SECOND SECTION
CASE OF
SUBAŞİ AND ÇOBAN v. TURKEY
(Application no.
20129/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 July 2013
This judgment will become
final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Subaşi and Çoban v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human
Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Guido Raimondi, President,
Danutė Jočienė,
Peer Lorenzen,
Dragoljub Popović,
Işıl Karakaş,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 June 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no.
20129/07) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34
of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(“the Convention”) by two Turkish nationals, Ms Zuhal Subaşi and
Mr Ali Çoban (“the applicants”), on 12 May 2007.
The applicants were represented by Ms A. Kuru
Üstün, a lawyer practising in Izmir. The second applicant was granted legal
aid. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
On 12 June 2009 the application was communicated to
the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of
the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicants were born in 1978 and 1981 and
live in Manisa and Izmir respectively.
On 1 May 2006 a demonstration was held in Izmir to celebrate Labour Day. The applicants, who were participants in this demonstration,
claimed that they were attacked by police officers from the Rapid Response
Force (Çevik Kuvvet) during the demonstration. According to the
applicants, the police officers initially targeted the first applicant. When
she fell to the ground, the second applicant tried to shield her, at which point
he was also attacked, sprayed with pepper gas, kicked and beaten with
truncheons. They submitted a photograph in which the second applicant is covering
a person on the ground a couple of metres behind a group of police officers
holding truncheons, and an officer is bending down towards them. The photograph
was published on 2 May 2006 in a local newspaper. The applicants were not
arrested.
On the same day, after the demonstration, the
applicants applied to the Human Rights Centre at the Izmir Bar Association with
a view to requesting legal aid in order to lodge their complaints against the
police. At the Izmir Bar Association, photographs showing their injuries were
taken.
On 2 May 2006 the applicants lodged a complaint
with the Izmir public prosecutor against the police officers involved in the
incidents. They complained that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by the
police and requested to be referred to the Forensic Medicine Institute and to a
university hospital. In their complaint they noted that their representative
had been appointed by the Izmir Bar Association to act on their behalf. In
support of their complaint the applicants submitted to the public prosecutor’s
office the aforementioned photograph published on 2 May 2006.
On the same day the Izmir public prosecutor took
statements from the applicants regarding their complaints. The first applicant
stated that she had attended the demonstration with the trade unions and had
been attacked by police officers who wanted to disperse certain demonstrators.
She further stated that the second applicant had also been beaten while he was attempting
to shield her from the police attacks. The second applicant made a statement
along the same lines.
On 3 May 2006 the applicants were examined by the
Izmir branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. According to the report
prepared at the end of the first applicant’s examination, there was swelling on
the right parietal- occipital region of the head and sensitivity on palpation,
sensitivity on the right side of the jaw when chewing, and sensitivity on
palpation in the area between the right eye and the right temporal, an 8 x 1 cm
red ecchymosis (bruising) above the left scapula, a 6 x 3 cm blue-purple ecchymosis
on the upper outer right arm, and a 7 x 3 cm blue-purple ecchymosis with a red outer
lining on the upper outer right thigh, together with sensitivity on palpation
in the ecchymotic areas. The doctor stated that the injuries observed on the
first applicant’s body were the result of blunt soft tissue trauma which could
be treated by simple medical intervention and that she had also suffered from
nausea on the date of the incident because of the gas which the police had used
that day. A psychiatric examination of the first applicant revealed that she
was generally in good health, but was suffering from diminished concentration
and had trouble finding the correct words when speaking, on account of the
blows to her head.
The medical report drawn up regarding the second
applicant on the same date identified 5, 4 and 2 cm linear red ecchymoses and a
purple ecchymosis 3 cm in diameter on the left side of the forehead, an
epithelised purple ecchymosis of 1 cm in diameter at the root of the nose, a
0.5 cm purple ecchymosis on the outer side of the right zygomatic bone, a green
ecchymosis of 3 cm in diameter on the upper outer left scapular region, a
vertical 11 x 2 cm green-yellow ecchymosis on the left paravertebral region and
the inner left scapular region, horizontal purple ecchymoses of
13 x 0.5 cm and 12 x 0.5 cm on the lower back, 8 x 0.5 cm and
6 x 0.5 cm light yellow ecchymoses on the left of the waist, two
3 x 1 cm purple ecchymoses of 2 cm in diameter on the right outer bicep, a
swelling of 1 cm in diameter on the left parietal region, a V-shaped 4 x 1.5 cm
red-brown ecchymotic abrasion on the lower inner area of the left knee
cap, a swelling of the left thumb, and nausea due to pepper gas spray he had
been exposed to on the day of the incident. The report stated that the injuries
on the second applicant’s body were the result of blunt trauma and that they
could be treated by simple medical intervention. In psychological terms, the
second applicant was found to be suffering from trauma and flashbacks.
