CASE OF BOGDAN SHEVCHUK v. UKRAINE
Okay, here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Bogdan Shevchuk v. Ukraine.
**Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 34 and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the case of Bogdan Shevchuk. The Court concluded that Ukraine had hindered Shevchuk’s right to individual application to the Court. This was due to the involvement of a judge in both the initial criminal proceedings against Shevchuk, which formed the basis of his application to the ECtHR, and in new criminal proceedings against him. The Court also found Shevchuk’s detention unlawful because it was extended by a court that lacked jurisdiction, constituting a “gross and obvious irregularity.”
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s focus on the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention, the availability of a procedure to challenge it, and alleged pressure to withdraw his application to the Court. It then details the facts, dividing them into the first and second sets of criminal proceedings against Shevchuk, and the circumstances surrounding Shevchuk’s request to withdraw his application to the ECtHR. The judgment outlines the relevant Ukrainian legal framework, specifically articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) concerning the transfer of criminal proceedings between courts, circumstances preventing a judge’s participation in proceedings, and a judge’s duties regarding the protection of human rights. The Court then outlines the scope of the case, and considers the applicant’s strike-out request and the alleged violation of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court then assesses the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention regarding just satisfaction, awarding Shevchuk 10,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
**Key Provisions for Use:**
* **Article 34 Violation:** The Court emphasizes that any form of pressure, including indirect acts, designed to discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention complaint constitutes a violation. The Court highlights the importance of applicants being able to communicate freely with the Court without fear of reprisal.
* **Article 5 § 1 Violation:** The Court reiterates that detention orders issued by a court exceeding its jurisdiction constitute a “gross and obvious irregularity” and a violation of Article 5 § 1.
* **Withdrawal Requests:** The Court states that withdrawal requests from applicants must be treated with caution, especially when the applicant might be in a vulnerable position. The Court will consider if the request demonstrates a genuine intention to withdraw the case.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, particularly regarding the conduct of judges and the protection of individuals who bring complaints before the European Court of Human Rights. It underscores the importance of judicial impartiality and the right to a fair trial, as well as the obligation of states to ensure that applicants can exercise their right to individual application without fear of pressure or intimidation.
CASE OF IVAN KARPENKO v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Ivan Karpenko v. Ukraine (No. 2):
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned a prisoner’s complaints about the monitoring of his correspondence by prison authorities and the domestic courts’ failure to ensure his participation in court hearings regarding this issue. The ECtHR concluded that the domestic courts did not adequately assess the need for the applicant’s presence at the hearings, especially considering he was unrepresented and the case involved a factual dispute about his personal experience. Additionally, the Court found that the prison administration had breached the legal ban on monitoring the prisoner’s correspondence with domestic courts.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the case, focusing on the applicant’s complaints regarding the monitoring of his correspondence and the lack of opportunity to participate in court hearings.
* **Facts:** Details the factual background, including the applicant’s imprisonment, the alleged monitoring of his correspondence with the Higher Administrative Court (HAC), and the domestic courts’ decisions to reject his requests to participate in hearings via videolink.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Describes the relevant Ukrainian legislation, including the Code of Administrative Justice, the Code on the Enforcement of Sentences, and an Instruction on the Review of Prisoners’ Correspondence. It also mentions a decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding the equality of parties in court proceedings.
* **The Law:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 of the Convention:** Examines the applicant’s complaint that domestic courts failed to grant him the right to participate in hearings via videolink and to adequately reason their decisions. It includes the parties’ submissions and the Court’s assessment, finding a violation of Article 6 § 1.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 8 of the Convention:** Addresses the applicant’s complaint about the unlawful monitoring of his correspondence by prison authorities. It includes the parties’ submissions and the Court’s assessment, finding a violation of Article 8.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Deals with the issue of just satisfaction, including damages and costs and expenses. The Court found that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
* **Operative part:** Contains the decision of the Court.
**3. Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Fair Hearing (Article 6 § 1):** The Court emphasized that domestic courts must conduct a comprehensive analysis of the nature of the dispute to determine whether an incarcerated litigant’s presence is required to ensure fairness. A supposed lacuna in the domestic law cannot be a justification for failing to give full force to the Convention standards.
