ÿWPC5 —SŸÏbBYık<(ì™™&©¥TL.OY/ôEş?ÊÓ0Iı@dÎ F„§ĞAˆ«hüèWOñà£á8s´®0Föá‡9“›ÀfÔ‚º!0-LÚTΛF¬ŸZ4ͽŠ´8ô¹Ë3²‚$Ÿh>aü,zHÓ‰Q[~œÂéhˆ…™ß´Şçğ'dÔšBf%¹ÑÚpdF#ç®Ø·]Âߟ÷ÔÓC“1€t¬ÙY\îˆÔXsWõ#1ú|şRµ-3ÿÌg{[¿ Sÿ»Ú§úœ!ğ;k(Ñq+şĞrZ6•åϦ)Îñ ù’ÖÒ ÖÏi¾–>Ñ… e?[N‹3ÉÍkUYºÚÚ(şŞw®e$ùÒDõYbŠ¦£*˜íx ¦v#tÁŒËU‚HË8a‚şğÙŸwî~½tó”?y<€^ı‚q¥Éf#ñ¢(«Ÿ¾L-YğÈ”Í#{¦¨ÇÔB?àwÃ*¡õ˜kHàbÃ1Ñg¦£VY.†DÆm˜ìTTûtİ{ëcşó̺—ôœ‰É’a·7ˆjÍùçS¨?<]2M{H(‘2ÜP¦Ô&$t›cØå8N‹Ö[Œ7UÍÄ“|zBĞÓ©˜V.$/ò¡»òâà){kÕ~'ix #ÁšUN[ %© 0:¯^ éwõ4ù  m˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÙØÙÙØÈÙ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ûœ$¡¡ÔUKUS.,Ô׆Y) È­F) Docume€²Ÿ3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀİ ƒûœ!İÔUKUS.,Ôİ  İÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEĞ ° ĞÌòòE.€and€A.€K.€v.€HungaryóóĞ „Ô ĞÌCommunication€No€520/1992*Ğ X¨ ĞÌ7€April€1994Ğ , | ĞÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/50/D/520/1992Ğ  P ĞÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óĞ ¾  ĞÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€E.€and€A.€K.€[names€deleted]€Ğ zÊ  ĞÌòòAlleged€victimsóó:€The€authors€Ğ H˜ ĞÌòòState€partyóó:€Hungary€Ğ f ĞÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€22€September€1992€(initial€submission)€óóĞ ä4 ĞÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€Covenant€on€CivilĞ í Ğand€Political€Rights,€Ğ †Ö ĞÌòòMeetingóó€on€7€April€1994,€Ğ X¨ ĞÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:€Ğ *z ĞÓxÓÌÌÓ  Óòòò òDecision€on€admissibilityó óóóĞ å 5 ĞÓŸÓÌÌÓ  Ó1.€The€authors€of€the€communication€are€E.€and€A.€K.,€two€Hungarian€citizens€residing€inĞ ¡#ñ" ĞSwitzerland.€They€claim€to€be€victims€of€violations€by€Hungary€of€articles€2,€paragraphs€1€and€2;Ğ Š$Ú# Ğ12,€paragraphs€2€and€3;€14,€paragraph€1;€and€17,€paragraph€1,€of€the€International€Covenant€on€CivilĞ s%à $ Ğand€Political€Rights.€The€Optional€Protocol€entered€into€force€for€Hungary€on€7€December€1988.€Ğ \&¬!% ĞÌòòThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authorsóó€Ğ .(~#' ĞÌ2.1€A.€K.€has€been€a€staff€member€of€the€International€Labour€Office€at€Geneva€since€1976.€UntilĞ *P%) Ğ1984,€each€change€in€his€contractual€status€and€each€extension€of€his€contract€was€subject€to€theĞ é*9&* Ğissuance€of€a€foreign€work€permit€by€the€Hungarian€authorities.€Under€Hungarian€law€applicable€atĞ Ò+"'+ Ğthe€time,€this€permit€was€a€precondition€for€the€issuance€of€an€exit€visa€by€the€authorities,€whichĞ », (, Ğwould€allow€the€author€to€leave€Hungary€together€with€his€family€and€work€abroad.€Ğ ¤-ô(- Ї2.2€In€March€1984,€Mr.€K.€was€appointed€to€an€established€post€in€the€International€Labour€Office.Ğ ° ĞAs€a€result,€the€Hungarian€authorities€refused€to€extend€his€work€permit€and€summoned€him€toĞ ™é Ğresign€from€the€post€and€return€to€Budapest.€The€author€refused€to€comply€and€instead€resigned€fromĞ ‚Ò Ğhis€post€in€the€Hungarian€Ministry€of€Housing€and€Urban€Development.€Ğ k» ĞÌ2.3€In€the€autumn€of€1984,€the€municipal€police€of€Budapest,€by€decision€No.€21.320/1984,€declaredĞ =  ĞMr.€and€Mrs.€K.