July 24
IRAN:
Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s fate unclear while lawyer Javid Houtan Kiyan
languishes in jail
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL -- PUBLIC STATEMENT
AI Index: MDE 13/053/2012 --- 24 July 2012
Iran: Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s fate unclear while lawyer Javid Houtan Kiyan
languishes in jail
2 years after an international outcry erupted over her sentence of stoning to
death, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani remains imprisoned in north-west Iran
apparently still facing a stoning sentence. Her lawyer, Javid Houtan Kiyan,
arrested on account of his advocacy for her, remains held as a prisoner of
conscience, and is reported to have been sentenced to a lengthy prison term. He
is believed to have been tortured during his detention.
Recent but unconfirmed reports suggested that the Iranian authorities no longer
intend to implement the stoning sentence handed down to Sakineh Mohammadi
Ashtiani in 2006. These reports highlight the need for clarity concerning her
fate.
According to a 25 June 2012 article in The Times [of London] newspaper,
Mohammad Mostafaie, one of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s previous lawyers, said
that he had heard that the stoning sentence had been “lifted” and that “she
could be released” before completing her sentence.
While this would be welcome news, Amnesty International is not aware of any
official confirmation that this is the case. If Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is
no longer under sentence of stoning, the Iranian authorities should state
publicly that this is the case, and clarify her current legal status, including
any remaining prison sentence imposed upon her.
Under Iran’s current Code of Criminal Procedures, an individual convicted of
stoning must remain in detention until the sentence is carried out. The life of
Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani appears to remain in the balance: if her stoning
sentence has not been lifted, then it could be carried out at any time as it
has previously been sent to the Office for the Implementation of Sentences.
If Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani remains under sentence of stoning to death,
Amnesty International renews its appeal to the Iranian authorities to overturn
the stoning sentence and not to execute Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani by any other
means.
Amnesty International would consider Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani a prisoner of
conscience and call for her immediate release if she is being held solely in
connection for having had consensual sexual relations.
Additionally, Amnesty International is calling for the immediate and
unconditional release of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s last lawyer, Javid Houtan
Kiyan. He was arrested in October 2010 along with Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s
son and two German journalists, who have all been released. Javid Houtan Kiyan
is believed to have been sentenced to at least 4 years in prison and given a
five-year ban on practising law on charges including “spreading propaganda
against the system” and “gathering and colluding with intent to harm state
security”, and may be facing trial on the charge of espionage, which can carry
the death penalty.
A letter believed to have been written by Javid Houtan Kiyan while in prison in
which he alleged that he had been tortured, surfaced in March 2011. Naghi
Mahmoudi, Javid Houtan Kiyan’s lawyer who has now fled the country, has
reported that he has obtained a 3-page letter written recently by his client,
who remains in Tabriz Central Prison.
In the new letter, Javid Houtan Kiyan reiterated that he has experienced
physical and psychological torture “like a soccer football kicked about” and
that every day since his arrest, he has wished to die. He stated that he was
transferred from a section of the prison holding those convicted financial
crimes, to the “methadone” ward where drug addicts are held. He stated that he
continues to be subjected to torture and that while he has written to various
judicial officials to complain, his letters have made no difference and that he
has therefore lost all hope. He adds that he has been deprived of seeing his
young daughter as well.
Amnesty International is once again urging the Iranian authorities to conduct a
prompt, thorough and independent investigation into the allegations of torture
made by Javid Houtan Kiyan and for anyone found responsible for violations to
be brought promptly to justice in full accordance with international fair trial
standards.
Pending his release, Javid Houtan Kiyan must be given immediate access to his
family, a lawyer of his choice, an independent doctor and all necessary medical
care.
Background
Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is a 44-year-old mother of 2. Arrested in 2005, in
2006 she was convicted following an unfair trial of “adultery while married”
for which the punishment is a mandatory stoning sentence. Sakineh Mohammadi
Ashtiani had previously been sentenced to flogging for “illicit relations”. In
May 2007 the Supreme Court confirmed the stoning sentence. Later still, the
Amnesty and Clemency Commission twice rejected her requests for clemency.
