The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem A: Judicial ReportTO: Mayor Piercy and City Council FROM: Judicial Evaluation Committee SUBJECT: 2010 Municipal Court Judicial Evaluation This memo with attachments is our report to you on the 2010 formal performance evaluation of Eugene Municipal Court Presiding Judge Wayne Allen. OUR CHARGE The process for selecting and evaluating a presiding municipal court judge is governed by Eugene City Code 2.011 (9) and (10), which the City Council adopted in June 1996. The City Council selects a presiding municipal court judge to serve a four-year term. During each term there are three levels of evaluation: 1. A self-evaluation, submitted to the city council; 2.Aninformal evaluation, including peer feedback, submitted to the city council after two years; and 3.Aformal evaluation conducted by an advisory evaluation committee during the fourth year of the term. Wayne Allen was appointed presiding municipal court judge in 1994. In April 2010 the City Council appointed the five-member evaluation committee to carry out the formal performance evaluation for Judge Allen’s current term. City Code requires the formal evaluation committee to be composed of “not less than five persons, including at least one member of the human rights commission, two attorneys familiar with the municipal court, and two other persons generally familiar with the judicial system.” Our backgrounds and qualifications for the evaluation committee are as follows: 1. Kip Leonard: Judge in Lane County Circuit Court; 2.Dan Neal: Court Appointed Attorney for Eugene Municipal Court 3.Greg Hazarabedian: Executive Director of Public Defender Services of Lane County 4.Kathy Cunningham: Springfield Municipal Court Administrator 5.Raydeen Cuffe: Eugene Human Rights Commission member EVALUATION PROCESS The evaluation process began in April 2010, when the City Council appointed the evaluation committee. We first met as a committee on May 24, 2010. The committee reviewed the evaluation process and report from 2006 and adopted a process for the 2010 evaluation, since Eugene Code states only that the formal evaluation will include a public hearing. The public hearing will be conducted on August 9, 2010. The process adopted for the evaluation involved several meetings between May and July, and included five components: Select a set of criteria to use for the evaluation; Review court activity data and performance indicators for the years 2006-2010, including complaints and defendant surveys responses, and the responses to the 2008 informal evaluation; Survey different populations of municipal court participants for evaluation input; Discuss survey results with Judge Allen and get his perspective on court performance and issues, including what has changed or improved from the 2006 evaluation; and Use the survey results, discussion with Judge Allen, court activity data and performance indicators, and our own municipal court experience to prepare and present an evaluation report to the City Council. EVALUATION CRITERIA For the 2010 evaluation, standards approved by the City Council in the past were taken into consideration. The committee also took advantage of work done by the Federal Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA) and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) that developed a set of model judicial performance standards now adopted in several state court systems. We reviewed the criteria used by the evaluation committees in 2002 and 2006, which was largely based on the BJA/NCSC model standards applicable to judges, and felt the criteria was appropriate for our use in the 2010 evaluation. By using approximately the same criteria, we felt it would facilitate comparisons with the prior evaluations. The 31 standards were organized into six job elements sections, shown below: 2010 Judicial Performance Evaluation Criteria Section I. Legal Knowledge and Ability in Judicial Role 1.The judge’s actions in court demonstrate knowledge of substantive law. 2.The judge’s actions in court demonstrate knowledge of the rules of evidence. 3.The judge’s actions in court demonstrate knowledge of rules of procedure. 4.The judge makes decisions based on law, facts, and sound legal reasoning. 