{"id":1287,"date":"2019-04-19T13:43:02","date_gmt":"2019-04-19T13:43:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1287"},"modified":"2019-04-24T15:08:45","modified_gmt":"2019-04-24T15:08:45","slug":"case-of-tilloyev-v-russia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1287","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF TILLOYEV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights)"},"content":{"rendered":"

THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF TILLOYEV v. RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 2120\/10)<\/em><\/p>\n

JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n5 March 2019<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Tilloyev v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, President,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nJolienSchukking, judges,
\nand Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 5 February 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. 2120\/10) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Russian national, Mr AleksandrOlegovichTilloyev (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 9 December 2009.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr A.N. Roslov, a lawyer practising in Orel. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0On 29\u00a0September 2016 notice of the complaints concerning the applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment in police custody and the authorities\u2019 failure to carry out an effective investigation into his complaints were given to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissiblepursuant to Rule\u00a054\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving a prison sentence.<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s arrest and alleged ill-treatment in police custody<\/strong><\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 August 2008 the applicant was arrested in Orel on suspicion of assault and rape.\u00a0According to the applicant, during his time in police custody police officers from the Severnyy district police department in Orel and the operational search division of the Orel regional police department (\u041e\u0412\u0414\u043f\u043e\u0421\u0435\u0432\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0443\u0433. \u041e\u0440\u043b\u0430\u0438\u041e\u0420\u0427\u0423\u0412\u0414\u043f\u043e\u041e\u0440\u043b\u043e\u0432\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439\u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438) subjected him to ill-treatment to force him to confess to the crimes. The police officers allegedly handcuffed the applicant and physically assaulted him, punching and kicking him multiple times in the face, legs and body.<\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s injuries<\/strong><\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 August 2008 the Orel inter-district investigation unit of the investigative committee for the Orel region (\u201cthe investigative committee\u201d) ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant. It began on 15\u00a0August 2008 and was completed on 29 August 2008. According to the report (no.\u00a02378\/5a), the applicant had the following injuries: (i)\u00a0three scratches on his right cheek; (ii)\u00a0two bruises on his neck; (iii)\u00a0two bruises on his chest; (iv)\u00a0two bruises on his back; (v)\u00a0eleven bruises and an abrasion on his right upper limb; (vi) nine bruises and an abrasion on his left upper limb; (vii) an abrasion on his right lower leg; (viii) an abrasion on his left hip; and (ix) an abrasion on his left buttock.<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0\u00a0According to the expert, the applicant\u2019s injuries had been caused by blunt objects with a limited surface area one to three days before the examination and had not caused any actual bodily harm to the applicant.<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0\u00a0The expert did not exclude the possibility that the applicant\u2019s bruises on his wrists could have been caused by handcuffs, and also concluded that the applicant had had thirty-four points on his bodywhere force had been used, and had sustained no less than twenty-three blows.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0\u00a0In reply to an investigator\u2019s question whether the injuries could have been self-inflicted, the expert stated that the injuries were within the reach of the applicant\u2019s hands, except for the injuries on the back, which could have been received as a result of the applicant being struck by or striking himself against a blunt object with a limited striking surface (the expert\u2019s \u201cexplanations\u201d of 26 June 2009).<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0\u00a0According to the IVS (temporary detention centre) medical records, the applicant complained about headache and pain in the back when he was placed in the IVS on 16 August 2008, after being examined at the traumatology centre of the Orel town hospital and diagnosed with contusion to the soft tissues of the head and closed craniocerebral injury (with a question mark). When he was taken out of the IVS at 12.45 p.m. on 18\u00a0August 2009 he complained about pain in the area of the wrists and dumb fingers, dizziness and nausea. When he was brought back at 9\u00a0p.m. that day (after being examined at the Orel regional hospital where he was diagnosed with contusions to the soft tissues of the head and abrasions to the face) he complained about headache and had abrasions on the forehead and on the back, explaining that he had received them at the Severnyy district police station. On 19 August 2008 he complained about headache and dizziness, and had abrasions on the face, forehead, wrists and left elbow, which \u2013 according to him \u2013 he had received at the Severnyy district police station the day before.<\/p>\n

11.\u00a0\u00a0According to pre-trial detention facility IZ-57\/1, on 20\u00a0August 2008 the applicant had abrasions above the left eyebrow, on the left cheek, the wrists and the right elbow.<\/p>\n

C.\u00a0\u00a0Pre-investigation inquiry and refusals to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/p>\n

12.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 August 2008 the applicant lodged complaints with the Severnyy district prosecutor\u2019s office of Orel and the investigative committee against the police officers, requesting that they be prosecuted.<\/p>\n

13.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 August 2008 the investigative committee received material in relation to the applicant\u2019s complaint of ill-treatment.<\/p>\n

