FIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
\n(Application no. 36837\/11)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n14 February 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Mammadov v. Azerbaijan,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary, President, Having deliberated in private on 22 January 2019,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 36837\/11) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Ali Mammad oglu Mammadov (\u018fli M\u0259mm\u0259d o\u011flu M\u0259mm\u0259dov \u2013 \u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 24 May 2011.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr A. Layijov and Mr B. Sadigov, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mr\u00a0\u00c7.\u00a0Asgarov.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 October 2015 notice of the application was given to the Government.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Baku.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s son, Urkhan Mammadov (U.M.), was born in 1989. On 7\u00a0July 2010 he was drafted into the army for his compulsory military service.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Medical examinations and the death of the applicant\u2019s son<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0At the request of the military authorities, before joining the army, on 21 May 2010 U.M. underwent a medical examination in Narimanov District Polyclinic no. 8, where it was established that he was suffering from rheumatism. In May and June 2010 U.M. underwent further medical examinations at the Central Oil Workers\u2019 Hospital and the Research Institute of Cardiology. During these examinations, no heart disease or any other disease was revealed which might prevent him from performing his military service.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 July 2010 U.M. underwent a medical examination at the Narimanov District Military Commissariat (the army recruitment office) which declared him partially fit for military service (m\u0259hdudiyy\u0259tl\u0259 h\u0259rbi xidm\u0259t\u0259 yararl\u0131) in accordance with Articles 49 (\u00e7) (nasal cavity illness) and 66 (\u00e7) (spine illness) of the \u201cTable of Diseases\u201d (\u201cX\u0259st\u0259likl\u0259r c\u0259dv\u0259li\u201d).<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 July 2010 U.M. joined a military unit in Barda region and on an unspecified date he was transferred to a military unit located in Shaki region.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 July 2010 U.M. called his family by telephone, asking them to provide him with some belongings. During the conversation he did not complain about his state of health.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0At around 10 a.m. on 14 July 2010 the applicant was invited to the Narimanov District Military Commissariat, where he was informed of the death of his son.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0It appears from the case file that at around 5 a.m. on 14 July 2010 at reveille in the dormitory of the military barracks U.M. did not wake up. At that moment the soldiers realised that U.M. was wheezing. They took U.M. out of the military barracks and tried to give him artificial respiration. However, as U.M. did not respond, he was immediately taken to the Shaki Central Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Criminal investigation<\/strong><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 July 2010 a record of an inspection of the scene of the incident (hadis\u0259 yerin\u0259 bax\u0131\u015f protokolu) was drawn up and signed by an investigator at the Zagatala Military Prosecutor\u2019s Office. It was further signed by two attesting witnesses (hal \u015fahidi), S.R. and A.F., who were serving in the same military unit, as well as, by a participant (i\u015ftirak\u00e7\u0131), M.M., who was also serving in the same military unit. The record states that the inspection began at 9 a.m. and ended at noon. According to the record, no object relevant to the investigation was identified. The investigator also noted that U.M.\u2019s bed had been made by other soldiers after U.M.\u2019s transfer to the hospital and the floor of the dormitory had been cleaned with chlorine and kerosene in the morning before the beginning of the inspection.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 July 2010 the Zagatala Military Deputy Prosecutor examined U.M.\u2019s body and drew up a record of this inspection (meyit\u0259 bax\u0131\u015f ke\u00e7irilm\u0259si haqq\u0131nda protokol) in the presence of two experts. It appears from the record that various injuries were found on U.M.\u2019s body. In particular, the following injuries were mentioned in the record: a blue-violet bruise (qan\u00e7\u0131r) of an elongated shape, measuring 8 x 3 cm, on the right side of his lower back; a scratch (c\u0131z\u0131q), measuring 0.8 x 0.1 cm, on the left side of his back; a subcutaneous haemorrhage (d\u0259ridaxili qans\u0131zma), measuring 5.5 x 1 cm, on his upper right hip; and two abrasions (s\u0131yr\u0131q), measuring 0.3\u00a0x 0.1 cm and 0.5 x 0.2 cm on the fingers of his left hand. Blood and cell samples were taken from the body and sent for biological and histological forensic examinations. Eighteen photographs of the body were taken during the inspection and were added to the record. The Government provided the Court with a copy of that record, together with black and white versions of these photographs, in which no sign of injury to the body can be seen. The applicant provided the Court with a copy of a colour version of photograph no. 5 added to the record. It appears from this photograph that there was a bruise on the left side of his neck between the ear and the shoulder and a bruise around the left eye. However, there was no mention of such injuries in the record of 14 July 2010.