€to€be€citizens€staying€abroad€unlawfully,€with€effect€as€of€31€December€1983€(theĞ & v Ğauthor's€work€permit€was€valid€until€30€June€1984).€On€the€basis€of€this€decision,€the€administrationĞ  _ Ğof€the€Budapest€City€Council€confiscated€the€authors'€apartment€property€as€well€as€the€family€homeĞ ø H Ğand€took€them€into€State€ownership.€The€authors€were€denied€compensation.€Their€subsequentĞ á 1  Ğappeals€were€rejected€by€the€City€Council€of€Budapest,€acting€as€an€administrative€court,€on€theĞ Ê   Ğgrounds€that€under€the€then€applicable€rules€and€regulations,€property€of€individuals€found€to€beĞ ³  Ğunlawfully€staying€or€residing€abroad€had€to€be€taken€into€State€ownership.€Another€consequenceĞ œì  Ğof€the€police€decision€was€that€the€Hungarian€Embassy€at€Berne,€Switzerland,€refused€to€issue€to€Mr.Ğ …Õ  ĞK.€a€certificate€confirming€his€accrued€rights€to€social€security€benefits.€Ğ n¾  ĞÌ2.4€The€authors€contend€that€during€this€period,€and€in€subsequent€years,€they€have€had€to€endureĞ @ Ğnumerous€arbitrary€interferences€with€their€private€and€professional€lives.€Thus,€letters€sent€fromĞ )y ĞSwitzerland€to€relatives€in€Hungary€were€regularly€opened€and/or€delayed€for€weeks;€Mr.€K.€wasĞ b Ğdenied€permission€to€attend€the€funeral€of€his€father;€in€June€1985,€the€Hungarian€Ministry€of€LabourĞ ûK Ğallegedly€intervened€with€the€administration€of€the€International€Labour€Office,€with€a€view€toĞ ä4 Ğsecuring€Mr.€K.'s€dismissal.€From€1984€to€1989,€the€authors€complained€to€the€authorities€inĞ Í ĞBudapest€about€the€arbitrary€nature€of€the€decisions€adopted€against€them,€to€no€avail.€On€theĞ ¶ Ğcontrary,€their€property€was€auctioned€off€in€November€1988.Ğ Ÿï ĞÌ2.5€In€January€1990,€the€authors€requested€the€newly€appointed€Minister€of€Justice€to€reopen€theirĞ qÁ Ğcase.€The€Minister's€reply€was€negative,€allegedly€only€confirming€that€all€domestic€remedies€hadĞ Zª Ğbeen€exhausted.€Towards€the€end€of€1991,€the€authors€wrote€to€the€Secretariat€for€RehabilitationĞ C“ Ğattached€to€the€Prime€Minister's€Office€and€asked€that€their€case€be€reconsidered.€Although€theĞ ,| ĞSecretariat's€reply€presented€an€apology€on€behalf€of€the€new€Government€and€promised€assistanceĞ e Ğwith€respect€to€the€recovery€of€the€authors'€property,€and€although€the€authors'€passports€wereĞ şN Ğreturned€to€them,€there€was€no€subsequent€follow-up€on€the€property€issue.€Ğ ç 7 ĞÌ2.6€In€1990,€the€authors€sought€legal€advice.€Their€representative€first€submitted€the€matter€to€theĞ ¹" ! ĞConstitutional€Court,€which€declared€that€it€was€not€competent€to€decide€on€the€issue€of€restitutionĞ ¢#ò" Ğof€the€authors'€property.€The€Budapest€Central€District€Court€was€then€asked€to€review€the€case,€butĞ ‹$Û# Ğit€dismissed€the€petition€on€15€January€1992€without€summoning€any€of€the€parties.€In€its€decision,Ğ t%Ä $ Ğthe€Court€confirmed€that€the€authorities€had€acted€lawfully€in€1984;€it€also€admitted,€albeit€in€vagueĞ ]&­!% Ğterms,€that€there€was€no€possibility€of€appealing€the€decisions€of€1984,€and€that€the€courts€could€onlyĞ F'–"& Ğhave€reviewed€them€from€a€strictly€procedural€point€of€view.€Mr.