NGCOBO J complainants in sexual offence cases are threatened by the non-availability of intermediaries and related child protection facilities. [204] During argument, counsel for the Minister was asked why this Court should not make a supervisory order to address these concerns. He submitted that Parliament has created a mechanism for addressing this problem and further submitted that a structural interdict would do the same. Counsel had in mind the provisions of Part 3 of the Sexual Offences Amendment Act. This Part makes provision for the adoption of the NPF, among other things, “to guide the implementation, enforcement and administration of this Act”.151 This policy had to be adopted within a year after the coming into operation of this statute, namely by 16 December 2008. Having regard to the provisions of Part 3, it is not clear whether the policy framework will address the concerns raised by these cases. It will probably not as it is concerned with policy matters. In addition, we were not told whether the policy has been formulated, and if not, at what stage is the drafting process. In any event, whatever the mandate of the Committee might be, the supervisory order is concerned with the implementation of existing legislative provisions for the protection of children. [205] The concerns raised in these cases require urgent attention. Addressing them cannot be deferred. Each child complainant who is denied the assistance of an intermediary while the policy framework is being developed has his or her 151 Section 62(1)(b) of the Sexual Offences Amendment Act. 102