing, and transfer of personal data. Under Section 18 of the Act, the

transfer of personal data to foreign entities is restricted unless the receiving country provides

an adequate level of data protection, ensuring that citizens' data privacy rights are not

compromised32. ZimTel must therefore ensure that its international partners comply with these

standards to avoid legal liabilities 33.

In the case of MISA Zimbabwe v Minister of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting

Services (2021), the High Court underscored the importance of protecting citizens' data

privacy and emphasized that any entity handling Zimbabwean data, especially in partnerships

with international entities, must prioritize compliance with local data protection

requirements34. This precedent suggests that ZimTel must assess its international partners' data

protection policies and potentially implement binding corporate rules or data processing

agreements to ensure that the cross-border transfer of data adheres to Zimbabwe’s regulatory

standards35.

Regarding net neutrality, Zimbabwe’s telecommunications framework, as outlined by

POTRAZ and reinforced through the principles of fair competition, mandates that service

providers must not discriminate against particular content providers or services. This aligns

with global net neutrality principles, which prohibit internet service providers from offering

preferential speeds or access to specific platforms. While Zimbabwe currently lacks a specific

32
Data Protection Act
33
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR
34
MISA Zimbabwe v Minister of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services, Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe,
CCZ 2/16
35
statute on net neutrality, POTRAZ’s general guidelines promote an open internet. In line with

the High Court’s decision in Telecel Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v POTRAZ (2018), which

emphasized non-discriminatory practices, ZimTel should avoid offering preferential speeds or

exclusive access to certain content providers to align with net neutrality principles and prevent

any anti-competitive behavior that could harm consumer rights 36.

In conclusion, ZimTel's rollout of 5G infrastructure in Zimbabwe presents significant

opportunities alongside complex legal and regulatory challenges. To successfully

navigate these issues, ZimTel must adopt a proactive and strategic approach. This

includes ensuring compliance with the spectrum licensing procedures set forth by

POTRAZ, advocating for transparency in spectrum allocation, and addressing the

concerns surrounding infrastructure sharing with local competitors while protecting

its commercial interests. Additionally, ZimTel must prioritize compliance with data

protection laws to safeguard citizens' information and adhere to international

standards governing cross-border data transfers. Lastly, the company should be

vigilant in maintaining net neutrality principles to avoid potential violations that

could alienate consumers and civil society groups. By effectively managing these

challenges, ZimTel can not only align with Zimbabwe's regulatory framework but

also enhance its competitive edge in a rapidly evolving telecommunications

landscape.

36
Telecel Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v POTRAZ & Ors (HC 3975 of 2015) [2015] ZWHHC 446 (12 May 2015)
Question 3

The Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa

(2019) represents a significant advancement in protecting the rights to freedom of expression

and access to information across the African continent 37. Adopted by the African Commission

on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), this Declaration serves as a modernized framework

that addresses traditional media freedoms and the growing influence of digital technologies.

Built on Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, which guarantees the

right to receive, impart, and access information, the Declaration updates the 2002 principles

by responding to new challenges such as online censorship, data privacy, and digital access. It

also aims to harmonize African standards with global human rights norms, emphasizing the

importance of democratic governance, transparency, and accountability 38. The Declaration’s

provisions reflect a commitment to balancing freedom of expression with legitimate state

interests, such as protecting national security and public health. In doing so, it establishes that
37
Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa (2019) by the African
Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR).
38
See footnote 13
any limitations on these rights must meet strict criteria of legality, necessity, and

proportionality. Additionally, it affirms the vital role of media diversity, the protection of

journalists, and the public's access to digital platforms. In the landmark case of Lohé Issa

Konaté v. Burkina Faso (2014), the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights underscored

the importance of such protections, ruling that freedom of expression must not be excessively

restricted, especially where it serves the public interest 3940. By establishing clear guidelines,

the 2019 Declaration aims to foster an environment where freedom of expression and access

to information are safeguarded, supporting the broader goals of human rights and democratic

development across Africa 41.

The Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa

(2019) provides a critical framework for safeguarding the rights of journalists and promoting

transparency across the continent. This Declaration emphasizes that freedom of expression is

essential for democracy and good governance, urging states to create an environment where

journalists can operate without fear of censorship or persecution. In Zimbabwe, significant

case law illustrates both the challenges and advancements in protecting journalistic freedoms,

reflecting the principles outlined in the Declaration.

One pivotal case is Chimakure & Others v. Attorney General, where the Constitutional Court

ruled that criminal provisions penalizing false statements had a chilling effect on freedom of

expression, declaring that the maximum penalty of twenty years was excessively harsh and

39
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) - IFJ Report on Lohé Issa Konaté Case
40
Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso, Application No. 004/2013, African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights,
Judgment delivered on December 5, 2014.
41
African Commission Publishes Revised Declaration- Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria
inconsistent with democratic principles 42 43. The court emphasized that freedom of expression

should not depend on the truthfulness of statements made, reinforcing that even false

statements deserve protection under the law. Similarly, in Chavunduka & Anor v. Minister of

Home Affairs, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law criminalizing “false news,”

asserting that it imposed unjustifiable limitations on freedom of expression 44. The court noted

that such laws could lead to self-censorship among journalists, ultimately undermining public

discourse. In Scanlen & Holderness v. Zimbabwe, the African Commission on Human and

Peoples’ Rights criticized onerous accreditation requirements for journalists, stating that such
45
regulations infringed upon the rights to freedom of expression and access to information .

This aligns with the Declaration's call for legal frameworks that protect journalists from undue

restrictions. Furthermore, in United Parties v. Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court

emphasized that freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democracy and must be protected

against excessive governmental interference 46.