5.The judge’s sentencing decisions demonstrate knowledge of sentencing laws and appropriate use of available sanctions. Section II. Case and Courtroom Management 6.The judge complies with recognized guidelines for timely case processing, keeping current with incoming caseload. 7.The judge conducts court proceedings punctually. 8.The judge makes ruling and renders decisions promptly. 9.The judge maintains a dignified demeanor and proper control in the courtroom. 10.The judge encourages appropriate settlement negotiations and promotes negotiation without coercion or threat. Section III. Equality, Fairness, and Integrity 11.The judge shows courtesy and respect to all participants in court proceedings. 12.The judge shows fairness and impartiality to all parties in the case and avoids any action that appears to prejudge the outcome of the case. 13.The judge’s actions and decisions show no bias based on race, gender, economic status, or their factors external to the facts of the case. 14.The judge’s overall conduct is free from impropriety or the appearance of impropriety and promotes public confidence in the court. 15.The judge deal effectively and appropriately with non-English speaking defendants, and shows respect. Section IV. Oral and Written Communication 16.The judge explains court procedures clearly and simply for all court participants. 17.The judge listens attentively and actively to all court participants. 18.The judge’s oral and written directions and decisions in court clearly and unambiguously address the issues presented and the compliance actions required. Section V. Judicial System Administration and Representation 19.The judge works effectively with the municipal court administrator, other judges, court staff, court participants, city council, and other agencies to maintain and enhance court system effectiveness. 20.The judge participates appropriately and effectively in reviews of court policy and procedure. 21.The judge ensures that mandated changes in statutes, case law, and court procedure are promptly implemented. 22.The judge participates effectively and resourcefully in administrative problem resolution. 23.The judge establishes a clear focus for administrative projects and monitors progress appropriately. 24.The judge skillfully identifies and analyzes issues relevant to court system effectiveness. 25.The judge effectively anticipates new issues and emergent events, and helps implement operational changes to deal with them. 26.The judge is pro-active and effective spokesperson to the community to build public awareness for municipal court operations and issues. 27.The judge is responsive to changing needs of the community by establishing special programs. 28.The judge selects well qualified and competent associate and assistant judges. 29.The judge promotes consistent standards, behavior, and approach among associate and assistant judges, so that there is no undue disparity among like cases heard and decided by different judges. 30.The judge provides appropriate coaching and performance feedback to associate and assistant judges. 31.The judge’s selection and supervision practices show no bias based on race, gender, economic status, or other factors not relevant to an individual judge’s performance. REVIEW OF COURT ACTIVITY, PERFORMANCE & SURVEYS As in 2006, the 2010 judicial evaluation committee reviewed court activity data for the four years included in the evaluation period, 2006 through 2010. The data included statistics on number of case filings and how cases were terminated in each of the four major case types: major traffic (driving under the influence, hit and run, and other traffic crimes), minor traffic (speeding, equipment violations, etc), ordinance offense (theft, trespass, underage alcohol offenses, etc.), and animal offenses (barking dog, dog at large, etc.). Disposition of terminated cases could be by trial or otherwise (plead, forfeit/no contest, etc.) and may result in a dismissal, not guilty finding or guilty finding. Other data reviewed by the committee were the number of bench and jury trials scheduled and held, the number of cases appealed to Lane County Circuit Court, the average number of cases per judge FTE, and the collection rate on financial judgments. Copies of these data