Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a news show as such. The fact remains, however, that it depicted, in Best’s case, an arrest on criminal charges and facts concerning prior arrests or citations. These are legitimate matters of public concern, even if Best’s encounters with the police involved conduct that was arguably toward the lower end of the spectrum of criminality. With these principles in mind, the Court turns to defendants’ argument regarding the construction of IRPA. Federal courts generally “interpret laws consistent with their meaning, but with an eye towards avoiding exposing any constitutional infirmities.” Dean Foods Co. v. Brancel, 187 F.3d 609, 614 (7th Cir.1999). Illinois adheres to this canon as well. See, e.g., In re Estate of Poole, 207 Ill.2d 393, 409, 278 Ill.Dec. 532, 799 N.E.2d 250, 259 (2003)  (citing People v. Fisher, 184 Ill.2d 441, 448,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that courts must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff by  giving the plaintiff the benefit of all the inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the pleaded facts
B. recognizing the courts duty to construe a statute in a manner that upholds its validity and constitutionality if it can reasonably do so
C. recognizing courts obligation to construe meaning of relatives
D. recognizing courts special duty to construe liberally a pro se plaintiffs pleadings
E. holding that courts are to construe statutes so as to harmonize with other relevant laws if possible
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.