In South Africa, similar principles have been reinforced through landmark cases such as S v.

Manamela, where the Constitutional Court asserted that freedom of expression includes the

right to express unpopular views without fear of retribution 47. The court highlighted that any

limitations on this right must meet strict criteria under the South African Constitution,

mirroring standards set out in the 2019 Declaration. Another relevant case is Khumalo v.
42
Constantine Munyaradzi Chimakure, Vincent Kahiya, and Zimind Publishers (Pvt) Ltd v. The Attorney-General of
Zimbabwe, Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe, CCZ 14/2014
43
[PDF] PUBLIC STATEMENTS PREJUDICIAL TO THE STATE Chilling freedom of ...
https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/doc/journal-article/2017-02-28/public-statements-prejudicial-to-the-state-chilling-
freedom-of-expression-to-the-bone-with-a-chilling-offence-case-note-on-chimakure-others-v-attorney-general-
2013-2-zlr-466-s/eng%402017-02-28/source.pdf
44
Chavunduka & Anor v. Minister of Home Affairs, Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, SC 1/2000
45
Scanlen & Holderness v. Zimbabwe, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No.
313/05
46
United Parties v. Minister of Justice, Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, SC 5/1997,
47
S v. Manamela and Another (Director-General of the Department of Justice Intervening), Constitutional Court of
South Africa, CCT 54/00
Holomisa, where the court ruled in favor of a politician defamed by a newspaper article,

emphasizing that while reputational rights are important, they should not unduly restrict

journalistic freedoms 48.

Additionally, in Makhanya v. University of Zululand, the court recognized the importance of

academic freedom and expression in educational institutions, reinforcing that these freedoms

are vital for fostering critical discourse 49. The case of Mediaclub v. South African

Broadcasting Corporation further illustrated how media entities must be allowed to operate

freely without undue interference from state bodies 50. Lastly, in Tiso Blackstar Group v.

Minister of Home Affairs, the court ruled against government attempts to restrict media

coverage during elections, affirming that a free press is essential for democratic processes 51.

These cases collectively illustrate the ongoing struggle in both Zimbabwe and other African

countries to align national laws with international standards for freedom of expression as

articulated in the 2019 Declaration. They underscore the necessity for continued advocacy and

reform to ensure that journalists can fulfill their critical role in society without facing legal

repercussions or state-sponsored intimidation 52. As such, the Declaration serves as an essential

guide for African nations to enhance protections for journalists and foster a more open and

democratic environment.

Data surveillance and the protection of privacy rights are critical issues addressed by the

Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa

48
Khumalo v. Holomisa (CCT 12/00), Constitutional Court of South Africa
49
Makhanya v. University of Zululand (CCT 12/09), Constitutional Court of South Africa
50
Mediaclub (Pty) Ltd v South African Broadcasting Corporation Ltd (A1654/06), High Court of South Africa
(Gauteng Division)
51
Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (A1864/18), High Court of South Africa
(Gauteng Division)
52
African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. (2013). Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria
(2019), particularly in Principles 40 and 41, which call for safeguarding personal data and

limiting state surveillance to comply with human rights standard 53s. In Zimbabwe, the Data

Protection Act [Chapter 11:12], enacted in December 2021, establishes a legal framework

aimed at enhancing data privacy and protecting individuals from unlawful surveillance

practices54. The Act mandates that personal data be processed fairly and securely, requiring

data controllers to adhere to strict guidelines regarding the collection and handling of personal

information55.

In Zimbabwe, the case of Kudakwashe Munetsi v. Minister of Home Affairs (2020)

highlighted concerns over the legality of surveillance practices under the Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which has been criticized for infringing on privacy

rights56. In South Africa, the Constitutional Court's ruling in Matatiele Municipality v.

President of the Republic of South Africa (2006) reinforced the necessity of a transparent

governance framework, which implicitly critiques extensive surveillance without

accountability57. Moreover, in Tshwane City v. Afriforum (2019), the court acknowledged the

implications of data collection on citizens' rights, suggesting that surveillance without consent

could infringe on the right to privacy as enshrined in the Constitution 58. Additionally, the

South African case of Black Sash Trust v. Minister of Social Development (2017) focused on

the need for transparency in governmental data management, arguing that individuals should

have access to information on how their data is collected and used. Collectively, these cases

53
Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa (2019
54
Data protection Act Zimbabwe
55
African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. (2015). Mbanza v. Angola.
56
Kudakwashe Munetsi v. Minister of Home Affairs, Zimbabwe High Court, 2020.
57
Matatiele Municipality v. President of the Republic of South Africa, 2006 (6) SA 477 (CC
58
Tshwane City v. Afriforum, 2019 (2) SA 215 (CC
illustrate the complex interplay between surveillance, privacy, and freedom of expression

within the judicial landscapes of Zimbabwe and South Africa 59.

In conclusion, the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to

Information in Africa (2019) serves as a crucial instrument for advancing human rights across

the continent, particularly regarding data privacy and surveillance issues. By establishing

clear guidelines for protecting personal data and limiting state surveillance, it aligns with

international human rights standards and reflects a commitment to democratic governance.

The case law from Zimbabwe and South Africa demonstrates both progress and challenges in

implementing these principles, highlighting the need for continued advocacy and reform to

ensure that individuals' rights are upheld in an increasingly digital world. As African nations

work towards these goals, they can draw upon these legal precedents to foster an environment

where freedom of expression is protected alongside robust data privacy measures.

59
Black Sash Trust v. Minister of Social Development, 2017 (4) SA 246 (CC).