On 5 May 2006 the second applicant was referred by
the Izmir public prosecutor to the Izmir Atatürk Teaching and Research Hospital for further medical examinations. The findings in the medical report drawn up
at the hospital on 8 May 2006 were consistent with the previous report and
indicated that the injuries inflicted on the applicant had not caused him any
permanent physical damage.
On an unspecified date, the applicants’
representative submitted to the public prosecutor’s office three photographs of
the second applicant taken on 1 May 2006 at the Human Rights Centre of the
Izmir Bar Association and showing injuries he had sustained.
On 24 May 2006 the Izmir police headquarters
submitted a statement to the Izmir public prosecutor giving an account of the
events that took place on 1 May 2006. They stated that the police had only used
force to the extent authorised under Law no. 2559 on the Duties and
Powers of the Police in order to disperse demonstrators who were acting in a
disorderly manner and throwing stones at the police. They further stated that
there was no indication that the applicants had been assaulted by police
officers.
On 21 June 2006 an expert report was submitted
to the Izmir public prosecutor regarding the incidents of 1 May 2006, which had
been prepared on the basis of thirty-two photographs and twenty-seven minutes
of video footage of the demonstrations held on that date. The report stated in
particular that a woman who resembled the female applicant had quarrelled with
and pushed a police officer during the incidents. There was no indication of an
assault against the applicants in the material examined.
On 29 June 2006 the Izmir public prosecutor
decided not to prosecute the police officers involved in the incidents. The
public prosecutor held that the injuries mentioned in the applicants’ medical
reports were not life-threatening and only required simple medical treatment. The
public prosecutor further noted that a woman who resembled the female applicant
had quarrelled with and pushed a police officer during the incidents. He also
noted that photographs of the incidents showed that some demonstrators were
holding flags of illegal organisations; that some shop windows had been broken;
that paving stones had been torn up; that posters of the leader of a terrorist
organisation, Abdullah Öcalan, were being held up, and that demonstrators had
thrown stones at the police. The public prosecutor concluded that the police
officers had acted under the authority granted by Law no. 2559 to fend off the
attacks they had faced, and that there was no evidence to support the
applicants’ allegations that the police had used excessive force against them.
In the meantime, the second applicant had
applied to the Izmir Branch of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (İnsan
Hakları Vakfı) on 3 May 2006 for further medical examinations. According
to the medical report drawn up by the Human Rights Foundation on 17 July 2006,
which mainly repeated the findings of the previous reports, the second
applicant’s injuries were consistent with his allegations of ill-treatment.
On 14 August 2006 the applicants objected to the
Izmir public prosecutor’s decision of 29 June 2006.
On 6 September 2006 the Karşıyaka
Assize Court rejected the applicants’ objection.
According to a
handwritten note on the envelope containing the Karşıyaka
Assize Court’s decision of 6 September 2006,
submitted by the applicants, that decision was communicated to their
representative on 13 November 2006.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
At the material time, the relevant articles of Law no. 2559 on the Duties and Powers of the Police as follows:
Section 16
“The police may use firearms:
(a) in self-defence, ...
(h) or if a person or a group resists the police and prevents
them from carrying out their duties or if there is an attack against the
police.”
Additional Section 6
“In cases of resistance by persons whose arrest is necessary or
by groups whose dispersal is necessary or of an attack or threat of an attack,
the police may use violence to subdue these actions.
Use of violence refers to the use of bodily force, physical
force and all types of weapons specified in the law, and gradually increases
according to the nature and level of resistance and attack in such a way as to
restore calm.
