G E R M A N L A W J O U R N A L R e v i e w o f D e v e l o p m e n t s i n G e r m a n , E u r o p e a n a n d I n t e r n a t i o n a l J u r i s p r u d e n c e Editors–in-­‐Chief: Russell Miller; Peer Zumbansen Editors: Gregor Bachmann; Nina Boeger; Gralf-­‐Peter Calliess; Matthias Casper; Morag Goodwin; Felix Hanschmann; Hans Michael Heinig; Florian Hoffmann; Karen Kaiser; Alexandra Kemmerer; Malcolm MacLaren; Stefan Magen; Ralf Michaels; Betsy Baker; Christoph Safferling; Frank Schorkopf; Craig Smith www.germanlawjournal.com © Copyright 2000 -­‐ 2012 by German Law Journal GbR. All rights reserved. Pages 1
013-­‐1145 01 September 2012 Vol. 13 No. 09 Table Of Contents What is Terrorism? Special Guest Editors Arndt Sinn & Christoph Safferling Articles Arndt Sinn & Christoph Safferling What Is Terrorism? 3rd International Forum on Crime and Criminal Law in the Global Era – 29th – 31th October 2011 in Beijing TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I 1013-­‐1015 Table Of Contents Bernhard Kretschmer Classification and Fundamental Principles of the German Section 129a StGB Liane Wörner Expanding Criminal Laws by Means of Predating Criminal Responsibility -­‐ Punishing Planning and Organizing Terrorist Attacks as a Means to Optimize Effectiveness of Fighting Against Terrorism Anneke Petzsche The European Influence on German Anti-­‐Terrorism Law Martin Heger Terrorist Attacks against the Natural Environment: A Phantom or a Real Danger Georg Gesk Right to Resistance and Terrorism – the Example of Germany Luca Cerioni The “Place of Effective Management” as a Connecting Factor For Companies' Tax Residence Within the EU vs. the Freedom of Establishment: TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE II 1016-­‐1036 1037-­‐1055 1056-­‐1065 1066-­‐1074 1075-­‐1094 1095-­‐1130 Table Of Contents the Need for a Rethinking? Developments Bijan Fateh-­‐Moghadam Criminalizing male circumcision? Case Note: Landgericht Cologne, Judgment of 7 May 2012 – No. 151 Ns 169/11 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE III 1131-­‐1145 Articles What is Terrorism? By Arndt Sinn and Christoph Safferling** ∗
rd
Presented at the 3 International Forum on Crime and Criminal Law in the Global Era – Beijing, October 29-­‐31, 2011. The “war against terror” remains one of the most difficult challenges for criminal law, as it takes the rule of law to its constitutional limits. Eleven years after 9/11, we see that these events have led to modifications of the general structure of security laws worldwide and 1
also in Germany. National laws have not only been extended to address modern phenotypes of terrorism and the financing of terrorism but have also been expanded to catch foreign and international organizations. Fighting terrorism can only be successful with global cooperation. The papers in this special issue were presented at the International Forum on Crime and Criminal Law in the Global Era in Beijing, and should thus be seen as part of the German-­‐Chinese dialogue on criminal matters. As the question of how German legislation and jurisprudence react to the challenges connected to the fight against international terrorism stretch far beyond this dialogue, a special issue of the German Law Journal seems to be the perfect forum to address a wider global audience. In 2009, the International Forum on Crime and Criminal Law in the Global Era (IFCCLGE) was founded in Beijing. The Forum's objective is to further worldwide cooperation and the exchange of information and views of researchers in the field. It was also founded to develop the legal principles of human rights protection, security in the world, as well as social stability connected with the repression of transnational organized crime and terrorism. rd
The 3 conference of the IFCCLGE was dedicated to the theme of “Basic Trends of Worldwide Terrorism and Countermeasures in the Post-­‐Bin Laden Era.” The organizers’ integrative and interdisciplinary approach was demonstrated by the invitation of not only criminal law experts and criminologists, but also sociologists and political scientists. ∗
Arndt Sinn is a professor of criminal law at the Univeristy of Osnabrück. Email: sinn@uni-­‐osnabrueck.de. **
Christoph Safferling is a professor of international criminal law at the University of Marburg. Email: christoph.safferling@t-­‐online.de. 1
See the overview regarding Germany presented by Mark Zöller, Zehn Jahre 11. September – Zehn Jahre Gesetzgebung zum materiellen Terrorismusstrafrecht in Deutschland (Ten years since 11 September -­‐ Ten years of terrorism legislation on substantive criminal law in Germany), 32 STRAFVERTEIDIGER (2012), 364. 1014 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
Twenty-­‐one nations were represented by over 280 delegates. These also included experts from the United Nations and the European Union. Germany was one of the best-­‐
2
represented nations, with a delegation consisting of 10 people, not least thanks to generous funding from the ZEIT-­‐foundation. The fruits of the conference are now published in this present issue. The central questions of the presentations were: firstly, what is terrorism? And, secondly, how does one prosecute it in a juristic way? Even defining ‘terrorism’ presented major problems. In fact, the term 'terrorism' is understood differently by each of the various disciplines, and these definitions are often diametrically opposed. While some of the delegates were opposed to a strict definition of terrorism, others thought it a necessary prerequisite in preventing the abuse of power. rd
The IFCCLGE was formed at the 3 conference. This is one of the most important annual international meetings concerning criminal law in China. However, the reputation of the Forum now extends far beyond that country's borders. The Forum is characterized by the core principles of consistency, directness and academic quality. The five articles presented in this special issue address five of the most pressing legal issues regarding the latest developments in German law concerning terrorism. The first article, written by Bernhard Kretschmer, raises the issue of membership in a terrorist organization. Punishment for membership is a specific dogmatic tool in German criminal law to deal with the difficulties of proving perpetratorship or participation in a terrorist attack. In the second article, Liane Wörner discusses inchoate offences (planning and organizing terror attacks) and their efficiency in the fight against terrorism. Recent legislation in Germany blurs the line of demarcation between the repressive criminal law and the preventive security law. However, German law cannot be dealt with in an isolated manner, but only with a view to a European context. Anneke Petzsche develops this theme in the third article, where she explains the European influence on German anti-­‐terrorism law. Following, Martin Heger takes issue with terror attacks on the natural environment, how dangerous they really are and how criminal law can react to these dangers. In the final article, Georg Gesk elaborates on the further development of anti-­‐terror measures on a global approach and raises the question of legitimate resistance against state power. He argues in favor of a de-­‐politicized definition of terrorism and places violence at centre stage in order to differentiate between legitimate protests and criminal activity. 2
Making up the delegation were Professor Arndt Sinn (University Osnabrück) as Head of Delegation as well as Professor Georg Gesk (University Hsuan Chuang), Professor Martin Heger (Humboldt-­‐University Berlin), Professor Bernhard Kretschmer (University Bochum), Professor Dr. Jiuan-­‐Yih Wu (University Kaohsiung), Professor Mark A. Zöller (University Trier), Academic Councilor Liane Wörner (University Gießen), Legal Researcher Anneke Petzsche (Humboldt-­‐University Berlin), Legal Researcher Patrick Pintaske (University Osnabrück), Legal Researcher Saleh Ihwas (University Trier). 2012] What is Terrorism? 1015 These papers certainly do not cover the entire range of issues connected to the legal measures implemented against terrorism. They pertain mainly to legislative activity and do not address, for example, the issue of financing terrorism, which has recently been dealt 3
with by the German High Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) and the Federal 4
Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht). By publishing these papers in a special issue of the German Law Journal, we would hope to support the international dialogue concerning the legal fight against terrorism and the boundaries of the rule of law.
3
See e.g., BGH, Judgment
of
14
August
2009
–
3
StR
552/08
–
reprinted
in
54
BGHST
69, 62
NEUE JURISTICHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 3448
(2009); see also Christoph Safferling & Timo Ide, Prosecuting Terrorism Financing in Germany: Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), Judgment of 14 August 2009 – 3 StR 552/08’, 11 GLJ (2010), 1292, available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1298 (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 4
See BVerfG, 65 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT (2012), 907. Articles Criminal Involvement in Terrorist Associations – Classification and Fundamental Principles of the German Criminal Code Section 129a StGB By Dr. Bernhard Kretschmer* A. Introduction The shock was great when a car bomb shook the Norwegian capital of Oslo on 22 July 2011 not only destroying government buildings, but also taking eight people to their deaths. However, this was only the prelude to the horrors that unfolded almost thirty kilometers away. There, on the resort island of Utøya, sixty-­‐nine participants of a Young Socialists summer camp were shot dead. Based on our current understanding of events, all these acts can be attributed to one single person who believed himself to be fighting an ideological battle against the supposed evil. Before the attacks, the perpetrator put his convictions into writing and sent many pages around the world via the Internet. From time to time there are obviously individual perpetrators who plan and then carry out their assassinations all by themselves. Among these individuals, their methods are largely similar. However much their ideological beliefs and doctrines differ from each other, they are all united in their fight against what they see as a misguided form of government and/or social system. This applies to Anders Breivik mentioned above, as well as to the so-­‐
called Unabomber (or Ted Kaczynski, formerly assistant professor of mathematics at 1
Berkeley), whose letter bombs troubled the United States in the years 1978 to 1995 . This applies even to Georg Elser, whose failed bomb attack on Hitler on 8 November 1939 still took eight lives, including that of a thirty year-­‐old temporary waitress who left behind a husband and two small children (not to mention the other sixty-­‐three in part seriously *
Chair of criminal law and criminal procedural law, European and international criminal law, medical law, commercial criminal law and history of criminal law at Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. Email: LS-­‐
[email protected].
1
See for example, ALSTON CHASE, HARVARD AND THE UNABOMBER (2003); ROGER LANE, MURDER IN AMERICA 314 (1997). 2012] Criminal Involvement in Terrorist A ssociations 1017 2
injured people) – under the circumstances, it seems unpleasant to speak of so-­‐called 3
collateral damage . In cases such as these, not only the security authorities find it hard to believe that there is no conspiracy behind the attacks involving further accessories and accomplices. The theory of the “lone wolf” contradicts the character of the terrorist act, because ideologically motivated attackers almost always act in groups (and such individual criminals tend to be regarded as mentally ill). Without delving too deeply into group psychological or group sociological theories, it is beyond doubt that the mutual incitement within a group bent on committing violent crimes increases the probability of an attack. Sometimes, the internal interactions mean that the doubts of one member inhibit the momentum of another. However within a group inclined to violent attacks, the opposite, incitement, is more likely. In such instances peer pressure regularly results in the suppression of emerging doubts. In addition, a group acting on the basis of the division of work will expedite the attack, as each member contributes his own abilities. This applies both to the strategist who would perhaps cower in the heat of the action, and the diehard protagonist, who might be lacking in planning skills. However, the dynamic interaction within the group does not only increase the danger that it will decide on an attack and carry it out. Due to the higher number of heads and the communication between them, the respective security authorities’ chances of exposing the group and instigating appropriate investigations also increase. Indeed, although it is a truism that a gang of bank robbers has better prospects than a single perpetrator of successfully carrying out the actual attack, the more accomplices are involved in the act, the more likely it is that the police will manage to solve the crime later. And what is more: the more people are included in the organizational structure, the more often the security authorities become aware of the crime even before it is committed, and manage to prevent it. Bearing in mind that terrorist attacks are mainly perpetrated by groups, it is therefore very logical that security authorities keep an eye on ideologically inclined communities which they consider capable of committing such acts, even if there is no evidence that anything specific is planned. Moreover, it is clear that the relevant authority has an interest in breaking up any associations at all inclined to violence, so as to prevent violent scenarios from developing through group-­‐dynamics in the first place. This also raises the question of the use and the means of criminal law. 2
For more on him, see also LOTHAR FRITZE, LEGITIMER WIDERSTAND? DER FALL ELSER (Legitimate resistance? The Elser case, 2009); PETER STEINBACH & JOHANNES TUCHEL, GEORG ELSER (2010). 3
Two perpetrator with radical Islamic background: Arid Uka, who murdered two American servicemen at Frankfurt Airport in March 2011 (sentenced to life imprisonment by Hessian High Court), and Mohammad Merah, who shot three French Soldiers, a Rabbi and three Jewish children in the Midi-­‐Pyrénées-­‐region in March 2012 (he was killed in a gunfight with the French police). 1018 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
B. Offences relating to membership in or support of proscribed organizations 4
The history of conspiracy is probably as old as that of human coexistence . No less is true when it comes to the combating of conspiratorial efforts. No system of government in any place or in any time has quietly acquiesced while such organizations form and concoct their subversive or otherwise destabilizing plans. It is therefore logical that modern-­‐day criminal law is also concerned with associations that are contrary to the respective regime. German criminal law does not, however, recognize the offence of conspiracy, as is 5
widespread in Anglo-­‐Saxon common law . Apart from prohibition standards for high treason against the Federation and high treason against a member state (Sections 81, 82 6
StGB ) there are – as is to be addressed below – above all, defined offences which can be used to counter the action of undesirable associations. I. Official Court Ban on Association In this respect, it may be noted that the German legal system sees itself as what is termed 7
a militant democracy . Although the Grundgesetz (“GG”) – the Basic Law (the German constitution) – grants the fundamental right of freedom of association (Article 9 subsection 1 GG), it simultaneously forbids associations whose aims or activities are contrary to criminal law or which are directed against the constitutional order or the concept of 4
See e.g. JOHANNES ROGALLA VON BIEBERSTEIN, DER MYTHOS VON DER VERSCHWÖRUNG (The myth of the conspiracy, 2008); MARK ZÖLLER, TERRORISMUSSTRAFRECHT 11 (Anti-­‐terrorism criminal law, 2009).
5
For more information on the offence of conspiracy, see e.g. JOHN SCHEB, CRIMINAL LAW 119 (2012); RICHARD SINGER & JOHN LA FOND, CRIMINAL LAW 339 (2010); see also JAMES WALLACE BRYAN, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH LAW OF CONSPIRACY (1909). Quite different the German Section 30 StGB (Attempted Participation): “whoever agrees with another to commit or incite the commission of a [concrete] serious criminal offence”; for more on this, see KARINA BECKER, DER STRAFTATBESTAND DER VERBRECHENSVERABREDUNG GEM. § 30 ABS. 2, 3. ALT. (2012); ULRICH FIEBER, DIE VERBRECHENSVERABREDUNG, § 30 ABS. 2, 3. ALT. STGB (2001). See also Christoph Safferling, Die Strafbarkeit wegen “Conspiracy” in Nürnberg und ihre Bedeutung für die Gegenwart (The culpability for "Conspiracy" in Nuremberg and its importance for the present), 93 KRITISCHE VIERTELJAHRESSCHRIFT 87 (2010). 6
7
Strafgesetzbuch (“StGB”) or the German Criminal Code.
BVerfGE (Reports of the Federal Constitutional Court) 5, 85, 139; 25, 88, 100; Horst Dreier, Grenzen demokratischer Freiheit im Verfassungsstaat (Limits of democratic freedom in the Constitution State), 49 JURISTENZEITUNG (JZ) 741 (1994); ECKHARD JESSE, STREITBARE DEMOKRATIE (Militant Democracy, 1980); Hans-­‐Jürgen Papier & Wolfgang Durner, Streitbare Demokratie, 128 ARCHIV DES ÖFFENTLICHEN RECHTS 340 (2003); MILITANT DEMOCRACY (András Sajó ed., 2004); THE ‘MILITANT DEMOCRACY’ PRINCIPLE IN MODERN DEMOCRACIES (Markus Thiel ed., 2009); on the origin of this idea, see Karl Loewenstein, Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights, 31 AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW 417, 638 (1937). 2012] Criminal Involvement in Terrorist A ssociations 1019 8
international understanding (Article 9 subsection 2 GG) . In the same way, although political parties may be freely established (Article 21 subsection 1 sentence 2 GG), they must conform to democratic principles (Article 21 subsection 1 sentence 3 GG). As such, parties that, by reason of their aims or the behavior of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany are deemed unconstitutional (Article 21 subsection 2 sentence 1 GG). Associations or parties which do not meet this constitutional requirement may be banned: In case of ordinary associations, this ban is pronounced by the executive – for more details, see Section 3 subsection 2 of Vereinsgesetz or Act Regulating Clubs and Association 9
(“VereinsG”) –, subject only to review by the administrative court . In case of parties, however, the power to ban is reserved exclusively for the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) (Article 21 subsection 2 sentence 2 GG in conjunction with 10
11
Sections 43 et seq. BVerfGG ; product of the so-­‐called party privilege) . An effective prohibition also extends to surrogate organizations, so that the ban cannot be simply 12
bypassed (Section 8 VereinsG, Section 33 PartG ). Whether the organization concerned is a substitutive association can also be established, if applicable, by the constitutional court. In order to effectively enforce the respective prohibition, the German legal system draws on criminal law means almost as a matter of course. In this respect, consider the “contravention of bans” offence of Section 20 subsection 1 under the Act Regulating Clubs 13
and Associations (Vereinsgesetz) . According to this, anyone who, within the territorial scope of the Act, maintains the organizational existence of the banned association or the banned party, supports, or is active as a member of it, is sentenced by name to up to one year’s imprisonment or a fine. Often, however, such behavior falls under offences defined more closely by the German Criminal Code, which is given explicit priority by the Act Regulating Clubs and Associations. This primarily concerns ringleaders and backers who, within the territorial scope of the Act, maintain the organizational existence of a banned party or the party established by the constitutional court as its surrogate organization (Section 84 subsection 1 sentence 1 StGB), a party otherwise legally established as the 8
For further information, see JENS HEINRICH, VEREINIGUNGSFREIHEIT UND VEREINIGUNGSVERBOT – DOGMATIK UND PRAXIS DES ART. 97 ABS. 2 GG (Freedom of association – Dogmatics and practice of Art. 97 ABS. 2 GG, 2005). 9
Id. at 105, 246.
10
BVerfGG: Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz, or Federal Constitutional Court Act. 11
See e.g. Markus Sichert, Das Parteiverbot in der wehrhaften Demokratie (Party ban in defending democracy), 54 DIE ÖFFENTLICHE VERWALTUNG (DÖV) 671 (2001); ARMIN ZIRN, DAS PARTEIENVERBOT NACH ART. 21 ABS. 2 GG IM RAHMEN DER STREITBAREN DEMOKRATIE DES GRUNDGESETZES (Party ban by Art. 21 ABS. 2 GG, under the basic law, 1981. 12
PartG: Parteiengesetz or the Political Parties Act. 13
See also MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 4, at 636. 1020 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
surrogate organization of a banned party (Section 85 subsection 1 sentence 1 no. 1 StGB), or an association legally established as directed against the constitutional order or the concept of international understanding, or its surrogate organization (Section 85 subsection 1 sentence 1 no 2 StGB). Such persons may be sentenced to up to five years’ 14
imprisonment . Also those who are active as members in one of these associations or support their organizational existence face prison sentences of up to three years (Section 85 subsection 2 StGB), or, in case of prohibitions by the constitutional court, as much as 15
five years (Section 84 subsection 2 StGB) . The distribution of propaganda material of such associations is also a criminal offence (Section 86 StGB) as is the use of their symbols (Section 86a StGB; subsidiary Section 20 subsection 1 sentence 1 no. 5 VereinsG). II. Criminal Law Prohibition on Association The aforementioned criminal law provisions are directed against associations that acted openly to start with and were then banned because their aims were criminal, anti-­‐
constitutional or directed against the idea of international understanding. It would be profoundly inconsistent and illogical, if a watchful legal system were not able to defend itself particularly against secret associations with criminal objectives which, from the start, refuse to make an official appearance and create themselves a legitimate image. The penal provisions provided for this are found in Sections 129 to 129b StGB, which deal with the formation of criminal or terrorist associations, whereby these standards can, in principle, 16
extend not only to secret associations, but also to those that appear openly . 14
In the cases under Section 84 subsection 1 StGB, the minimum term of imprisonment is increased to three months. In the cases under Section 85 subsection 1 StGB, a fine may also be applied. Unlike in the case of Section 20 subsection 1 VereinsG, even the attempt is punishable (Sections 84 ss. 1, sentence 2, 85 ss. 1, sentence 2 StGB). 15
In addition, in both cases, fines are also possible. Moreover, the other substantive decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court in the prohibition procedure according to Article 21 subsection 2 GG and Section 33 subsection 2 PartG and the enforcement of the substantive decisions passed in such a procedure are also protected by punishment: in this respect contraventions also face a prison sentence of up to five years or a fine (Section 84 subsection 3 StGB). 16
Section 127 StGB, which threatens anyone “forming armed groups” with up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine, is not taken into consideration here. According to this, it is punishable to form or command a group in possession of weapons or other dangerous instruments, to join such a group, provide it with weapons or money or otherwise support it. 2012] Criminal Involvement in Terrorist A ssociations 1021 1.
Section 129 Subsection 1 StGB – Basic Definition of Offence: Formation of Criminal Associations The foundation of these offences relating to membership in, or in support of, organizations is found in Section 129 StGB, which deals generally with the “formation of criminal associations”. According to this, anyone who founds an association whose aims or activities are aimed at committing offences (subsection 1 var. 1) receives a prison sentence of up to five years or a fine, whereby even the attempt is punishable by law (subsection 3). Membership of such an association is also an offence, as is recruiting members or supporters for it and supporting them (subsection 1 var. 2-­‐4). Acting as a ringleader or backer is regarded as a particularly serious case subject to a minimum sentence of six months’ imprisonment (subsection 4 ms. 1). By contrast, given minor fault and less significant involvement, the court may dispense with the sentence where appropriate (subsection 5: so-­‐called followers clause). Moreover, the punishment can be mitigated or even discharged in cases of active repentance (subsection 6) if the offender voluntarily and earnestly endeavors to prevent the continued existence of the association or the commission of an offence consistent with its aims or voluntarily discloses his knowledge to a government authority in time for offences, the planning of which he is aware, to be prevented. The perpetrator even goes unpunished if he achieves his goal of preventing the continued existence of the association or if this is achieved without his efforts. In principle, committing offences of any kind (whether with or without a terrorist attack) is sufficient to classify the association as criminal and thus to penalize it in accordance with 17,18,19
the defined elements of the offence
. This undeniably involves the risk of excessive politicization in which the ruling group castigates and persecutes its political opponents as criminal for whatever acts of inducement. For example, it is well known that a strong expression of opinion can quickly be stylized as an insult. At rallies and demonstrations, coercion, abuse and possibly injury are always to be expected. The opposition may tear down the election posters of their opponents, in turn leading to claims of property damage. If such acts are attributed to the political association and its members, the definition of offence under Section 129 StGB can then be misused as a compliant vehicle for discrediting and criminalizing political opponents. Such tendencies of a politicized 17
For a more detailed conceptual definition of the criminal association, see BGHSt (Reports of the Federal Court of Justice) 45, 26, 35; 54, 69, 107; 54, 216, 221; 56, 28, 29.
18
See also THOMAS FISCHER, STRAFGESETZBUCH (Penal Code) § 129 MN 5, § 129a MN 4 (2012).