* **Right to Respect for Correspondence (Article 8):** The Court reiterated that it is the responsibility of the prison administration to ensure that the relevant domestic regulations are respected by its officials.
* **Equality of Arms:** The Court highlighted that the prison administration had the advantage of being present at the hearing before the first-instance court and of making oral submissions on the substance of the case, whereas the applicant, who was in prison, had no opportunity to respond to those oral submissions, either in person or through a representative.
**** This decision highlights the importance of ensuring fair trial rights for prisoners, including the right to participate effectively in legal proceedings concerning them. It also underscores the obligation of prison authorities to respect prisoners’ right to correspondence, particularly with courts. This has implications for Ukraine in ensuring its legal framework and practices align with the Convention standards.
CASE OF SYTNYK v. UKRAINE
Okay, I will provide you with a detailed description of the European Court of Human Rights decision in the case of Sytnyk v. Ukraine.
Here is the analysis:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Articles 6, 8, and 18 of the Convention in the case of Artem Sytnyk, the former Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). The case concerned unfair administrative-offence proceedings against Sytnyk, where he was found guilty of accepting gifts (holidays), and the subsequent inclusion of his name in the publicly accessible “Corrupt Officials Register” for an indefinite period. The ECtHR concluded that the domestic courts failed to address defense arguments, disregarded defense witness evidence, and arbitrarily distributed the burden of proof, thus violating his right to a fair trial (Article 6). The Court also found that the publication of Sytnyk’s information on the register, seriously prejudicing his reputation, was a disproportionate interference with his right to private life (Article 8). Furthermore, the Court determined that the prosecution against Sytnyk was driven by ulterior motives, violating Article 18 in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions of the Decision:**
The decision begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the alleged unfairness of administrative proceedings against the applicant and his inclusion in a register of corrupt officials. It then details the facts, including Sytnyk’s role as Director of NABU, investigations involving the sons of high-ranking officials, reported conflicts between NABU and the Prosecutor General’s Office, and attempts to simplify the procedure for dismissing the NABU director. The decision describes the criminal investigation against Sytnyk, the administrative-offence proceedings, and the domestic courts’ decisions. It also covers reactions to Sytnyk’s inclusion in the Corrupt Officials Register and subsequent developments in his career. The relevant legal framework, including the Code of Administrative Offences, the Corruption Prevention Act, and other related laws, is presented.
The Court then assesses the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, examining the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s claim that the administrative-offence proceedings were unfair and the trial court was not impartial. It discusses general case-law principles regarding fair trials and impartiality, applying them to the specifics of Sytnyk’s case. Similarly, the Court analyzes the alleged violation of Article 8, focusing on whether the inclusion of Sytnyk’s name in the Corrupt Officials Register breached his right to respect for private life. It considers arguments regarding the interference’s legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality. Finally, the Court addresses the alleged violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8, assessing whether the proceedings against Sytnyk were aimed at achieving an ulterior purpose. It examines the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, applying established principles for interpreting and applying Article 18. The decision concludes with the application of Article 41, determining that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.
**3. Main Provisions and Importance for Use:**
* **Fair Trial (Article 6):** The decision emphasizes the importance of addressing defense arguments, ensuring witness reliability, and avoiding arbitrary distribution of the burden of proof. It highlights that courts must provide specific and explicit replies to arguments decisive for the outcome of proceedings.
* **Right to Private Life (Article 8):** The decision clarifies that an attack on a person’s reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness to engage Article 8, particularly concerning professional reputation. It underscores the need for relevant and sufficient reasons for interfering with this right and the importance of proportionality.
* **Restriction for Unauthorized Purposes (Article 18):** The decision reinforces that restrictions on Convention rights must not be applied for purposes other than those prescribed. It clarifies the approach to determining whether an ulterior purpose was predominant, considering all circumstances and the nature of the alleged ulterior motive.
* **Impartial Tribunal (Article 6):** The decision stresses the importance of an impartial tribunal.