€K.'s€lawyer€appealed€to€the€CourtĞ /(#' Ğof€Appeal,€which€confirmed€the€decision€of€first€instance€on€10€March€1992€and€held€that€"there€wasĞ )h$( Ğno€place€for€further€appeal";€this€would€appear€to€imply€that€leave€to€appeal€to€the€Supreme€CourtĞ *Q%) Ğhad€been€denied.€Both€the€Central€District€Court€and€the€Court€of€Appeal€further€held€that€theĞ ê*:&* Ğauthors€had€failed€to€submit€their€case€within€the€statutory€deadlines.€Ğ Ó+#'+ ĞÌ2.7€The€authors€indicate€that€they€have€not€submitted€their€case€to€another€instance€of€internationalĞ ¥-õ(- Ğinvestigation€or€settlement.€Ğ ° ĞÌòòThe€complaintóó€Ğ ‚Ò ĞÌ3.1€The€authors€contend€that€the€Hungarian€authorities€have€violated€their€rights€under€article€12€ofĞ T¤ Ğthe€Covenant.€Thus,€the€restrictions€in€their€foreign€work€permit,€which€specified€the€country,€theĞ =  Ğperiod€of€time€and€the€place€of€work€for€which€it€could€exclusively€be€used,€are€said€to€have€violatedĞ & v Ğtheir€"right€to€be€free€to€leave€any€country".€The€authors€do€concede,€however,€that€such€restrictionsĞ  _ Ğas€were€imposed€by€the€former€regime€have€been€lifted.€Ğ ø H ĞÌ3.2€The€authors€alleged€a€violation€of€article€14,€paragraph€1,€as€they€were€denied€the€possibility€ofĞ Ê   Ğattending€a€court€hearing€in€their€case€or,€prior€to€1991,€of€being€represented€by€a€lawyer.€TheyĞ ³  Ğargue€that€the€principle€of€equality€of€arms€was€not€respected,€as€neither€the€municipal€police,€theĞ œì  ĞBudapest€City€Council€nor€the€local€courts€gave€them€an€opportunity€to€put€properly€their€claimsĞ …Õ  Ğbefore€the€competent€authorities.€Thus,€in€1984,€the€authors€only€learned€about€the€police€decisionĞ n¾  Ğthrough€the€administrative€decisions€to€confiscate€their€property.€In€1991,€the€Central€District€CourtĞ W§  Ğdecided€without€summoning€the€parties.€The€authors€further€contend€that€the€fact€that€the€CityĞ @ ĞCouncil's€actions,€whose€effect€was€similar€to€that€of€the€decisions€of€an€administrative€tribunal,Ğ )y Ğcould€not€be€challenged€before€the€regular€courts,€violated€article€14.€Finally,€it€is€submitted€that€theĞ b Ğproceedings€in€the€case€violated€the€principle€of€audiatur€et€altera€pars,€under€which€parties€to€a€caseĞ ûK Ğshould€be€entitled€to€be€heard€by€the€courts.€Ğ ä4 ĞÌ3.3€Finally,€the€authors€allege€a€violation€of€article€17,€as€they€were€subjected€to€unlawfulĞ ¶ Ğinterferences€with€their€family€and€their€private€life,€as€well€as€to€unlawful€attacks€on€theĞ Ÿï Ğprofessional€integrity€and€the€career€development€prospects€of€Mr.€K.€They€also€consider€theĞ ˆØ Ğconfiscation€and€auctioning€of€their€home€and€apartment€in€Budapest€an€unlawful€interference€withĞ qÁ Ğtheir€family€life.€Ğ Zª ĞÌ3.4€The€authors€do€acknowledge€that€many€of€the€events€in€their€case€occurred€prior€to€the€date€ofĞ ,| Ğentry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€Hungary.€They€note,€however,€that€Hungary€ratified€theĞ e ĞCovenant€on€23€March€1976€and€that,€by€March€1984,€the€Government€should€have€adopted,€inĞ şN Ğaccordance€with€its€obligations€under€article€2,€paragraphs€1€and€2,€of€the€Covenant,€all€theĞ ç 7 Ğlegislative€and€other€measures€necessary€to€give€full€effect€to€the€rights€protected€under€theĞ Ğ!   