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 August 2010 the two experts who had examined U.M.\u2019s body on 14 July 2010 issued report (akt) no. 21 on the forensic medical examination (meyitin m\u0259hk\u0259m\u0259-tibbi m\u00fcayin\u0259si) of the body, which was considered as an annex to the record of 14 July 2010. The report was based on the examination of the body on 14 July 2014, as well as on the results of the biological and histological forensic examinations of the samples taken from the body and the opinions of two other specialists. The experts concluded that, taking into consideration that there was no injury which might have caused the death, U.M.\u2019s death had probably resulted from a severe dysfunction of the respiratory system (k\u0259skin t\u0259n\u0259ff\u00fcs \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131) caused by swelling of the thymus gland and the development of a brain tumour. As for the injuries found on the body, the experts concluded that they were not related to U.M.\u2019s death. They further found that those injuries had been caused by a hard blunt object, that the abrasions, bruise and haemorrhage were likely to have been inflicted one to three days before the death, and the scratch not more than one week before the death.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0It appears from the documents in the case file that on various dates the investigator in charge of the case questioned a number of soldiers of the military unit in which U.M. had served. The soldiers stated that they had never witnessed any case of ill-treatment during their military service.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 August 2010 the investigator ordered a forensic examination. The investigator asked the experts conducting that examination to answer various questions concerning the cause of U.M.\u2019s death and the existence of any relationship between U.M.\u2019s previous health problems and his death. The investigator also asked the experts to establish whether the injuries on U.M.\u2019s body could have been sustained when he had performed physical exercises during his military service or when the soldiers had tried to resuscitate him.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 September 2010 the experts issued forensic report no. k\/82, which mainly reiterated the findings of the report of 12 August 2010. The experts concluded that U.M.\u2019s death had probably resulted from severe dysfunction of the respiratory system caused by swelling of the thymus gland and the development of a brain tumour, because there was no potentially lethal injury on his body. They further noted that U.M. had probably been suffering from this disease before joining the army, but it had not been possible to reveal it during the medical examinations. As regards the investigator\u2019s question concerning the origin of the injuries, the experts noted that as they had not examined the body they could not give a clear answer to that question. However, they pointed out that, taking into consideration the morphological characteristics of the injuries, it was possible from the medical forensic point of view that they could have been sustained when U.M. had been performing physical exercises during his military service or when the soldiers had tried to resuscitate him.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 October 2010 an investigator from the Zagatala Military Prosecutor\u2019s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with U.M.\u2019s death. Relying on the forensic medical reports, the investigator concluded that the death had probably resulted from severe dysfunction of the respiratory system caused by swelling of the thymus gland and the development of a brain tumour. He further held that, as U.M. had not complained about his state of health and had had no clear symptoms, it had not been possible to establish the existence of this health problem during the medical examinations that U.M. had undergone before joining the army. As regards the injuries on U.M.\u2019s body, the investigator noted that U.M. had never been ill-treated during his military service and that these injuries could have been sustained when U.M. had been performing physical exercises or when the soldiers had tried to resuscitate him.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 November 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ganja Military Court against the investigator\u2019s decision of 16 October 2010, complaining of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation. He disputed the investigator\u2019s conclusions relating to the cause of his son\u2019s death, arguing that U.M. had not been suffering from any disease. In particular, he argued that, if U.M. had really died of the swelling of the thymus gland and a brain tumour, there would have been prior medical symptoms. The applicant further disputed the investigator\u2019s explanation as regards the origin of the injuries found on U.M.\u2019s body. In that connection, he submitted that, although the experts concluded that the injuries were likely to have been inflicted one to three days before the death, the investigator held that the injuries could have been sustained when the soldiers tried to resuscitate U.M. on 14 July 2010.