I hope this analysis is helpful.
CASE OF ANDERSEN v. POLAND
Here’s a breakdown of the Andersen v. Poland decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Poland in violation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to its failure to provide a legal framework that recognizes and protects same-sex unions. The case was brought by a Polish national who married his same-sex partner in the United Kingdom but was denied registration of the marriage in Poland. The Court emphasized that while it doesn’t require member states to allow same-sex marriage, they must offer some form of legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples. The lack of any such framework in Poland, according to the Court, leaves same-sex couples in a legal vacuum, violating their right to respect for private and family life. The Court dismissed the Government’s objections regarding the applicant’s victim status and the significance of the disadvantage suffered.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case concerns the lack of legal recognition in Poland for same-sex marriages contracted abroad and the absence of any alternative form of legal protection for same-sex relationships.
* **Admissibility:** The Court declared the application admissible, rejecting the Polish Government’s arguments regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and the applicant’s victim status. It affirmed that the lack of legal recognition affects the applicant’s private and family life, making Article 8 applicable.
* **Merits:** The Court referenced its previous judgments, reiterating that member states have a positive obligation to provide a legal framework for the recognition and protection of same-sex relationships. It found that Poland had failed to strike a fair balance between the prevailing interests and the applicant’s interests, thereby overstepping its margin of appreciation.
* **Article 14 in Conjunction with Article 8:** Given the finding of a violation under Article 8, the Court deemed it unnecessary to separately examine a potential violation of Article 14 (discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court held that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Positive Obligation:** The decision reinforces the principle that member states have a positive obligation under Article 8 to provide a legal framework that offers recognition and protection to same-sex couples.
* **Margin of Appreciation:** While the Court acknowledges that states have a margin of appreciation in determining the exact nature of the legal regime, the protection afforded must be adequate.
* **Legal Vacuum:** The ruling highlights that a complete absence of legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples constitutes a violation of Article 8, particularly when it leaves individuals in a “legal vacuum.”
* **Victim Status:** The Court’s dismissal of the Government’s objections regarding victim status clarifies that individuals can claim to be victims even if they reside outside of Poland, as long as the lack of legal recognition in Poland directly affects their rights and situation.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, as it underscores the importance of providing legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples, even if same-sex marriage is not permitted. It may influence future legal challenges and policy discussions related to LGBTQ+ rights in Ukraine.
CASE OF GOROPASHYN v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Goropashyn v. Ukraine:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns a Ukrainian citizen, Mr. Goropashyn, who had his land title invalidated nearly 20 years after it was initially granted to him as a liquidator of the Chernobyl disaster. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (protection of property). The core issue was that the invalidation stemmed from irregularities in land distribution between the city and a neighboring village, a process the applicant had no control over. The Court emphasized that when correcting errors made by state authorities interferes with the property rights of a bona fide holder, the state has an obligation to provide compensation or other appropriate reparation.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the facts, including the allocation of land to the applicant, the subsequent allocation to another individual (O.), and the legal proceedings initiated by the applicant.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** This is the core of the decision.
* **Scope of the Case:** The Court determined that the complaints should be examined solely under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** This section addresses the admissibility of the application and the arguments presented by both the applicant and the government. The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It highlighted that the case involved significant elements of public law, implicating the State’s regulatory capacity. The Court stressed that the authorities’ mistakes should not be remedied at the expense of the individual.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** This section deals with just satisfaction (compensation). The Court awarded the applicant EUR 7,880 for pecuniary damage (the value of the land) and EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **State Responsibility for Errors:** The decision reinforces the principle that states are responsible for correcting errors made by their authorities, especially when those errors affect individuals’ property rights.
* **Obligation to Compensate:** When such errors lead to the deprivation of property, the state has an obligation to provide adequate compensation or other appropriate reparation to the affected individual.
* **Bona Fide Holder Protection:** The decision emphasizes the protection of bona fide holders of property, meaning those who acquired their property in good faith and without knowledge of any irregularities.