14.\u00a0\u00a0On the dates specified below, and in accordance with Article\u00a024\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(1) or (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, officials at the investigative committee issued refusals to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers under Article\u00a0286\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers) for no case to answer. Those refusals were systematically overruled by the higher authority within the investigative committee as premature, unsubstantiated and based on incomplete inquiries, and the investigation authorities were ordered to carry out additional inquiries. The refusals were issued and overruled on the following dates:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Refusal No.<\/td>\nIssued on:<\/td>\nOverruled on:<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
(i)<\/td>\n19 December 2008<\/td>\n18 February 2009<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
(ii)<\/td>\n27 February 2009<\/td>\n12 May 2009<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
(iii)<\/td>\n26 June 2009<\/td>\ndate unknown<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
(iv)<\/td>\n21 August 2009<\/td>\n6 May 2010<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
(v)<\/td>\n16 May 2010<\/td>\n19 October 2010<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
(vi)<\/td>\n29 October 2010<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

15.\u00a0\u00a0The investigative committee based its decision on the police officers\u2019 explanations denying the applicant\u2019s ill-treatment. They stated that they had arrested the applicant in the night time on suspicion of having committed the crimes, that in the course of the arrest they had tripped the applicant up, twisted his hand behind his back and handcuffed him since he had tried to escape, and that they had interviewed him at the Severnyy district police department before the arrival of an investigator next morning to draw up an official record of his arrest. They also interviewed the applicant on 18\u00a0August 2008 about his complaint of ill-treatment at the Severnyy district police, which had been communicated to the police on 16\u00a0August 2008 by the traumatology centre of the town hospital. According to the police officers, the applicant had fallen before his arrest (being drunk) and at the IVS detention centre, and had inflicted injuries on himself at the police station. According to the applicant\u2019s explanations, he had not resisted his arrest, he had been beaten up at the time of his arrest and also during the night at the Severnyy district police station and when brought there for investigative activities thereafter. As a reaction to his ill\u2011treatment and false accusations of crimes he had tried to bang his head against the desk and, on 18 August 2008, to jump out of the window of the Severnyy district police station, but had been stopped. Police officer R.D. had thrown him to the floor and stepped on his face. The applicant denied the police officers\u2019 allegations of self-inflicted injuries and stated that he had signed the explanation about allegedly falling before the arrest under the threats of continued ill\u2011treatment from police officers S.D. and I.B., who had beaten him up before. According to statements by the applicant\u2019s girlfriend, she heard the applicant screaming from being allegedly beaten up during his arrest and at the police station; several days later at the police station he had complained to her that police officers had beaten him up; he had had abrasions on the face; and he had lost consciousness during a confrontation between them and the ambulance had been called.<\/p>\n

16.\u00a0\u00a0The most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers of 29 October 2010 maintained the findings made in the previous refusals (for example, the refusal of 26 June 2009) that the police had lawfully applied force during the applicant\u2019s arrest, that the applicant had attempted to inflict injuries on himself, which was coherent with the forensic medical expert\u2019s conclusion that the injuries, except for the injuries on the back, had been within the reach of his hands. By alleging the police ill\u2011treatment the applicant had tried to escape prosecution and to blacken the police officers\u2019 honour and dignity.<\/p>\n

D.\u00a0\u00a0Criminal proceedings against the applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

17.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 April 2009 the Zavodskiy District Court of Orel convicted the applicant of physical assaults and rapes involving three women victims, and sentenced him to thirteen years and five months\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n

18.\u00a0\u00a0At trial, the applicant denied his guilt and complained about the police ill-treatment.\u00a0The trial court acknowledged the appearance of injuries on him as they had been recorded by the expert, but noted that that could not serve as evidence of his innocence in relation to the crimes which had been committed. The trial court also noted that the pre-investigation inquiry had been pending with respect to his alleged ill-treatment, and that an examination of that issue fell outside the scope of the applicant\u2019s criminal case.<\/p>\n

19.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 June 2009 the Orel Regional Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal and upheld the trial court\u2019s conclusions.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

20.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police and that the State had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his complaints. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n

21.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s injuries had originated from the lawful use of force by the police, the applicant\u2019s self-harm and his fall in an inebriated state before his arrest. The applicant had not suffered even minor harm to his health and the authorities had rightly decided not to open a criminal case into his groundless allegations of ill\u2011treatment.<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n

22.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the applicant had not appealed to a court against the refusals to institute criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n

23.\u00a0\u00a0Between December 2008 and October 2010 the investigative committee\u2019s decisions refusing to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment were annulled five times by the higher investigating authority since they had been based on an incomplete inquiry. The most recent decision of 29 October 2010 maintained the same findings and had the same defects as the earlier decisions, for example the decision of 26 June 2009. The Court is therefore not convinced that an appeal to a court by the applicant, which could only have had the same effect, that is the annulment of a refusal to institute criminal proceedings, would have offered the applicant any redress. It therefore considers that an appeal in the circumstances of the present case would have been devoid of any purpose (see Devyatkin v. Russia, no.\u00a040384\/06, \u00a7 30, 24 October 2017). The Court finds that the applicant was not obliged to pursue that remedy, and that the Government\u2019s objection should therefore be dismissed.<\/p>\n

24.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaint 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