She was also convicted of having played a part in the murder of her husband,
Ebrahim Qaderzadeh, for which she was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. This
sentence was initially upheld by the Supreme Court. However, according to Javid
Houtan Kiyan, in 2009 a judicial review by the Supreme Court led to the
conviction of murder being changed to “complicity” in murder. As a result, he
says the sentence was reduced to 5 years – the maximum sentence for this
offence although he was not able to provide any documents in this regard before
his arrest.
From Iran’s Azerbaijani minority, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s mother tongue is
Azerbaijani Turkic and she may not have fully understood the legal proceedings
she went through, since no translation from Persian was offered to her at any
point.
Amnesty International has repeatedly called on the Iranian authorities to
decriminalize consensual sexual relations between adults. In the revised Penal
Code, passed in February 2012 but which has not yet entered into force, the
punishment of stoning was removed, although it would remain a crime to have
sexual relations outside marriage. However, Article 167 of Iran’s Constitution
directs judges to use Islamic law to rule on a case in the absence of codified
law.
The organization is therefore concerned that while the revised Penal Code does
not explicitly provide for stoning to death, judges would still be able to pass
stoning sentences using Islamic law sources, in line with this constitutional
provision.
The new Penal Code would also continue to allow judges to decide on the merits
of a case solely based on their subjective “knowledge” (‘elm-e qazi) – one of
many concerns Amnesty International has over the fairness of trial proceedings
in Iran. The existing provision regarding “knowledge of the judge” in the
current Penal Code was relied on by three of the judges who passed the majority
verdict of stoning to death against Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani.
Amnesty International considers stoning to be a particularly repugnant and
torturous form of execution and opposes the death penalty in all cases as a
violation of the right to life and the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and
degrading punishment.
Death by stoning violates Article 6 [right to life] and 7 [prohibition of
torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment] of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a state
party.
(source: Amnesty International)
MALDIVES:
Cannot debate over not implementing death penalty: AG
Attorney General (AG) Aishath Azima Shakoor has said last night that
implementing capital punishment cannot be debated over.
“It cannot be debated to not implement capital punishment. Debating over
whether a certain verdict is not correct or that the death penalty is not a
suitable punishment for a crime because it wasn’t a murder in the first degree
but a murder in the second degree is different. But it cannot be debated that
the death penalty cannot be implemented for murder,” she said during an
interview on TVM’s “Raajje Miadhu” show.
She revealed on the show that the AG’s office is working on drafting the
procedures required to implement the death penalty and that the Home Minister
Mohamed Jameel Ahmed has also sent a letter to the parliament to identify the
procedures required to implement the death penalty.
When asked by the presenter that given several people claiming problems with
the judicial system if whether it was the right juncture to implement the death
penalty Azima criticized such claims saying that a certain group is conspiring
to weaken the legal system.
Azima noted that there will always be opposition in the international community
against the death penalty with those who believe the punishment is inhumane but
there are also those who believe that in case of an increase in extreme crimes
“extreme punishment” needs to implemented.
“The other argument is that if someone commits a crime that necessitates
capital punishment then it must be implemented….even America with the most
developed legal system implements the death penalty. So if a person commits a
crime that deserves the death penalty like killing with intent or planning and
murdering a lot of people, isn’t that inhumane?” she questioned.
Azima said that the government will be pressured by those who are against
capital punishment and statements will be made as well. She also said that the
Penal Code currently in parliament process would need to be perfect and that
there are several degrees of the death penalty.
She said that if the death penalty is to be implemented all the courts should
support it as it is the procedure followed by all countries implementing the
death penalty. She added that legal specifications should exist on the
implementation of the death penalty.
“For example, what are the rights of the person who should be executed? What
are his the last rights he’s entitled to? What should be done for his family?
What are the rights of the victim’s family? This needs to be specified. There
already are people on whom the death penalty has been issued, but so far never
implemented. Societal sensitivities are also involved in this, but I don’t this
is the time to be talking of it. But there is also the question if a lower
court issues the death penalty on a person whether it should be implemented?
Several people tell me that this problem will be solved when it is implemented.