In cases of intervention by group forces, the extent of the use
of force and the equipment and instruments to be used shall be determined by
the commander of the intervening force.”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 1, 3, 6 §§ 1
AND 3 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicants complained under Articles 1 and 3
of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by police
officers. They further alleged under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and Article 13 of
the Convention that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation
of their allegations of ill-treatment and to duly examine the evidence they had
submitted in support of their allegations. The applicants claimed that the
authorities had also failed to punish the police officers responsible, which
cast doubt on their independence and impartiality. Lastly, the applicants
maintained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the decisions of the Izmir public prosecutor and the Karşıyaka Assize Court lacked reasoning.
The Court considers that the applicants’
aforementioned complaints should be examined from the standpoint of Article 3
alone, which reads:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Admissibility
The Government submitted
firstly that the applicants had not respected the six-month time-limit, because
they had not introduced their application with the Court within six months of the
date of the rejection of their objection by the Karşıyaka Assize Court on 6 September 2006. They submitted that there
were no documents in the file to show that the Assize Court’s decision had been
served on the applicants on 13 November 2006.
. The
Government also considered that the applicants had failed to make use of a
number of civil and administrative remedies in respect of their complaints of
ill-treatment.
. The
applicants maintained that the decision had been communicated to them on 13
November 2006, and submitted that it was up to the Government to provide
documentary evidence to the contrary. They also maintained that they had
exhausted all domestic remedies.
. As
regards the Government’s submission that the applicants had failed to introduce
their application with the Court within six months of the date of the Karşıyaka
Assize Court’s decision of 6 September 2006, the Court
observes that decisions adopted by assize courts are served on the parties.
Indeed, the Karşıyaka Assize Court explicitly
stated in its decision that the decision was to be served on the applicants’
representative. In this connection, the Court reiterates that where an
applicant is entitled to be served with a written copy of the final domestic
decision the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best
served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of
the written judgment (see Worm
v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions
1997-V). It therefore cannot accept the Government’s suggestion that the
starting point of the six-month period was the date on which the Karşıyaka
Assize Court adopted its decision.
. According
to a handwritten note on the envelope
containing the Karşıyaka Assize Court’s decision of 6
September 2006, the decision was served on the applicants’
representative on 13 November 2006. The application was submitted to the Court
on 12 May 2007, that is, within the six-month
time-limit. The Government, beyond submitting that there were no documents
showing that the decision had been communicated to the applicants on 13 November
2006, did not seek to challenge the veracity or authenticity of the handwritten
note on the decision. Neither did they seek to submit to the Court any
information or documents to show that the decision had been served on the
applicants or their representative on another date. In the light of the
foregoing, the Court rejects the Government’s submission that the application
was submitted to the Court too late.
. Regarding
the Government’s reference to civil and administrative remedies, the Court
reiterates that it has already examined and rejected similar preliminary
objections in other, similar cases (see, in particular, Güler
and Öngel v. Turkey, nos. 29612/05 and 30668/05, § 21, 4 October 2011; Atalay v. Turkey, no. 1249/03, § 28, 18 September 2008; and Gazioğlu
and Others v. Turkey, no. 29835/05, §§ 29 and 30, 17 May 2011 and the cases cited therein). The Court finds no particular circumstances in the instant
case which would require it to depart from its findings in the above-mentioned
cases. It therefore rejects the Government’s preliminary objection in respect
of civil and administrative remedies.
The Court notes that the application is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds.
It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The responsibility of the respondent State in the
light of the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention
The Government submitted that the police had
used physical force and tear gas only when a group of demonstrators had begun
acting in a disorderly manner and had attacked the police with stones. They
contended that the force used by the police was proportionate and that
therefore it had been in line with the domestic law (see additional
section 6 of Law no. 2559 on the Duties and Powers of the Police). The
Government noted that there was no image which showed the applicants being ill-treated
by police. They further maintained that according to the video footage a woman
who resembled the first applicant had quarrelled with police officers, and that
the reports issued in respect of the applicants had referred to a few bruises and
scratches. The Government considered that the applicants had sustained the
injuries found on their bodies in the “chaotic atmosphere” of the
demonstration, and asked the Court to declare the applicants’ allegations
ill-founded.
The applicants maintained
that they had been kicked, beaten and sprayed with tear gas by police officers
during the demonstration held on 1 May 2006, and that the force used by the
police against them had constituted ill-treatment within the meaning of
Article 3 of the Convention.
As the Court has
underlined on many occasions, Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the
most fundamental values of a democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms
torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the
circumstances and the victim’s behaviour (see Labita
v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
In this connection, it also notes that ill-treatment must attain a minimum
level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the
Convention.