ĞCovenant.€The€fact€that€the€alleged€violations€of€the€authors'€rights€occurred€between€the€entry€intoĞ ¹" ! Ğforce€of€the€Covenant€and€that€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€Hungary€should€not€lead€to€a€simpleĞ ¢#ò" Ğdismissal€of€their€complaint€ratione€temporis.€Ğ ‹$Û# ĞÌòòThe€State€party's€information€and€observations€and€the€authors'€comments€thereonóó€Ğ ]&­!% ĞÌ4.€In€its€submission€on€the€admissibility€of€the€communication,€the€Government€points€out€that€theĞ /(#' Ğevents€complained€of€occurred€prior€to€7€December€1988,€the€date€of€entry€into€force€of€the€OptionalĞ )h$( ĞProtocol€for€the€State€party.€It€therefore€considers€the€case€inadmissible€ratione€temporis,€referringĞ *Q%) Ğin€this€context€to€article€28€of€the€Vienna€Convention€on€the€Law€of€Treaties,€concerning€theĞ ê*:&* Ğnon-retroactivity€of€international€agreements.€Ğ Ó+#'+ ĞÌ5.1€In€their€comments,€the€authors€challenge€the€State€party's€argument.€They€contend€that€the€1984Ğ ¥-õ(- Ğdecision€to€declare€them€persons€unlawfully€staying€abroad€still€has€serious€and€continuing€effectsĞ ° Ğfor€their€present€life.€Thus,€the€decision€was€combined€with€sanctions€which€had€lastingĞ ™é Ğconsequences€for€their€family€life:€their€children,€without€passports€and€de€facto€stateless,€appliedĞ ‚Ò Ğfor€Swiss€and€Canadian€citizenship,€respectively,€whereas€the€authors€retained€HungarianĞ k» Ğcitizenship.€The€fact€that€the€Government€confiscated€their€property€and€refused€to€restore€it€to€them,Ğ T¤ Ğwhich€made€it€impossible€for€the€authors€to€return€to€their€home,€is€said€to€constitute€a€continuingĞ =  Ğviolation€of€the€Covenant.€Finally,€the€intervention€of€the€Hungarian€authorities€with€theĞ & v Ğadministration€of€the€International€Labour€Office€is€said€to€continue€to€affect€Mr.€K.'s€careerĞ  _ Ğdevelopment€prospects,€as€he€continues€to€be€considered€a€"special€case"€by€the€Office.€Ğ ø H ĞÌ5.2€The€authors€further€reiterate€that€they€did€not€get€a€fair€and€public€hearing€before€an€independentĞ Ê   Ğand€impartial€tribunal,€either€under€the€former€communist€regime€or€under€the€presentĞ ³  Ğdemocratically€elected€Government.€Until€the€change€of€government€in€1989,€the€judicial€decisionsĞ œì  Ğwere€handed€down€"without€a€public€hearing€and€by€incompetent€administrative€authorities".€TheĞ …Õ  Ğdecisions€of€these€authorities€were€final,€and€the€authors€allegedly€did€not€have€the€possibility€ofĞ n¾  Ğappealing€against€them.€Under€the€new€Government,€in€1990-1991,€the€authors'€request€forĞ W§  Ğreopening€of€the€matter€was€again€rejected€in€proceedings€that€did€not€include€a€public€hearing.€ThisĞ @ Ğagain€is€said€to€constitute€an€ongoing€and€continuing€violation€of€article€14€of€the€Covenant.€Ğ )y ĞÌòòIssues€and€proceedings€before€the€Committeeóó€Ğ ûK ĞÌ6.1€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeĞ Í Ğmust€decide,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€whether€or€not€it€is€admissibleĞ ¶ Ğunder€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Ğ Ÿï ĞÌ6.2€The€Committee€has€noted€the€authors'€claims€relating€to€the€confiscation€and€auctioning€of€theirĞ qÁ Ğproperty€by€the€Hungarian€authorities€in€1984€and€in€November€1988.