are attached to the report. The committee reviewed compiled responses from defendant surveys conducted in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Each survey was sent to 2000 defendants, and the average response rate was 8.6%. Each survey shared some common questions, as well as other questions which varied from year to year regarding ease of access and safety, visibility/audibility in the courtroom, and the advice of rights. A summary of the survey results are attached. Similar to the 2006 evaluation, all judicial complaints were requested from the City Manager’s office from 2006 to the present. No complaints related to judicial performance were filed during this period of time. Several general court related complaints we’re filed but were determined to be unrelated to the judicial evaluation process or Judge Allen’s performance. The Judicial Evaluation Committee elected to perform a supplemental survey for 2010 that focused on human rights and equity. The survey was released on June 28th to Human Rights Commission members. No responses were received. A summary of the survey questions are attached to this report. JUDICIAL SURVEY PROCESS As in past Eugene judicial evaluations, the committee conducted a survey of court participants to obtain input on Judge Allen’s performance. The survey, conducted in May, used questions related to the six performance criteria areas listed above, and asked respondents whether they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed that Judge Allen’s performance met the standard as described. The audience for the 2010 survey was: 1. Defense Attorneys appearing in Eugene Municipal Court during the past four years, 2. City prosecutors, 3. Court interpreters and volunteer advocates who have worked in Eugene Municipal Court during the last four years, 4. Eugene Police officers, 5. Other Eugene Municipal Court judges, and 6. Eugene Municipal Court staff. SURVEY RESULTS Detailed results are shown in an attachment to this report. Overall the survey return rate was 25.6% with 266 surveys sent and 68 returned. This is consistent with the survey return rate in 2006 of 24.1.9%. The greatest number of surveys received were from Eugene Police (30), followed by defense council (17). Survey respondents assessed Judge Allen’s performance as very positive; with the majority either strongly agreeing or agreeing that he met all of the performance standards described in the survey. The overwhelming majority of comments about his performance as presiding judge were very positive. Some examples of these comments are listed here: “Judge Allen is a pleasure to work with. His ability to listen, understand and help resolve issues is very much appreciated. I appreciate his open door policy and his direct approach. He keeps court on solid ground and is concerned and knowledgeable about the community. He is a very kind and caring man.” “I think Judge Allen is very fair and a great judge for the Municipal Court.” “I appreciate Judge Allen's experience and temperament on the bench. I'm certain his job is not easy and likely very frustrating at times. His longevity enables him to run a very professional and efficient courtroom. The court staff consistently impress me with their professionalism and friendly demeanor. It is a pleasure to try cases in this court.” “I’ve been working as an Interpreter for 20 years, Judge Allen is a gentleman, caring and good person, is always a pleasure to work with him.” “Good job! Enjoy having Judge Allen hear my cases.” The few negative comments from survey respondents were primarily related to the supervision of the associate judges and the monetary sanctions imposed by the court. “Judge Allen does a good job managing the court. I have been disappointed in the lack of legal knowledge of some of the pro tem judges.” “Some of the other judges are not as competent and make silly rulings.” “I agree in part, but not all of the associate judges follow established protocols or treat the City fairly in some trial and pretrial matters.” “A couple of judges want the defendants to be innocent.” “Except again, regarding the issues of homeless people--how can you fine someone who has no $$. This is not only a judge issue but of course public policy as well. Sometimes the