. Furthermore,
in assessing evidence, the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” is
generally applied. However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of
sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted
presumptions of fact. Further, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and
3 of the Convention, the Court must apply particularly thorough scrutiny (see Güler
and Öngel, cited above, § 26, and Saya and Others v. Turkey,
no. 4327/02, § 19, 7 October 2008).
The Court observes at the outset that the
applicants submitted to the Court photographs showing injuries on their bodies
taken at the Human Rights Centre of the Izmir Bar Association on 1 May 2006.
Their representative further submitted before the national authorities that she
had begun to act on their behalf after they had applied to the Bar Association
and after those photographs had been taken. The Government did not challenge
the authenticity of the photographs or the veracity of the submissions. The
Court therefore considers that the injuries observed in those photographs,
which are consistent with the content of the medical reports issued subsequently,
were sustained on 1 May 2006. As to whether the applicants sustained those
injuries during the demonstration, the Court notes that the Government
submitted that there was no image in the police forces’ video recordings showing
the applicants being ill-treated by police. Nevertheless, the Government did
not deny the applicants’ claim that they had participated in the demonstration,
during which they had been injured. Besides, in their observations submitted to
the Court, the Government contended that the applicants had sustained those
injuries in the chaotic atmosphere which existed at the time, after the police had
used force against some of the demonstrators. What is more, according to the
medical reports issued with regard to the applicants, the injuries observed on
their bodies were the result of blunt trauma, a finding which is consistent
with the applicants’ allegation that they had been beaten with truncheons (see
paragraphs 9 and 10 above). In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicants were injured during the demonstration of 1 May
2006 when the police used force to disperse protestors.
According to the photographs submitted by the
applicants and the medical reports, the applicants had several bruises,
abrasions and swellings on various parts of their bodies, suffered from nausea caused
by pepper gas spray, and showed signs of psychological suffering. The Court is
therefore convinced that these injuries are sufficient to bring the applicants’
complaints within the scope of Article 3.
In this connection, the Court reiterates that
Article 3 does not prohibit the use of force in certain well-defined
circumstances. However, such force may be used only if indispensable and must
not be excessive (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 66-78, ECHR
2000-XII). In the present case, the Court must
therefore determine whether the recourse to physical force was strictly necessary and proportionate.
The Court observes from the submissions of the
Government and from the video recording of the incident during the
demonstration of 1 May 2006 that a confrontation occurred between some
demonstrators and the police forces. The Court notes at this point that the
Government have not claimed that the applicants were among the demonstrators
who were engaged in acts of violence. The Government have solely mentioned that
according to the expert report a woman who resembled the first applicant had
had a quarrel with an officer. However, not even this allegation was proven at the
national level. Besides, the national authorities’ decisions did not contain
any finding as to the applicants’ participation in the confrontation with the
security forces.
In this connection, the Court also observes from
the video recording of the incident that a very large group of police officers,
all of whom had the necessary equipment, had been deployed to the area of the
demonstration. It is therefore not possible to conclude that the security
forces were called upon to respond without prior preparation (see Güler and
Öngel, cited above, § 29, and Balçık and Others v. Turkey,
no. 25/02, § 32, 29 November 2007). Furthermore, the Government have not
provided any information showing that the intervention of the security forces
was properly regulated and organised in such a way as to minimise to the
greatest extent possible any risk of bodily harm to the demonstrators. In the
light of the aforementioned considerations, the Court concludes that the force
used by the police against the applicants, who were not among the demonstrators
who confronted the police, was unjustified.
In these circumstances,
the Court finds that the injuries sustained by the applicants were the result
of treatment for which the State bears responsibility. Having regard to the
nature and degree of the applicants’ injuries, the Court considers that the
treatment in question reached a sufficient level of severity to be characterised
as inhuman treatment (see İzgi v. Turkey, no. 44861/04, § 40, 15 November 2011).
40. Accordingly,
there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive
limb.
2. The responsibility of the respondent State in the
light of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention
The Government contended that the applicants’
allegations had been subjected to an effective examination, since an
investigation had been initiated promptly. Referring to the Court’s case-law,
the Government submitted that the applicants had actively participated in the
investigation. They concluded that this part of the application was
ill-founded.