* **Guaranteed Preferential Right:** The decision emphasizes that since the invalidation of the applicant’s title there have been no attempts to offer him any other form of reparation, for example, by allocating him a comparable plot of land. This is especially striking considering the fact that according to the domestic legislation the applicant has a guaranteed preferential right to obtain a plot of land.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukraine, particularly in cases involving land disputes and the correction of historical errors in land allocation. It underscores the need for Ukraine to have clear and effective mechanisms for compensating individuals who have been deprived of their property due to state errors.
CASE OF LUPASHKU v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Lupashku v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
This case concerns a Ukrainian woman, Ms. Lupashku, who was deprived of her privatized flat following a prosecutor’s protest and a decision by the local Executive Committee. The core issue is whether Ukraine violated her right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that the domestic courts in Ukraine failed to conduct a thorough examination of her case, particularly regarding the validity of the competing property claim and the process by which her property rights were annulled. As a result, the Court ruled that Ukraine violated Ms. Lupashku’s property rights.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the factual background, detailing how Ms. Lupashku privatized the flat, the subsequent complaint by another individual (P.) leading to the annulment of her ownership, and the ensuing legal proceedings in Ukraine.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* *Admissibility:* The Court addressed the Ukrainian government’s argument that Ms. Lupashku’s application should be inadmissible because she obtained the flat through illegal means. The Court affirmed that even a revocable property right can be considered a “possession” protected by the Convention. It also dismissed the government’s argument that Ms. Lupashku failed to exhaust domestic remedies, referencing similar arguments made in previous cases.
* *Merits:* The Court examined whether the Ukrainian courts’ handling of the case was in accordance with domestic law and free from arbitrariness. It highlighted several concerns, including the domestic courts’ failure to adequately address the validity of the competing claim to the flat, the role of the prosecutor in the proceedings, and the lack of analysis regarding Ms. Lupashku’s prior privatization of another flat.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** This section deals with the applicant’s claim for damages. While the Court rejected the claim for pecuniary damage due to lack of supporting documents, it awarded Ms. Lupashku 2,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Protection of Property Rights:** The decision reinforces the protection of property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, even in cases where the initial acquisition of property is later contested.
* **Fairness and Due Process:** The Court emphasizes the importance of domestic courts conducting thorough and comprehensive examinations of cases involving property disputes, ensuring that decisions are well-reasoned and based on a careful analysis of the relevant facts and legal arguments.
* **Role of the Prosecutor:** The decision highlights the need for caution when a prosecutor intervenes in what are essentially private disputes, particularly when such intervention leads to the annulment of property rights.
* **Exhaustion of domestic remedies:** The decision confirms the position of the Court regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies in Ukraine in cases regarding the possibility of obtaining compensation.
**** This decision may have implications for similar property disputes in Ukraine, particularly those involving privatization and challenges to ownership rights. It underscores the need for Ukrainian courts to ensure fairness, transparency, and due process in such cases.
CASE OF NEAMŢU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Neamţu v. the Republic of Moldova:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned a Moldovan applicant who had initially won a court case for compensation related to confiscated property, but this victory was overturned after the Supreme Court of Justice accepted appeals that were lodged outside the legally prescribed time limit. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Moldova violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) due to the breach of the principle of legal certainty, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) because the late appeals led to a reduction in the compensation awarded to the applicant. The Court ordered Moldova to pay the applicant compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. The Court emphasized that examining appeals outside the legal time limits undermines legal certainty. The applicant died during the proceedings, and his heir continued the application.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the factual background, including the applicant’s initial claim for compensation, the decisions of the Moldovan courts, and the appeals lodged by the local council and the Ministry of Finance.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention:** This section addresses the applicant’s complaint regarding the violation of his right to a fair trial due to the acceptance of late appeals. It includes considerations regarding the applicant’s death and his heir’s wish to continue the application. The Court refers to its established case-law on legal certainty, emphasizing that examining appeals outside the legal time-limits may undermine this principle.
* **Other Alleged Violations Under Well-Established Case-Law:** This part deals with the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning the protection of property. The Court refers to its established case-law and concludes that there has been a violation of this article.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** This section concerns the just satisfaction claimed by the applicant, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. The Court determines the amounts to be awarded to the applicant.