19
See also Matthias Krauß, LEIPZIGER KOMMENTAR ZUM STRAFGESETZBUCH (Leipzig commentary on the penal code), 129 MN 18 (Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Ruth Rissing-­‐van Saan & Klaus Tiedemann eds., 2008); Jürgen Schäfer, MÜNCHENER KOMMENTAR ZUM STGB (Munich commentary, SGB), § 129 MN 14 (Wolfgang Joecks & Klaus Miebach eds., 2012); Mark Zöller, Zur Auslegung des Begriffs der kriminellen Vereinigung in § 129 StGB im europäischen Kontext (The interpretation of the concept of criminal organization in § 129 of the Penal Code in the European context), 65 JURISTENZEITUNG 908 (2010). 1022 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
20,21,22
criminal justice system are also part of modern German legal history
. In this manner, the constitutional requirement that the banning of parties is deliberately reserved for the Federal Constitutional Court could all too easily be bypassed -­‐ not to mention the threat to communicative human rights. It was therefore necessary to integrate a clause into Section 129 StGB stipulating that political parties not yet declared unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court are excluded from the application (Section 129 subsection 2, no. 1 StGB). The same applies if the commission of offences only serves objectives or activities of minor significance (no. 2), which is also intended to prevent abuse by the authorities as the instrument of power. Ultimately, offences solely in accordance with Sections 84 to 87 StGB (no. 3) are also excluded, i.e. above all the continuation of banned parties, associations or surrogate organizations – in this respect, the specific elements of the offence continue to apply (this only changes if further elements of an offence are added). 2. Section 129 Subsection 4 StGB – Qualification: Formation of Particularly Criminal Associations Subject to the aforementioned particularities, any kind of offence to which an organization aligns its purpose and activities is therefore sufficient to condemn the organization and its members as criminal. However, German criminal law refines this rough allocation: in this regard, it should first be noted that for ringleaders and backers (already under subsection 4 ms. 1), the maximum sentence also goes up again – specifically: to ten years – if the purpose and activities of the association are directed at certain serious offences (subsection 4 ms. 2). Here, reference is made to the criminal procedure catalogue of those particularly serious offences for which acoustic surveillance of private homes is possible 23
(Section 100c subsection 2 StPO ). This especially applies when it comes to crimes against the state, counterfeiting of currency and forgery of postage stamps, certain sexual offences including child pornography, kidnapping and human trafficking, gang theft, aggravated robbery, extortion under threat of force, dealing in stolen goods and dealing in stolen goods by gangs, aggravated money laundering, aggravated official bribery, certain asylum abuses, illicit smuggling, aggravated narcotics offences, certain offences against the War Weapons Control Act and other aggravated weapons offences. 20
For this, see the Bundestag printed paper (BT-­‐Drs.) 4/2145, 8. 21
See also Theodor Lenckner & Detlev Sternberg-­‐Lieben, STRAFGESETZBUCH (Penal code), § 129 MN 10 (Adolf Schönke & Horst Schröder eds., 2010).
22
See also Heribert Ostendorf, NOMOS KOMMENTAR ZUM STRAFGESETZBUCH (Nomos commentary on the penal code), 129 MN 3 (Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann & Hans-­‐Ulrich Paeffgen eds., 2010).
23
StPO: Strafprozessordnung, or German Code of Criminal Procedure. 2012] Criminal Involvement in Terrorist A ssociations 1023 However, hostage taking and extortive kidnapping, murder and homicide, as well as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are not included here. These exceptions should not, however, be misunderstood as privileges contrary to the system. Associations with this kind of orientation are in fact classified as terrorist organizations (Section 129a StGB) and face even harsher punishments (see below). At the same time, there is an interdependency between Section 129 StGB and Section 100c StPO. Criminal associations with the aggravated orientation specified are also among those offences in respect of which acoustic surveillance of private homes can be carried out (Section 100c subsection 2 24
no. 1b StPO). In accordance with constitutional court requirements, such investigation measures are namely only permissible for particularly serious crimes, for which the range of sentences for the basic offence would not have sufficed. The real purpose of the aggravation under Section 129 subsection 4 StGB is therefore to be able to carry out 25
certain investigations which would otherwise not be permitted . Even if there is no prima facie evidence of a specific offence, a measure can now be instigated given no more than sufficient suspicion that a particularly criminal (or even terrorist) association is 26
concerned. More on this later. 3. Section 129a StGB – Qualification: Formation of Terrorist Associations In the form of Section 129a StGB, German criminal law classifies the “formation of terrorist associations” as a most serious offence relating to membership in or support of proscribed 27
organizations. Under the impact of radical left-­‐wing attacks, especially by the “Red Army Faction”, the legislature already brought this offence into being in 1976 and has since then 28
seen terrorist organizations as a particularly serious form of criminal association. This provision does not, however, explicitly define what counts as terrorism. The terminology is only used in the standard header – and that in its adjectival form – while the nine subsections of the provision waive its use entirely. Given the bewildering number of 29
attempts to define terrorism, this may be seen as coquettish modesty . Only the 24
BVerfGE 109, 279; 57 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 999 (2004). 25
Matthias Krauß, supra note 19, at § 129 MN 175; Theodor Lenckner, supra note 21, at § 129 MN 25; see further, Bundesrat printed paper (BR-­‐Drs.) 359/05, 359/1/05, and Bundestag printed paper (BT-­‐Drs.) 15/4533.
26
Bundestag printed paper (BT-­‐Drs.) 15/5621, 2; Theodor Lenckner, supra note 21, at § 129 MN 25. 27
Martin Helm, Die Bildung terroristischer Vereinigungen (The formation of terrorist associations), 48 STRAFVERTEIDIGER 719 (2006). 28
Introduced through the so-­‐called anti-­‐terrorism law, more precisely: Law Amending the StGB, StPO, GVG, BRAO and StVollzG of 18.8.1976 (Federal Law Gazette [BGBl.] I 2181). 29
To multifarious efforts on defining terrorism, see Manuel Cancio Meliá, Zum strafrechtlichen Begriff des Terrorismus (The criminal concept of terrorism), 159 GOLTDAMMER’S ARCHIV FÜR STRAFRECHT 1 (2012); Thomas 1024 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
description of the elements of the offence enable us to infer what the legislature actually sees as a terrorist organization and, given fulfillment of the requirements for the existence of the offence, this is then attested by a conviction to this effect. It is important to note 30
that since the provision has been revamped several times since its implementation, the definition of the standard and the content of the standard now only partially correspond, resulting in friction as shown below. However, despite the dispute over the conceptual 31
containment of terrorism, a certain basic consensus should be retained : i.e. firstly, in terms of motivation, that, whatever form they may take, terrorist perpetrators act on the basis of their ideological convictions, and secondly, in terms of methodology, that they commit violent acts in the widest sense (i.e. in the sense of terrorist attacks). The current Section 129a StGB is divided into several descriptions of offences, which does not contribute to the clarity of the standard. In its subsection 1, it orders a prison sentence of one year up to ten years for anyone who forms an association whose aims or activities are directed at committing either murder, homicide, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, abduction or extortive kidnapping (i.e. precisely the offences, which – as shown – are excluded in the reference to Section 129 subsection 4 StGB). Similarly, this applies to those who participate in such an association as a member. This reduced offence description with reference to the severe offences specified has at least one notable effect; acts such as a person’s involvement in a murderous criminal gang or a group of money-­‐
grabbing kidnappers could lead to conviction for participation in a terrorist organization. That this is somewhat inappropriate should be obvious, as it is, in fact, a case of purely criminal organizations without political motivation, even if they are particularly dangerous. This approach of removing the ideological motivation of the perpetrators from a standard which is aimed specifically at dealing with terrorist groups seems to me fundamentally wrong. Subsection 2 of Section 129a StGB deals with terrorist organizations, moreover the founding of or participation through membership in associations, whose purpose or activity is directed at the commission of catalogued crimes which do not quite achieve the 32,33
degree of severity of those cases specified in subsection 1
. It thus concerns offences that cause other people serious physical or mental harm, a multitude of offences causing a Weigend, Terrorismus als Rechtsproblem (Terrorism as a legal problem), STRAFRECHT UND JUSTIZGEWÄHRUNG. FESTSCHRIFT FÜR KAY NEHM 151, 153 (Rainer Griesbaum et al, eds, 2006); MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 4, at 99, 132 .
30
Matthias Krauß, supra note 19, at § 129a before MN 1; Kai Lohse, STGB – STRAFGESETZBUCH, § 129a MN 1 (Helmut Satzger, Bertram Schmitt & Gunter Widmaier eds., 2009); Heribert Ostendorf, supra note 22, at § 129a MN 2. 31
MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 4, at 209 .
32
See Matthias Krauß, supra note 19, at § 129a MN 18. 33
See also Kai Lohse, supra note 30 at § 129a MN 1. 2012] Criminal Involvement in Terrorist A ssociations 1025 common danger such as arson, crimes involving explosives, disruption of rail, ship and maritime traffic, attacks on the air and sea traffic, disruption of public services and telecommunication facilities, causing a common danger by poisoning and causing a severe danger by releasing poison, various offences under the War Weapons Control Act or the Weapons Law. In addition, computer sabotage, the destruction of buildings and the destruction of important means of production, which explicitly includes motor vehicles of the police or the armed forces, are also included. Unlike in the cases in subsection 1, the alignment towards the offences specified is not, in itself, sufficient for classification as a 34
terrorist organization, as an ideological and motivational component is also required . In 35
this respect, and in line with both European and international provisions and models on top of this, it is a prerequisite that firstly, the above catalogued crimes are aimed at significantly intimidating the population, unlawfully coercing an authority or an international organization by force or threat of force, or eliminating or significantly impairing the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures. A second requirement is that due to the nature of its commission or its effects, the offence is able to significantly damage a state or an international organization. Although the legislative talents for formulation here prove rather less than exemplary, the latter requirement of materiality does, mean that, in individual cases, crimes of minor importance can be 36
excluded . Accordingly, it is to be noted that the German criminal law of organization aims to differentiate in order to penalize the formation of terrorist associations and participation through membership in them. If the group concerned is directed at serious criminal offences within the meaning of subsection 1, the method expressed there should already suffice to classify the association as terrorist. However, where substantial offences that do not reach this degree of severity are concerned, in subsection 2, the law chooses a mixed approach. Added to the methodological approach – i.e. the orientation towards certain offences – are the ideological objectives, which are what actually give the offence its 37
terrorist veneer . This is linked to a certain extent to the etymological origin of the term terrorism, i.e. above all with regard to intimidation and/or elimination of the respective social order. That this remains conceptually vague seems, to some extent, inevitable which 34
THOMAS FISCHER, supra note 18, at § 129a MN 13; Matthias Krauß, supra note 19, at § 129a MN 49; Kai Lohse, supra note 30, at § 129a MN 14.
35
See e.g. Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (OJ L 164 at 3), amended by Council Framework Decision of 28 November 2008 (OJ L 330 at 21); for further information, see Eugenia Dumitriu, The E.U.’s Defintion of Terrorism: The Council Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism, 5 GER. L. J. 585 (2004); Thomas Weigend, supra note 29, at 164; MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 4, at 148, 168, 173. 36
See the Federal Court of Justice BGH, 29 NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR STRAFRECHT 147 et seq. (2008); Matthias Krauß, supra note 19, at § 129a MN 56, 65; Theodor Lenckner, supra note 21, at § 129a MN 2a. 37
Likewise THOMAS FISCHER, supra note 18, at § 129a MN 13. 1026 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
makes it all the more appropriate to integrate a decelerating materiality threshold, as found at the end of Section 129a subsection 2 StGB. I would also like to strongly endorse the legislative effort to determine with the aid of catalogued crimes what kind of offences 38
in principle qualify as terrorist . In any case, German legal history has shown that there is little sense in leaving the determination of such issues to the criminal justice system 39
alone . For reasons of legal certainty alone, the conceptual difficulties of making terrorism comprehensible give sufficient reason to specifically designate those implementation offences, the commission of which is to be regarded as a method of terrorist action, as terrorist acts. This path is similar to that taken by the Council of Europe Convention of 16 May 2005 on the Prevention of Terrorism, which Germany has recently joined (to be 40
precise, on 1 October 2011) . Article 1 subsection 1 describes a “terrorist offence” as an offence within the scope of and as defined by one of the eleven treaties listed in the 41
appendix . As the legislative procedure for the determination of terrorist organizations, it is therefore preferable not to focus one-­‐sidedly on the methods of terrorism or its ideological motivation, but to relate the one with the other. Putting other criticisms aside which cannot be discussed here, this is what is found in the approach of subsection 2 of Section 129a StGB, which should be merged with the failed subsection 1. In addition, it may be added that those associations are also included that do not actually commit the offences specified, but only intend to threaten them (Section 129a subsection 3 StGB). The sentence for founding or participation through membership of such a – really just barking, not biting – association is nevertheless six months to five years, and is thus just as high as that of a ringleader or backer of a criminal association that actually intends to commit its crimes (Section 129 subsection 4 ms. 1 StGB). This severity of Section 129a 38
But MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 4, at 213, 555, with vague proposal pleads for abolition of the catalogue. 39
JOSEF GRÄßLER-­‐MÜNSCHER, DER TATBESTAND DER KRIMINELLEN VEREINIGUNG (§ 129 STGB) AUS HISTORISCHER UND SYSTEMATISCHER SICHT (The conditions of criminal association for a historic and systematic review) 3 (1982); Rupert von Plottnitz, § 129a StGB: Ein Symbol als ewiger Hoffnungsträger, 35 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR RECHTSPOLITIK 351 (2002). 40
Federal Law Gazette (BGBl.) II 1006. Ratified as a result of the approval law of 16 March 2011 (Federal Law Gazette [BGBl.] II 300). 41
Convention of 16 December 1970 for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft; Convention of 23 September 1971 on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation; Convention of 14 December 1973 on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents; International Convention of 17 December 1979 Against the Taking of Hostages; Convention of 3 March 1980 on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material; Protocol of 24 February 1988 on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation; Convention of 10 March 1988 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation; Protocol of 10 March 1988 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf; International Convention of 15 December 1997 for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings; International Convention of 9 December 1999 for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism; International Convention of 13 April 2005 for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. 2012] Criminal Involvement in Terrorist A ssociations 1027 subsection 3 StGB may also be explained by the fact that the concept of the offence of threatening solves any problems of proof as to how seriously the founders and members concerned took their intentions. The ringleaders and backers of the terrorist association even have to reckon with prison sentences of three to fifteen years (Section 129a subsection 4 ms. 1 StGB), and in case of associations that only threaten, they nevertheless still face prison sentences of one year to ten years (Section 129a subsection 4 ms. 2 StGB). The supporters of terrorist associations are also punishable (Section 129a subsection 5 sentence 1 StGB). If the offences are to be committed in earnest, they face prison sentences of six months to ten years, and in case of associations that merely threaten, they only face prison sentences of up to five years or even just a fine. It is also an offence to recruit members or supporters of an (active) terrorist association (Section 129a subsection 5 sentence 2 StGB), but not for associations 42
that only threaten . Except for ringleaders and backers – quite comparable to Section 129 subsection 5 StGB – for accomplices whose guilt is of a minor nature or whose contribution is of minor significance, the sentence may be mitigated at the discretion of the court (Section 129 subsection 6 StGB). Also in case of terrorist associations, the sentence may be mitigated or even fully discharged if the offender actively repents (Section 129a subsection 7 StGB with reference to Section 129 subsection 6 StGB). 4. Section 129b StGB: Extension to Criminal and Terrorist Associations Abroad There is a current tendency to emphasize the dangers of international terrorism as if this were a novel manifestation that had only come about since the emergence of al-­‐Qaeda 43
and as if terrorism had previously been limited to the individual states . This is a gross distortion of the facts, as becomes especially clear if we take a look at the left-­‐wing terrorism of the 1970s in Germany, Italy and elsewhere which formed a disastrous alliance, 44
and also teamed up with Arab terrorists of the time . Given their world-­‐revolutionary attitude, a restriction to the nation-­‐state would, in fact, have been extremely inconsistent for these offenders. This is something that already applied to the anarchists of the 19th 42
The law is clear; see also THOMAS FISCHER, supra note 18, at § 129a MN 21. 43
CHRISTIAN FRÖBA, DIE REICHWEITE DES § 129 STGB BEI DER BEKÄMPFUNG DES TRANSNATIONALEN ISLAMISTISCHEN TERRORISMUS (The scope of the penal code § 129 in the fight against transnational terrorism) 13 (2009); Rainer Griesbaum, Zum Verhältnis der Strafverfolgung und Gefahrenabwehr vor dem Hintergrund der Bedrohung durch den internationalen islamistischen Terrorismus (On the relationship of law enforcement and security in light of the threat of international Islamic terrorism), STRAFRECHT UND JUSTIZGEWÄHRUNG. FESTSCHRIFT FÜR KAY NEHM 125 (Rainer Griesbaum et. al. eds., 2006).
44
See KLAUS PFLEGER, DIE ROTE-­‐ARMEE-­‐FRAKTION (The red-­‐army-­‐faction) 73 (2011); MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 4, at 39, and in general BUTZ PETERS, RAF-­‐TERRORISMUS IN DEUTSCHLAND (RAF terrorism in Germany, 1993); SOZIALREVOLUTIONÄRER TERRORISMUS (Revolutionary Social Terrorism, Alexander Straßner ed., 2008). 1028 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
and early 20th Century, who rejected the fabric of the state in its entirety, and some of 45
whom were dedicated to the terrorist act . This is not, however, to dispute that modern 46
Islamist terrorism has its own specific characteristics . Although terrorism already extended beyond national boundaries earlier on, for a long time the developing German criminal law system limited itself to domestic organizations when registering and prosecuting terrorist associations. This was not extended until, under the impact of the 11 September attacks, the rather hasty introduction of Section 129b StGB was carried out, through which “criminal and terrorist organizations abroad” were 47
included in a rather vague way in the sphere of influence of German criminal law . Here, it is rather briefly stated that Sections 129 and 129a StGB also apply to associations abroad (Section 129b subsection 1 sentence 1 StGB). However, by virtue of Section 129b subsection 1, sentence 2, this applies only generally to associations within the European Union: namely, if criminal and terrorist associations outside the European Union are involved, the equality is only to apply if the offence was committed through an activity exercised within the spatial scope of this Act or if the perpetrator or the victim is German 48
or is situated in the country . How this formulation relates to the general rules of penal application in Sections 3 et seq. 49
50
StGB has not yet been clarified due to the clumsy formulation of the legislation . The aim was, no doubt, to include all criminal and terrorist associations in the EU Member States as a whole and for this purpose, without much ado, to extend the scope of the criminal standard from Germany to the territory of the entire European Union. However, the law 45
See MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 4, at 17. An example: the “Catechism of a Revolutionary” (1869), written by Sergey Nechayev, knowing only the science of destroying “the whole filthy order.” 46
For more on this CHRISTIAN FRÖBA, supra note 43; PETER HEINE, TERROR IN ALLAHS NAMEN (Terror in the name of Allah, 2004); Frank Neubacher, Terrorismus – Was haben „Rote-­‐Armee-­‐Fraktion“ und „Jihadisten“ gemeinsam? (Terrorism: What do "Red Army Faction" and "jihadists" have in common?), 32 JURA 744 (2010); JOHANNES URBAN, DIE BEKÄMPFUNG DES INTERNATIONALEN ISLAMISTISCHEN TERRORISMUS (The fight against the international Islamist terrorism, 2006); MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 4, at 45. 47
See recently the Federal Court of Justice BGH, 65 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 327, 327 et seq. (2012) (classification of associations as domestic or abroad) and BGHSt 56, 28, 30 et seq. (domestic part of an association abroad). 48
BGHSt 56, 28 (offence abroad of a German) and BGHSt 54, 264 (defining the term victim). 49
Namely the territorial principle (Section 3 StGB), the active personality principle (Section 7 subsection 2 StGB) and the passive personality principle (Section 7 subsection 1 StGB). 50
For further information, see MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 4, at 331. 2012] Criminal Involvement in Terrorist A ssociations 1029 51
does not possess the necessary clarity to reliably override the general provisions . Conversely, if we include the rules of penal application of Sections 3 et seq. StGB the partial restraint on the extension to criminal and terrorist associations from third countries is largely redundant, which is also unconvincing. Another disagreeable feature is that the standard does not distinguish sufficiently clearly whether “the offence” that “relates” to the association, is participation in the association, or those offences at, which the aim and activity of the association are directed at. The inclusion of victims points to the latter interpretation, as this would make no sense in case of an offence relating merely to 52
membership in or support of an organization . In order to create political leeway, the legislature has given the prosecution of criminal and terrorist associations from third countries a further corrective element. Related offences, – as a legislative innovation – may only be prosecuted with the authorization of the Federal 53
Ministry of Justice (Section 129b subsection 1 sentence 3 StGB) . This can be issued for a particular case or generally for the prosecution of future offences that relate to a specific association (Section 129b subsection 1 sentence 4 StGB). No justification is required for this discretionary decision, which is not subject to judicial review. It is therefore
appellative or symbolic, the statement that the ministry is to “take into account” whether the aims of the association are directed against the fundamental values of a state order which respects human dignity or against the peaceful coexistence of nations and 54
which appear reprehensible when weighing all the circumstances of the case . This authorization clause is problematic, however, because it places prosecution at the arbitrary discretion of an executive body in a way that cannot be reviewed by the courts and without the authority itself having to have been directly affected by the offence. This is reminiscent of the dark ages when the sovereign was able to interfere in the course of 55
justice – a practice which should not necessarily be revitalized. The clause does, perhaps, seem a little less scandalous in view of the fact that, in case of offences committed abroad, 51
See BGHSt 54, 264, 267, and THOMAS FISCHER, supra note 18, at § 129b MN 4; Theodor Lenckner, supra note 21, at § 129b MN 3; Ulrich Stein, Kriminelle und terroristische Vereinigungen mit Auslandsbezug seit der Einführung von § 129b StGB (Criminal and terrorist associations with an international dimension since the introduction of 129b), 152 GOLTDAMMER’S ARCHIV FÜR STRAFRECHT 433, 455 (2005). 52
For efforts on restriction, see BGHSt 54, 264, 267; Brian Valerius, Internationaler Terrorismus und nationales Strafanwendungsrecht (International terrorism and national criminal law application), 158 GOLTDAMMER’S ARCHIV FÜR STRAFRECHT 696 (2011). 53
See MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 4, at 543. 54
Likewise Theodor Lenckner, supra note 21, at § 129b MN 8; Jürgen Schäfer, supra note 19, at § 129b MN 26. 55
See, for example, Werner Ogris, De sententiis ex plenitudine potestatis, FESTSCHRIFT FÜR HERMANN KRAUSE 171 (Sten Gagnér, Hans Schlosser & Wolfgang Wiegand, eds., 1975); JÜRGEN REGGE, KABINETTSJUSTIZ IN BRANDENBURG-­‐
PREUßEN (The cabinet of justice in Brandenburg-­‐Prussia, 1977). 1030 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
the prosecution service, which is bound by instructions, nevertheless has very broad means for refraining from the prosecution of criminal offences. This is particularly so where, in the cases of Sections 129 and 129a, respectively also in conjunction with Section 129b subsection 1 of the German Criminal Code, the association is not, or not primarily based in Germany and the participatory acts are of minor significance or limited to mere membership (Section 153c subsection 1 sentence 1 no. 3 StPO). Prosecution may also be dispensed with for offences that are committed within the territorial scope of the Act but through an offence committed outside of this area if the implementation of proceedings would bring about the risk of serious detriment to the Federal Republic of Germany or if the prosecution conflicts with other overriding public interests (Section 153c subsection StPO). The Federal Public Prosecutor General is regularly authorized to decide on cases of the nature designated here (Section 153c subsection 5 StPO in conjunction with Section 56
120 subsection 1, no. 6 GVG ). The Federal Public Prosecutor General may nevertheless dispense with prosecuting such offences if the conduct of proceedings poses a risk of serious detriment to the Federal Republic of Germany, or if prosecution conflicts with other overriding public interests (Section 153d subsection 1 StPO). Although this has the effect of assigning ample political authority to the responsible Federal Public Prosecutor General to decide whether criminal proceedings are beneficial for the German state, the Ministry’s authorization to prosecute, as transferred to criminal law, obviously has further-­‐reaching significance: However many international texts like to proclaim that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to peace and security and that all acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, no matter when and by whom they are committed, and that terrorism can only be defeated through a sustained and comprehensive approach, with the active participation and cooperation of all states and international and regional organizations required to weaken, isolate and eliminate the threat of terrorism – as recently stated in the Security Council Resolution 1989 (2011) on 17 June 2011 –, depending on the political expediency, Germany still wishes to reserve the right of its respective government not to prosecute all foreign associations, even if they do 57
employ criminal or terrorist means .That this constitutes a break with the international, though, admittedly, not entirely seriously meant rhetoric, goes without saying. 58
This approach is comparable with the approval in the extradition procedure, which is also primarily assessed on the basis of political expediency. Accordingly, the ministerial 56
GVG: Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz = German Code on Court Constitution. 57
Cf. THOMAS FISCHER, supra note 18, at § 129b MN 12; Heribert Ostendorf, supra note 22, at 129a/b MN 12; ULRICH STEIN, SYSTEMATISCHER KOMMENTAR ZUM STRAFGESETZBUCH (Systematic commentary on the criminal code), 129b MN 7 (Jürgen Walter et. al., eds., 2005). 58
Sections 12 and 74 IRG (= Gesetz über die Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen; Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters). 2012] Criminal Involvement in Terrorist A ssociations 1031 authorization to prosecute under Section 129b subsection 1 sentence 3 and 4 StGB can absolutely be interpreted as the inward counterpart of the extradition permit, though not through extradition, but rather through prosecution and sentencing. This is superfluous for offences within one’s own political system (Sections 129, 129a StGB), equally dispensable for the sister states of the European Union (Section 129b sentence 1 StGB), but opportune in case of the all too heterogeneous third countries in this world. A reduction to the terrorist method alone is obviously not sufficient after all to condemn the offence and the offender unconditionally. For this reason alone, in this country, someone like Georg Elser, who was mentioned above, can be celebrated as an anti-­‐fascist resistance fighter – for example in Berlin through an imposing monument which was unveiled on 8 November 2011. The same can probably be found in every country in the world. The authorization clause therefore serves to keep politically differentiated assessments open for foreign associations. In this sense, Section 129b StGB proclaims itself a criminal law of sympathies (or antipathies). C. Extension of the Scope of Criminal Liability This view again raises the question of the legitimacy of these offences relating to membership in or support of organizations. Their original definition – albeit linguistically inept and devoid of any real meaning – is that of abstract endangerment offences (so-­‐
59
called abstraktes Gefährdungsdelikt) . It is right that the criminal liability applies without violation of concrete tangible rights having to have occurred, and without these rights even having to be endangered. To prohibit participation in organizations which are directed at the commission of offences therefore includes, from a material point of view, considerable 60
extension of the scope of criminal liability . This is related to two procedural matters, which are not immediately apparent in the actual criminalization: firstly, the offences relating to membership in or support of organizations can, namely be used as a catch-­‐all element in case the parties concerned cannot be proved to have participated in the actual 61
reference offence . And secondly, in practice, the offences relating to membership in or support of organizations predominantly serve as an enabling element to be used for 62
criminal procedural investigation measures, of which the acoustic surveillance of private 59
See, for example, Jürgen Schäfer, supra note 19, at § 129 MN 1, § 129a MN 1. 60
Detailed treatment of the extension of the scope of criminal liability: GRENZEN DER VORVERLAGERUNG IN EINEM TATSTRAFRECHT (Wolfgang Gropp, Ferenc Nagy & Arndt Sinn, eds, 2011); Liane Wörner, Expanding Criminal Laws by Means of Predating Criminal Responsibility, 13 (9) GERM. L. J. 1037-­‐1055 (2012). 61
Heribert Ostendorf, supra note 22, at § 129 MN 8. 62
THOMAS FISCHER, supra note 18, at § 129 MN 4, § 129a MN 3; Theodor Lenckner, supra note 21, at §129a MN 1; Kai Lohse supra note 30, at § 129a MN 6; Heribert Ostendorf, supra note 22, at § 129a/b MN 5. 1032 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
homes has already been mentioned, but which applies equally to telephone monitoring (Section 100a subsection 2 no. 1d StPO) and other tactics. As long as the required degree of substantiation for the suspicion of a certain offence is not reached, the offence relating to membership in or support of proscribed organizations has to suffice in order to justify 63
the interception or other investigations . The findings can be made use of, as long as they are related. Procedural alienations or simplifications do not, in themselves, legitimate any elements of an offence. There is now constant dispute as to whether, with the aid of offences relating to membership in or support of organizations, the scope of protection afforded by the penal laws can be extended so that it is ultimately a matter of guarding the legally 64
protected interests related to the reference offence, or whether it is, instead, a matter of 65
guarding the legally protected interest of the public peace or other state entity . Battling out this dispute through one-­‐sided partisanship is not fruitful. If it is considered necessary to make the idea of legally protected interests at all productive, this is more likely to concern a conglomerate of legally protected interests, the allocation of which the legislature seems to have given little attention to. Certainly, these standards are also aimed at preventing offences relating to the purpose and activities of the association, which assigns criminal law a preventive role. This admittedly comes into conflict to a certain extent with the fact that the German view of criminal law is actually more reactive, whereby the committed offence provides the basis 66
for guilt, whereas the prevention of offences is seen as the domain of police activity. Why 63
Cf. the Federal Court of Justice BGH, 28 NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR STRAFRECHT 147 (2008); Heribert Ostendorf, supra note 22, at § 129 MN 9. 64
See e.g. High Court Munich (OLG München), 60 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 2787 (2007); MARTIN FÜRST, GRUNDLAGEN UND GRENZEN DER § 129, 129A STGB (Foundations and Limitations § 129, 129 Criminal Code) 68 (1989); ROLAND HEFENDEHL, KOLLEKTIVE RECHTSGÜTER IM STRAFRECHT (Collective goods by criminal law) 287 et seq. (2002); Olaf Hohmann, Zur eingeschränkten Anwendbarkeit von § 129 StGB auf Wirtschaftsdelikte (Limited applicability of 129 of the Criminal Code on economic crimes), 11 wistra 85, 86 (1992); Heribert Ostendorf, supra note 22, at 129 MN 5; BERND SCHEIFF, WANN BEGINNT DER STRAFRECHTSSCHUTZ GEGEN KRIMINELLE VEREINIGUNGEN (§ 129 STGB)? (When starting criminal protection against criminal organization) 25 (1997); Hans-­‐Joachim Rudolphi & Ulrich Stein, SYSTEMATISCHER KOMMENTAR ZUM STRAFGESETZBUCH (Systematic commentary on the penal code), § 129 MN 3 (Jürgen Walter et. al. eds., 2005).
