NGCOBO J [197] Finally, the facts suggest that only a very small percentage of prosecutors had sufficient training in dealing with child witnesses, with only 450 prosecutors by 2007 having received specialist training in these areas, a very low proportion of all working prosecutors. The DPP itself conceded that high staff turnover meant that it was difficult to retain adequately trained staff to deal with these issues. Prosecutors also indicated that they felt magistrates required additional training to deal with cases involving child complainants. [198] This is a disturbing state of affairs. It is utterly inconsistent with the statutory promise of an intermediary in section 170A(1). Indeed, it is inconsistent with the constitutional promise that the child’s best interests shall be of paramount importance in all matters concerning the child. It reduces court orders giving effect to these promises to meaningless words. Indeed, if a court orders the appointment of an intermediary and the order cannot be carried out, the order will be ineffective. But yet, the Constitution requires the organs of state to assist and protect courts to ensure the effectiveness of courts.145 And further declares that an order of court “binds all persons to whom and organs of state to which it applies.”146 Orders to appoint an intermediary plainly apply to the state. Should the Court investigate these matters? [199] What then should this Court, whose duty it is to uphold the Constitution, do in the light of this disturbing information? In Matatiele 1, we had occasion to consider 145 Section 165(4) of the Constitution. 146 Section 165(5) of the Constitution. 99