* **Operative Provisions:** The decision formally declares the application admissible, holds that there have been violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, specifies the amounts to be paid by the respondent State, and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Legal Certainty:** The decision reinforces the importance of legal certainty and highlights that domestic courts must adhere to legal time-limits for appeals. Examining appeals lodged outside these time-limits can constitute a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* **Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** The decision confirms that the examination of late appeals, resulting in the overturning of a final judgment in the applicant’s favour, can also constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Compensation:** The Court awarded the applicant compensation for pecuniary damage (the difference between the initial award and the reduced amount), lost interest, and non-pecuniary damage. This demonstrates the Court’s approach to providing just satisfaction in cases where violations have occurred.
* **Heir Status:** The Court explicitly acknowledged the heir’s right to continue the application, emphasizing the economic nature of the interests at stake as a valid reason for pursuing the case.
**** This decision may be relevant for Ukraine, particularly in the context of ensuring the rule of law and the protection of property rights. The principles of legal certainty and adherence to procedural time-limits are crucial for a fair and effective judicial system. This case could be used as a reference in similar cases involving violations of these principles.
CASE OF STĂVILĂ v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Stăvilă v. the Republic of Moldova:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case revolves around a Moldovan businessman, Vitalie Stăvilă, who lost control of his company, Xenon S.R.L., after a court decision excluded him following a lawsuit by a minority shareholder. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Moldova violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, which protects the right to property. The Court determined that while the state has a right to intervene to protect minority shareholders, the Moldovan courts did not properly assess whether excluding Stăvilă was a proportionate response, especially since he owned 70% of the company. The ECtHR emphasized that the domestic courts should have considered less intrusive measures before essentially expropriating Stăvilă’s company.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The decision begins by outlining the core issue: the proportionality of state intervention in a business dispute between shareholders.
* **Background:** It details the facts of the case, including Stăvilă’s role as CEO and majority owner of Xenon, the disagreements with the minority shareholder (V.V.), and the court actions that led to Stăvilă’s exclusion from the company.
* **Domestic Law:** The decision references relevant articles of the Moldovan Civil Code and the Law on Limited Liability Companies, which allow for the exclusion of an associate who defrauds the company.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** The Court declares the complaint admissible and examines whether there was a violation of Stăvilă’s right to property. It acknowledges the state’s right to protect minority owners but stresses the need for proportionality. The Court finds that the Moldovan courts failed to adequately consider less severe measures before excluding Stăvilă.
* **Article 6 § 1:** The applicant also complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the domestic courts had insufficiently reasoned their decisions, had failed to react to his request for an expert report and had been subjected to pressure by the authorities. He also claimed that a last‑minute change in the composition of the Court of Appeal without any reasons meant that that court had not been “established by law”.
* **Article 41:** The Court addresses Stăvilă’s claim for damages. It rejects his claim for pecuniary damage, noting that he did not pursue available domestic remedies to claim his share in the company’s equity. However, it awards him EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage (anxiety and inconvenience).
* **Operative Provisions:** The decision concludes with the Court’s ruling, declaring a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, deciding that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, ordering Moldova to pay Stăvilă EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage, and dismissing the remainder of his claim.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Proportionality in Business Disputes:** The decision underscores that state intervention in private business disputes must be proportionate. Courts must consider less intrusive measures before taking actions that significantly impact property rights, such as excluding a majority owner from their company.
* **Protection of Minority Shareholders:** While the state has a positive obligation to protect minority shareholders from abuse by majority owners, this protection cannot come at the expense of the majority owner’s rights without a careful assessment of proportionality.
* **Need for Evidence:** The decision highlights the importance of evidence, such as expert evaluations or audits, in determining the extent of damage caused by a majority owner’s actions. Courts should not rely on unsubstantiated claims when making decisions that significantly affect property rights.
* **Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** Claiming such compensation cannot offer sufficient protection from the effects of losing control of one’s company when the proportionality of such an interference has never been examined.