65
In this respect, e.g. BGHSt 28, 110, 116; 30, 328, 331; 31, 202, 207; 41, 47, 51 u. 53;THOMAS FISCHER, supra note 18, at § 129 MN 2; Manfred Hofmann, Anmerkung zu OLG Düsseldorf, 1997-­‐09-­‐15, VI 2697, 3 NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR STRAFRECHT 249 (1998), (Note to OLG Dusseldorf, 1997-­‐09-­‐15, VI 2697), JURISTISCHE RUNDSCHAU 208 (1996); Christoph Krehl, Anmerkung zu BGH, 1995-­‐02-­‐22, 3 StR 583/94; Theodor Lenckner, supra note 21, at § 129 MN 1; Jürgen Schäfer, supra note 19 at § 129 MN 1. 66
See HELMUT FRISTER, SCHULDPRINZIP, VERBOT DER VERDACHTSSTRAFE UND UNSCHULDVERMUTUNG ALS MATERIELLE GRUNDPRINZIPIEN DES STRAFRECHTS (Principles of faith, interdict of the punishment of suspects and presumption of innocence as basic principles of criminal law, 1988); Hans Joachim Hirsch, Das Schuldprinzip und seine Funktion im 2012] Criminal Involvement in Terrorist A ssociations 1033 criminal law has to join together with police law in order to prevent specific offences requires legitimation. Certainly, both the mere threat of an offence and the imposition of 67
penalties have general and special preventive effects and functions. Constitutional criminal law would, however, have failed, had it wanted to punish crime that had not yet been committed, as illustrated by Steven Spielberg’s film “Minority Report” (USA 2002) with its punishment of precrime. We therefore need to warn against empty formulas, according to which criminal law would also have to make its contribution to the fight 68
against crime or not relinquish the field to police law – as if we had a constitutional problem of equality of two legal sections. The assumption that the criminalization of offences relating to associations grants the citizens concerned even greater legal protection also errs, as this brings with it a connection to the protective effects of the 69
German Code of Criminal Procedure – as if the continued preventive police activity were restricted by this. At the same time, however, it is right that the state does not have to wait until the offence is committed. To prevent this, however, police law is fundamentally sufficient. Though if an association bent on committing offences is recognized as dangerous, the constitutional means are limited. Continuous monitoring of possible perpetrators cannot be carried out in the long term. It would also be wrong to misuse the criminalization of the association to officially avoid the disreputable protective or 70
preventive custody, only to re-­‐label it with a seemingly harmless prison sentence. When determining what is to be considered worthy of punishment, the legislator is 71
assigned a wide scope of discretion and constitutive freedom . In this respect we refer to the estimation that associations bent on committing offences bear an increased danger, even though this need not have crystallized yet. That a community is interested in preventing these kinds of danger, and confirms this with the aid of the threat of prosecution is legitimate despite the many predictions of gloom. We do not require any Strafrecht (The principle of fault and its role in the criminal justice system), 106 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR DIE GESAMTE STRAFRECHTSWISSENSCHAFT 746 (1994); ARTHUR KAUFMANN, DAS SCHULDPRINZIP (The fault principle, 1976). 67
See e.g. BVerfGE 45, 187, 253 et seq.; Henning Radtke & Mark Steinsiek, Terrorismusbekämpfung durch Vorfeldkriminalisierung? (Fight against terrorism by criminalizing the run), JURISTISCHE RUNDSCHAU 107, 108 (2010). 68
KAI THORSTEN BARISCH, DIE BEKÄMPFUNG DES INTERNATIONALEN TERRORISMUS DURCH § 129b STGB (The fight against international terrorism by penal code § 129B) 41 (2009). 69
In this respect, see MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 13, at 509. 70
TIM NIKOLAS MÜLLER, PRÄVENTIVE FREIHEITSENTZIEHUNGEN ALS INSTRUMENT DER TERRORISMUSBEKÄMPFUNG (Preventive deprivation of freedom as a fight against the tool of terrorism) 137 (2011). 71
See also BVerfGE 4, 7, 18; 30, 292, 332; 36, 321, 330; 109, 133, 157; 120, 224; IVO APPEL, VERFASSUNG UND STRAFE (Constitution and Punishment) 204 (1998); Thomas Weigend, LEIPZIGER KOMMENTAR ZUM STRAFGESETZBUCH (Leipzig commentary on the penal code), Introduction, MN 2 (Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Ruth Rissing-­‐van Saan & Klaus Tiedemann eds., 2006). 1034 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
system-­‐theoretical musings that point out the danger of systemic entities or an appeal to 72
Aristotle to show that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. The criminalization of criminal and terrorist associations therefore serves the principle legitimate aim of firstly preventing the violation of legally protected interests, as would happen if the respective 73
reference offences were committed, secondly, of preserving the public peace, which can suffer when such reference offences are imminent (for which the threat can suffice, 74
Section 129a subsection 3 StGB), and thirdly, has an eye to preserving the respective legal and social order. Thus, political criminal law is addressed that is capable of being abused and therefore usually brings with it negative connotations. When we remember that criminal law is actually always an expression of political and social attitudes, it should, however, be possible to properly express emerging concerns: For a free and constitutional, though by all means militant democracy, it is a constitutive prerequisite that it leave sufficient space for the respective oppositions to express themselves and advocate their 75
beliefs without being oppressed by the authorities. Once this is achieved, the constitutional state may justifiably prohibit its citizens from getting involved in organizations which are prone to violence. Because this nevertheless remains somewhat vague, the legislature should be advised not to overdo this kind of penalization and extension of scope. Also within the German system of criminal law there is doubt that this task has been mastered. In this regard, it may be noted that due to the threatened minimum sentence of one year, participation in a terrorist association (Section 129a StGB) counts as a crime, the attempted commission of which is punishable per se. Moreover, this means that in accordance with Section 30 StGB even the preparation of this preparation is punishable. As such even the solicitation, declaration of compliance, undertaking or concerting for reasons of founding such an association or participating in it through membership are punishable. The response to this expansion should actually be a reserved theory of participation. This too, however, is less than exemplary in its organization. Although the penalization of the founding of one of the associations specified is generally harmless, this is certainly not as tangible as the 76
registration of the articles of association of a company. What is more critical is the 72
In this respect, see KAI THORSTEN BARISCH, supra note 68, at 106 (2009). 73
See the High Court Munich (OLG München), 60 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 2786, 2788 (2007); Hans-­‐Joachim Rudolphi, supra note 64, at § 129 MN 3; MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 13, at 512 (2009). 74
In this respect, see e.g. BGHSt 30, 228, 231; 41, 47, 51; THOMAS FISCHER, supra note 18, at § 129 MN 2. 75
See again, supra note 7.
76
On the concept of founding, see Federal Court of Justice BGHSt 27, 327; BGH, 59 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 1603 (2006); THOMAS FISCHER, supra note 18, at § 129 MN 23; Matthias Krauß, supra note 19, at § 129 MN 101; Theodor Lenckner, supra note 21, at § 129 MN 12a; Hans-­‐Joachim Rudolphi, supra note 64, at § 129 MN 14; BERND SCHEIFF, supra note 64, at 69 . 2012] Criminal Involvement in Terrorist A ssociations 1035 somewhat vague criminalization of the activity of membership, which should obviously 77
require more than the mere unpunishable characteristic of being a member. On the basis of reformed insight, the legislature is always to ensure that merely promoting the 78
association is no longer punished. The background to this change is that the German judicial system had expanded this rather intangible term a little too far, so that professions of sympathy had come to be seen as criminal, which is unhealthy for a community based 79
on freedom of expression. In this respect, the aspect of promoting has been limited, and is now only included in the elements of an offence if members or supporters are to be recruited (Sections 129 subsection 1, 129a subsection 5 sentence 2 StGB). The support of criminal and terrorist associations remains a punishable offence (Sections 129 subsection 1, 129a subsection 5 sentence 1 StGB), which is obviously not very tangible and therefore 80
susceptible to abuse. This is, in part at least, a matter of aiding and abetting, which is 81
raised to the level of perpetration (essentially in Section 27 StGB). How this relates, firstly to the legislative decision to no longer punish the promotion of the association as such, and secondly to the general rules of aiding of abetting, which is fundamentally possible for 82
all offences committed, remains open. The questions touched upon in this context cannot be expanded any further here. By way of warning, it should be noted that the penalization of offences relating to membership in or in support of organizations extends even beyond the punishment of the perpetrators and of aiders and abettors in whatever form. This relates, for example, to the punishability of the failure to report the planning or commission of an offence under Section 129a (also in conjunction with Section 129b subsection 1, sentence 1 and 2) at a time when the 77
For a definition, see the BGHSt 18, 296; 29, 114; 54, 69, 111; 56, 312; Theodor Lenckner, supra note 21, at § 129 MN 13; Hans-­‐Joachim Rudolphi, supra note 64, at § 129 MN 16. See also BGHSt 29, 121 (not merely membership) and THOMAS FISCHER, supra note 18, at § 129 MN 24; Wolfgang Fleischer, Verhältnis von Dauerstraftat und Einzelstraftaten, 32 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 1337, 1338 (1979); Hans-­‐Joachim Rudolphi, supra note 64, at § 129 MN 16a: more than paying member’s subscription. On membership in terrorist associations abroad, see BGH, 16 NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR STRAFRECHT-­‐RECHTSPRECHUNGSREPORT 372 (2011). 78
th
As a result of the 34 Criminal Code Amending Law (34. StÄndG) of 22 August 2002 (Federal Law Gazette [BGBl.] I 3390). 79
For this, see the Bundestag’s printed paper (BT-­‐Drs.) 14/8893, 8; SARAH BREIDENBACH, DIE STRAFRECHTLICHE BEKÄMPFUNG TERRORISTISCHER VEREINIGUNGEN (Fighting criminal terrorist associations) 35 (2009). 80
On attempts at a definition, see BGHSt 29, 99, 101; 32, 243, 244 and now BGHSt 51, 345, 348; 54, 69, 116; THOMAS FISCHER, supra note 18, at § 129 MN 30; Matthias Krauß, supra note 19, at § 129 MN 132, 163; Theodor Lenckner, supra note 21, at § 129 MN 15; Heribert Ostendorf, supra note 22, at § 129 MN 20. 81
Likewise BGHSt 20, 89; 29, 99, 101; THOMAS FISCHER, supra note 18, at § 129 MN 30; Matthias Krauß, supra note 19, at 129 MN 132, 163; Heribert Ostendorf, supra note 22, at § 129 MN 20; Hans-­‐Joachim Rudolphi, supra note 64, at § 127 MN 14; critically Theodor Lenckner, supra note 21, at § 129 MN 15. 82
On definition, see BGHSt 51, 345, 348 et seq.; 54, 69, 116 et seq. 1036 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
commission can still be averted (Section 138 subsection 2 sentence 1 no. 2 StGB). It further includes offences according to Sections 129 to 129b StGB as suitable predicate offences to money laundering (Section 261 subsection 1 sentence 2 no. 5 StGB) and extends above all to the fact that, as of recently, it is even punishable to take up or maintain relationships to a terrorist association (Sections 129a/b StGB) with the intention of receiving instruction on committing a serious violent offence endangering the state (Section 89a subsection 2, no. 1 StGB) (acc. Section 89b subsection 1 StGB: up to three years imprisonment or a fine). This also applies under similar conditions to those of Section 129b StGB for offences committed abroad (Section 89b subsection 3 and 4 StGB). Ultimately, this establishes criminal liability due to making contact with wrongful intent. That puts the definition of the offence dangerously close to the criminalization of beliefs, or the fictional cinematic PreCrime. The liberal constitutional state, however, should take care that it does not, in the end, abolish the very values that it intended to protect against the terrorist attackers. A constitutional state that only rhetorically claims to be such has already abolished itself. Or again, in the words of the great philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a 83
monster.”
