Features
Pardons Remissions and Releases
by Rohini Marasinghe- Retired Judge of the Supreme Court
The President appears to have issued a directive to the Ministry of Justice to present a paper to the Cabinet to pardon the prisoners who are eligible to be pardoned, primarily due to the Covid Pandemic. All prisoners under death sentence will have their sentences reduced to twenty years, and all those who have served twenty years in prison to be released.
According to Government statistics as of the end of 2019, there are approximately about 1,300 prisoners in the death row. The death sentences of approximately 420 men and 50 women have been confirmed.
It must be noted that capital punishment remains as a part of the Law of Sri Lanka. It is a part of the penal Law of Sri Lanka that: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death.” (Sec. 294-296 Penal Code)
Additionally, whoever has in possession of ‘2 or more grams of heroin shall suffer the penalty of death or life imprisonment. (the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as amended by Act 13 of 1984)
It is manifest that under the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, the court has no discretion but to impose the death penalty or as an alternative a sentence of life imprisonment. There is no discretion available to a court to determine the appropriate sentence of imprisonment independently. When the sentence is mandatory as in murder and drug trafficking, the judge has no authority to determine the proper sentence less than death or life imprisonment.
The President has the power under the Constitution, to commute any sentence imposed by the court to a lesser one. The question as to whether a case is appropriate for the exercise of the power of Pardon conferred upon the President by Article 34 of the Constitution depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.
The nature and effect of a pardon reach both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender. When the Pardon is deemed to be a full pardon, it releases the punishment and erases the guilt 0f the convicted person. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. (Justice Fields in ex parte Garland 71 US (4 Wall 1867) It is because the Pardon is viewed as an acknowledgment of the fallibility of a human judgment, which could even be a product of a well trained legal mind. Therefore, errors are remedied by entrusting a power of Pardon subscribed in the above-mentioned Article 34 of the Constitution. The Head of State has the supreme authority to exercise the executive power of granting Pardon after taking into consideration several reasons and appropriate circumstances which may not be apposite for reference before the courts
Where the government considers it reasonable that the power of Pardon should be exercised in respect of a particular category of prisoners, in that case, the government has the ability do so and also for excluding a specific type of prisoners which in its thinking does not seem suitable to be pardoned. A decision to pardon a given category of prisoners and not others of a different category is a matter of governmental policy. In the absence of any ill motives in making that choice, the aforementioned Article 34 justifies making it.
Where the President views it as reasonable to pardon those in the death row due to spread of the Covid virus within the prison premises, in that case, he is using his prerogative powers under the Constitution subscribed and protected under Article 34 of the Constitution. Other than the powers conferred on the President, we do not have any legislation in place to change an indeterminate period of punishment to a limited period of a sentence for incarceration to have a prisoner released after the appeals have exhausted.
Undoubtedly the President has the power in an appropriate case to commute any sentence imposed by a court into a lesser sentence. But the question as to whether the case is suitable for the exercise of that power depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But the President cannot act independently in exercising the pardon power. When a sentence of death has been imposed, the President is subjected to the procedure stipulated in Article 34( See Proviso) The President cannot act according to his free will. And that power of Pardon is subject to judicial review.
The issue that concerns this article is, whether it is justifiable for the President to commute the death sentences to 20 years by a declaration and release all those who have served a sentence of twenty years; and the effect of such a ruling in the future concerning these offences.
The commutation of a sentence means the process of substituting the punishment imposed by a competent court with a lesser or lighter sentence.
Capital punishment or the death penalty can be defined as a punishment which is passed against a criminal who had committed a heinous and unforgivable crime under the Penal Law. Under this sentence in Sri Lanka, the life of the prisoner is put to an end by hanging. (Sec.286 Criminal Procedure Code).
The underworld kingpins in drug trafficking are a great menace in Sri Lanka. At one time, the previous government took steps to implement the death sentence and execute all those convicted in drug trafficking and those serving their term in the death row. Some of those convicts are presently serving life imprisonment. Ironically this government is thinking of releasing all of them.
Many countries which have abolished capital punishment view it as providing the criminal with an easy escape from all his wrongdoings through the sentence of death. Therefore, life imprisonment without parole or any remission is considered to be an equivalent punishment to capital punishment, which allows the State to punish the wrongdoer adequately without taking the life of such criminal who had committed a Capital Offence.