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 November 2010 the Ganja Military Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s complaint. The court reiterated the investigator\u2019s findings as regards the cause of the death and the origin of the injuries found on U.M.\u2019s body.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 December 2010 the applicant appealed against that decision, reiterating his previous complaints. He complained, in particular, that the criminal investigation had failed to establish clearly the cause of his son\u2019s death and the origin of the injuries found on U.M.\u2019s body.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 December 2010 the Shaki Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are described in detail in the Court\u2019s judgment in Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan (no.\u00a047095\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 37-38, 4 May 2017).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the death of his son during his compulsory military service, and alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of his son.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaints should be examined solely under Article 2 of the Convention (see Malik Babayev v.\u00a0Azerbaijan, no. 30500\/11, \u00a7 60, 1 June 2017), the relevant part of which provides:<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone\u2019s right to life shall be protected by law. …\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant submitted that, although his son had been healthy and was not suffering from any disease, the domestic authorities had found that his son had probably died of severe dysfunction of the respiratory system caused by the swelling of the thymus gland and the development of a brain tumour. In that connection, he argued that the tumour found in U.M.\u2019s head had been the consequence of his having been tortured during his military service and, consequently, the death of U.M. had resulted from torture. In support of his claim, the applicant referred to the existence of a number of injuries on U.M.\u2019s body.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested the applicant\u2019s submissions. They referred to the conclusions of the expert reports as regards the cause of the death and the origin of the injuries on U.M.\u2019s body. The Government submitted that U.M. had probably been suffering from the diseases causing his death before joining the army, but it had not been possible to discover them during medical examinations in the absence of any apparent symptoms.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/strong><\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law set out in the judgment Malik Babayev (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 64-68), which are equally pertinent to the present case.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes at the outset that it is undisputed that the death of U.M. was not caused by any lethal use of force by the State and that the forensic examinations revealed the existence of a tumour in U.M.\u2019s head. However, the applicant argued that the tumour found in U.M.\u2019s head had been the consequence of ill-treatment during his military service, and that his death was consequently the result of torture.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0In that connection, the Court does not see any reason to contest the findings of the domestic authorities that the death of the applicant\u2019s son had probably resulted from severe dysfunction of the respiratory system caused by swelling of the thymus gland and the development of a brain tumour (see paragraph 14 above). Having regard to the evidence before it, the Court considers that any allegation that the applicant\u2019s son was murdered by other soldiers as a result of ill-treatment and that the tumour in his head had been the consequence of that ill-treatment would be purely speculative (compare Abdullah Y\u0131lmaz v.\u00a0Turkey, no. 21899\/02, \u00a7 59, 17 June 2008; Durdu v.\u00a0Turkey, no.\u00a030677\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 59-61, 3 September 2013; and Malik Babayev, cited above, \u00a7 69).<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the Government\u2019s positive obligation, the Court will examine whether the authorities knew or ought to have known of the existence of a real and immediate risk that U.M. would die of severe dysfunction of the respiratory system caused by the swelling of the thymus gland and the development of a brain tumour, and, if so, whether they did all that could reasonably have been expected of them to prevent that risk materialising.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that, either prior to being drafted into the army or while undergoing his military service, U.M. did not demonstrate any symptoms which could have indicated that he was suffering from any disease which should have alerted the domestic authorities to the possibility that he might die of severe dysfunction of the respiratory system caused by the swelling of the thymus gland and the development of a brain tumour. In particular, the medical examinations conducted before U.M. was drafted into the army did not reveal such a disease. Moreover, the applicant did not claim that U.M. had been suffering from any disease or that he had complained of any health problems during his military service.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, the Court finds that the factual circumstances of the present case give no reason to conclude that the authorities knew or should have known that there was a real and immediate risk to the life of the applicant\u2019s son.