83
FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL IV, at no. 146. Articles Expanding Criminal Laws by Predating Criminal Responsibility -­‐ Punishing Planning and Organizing Terrorist Attacks as a Means to Optimize Effectiveness of Fighting Against Terrorism By Liane Wörner* A. Introduction Going after terrorists, often means “fighting the unknown”. The so-­‐called “new threat” cannot be tracked back to known terrorists plotting against known government officials within national boundaries. The need for early investigation is clear, nothing more urgent than to forestall further terrorist actions. Today’s sleeper can be tomorrow’s terrorist. Hence, the argument herein is that new developments remain as consequent continuation perfecting well-­‐known terrorist strategies and techniques. Instead of predating criminal responsibility the unknown needs to be identified. In refusing such identification current criminal law turns into a soft law reflecting actual social needs by preventing a future wrong. Current German criminal law on terrorism overextends appropriate borders in criminalizing chains of preparations. Punishment is carried out for “thinking different” by way of pre-­‐crime, just symbolizing the wrong. The paper argues that even if criminal responsibility is predated in order to identify the unknown, it has to base on behavior, which can be understood as disorder outside the offender’s interim sphere to qualify as criminal wrong. This applies to suspected terrorists and also to all other suspects of crime. B. The Issue: Fighting against the Unknown Lately, among German legal scholars, a new field of research is coming more distinctly into 1
view, called Vorverlagerung and within a certain context Symbolstrafrecht. Neither term *
The author is senior research fellow (Akademische Rätin) at the institute for criminal law, criminal procedure and comparison of criminal law (Prof. Dr. Walter Gropp) at the Justus-­‐Liebig-­‐University in Gießen/Germany. A former version of this paper was part of the German delegation’s presentation at the Third Session of the International Forum on Crime and Criminal Law in the Global Era (IFCCLGE) in October 2011 in Beijing/China (Basic Trend of Worldwide Terrorism and Countermeasures in the Post-­‐Bin Laden Era). I want to thank Beth Anne Yeager and Charles B. Schudson for their valuable comments to this paper, discussing the common law based understanding of laws and legal terms with me. Email: [email protected]­‐giessen.de. 1
For a critical review of the term Vorverlagerung, cf. Arndt Sinn, Vorverlagerung der Strafbarkeit – Begriff, Ursachen und Regelungstechniken, in GRENZEN DER VORVERLAGERUNG IN EINEM TATSTRAFRECHT – EINE RECHTSVERGLEICHENDE ANALYSE AM BEISPIEL DES DEUTSCHEN UND UNGARISCHEN STRAFRECHTS, 13 (Arndt Sinn, Walter Gropp & Ferenc Nagy eds., 2011). 1038 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
can be easily translated into English, but both may be defined in German. They describe developments of criminal law in which criminal responsibility is predated (vorverlagert) to its earliest stage of planning and preparing the commission of crimes. Such criminal law is being used to only denounce the “bad” as a symbol reacting on public demands for harsher 2
criminal sanctions in its final stage resulting in “Enemy Criminal Law” (Feindstrafrecht) or it is being used to only symbolize the wrong, whereas its use comes away empty-­‐handed. Not surprisingly, enactments and amendments of terrorism offenses are primary targets of such criminal law. While traditionally substantive criminal law defines crimes and establishes punishment for violation of certain and important interests (Rechtsgütern), as killing another person or interfering with the property of others, defining and targeting terrorism offenses may be 3
different. Besides establishing punishment for terrorist action, criminal law can also specify the “terrorist element” defined as an aggravating subjective circumstance (specific 4
intention), establishing higher punishment. But increasingly criminal laws are being used to ‘fight against’ terrorist interventions – planning and preparing – in order to prevent terrorist attacks. Indeed, preventive action against the commission of crimes has to be seen as a necessary element to guarantee law and order. However, how far government officials through legislation may go in order to prevent the commission of crimes must be discussed. The 5
discussions on surveillance of public places in Great Britain can demonstrate that. But preventing terrorist attacks by means of substantive criminal law differs from guaranteeing law and order by means of preventive surveillance measures, because the offender faces punishment before he/she commits any terrorist act. The question is whether and to what extent such provisions are to be seen as proportionate measures in democratic societies. Going after terrorists challenges every society. It often means “fighting the unknown.” This seems even more true since the so called “new threat” by terrorists can no longer be tracked back to known terrorist groups plotting against known government officials within 2
For a critical review of the term Feindstrafecht, cf. Manuel Cancio Meliá, Terrorism and Criminal Law: The Dream of Prevention, The Nightmare of the Rule of Law, 14 NEW CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW (NCLR) 108, 110 (2011). 3
Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 2331(1)(A), (5)(A). But, US Federal Law has at least 80 different definitions of terrorism and a number of different definitions of terroristic acts. See ALEX PETER SCHMID, POLITICAL TERRORISM (1988); J.J. Lador-­‐
Lederer, Defining “Terrorism”—A Comment, in TERRORISM AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 5, 9 (Henry Hyunwook Han ed., 1993). 4
See e.g., Wis. Stat. § 973.017(3)(e)(1)(a)-­‐(c) (use of guidelines, consideration of aggravating factors in the context of criminal sentencing). 5
Parallel discussions on the admissibility of undercover investigation evidence in order to prosecute crimes address borderlines of admissible investigation measures within rule-­‐of-­‐law states. 2012] E xpanding R esponsibility Criminal Laws by Predating C riminal 1039 6
national boundaries. While terrorism like this still exists, new forms of terrorism differ: attacks are planned (and committed) by the unknown against the unknown. Terrorist 7
groups are often not identifiable as such and their targets can be the general populace as 8
well as government officials. But whether this constitutes a new form of terrorism is questionable. Current forms of terrorism may be more brutal. Instead of fighting for 9
independence, self-­‐determination and statehood, terrorists aim at destruction of the 10
“enemy” and its civilization. However, by all accounts, new developments still remain as 11
consequent continuation perfecting well-­‐known terrorist strategies and techniques. Legal researchers in this area have to ask whether the needs of law and order vindicate the need “to fight back” against the unknown and in punishing the unknown. They must ask, whether establishing punishment for planning and preparing crimes as well as for forming terrorist groups means diverging from strict principles of definiteness and clarity in criminal 12
law, but essential within democratic societies. 6
An example of a hierarchically structured group is the Red Faction Army (RAF), a terrorist group in Germany in the 1970s. More recent groups include Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) in Spain and the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in Northern Ireland. Current examples of groups of new non-­‐hierarchically structured forms are the Sauerland Group (Stuttgart 2007) and the Taliban-­‐Terror in Afghanistan lately resulting in killing former President Rabbani on September 20, 2011. 7
This explicitly means that terrorist groups tend to not work on base of clear forms and hierarchical structures but interweaving with different religious, economic or social groups within a loose decentralized network, like Al-­‐
Qaida. Discussing this see David Tucker, What is New about the New Terrorism and How Dangerous is It?, 13 TERRORISM AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE 1, 3 (2001). And see especially MARK ZÖLLER, TERRORISMUSSTRAFRECHT 91, 92 (2009). 8
Explicitly, human targets are not being chosen with the same specificity, they now include innocent and arbitrarily picked individuals. For an empirical discussion see James Piazza, Is Islamist Terrorism More Dangerous?, 21 TERRORISM AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE 62 (2009) showing that religious groups especially tend to carry out mass-­‐
casualty attacks, most notably the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in the United States. 9
One example of this may be the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Turkey which has been fighting for an independent Kurdish statehood since 1984. The PKK is a terrorist group as defined in § 129a and 129b of the deutsches Strafgesetzbuch (German Substantive Criminal Code). See GERMAN SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL CODE [DEUTSCHES STRAFGESETZBUCH] [DSTGB] in the version promulgated on 13 November 1998, FEDERAL LAW GAZETTE [BUNDESGESETZBLATT] [BGBL.] I AT 3322, as amended by Art. 1 of the law of 25 June 2012, BGBL. I at 1374 (Ger.), translated by Michael Bohlander (2010), available at: http://www.gesetze-­‐im-­‐
internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html (last accessed: 31 August 2012); referring to the example given see BUNDESAMT FÜR VERFASSUNGSSCHUTZ [BFV] [FEDERAL OFFICE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION], VERFASSUNGSSCHUTZBERICHT [REPORT OF THE OFFICE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION] 288 (2010). 10
Cf. MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 96; Ulrich Sieber, Legitimation und Grenzen von Gefährdungsdelikten im Vorfeld von terroristischer Gewalt, 29 NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR STRAFRECHT (NSTZ) 353 (2009). 11
12
Clearly MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 98. Constitutional law and order is built on the rights of freedom and liberty to achieve social safety for all; cf. with a detailed historical argument Helmut Goerlich, Zu Geschichte und Gegenwart der Konstitutionalisierung von Justizgrundrechten, in BEITRÄGE ZUM DEUTSCHEN UND TÜRKISCHEN STRAFRECHT UND STRAFPROZESSRECHT – DIE ENTWICKLUNG VON RECHTSSYSTEMEN IN IHRER GESELLSCHAFTLICHEN VERANKERUNG 25 (Walter Gropp, Bahri Öztürk, Adem Sözüer & Liane Wörner eds., 2010). 1040 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
C. Facts According to the annual reports, released by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, “fighting against” international and especially Islamic terrorism is being 13
stressed to be the main focus of investigation. Yet the new network character of terror groups with a loose non-­‐hierarchical structure is being seen as the current threat justifying 14
further measures. Since 2001, German crime records changed in structure and now officially record “politically motivated criminality” –of which terrorism crimes are one part – within a separate statistic. Hence, it is difficult to directly compare statistical information 15
to those of ordinary criminality. However, statistics do not yet contain information on investigations against establishing contacts for the purpose of committing a serious violent offense endangering the state according to section 89b of the dStGB or investigations against preparing a serious offense endangering the state according to section 89a of the 16
dStGB. Tellingly, the 2nd Periodical Security Report of Germany 2007 indicates that BKA-­‐
th
investigators (Federal Criminal Police Office), since September 11 , 2011, followed approximately 25 600 terrorist tracks. In December 2005, 42 preliminary proceedings 17
against “forming a (national) terror group” (§ 129a of the dStGB) were pending. At the same time 84 preliminary proceedings against international terror groups (§ 129b of the dStGB) were pending, of which only 7 groups originated within the EU and 77 outside the EU. 71 out of the 84 international cases in total pertained to persons of Islamic 18
background. From these figures, security reports found a dramatic threat from Islamic terrorists and required further action to shatter terror structures and to prevent the 19
planning of terror attacks in the run-­‐up to actually committing the attack. 13
See VERFASSUNGSSCHUTZBERICHT , supra note 9, at 3. 14
VERFASSUNGSSCHUTZBERICHT , supra note 9, at 3. Argumentation reads that the network character functions as the basis for radicalization. The terror attack at Frankfurt Airport in April 2011 is one example, where U.S. soldiers were killed by a single offender, who had been radicalized through such networks. 15
“Politically motivated criminality” (politisch motivierte Kriminalität) (PMK), introduced in 2001, is defined as “all kinds of criminality against the state, even if there is no proof of any political connection.” Cf. VERFASSUNGSSCHUTZBERICHT, supra note 9, at 33. 16
Cf. BUNDESAMT FÜR VERFASSUNGSSCHUTZ [BFV] [FEDERAL OFFICE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION], VERFASSUNGSSCHUTZBERICHTE [REPORTS OF THE OFFICE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION] (2006-­‐2010). 17
Cf. BUNDESMINISTERIUM DES INNERN [BMI] [FEDERAL MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR] & BUNDESMINISTERIUM DER JUSTIZ [BMJ] ND
[FEDERAL MINISTRY OF JUSTICE], SECOND PERIODISCHER SICHERHEITSBERICHT: LANGFASSUNG [2 PERIODICAL SECURITY REPORT] 180 (2007). 18
Id. at 180. By comparison 79 preliminary investigations of sections 129, 129a, and 129b of the dStGB, allegations involving 100 suspects, were pending in 2006: see DEUTSCHER BUNDESTAG: DRUCKSACHEN [BT DRS.] 16/4007 (question by the German parliament) and BT DRS. 16/5537 (answer by the German government). 19
ND
Cf. 2 PERIODICAL SECURITY REPORT, supra note 17, at 185. 2012] E xpanding R esponsibility Criminal Laws by Predating C riminal 1041 D. Provisions: What is punishable according to German Criminal Law? The German Criminal Code (dStGB) criminalizes “terrorist movements” for organizing in collaboration with others in order to commit certain crimes, which are to be seen as a terrorist threat (§ 129a of the dStGB: “forming of a terrorist association”). Additionally, since 2009, new sections 89a, 89b, and 91 of the dStGB provide for punishment if one plans or prepares through certain actions to commit a terrorist act as an “act endangering 20
the state”. With the latest amendment of 2009, action in the run-­‐up to terrorist attacks 21
becomes criminally relevant, but independent from any already existing criminally 22
relevant endangering process by means of group-­‐dynamic-­‐developments. Revealingly, none of the provisions establishes punishment for committing a terrorist attack, but otherwise expands criminal responsibility in two directions: (1) for forming terrorist associations and action coherent to that and (2) for planning and preparing acts endangering the state, predating (vorverlagern) the criminal responsibility to a stage before committing a crime. Especially the second phenomenon (2) has been critically discussed as a new concept predating criminal responsibility (Vorverlagerung) by timely expanding criminal responsibility to the stages of planning and preparing the commission 23
of crimes. Namely, through such provisions the function of criminal law as ultima-­‐ratio-­‐
punishment for infringements of the law tends to change into a function of criminal law as 24
preventing the commission of crimes as such. Hence, both kinds of provisions were introduced against the background of actual terrorist threats. In the 1970’s the attacks by the German Red Army Faction (RAF) terrorist group 20
Bohlander, supra note 9, at §§ 89a, 89b, 91. The provisions were introduced by the Gesetz zur Verfolgung der Vorbereitung von schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttaten [Act to Prosecute Preparation of Serious Criminal Offenses], 30 July 2009, BGBl. I at 2437, effective 4 August 2009. 21 22
Through the introduction of sections 89a, 89b, and 91 of the dStGB. As solely in the past, section 129a of the dStGB. 23
Cf. GRENZENLOSE VORVERLAGERUNG DES STRAFRECHTS? [UNLIMITED PREDATING OF CRIMINAL LAW] (Roland Hefendehl ed., 2010); GRENZEN DER VORVERLAGERUNG IN EINEM TATSTRAFRECHT – EINE RECHTSVERGLEICHENDE ANALYSE AM BEISPIEL DES DEUTSCHEN UND UNGARISCHEN STRAFRECHTS [LIMITS OF PREDATING CRIMES – A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE GERMAN AND THE HUNGARIAN CRIMINAL LAW] (Arndt Sinn, Walter Gropp & Ferenc Nagy eds., 2011). 24
Cf. Sinn, supra note 1, at 14. See also Henning Radtke & Mark Steinsiek, Bekämpfung des internationalen Terrorismus durch Kriminalisierung von Vorbereitungshandlungen? – Zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verfolgung der Vorbereitung von schweren Gewalttaten, 3 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR INTERNATIONALE STRAFRECHTSDOGMATIK (ZIS) 383, 387 (2008), concluding that the introduction of section 89a in the dStGB by the Ministry draft of 21 April 2008 would still be constitutional and even though predating, it would not yet be “thought crime”. But this argumentation is confined to section 89a. Radtke and Steinsiek’s argument has to be read against the background that the Ministry draft of 21 April 2008 did not yet include further predating elements including the preparation of the preparatory crime, now introduced in section 89b of the dStGB. 1042 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
25
induced the amendment of section 129a in the dStGB. While the RAF itself was detected quickly as a result of its publicly announced terror threats and attacks, its structure and organization remained the target for law enforcement in order to prevent further attacks. As result, German legislators enacted section 129a of the dStGB, a law establishing 26
punishment solely for forming a terrorist group. The aim of the provision is to protect the community from terrorist groups and to hold anyone who forms, participates in, or 27
supports a terrorist organization criminally responsible. Such laws enable investigators to arrest founders, members, and supporters of terror groups, and to hold them criminally responsible for being part of the organization. Investigators need not to produce evidence of a committed crime in order to arrest a “RAF” terrorist, but evidence exposing the suspect as being part of the group and endangering public safety was sufficient (and still is). To that extent, the law has been effective to shatter the structure of specifically known terrorist groups. Almost 40 years later, terrorist groups have learned their lessons. Their answer to such law is decentralization rendering organizations, members and supporters more difficult to 28
detect. Moreover, arresting detected members or supporters of such groups does not 29
shatter such organizations given their pose and non hierarchical structure. Arrested founders, members or supporters are easily replaced. Thus, while the German law of 1976 30
is often ineffective against modern terror, the German 2009 laws of sections 89a, 89b, 25
Gesetz zur Umsetzung des Rahmenbeschlusses des Rates vom 13. Juni 2002 zur Terrorismusbekämpfung und zur Änderung anderer Gesetze [Act to implement the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism and to amend related Acts), 22 December, BGBI. I at 2386, art. 1(Ger.). It has been effective since 28 December 2003, in order to transform requirements of the European Council Framework Decision: see Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA, of 13 June 2002 on Combating Terrorism, 2002 O.J. (L164) 3, available at: http://eur-­‐lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:164:0003:0003:EN:PDF (last accessed: 31 August 2012). This framework decision has been seen as providing a legal EU-­‐terrorism definition, see Eugenia Dumitriu, The E.U.’s Definition of Terrorism: The Council Frame-­‐work Decision on Combating Terrorism, 5 GERM. L.J. 585, 590, 595, 602 (2004). 26
See Shawn Boyne, Law, Terrorism & Social Movements: How Politics has Shaped Germany's Anti-­‐Terrorism Legislation, 12 CARDOZO J. INT'L & COMP. L. J. 41 (2004) (for a American and comparative perspective); KARSTEN FELSKE, KRIMINELLE UND TERRORISTISCHE VEREINIGUNGEN -­‐ §§ 129, 129A STGB: REFORMDISKUSSION UND GESETZGEBUNG SEIT DEM 19. JAHRHUNDERT [CRIMINAL AND TERRORIST GROUPS—129, 129A OF THE CRIMINAL CODE: REFORM DEBATE AND TH
LEGISLATION SINCE THE 19 CENTURY] 349 (2002) (for an historical perspective). 27
For a detailed discussion on the elements of the offense, cf. Bernhard Kretschmer, Criminal Involvement in Terrorist Associations – Classification and Fundamental Principles of the German Criminal Code Section 129a dStGB, 13 (9) GERM. L.J. 1016-­‐1036 (2012); MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 510. 28
As also argued by Oliver Lepsius, Liberty, Security, and Terrorism: The Legal Position in Germany, 5 GERM. L.J. 435, 438, 439 (2004). 29 Again, the Al-­‐Qaida group may serve as a well known example. 30 This does not mean that such laws are no longer necessary. Traditional groups still exist (even though they may internationalize) and their conduct still may be effectively addressed by older laws. Hereto section 129b of the 2012] E xpanding R esponsibility Criminal Laws by Predating C riminal 1043 31
and 91 of the dStGB, by establishing punishment for planning and preparing acts endangering the public, attempts to address the dangers presented by modern, decentralized terrorist groups. The sections 89a to 91 amendments of the dStGB resulted 32
from the European Terrorism Convention. Germany, as well as other member states of the European Union, covenanted to transpose the requirements of the convention into the legal framework of German criminal law. The purpose of the European Terrorism Convention was “to enhance the efforts of parties in preventing terrorism and its negative 33
effects on the full enjoyment of human rights”. Implementing the convention in Germany, legislators argued that it would be almost adverse to the investigative goal if investigative officers would have to delay arresting the actor until he/she actually starts to 34
attempt to commit a terrorist attack. The “root of all evil” is that it is not obvious, whosoever is connected to a terrorist group and is planning an attack. Today’s sleeper can be tomorrow’s terrorist. The need for early investigation is clear: In view of the unclear threat from whom to whom, nothing seemed more urgent than to investigate the planning, founding and supporting of terrorist associations in order to forestall further terrorist actions, most importantly the dStGB allows investigation also in European and International terror cells, critically discussed by MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 331. 31 Section 89a of the dStGB punishes preparing a serious offense (against life or personal freedom) endangering the state. Preparatory action can be instructing another person or receiving instruction in the production or the use of firearms, etc.; producing, obtaining for himself or another, storing or supplying to another weapons, etc.; obtaining or storing objects or substances essential for the production of weapons, etc.; or collecting, accepting or providing not unsubstantial assets for the purpose of its commission. Section 89b of the dStGB provides punishment even for establishing contacts for the purpose of committing a serious violent offense endangering the state. As such, section 89b serves as the preparatory crime to “forming a terroristic group” according to section 129a of the dStGB, which punishes any person who establishes or maintains contacts to an organization within the meaning of section 129a (i.e., if he/she acts with the intention of receiving instruction for the purpose of the commission of a serious violent offense endangering the government and/or democratic state under section 89a(2)(1) of the dStGB). Neither the elements of section 129a nor section 89a of the dStGB have to be fulfilled, if only the offender intends to commit a crime according to section 89a dStGB by establishing or maintaining contact to a terroristic group according to section 129a dStGB. Thereby criminal law is extended in predating and in expanding its subject matter. The aim is to catch the so called “sleeper terrorists.” Cf. in detail MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 581. Section 91 of the dStGB establishes punishment for encouraging the commission of a serious violent offense endangering the state by displaying or supplying to another written material. For text of German provisions in English, cf. Bohlander, supra note 9. 32
Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism [CECPT] art. 5-­‐10, 1 June 2007, C.E.T.S. No. 196. But Germany went beyond the demands of the convention; even the factual need for the new laws was ever issued; see Lepsius, supra note 28, at 435-­‐437. 33
CECPT, supra note 32, preamble. 34
BT 16/12428. 1044 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
planning and preparation of violent attacks against the public. Legislators bypassed the need for a concrete effect of action and instead just aimed at endangering the legally 35
protected interest. In fact, legislators very effectively ensure the function of criminal law to protect basic values and ensure full enjoyment of human rights and peaceful coexistence, if determining that German law need not wait until someone actually harms 36
the society by damaging something or injuring someone. Within such “safe society”, anyone is punished, who endangers any legally protected interest. In simple terms, whether the actor harmed someone or something is of no account. Only harmless action obeys the law. But critically spoken, we need to reconsider: We can fine-­‐tune our “personal firewalls” and create legal systems preventing from any endangering signals, even those sent out accidently. Accordingly, sleeper terrorists will then upgrade their personal systems to “firewall+”. One can only forewarn that these current developments 37
into “safe societies” highly run the risk to interfere individual rights at highest price by 38
selling the liberal basic order of democracy. E. Predating Criminal Responsibility Taking a closer look at the new structure of such crimes of endangerment, be it either concrete in relation to a certain object of protection (konkretes Gefährdungsdelikt) or 39
abstract in relation to endangering the public (abstraktes Gefährdungsdelikt), one would have to express some doubts. Terrorism offenses cannot be seen as isolated, but rather, as links of a criminal chain, a chain consisting of all crimes. 35
See WALTER GROPP, STRAFRECHT ALLGEMEINER TEIL, para 3, at 90 (3rd ed. 2005) who argues that substantive criminal law defines, in which the circumstances in which legal norms are indispensible and require public disapprobation and that normally, this requires a certain action resulting in a certain violation of a legally protected interest or it requires a certain action as such. But Gropp also argues that today’s criminal laws in majority provide for both. See also, Uta Baroke, Grenzenlose Vorverlagerung des Strafrechtsschutzes durch Gefährdungsdelikte, in GRENZEN DER VORVERLAGERUNG IN EINEM TATSTRAFRECHT 247 (Arndt Sinn, Walter Gropp & Ferenc Nagy eds., 2011) who argues that criminal law is predated, if only endangering the interest is sufficient. 36
Cf. also Sinn, supra note 1, at 13,14. 37
The term “safety” shall be especially stressed herein for discussion more and more is about feeling safe than socially secure. 38
Cf. with a critical discussion of a criminal law of averting of dangers see Winfried Hassemer, Kennzeichen und Krisen des modernen Strafrechts, 25 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR RECHTSPOLITIK (ZRP) 378 (1992); ERIC HILGENDORF, STRAFRECHTLICHE PRODUZENTENHAFTUNG IN DER RISIKOGESELLSCHAFT (1993); Verena Zöller, Liberty Dies by Inches: German Counter-­‐
Terrorism Measures and Human Rights, 5 GERM. L.J. 469, 472, 473 (2004); Thomas Mertens, Criminal Justice after 9-­‐11: ICC or Military Tribunals, 5 GERM. L.J. 545, 568 (2004); Cancio Meliá, supra note 2, at 108. 39
Crimes of concrete or abstract endangerment are sometimes termed strict liability crimes (Gefährdungsdelikte). The terminology, however, is misleading and not used herein as in some criminal codes including those in the United States where “strict liability has a meaning that is significantly different in both criminal and civil contexts. 2012] E xpanding R esponsibility Criminal Laws by Predating C riminal 1045 I. Briefly – Status of the Criminal Justice System In Germany, the criminal justice system – including substantive and procedural criminal law – is increasingly influenced by the public demand for safety and the public desire for 40
penalization. Criminal law shifts from sanctioning bad behavior to averting danger. Examples include terrorism offenses (§§ 89a, 89b, 91, 129a, and 129b of the dStGB), cybercrime offenses (§ 202c of the dStGB), environmental crimes (§§ 324 et seq. of the 41
dStGB), and money laundering (§ 261 of the dStGB). Instead of functioning as ultima 42
ratio-­‐law responding to the committed wrong, the criminal law turns into a soft law reflecting actual social needs by preventing a future wrong. As such criminal law addresses 43
44
the challenges of prospective disorder. In fact, this was the origin of police law. II. Briefly – the Means The question remains how criminal law can become part of a society’s strategy for averting danger. The answer is by simply waiving “damage.” The offender does not need to cause an effect, but simply increase the risk of its occurrence. This can be done by either expanding criminal law over a bigger base of facts (sachliche Ausdehnung) or in predating 45
(Vorverlagerung) criminal law to stages of planning and preparation. 40
Cf. MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 502. For discussions on recent projects researching the predating of criminal responsibility (Vorverlagerung) by means of substantive criminal law see UNLIMITED PREDATING OF CRIMINAL LAW (HEFENDEHL) , supra note 23; LIMITS OF PREDATING CRIMES (SINN), supra note 23. 41
Cf. LIMITS OF PREDATING CRIMES (SINN), supra note 23. 42
MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 502. 43
MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 502. 44
See also Manuel Cancio Meliá, Zum strafrechtlichen Begriff des Terrorismus,159 GOLTDAMMER’S ARCHIV FÜR STRAFRECHT (GA) 1 at 5 (2012). Criminal law which includes some aspects of police law is problematic especially within the German legal system because Articles 70-­‐74 of the German Basic Law (GG) allow both the German Federation and the German Länder (the states of Germany) to enact such laws, see: GRUNDGESETZ FÜR DIE BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND [GRUNDGESETZ] [GG] [Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany], May 23, 1949, in the revised version published in the Federal Law Gazette [BUNDESGESETZBLATT] [BGBL.] Part III, classification number 100-­‐1, as last amended by the Act of 21 July 2010 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 944). Article 74(1)(1) of the GG gives exclusive jurisdiction to enact criminal law to the federal legislator, because substantive criminal law and criminal procedural law are been seen as an intrinsic task of the German Federation. In contrast, the Federal Länder are competent to enact police law, because preventing danger from the public is been seen as one major task of each of the Länder within their areas. New enactments of laws to prevent danger originating in police law but “dressed up” as substantive criminal law therefore interfere with the Länders’ competence to legislate: cf. Susanne Beck, Rechtsstaatlichkeit – Bauernopfer im Krieg gegen den Terror?, in FESTGABE FÜR RAINER PAULUS ZUM 70. GEBURSTAG 15, 27 (Klaus Laubenthal ed., 2009). 45
For a discussion of structure and terms see especially Sinn, supra note 1, at 13, 15. Both are discussed as expansion (Ausdehnung) of criminal law. However, both need to be differentiated into an expansion of facts 1046 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