judge comes off overly jaded in favor of police and against citizens during pro se bench trials.” “With the increase in mandatory fines, the courts need to be more sensitive to the financial needs of this community--people are broke--we should look at Portland’s community court model to save $ for lesser offenses. We need a municipal shelter instead of religious ones to provide basic needs to poor people so they don't have to steal or trespass to get by. Need more community service type activities in lieu of fines; perhaps like Josephine County where hours are converted to dollars?” DISCUSSION WITH JUDGE ALLEN On July 13, 2010 the committee met with Judge Allen to discuss the survey results with him. He shared with us his goals as presiding judge, his assessment of changes over the past four years to address areas of improvements in the court, and his reaction to the survey data and comments. Below is a summary of some of those achievements: Areas of Improvement Since 2006 In 2008 the Eugene City Council adopted Ordinance 20419 which defined a downtown public safety zone (DPSZ) and enacted conditions under which the Eugene Municipal Court could exclude a person from this zone. Municipal Court has administered the new ordinance carefully and effectively. It has proven to be a useful sanction for chronic offenders in the downtown public safety zone and beneficial in supporting the Council’s recent focus on downtown safety. During the summer of 2009, Municipal Court offered an “Amnesty” discount to all individuals with accounts that had been referred to the city’s collection agency. The program was highly effective and helped people pay off their outstanding debt and in many cases allowed them to reinstate their driver’s license. The program was developed in response to the economic downturn and the large number of defendants the court observed who failed to pay their fines. The program resulted in over 300 individuals reinstating their license and generated approximately $130,000 in revenue to the city. Municipal Court has made significant strides with technology over the past four years. In 2008, the court implemented a document imaging (scanning) system for all closed case files. Now staff, judges and attorneys can quickly access closed case files electronically. Police reports are now available electronically and are accessed by judges in the courtroom using tablet PCs. Beginning in 2011 court will transition to the new AIRS case management system which will further automate court processes. There are also plans to develop an entirely paperless process for the court, where information will be received electronically, adjudicated using workflow and ultimately archived in an electronic database. The committee was impressed with Municipal Court’s technologically achievements in relation to other courts. Significant Issues Since 2006 Along with the rest of the city organization, Municipal Court has had to make significant reductions to help balance the budget over the last several years. Many changes have occurred, including major reductions to staffing levels. While the court has managed well during these difficult fiscal years, it will be challenging to absorb additional work at current capacity if case load increases substantially. Key Issues for the Court Now that the City has procured the new police facility on Country Club Road it will be vital to find a sustainable location for the court. City Hall does not sufficiently handle the court’s capacity. Additional courtrooms, a larger jury room and space for attorneys and judges to meet are necessary. Lack of jail bed space continues to be a major concern for the court. As the County systems have failed, the City has chosen to rely more heavily on Municipal Court to maintain safety in the community. The court has absorbed more cases from the District Attorney and maintained an active role in resolving high priority crime issues. Lack of adequate consequences for these types of cases presents a serious challenge to the community's perception of safety, especially in the downtown area. To support the downtown safety efforts and the effectiveness of the court, it is imperative that Municipal Court has adequate jail bed space. Utilizing the Springfield Jail for sentenced