€Irrespective€of€the€fact€thatĞ Zª Ğthese€events€took€place€prior€to€the€date€of€entry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€Hungary,Ğ C“ Ğthe€Committee€recalls€that€the€right€to€property€is€not€protected€by€the€Covenant.€The€authors'Ğ ,| Ğallegations€concerning€a€violation€of€their€right€to€property€are€thus€inadmissible€ratione€materiae,Ğ e Ğunder€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Ğ şN ĞÌ6.3€The€authors€contend€that€the€violations€of€their€rights€under€article€14€and€article€17,€paragraphĞ Ğ!   Ğ1,€have€continued€after€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€Hungary€on€7€DecemberĞ ¹" ! Ğ1988.€The€State€party€has€not€addressed€this€point€and€merely€argued€that€all€of€the€authors'€claimsĞ ¢#ò" Ğare€inadmissible€ratione€temporis.€Ğ ‹$Û# ĞÌ6.4€The€Committee€begins€by€noting€that€the€States€party's€obligations€under€the€Covenant€apply€asĞ ]&­!% Ğof€the€date€of€its€entry€into€force€for€the€State€party.€There€is,€however,€a€different€issue€as€to€whenĞ F'–"& Ğthe€Committee's€competence€to€consider€complaints€about€alleged€violations€of€the€Covenant€underĞ /(#' Ğthe€Optional€Protocol€is€engaged.€In€its€jurisprudence€under€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€CommitteeĞ )h$( Ğhas€held€that€it€cannot€consider€alleged€violations€of€the€Covenant€which€occurred€before€the€entryĞ *Q%) Ğinto€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€the€State€party,€unless€the€violations€complained€of€continueĞ ê*:&* Ğafter€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€A€continuing€violation€is€to€be€interpreted€as€anĞ Ó+#'+ Ğaffirmation,€after€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€by€act€or€by€clear€implication,€of€theĞ ¼, (, Ğprevious€violations€of€the€State€party.€Ğ ¥-õ(- Ї6.5€In€the€present€case,€it€is€not€possible€to€speak€of€such€a€continuing€affirmation,€by€the€HungarianĞ ° Ğauthorities,€of€the€acts€committed€by€the€State€party€prior€to€7€December€1988.€For€one,€the€authors'Ğ ™é Ğpassports€have€been€returned€to€them,€and€such€harassment€as€they€may€have€been€subjected€to€priorĞ ‚Ò Ğto€7€December€1988€has€stopped.€Ğ k» ĞÌ6.6€The€only€remaining€issue,€which€might€arise€in€relation€to€article€17,€is€whether€there€areĞ =  Ğcontinuing€effects€by€virtue€of€the€State€party's€failure€to€compensate€the€authors€for€the€confiscationĞ & v Ğof€their€family€home€or€apartment.€However,€the€Committee€recalls€that€there€is€no€autonomous€rightĞ  _ Ğto€compensation€under€the€Covenant,€a/€and€a€failure€to€compensate€after€the€entry€into€force€of€theĞ ø H ĞOptional€Protocol€does€not€thereby€constitute€an€affirmation€of€a€prior€violation€by€the€State€party.€Ğ á 1  ĞÌ7.€In€the€light€of€the€above,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€considers€that€the€authors'€claims€areĞ ³  Ğinadmissible€ratione€temporis.