1. Expanding Criminal Laws over a Bigger Base of Facts (sachliche Ausdehnung) In expanding criminal law over a bigger base of facts (sachliche Ausdehnung) concrete “damage” is replaced by concretely endangering the legally protected interest (konkretes Gefährdungsdelikt) or even by only probably (abstractly) endangering the legally protected 46
interest (abstraktes Gefährdungsdelikt). As such, the concept of crimes of endangerment 47
48
is old, traditionally applied to violations of road and traffic. But lately, prosecutions of crimes involving only an abstract endangerment have increased and have been critically 49
50
discussed. Reactions range from non-­‐acceptance to redefining the elements of crimes 51
of abstract endangerment by specific additional elements. The full discussion cannot be reproduced here, but to summarize, the construction of behavior of mere abstract endangerment as criminal offenses drives substantive criminal law into the delicate realm of preventing the commission of crimes and punishing the offender for causing abstract danger. Criminal law as such does not function retrospectively but prospectively. In order to ring-­‐fence developments, substantive criminal laws need to contain a specific material 52
substance. As suggested by Bernd Schünemann such substance is derived from (1) determining the actual circumstance requiring protection of the legal interest; (2) determining that protection will not interfere with entitled rights of the actor; (3) respecting constitutional principles, above all the principle of clarity and definiteness (Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz), in defining the offense of abstract endangerment clearly and with certainty; and (4) considering whether the prescribed wrong (Unrecht) is proportional (sachliche Ausdehnung) and an expansion of time by predating criminal responsibility (Vorverlagerung). In fact, both will occur. 46
For a detailed discussion on crimes of endangerment and their lawfulness (Zulässigkeit) in German criminal law see Frank Zieschang, DIE GEFÄHRDUNGSDELIKTE, (1998); Wolfgang Wohlers, DELIKTSTYPEN DES PRÄVENTIONSSTRAFRECHTS: ZUR DOGMATIK “MODERNER“ GEFÄHRDUNGSDELIKTE, (2000). In eliminating the element of concrete damage and replacing it with danger, criminal responsibility is also (already) predated to the point where the legally protected interest is endangered. The offender does not have to intend on damaging, but must endanger the interest: see Sinn supra note 1, at 13, 31, 32. 47
Baroke, supra note 35, at 247. 48
KARL LACKNER, DAS KONKRETE GEFÄHRDUNGSDELIKT IM VERKEHRSSTRAFRECHT (1967). 49
Baroke, supra note 35, at 247. 50
See lately Baroke, supra note 35, at 247, 257, 275. 51
See e.g., Bernd Schünemann, Kritische Anmerkungen zur geistigen Situation der deutschen Strafrechtswissenschaft, 142 GA 201, 213 (1995). 52
Hence, crimes of endangerment exist and continue to exist. Some interests are not to be protected else, like roadworthiness or public safety in special circumstances (e.g., protecting from terror attacks); see sources cited Baroke, supra note 35, at 247, 260. 2012] E xpanding R esponsibility Criminal Laws by Predating C riminal 1047 53
to the prescribed punishment. Herewith Schünemann’s concept allows to ring-­‐fence lawfulness of crimes of abstract endangerment. In order to clearly and with certainty define the elements of an offense of endangerment, determining circumstances of protection as well as entitled rights of the actor, just any abstract endangerment will not suffice to requirements of criminal law. The endangerment needs to qualify in the very 54
situation to actually protect a legal interest. In other words, the abstractness of 55
endangerment is to be substantiated. 2. Predating Criminal Responsibility in the Stricter Sense Looking at the expansion of criminal law by predating criminal responsibility (Vorverlagerung), the “time-­‐controller” of criminal responsibility has been moved towards planning and preparation of crimes. While the increasing demand for safety is cited as one 56
main cause of such development, the increase of hazards by organized crime and terrorism intensifies the sense of menace, thus calling for means, including substantive 57
criminal law, to prevent dangers. In this context, the debate on the so-­‐called Feindstrafrecht (criminal law for enemies) – critically discussed in German criminal law – is instructive to unmask alarming developments of such criminal law. When first bringing it up, Günter Jakobs pointed to developments in the predating of criminal responsibility on 58
the basis of a perceived threat by enemies. While legislators tend to criminalize any 53
See Schünemann, supra note 51, at 142; Baroke, supra note 35, at 264. 54
See Sieber, supra note 10, at 357; Schünemann, supra note 51, at 142. Already Schünemann’s first and second criteria concede that the actual circumstances require protection of the legal interest (first criterion) while not interfering with entitled rights of the actor (second criterion). The academic discussion in Germany meanwhile discusses a so-­‐called crime of qualified endangerment (Eignungsdelikt). The term seems to have come to the forefront in the discussion. The term well describes that not any endangerment is sufficient, but only such which qualifies to intervene with the legally protected interest; with further references Baroke, supra note 35, at 275 who explicitly argues for a conversion. 55
Also named abstrakt-­‐konkretes Gefährdungsdelikt (crime of substantiated abstract endangerment). The term is to be criticized. Not only is translation almost impossible, the German terminology herein brings together, what is actually oppositional: Something is either concrete and substantiated or it is abstract, not both. 56
Sinn, supra note 1, at 13, 19. 57
Cf. Roland Hefendehl, Über die Pönalsierung des Neutralen -­‐ zur Sicherheit, in GRENZENLOSE VORVERLAGERUNG DES STRAFRECHTS? 89, 94 (Roland Hefendehl ed., 2010). 58 Günter Jakobs, Kriminalisierung im Vorfeld einer Rechtsgutverletzung, 97 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR DIE GESAMTE STRAFRECHTSWISSENSCHAFT (ZSTW) 751 (1985) who critically pointed on the beginning of developments. For a provoked discussion see only FRANCISCO MUÑOZ CONDE, ÜBER DAS “FEINDSTRAFRECHT” (2007); MICHAEL PAWLIK, DER TERRORIST UND SEIN RECHT. ZUR RECHTSTHEORETISCHEN EINORDNUNG DES MODERNEN TERRORISMUS (2008); Arndt Sinn, Moderne Verbrechensverfolgung – Auf dem Weg zu einem Feindstrafrecht?, 1 ZIS 107 (2006); Manuel Cancio Meliá, Feind “strafrecht“?, 117 ZSTW 267 (2005). 1048 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
“enemy-­‐action”, criminal law needs limitation, especially if criminal responsibility is predated to earliest stages of planning and preparation. Lately Arndt Sinn differentiates between types of ‘predating’ according to whether an existing criminal offense is predated 59
or a new offense, including predating criminal responsibility, is established. Discussing the “enemy criminal law”, suggestions to limit criminalization rank from a control of 60
proportionality to a delimitation of the offender’s internum to his/her externum; 61
interference with the offender’s internum would not be lawful. This, along with Bernd 62
Schünemann’s concept of limiting the lawfulness of crimes of endangerment is beneficial to consider lawfulness of predating criminal responsibility. The benefit lies in combining 63
both: to prove the substance of a criminal law to its proportionality but also to whether it 64
interferes with the core area of privacy (internum). This means that the law must be proportionate to the actual security threat and (as well) accept borderlines of individual 65
fundamental rights and freedom rights. Such criminal law can develop as the back bone of democracies in the modern form of pluralistic societies, in which part wise values seem 66
to be arbitrary. III. German Laws Against Terrorism as a Question of Predating Criminal Liability The question remains whether the current German substantive criminal law on “fighting against” terrorism overextends appropriate borders in order to effectively prevent terror attacks. Especially in “fighting against” terrorism, criminal law pursues preventive 59
Sinn, supra note 1, at 13, 25. 60
Jakobs, supra note 58, at 756. See also Sinn, supra note 1, at 33; Jens Puschke, Grund und Grenzen des Gefährdungsstrafrechts am Beispiel der Vorbereitungsdelikte, in GRENZENLOSE VORVERLAGERUNG DES STRAFRECHTS? 24 (Roland Hefendehl ed., 2010). 61
Likewise see Sieber, supra note 10, at 359 for a discussion on the forum internum. 62
See supra discussion Part E.II.1 Expanding Criminal Laws over a Bigger Base of Facts (sachliche Ausdehnung) together with Schünemann, supra note 51. 63
Argued also by Sinn, supra note 1, at 13, 33. 64
While such core area is basically acknowledged, the German Federal High Court of the Constitution (BVerfG) decides restrained. Unclear is, whether and to what extent such core area of the individual has to be respected in cases of criminalizing the planning and preparing of the commission of crimes, see Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 80, 367 (375), 14 Sept. 1989, 43 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT [NJW] 563, 1990 (Ger.). 65
66
Cf. also Verena Zöller, supra note 38, at 469, 474, 475. As also argued by Christoph Safferling, Can Criminal Prosecution be the Answer to massive Human Rights Violations? 5 GERM. L.J. 1469, 1488 (2004) on behalf of human rights violations and International criminal law. 2012] E xpanding R esponsibility Criminal Laws by Predating C riminal 1049 67
interests. The aim is to prevent concrete terror acts in order to protect citizens and the 68
basic values of the democratic order. Retrospective criminal laws cannot meet that 69
goal. The only recourse is to criminalize behavior that otherwise result in actual terror attacks. 1. §§ 129a, b dStGB Thus, German criminal offenses of “forming a terrorist association”, according to sections 129a and 129b of the dStGB, are considered crimes of abstract endangerment 70
(abstrakte Gefährdungsdelikte). Punishment is established for forming, participating or supporting a group that is aimed at the commission of violent acts with terrorist motivation. To be criminally responsible, a suspect does not need to participate in the actual commission of such acts, nor does the suspect even need to be a member of a terrorist group. In fact, the targeted object of the intended act does not need to be 71
concretely endangered at all. Instead, punishment is established for intrinsic areas of 72
crime preparation. Criminal responsibility is predated. Doing so, the crime of “forming a terrorist association” takes into account that the process of organizing in order to commit specified serious crimes contains inherent dynamism and carries endangerment to persons 73
and property requiring protection. With the help of section 129a of the dStGB, the commission of the specified crimes shall be prevented. Mark Zöller rightly calls the offense of “forming a terrorist association” the creation of a “criminal outpost” (strafrechtlichen 74
75
Vorposten). While the exact “shape” of the offense and its elements may be discussed, clearly the potential for endangerment is caused by “forming,” “participating in,” or “supporting” a group in order to commit a terror attack, thus calling for intervention of 67
See Winfried Hassemer, Kennzeichen und Krisen des modernen Strafrechts, 25 ZRP 378, 380 (1992). But see Bettina Weißer, “Der Kampf gegen den Terrorismus“ – Prävention durch Strafrecht?, 63 JURISTENZEITUNG (JZ) 388, 393 (2008); Bettina Weißer, Über den Umgang des Strafrechts mit terroristischen Bedrohungslagen, 121 ZSTW 131, 153 (2009). 68
Weißer, “Der Kampf gegen den Terrorismus“ – Prävention durch Strafrecht?, supra note 67, at 393. 69
MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 503. 70
Cf. MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 503; Bernd Heinrich, Die Grenzen des Strafrechts bei der Gefahrprävention, Brauchen oder haben wir ein “Feindstrafrecht“?, 121 ZSTW 94,116, 121 (2009). 71
Hereto and discussing the elements of section 129a of the dStGB: Kretschmer, supra note 27, at 1026-­‐ 1028. Cf. also MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 510. 72
Also MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 503; Weißer, Über den Umgang des Strafrechts mit terroristischen Bedrohungslagen, supra note 67, at 140. 73
MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 503. 74
MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 504. 75
For full discussion see MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 505. 1050 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
criminal law. The formed group is self-­‐directed, which can cause all kinds of risks to safety and order, especially since individuals may further participate in forming, joining or supporting group-­‐goals in what may be termed a group-­‐dynamic process. In a limited sense, endangerment carried out by such terrorist groups is comparable to endangerment carried out by cars on public streets: in both cases, a multitude of risks endangers the public and causes a common danger while the chain of cause often remains unclear. In both cases, intervention by criminal law is justified in order to prevent future 76
damage to the society. Therefore endangering road traffic (§ 315c of the dStGB) by, e.g., wrongly overtaking and concretely endangering other road users and their belongings, driving while under the influence of drink or drugs (§ 316 of the dStGB) or the dangerous disruption of road traffic (§ 315b of the dStGB) are punishable. Compared with, in case of terrorism already forming a terrorist association is punishable (§ 129a of the dStGB). The 77
interference with the individual’s entitled right of “free assembly” (criteria No. 2) is justified, prohibiting association beyond the borders of constitutional order that interferes with the rights of others. Yet, the transitions are floating. Full concurrence is to be given to Zöller’s suggestion to rename section 129a of the dStGB into “participating in a terrorist 78
group” and to concentrate on its subjective elements (mens rea). The elements of 79
association and terrorist motivation need clarification and concrete definition. Yet, as long as laws interfere only with the offender’s externum their application is lawful in order to prevent from terror attacks. If someone actually participates in a group and is showing terrorist motivation, this will normally be the case. 2. §§ 89a, b, 91 dStGB The 2009 introduced laws of sections 89a and 89b do not require a group-­‐dynamic-­‐
80
element, but criminalize planning and preparing terror attacks also by single offenders. The endangerment to the public is self-­‐determined: the offender determines effective time and place to convert any abstract endangerment (stage of planning a terror attack) into a 76
For cases of terrorism, see also MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 508; Weißer, Über den Umgang des Strafrechts mit terroristischen Bedrohungslagen, supra note 67, at 393, 395. 77
According to German constitutional law, the right of “free assembly” is a personal right deriving from Art. 8 of the German Basic Law (GG): GG, supra note 44, at Art. 8. 78
MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 560, but also at 505. 79
MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 560, 561. Intention was to punish the single offender: BT. 16/12428, 9. Cf. Kretschmer, supra note 27, at 1030 with further references. 80
2012] E xpanding R esponsibility Criminal Laws by Predating C riminal 1051 81
concrete breach of law (infringing the objects of protection). The provisions respond to emerging terror groups, which do not show strong hierarchical structures but consist of 82
loose connections and floating memberships. Criminal responsibility is predated to the stages of training, or taking part in training, in order to craft or to train use of weapons (§ 89a (2)(1) of the dStGB), to the stages of crafting, producing, providing or lodging such weapons to others (§ 89a (2)(2)), to the stage of obtaining or lodging such materials in order to craft or produce weapons (§ 89a (2)(3)), and to the stage of collecting or receiving 83
significant financial interests in order to prepare a terror attack (§ 89a (2)(4)). Anyone who produces or provides written materials, which can be used as instructions or manual to commit a terror attack (§ 91 of the dStGB), also, violates the law. Section 89b of the dStGB adds even more predating. Hereto, whoever establishes or maintains contacts to a terror group, as defined in section 129a of the dStGB, with the intention to take part in any 84
training for a terror attack, as defined in section 89a of the dStGB, is punishable. Hence section 89b criminalizes the preparation of crimes defined by sections 89a and 129a, which already predate criminal responsibility; in other words, herein a chain of preparations is 85
criminalized. To justify such legislation, one needs to examine the wrong (Unrecht). Not every new law is unconstitutional just because it predates criminal responsibility. But, in the new anti-­‐
terrorism laws, criminal behavior only abstractly endangers the public. Especially in section 89b of the dStGB legislators have not provided any other rationale substantive element adding to the just abstract endangerment. The elements of forming/participating in terror 86
groups are not required; nor must any other element be met. Further critics have questioned whether the elements of the new laws satisfy the constitutional principle of 87
clarity and definiteness. Because the laws do not explicitly define specific elements of 81
See also Katrin Gierhake, Zur geplanten Einführung neuer Straftatbestände wegen der Vorbereitung terroristischer Straftaten, 3 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR INTERNATIONALE STRAFRECHTSDOGMATIK (ZIS) 397, 402 (2008); Weißer, Über den Umgang des Strafrechts mit terroristischen Bedrohungslagen, supra note 67, at 149 . 82
For the discussion of the law see supra Part D. Provisions: What is punishable according to the German Criminal Code?. 83
Referring to section 89a of the dStGB: see supra note 31. 84
Supra note 31. 85
Cf. Volker Bützler, Die Vorverlagerung der Strafbarkeit am Beispiel der Terrorismusverfolgung aus deutscher Perspektive, in GRENZEN DER VORVERLAGERUNG IN EINEM TATSTRAFRECHT 375, 394 (Arndt Sinn, Walter Gropp & Ferenc Nagy eds., 2011). 86
87
This is also criticized by Gierhake, supra note 81, at 398; MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 586. The principle of clarity and definiteness (Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz) is incorporated within Art. 103(2) of the German GG: see supra note 44 at Art. 103(2). It is one of the main principles, especially within criminal law. Laws need to clearly define the grounds and the extent of the crime with all its elements and provide punishment. Also criminal law provisions that only function prospectively by averting danger to public need to contain specific material substance, at least in order to ring-­‐fence developments. This specific material substance is derived from 1052 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
offenses, like other skills or significant financial interest in section 89a of the dStGB, at least 88
in part, the law remains unclear. However, if criminal responsibility is predated, it has to based on behavior, which can be understood as disorder outside the offender’s interim sphere (outside his/her internum) in 89
order to qualify as criminal wrong (Unrecht). Otherwise, the offender is punished for his/her (probable) plans, which still are an anticipated chain of thoughts. This means that planning or preparing the commission of a (serious) criminal offense can indeed qualify as a criminally relevant wrong, if concerning the externum. In German criminal law, these crimes are typically known as “conspiracy” to “induce another to commit a felony or abet 90
another to commit a felony.” Seen from this perspective, legal justification can be based on the seriousness of group-­‐dynamic-­‐behavior that endangers the public. Then, planning and preparation are part of the externum, because the offender joins his “chain of thoughts” plotting and scheming with others. Criminalized actions punishable under sections 89a and 91 of the dStGB can be compared with conspiracy, if linked to “providing” or “lodging” certain weapons and/or production of such weapons and/or manuals to either produce them or to realize a terror attack. If clearly defined by the law, such actions are part of the offender’s externum, because they exceed his/her entitled self-­‐determination 91
and interfere with rights of the community. Plans and manuals to produce weapons or prepare terror attacks, especially since it is unknown who is going to make use of them, endanger the public. Thus, planning or preparing a terror attack can constitute a criminal wrong, but only if predated criminal responsibility is directed at behavior that exceeds the individual’s internum and endangers the public (most often through self-­‐dynamic grouping). But lawfulness is less persuasive, when looking at section 89b of the dStGB: “Establishing 92
contacts for the purpose of committing a serious violent offense endangering the state.” respecting constitutional principles, above all the principle of Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz, in defining the offense of abstract endangerment clearly and with certainty: see Schünemann, supra note 51, at 142 (This is Schünemann’s third criterion). 88
See also MARK ZÖLLER, supra note 7, at 586. 89
Jakobs, supra note 58, at 761. 90
See dStGB, supra note 9, at § 30; for a translation see Bohlander, supra note 9. According to section 30(2) of the dStGB, criminal responsibility also attaches to one who “declares his willingness or who accepts the offer of another or who agrees with another to commit or abet the commission of a felony”. 91
This is also seen as a necessary requirement by MICHAEL KÖHLER, STRAFRECHT ALLGEMEINER TEIL 22 (1997). For a critical summary of the discussion see Gierhake, supra note 81, at 400, 401; Sieber, supra note 10, at 362. 92
Title of the German offense as translated by Bohlander, supra note 9. See supra Part D. Provisions: What is punishable according to the German Criminal Code?; supra note 31 and accompanying text for a discussion on German 2009 laws of sections 89a, 89b, and 91 of the dStGB. 2012] E xpanding R esponsibility Criminal Laws by Predating C riminal 1053 The provision obviously aims at the sleeper terrorist. The element “establishing of contacts” in German language meets the actor at the point, where he/she starts to find 93
another person to contact. It is not yet necessary to have a concrete goal and plan, nor 94
does the offender yet intend to commit an attack. The crime to be committed is at the stage of preplanning; neither the crime itself, nor victim, nor time or places are specified. The crime is constructed as a preparatory crime (Vorbereitungsdelikt) to the preparatory 95
crimes defined in sections 89a and 129a of the dStGB. The actor is caught by his/her chain of thoughts; unclear whether ever a crime is been committed. Such criminal law 96
interferes with the individual’s interim sphere without justification. If accepted by law, it runs the risk of justifying going after probable terrorists even before they started to concretely plan an attack in order to prevent an attack and secure public safety. It is inconceivable that government action as such would be justified against other kinds of 97
probable criminality. It would result in “thought crimes” and “thought police”. Otto Backes warns that the new German anti-­‐terrorism crimes defined in sections 89a, 89b and 91 of the dStGB are the “key” for police to open investigation against anyone who is 98
suspected of planning or preparing a serious criminal offense. But when somebody might start “thinking” about “establishing” contacts is neither predictable nor determinable. F. Conclusions: “Fighting against” Terrorism by Means of Criminal Law -­‐ Identifying the Unknown Concluding, terrorism nowadays causes new kinds of complex risks to the modern risk 99
society (Risikogesellschaft) ; “fighting against” terrorism challenges the society’s very foundations. There is nothing really new in the “new” terrorism, except that the actual 93
The German wording does not require the “strong” establishment of relations to a terror group, but simply punishes for “contacting a terror group” under section 129a and section 129b of the dStGB or for “keeping contact to such a terror group” in order to be advised according to a crime under section 89a of the dStGB. A simple phone call would be sufficient. 94
Also rightly argued by Sieber, supra note 10, at 362. 95
Sieber, supra note 10, at 362. 96
See the arguments by Jakobs, supra note 58, at 756 on conspiracy—if close friends develop criminal plans. For a discussion which links conspiracy to the new German terrorist offenses see Gierhake, supra note 81, at 400; Detlev Sternberg-­‐Lieben, § 89b, in SCHÖNKE/SCHRÖDER-­‐KOMMENTAR ZUM STGB (Albin Eser et al eds., 28. ed., 2010), margin number 1. 97
GEORGE ORWELL, NINETEEN EIGHTY-­‐FOUR (1949). This discussion is not farfetched, but part of the U.S. discussion on the U.S. Patriot Act: see only Viet D. Dinh, USA Patriot Act, 5 GERM. L.J. 461, 463 (2004). 98 Otto Backes, Der Kampf des Strafrechts gegen nicht-­‐organisierte Terroristen, 28 STRAFVERTEIDIGER (StV) 654, 660 (2008). 99
Sieber, supra note 10, at 353. 1054 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
source of endangerment has become more and more unclear. Due to the non-­‐hierarchical loose structures of terrorist groups and their almost arbitrary choice of whom to victimize, “fighting against” terrorism means fighting against the unknown. So far, the government’s response seems to convert substantive criminal law principles into those that would aim to avert dangers. While predating criminal responsibility to its earliest stages of planning and preparing or even of preplanning the commission of crimes may be very effective in preventing terror attacks, one needs to take into account the inevitable impact on the criminal justice system. If not limited, such criminal law seems to enter the realm of police investigation. The interest of safety conflicts with the right to privacy. Still, the unknown is not identified. Suggestions to identify the unknown are (1) determining the actual circumstance requiring protection of the legally interest by criminal law while respecting constitutional principles, above all the principle of clarity and definiteness in the process of legislation, (2) determining that protection will not interfere with entitled rights of the actor, and finally (3) determining whether the prescribed wrong (Unrecht) is proportionate to the prescribed punishment. In order to obtain that goal, we need to research the social 100
phenomenon of “terrorism” in its changing faces but be mindful by distinguish occurring 101
“terrorist danger” from “terrorist action”. There will be always a public interest to prevent the public from terrorist danger to be guaranteed by carrying out proportionate social rules and, for example, good police work. Borderlines hereto are to be discussed at 102
another place. Hence, it is not the main function of substantive criminal law to prevent terrorist danger, but to prevent terrorist action. Preventing terrorist danger can only be excepted, if the terrorist danger is at least concrete enough to qualify for endangering a legally protected interest and can be manifested in the suspect’s externum. This applies to suspected terrorists and also to all other suspects of crime without labeling any of them as an “enemy”. Otherwise punishment is carried out for “thinking differently” by way of precrime. In the end sleeping is allowed also for suspected terrorists. Going after them still originates with the police in their efforts to prevent danger to the public. Predating criminal responsibility has to be limited. The use of criminal law may be justified in order to “fight against” terrorism, if the endangerment qualifies to risk fundamental rights of the community through an actual terror attack. That is the case if planning and preparation include a self-­‐dynamic-­‐grouping external of the suspect’s interim sphere. Despite critics of 100
Because the “social phenomenon” terrorism changes its faces, one concrete and clear international definition is almost inconceivable. On the other hand, this failure to agree on a definition of terrorism is been seen as the major problem: see Verena Zöller, supra note 38, at 469, 476. For the social approach see also Saul Newman, Terror, Sovereignty and Law: On the Politics of Violence, 5 GERM. L.J. 569 (2004). 101
102
For concrete suggestions on a legal definition see now Cancio Meliá, supra note 44, at 8. This does not mean that constitutional borderlines are to be drawn differently for installing legal measures to prevent danger from the public and to ensure public security by police work, clearly: see Heinrich, supra note 70, at 129, 130. But, whether criminal law can be applied is yet to be seen different. 2012] E xpanding R esponsibility Criminal Laws by Predating C riminal 1055 the wording, criminal law establishing punishment for participating in a terrorist group (§ 129a and b of the dStGB) or for providing or lodging weapons/production plans for weapons or manuals to produce weapons or to commit terrorist attacks (§§ 89a and 91 of the dStGB) can be lawful with certain limitation. But punishing the establishment of plans in the preplan-­‐period (§ 89b of the dStGB) and preparing for further preparatory actions according to section 89a of the dStGB violates constitutional principles. It just symbolizes a wrong instead of containing substance. Not only the suspected terrorists but German criminal law needs to be driven back within the constitutional border. Only then can the individual’s personal freedom be guaranteed towards peaceful coexistence and to the full enjoyment of human rights. Articles The European Influence on German Anti-­‐Terrorism Law By Anneke Petzsche* A. Introduction The international context plays a role in the fight against terrorism that is not to be underestimated. On the one hand, international law poses legal obligations that lead and limit the national legislator in his actions. On the other hand, it has become clear that terrorism nowadays is an international problem that concerns not only individual states but the whole international community. The states have recognized that in order to counter the terrorist threat, an approach only on the national level cannot suffice. As a result, the fight against terrorism has shifted increasingly to the international and supranational level. For Germany the European influence is of particular importance. Therefore, the assessment of the European Commission regarding the handling of terrorist threats gains relevance: Modern terrorism is eminently global. The dissemination of propaganda aiming at mobilization and recruitment as well as instructions and online manuals intended for training or planning of attacks via the Internet have an intrinsic international and cross-­‐border character. The threat is international, and so must be at least 1
part of the answer.“ Consequently, the answer has been international. Not only the European Union but also the Council of Europe has actively passed legislation in the area of anti-­‐terrorism law. In recent years one can list the Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism in 2
2002, the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism in 2005, and the Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28 November 2008 amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism. But these are only recent developments, * Research Associate at the Department of Criminal Law, European Criminal Law and Modern History, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany. Email: [email protected]­‐berlin.de. 1
Commission, Proposal for a Council Framework Decision amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism, Com 650, at 6 (2007). 2
Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (1977), ETS No. 196, available online at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/196.htm (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 2012] The European Influence on German A nti-­‐Terrorism L aw 1057 in fact the fight against terrorism on a European level can be traced back to 1977 when the 3 “European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism“ was negotiated.