Then I ask how it should be done. They don’t have an answer for that,” she
said.
She revealed that considering the messages on the media and SMS she receives
from people it is widely believed that implementing the death penalty will
solve the problem, but that she found it hard to confirm. Yet she also said
that considering the matter in one way she believes that it may reduce the
number of murders in the Maldives.
“For example Singapore, the death penalty is implemented on drug traffickers
caught smuggling drugs into the country. People don’t and cannot smuggle drugs
into Singapore easily. The Maldives doesn’t have such a comparison. There are
several such comparisons in the world,” she said.
(source: Haveeru)
SRI LANKA:
The gallows: Sandbag tested, hangmen on verge of recuitement
Such was the report in the ‘Island’ recently. The death penalty is a
contentious subject. The present actual context as always counts for much in
determining the issue. What the times have to tell us is alarming. No one
denies that this country is in the throes of a lawlessness crisis. Rank, status
and position do not count today where crime is concerned. Drug barons,
murderers, hooligans, extortionists, swindlers, commision crows, all corrupt to
the core, occupy high seats whether at national or provincial level. They are
not only tolerated but even embraced and kept pinned to their seats as being
vote pullers. One such notorious hoodlum was reportedly being used as a
go-between in negociations between the government and a group of striking
academics. In other words such refuse of decent society are even considered as
necessary elements in the practise of governance.
20 top ranking provincial politicians were involved in rape and murder over the
last 3 months. The Kahawatte multiple murders, with politics as backdrop, all
following similar patterns send shivers down our spines. Tourist women are not
spared as seen in the murder of one of them in a hotel of the south, with
umpteen cases of molestation. Teen aged school girls are easy prey for use and
abuse. The lilfeless bodies of some are later dumpted under abandoned culvets.
One such accused provincial politician even had the guts to utter threats to
the media when led handcuffed to courts. and that in view of all television
onlookers. ‘Who’ and ‘where’ do not instill respect. The judiciary is held in
contempt (one could argue with sound logic and reason that they have asked for
it with ‘toe the line’ judges abounding in all courts). There was, a few years
ago, an opinion poll conducted in the streets of Colombo regarding the
re-introduction of the death penalty. Absolutely every one interrogated
answered positively and vehemently in favour. Some even insisted that
executions should be held in public…on the Galle Face esplanade. Such is the
fear psychosis combined with disgust and loathing that has gripped the people.
The issue of the death penalty is contentious and highly debated. The most
proliferated argument is that the death penalty does not dissuade criminals.
Satistics are quoted in support. Generally speaking, the countries of
South-East Asia where people move about in security are those where the death
penaty prevails and harsh punishments are meted out for crime. I am thinking of
Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and of course, Singapore. Some countries with
entrenched religions, and highly sophisticated ones at that, are the worst
offenders especially as regards sex oriented crimes: India and Sri Lanka (which
boasts of all four major religions) are classic examples.
Our professors of morality proceed with the contention that religion should
serve as deterrent. And also what about our 2600 year old civilization? it is
argued. Unfortunately both, in spite of the sound and light effects they
continue to generate, are spent forces as regards the inner renewal of the
country’s citizens. What is forgotten is that religion and civilization go hand
in hand. They are 2 sides of the same coin thriving on one another. When one
falls so does the other. In Sri Lanka both have floundered to such an extent
that putting them back seems as arduous as reconstructing Hympty Dumpty. Have
not leading Buddhist monks stated in public that mere ‘bana’ preaching this
country cannot be put on the right track. Harping on religion and civilization
today is like tailoring invisible clothes for naked emperors.
Does the death penalty dissuade potential murderers? Those who say ‘no’ come up
with perennial arguments already enshrined in classical works such as the
writings of J – P. Sartre and Albert Camus who enunciated theses of
ultra-humanism. Both were, it must be remembered extreme-left thinkers. As a
counter argument suffice it to restate what Mr.Wijedasa Rajapakse once said on
television: that when the inmates of death row were made aware of imminent
attempts to re-introduce the gallows, they all suffered overnight from acute
diarrhea.