\u00a0For those reasons, the Court finds that the present case does not disclose any appearance of a failure on the part of the respondent State to protect the right to life of the applicant\u2019s son as required by Article 2 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, there has been no violation of the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant maintained that the criminal investigation into the death of his son had been ineffective.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the criminal investigation had been effective and had complied with the procedural guarantees provided by the Convention. The domestic authorities had taken all the relevant investigative actions, such as questioning the witnesses and carrying out various forensic examinations.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/strong><\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law set out in the Malik Babayev judgment (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 79-81), which are equally pertinent to the present case.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that a criminal inquiry was launched by the domestic authorities immediately after the death of the applicant\u2019s son, and that on 16 October 2010 the Zagatala Military Prosecutor\u2019s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with U.M.\u2019s death. That decision was upheld by the domestic courts. It remains to be assessed whether the criminal inquiry was effective, as required by Article\u00a02.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that, although on 14 July 2010 an inspection of the scene of the incident was carried out and evidence was collected by an investigator only a few hours after the incident, the floor of the dormitory had been cleaned and U.M.\u2019s bed had been made before the inspection of the scene of the incident (see paragraph 12 above). This failure to protect the scene of the incident amounted to a serious shortcoming in the criminal investigation and may have prevented the authorities from obtaining a complete and accurate picture of the events leading to U.M.\u2019s death (see H\u00fcseyin Kaplan v. Turkey, no. 20070\/08, \u00a7 63, 15 October 2013; and G\u00fczelayd\u0131n v.Turkey, no. 26470\/10, \u00a7 88, 20 September 2016).<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0Court also observes that the investigating authorities failed to take all reasonable steps available to them to secure evidence concerning the death of the applicant\u2019s son. In particular, even though it appears from the colour version of photograph no. 5 taken during the inspection of the body that there was a bruise on the left side of the neck between the ear and shoulder and a bruise around the left eye, these injuries were not mentioned in the record of 14 July 2010 (see paragraph 13 above).<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that the domestic authorities\u2019 explanations concerning the origin of the injuries found on U.M.\u2019s body were in part contradicted by the findings of the forensic reports. In particular, the forensic reports\u2019 conclusions, which indicated that the abrasions, bruise and haemorrhage were inflicted one to three days before the death, and the scratch not more than one week before the death, excluded the possibility that they had been inflicted when the soldiers had tried to resuscitate U.M. just before his death.<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant\u2019s son. It accordingly holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 under its procedural limb.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Pecuniary damage<\/em><\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 27,672 Azerbaijani manats in respect of pecuniary damage. He submitted that the amount in question was what he had spent to bring up his son and pay his tuition fees for university.<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The Government asked the Court to reject the claim.<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0The Court does not find any causal link between the damage claimed and the violation found. Accordingly, it rejects the applicant\u2019s claims in respect of pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Non-pecuniary damage<\/em><\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed EUR 200,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s claim was unsubstantiated and excessive.<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage for which he cannot be compensated solely by the finding of a violation and that compensation should thus be awarded. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant the sum of EUR 15,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed EUR 2,000 for the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts, as well as for transportation, communication, translation and postal expenses.<\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s claim for the costs and expenses was unsubstantiated and was not supported by documentary evidence.<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court rejects the applicant\u2019s claim for costs and expenses as the applicant failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive limb;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 February 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Milan Bla\u0161ko\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary
\nL\u04d9tif H\u00fcseynov,
\nLado Chanturia, judges,
\nand Milan Bla\u0161ko, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n