SACHS J In this case, the first applicant has been effectively deprived of his right to vote. [35] Similarly, the second applicant might be acquitted of the charges against her or else be released on bail before 2 June 1999. She could then go to the polling station but would not be able to vote because her name would not be on the voters’ roll. Like the first applicant she too will have been disenfranchised, not by legislation but by logistics. Conclusion [36] General registration for voters closed on 15 March 1999.34 I therefore conclude that prisoners, including the two applicants, are effectively being denied their constitutionally protected right to register and vote, and that the applicants are entitled to the remedy they sought. In the light of this conclusion it is not necessary to deal with the interesting argument advanced by the amicus. [37] I now turn to the question of the appropriate remedy.35 It follows from the foregoing that all prisoners, other than those expressly excluded by the 1998 Electoral Act, were entitled to register on the national common voters' roll. That they were not 34 This was announced by the Commission in terms of section 100 read with section 14 of the 1998 Electoral Act in R 302 published in Government Gazette 19831 dated 12 March 1999. 35 Section 38 of the 1996 Constitution provides: “Anyone listed in this section has the right to approach a competent court, alleging that a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed or threatened, and the court may grant appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights. . .” 34