offenders at a less expensive rate may be viable alternative which should be explored. Response to 2010 Survey Judge Allen spoke to the committee about the survey and a few of the comments that concerned him. He acknowledged the need to evaluate the associate judges and work with them closely on policy issues and information presented to defendants in the courtroom. He also made reference to a new judge that will be starting in the near future. He felt the change would be positive for the court and bring a new perspective on the operation. Judge Allen also addressed the concerns about financial sanctions imposed by the court. He pointed out that Eugene Municipal Court has one of the lowest base fine schedules in the state and that he pays very close attention to defendant’s ability to pay their sanctions. Judge Allen explained that defendants who face financial challenges often choose to work off their fines by performing community service or work on the Lane County Work Crew. He felt that many of the negative comments received we’re based on a misunderstanding of his intent but acknowledged better communication needs to occur with attorneys and police. Where is Municipal Court Heading? The next four years will be challenging with the City’s budget shortfall still a significant concern. Potential reductions at the State and County level may also further impact the court’s ability to use alternative services and programs. Technology improvements should help mitigate some of the budget issues and allow the court to operate more efficiently at its current staffing levels and continue to provide service to the community at a high level. The court and Judge Allen consistently receive high ratings on their performance because of the size, resources and collaborative nature of this court to be innovative and responsive to community concerns. Municipal Court continues to play a key role in quality of life issues and safety in the downtown area. COMMITTEE FINDINGS The committee expresses its appreciation to Judge Allen for his service as presiding judge for the past four years. He has continued to make improvements to the court and has been empathetic toward the community during difficult economic times. The committee was impressed with the programs the court offers, including Mental Health Court, Paso a Paso, Community Service and the recent Amnesty Program. The committee felt the performance ratings received in response to the survey were outstanding. We agree with these survey responses and strongly agree that Judge Allen meets the performance standards outlined earlier in this report. The committee recommends to the Eugene City Council that Judge Allen be reappointed for another four-year term. JUDICIAL EVALUATION SURVEY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEMBERS 1. What organization, community or interest groups do you represent? 2. Have you heard about experiences with Municipal Court from people you know or members of groups with which you are affiliated? 3. What type or types of citations have they received? 4. Based on your experience with individuals you represent in our community, please rate their overall experience with Eugene Municipal Court. 5. Was the information provided by Municipal Court clear and understandable? (For instance was an interpreter or advocate provided when needed?) 6. If they had contact with a judge, did they feel they were treated fair and equitably? 7. Were there challenges individuals experienced that the Eugene Municipal Court should be aware of? 8. Did you hear of positive efforts made by Eugene Municipal Court? 9. Do you have any additional feedback for the judicial evaluation process and Eugene Municipal Court? îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ Ð´»¿» ·¼»²¬·º§ ©¸·½¸ ¹®±«° §±« ¿®» ¿±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸æ Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Ü»º»²»Ý±«²»´ « îëðûòïé Ü»º»²»Ý±²»´îëðûïé Ð®±»½«¬±®ìòìûí Û«¹»²» Ð±´·½»ììòïûíð Ý±«®¬ ×²¬»®°®»¬»® ±® ß¼ª±½¿¬» ïòëûí Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ö«¼¹» ëòçûì Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Í¬¿ºº ïçòïûïí êè Ü»º»²» Ý±«²»´Ü»º»²» Ý±«²»´ Ð®±»½«¬±®Ð®±»½«¬±® Û«¹»²» Ð±´·½»Û«¹»²» Ð±´·½» Ý±«®¬ ×²¬»®°®»¬»® ±® ß¼ª±½¿¬»Ý±«®¬ ×²¬»®°®»¬»® ±® ß¼ª±½¿¬» Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ö«¼¹»Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ö«¼¹» Û«Û«¹¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Í¬¿ºº»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Í¬¿ºº îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÔÛÙßÔ ÕÒÑÉÔÛÜÙÛ ßÒÜ ßÞ×Ô×ÌÇ ×Ò ÖËÜ×Ý×ßÔ ÎÑÔÛ ó Ì¸» ¶«¼¹»ù ¿½¬·±² ·² ½±«®¬ ¼»³±²¬®¿¬» µ²±©´»¼¹» ±º «¾¬¿²¬·ª» ´¿©ô ®«´» ±º »ª·¼»²½»ô ®«´» ±º °®±½»¼«®»ò Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» ³¿µ» ¼»½··±² ¾¿»¼ ±² ´¿©ô º¿½¬ô ¿²¼ ±«²¼ ´»¹¿´ ®»¿±²·²¹ò Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ìéòðûíï ß¹®»» ìðòçûîé Ü·¿¹®»»ìòëûí Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»»ðòðûð ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» íòðûî Ñ¬¸»®ø°´»¿»°»½·º§÷ ìëûòí Ñ¬¸»®ø°´»¿»°»½·º§÷ìëûí êê Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹®»»ß¹®»»ß¹®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹¹®»»®»»®»» Í¬®±²Í¬®±²Í¬®±²¹¹¹´´´§§§ Ü·¿ Ü·¿ Ü·¿¹¹¹®»»®»»®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬×²º±®³¿¬·±²¬±Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÔÛÙßÔ ÕÒÑÉÔÛÜÙÛ ßÒÜ ßÞ×Ô×ÌÇ ×Ò ÖËÜ×Ý×ßÔ ÎÑÔÛ ó Ì¸» ¶«¼¹»ù ¿½¬·±² ·² ½±«®¬ ¼»³±²¬®¿¬» µ²±©´»¼¹» ±º «¾¬¿²¬·ª» ´¿©ô ®«´» ±º »ª·¼»²½»ô ®«´» ±º °®±½»¼«®»ò Ì¸» ¶«¼¹»ù »²¬»²½·²¹ ¼»½··±² ¼»³±²¬®¿¬» µ²±©´»¼¹» ±º »²¬»²½·²¹ ´¿© ¿²¼ ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» «» ±º ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¿²½¬·±²ò Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ìèòìûíï ß¹®»» ìëòíûîç Ü·¿¹®»»íòïûî Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ðòðûð ×²«ºº·½·»²¬×²º±®³¿¬·±²¬±Î¿¬» ïêûòï ×²«ºº·½·»²¬×²º±®³¿¬·±²¬±Î¿¬»ïêûï Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ ïòêûï êì Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹®»»ß¹®»»ß¹®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹¹®»»®»»®»» Í¬®±²¹´§Ü·¿¹®»»Í¬®±²Í¬®±²¹¹´´§§ Ü·¿ Ü·¿¹¹®»»®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÝßÍÛ ßÒÜ ÝÑËÎÌÎÑÑÓ ÓßÒßÙÛÓÛÒÌ Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» ½±³°´·» ©·¬¸ ®»½±¹²·¦»¼ ¹«·¼»´·²» º±® ¬·³»´§ ½¿» °®±½»·²¹ô µ»»°·²¹ ½«®®»²¬ ©·¬¸ ·²½±³·²¹ ½¿»´±¿¼ò Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»ìêòçûíð ß¹®»» íçòïûîë Ü·¿¹®»» íòïûî Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ðòðûð ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»çòìûê Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ ïòêûï êì Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹®»»ß¹®»»ß¹®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹¹®»»®»»®»» Í¬®±²Í¬®±²Í¬®±²¹¹¹´´´§§§ Ü·¿ Ü·¿ Ü·¿¹¹¹®»»®»»®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÝßÍÛ ßÒÜ ÝÑËÎÌÎÑÑÓ ÓßÒßÙÛÓÛÒÌ Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» ½±²¼«½¬ ½±«®¬ °®±½»»¼·²¹ °«²½¬«¿´´§å ³¿µ» ®«´·²¹ ¿²¼ ®»²¼»® ¼»½··±² °®±³°¬´§ò Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»ëíòðûíë ß¹®»»ííòíûîî Ü·¿¹®»» íòðûî Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ìòëûí ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» ïòëûï Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ìòëûí êê Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹ß¹®»»®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹®»»®»» Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÝßÍÛ ßÒÜ ÝÑËÎÌÎÑÑÓ ÓßÒßÙÛÓÛÒÌ Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» ³¿·²¬¿·² °®±°»® ½±²¬®±´ ¿²¼ ¿ ¼·¹²·º·»¼ ¼»³»¿²±® ·² ¬¸» ½±«®¬®±±³ò Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Í¬®±²¹´§ß¹®»» êîïûòìï Í¬®±²¹´§ß¹®»»êîïûìï ß¹®»» îèòèûïç Ü·¿¹®»»íòðûî Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ðòðûð ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» ïòëûï Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ ìòëûí êê Í¬®±²¹´§ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹®»»ß¹®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹®»»®»» Í¬®±²Í¬®±²¹¹´´§§ Ü·¿ Ü·¿¹¹®»»®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÝßÍÛ ßÒÜ ÝÑËÎÌÎÑÑÓ ÓßÒßÙÛÓÛÒÌ Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» °®±³±¬» ¿²¼ »²½±«®¿¹» ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» »¬¬´»³»²¬ ²»¹±¬·¿¬·±² ©·¬¸±«¬ ½±»®½·±² ±® ¬¸®»¿¬ò Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Í¬®±²¹´§ß¹®»» ëîëûòíì Í¬®±²¹´§ß¹®»»ëîëûíì ß¹®»»îçòëûïè Ü·¿¹®»»ðòðûð Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ðòðûð ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» ïèòðûïï êï Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹®»»ß¹ß¹®»»®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹®»»®»» Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÛÏËßÔ×ÌÇô Úß×ÎÒÛÍÍ ßÒÜ ×ÒÌÛÙÎ×ÌÇ Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» ¸±© ½±«®¬»§ ¿²¼ ®»°»½¬ ¬± ¿´´ °¿®¬·½·°¿²¬ ·² ½±«®¬ °®±½»»¼·²¹ò Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» ¸±© º¿·®²» ¿²¼ ·³°¿®¬·¿´·¬§ ¬± ¿´´ °¿®¬·» ·² ¿ ½¿» ¿²¼ ¿ª±·¼ ¿²§ ¿½¬·±² ¬¸¿¬ ¿°°»¿® ¬± °®»¶«¼¹» ¬¸» ±«¬½±³» ±º ¬¸» ½¿»ò Ì¸» ¶«¼¹»ù ¿½¬·±² ¿²¼ ¼»½··±² ¸±© ²± ¾·¿ ¾¿»¼ ±² ®¿½»ô ¹»²¼»®ô »½±²±³·½ ¬¿¬«ô ±® ¶«¼¹»¿½¬·±²¿²¼¼»½··±²¸±©²±¾·¿¾¿»¼±²®¿½»¹»²¼»®»½±²±³·½¬¿¬«±® ±¬¸»® º¿½¬±® »¨¬»®²¿´ ¬± ¬¸» º¿½¬ ±º ¿ ½¿»ò Ì¸» ¶«¼¹»ù ±ª»®¿´´ ½±²¼«½¬ · º®»» º®±³ ·³°®±°®·»¬§ ±® ¬¸» ¿°°»¿®¿²½» ±º ·³°®±°®·»¬§ ¿²¼ °®±³±¬» °«¾´·½ ½±²º·¼»²½» ·² ¬¸» ½±«®¬ò Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ìêòîûíð ß¹®»» ììêûòîç ß¹®»»ììêûîç Ü·¿¹®»»íòïûî Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ïòëûï ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» ïòëûï Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ íòïûî êë Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹®»»ß¹®»»ß¹®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹®»»®»» Í¬®±²Í¬®±²¹¹´´§§ Ü·¿ Ü·¿¹¹®»»®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÛÏËßÔ×ÌÇô Úß×ÎÒÛÍÍ ßÒÜ ×ÒÌÛÙÎ×ÌÇ Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» ¼»¿´ »ºº»½¬·ª»´§ ¿²¼ ¿°°®±°®·¿¬»´§ ©·¬¸ ²±²óÛ²¹´·¸ °»¿µ·²¹ ¼»º»²¼¿²¬ô ¿²¼ ¸±© ®»°»½¬ò Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ìèòìûíï ß¹®»»íïòíûîð Ü·¿¹®»» ðòðûð Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ðòðûð ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» ïèòèûïî Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ïòêûï êì Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹®»»ß¹®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹®»»®»» Í¬®±²Í¬®±²¹¹´´§§ Ü·¿ Ü·¿¹¹®»»®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÑÎßÔ ßÒÜ ÉÎ×ÌÌÛÒ ÝÑÓÓËÒ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒ Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» »¨°´¿·² ½±«®¬ °®±½»¼«®» ½´»¿®´§ ¿²¼ ·³°´§ô ¿²¼ ´·¬»² ¿¬¬»²¬·ª»´§ ¿²¼ ¿½¬·ª»´§ ¬± ¿´´ ½±«®¬ °¿®¬·½·°¿²¬ò Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»»®®½½»»²²¬¬Ý±±««²²¬¬ ß²©»®Ñ°¬·±²ÐÝ Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»ëìòéûíë ß¹®»» íçòïûîë Ü·¿¹®»» ïòêûï Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ðòðû ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»íòïûî Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ ïòêûï êì êì Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹®»»ß¹®»»ß¹®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹¹®»»®»»®»» Í¬®±²Í¬®±²Í¬®±²¹¹¹´´´§§§ Ü·¿ Ü·¿ Ü·¿¹¹¹®»»®»»®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÑÎßÔ ßÒÜ ÉÎ×ÌÌÛÒ ÝÑÓÓËÒ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒ Ì¸» ¶«¼¹»ù ¼·®»½¬·±² ¿²¼ ¼»½··±² ½´»¿®´§ ¿²¼ «²¿³¾·¹«±«´§ ¿¼¼®» ¬¸» ·«»å ¸» »¨°´¿·² ¬¸» ¼»½··±² ³¿¼» ¿²¼ ¬¸» ½±³°´·¿²½» ¿½¬·±² ®»¯«·®»¼ò Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² ÐÐ»®½»²¬ÝÝ±«²¬ ß²©»®Ñ°¬·±² Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»ìêòçûíð ß¹®»» ìêòçûíð Ü·¿¹®»» ïòêûï Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ðòðûð ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»íòïûî Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ ïòêûï êì êì Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹®»»ß¹®»»ß¹®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹¹®»»®»»®»» Í¬®±²Í¬®±²Í¬®±²¹¹¹´´´§§§ Ü·¿ Ü·¿ Ü·¿¹¹¹®»»®»»®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÖËÜ×Ý×ßÔ ÍÇÍÌÛÓ ßÜÓ×ÒÍÌÎßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ÎÛÐÎÛÍÛÒÌßÌ×ÑÒ Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» ©±®µ »ºº»½¬·ª»´§ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ³«²·½·°¿´ ½±«®¬ ¿¼³·²·¬®¿¬±®ô ±¬¸»® ¶«¼¹»ô ½±«®¬ ¬¿ººô ½±«®¬ °¿®¬·½·°¿²¬ô ½·¬§ ½±«²½·´ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¿¹»²½·» ¬± ³¿·²¬¿·² ¿²¼ »²¸¿²½» ½±«®¬ §¬»³ »ºº»½¬·ª»²»ò Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» °¿®¬·½·°¿¬» ¿°°®±°®·¿¬»´§ ¿²¼ »ºº»½¬·ª»´§ ·² ®»ª·»© ±º ½±«®¬ ¶¹°°°°°§§ °±´·½§ ¿²¼ °®±½»¼«®»å »²«®» ¬¸¿¬ ³¿²¼¿¬»¼ ½¸¿²¹» ·² ¬¿¬«¬»ô ½¿» ´¿© ¿²¼ ½±«®¬ °®±½»¼«®» ¿®» °®±³°¬´§ ·³°´»³»²¬»¼å ¿²¼ °¿®¬·½·°¿¬» »ºº»½¬·ª»´§ ¿²¼ ®»±«®½»º«´´§ ·² ¿¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª» °®±¾´»³ ®»±´«¬·±²ò Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» »¬¿¾´·¸» ¿ ½´»¿® º±½« º±® ¿¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª» °®±¶»½¬ ¿²¼ ³±²·¬±® °®±¹®» ¿°°®±°®·¿¬»´§ò Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Í¬´ßÍ¬®±²´ ß®»» îîìûîîòìûïëïë ¹§¹ ß¹®»» íîòèûîî Ü·¿¹®»»êòðûì Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ïòëûï ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» íïòíûîï Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ êòðûì êé Í¬®±²Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹®»»ß¹®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹®»»®»» Í¬®±²Í¬®±²¹¹´´§§ Ü·¿ Ü·¿¹¹®»»®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÖËÜ×Ý×ßÔ ÍÇÍÌÛÓ ßÜÓ×ÒÍÌÎßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ÎÛÐÎÛÍÛÒÌßÌ×ÑÒ Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» µ·´´º«´´§ ·¼»²¬·º·» ¿²¼ ¿²¿´§¦» ·«» ®»´»ª¿²¬ ¬± ½±«®¬ §¬»³ »ºº»½¬·ª»²»ô ¿²¬·½·°¿¬» ²»© ·«» ¿²¼ »³»®¹»²¬ »ª»²¬ô ¿²¼ ¸»´° ·³°´»³»²¬ ±°»®¿¬·±²¿´ ½¸¿²¹» ¬± ¼»¿´ ©·¬¸ ¬¸»³ò Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» · °®±ó¿½¬·ª» ¿²¼ »ºº»½¬·ª» °±µ»°»®±² ¬± ¬¸» ½±³³«²·¬§ ¬± ¾«·´¼ °«¾´·½ ¿©¿®»²» º±® ³«²·½·°¿´ ½±«®¬ ±°»®¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ·«»ò Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» · ®»°±²·ª» ¬± ½¸¿²¹·²¹ ²»»¼ ±º ¬¸» ½±³³«²·¬§ ¾§ »¬¿¾´·¸·²¹ °»½·¿´ °®±¹®¿³ò Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»ïçòðûïî ß¹®»» ííòíûîï Ü·¿¹®»» ìèûòí Ü·¿¹®»»ìèûí Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»»ïòêûï ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»íêòëûîí Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ ìòèûí êí Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹®»»ß¹®»»ß¹®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹®»»®»» Í¬®±²Í¬®±²¹¹´´§§ Ü·¿ Ü·¿¹¹®»»®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÍÛÔÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ÍËÐÛÎÊ×Í×ÑÒ ÑÚ ßÍÍÑÝ×ßÌÛ ßÒÜ ßÍÍ×ÍÌßÒÝÛ ÖËÜÙÛÍ Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» »´»½¬ ©»´´ ¯«¿´·º·»¼ ¿²¼ ½±³°»¬»²¬ ¿±½·¿¬» ¿²¼ ¿·¬¿²¬ ¶«¼¹»ò Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» °®±³±¬» ½±²·¬»²¬ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ô ¾»¸¿ª·±® ¿²¼ ¿°°®±¿½¸ ¿³±²¹ ¿±½·¿¬» ¿²¼ ¿·¬¿²¬ ¶«¼¹»ô ± ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»®» · ²± «²¼«» ¼·°¿®·¬§ ¿³±²¹ ´·µ» ½¿» ¸»¿®¼ ¿²¼ ¼»½·¼»¼ ¾§ ¼·ºº»®»²¬ ¶¶«¼¼»ò ¹ Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»îíòçûïê ß¹®»»íèòèûîê Ü·¿¹®»» ïðòìûé Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿ ¹®»» ïòëûï Í¬®±²¹´§Ü·¿¹®»»ïòëûï ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» ïçòìûïí Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷êòðûì êé Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹®»»ß¹®»»ß¹®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹¹®»»®»»®»» Í¬®±²Í¬®±²Í¬®±²¹¹¹´´´§§§ Ü·¿ Ü·¿ Ü·¿¹¹¹®»»®»»®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷Ñ¬¸»® ø°´»¿» °»½·º§÷ îðïð Û«¹»²» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ Ð®»·¼·²¹ Ö«¼¹» Í«®ª»§ ÍÛÔÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ÍËÐÛÎÊ×Í×ÑÒ ÑÚ ßÍÍÑÝ×ßÌÛ ßÒÜ ßÍÍ×ÍÌßÒÝÛ ÖËÜÙÛÍ Ì¸» ¶«¼¹» °®±ª·¼» ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ½±¿½¸·²¹ ¿²¼ °»®º±®³¿²½» º»»¼¾¿½µ ¬± ¿±½·¿¬» ¿²¼ ¿·¬¿²¬ ¶«¼¹»ò Ì¸» ¶«¼¹»ù »´»½¬·±² ¿²¼ «°»®ª··±² °®¿½¬·½» ¸±© ²± ¾·¿ ¾¿»¼ ±² ®¿½»ô ¹»²¼»®ô »½±²±³·½ ¬¿¬«ô ±® ±¬¸»® º¿½¬±® ²±¬ ®»´»ª¿²¬ ¬± ¿² ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´ ¶«¼¹»ù °»®º±®³¿²½»ò ¹ôô¶¹° Î»°±²» Î»°±²» ß²©»® Ñ°¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬Ý±«²¬ Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» îíòëûì ß¹®»» íëòíûê Ü·¿¹®»» îíòëûì Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ëòçûï ×ºº··¬×º¬·¬Î¬×²«·½·»²¬ ×²±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» ïéêûí ººº ïé Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ ß¹®»» ß¹ß¹ß¹®»»®»»®»» Ü·¿Ü·¿Ü·¿¹¹¹®»»®»»®»» Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»»Í¬®±²¹´§ Ü·¿¹®»» ×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬»×²«ºº·½·»²¬ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Î¿¬» ÒÑÌÛæ Ñ²´§ Ó«²½·°¿´ Ý±«®¬ »³°´±§»» ¿²¼ ¶«¼·½·¿´ ¬¿ºº ®»°±²¼»¼ ¬± ¬¸» ¿¾±ª» ¯«»¬·±²