apply to the Constitutional Court to give a ruling. Similarly, the President or the Premier of a Province may refer a bill to the Court for a decision on its constitutionality before assenting to that Bill. Proceedings in court The Court does not hear evidence or question witnesses. It does not decide directly whether accused persons are guilty or whether damages should be awarded to an injured person. These are matters for the ordinary courts. Its function is to determine the meaning of the Constitution in relation to matters in dispute. One consequence of this is that the Court works largely with written arguments presented to it by the parties. The hearings of the Court are intended to address particularly difficult issues raised by the written arguments of the parties. The hearings of the Court are open to the public and the press. No cameras or recorders are ordinarily permitted. The public is invited to attend all sessions. Ordinary rules of decent dress and decorum apply. Notable judgments S v Makwanyane and Another (6 June 1995): abolished the death penalty, declaring capital punishment in South Africa to be inconsistent with the Interim Constitution. Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom (4 October 2000): the government is obliged to provide housing relief to those living in intolerable situations or in crisis situations. Mohamed v President of the Republic of South Africa (28 May 2001): suspects cannot be extradited under circumstances where they may face the death penalty. Alexkor v Richtersveld Community (14 October 2003): rights to land under customary law must be recognised, and communities dispossessed of land owned under customary law are entitled to restitution. Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another (1 December 2005): the government must recognise and allow same-sex marriage. Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others; Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others'' (31 March 2016): recommendations of the Public Protector are binding. Hlophe controversy On 30 May 2008, the judges of the Constitutional Court issued a statement reporting that they had referred Cape Judge President Judge John Hlophe to the Judicial Service Commission for what they described in their statement as approaching some of them "in an improper attempt to influence this Court's pending judgement in one or more cases". The statement stated further that the complaint related to four matters in which