In India, after the insertion of section 433 A to the Criminal Procedure Code, imprisonment for life amounts to incarceration up to 14 years. The case of Swamy Shradananda, which is considered to be carrying a landmark judgment, that position was altered. As a sequel to that judgment, the courts are now empowered to substitute the death sentence with life imprisonment for a term of over 14 years and direct that the convict must not be released from prison for the rest of his life or until the actual period specified in the order is served. Whilst not endorsing the death sentence that was imposed on Swamy Shrdananda, the court found that since life imprisonment subject to remission customarily worked out to 14 years, it would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate, when considering the nature of the offence committed. ((Swamy Shrdananda v State of Karnataka- Supreme Court of India July 22, 2008)
In dealing with a life sentence as an alternative to a death sentence, the courts in India had systematically held that the persons convicted for murder, where the death penalty is not imposed, the convict should be incarcerated for a period for 30 years. He is not entitled to be released before the expiration of 30 years. The imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as imprisonment for the whole life of the remaining period of the convicted person’s ‘natural life’ was the view of the Indian Supreme Court dealing with life imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty.
The punishment for murder under India’s Penal Code is life imprisonment or death.
In England, persons who are found guilty of murder are given a mandatory life sentence. If the circumstances are severe enough, a ‘whole life order’ will be imposed meaning that the offender will never be released. The validity of the ‘whole life sentence’ was appealed. Now such a penalty will be reviewed after the convict has served a minimum of 25 years in prison. Amidst the severe spread of Covid, the government of Boris Johnson is proposing new laws to ensure that the most dangerous criminal spend longer in custody. The government has said that it would toughen sentences for violent offenders, including terrorists. Automatic early release of a convict at the halfway point is to be abandoned.
Usually, the minimum term the prisoner should serve is determined by the judge at the time of sentencing. Life sentences may be imposed with or without parole. The life sentence is intended for dangerous offenders who have committed the offences with the utmost brutality. In such circumstances the judge will set the minimum term he must serve before being eligible for release. Once the minimum term expires, the prisoner can apply for parole and will be released if he is deemed not to pose a threat to society. Once released he remains on license for the rest of his life. If the prisoner violates any of the conditions on the permit, he will be recalled. He will also be liable to be recalled if he becomes a threat to the public. At the moment, there are about 8,500 inmates serving life sentences. And around 60 with whole life sentences.
The parole board will decide whether or not the offender is safe to return into society. The decision of the parole board is based on evidence from the victim, health professional, prison staff and the offender.
These safeguards are essential to be considered in the event the prisoners who are now in our jails are to be released early or at any time.
The spread of the virus in the prisons may not be a good reason to release the dangerous offenders to society without a proper assessment of their behaviour.
Singapore’s laws maintained the mandatory death penalty for several offences. In 2012 the capital punishment laws were revised by the Singapore government. The mandatory death penalty for those convicted for drug trafficking or murder was lifted under specific conditions. Before the judgement of Abdul Nasir Bin Ahmed Hamsah,[1997] SGCA 38) a life sentence meant 20 years imprisonment, and with one-third remission for good behaviour, the offender would have to serve only 13 years and four months in jail. In the case of Abdul Nasir, the court clarified the meaning of ‘life sentence’. It held that in future cases, it should be interpreted to mean the whole duration of the person’s natural life and not merely 20 years. The first issue the court faced was whether the sentence of life imprisonment should equate to 20 years or the remainder of the convicted person’s natural life and concluded that unless the legislature in the future provides otherwise, this sentence should mean the rest of the person’s natural life.
The death penalty is the severest punishment prescribed in the Statute for grave offences. But this would not be the case if the death sentence was equated for 20 years. Death sentences would then become excluded as a part of the penal law of the land.
If the capital punishment is replaced by a period of imprisonment for 20 years, then persons who commit the most gruesome murder and all those large scale drug kingpins will be liable to spend even less than 14 years in prison once their period of good behaviour is deducted from the original sentence of twenty years of incarceration.
Where the method used for the commission of the original offence of murder is exceptionally gruesome or cruel, or the commission of the drug offence is spread wide and pervasive the sentence should be commensurately applicable, a sentence of less than 14 years would be grossly inadequate.
Where the legislature believes that sentence for murder and drug trafficking should be 20 years as an equivalent to capital punishment, then they should remove the death sentence as a mandatory sentence. Then the judge who heard the case would be given the discretion to impose the appropriate sentence to fit the crime and decide the suitable length of the convict’s incarceration.
A Presidential Declaration cannot equate the death penalty to an imprisonment of 20 years. Such a declaration would amount to abolishing the death penalty, which is authorized as a legitimate punishment under the 1978 Constitution. There is no provision to equate a death sentence to 20 years. It violates the Constitution and violates the “truth in sentencing.”The death sentence would mean that convicts life is put to an end.
It will not be justifiable without any legal provision being put in place, for a court to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment, and equate it to imprisonment for twenty years, only, through a Presidential declaration.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
