SKWEYIYA ADCJ made. That impedes the offender‘s right to a fair hearing in terms of section 3434 of the Constitution. [34] The state respondents argue that while the purpose of section 50(2)(a) is constitutional, the peremptory language of the provision is not. The state respondents argue that ―individualised justice is required to avert injustice.‖35 They contend that once it is accepted that the inclusion of an offender‘s particulars in the Register is prejudicial, the offender should have a reasonable opportunity to make representations. This would respect the right to a fair trial in terms of section 35 of the Constitution. [35] The amici argue that the provision infringes the best interests of the child, in terms of section 28(2) of the Constitution, which provides: ―A child‘s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.‖ The amici are correct that the starting point for matters concerning the child is section 28(2). This Court has held that the ―best-interests‖ or ―paramountcy‖ principle creates a right that is independent and extends beyond the recognition of 34 As quoted above at n 10. Conceivably, section 35, guaranteeing the right to a fair trial, could also be relevant. 35 On individualised justice, see the statement of Ngcobo J in DPP above n 31 at para 120. 19