ZONDI AJ [39] The TBC contends that there is a higher duty to protect children in failed systems of care facilities, places of safety, and insular communities, as they face the risk of being harmed in such places. It points out that in many instances survivors are coerced into silence by the perpetrator and the community or the facility may prevent them from speaking due to their dependency for care. The TBC argues that prescription on prosecution of sexual offences does a disservice to society as it promotes secondary violation and victimisation of the most vulnerable groups by not allowing justice to be seen to be done. Sixth respondent’s submissions [40] LHR submits that the 20-year period is in itself arbitrary and irrational, as it has been adopted from Roman-Dutch law principles – codified in the 17th century – and the fact that the period has not changed over centuries is indicative of the arbitrary development of the contents of section 18. It further argues that there is no genuine rationale for this period within modern constitutional criminal law, as the usual justification for prescription in criminal cases is the availability of clear and best evidence which is often not relevant to the prosecution of sexual offences. It reasons that in the absence of physical evidence, the prosecution of sexual offences simply relies on the testimony of the complainant and alleged offender. In turn, where there is physical evidence, there is then no need for the 20-year prescription period in light of technological advances in forensics and evidence gathering. The LHR therefore contends that it would be ―absurd‖ to have a serial sexual offender escape criminal liability, where there is clear evidence (such as DNA evidence) linking the perpetrator to the offence, because a period of 20 years has lapsed. Is section 18 irrational and arbitrary? [41] Before dealing with the irrationality and arbitrariness of section 18, it is necessary to say something about its historical development. 17