Different areas of law were influenced by European law – not only substantial criminal 4
law. However, this paper will concentrate only on the European influence on German substantive criminal law. B. Substantive Criminal Law In the area of anti-­‐terrorism law the substantive criminal law in Germany is strongly influenced by European law. To illustrate this point, first some specific examples of the influence will be given. Second, the influence of the Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28 November 2008 amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism will be examined more deeply by taking a look at one specific section 5 that was created in reaction to the European requirements. Noteworthy in this regard is s. 129b of the German Criminal Code (StGB), which is the first 6 section specifically introduced in order to implement European law. S. 129b StGB deals 7 with criminal and terrorist organizations abroad. The extension of national law to foreign terrorist organizations was a specific request of the Joint Action of 21 December 1998 3
Europe Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, 16.5.2005, ETS No. 090, available online at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/090.htm (31 August 2012). 4
On the new German legislation as a response to the terrorist threat see Christoph Safferling, Terror and Law – German Responses to 9/11, 4 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1152 et seq. (2006). 5
On the influence of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism and the Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA in Great Britain see CLIVE WALKER, THE ANTI-­‐TERRORISM LEGISLATION para. nd
6.56 (2 ed. 2009); ALUN JONES, RUPERT BOWERS, HUGO LODGE, BLACKSTONE’S GUIDE TO THE TERRORISM ACT at para. 1.20, 2.02 et seq. (2006); David Barnum, Indirect incitement and freedom of speech in Anglo-­‐American law, 3 EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW 259 et seq. (2006); on the influence in Spain, see Manuel Cancio Meliá, Delitos de organización: criminalidad organizada común y delitos de terrorismo (Crimes of organization: common organized crime and terrorist offenses), in ESTUDIOS SOBRE LAS REFORMAS DEL CÓDIGO PENAL 662 et seq. (DÍAZ-­‐MAROTO Y VILLAREJO ed., 2011). 6
It was the first one introduced in the context of anti-­‐terrorism law. It was implemented by the “34. Strafrechtsänderungsgesetz vom 22. August 2002” (BGBl. I S. 3390); see further MATTHIAS KRAUß, in LEIPZIGER KOMMENTAR STGB (LEIPZIG PENAL CODE COMMENTARY, HEINRICH LAUFHÜTTE, RUTH RISSING-­‐VAN SAAN & th
KLAUS TIEDEMANN eds., 12 ed.) 430 (2009). 7
S. 129b StGB regulates the application of German national criminal law, see, on the problematic relation with the general sections on jurisdiction, s. 3 et seq. StGB, see MARK ZÖLLER, TERRORISMUSSTRAFRECHT (Criminal Terrorist: a Guide) 333 et seq. (2009). On Al Qaida as a terrorist group under German law, see Christoph Safferling, Prosecuting Terrorism Financing in Germany: Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), Judgement of 14 August 2009 – 3 StR 552/08, 11 GERM. L. J. 1296 et seq. (2010), available online at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1298 (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 1058 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
adopted by the Council, making it a criminal offence to participate in a criminal 8
organization in the Member States of the European Union. Before s. 129b StGB was implemented, the forming of foreign terrorist organizations was only an offence if a 9
subdivision of the organization existed within Germany. In addition to that, the offence of forming a terrorist organization – laid down in s. 129a StGB – was restructured and changed in 2003 to implement the Framework Decision 10 11 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism. The changes were the following: In s. 129a StGB there is a catalogue of offences at which the aims or activities of a (terrorist) organization must be directed. This catalogue was amended substantially by adding the following 12
offences: [C]ausing serious physical or mental harm to another person, namely within the ambit of section 226 StGB (computer sabotage); s. 303b StGB (destruction of buildings); s. 305 StGB (disruption of communication facilities); s. 317 para. 1 StGB (causing a severe danger by releasing poison), and s. 330a StGB (violations of the Weapons of War (Control) Act and the Weapons Act.) Along with the changes of the catalogue the legislator added two further prerequisites: (a) a specific intent and (b) as an objective requirement the possibility of seriously 13 damaging a state or an international organization.
8
Adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on making it a criminal offence to participate in a criminal organisation in the Member States of the European Union (1), 98/733/JHA. 9
MATTHIAS KRAUß, supra note 6. 10
See Gesetz zur Umsetzung des Rahmenbeschlusses des Rates vom 13. Juni 2002 zur Terrorismusbekämpfung und zur Änderung andere Gesetze vom 22 Dezember 2003 (Act to implement the Framework Decision of the Council of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism and amending other laws of 22 December 2003) Bundesgesetzblatt (FEDERAL LAW GAZETTE) BGBl I, 2836. 11
MATTHIAS KRAUß, supra note 6. 390 et seq. 12
For all cited offences of the German Criminal Code the official translation by the Federal Ministry of Justice is used; Bundesministerium der Justiz, German Criminal Code, available online at: http://www.gesetze-­‐im-­‐
internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 13
See. s. 129a (2) “…. [I]f one of the offences stipulated in Nos. 1 to 5 is intended to seriously intimidate the population, to unlawfully coerce a public authority or an international organisation through the use of force or the threat of the use of force, or to significantly impair or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or an international organisation, and which, given the nature or consequences of such offences, may seriously damage a state or an international organisation.” 2012] The European Influence on German A nti-­‐Terrorism L aw 1059 These are substantial changes to the structure and one can also observe that the composition of the offence was much more complicated after the amendments. The above mentioned examples illustrate the continuing influence of European law on German substantive criminal law by causing the formation of new offences and restructuring already existing ones. Yet, the greatest change made to substantive criminal law so far has been the introduction of the “Law for the prosecution of the preparation of 14 serious violent offences endangering the state” (GVVG) in 2009. This act introduced three 15 new offences into the German Criminal Code. Its origin can be traced back to the specifications laid out by the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism 16
2005 and the Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA. The European influence on this specific law will be examined more deeply in the following sections. C. Background of the GVVG The necessity of introducing new offences into the German Criminal Code was stressed by 17 the German government in reference to the high threat posed by international terrorism.
They also referred to the European obligations, specifically those posed by the Council of 14
BGBl. I p. 2836. 15
Gesetz zur Verfolgung der Vorbereitung von schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttaten (The preparation of severe subversive violence), GVVG; see ANNA OEHMICHEN, TERRORISM AND ANTI-­‐TERROR LEGISLATION: THE TERRORISED LEGISLATOR? para. 8.5 (2009); Mark Zöller, Terrorismustrafrecht (Terrorist Criminal law) 394 et seq., 562 et seq. (2009). The new offences are s. 89a StGB “preparation of a serious violent offence endangering the state,” s. 89b StGB “establishing contacts for the purpose of committing a serious violent offence endangering the state” and s. 91 StGB “encouraging the commission of a serious violent offence endangering the state.” 16
See Deutscher Bundestag, Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verfolgung der Vorbereitung von schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttaten (The federal government bill: Draft law for prosecution of preparation of severe subversive violence) No. 16/12428, 1, available online at: http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/124/1612428.pdf (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 17
One case by the Kammergericht Berlin was especially referred to in order to stress the necessity of the law: The accused had planned bomb attacks against U.S. and Israeli institutions, and had already made preparations to that effect. He had, among other things, participated in a terrorist training camp and already purchased several items that could serve to build a bomb. Nevertheless, in the opinion of the court he could neither be convicted under s. 129a StGB -­‐ for lack of the structures necessary to have a terrorist organisation -­‐ nor under s. 30 para 2 StGB -­‐ as the necessary specification of the planned action had not been given. He was therefore only convicted for violating the Arms Act and for tax evasion. See Deutscher Bundestag, Gesetzentwurf der Fraktionen der CDU/CSU und SPD: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verfolgung der Vorbereitung von schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttaten (bill by the CDU / CSU and SPD: Draft law to pursue the preparation of heavy seditious violence) No. 16/11735, 9 et seq. available online at: http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/117/1611735.pdf (last accessed 31 August 2012). 1060 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism 2005 and the Framework Decision 18
2008/919/JHA. Both were shaped to counter the (new) threat of terrorism and stressed the necessity in a globalised world for the affected countries to work together and counter an international 19
problem by acting together internationally. The three years that lie between the adoption of the former and the latter might suggest a development of the content, but no such thing can be detected as the Framework Decision explicitly refers to the Convention, 20 and the differences in phrasing can be neglected. The focus will be on the sections relevant for the German implementation criminalizing the “preparation of a serious violent offence endangering the state“ (Vorbereitung einer schweren staatsgefährdenden 21
Gewalttat) as one of the three new offences introduced by the GVVG. Both Art. 7 Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism as well as Art. 3 (2) lit.c) European Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA require the Member States to penalize the “training for terrorist purposes”. Both also indicate what exactly is meant by that: Art. 7 (1) Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, states the following: “For the purposes of this Convention, 'training for terrorism' means to provide instruction in the making or use of explosives, firearms or other weapons or noxious or hazardous substances, or in other specific methods or techniques, for the purpose of carrying out or contributing to the commission of a terrorist offence, knowing that the skills provided are intended to be used for this purpose.” The Council Framework Decision 22
features the exact same wording – apart from one negligible difference. 18
See Deutscher Bundestag, BT-­‐Drs. No. 16/12428, supra note 16, at 1; the Council Framework Decision itself refers to the Council of Europe Convention, see 2008/919/JHA, 2. 19
See the introductions to the Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA MN 3 “The terrorist threat has grown and rapidly evolved in recent years, [...]“ and MN 6 “a global response is required to address terrorism.“ 20
The main difference is that the Convention usually refers to the “terrorist offence“ whereas the Framework Decision refers to the “offences listed in Article 1(1)(a) to (h)” though it would go beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism and the European Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA in their full dimension. 21
In addition to s. 89a StGB, it also introduced the new s. 89b StGB “Establishing contacts for the purpose of committing a serious violent offence endangering the state” and s. 91 StGB “Encouraging the commission of a serious violent offence endangering the state” into the German Criminal Code (StGB). 22
In contrast to the Council of Europe Convention, Art. 3 (1) c specifies the included terrorist offences by referring to the regulations in the same Framework Decision: “training for terrorism” shall mean “providing instruction in the making or use of explosives, firearms or other weapons or noxious or hazardous substances, or in other specific methods or techniques, for the purpose of committing one of the offences listed in Article 1(1)(a) to (h), knowing that the skills provided are intended to be used for this purpose.” 2012] The European Influence on German A nti-­‐Terrorism L aw 1061 Whether there is a real clarification provided by this description may be doubted. The extensiveness is striking, especially when considering the scope of the wording of the definition. The exemplification in Art. 7 (1) Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism and Art. 3 (1) c European Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA may indicate which actions are supposed to be criminalized, but the wide scope of the phrasing still leaves room for the national legislator to fill. To illustrate this statement one only has to take a look at the wording of Art. 7 Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism: “[…] to provide instruction in [...] other specific methods or techniques” gives 23 hardly any indication of what action is supposed to meet this description. Still, an implementation into German law was needed and realized. This will be considered next. D. The Implementation into German Law: s. 89a StGB The GVVG introduced into the German Criminal Code the new crime “preparation of a serious violent offence endangering the state”. This new offence, found in s. 89a StGB, penalizes preparatory acts for serious offences against life or personal freedom (cf. ss. 211, 212 StGB: murder and manslaughter, and ss. 239a, 239b StGB: abduction for the purpose of blackmail and taking hostages) that have a certain objective (“which under the circumstances is . . . capable of”) and subjective (“which under the circumstances is intended to”) reference to state security. These serious offences are crimes punishable with imprisonment of a minimum of five years or even life sentence, and belong to the 24 inner core of the offences that are typically committed by terrorists. The offence under s. 89a of the German Criminal Code requires that a person prepares a serious offence endangering the state. S. 89a (1) 2 StGB specifies that “a serious violent offence endangering the state shall mean an offence against life under ss. 211 or 212 or against personal freedom under sections 239a or 239b, which under the circumstances is intended to impair and capable of impairing the existence or security of a state or of an international organization, or to abolish, rob of legal effect or undermine constitutional principles of the Federal Republic of Germany.” However, s. 89a (2) StGB clarifies that only certain acts of preparations fall under the offence: “(2) Subsection (1) above shall only be applicable if the offender prepares a serious violent offence endangering the state by instructing another person or receiving instruction in the production or the use of firearms, explosives, explosive 23
Similar problems pose Art. 3 (2) lit. a “public provocation to commit a terrorist offence” and “recruitment for terrorism” b EFD. 24
Only in the case of murder, s. 211 StGB; life sentence means in Germany a minimum imprisonment of 15 years, afterwards there is the possibility of a release on parole, s. 57a StGB. 1062 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
or incendiary devices, nuclear fission material or other radioactive substances, substances that contain or can generate poison, other substances detrimental to health, special facilities necessary for the commission of the offence or other skills that can be of use for the commission of an offence under subsection (1) above, producing, obtaining for himself or another, storing or supplying to another weapons, substances or devices and facilities mentioned under No. 1 above, obtaining or storing objects or substances essential for the production of weapons, substances or devices and facilities mentioned under No. 1 above, or collecting, accepting or providing not unsubstantial assets for the purpose of its commission.” The list of possible acts in s. 89a (2) StGB is exhaustive. Notably, the person committing the preparatory act and the person planning to commit the serious offence required by s. 89a 25
StGB do not have to be one and the same. Whereas “instructing another person in the use of firearms” (No. 1), the “supplying to another weapons” (No. 2) or the “providing [of] not unsubstantial assets” (No. 4) are typical actions aimed at supporting somebody else in committing such an offence, the person preparing and the one committing can also be 26
identical. This will typically be the case when a person receives instruction in the use of explosives (No. 1) for example in a terrorist training camp in order to use the learned skills in a terrorist attack. It shall not remain unmentioned that these actions alone do not suffice. They need to amount to a threat to national security. The clause in s. 89a (1) 2 StGB specifies that prerequisite for “a serious violent offence endangering the state” is that the action “is intended to impair and capable of impairing the existence or security of a state or of an international organization, or to abolish, rob of legal effect or undermine constitutional principles of the Federal Republic of Germany.” This clause is a reference to s. 120 (2) 1 No. 27 3 a) and b) of the Courts Constitution Act, which is problematic as the latter is a procedural norm determining the judges’ competences for the various offences whereas s. 28
89a StGB as a criminal norm possesses a different quality. 25
See Deutscher Bundestag, BT-­‐Drs. No. 16/12428, supra note 16, at 14; Detlev Sternberg-­‐Lieben, in StGB, s. 89a th
MN 9 (Adolf Schönke& Schröder (eds.), 28 ed., 2010). 26
Sternberg-­‐Lieben, in: StGB, s. 89a MN 9 (Schönke/Schröder eds. 28. ed. 2010). 27
Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz; see Deutscher Bundestag, BT-­‐Drs. No. 16/12428, supra note 16, at 12. 28
Nikolaos Gazeas, Thomas Grosse-­‐Wilde & Alexandra Kießling, Die neuen Tatbestände im Staatsschutzstrafrecht, 11 Versuch einer ersten Auslegung der §§ 89a, 89b und 91 StGB (The new criminal offenses in the state protection-­‐ a first attempt to interpret of § § 89a, 89b and 91 of the Penal Code), 29 (11) NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR STRAFRECHT (NStZ) 595 (2009); Bettina Weißer, Über den Umgang des Strafrechts mit terroristischen Bedrohungslagen (About the use of criminal law to terrorist threats), 121 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR DIE GESAMTE STRAFRECHTSWISSENSCHAFT (ZStW) 131, 148 (2009). 2012] The European Influence on German A nti-­‐Terrorism L aw 1063 The prescribed sentence for s. 89a StGB is imprisonment from six months to ten years. A possibility for mitigation offers s. 89a (5) StGB “in less serious cases” with a penalty ranging from three months to five years of imprisonment. Additionally, in cases of active repentance (“tätige Reue”) “the court in its discretion may mitigate the sentence (section 49(2) [StGB]) or order a discharge for the offence under this provision”. This is possible under s. 89a (7) “if the offender voluntarily gives up the further preparation of the serious violent offence endangering the state, or averts or substantially reduces a danger caused and recognized by him that others will further prepare or commit the offence, or if he voluntarily prevents the completion of the offence. If the danger is averted or substantially reduced regardless of the contribution of the offender or the completion of the serious violent offence endangering the state prevented, his voluntary and earnest efforts to achieve that object shall suffice.” Not only the objective requirements of the offence are complex, the subjective requirements are multiple. The mens rea-­‐element has three points of reference: intent is required regarding 29
(a) the preparatory act, (b) the later commission of the serious offences against life or personal freedom, and (c) the suitability of the later offence to impair state security (“is intended to 30 impair”). For the mens rea component, contingent intent (“dolus eventualis”) is sufficient. This is the 31
lowest possible intent requirement in German criminal law. It means that the offender 32
acts even though he or she thinks the realization of the offence is possible. Thus, there is no special intent needed as opposed to comparable norms that also penalize certain 33
preparatory acts, i.e. s. 30 (2) StGB that criminalizes “conspiracy” and requires a special 34
intent concerning the planning of the offence (“Tatplan”). 29
S. 89a (1) in conjunction with (2) StGB. 30
Hans-­‐Ulrich Paeffgen, in NOMOS KOMMENTAR STGB, S. 89A MN 20 et seq. (Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-­‐Ulrich Paeffgen rd
eds., 3 ed., 2010); disagreeing Detlev Sternberg-­‐Lieben, in StGB, s. 89a MN 17 (Adolf Schönke & Horst Schröder th
eds. 28 ed., 2010). 31
Not to leave a wrong impression, it is the usual intend-­‐requirement in German Criminal Law and also applies to other grave offences like manslaughter and murder. 32
th
Kristian Kühl in StGB, s. 15 MN 23 (KARL LACKNER, KRISTIAN KÜHL eds., 27 ed. 2011); Detlev Sternberg-­‐Lieben, th
in StGB, s. 15 MN 72 (Adolf Schönke& Horst Schröder eds., 28 ed. 2010). 33
S. 30 (2) A person who declares his willingness or who accepts the offer of another or who agrees with another to commit or abet the commission of a felony shall be liable under the same terms. 34
See BGH NStZ 2007, at 697. 1064 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
E. Assessment Now, having examined the new offence, the question arises whether s. 89a StGB is a “mere” implementation of European requirements. It is supposed to penalize “training for terrorism” as both required by Art. 7 Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism as well as Art. 3 (2) lit.c) European Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA. As shown, training for terrorism is defined as “provid[ing] instruction in the making or use of explosives, firearms or other weapons or noxious or hazardous substances, or in other 35 specific methods or techniques.” By using the phrasing “instructing another person […] in the production or the use of firearms, explosives, explosive or incendiary devices, nuclear fission material or other radioactive substances, substances that contain or can generate poison, other substances detrimental to health, special facilities necessary for the commission of the offence or other skills that can be of use for the commission of an offence under subsection (1) above,” in s. 89 a (2) 1 No. 1 StGB the German legislator restricted itself to an implementation of the above definition. The offence may not feature the exact same wording, yet the Framework Decision, especially “in other specific methods or techniques”, deliberately allows for the national legislators to adapt it to the domestic legal system. In contrast to that, in s. 89a (2) 1 No. 1 StGB the German legislator seized the opportunity and went even further than a mere implementation. The new offence also includes as actus reus “receiving instruction“, which clearly goes beyond the scope of the European requirements. The Framework’s original restriction to the provision of instruction – the key part of the legal definition – means a form of assistance on the preparation of a terrorist 36
attack that is provided, but not received. While this seems like a minor addition, it considerably widens the scope of the offence. One particularly striking example would have been the possible criminal liability of young extremists drafted into compulsory military service, where they naturally would have learned how to use firearms and explosives, and hence would have fulfilled the requirements as long as they were planning 37 on using these skills in a later terrorist attack. This examples shows an act that would not be criminalized by either the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism or the Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA. 35
Art. 7 (1) Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism; Art. 3 (1) c Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA. 36
Cf. Frank Zimmermann, Tendenzen der Strafrechtsangleichung in der EU – dargestellt anhand der Bestrebungen zur Bekämpfung von Terrorismus, Rassismus und illegaler Beschäftigung (Trends in criminal law harmonization in the EU -­‐ illustrated by the efforts to combat terrorism, racism and illegal employment) 1 ZIS 1, 2 (2009). 37
An example that, to an extent, has become obsolete in Germany, because the draft to compulsory military service has recently been deferred. 2012] The European Influence on German A nti-­‐Terrorism L aw 1065 It has become clear that the influence of European law in the field of anti-­‐terrorism law in Germany is – and has been for many years now – strong. It especially affects the area of substantive criminal law. Not only are existing offences restructured because of the demands posed by European law, but also new offences are created – offences whose 38
creation is often viewed critically. Another development can also be observed: Because of the wide margin left by the European obligations, the national implementation tends to go even further in criminalizing certain acts. The legislator – in making new laws – often refers to the European obligation as a justification and only a thorough analysis by criminal doctrine can reveal the extent to which the obligations differ from the new law and whether the 39 criminalization goes even further than what is demanded. 38