25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that after spending a period of time in police custody the applicant was found to have sustained injuries, as recorded by the forensic medical expert, the detention facilities and the medical institutions (see paragraphs 6, 10 and 11 above). According to the forensic medical expert, the injuries were the result of no less than twenty-three blows from blunt objects with a limited surface area. The Court considers that the injuries could arguably have resulted from the applicant\u2019s alleged ill\u2011treatment by police officers, in particular as a result of being punched and kicked.<\/p>\n

26.\u00a0\u00a0The above factors are sufficient to give rise to a presumption in favour of the applicant\u2019s account of events and to satisfy the Court that the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment in police custody were credible.<\/p>\n

27.\u00a0\u00a0The fact that during the initial period of alleged ill-treatment the applicant was held at the police station without his arrest being recorded and was interviewed by the police officers during the night without being able to avail himself of access to a lawyer and other rights of suspects in criminal proceedings, attests to the applicant\u2019s particular vulnerability\u00a0vis-\u00e0-vis\u00a0the police officers. It weighs heavily in favour of the applicant\u2019s account of events and makes the presumption of the State\u2019s responsibility for injuries occurring during the police custody stronger (see\u00a0Olisov and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 10825\/09 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7 74-79, 2 May 2017, and Sitnikov v. Russia, no. 14769\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 31-35, 2 May 2017).<\/p>\n

28.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes further that the applicant\u2019s allegations of his injuries being the result of police ill-treatment were dismissed by the investigative committee. The investigators based their findings on the results of the pre-investigation inquiry, which is the initial stage in dealing with a criminal complaint under Russian law and should normally be followed by the opening of a criminal case and the carrying out of an investigation if the information gathered has disclosed elements of a criminal offence (see\u00a0Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956\/09, \u00a7 129, 24 July 2014). The investigators\u2019 five decisions refusing to open a criminal case were each time annulled by the investigating authorities for having been based on an incomplete inquiry and a fresh inquiry was ordered. Their most recent decision maintained the same findings as the earlier decisions.<\/p>\n

29.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates its finding that the mere carrying out of a pre\u2011investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is insufficient if the authorities are to comply with the standards established under Article 3 of the Convention for an effective investigation into credible allegations of ill\u2011treatment in police custody. It is incumbent on the authorities to institute criminal proceedings and conduct a proper criminal investigation in which a full range of investigative measures are carried out (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7 129 and 132-36).<\/p>\n

30.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has no reason to hold otherwise in the present case, which involves credible allegations of ill-treatment of which the authorities were promptly made aware. It finds that the investigative committee has failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations of police ill-treatment, as required by Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

31.\u00a0\u00a0The Government maintained the conclusions of the investigative committee to the effect that the applicant\u2019s injuries had been the result of the lawful use of force by the police and self-inflicted.<\/p>\n

32.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that those conclusions were based unreservedly on the statements of those same police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant (see paragraph 15 above), without any serious attempt to reconcile them with the applicant\u2019s multiple injuries and the duty of the police to stop self\u2011harm by detainees, and to assess the origin of any new injuries after taking the applicant out of the detention facility for investigative activities on 18 August 2008.<\/p>\n

33.\u00a0\u00a0Given that the Government\u2019s explanations were provided as a result of the superficial domestic inquiries\u2019 falling short of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court finds that they cannot be considered satisfactory or convincing. It holds that the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the applicant\u2019s account of events, which it therefore finds established (see Olisov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a083-85, and Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044\/06 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0102\u201104, 12 December 2017).<\/p>\n

34.\u00a0\u00a0The Court finds that the police subjected the applicant to inhuman and degrading treatment (see Gorshchuk v. Russia, no. 31316\/09, \u00a7 33, 6\u00a0October 2015; Aleksandr Andreyevv. Russia, no. 2281\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a056\u201162, 23\u00a0February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a065-76, 11\u00a0October 2016).<\/p>\n

35.\u00a0\u00a0The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs.<\/p>\n

II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

36.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his alleged ill-treatment in police custody in breach of Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/p>\n

37.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested that argument.<\/p>\n

38.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the issue raised under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

39.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the finding of a violation of Article 3 under its procedural aspect on account of the respondent State\u2019s failure to carry out an effective investigation, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine this complaint separately under Article 13 (see Olisov and Others, cited above, \u00a7 92).<\/p>\n

III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

40.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a041 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

41.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

42.\u00a0\u00a0The Government stated that any award of just satisfaction should be made in accordance with the Court\u2019s case-law.<\/p>\n

43.\u00a0\u00a0The Court awards the applicant EUR 25,000 in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n

44.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also claimed EUR 546.55 for the costs of legal services incurred before the Court.<\/p>\n

45.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum claimed by the applicant covering costs for the proceedings before the Court.<\/p>\n

C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n

46.\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\u00a0Declaresthe complaints concerning the applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment in police custody and the authorities\u2019 failure to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations admissible;<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs;<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months the following amounts,to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n

(i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 25,000 (twenty-five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n

(ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 546.55 (five hundred forty-six euros and fifty-five cents), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts 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\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 March 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Stephen Phillips\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 Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1
\nRegistrar\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n