Article 29 (1) of the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act states that a law enforcement officer may intercept any communication and orally request a service provider to route duplicate signals of indirect communications where the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person who is a part of any communication may cause the infliction of bodily harm to another person or damage to a property and it is not reasonable or practical to delay the interception as it would result in the actual harm or damage. Article 29 (4) of the Act mandates a law enforcement officer who intercepts any communication to immediately after the interception of the communication, submit to a Judge a copy of the written confirmation, an affidavit setting out the results and information obtained from that interception, and a recording of the communication that has been obtained by means of that interception, a full or partial transcript of the recording of the communication and any notes made by the law enforcement officer. Article 29 (7) further states that where a Judge, on receipt of a written confirmation and affidavit under this section, determines that the interception was effected or used for purposes contrary to the provisions of this Act or any other law, the Judge may make an order as the Judge considers appropriate in relation to the service provider, or the person whose communication has been intercepted or law enforcement officer.