See only on the discussion about the Katrin Gierhake, GVVG: Gierhake, Zur geplanten Einführung neuer Straftatbestände wegen der Vorbereitung terroristischer Straftaten (On the planned introduction of new offenses because of the preparation of terrorist offenses) 9 ZIS 397 (2008); Gazeas, Grosse-­‐Wild & Kießling, supra note 28, at 593; Mark Zöller, Willkommen in Absurdistan -­‐ Neue Straftatbestände zur Bekämpfung des Terorrismus (Welcome to Absurdistan -­‐ New offenses to combat Terrorism), 11 GOLTDAMMER'S ARCHIV FÜR STRAFRECHT (GA) 607 (2010), with further references. 39
As seen, this can be observed in the criminalization of s. 89a StGB. See also Frank Zimmermann, Tendenzen der Strafrechtsangleichung in der EU – dargestellt anhand der Bestrebungen zur Bekämpfung von Terrorismus, Rassismus und illegaler Beschäftigung (Trends in criminal law harmonization in the EU -­‐ illustrated by the efforts to combat terrorism, racism and illegal employment), 1 ZIS 6, 10 (2009). Whether this can be seen as a general development is certainly a question that needs to be examined further. Articles Terrorist Attacks Against the Natural Environment: A Phantom or a Real Danger By Dr. Martin Heger* A. Introduction During the last few decades scholars have discussed various different scenarios of modern 1
terrorism. One of these scenarios – Islamic motivated terrorism – came to light with the attacks on the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001. Another scenario discussed involves terrorist attacks against the natural environment as part of so-­‐called “eco-­‐
terrorism”. These attacks are either carried out using traditional weapons or the often-­‐
discussed “bioterrorism”, where biological weapons are manufactured and misused by 2
terrorists. The term “eco-­‐terrorism” can be misleading since its wording conveys the idea of terrorist 3
measures aiming to protect the environment, such as ecologically motivated terrorism. However, in the following article I will employ the term when referring to terrorist attacks against the natural environment. I. Reality: Two Terrorist Scenarios Let me start with two actual cases of terrorism that took place in the last two decades. A group of religiously motivated terrorists attacked underground stations in two large cities, both capitals of important powers. In both cases several people died and many more were *
Professor at Humboldt University, Berlin. I want to thank my student researchers Ms. Sajanee Arzner and Ms. Liisa-­‐Julia Voß. Email: [email protected]­‐berlin.de. 1
For details see MARK A. ZÖLLER, TERRORISMUSSTRAFRECHT: EIN HANDBUCH (Terrorist Criminal Law: A Guide) 45-­‐83 (2009). To the term “terrorism” in criminal law in general, see Maunuel Cancio Meliá, Zum strafrechtlichen Begriff des Terrorismus (The criminal concept of terrorism), 159 GOLDTAMMER’S ARCHIV FÜR STRAFRECHT 1-­‐13 (2012). 2
For the history of biological weapons, see FRIEDRICH HANSEN, BIOLOGISCHE KRIEGSFÜHRUNG IM DRITTEN REICH (Biological warfare in the Third Reich, 1993) – for a list of modern biological weapons, see Waffenrecht, Teil A, Abschnitt II: biologische Waffen (Weapons Act, Part A, Section II: biological weapons), in OTTO LAGODNY, RALPH ALT, KARSTEN ALTENHAIN, GEORG FREUND & BERND HEINRICH, MÜNCHENER KOMMENTAR ZUM STRAFGESETZBUCH (MUNICH COMMENTARY ON THE CRIMINAL CODE, 5th ed., 2007). 3
See CLIVE WALKER, TERRORISM AND THE LAW (2011), at margin number 1.121. 2012] Terrorist E nvironment Attacks Against the Natural 1067 injured. When looking at the subject of my paper however, there are significant differences between the two, which I will explain in the following. The London attack 2005, conducted by an affiliate of the terror network Al-­‐Qaida, involved tools customary in terrorist attacks during the last century, such as bombs, weapons and other explosive substances. Fifty-­‐six people were killed. Whereas ten years prior to this, the Tokyo attack in 1995 triggered by members of the Omu Shinrikyo sect, involving 13 4
deaths and more than 1000 injured, was executed with a poisonous gas called Sarin. While the people in London died of the impacts of the explosion, such as the release of enormous pressure, the people in Tokyo died of inhaling the poisonous air. Our natural environment consists of water, soil and air. Drinking water, fresh air and soil that can be used for agriculture are the basis of human life throughout the world. The terrorists in Tokyo abused one of the natural elements and used it as a killing instrument. They deprived humans of fresh air, thus shattering their basis of life. The attack in Tokyo was perhaps one of the first terrorist attacks involving elements of our natural environment and the ones that followed – namely against the Twin Towers in New York City and the Madrid train station – did not utilize any environmental medium to cause harm to people. II. Fiction: One Discussed Scenario In light of the Fukushima catastrophe in Japan, a result of an earthquake and a tsunami in March 2011, discussions challenging the safety of nuclear power stations grew throughout Germany and the world. One of the focal points was the possible consequences of an aircraft crashing into a nuclear power station. The German scholar Hans-­‐Georg Dederer of Bonn University, for example, has dealt with the issue in his article “Nuclear Power Stations 5
in the Sight of Terrorism”. His answer is that nuclear power stations in Germany are not 6
prepared for such events, and this is especially true for older generators. Airplane routes could be organized in a manner that would make it almost impossible for an accident to wind up in a crash as described above, but it is possible that terrorists would hijack an airplane and let it crash into a nuclear power station. The result of such a crash would likely be a disaster for the natural environment across many miles from the nuclear power station as well as for all the people living and working in the area. In Germany thousands 4
For details, see IAN READER, RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN CONTEMPORARY JAPAN (2000). 5
See Hans-­‐Georg Dederer, Kernkraftwerke im Visier des Terrorismus (Nuclear power plants in sight of terrorism), DIE ÖFFENTLICHE VERWALTUNG 621-­‐632 (2005). 6
Id. 1068 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
might die and many more would be seriously injured, leaving the surrounding area potentially uninhabitable for centuries. In a worst-­‐case scenario, a crash on a German nuclear power station could cause more victims and damages than the attacks in New York and Washington in September 2001. What is doubtless though is that in these days’ terrorist attacks on our natural environment, the air, the soil and the water around nuclear power stations do not seem unrealistic. On the basis of both these examples – the attack in Tokyo 16 years ago and the fictional scenario in Germany – I would like to discuss some arguments related to the figure of terrorism against the natural environment. The great danger involved may be discussed once in a while, but, as explained above, there are only a few cases where it has come to fruition. B. Structural Elements of Terrorism Against the Natural Environment When talking about terrorist attacks against the natural environment there are two possible scenarios. On the one hand terrorists could pollute water, soil or air and destroy natural resources like forests or agricultural areas. On the other hand they could destroy buildings and infrastructure that protects humans from natural forces, like dams or dikes. However, not every crime with an environmental impact can be referred to as an act of terrorism, as the differentiations below make clear, since terrorism requires the intent to injure people as part of a terrorist plan. I. “Common” Crimes Against the Natural Environment The pollution of our natural environment involving massive risks or even death for humans 7
may also be considered a regular crime against the environment , and must not be automatically categorized as a terrorist attack. Section 330 (2) of the German Criminal Code, for instance, declares the following as an “Especially Serious Case of an Environmental Crime”: Whoever, by an intentional act under Sections 324 to 329: 1. places another human being in danger of death or serious health damage or a large number of human beings in danger of health damage; or 2. causes the death of another human being, shall in cases under number 1, be punished with imprisonment from one 7
For details, see KARL LACKNER & KRISTIAN KÜHL, STRAFGESETZBUCH: KOMMENTAR (PENAL CODE: COMMENTARY, 27th ed., 2011), preliminaries to sections 324-­‐330 (d). 2012] Terrorist E nvironment Attacks Against the Natural 1069 year to ten years, in cases under number 2, with 8
imprisonment for not less than three years . . . . And Section 330 (a) penalizes the “Serious Endangerment by Release of Poisons”: (1) Whoever diffuses or releases substances which contain or can generate poisons and thereby causes the danger of death or serious health damage to another human being or the danger of health damage to a large number of human beings, shall be punished with imprisonment from one year to ten years. (2) If by the act the perpetrator causes the death of another human being, then the punishment shall be 9
imprisonment for not less than three years. II. Traditional “Core” Crimes Similar conclusions may be drawn looking at the destruction of natural resources or buildings. These actions are in most cases considered as “Damaging Property” (Section 303), “Destruction of Structures” (Section 305) or “Arson” (Section 306). For example Section 305 (1) states: “Whoever unlawfully destroys, in whole or in part, a building, . . . dam, . . . or another structure, which is the property of another, shall be punished with 10
imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.” If someone destroys a dam and 11
causes a flood in a city he can be punished for the “Destruction of structures”. To set a fire in a forest can be categorized as Arson; see for instance Section 306 (1) of the German Criminal Code: “Whoever sets fire to or, as a result of setting a fire, destroys in whole or in part: . . . 5. forests, heaths or moors; 6. agricultural, nutritional or forestry 12
facilities or products, shall be punished with imprisonment from one year to ten years.” Heavier penalties can be found under Section 306 (b) (1): “Whoever, as a result of an arson under Sections 306 . . . , causes serious health damage to another human being or health 8
MICHAEL BOHLANDER, THE GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE: A MODERN ENGLISH TRANSLATION (2008), s. 330(2). 9
Id. at s. 330(a). 10
Id. at s. 305(1). 11
For details see Hagen Wolff, § 395 margin number 8, in LEIPZIGER KOMMENTAR ZUM STGB (Verlag De Gruyter ed., 12th ed., 2008). 12
Id. at s. 306 (1). 1070 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
damage to a large number of human beings, shall be punished with imprisonment for not 13
less than two years.” Furthermore according to Section 306 (c): “If the perpetrator, as a result of an arson under Sections 306 to 306 (b), at least recklessly causes the death of another human being, then the punishment shall be imprisonment for life or for not less 14
than ten years.” III. Acts of Terrorism Typically these cases are not related to terrorist attacks. The destruction of a wall or similar structure in most cases fulfills the criminal offence of “Damaging” or “Sabotage”. Categorizing such an act as terrorism against the natural environment can only be considered for exceptional cases. In order to label a crime as terrorist it is required that the pollution or destruction of the natural environment is combined with the intent to kill or to 15
harm people as part of a terrorist plan. Put differently, it makes a difference whether someone just wants to destroy the natural environment or wants to destroy the natural environment combined with the intent to kill or to harm people in the very same way it could have been achieved using conventional weapons. IV. War Crimes Against the Natural Environment On the other hand, damage of the natural environment can be collateral damages of military operations during an armed conflict. This was the case when in the late sixties United States military forces utilized herbicides and defoliants, such as Agent Orange, as 16
part of their campaign in Vietnam. Today this would be considered a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998, as enunciated under Article 8 (2) (b) (iv), which criminalizes Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such an attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-­‐term and severe damage to the natural 13
Id. at s. 306 (b) (1). 14
Id. at s. 306 (c). 15
See Walker, supra note 3, at margin number 1.111: “As regards method, the core is violence, and terrorism involves types of violence which cause terror, often amplified through devices such as media threats. Violence is usually conceived as perpetrating harm to human beings.” 16
For details, see PAUL FREDERICK CECIL, HERBICIDAL WARFARE: RANCH HAND PROJECT IN VIETNAM (1986); PHILIP JONES GRIFFITH, AGENT ORANGE: COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN VIETNAM (2004). 2012] Terrorist E nvironment Attacks Against the Natural 1071 environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military 17
advantage anticipated. This is the first codification of crimes against the natural environment under international 18
law, but it does not offer a genuine link to terrorism. A military attack in an international armed conflict involving chemical or biological weapons or causing collateral damages to the natural environment cannot be referred to as an act of terrorism since the military attack aims to gain an advantage in a war. The aim of terrorism “is to generate terror in a 19
broader audience (such as the public)” . However, it is possible that a group of terrorists may act in a way that is by all means comparable to military operations in an international 20
armed conflict. Some politicians and lawyers compared the terrorist attacks on the World 21
Trade Center to a bombardment in war. But let me, at this point, come back to one of my examples: the usage of poisonous gas was a prominent feature of World War I but it was also utilized in operations against the Kurds conducted by Saddam Hussein in 1988 in 22
Northern Iraq. For some decades the usage of poisonous gas in war has been prohibited by international law, and today “Employing poison or poisoned weapons” is a war crime 23
under Article 8 (2) (b) (xvii) of the ICC Statute. But nevertheless it remains an instrument of modern terrorism; this is especially underlined by the attack on the Tokyo underground station in 1995. 17
For further details, see MATTHIAS REICHART, UMWELTSCHUTZ DURCH VÖLKERRECHTLICHES STRAFRECHT (Protection of the environment by international criminal law , 1999). For Germany, see Section 11 (Para. 3) Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (Code of Crimes against International Law): “Whoever in connection with an international armed conflict carries out an attack by military means and definitely anticipates that the attack will cause widespread, long-­‐term and sever damage to the natural environment on a scale out of proportion to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than three years” (Translation by Brian Duffet, Max-­‐Planck-­‐Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht). 18
For further details, see Christian Tomuschat, Schädigung der Umwelt als Verbrechen nach Völkerstrafrecht (Environmental destruction as crimes under international criminal law), in VÖLKERRECHT UND DEUTSCHES RECHT 100, 104 (Hans-­‐Wolfgang Arndt, Franz-­‐Ludwig Knemeyer, Dieter Kugelmann, Werner Meng & Michael Schweitzer eds., 2001); MARTIN HEGER, DIE EUROPÄISIERUNG DES DEUTSCHEN UMWELTSTRAFRECHTS (The Europeanization of the German environmental criminal law, 2009), 27-­‐33; GERHARD WERLE, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW (2nd ed., 2009), para. 1201-­‐1210. 19
WALKER, supra note 3, at margin number 1.110. 20
See Dederer, supra note 5, at 621-­‐632. 21
See for example, Hans-­‐Georg Dederer, Krieg gegen den Terror, 59 JURISTENZEITUNG 421, 424, 429 (2004). 22
GERHARD WERLE, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW (2nd ed., 2009), at margin number 308. 23
For further details, see INES PETERSEN, DIE STRAFBARKEIT DES EINSATZES VON BIOLOGISCHEN, CHEMISCHEN UND NUKLEAREN WAFFEN ALS KRIEGSVERBRECHEN NACH DEM ISTGH-­‐STATUT (The criminalization of the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons as a war crime under the Rome Statute, 2009). 1072 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
Furthermore there are activities involving damage to the natural environment that model a legal grey area in between military acts and measures of ecological terrorism. Again Saddam Hussein, who gave the order to ignite oil-­‐rigs in Kuwait during his withdrawal at 24
the end of the Second Gulf War in February 1991, can serve as an example. As a result of this the oil-­‐rigs were on fire until November 1991, causing massive oil pollution in the 25
region. This measure of Saddam Hussein is, speaking for myself, to be considered as revenge for failure in war and can be referred to as either a military act or as an act of terrorism. If you “see war crimes very generally, as criminal conduct committed in the 26
course of war or other armed conflict” , it was a war crime because it was committed during Saddam Hussein’s military withdrawal. If you define war crimes – like Gerhard Werle – more narrowly as “a violation of a rule of international humanitarian law that 27
creates direct criminal responsibility under international law” , the classification as “war crime” depends on the violation of a given international humanitarian law. Another 28
question is whether an act of terrorism can be a war crime as well. C. Poisoning of Drinking Water I. A Short Retrospective in Legal History Looking at legal history especially considering terrorist crimes against the natural environment, we will find one interesting criminal offence: the poisoning of drinking water in a contained spring. In the words of the famous German philosopher Otfried Höffe of 29
Tübingen University, this criminal offence is an example of an intercultural crime. This assumption is especially based on the awareness that a phenomenon like the criminalization of the poisoning of drinking water can be found throughout all epochs of legal history and across criminal codes of every modern society, therefore making the poisoning of drinking water, in the view of Höffe, an intercultural environmental crime. I am not sure about his categorization as an intercultural crime but I think that the existence 24
nd
MICHAEL KLOEPFER & HANS-­‐PETER VIERHAUS, UMWELTSTRAFRECHT (The environmental criminal law, 2 ed., 2002), para. 170; MATTHIAS REICHART, supra note 17. 25
Id. 26
See WERLE, supra note 23, at margin number 929. 27
Id. 28
Id. at para. 950. 29
See Otfried Höffe, Eine Konversion der kritischen Theorie? Zu Habermas’s Rechts-­‐ und Staatstheorie (A conversion of critical theory? On Habermas's legal and political theory), 12 RECHTSHISTORISCHES JOURNAL 70, 77 (1993); OTFRIED HÖFFE, GIBT ES EIN INTERKULTURELLES STRAFRECHT?: EIN PHILOSOPHISCHER VERSUCH (Is there a cross-­‐cultural criminal law? a philosophical attempt, 1999). 2012] Terrorist E nvironment Attacks Against the Natural 1073 of such an offence in nearly every contemporary and historical legal system suggests that attacks against the natural environment with the intent to harm numerous people – as it is 30
typical for modern terrorism – are not novel. There were similar criminal acts in the past. II. The Offence of “Poisoning Dangerous to the Public” Today Section 314 (1) of the German Criminal Code criminalizes “Poisoning Dangerous to the Public”: “Whoever poisons, or mixes materials which are dangerous to health into: 1. water in contained springs, wells, pipes or drinking water storage facilities . . . shall be 31
punished with imprisonment from one year to ten years.” Section 308 states that “(2) If by the act the perpetrator causes serious health damage to another human being or health damage to a large number of human beings, then punishment of not less than two years 32
shall be imposed”. Furthermore: “(3) If by the act the perpetrator at least recklessly causes the death of another human being, then the punishment shall be imprisonment for 33
life or for not less than ten years.” In reality, today’s legal practice in Germany involves 34
very few recorded cases of “Poisoning Dangerous to the Public”. Nevertheless the poisoning of drinking water can be considered a form of terrorist attack against the natural environment in the future. D. Concluding Remarks Let me, at this point, offer a conclusion: people’s fear of terrorist attacks against the natural environment is induced by several factors. Terrorism against the natural environment is not the most frequently used method of terrorism but we can surely detect examples in the past and can furthermore easily imagine such attacks against the natural environment in our near future. It is absolutely essential that we distinguish terrorist attacks from other crimes against the natural environment, especially with regards to crimes involving attacks on property and infrastructure as well as war crimes against the natural environment. 30
See Detlef Krauß, Gift im Strafrecht (Poison in Criminal Law), PRESIDENT OF HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY IN BERLIN 11 (1999). 31
BOHLANDER, supra note 8, at s. 314 (1). 32
Id. at s. 308 (2). 33
Id. at s. 308 (3). 34
See Wolff, supra, note 11 at § 314, margin number 1. Only 10 such cases were recorded as of 2007. 1074 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
If we do not sharply distinguish the crimes mentioned above, the strong procedural means designed to fight terrorism might also be applied to these other crimes. Only if the perpetrator acts as a member of a terrorist group or with a special terrorist intent can we categorize his or her crimes against the natural environment as acts of terrorism and use all the available procedural measures under national law. Articles Right to Resistance and Terrorism – the Example of Germany By Georg Gesk∗ I. Introduction: Paradox in Law The right to resistance against state power is very often characterized by actions against an existing legal order that is perceived as being unjust and therefore both – illegitimate and illegal. Terrorism, on the other hand, is often defined as politically motivated violence that is prosecuted by state power according to the law and although the terrorist views his actions as being justified by the perceived illegitimacy of state power, the state by itself is not willing to accept such a point of view – henceforth the prosecution. Therefore we can often find situations where both sides claim legitimacy and legality, mutually excluding each other’s positions. This situation is only one of many that epitomize and exemplifies the more common problem of paradox in law: any society that aims at harmonizing conflicts through law will find itself in the not so comfortable position that the basic principle of justice – the quest for treating similar things alike – inevitably leads to cases where we have to face a direct conflict of laws. Either one law is just and therefore ought to apply, or the other, but we will not be able to apply both at the same time, since they may turn out conflicting results. In the realm of logic, it was Goedel’s theorem that finished Hilbert’s project of turning formal logic into an all-­‐encompassing reason (Letztbegründung) of science, since it will 1
produce paradox that it is unable to solve on its own. Therefore formal logic by itself is insufficient to solve the problem of paradox in science. Tarski solved the riddle by introducing two different levels into the paradox and therefore disentangling conflicting propositions (but without being able to recover formal logic as a general, infallible 2
foundation of science). Taiwan, Hsuan Chuang University, Department of Law, Associate Professor and Chairman. Email: [email protected]. ∗
1
See Kurt Gödel, Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I (On formally undecidable propositions of mathematical principles and related systems I), 38 MONATSHEFTE FÜR MATHEMATIK UND PHYSIK 173-­‐198 (1931). 2
By differentiating between the levels of object language and meta-­‐language, Tarski had been able to solve paradox in formal logic; see Alfred Tarski, Grundlegung der wissenschaftlichen Semantik (The scientific foundation of semantics, 1936), in ALFRED TARSKI, COLLECTED PAPERS II (Steven Givant & Ralph McKenzie (eds.) 259-­‐268 (1986). 1076 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
At the same time, jurisprudence created not only one but several methods of solving the problem of paradox in the realm of norms. One of the major advantages of Kelsen’s concept of norm hierarchy is its ability to create priorities within a given norm system and thus functioning in a structural way almost exactly as Tarski proposed for the realm of 3
formal logic. On the same trajectory, we see the development of jurisprudence going on and trying to solve the problem of conflicting norms within the same level, i.e. the constitution. A more recent example to avoid the conflict of paradox norms is Alexy’s 4 theory of basic rights that tries to put forward other categories to solve the riddle of paradox in norms, such as the degree of affectedness of basic rights, further enhancing prior concepts of core meaning and periphery. Even the tradeoff between absolute effect of human dignity (Menschenwürde) and limited scope(s) of applicability of the concept of human dignity within each and every basic human right in more recent judgments of the German constitutional court can all be interpreted as being elaborate means to avoid the occurrence of otherwise unsolvable paradox and therefore to avert paralysis within the 5 execution of state power.