This phenomenon caused by morbid fear has been translated into Sinhales as ‘goo
bhaya’. So who says the death penalty does not beget fear? This is the physical
reality as experienced by condemned murderers which no doubt also affects their
closest entourage with repercussions on wider circles. But there are other
imposing arguments that render the above stated objection look puerile. As
regards the much vaunted statistics adduced as proof, one could ask: how much
of perpetrated crime is made official and brought to public awareness? Crime
could well be compared with bank deposits.
How many of such are official? How many are hidden in undisclosed accounts, or
are buried in nameless graves that are bank vaults, or sent abroad envelopped
in secrecy? So also with crime. With most crime, especially sex crimes, what is
brought to the limelight is only the tip of the iceberg. Ideas of
respectability, status, reputation and the thought of being involved in
interminable police and legal wranglings often stand in the way of giving
publicity to crime. So as with bank accounts, many criminal deeds are stacked
away in undisclosed deposits, inbdividual and collective, even hidden from
prying journalistic eyes. Statistics are therefore false indicators meant for
the gullible.
The only lesson criminals should be made to understand is that ‘crime does not
pay’. This is best shown by making the criminals pay for their deeds in a
manner commensurate with the crimes committed. And now is the time for
enforcement. Furthermore, rape, abuse of minors, murder, are acts of terror and
their perpetrators must be considered as being terrorists. Has not this country
declared an all out war on terror? Have we won over one terror only to succumb
to another?
The gallows is long overdue. The sandbags have been tested, hangmen are soon to
be recruited on a long term basis – fifteen year contracts. The sandbags can
now be safely set aside and the useless gutter garbage bins of our society
serve instead as dead weight with the send-off words: good riddance to bad
rubbish. Indeed religion and civilization urgently need legislative and
executive props to make their mark on men and morals. In Sri Lanka State and
religion have had closer ties that in most countries.
It is high time to activate that link. At present both are dormant each living
in its own dreamland with ample excuses for not foraying into the question of
the death penalty, expecially its execution. Execution of the death sentence
would be of immense service to both. The judiciary appears to have taken the
lead with the historic Appeal Court judgment in the ‘Royal Park Condominium’
murder case. It is for the judiciary to judge. But it needs the Executive to
‘execute’.The time indeed is more than ripe for that.
(source: Mario Perera, Kadawata----LankaWeb)
ZIMBABWE:
All you need to know about final draft constitution
Zimbabwe's long-awaited draft constitution is finally out, after 4 years of
bickering between the coalition government parties. The management committee,
comprising negotiators from the 3 political parties in the unity government,
worked through the night until they agreed on the final draft on July 17. Each
one had to append their signatures to the final copy to avoid backtracking
problems in the future.
Kent University law lecturer Dr. Alex Magaisa was an expert adviser for the
MDC-T to the Parliamentary Select Committee, or COPAC, which was responsible
for crafting the draft.
Magaisa tells the Voice of America's Violet Gonda that the final draft has some
positive changes from the current Lancaster House Constitution.
VIOLET: I understand that the clause on the death penalty is somewhat gender
sensitive?
MAGAISA: Yes. First of all I think the point we should celebrate is that the
death penalty is effectively going to be abolished accept where parliament
passes a law in regards to cases of aggravated murder. Now unfortunately
aggravated murder does not seem to have been defined. I think its important
that there be some guidance and definitions as to what constitutes aggravated
murder. But I would suggest these are situations where murder is so gruesome,
where murder is premeditated, where there is extreme use of violence, where the
whole episode is so repugnant and despicable. I think that would constitute
aggravated murder. It needs to be defined in the constitution so that it’s
clear. It’s only in those cases where the death penalty may be allowed.
But even then the court has discretion to pass a death sentence or not, which I
think is useful because the courts are minded not to use the death penalty then
I think it will effectively be abolished. There are however specific people who
are exempted from the imposition of carrying out of the death penalty. It is
persons who are under the age of 21 years or who where under 21 years at the
time of the offense because they are considered to be youth, then a person who
is over 70 years also is exempt from the death penalty, and third – rather
controversially I have to say, all women are exempt from the imposition or
carrying out of the death penalty.