The applicants submitted that the Izmir public
prosecutor did not conduct an effective investigation, as he failed to take
into consideration a number of items of evidence they had submitted, in
particular the photograph published in a local newspaper (see paragraph 7
above). Nor did the prosecutor obtain video recordings in which it could be
seen that they had been beaten by police, despite the applicants’ explicit
statements that those images had been broadcast on television. The applicants
further noted that the Izmir public prosecutor had not obtained statements from
the police officers who were involved in the incident.
The Court reiterates that
Article 3 of the Convention also requires the
authorities to investigate allegations of ill-treatment when they are
“arguable” and “raise a reasonable suspicion” (see, in particular, Ay v. Turkey, no.
30951/96, §§ 59-60, 22 March 2005). The minimum standards of effectiveness
defined by the Court’s case-law include the requirements that the investigation
be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny. Moreover, the
competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see,
for example, Çelik and İmret v. Turkey, no. 44093/98, § 55, 26 October 2004). In addition,
the Court reiterates that the rights enshrined in the Convention are practical
and effective, and not theoretical or illusory. Therefore, in such cases, an
effective investigation must be able to lead to the identification and punishment
of those responsible (see Orhan Kur v. Turkey, no. 32577/02, § 46, 3 June 2008).
. The
Court has found above that the respondent State was responsible, under Article
3 of the Convention, for the injuries sustained by the applicants. An effective
investigation was therefore required.
. In
the instant case, the Court observes that an investigation of the applicants’
allegations was initiated by the Izmir public prosecutor’s office (see
paragraphs 8-15 above). The investigation ended on 6 September 2006 when the Karşıyaka Assize Court upheld
the decision of the public prosecutor not to prosecute the police officers for
ill-treatment. The Court, having examined the documents contained in the case
file, considers that there were serious shortcomings in the way the
investigation was conducted by the public prosecutor, and that these had
repercussions on its effectiveness.
. Firstly,
there is no indication in the case file to show that in the course of
the investigation the Izmir
public prosecutor attempted to identify the police officers who were on duty
and to question them. Rather, he relied solely on the report prepared by the
police in concluding that the force used by the security forces had been
proportionate (see paragraphs 13 and 15 above). Secondly, the public prosecutor
failed to enquire whether the applicants had engaged in any of the acts of
violence referred to in the police report. Thirdly, it appears that the findings of the medical reports
were not given serious consideration, despite the severity of the injuries
noted therein. Finally, the prosecutor also appears to
have failed to secure statements from potential eyewitnesses and did not examine
video recordings of the incidents other than those submitted by the police.
. In
the light of the above, the Court concludes that the national authorities
failed to carry out an effective investigation of the applicants’ allegations
of ill-treatment.
. There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 41 of the
Convention provides:
“If 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.”
A. Damage
The applicants claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) each in
respect of non-pecuniary damage. The second applicant also claimed EUR
760 in respect of pecuniary damage, alleging that he had been dismissed from
his job after the incident and had been unemployed for three months.
The Government submitted that the applicants’ claims were unsubstantiated.
The Court does not discern any causal link
between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged by the second
applicant; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, in view of the violations found under Article 3 of the
Convention, the Court finds that the applicants must have suffered pain and
distress which cannot be compensated for solely by the Court’s finding of a
violation. It awards the applicants the sum
claimed by them in full, namely EUR 15,000 each, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicants also claimed EUR 1,760 for costs
and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and
subsequently before the Court. In support of their claims, the applicants
submitted a time sheet indicating a total of fifteen and a half hours of legal
work carried out by their legal representative, two receipts for payment for translations,
and a number of invoices for photocopying and postal costs.
The Government considered the
claim to be unjustified, and invited the Court not to make any awards.
According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant
is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has
been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the
documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the applicants jointly their claim in full, covering costs
under all heads. From this sum should be deducted the EUR 850 granted to the
second applicant by way of legal aid under the Council of Europe’s legal aid
scheme.
C. Default interest
The 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the
application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be
converted into the currency of the respondent State
at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) each, plus
any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 1,760 (one thousand seven hundred and
sixty euros) jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in
respect of costs and expenses, less EUR 850 (eight
hundred and fifty euros) granted by way of legal aid;
(b) that 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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 July 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Guido
Raimondi
Registrar President