€Ğ œì  ĞÌ8.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:€Ğ n¾  ĞÌ(a)€That€the€communication€is€inadmissible;€Ğ @ ĞÌ(b)€That€this€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€State€party€and€to€the€authors.€Ğ b ĞÌ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€French€text€being€the€original€version.]€Ğ ä4 ĞÌÌ____________€Ğ Ÿï Ğ*/€€The€text€of€an€individual€opinion€submitted€by€Ms.€Christine€Chanet€is€appended.€Ğ ˆØ ĞÌa/€€See€Official€Records€of€the€General€Assembly,€Forty-fifth€Session,€Supplement€No.€40€(A/45/40),Ğ Zª Ğannex€Ô_ÔX.JÔ_Ô,€communication€No.€275/1988€(S.€E.€v.€Argentina).€Ğ C“ ĞÓ÷ÓÌÌÓ  Óò òAppendixó óĞ şN ĞÓ¿CÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓIndividual€opinion€submitted€by€Ms.€Christine€Chanet€under€rule€92,€paragraph€3€of€the€rules€ofĞ º" ! Ğprocedure€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee€óóĞ £#ó" ĞÌÌI€do€not€share€the€reasoning€behind€the€Committee's€decision€to€declare€the€communicationĞ ^&®!% Ğinadmissible€under€article€14€of€the€Covenant€Ô_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtemporisÔ_Ô.€Ğ G'—"& ĞÌThe€authors'€allegations€under€article€14€referred€to€a€procedure€that€took€place€during€a€periodĞ )i$( Ğsubsequent€to€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€since€they€were€contesting€the€procedureĞ *R%) Ğfollowed€by€the€Central€District€Court€in€1991,€while€the€Optional€Protocol€entered€into€force€forĞ ë*;&* ĞHungary€in€December€1988.€Ğ Ô+$'+ ĞÌThe€Committee€could€certainly€have€found€that€the€allegations€were€not€sufficiently€supported,€butĞ ¦-ö(- Ğnot€that€article€14€could€not€be€invoked€because€of€the€ratione€temporis€rule.€Ğ ° ĞÌWith€respect€to€article€14,€the€contents€of€the€case€submitted€to€the€national€court€can€be€evaluatedĞ ‚Ò Ğby€the€Committee€only€in€terms€of€the€criteria€listed€in€the€text€itself,€i.e.,€in€this€particular€case,Ğ k» Ğrights€and€obligations€in€a€suit€at€law.€Ğ T¤ ĞÌWith€the€exception€of€this€criterion€relating€to€substance,€article€14€refers€to€the€conditions€underĞ & v Ğwhich€the€procedure€is€conducted,€and€it€is€the€dates€on€which€the€various€procedural€acts€took€placeĞ  _ Ğthat€should€be€taken€into€consideration€when€analysing€the€communication€Ô_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtemporisÔ_Ô.€TheĞ ø H Ğdates€relating€to€the€substance€of€the€case€brought€before€the€national€court€should€not€be€taken€intoĞ á 1  Ğconsideration€when€applying€the€Ô_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtemporisÔ_Ô€rule.€Ğ Ê   ĞÌFinally,€it€is€my€view€that€when€the€Committee€considers€a€communication€under€the€OptionalĞ œì  ĞProtocol,€its€decisions€should€be€guided€only€by€the€legal€principles€found€in€the€provisions€of€theĞ …Õ  ĞCovenant€itself,€and€not€by€political€considerations,€even€of€a€general€nature,€or€the€fear€of€a€floodĞ n¾  Ğof€communications€from€countries€that€have€changed€their€system€of€Government.€Ğ W§  ĞÌ[Done€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€French€text€being€the€original€version.]€Ğ )y ĞÓDÓ