VIOLET: Why is it controversial?
MAGAISA: I think it’s going to be a point of controversy between the men and
women because if you consider it one of the key issues that has been raised
over the course of the debate is the issue of gender equality between men and
women. Now here the constitution seems to be taking a specific discriminatory
approach in favor of women as opposed to men. You can consider a situation
where two people - a man and woman - might commit aggravated murder. You are
going to have an absurd situation in which the man is going to be sent to the
gallows but the woman, who may have done equally the same despicable act as the
man, will be spared the gallows.
VIOLET: What is your understanding as to how they came up with that decision?
MAGAISA: I have no idea. My understanding is that usually the clause is that
the death sentence cannot be imposed or carried out on a woman who is pregnant.
Now we understand the moral basis for this but what I am not so sure about is
the basis – moral or legal - of the distinction between men and women in regard
to the imposition and carrying out of the death sentence generally. I think
this is a point where there will be a lot of discussion.
(source: Opinion, New Zimbabwe)
JAPAN:
To advise lay judges, Supreme Court institute cites death penalty precedent
A research institute affiliated with the Supreme Court has issued a report on
murder trials in which capital punishment has been handed down to serve as a
precedent for lay judge trials, noting the ultimate sentence is usually
reserved for cases involving multiple slayings.
The Legal Training and Research Institute said Monday it compiled the research
paper to look into past death sentences to provide input for lay judges hearing
criminal trials.
Judges, particularly nonprofessionals, should carefully consult past cases
before they decide whether to hand down the death sentence because it is
extremely important to ensure fairness, given the severity of the punishment
compared with a prison term, it said.
For less serious crimes, the institute called for tolerance of varying
conclusions by lay judges in terms of the severity of sentences.
The lay judge system was introduced in May 2009 to handle murders and other
serious crimes to include the participation of ordinary citizens in the
judicial process, which was previously handled only by professional judges.
The institute's findings endorsed the Supreme Court's standards set in 1983 in
the case of Norio Nagayama, who was hanged in 1997 for killing 4 people when he
was a teenager. Among other factors, the so-called Nagayama standards take into
consideration the number of victims, motives, brutality and social impact of
the crime.
The research body examined 346 murder or robbery-murder cases between 1980 and
2009 in which the ruling was for death or life imprisonment, against the
demands of prosecutors for capital punishment.
Among them, death sentences were finalized in 32 % of cases where there was
only 1 victim, while the rate rose to 59 % in cases involving 2 victims and to
79 % when 3 or more people were killed.
The paper said it is "natural that criminal responsibility of the defendants
becomes heavier when the number of victims is large, as human lives should be
protected most under the Penal Code."
The report notes that all 10 convicted murderers who killed again after being
released on parole from life prison terms were given the death sentence even if
there was only 2 victim.
In 5 of 10 kidnap-for-ransom cases in which one person was killed, the
defendants were sentenced to death, according to the institute.
In all 21 robbery-murder cases with three or more people slain, the defendants
were given the death penalty.
In cases where the number of murder victims totaled three or more, some
defendants were sentenced to life. Some of them were found to have a mental
disorder, or they played a subordinate role in the crime or they had killed
family members.
The institute also found an increasing trend in which courts have handed down
the death sentence in murder trials of the first instance in the five-year
period from 2005 compared with each 10-year period since 1955, underlining the
recent tendency of harsher punishments given to convicted killers.
Between 2005 and 2009, capital punishment was handed down in 0.99 percent of
murder trials of the first instance, compared with 0.2 percent during the
40-year period beginning in 1955.
In the lay judge system, 6 citizens sit with 3 professional judges to decide
the facts in a case and arrive at a verdict.
(source: Japan Times)
INDONESIA:
Death becomes them
A pair of government officials, convicted of embezzling state funds and
accepting bribes, was executed before a firing squad after their appeals were
turned down. Fortunately, it did not happen here in Indonesia, but in China,
where corruption is equally entrenched.
But the death penalties meted out last year against Xu Maiyong and Jiang
Renjie, respectively former vice mayor of Hangzhou and former vice mayor of
Suzhou in China, may someday be handed down to Indonesian graft convicts in a
bid to inject new energy into the country’s fight against corruption.
There is a clear sense of desperation among members of the presidential
advisory team who are now discussing the possibility of introducing capital
punishment into the national judiciary in the matter of corruption eradication.
Political reforms that swept across the country in 1998 marked a start to the
war on corruption, collusion and nepotism, but graft has appeared to escalate
and involves all branches of power, both in the capital and the regions.
Tougher anticorruption actions, the inception of an independent Corruption
Eradication Commission (KPK) and a freer media seem to have had little impact
on the nationwide drive against corruption. Indonesia remains one of the most
corrupt countries in the world, at least according to respected global
corruption watchdog Transparency International, despite all the hard work.
The one flaw in the country’s law enforcement against corruption is undoubtedly
its failure to deter people from committing the crime, billed as an
extraordinary felony as it can deprive millions of impoverished people of
healthcare and education or people in remote areas of basic infrastructure.
Punishments for graft convicts remain too lenient and barely indicate a sense
of justice, as evinced in generous remissions and conditional releases awarded
to graft convicts based on non-measurable factors, like good behaviour or
humanitarian reasons. Perhaps only in Indonesia a corrupt politician is not
liable to serve his entire jail term, even though he may have been found guilty
of accepting bribes 3 times.
Worse, the past few months has seen some regional corruption courts acquit
dozens of graft suspects for lack of evidence; verdicts which are rarely if
ever issued by the Jakarta Corruption Court. This only indicates dissention
within the judiciary in combating graft.
Such a lacklustre approach, not to mention the apparent disharmony in the
national anticorruption drive, only mirrors the country’s half-hearted move to
uproot corruption.
The presidential advisory team must be fully aware that the death penalty for
either corruption convicts or other criminals remains highly controversial; one
that is difficult to administer, despite the fact that the Constitutional Court
has justified its implementation. Both international and domestic human rights
groups have endlessly urged Indonesia to revoke capital punishment as not only
does it fail to deter the commission of crimes, but it also trigger acts of
reprisal, as evident in the fight against terror.
It’s quite clear that the aim of a maximum punishment like the death sentence
is to reinforce a deterrent effect regarding the Anticorruption Law. But we
don’t necessarily need to follow in China's footsteps. China's corruption
rating has lain stagnant in the middle of the rankings during the last 4 years,
despite the execution of hundreds of graft convicts every year.
Should there be an amendment to the existing Anticorruption Law, the government
and lawmakers could shift the burden of proof to the suspects, as happens in
money-laundering cases, as part of extraordinary measures to address graft.
Indonesia has to avoid complacency resulting from death sentences, which may
disrupt corruption eradication itself. What we need above all is law
enforcement that will make a graft convict regret his/her actions for the
remainder of his/her life.
(source: Editorial, Jakarta Globe)
MALAYSIA:
2 Iranians get death sentence for drug trafficking
2 Iranian men were sentenced to death by the High Court here Tuesday after they
were found guilty of trafficking in methamphetamine, strapped to their legs,
via the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) in Sepang, 2 years ago.
Judge Datuk Ahmadi Asnawi concluded that Ali Jalayeridarbandi Mousa, 26, and
Vahid Aliakbarsadeghabadi Abbas, 29, failed to raise reasonable doubt against
the case against them.
He further found that testimonies by witnesses did not corroborate their
defence that the drugs were for personal use.
"Therefore, there's only one sentence which can be meted out for this offence,
that is, the mandatory death penalty," he said.
Ali, a cobbler, and Vahid, an engineer, were each caught trafficking 203.9g and
269.6g of methamphetamine at the arrival hall of the main KLIA terminal, about
3.45 pm on Dec 12, 2010.
There were charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
which carries the mandatory death penalty.
6 prosecution and four defence witnesses were called on to testify throughout
the trial.
Malaysian Royal Customs deputy public prosecutor Rozanna Abd Hadi prosecuted,
while Leonard Anselm Gomes represented Ali and Datuk N. Sivananthan appeared
for Vahid.
(source: Bernama)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