In the case of terrorism, we face a very high potential of paradox situations where we assert the right to resistance (or i.e. in the historical circumstances of China even the right to revolution) on one hand, and combat terrorism against state authority on the other. We can see this contradiction subvert the UN and prevent it from concerted action in the case 6
of Syria , we saw this contradiction influencing reactions to the uprisings in Libya and Tunisia, and we see this very paradox being the main stumbling block that prevented the UN from agreeing upon a common and internationally binding framework against terrorism. So in order to find solutions for these pressing issues, it might be worth to have a closer look at situations, where a single legal framework successfully combines right to resistance and anti-­‐terrorist action without blocking itself or losing its credibility. 3
It is noteworthy that Kelsen proposed to avoid norm contradiction through norm hierarchy in 1934, 2 years before Tarski solved the problem of paradox in formal logic; see HANS KELSEN, REINE RECHTSLEHRE (Pure Theory of Law) 62 ff. (1934). 4
See ROBERT ALEXY, THEORIE DER GRUNDRECHTE (Theory of Fundamental Rights, 1985). 5
See Hans-­‐Jürgen Papier, Der Schutz der Menschenwürde -­‐ Auswirkungen auf die rechtliche Praxis (The protection of human dignity – impact on legal practice) National Taiwan University Lecture (2011). 6
Although the General Assembly adopted Resolution 66/253 on 15 February 2012, within this resolution, the UN “strongly condemned” continued widespread and systematic human rights violations by the Syrian authorities’ on one hand, whilst calling for all sides to cease bloodshed on the other. It thus reflects the problem of the need for differentiation between the dual notions of prosecution/state terror vs. terror/ resistance. However, this resolution is non-­‐binding; a legally binding condemnation of said ‘human rights violations by the Syrian authorities’ was rejected in the UN Security Council, due to the double veto by Russia and China on 5 October th
2011, and on 4 February 2012; see i.e. United Nations Security Council, 6711 Meeting, UN S/PV.6711, available online at: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.6711 (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 2012] Right to Resistance and Terrorism 1077 Germany had a severe terrorist problem in the 1970s and 80s, but it had never given up on the constitutionally guaranteed right to resistance, thus lending us the opportunity to look for specific ways in dealing with related norms and their application. In the following, this article outlines the German way of dealing with the problem in order to prevent state institutions from a one-­‐sided approach, and thus trying to reassure the public that there is not only room for state led anti-­‐terrorism, but an efficient guaranty for the right to resistance, held and realized by citizens. On this basis, we gain insights in ways to prevent both concepts – terrorism and right to resistance – from becoming an active paradox in law. The result of this strategy is an avoidance of paradox, effectively preventing both arguments to nullify each other. It thus may help us not only to prevent paradox situations in law on a national level, but in international conflicts too. On these grounds, the author puts forward some suggestions that might turn out to be useful in the attempt of the international community to proceed towards formulating ideas for a future UN Covenant on Anti-­‐Terrorism. II. Constitution and Right to Resistance Under European law tradition, most scholars that witnessed the Nazi era were not only traditionally assuming that there is some natural or ‘supra-­‐national’ law as some kind of nebula outside positive law and therefore being of minor importance for reasoning in court, but were actively propagating this thought as being a binding force in positive law once more. According to the concept of supra-­‐national law, there are legal principles and guidelines whose existence is a fact that is out of reach of any given legislature. Because the resistance to fascism found itself very often outside of Nazi-­‐dominated legislatures and therefore outside positive law, especially German society as a whole and German jurisprudence in particular were weary of the possibilities to abuse positive law in the hands of an authoritarian state. Due to that, post-­‐war society was very assertive of supra-­‐
national law which is beyond the reach of state legislation. As documents of the 1950s and 1960s show, foundations of such a supra-­‐national law were not only thought as being 7
given in natural law, but in other sources of law as well. Since legitimate behavior was seen as more than being just legal behavior with national laws as frame of reference, it was nothing but consequent that the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) wanted to balance any legislation on ‘emergency rule’ with a ‘right to resistance’ (Widerstandsrecht) and thereby to prevent any future political leader to repeat Nazi experience and abuse emergency rule to the point where human rights are harmed or outright abolished on a large scale. After WW II, German sovereignty was first executed by the victorious allied powers and then gradually shifted to the emerging German state(s). The three Western parts formed the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949, with the Soviet 7
See WERNER MAIHOFER, NATURRECHT ODER RECHTSPOSITIVISMUS? (Natural law or legal positivism?, 1972). 1078 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
Occupation Zone forming the German Democratic Republic and only in 1991 joining the federation. One major shift in the emancipation of post war Germany was achieved in 1968/69 when the Federal Republic of Germany made provisions for emergency situations and thus made it clear that it had consolidated as a ‘democracy able to defend herself’ 8 (wehrhafte Demokratie). However, skepticism towards such self-­‐assuring state power prevailed in large parts of society. In order to minimize possible critique, the right to resistance was no longer thought of as a supra-­‐national right, but explicitly included in the Basic Law as Art. 20 IV. According to this provision, ‘any German has the right to resist anyone that tries to abolish this [democratic, social and federal] order, if there is no other remedy possible.’ We see here the first part of above paradox coming to life, because the constitution directly confers the right of resistance to state power to its very own citizens. However, 9
literature has much criticized this article . One major objection is that it is obsolete, because in a democratic society, there is no need for resistance, and in a non-­‐democratic society, any right to resistance will be actively denied by state authority. If there is an instance of large-­‐scale political transition towards a different form of governance, either 10
side will claim being legitimate and thus create a situation of non-­‐decidability. However, development within Germany shows that this norm is not as useless as it might seem. Art. 20 IV Basic Law states that a right to resistance against state power is limited to situations where no other remedies are available, which in fact supposes the democratic state with its forms of political participation, judicial resolution of grievances etc. as 11 already obsolete. In order to show that a political process with the aim of integrating issues onto the political agenda is possible and a right to resistance therefore not (yet) existing, many commentators refer to the right and the freedom to demonstrate when 8
After the Weimar Republic had not been able to effectively defend herself, the German emigrant Karl Loewenstein (see Karl Loewenstein, Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights, in 31 AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW 417-­‐433, 638-­‐658, 5 BVERFG 85 (1937)) was the first to call for a “militant democracy,” this concept of democratic theory was in part implemented in the German Basic Law (see Art. 79 III, Art 20 I, II, Art. 9 II, Art. 18, Art. 21 II; the concept was later vindicated by the German Constitutional Court. For more information, see ANDREAS KLUMP, FREIHEIT DEN FEINDEN DER FREIHEIT? (Freedom of the enemies of freedom?), available online at: http://www.extremismus.com/texte/streitbar.htm (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 9
See i.e. Friedrich Schnapp, Art. 20, Rn. 79, in GRUNDGESETZ KOMMENTAR (Basic Law Comment, Ingo Münch, Philip th
Kunig (eds.), 6 ed., 2012. 10
On the paradox of this constitutional provision, see Karl-­‐Peter Sommermann, Art. 20 Abs.4, Rn. 339, in nd
KOMMENTAR ZUM GRUNDGESETZ (Comment on Basic Law) (Hermann Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein (eds.), 2 ed., 2010). 11
In this respect, see i.e. Scholz on constitutional limits to political forms of strike; Rupert Scholz, § 151, Rn. 109, nd
in Josef Isensee & Paul Kirchhof, HANDBUCH DES STAATSRECHTS, VOL. VI (Handbook of Political Rights, Vol. VI, 2 ed., 2001); similarly, see Karl-­‐Peter Sommermann, Art. 20, Rn. 356f, in KOMMENTAR ZUM GRUNDGESETZ (Comment on nd
Basic Law) (Hermann Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein (eds.), 2 ed., 2010). 2012] Right to Resistance and Terrorism 1079 12
discussing Basic Law Art. 20 IV. When doing so, their aim of discourse is to draw a line between legitimate democratic political process and forms of illegal resistance to state power. They assume that the right to demonstration has to be restricted significantly either without pretext or as a consequence to demonstrations that turn sour by being abused by small groups of people in order to pursue an agenda of violence against state authority. Only if harsh restrictions to the right to demonstrate are put into place, a reason for resistance might occur. If we decode most recent instances of large scale demonstrations and their repression in the Arab world, we find a situation that seems to support the position of German courts and judicial commentaries: as soon as large scale demonstrations against the abuse of state power (regardless if this abuse is a subjective fact in the mind of demonstrators or an objective fact in society) are treated as violations of the public order and therefore suppressed, the reason for resisting state institutions gains power and weight. As in the case of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, it has actually led to regime change. It is therefore wise to link the right to resistance and the right to demonstration and to assume, that a right to resistance is not relevant to the point where it might be implemented in concrete action as long as freedom of expression is guaranteed in the form 13
of freedom to demonstration. As the German example shows, the latter ought to be complemented by the freedom of association, including the right to organize (new) political parties and to engage in free and equal elections. These include social movements that led to the founding of political parties in Germany are i.e. the Green Party. More recently, new and underrepresented views concerning regulation of the Internet led to the 14
formation and electoral success of the so called ‘Pirate Party’. The fact, that protest movements like the anti-­‐nuclear power movement had been able to organize themselves not only for a short period of time at the fringes of society, but to create long term networks, to set up political parties, and to enter mainstream politics gives participants in social movements that start outside of established political parties possibilities to influence society in a way they deem right. By doing so, they may introduce issues in parliaments and keep up a political agenda for 30 years. One such issue is nuclear energy, where the 12
See Friedrich Schnapp, Art. 20, Rn. 82, in GRUNDGESETZ KOMMENTAR (Basic Law Comment, Ingo Münch, Philip th
Kunig (eds.), 6 ed., 2012). 13
In order to have a constitutional right to resistance, the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) insists upon all other remedies being exhausted (5 BVERFGE 85 (377)), in other words, as long as a right to demonstration exists, there are other remedies, and therefore it is no situation of resistance against state power; further on this, see Karl-­‐Peter Sommermann, Art. 20 Abs.4, Rn. 348, in KOMMENTAR ZUM nd
GRUNDGESETZ (Comment on Basic Law) (Hermann Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein (eds.), 2 ed., 2010). 14
The Pirate Party (Piraten Partei) first entered a local parliament (Berlin) on 18 September 2011. Since then, they habve entered other regional parliaments in Saarland (25 March 2012), Schleswig-­‐Holstein (6 May 2012) and Nordthrhein-­‐Westfalia (13 May 2012). 1080 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
German anti-­‐nuclear protest movement had not only helped in creating the Green party, but successfully achieved a multi-­‐party consensus towards the abolition of nuclear power. This result shows that even a rejection of the combined forces of political majority decisions and economic capital interests can be overcome and integrated into existing structures as soon as they have channels to express and to organize themselves. The integration of dissenting ideas into the political decision process made it possible that a majority of protesters did not have to resort to desperate means. It is thus an important success story of the integration of differing social opinions into politics in face of stiff resistance by vested interests. III. Criminal Law and Terrorism One very crucial point in solving the potential conflict between political elite and grass-­‐
roots developments from turning into broad scale resistance to state power was the distinction between the freedom to exercise the constitutionally guaranteed right to demonstration and criminal prosecution of outbursts of illegal violent behavior. When social movements are to be prevented from being alienated, but being integrated into mainstream society, they are in dire need for expressing their point of view and for creating an organizational platform that might enable them to enter into a dialogue with vested political powers. As the German experience shows, even at times violent demonstrators can integrate into politics as soon as their right to demonstrate is acknowledged. This right has to be guaranteed even if parts of demonstrations are turning into violent outbreaks nurtured by disappointment and alienation of some of their participants. However, in order to keep up with the protection of third party interests and with public order, related instances of violence are treated as criminal behavior and therefore met, opposed and tried by police, prosecutors and courts. One major problem for state power was not the question of how to react against a criminal act of violating clearly defined values such as human life, property and so on, but how to react to a support infrastructure that made such instances of violence very vitriolic. There was the problem of drawing a line between still legal forms of demonstration, including related organizing and drumming up support, and illegal forms of violent behavior against police, certain objects (or institutions and institutional representatives) of symbolic value. In the case of Germany, protests against government support for the Shah were met with 15
excessive police force , leading in some parts to a radicalization of demonstrators to the 15
One of the protesters of an anti-­‐Shah demonstration was Benno Ohnesorg, who was shot dead by a police officer on 2 June 1967. One outspoken leader of the German student (protest) movement was critically injured by two shots to his head on 11. April 1968. These instances of state violence were answered by an increase in violence on behalf of the protest movement. The first incident that later was interpreted as the starting point of German post-­‐war terrorism is the arson attack on 2 Frankfurt shopping malls on 2/3 August 1968. For links between the German protest movement and the growing problem of German terrorism in the late 1960s, see Rudolf Walther, Ein direkter Weg von der Spassguerilla zum Terrorismus?,BUNDESZENTRALE FÜR POLITISCHE BILDUNG, 2012] Right to Resistance and Terrorism 1081 conclusion that they crossed the point where resistance to state authority was necessary. The use of excessive force by persons that were seen as being linked to the ‘state apparatus’ created a climate, where radical elements advocated the need for ‘fighting back’, not only vis a vis some individual perpetrators, but against the state itself. Thus a terrorist movement formed and posed a major threat to German state power and society 16
for at least two decades. In the wake of this home grown German terrorism, the German legislator supplemented the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) with provisions against terrorism. While violence against persons, institutions, and other objects are punishable regardless of their connections to any terrorist group, prosecution as a mere reaction to severe damage was perceived as being too late. When terrorists aim at influencing public through violence, any violence that achieves a certain degree of intended destruction is a success in the eyes of the terrorist. So in order to prevent society from harm and to deprive terrorists of their subjective communicative success, criminal prosecution had to start earlier. It was on these reasons that new provisions were introduced into the StGB, turning the mere organizing of a group with terrorist aims into a criminal act and thus facing up to the threat to public security that arises before any acts of violence are actually committed. Again it was the historically disparate evolution of terrorist threats in Germany and abroad that led to a parallel normative structure later on: todays § 129a StGB aims at dealing with terrorism in the interior and was in its current aim introduced into the StGB in 1976, while § 129b StGB is directed at countering terrorism abroad and was introduced in 2002, in part constituting a common European reaction to 17
the events of 9-­‐11. 18
When § 129a StGB was first introduced into German criminal law , it was directed at members of illegal political organizations. In order to commit a crime, somebody had to participate in organizations that had first been formally established by its members and later formally been dissolved via court order. Obviously, potential targets of this article had not been terrorist organizations working clandestine and trying to hit the public out of the DEUTSCHE GESCHICHTE NACH 1945 (2008), available online at: http://www.bpb.de/geschichte/deutsche-­‐geschichte-­‐
nach-­‐1945/68er-­‐bewegung/51795/spassguerilla-­‐terrorismus?p=0 (last accessed: 31 Augsut 2012); Die 68er Bewegung, Interview with Gerd Langguth, BUNDESZENTRALE FÜR POLITISCHE BILDUNG, DEUTSCHE GESCHICHTE NACH 1945 (2007), available online at: http://www.bpb.de/geschichte/deutsche-­‐geschichte-­‐nach-­‐1945/geschichte-­‐der-­‐
raf/49198/die-­‐68er-­‐bewegung?p=2 (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 16
The last remnants of the most important German terrorist group – the so-­‐scalled RAF (Red Amy Faction) – announced itself dissolved on 20 April 1998, almost exactly 30 years after the attempted assassination of Rudi Dutschke and the arson attacks at Frankfurt. See Wolfgang Kraushaar, DAS ENDE DER RAFBUNDESZENTRALE FÜR POLITISCHE BILDUNG, DEUTSCHE GESCHICHTE NACH 1945, http://www.bpb.de/geschichte/deutsche-­‐geschichte-­‐nach-­‐
1945/geschichte-­‐der-­‐raf/49302/das-­‐ende-­‐der-­‐raf (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 17
See ABl EG Nr. L 164, at 3; for a more comprehensive illustration of the subject matter, see JAVIER ARGOMANIZ, THE EU AND COUNTER-­‐TERRORISM – POLITICS, POLITY AND POLICIES AFTER 9/11 (2011). 18
BGBL I, 739 (30 August 1951). 1082 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
veil and cover of secrecy, but political parties that had engaged in serious acts of anti-­‐
constitutional, violent behavior. This version proved an ineffective tool against politically 19 motivated violence and hence was abolished without any substitute. A first version of an article dealing with terrorist violence as we know it nowadays was introduced into German Criminal Law on 18./20.09.1976. After Germany experienced a wave of serious criminal attacks against public officials by the so called Baader-­‐Meinhof/RAF group, it became apparent that activists exposed due to their hits on certain targets were only part of the problem and that all these activists had to rely upon an infrastructure of support, may it be financial, logistical, informational, or of any other kind. Therefore, the German legislature saw it necessary to introduce legal provisions that allowed for curbing not only upon the terrorists themselves, but upon the terrorist environment too. Within chapter 7 of ‘crimes against public order’, the German legislator added related provisions directly after forbidden membership in criminal gangs. Systematically this position shows that Germany treats terrorist groups as a special kind of criminal gang. German legal commentaries point out, that the question of whether a gang is classified as an ordinary criminal gang or as a terrorist group depends upon their level of criminal 20
activity. If they aim at committing serious crimes listed in § 129a StGB, they are a terrorist group, in case they aim at less violent crimes, they are a common criminal gang. To put it in other words, whilst Art. 129 StGB prosecutes the participation in any gang that aims at committing crimes, Art. 129a StGB tries to deal with gangs that show a far more severe 21
criminal potential . Although § 129a II StGB insists upon a specific terrorist intent and is 22
therefore different to § 129 StGB (organizing of a criminal gang) , the only semantic 23 occurrence of ‘terrorism’ is in the headline of this article. Any reference at political aims, i.e. the intimidation of the public, or coercion of institutions through of announcing future violent action etc. is restricted to § 129a II, III StGB, which means §129a I StGB stating the ‘organizing of a gang that aims at murder…. is to be punished by 1 to 10 years of imprisonment’ is applicable to anybody and does not deplore on any specific political etc. intent. It is therefore totally sufficient to organize a gang and to aim at murder, abduction etc. in order to get punished on reason of committing a crime according to § 129a StGB I. 19
BGBl I, 593 (5 August 1964). 20
See Thomas Fischer, § 129a, Rn 5, in STRAFGESETZBUCH UND NEBENGESETZE (Penal code and by-­‐laws, 58 ed., 2011). th
21
Some authors explicitly explain the nature of § 129a StGB as being an aggravated form of crime (Qualifikationstatbestand) when compared to § 129 StGB; see Matthias Krauß, § 129a Rn. 2, in STRAFGESETZBUCH – LEIPZIGER KOMMENTAR (Penal code— Leipzig commentary, Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Ruth Rissing-­‐van Saan & Klaus Tiedemann (eds.), 2009). 22
See Jürgen Schäfer, § 129a, Rn. 2, 57f, Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch (Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code, Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (eds.), 2012). 23
Criticizing this header with its focus on political motivations as being misleading, see Thomas Fischer, § 129a, Rn th
2, in STRAFGESETZBUCH UND NEBENGESETZE (Penal code and by-­‐laws, 58 ed., 2011). 2012] Right to Resistance and Terrorism 1083 On the other hand, § 129 StGB just states that organizing a gang that aims at committing crimes without further specifying any specific crimes shows, that we find a structure where both articles can be used alternatively with the only difference being the intended crime. Apart from successfully carrying out murder, abduction, or other forms of serious crimes, the mere intent of doing so may already qualify for organizing a terrorist organization. 24
According to the original version of § 129a II StGB in 1976 , any group aiming at committing such crimes may qualify as a terrorist group; any participation in such a group – regardless of whether crimes had been carried out or not – is in itself punishable. Even 25
supporting such a group without being a member oneself is punishable . According to the importance of relevant members, the degree of punishment varies from 6 months to 5 years of prison for common members and from between 5 to 10 years of prison for leading figures within the group. 26
This article was frequently revised. The first two of all in all 7 subsequent changes were merely technical in nature since they kept up with changes in references to other parts of 27
the German Criminal Code. A substantial amendment came into effect on 01.01.1987 , when the framework for more severe sentences was introduced (1 to 10 years of prison for ordinary members, at least 3 years of prison for leading figures). Before that date, assistance to and promotion of terrorist activities was part of the notion of membership in a terrorist group. However, due to the fact that terrorism in Germany changed face and grew into a form of decentralized terrorism that was kept alive by a field of sympathizers that did offer support, but refrained from directly participating in severe criminal activity, instances of assistance to and promotion of a terrorist group was put into an extra passage (§ 129a III StGB); punishment of related activities was kept at the pre-­‐reform level of 6 28 months to 5 years of prison. The next reform was once again merely keeping up with changes in references to other articles of the German Criminal Code. Parallel to the introduction of the so called Law on Crimes against Peoples (Völkerstrafrecht), new 29
revisions took place ; crimes that had been previously dealt with inside the framework of the German Criminal Law were specified further and moved to special legal provisions. The 24
BGBl I, 2181 (18 August 1976). 25
For a distinction of member and supporter in context of § 129b StGB that follows parallel lines of argumentation but asks for international involvement, see Christoph Safferling & Timo Ide, Prosecuting Terrorism Financing in Germany: Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), Judgment of 14 August 2009 – 3 StR 552/08, in 11 GERM. L. J. 1296 ff. (2010), available online at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1298 (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 26
BGBl I, 373 (28 March 1980); BGBl I, 393 (13 April 1986). 27
BGBl I, 2566 (19 December 1986). 28
BGBl I, 164 (26 January 1998). 29
BGBl. I, 2254 (26 June 2002). 1084 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
next step was a further criminalization of the terrorist environment, since the drive for recruitment of members and peoples assisting terrorist activities was defined as a separate 30
crime (§ 129a III StGB). 31
The current version of § 129a StGB passed legislation on 28.12.2003. This piece of German legislature is a direct reaction upon the terrorist attacks on the World Trade 32
Center in New York. The definition of what comprises terrorist activities (and is therefore punishable by law) was widened once again. Even the attempt at organizing a terrorist group with the aim of intimidating political institutions, may they be national or international, or intimidating the – largely unspecified – public through threats of serious terrorist attacks was defined as a separate crime, punishable with 6 months to 5 years of prison (§ 129a III StGB). As a consequence, we see a legal definition of terrorist groups, that does not aim at violent acts already committed, (since these are subject to already existing penal provisions), but targets the terrorist environment with its organization, logistics, and support structure at a much earlier stage in order to prevent them from actually carrying out any attack. The notion of terrorist crimes as formed by § 129a StGB differentiates between the degree of involvement, the function within the organization, the intention in terrorist activities, and the type of target. It is therefore rather consequent that § 129a StGB is larger than the 33
average of crimes listed in the German Criminal Code. Another very important feature of § 129a StGB is the focus of its definition of terrorism: the only important feature is the level and intent of violence, but originally there is not any reference to political aims of a terrorist gang. This non-­‐political definition of terrorism reveals its advantages when we consider the difficulties of law enforcement agencies on the ground. They don’t have to make political judgments in order to decide upon the question as to when taking action against a group that is suspect of organizing very serious 30
BGBl I, 3390 (22 August 2002). 31
BGBl I, 2836 (28 December 2003). 32
In order to implement changes decided by the European Council, the actual amendments of § 129a StGB were promulgated by the German legislature within the ‘Gesetz zur Umsetzung des Rahmenbeschlusses des Rates vom 13. Juni 2002 zur Terrorismusbekämpfung‘, which is a referral to the ‘Council Decision on the implementation of specific measures for police and judicial cooperation to combat terrorism’; see BGBl I, 2836 (22 December 2003), compare ABl EG Nr. L 164, at 3. 33
For a comparative study upon changes and statistical features of changes within German Criminal Law, see 祥林 (Georg Gesk), 法安定性與社政變遷之調和 － 德國刑事法規百餘年的立法政策 (The Balance between Legal Stability and Socio-­‐Political Change – German Criminal Law after more than a Century of Legislative Policy), Research Paper, NSC 90-­‐2414-­‐H-­‐002-­‐009 (2002). 2012] Right to Resistance and Terrorism 1085 crimes. In most cases the problem of political prosecution does not occur at all, because a terrorist group is by definition a group that qualifies due to its violence, not due to its political thoughts, be they mainstream or not. During the 1970s and 80s, it was rather helpful that the German legislator had decided to exclude any political factor from the definition of terrorism, therefore it was in most cases not necessary to deplore on terrorist ideology in the courtroom, neither had there been any ground for terrorists to convince the public that German judiciary did enact cases of political persecution, a fact that relieved much pressure from police, prosecutors, and judges. It was therefore crucial for the active and effective guaranty of the right to demonstration to carve not into pressure 34
of political condemnation, but to stick rigorously to a factual definition. As a consequence of this attitude, it does no difference if a criminal gang (i.e. a drug gang) is indulging in police killings in order to intimidate institutions responsible for holding up public security and to get a free hand in dealing with their illegal business, or if a guerilla group tries at advancing extremist ideas by instigating public fear and killing police. Both groups are collective forms of premeditated murder and thus qualify as terrorist groups under § 129a I StGB. Only when deciding upon the severity of punishment, a judge may ask for the motives of a criminal act and thus give some room for political considerations. However, at this stage of a criminal trial, the principle decision of whether an action under consideration constitutes a crime or not has already taken place. Political considerations thus only influence the relative length of a prison term, but not the absolute question of whether an action qualifies as a crime or not. This strict non-­‐political line of the German legislator had to be abandoned as a consequence of the international reaction to the 9-­‐11 attacks. The EU as a whole and Germany in particular had to realize that national institutions of criminal law enforcement are often in lack of relevant legal provisions when a terrorist group (ab)uses German 35 territory to plan attacks abroad. In the double absence of there being no prior criminal 34
In order to give just one example of the conflict of criminal law on one hand and behavior that is subjectively perceived as being committed in good faith on the other hand, we may have a look at a special form of demonstration: civil disobedience accounts as a crime as long as an action violates values that are protected by criminal law. In all those cases, the prosecutor is not interested in matters of faith, but in holding up social order. This ‘blindness’ towards political or religious commitment is no suppression and no violation of fundamental human rights as long as there are legal ways to address related issues. For critique of and limits to civil obedience as a realization of the right to resistance, see Josef Isensee, § 13, Rn. 84, in, Handbuch des Staatsrechts Vol. I (Handbook of Political rights, Vol. I, Josef Isensee & Paul Kirchhof (eds.), 1995). 35
Since criminal prosecution depends upon having reasonable evidence for suspecting somebody has committed a crime, any case that is related to abroad will pose natural barriers for prosecuting suspects on the very fact that much of criminal evidence is located out of reach of national law enforcement agencies. In other words, since national law enforcement agencies are in lack of reasonable evidence, not even an investigation can be opened. Therefore transfer of criminal evidence, cross boundary definitions of crimes, as well as cross boundary cooperation of law enforcement agencies are essential in alleviating respective dangers. For a discussion of related issues, see Davide Casale, EU Institutional and Legal Counter-­‐terrorism Framework, in 1(1) DEFENCE AGAINST TERRORISM REVIEW 49 ff. (2008). 1086 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
behavior and being in lack of any potential national target, suspects and potential terrorists can hide in a cocoon of ‘legal’ behavior in a host society that makes interference from institutions of law enforcement rather complicated. Since criminal law is first of all 36
national law, it protects only legal values (Rechtsgüter) inside national territory. As an exception, legal values outside the sovereign territory have to be explicitly mentioned in order to receive criminal law protection. Therefore it was previously possible to threaten societies and institutions outside Germany without getting into conflict with German 37
police, prosecutors, and courts. The introduction of § 129b StGB on 22.08.2002 tries to solve this problem, since it explicitly extends the applicability of §§ 129, 129a to groups operating abroad, thus allowing prosecution of terrorist groups that are not targeting victims or objects within Germany, but in Europe or even outside Europe. However, terrorist activities outside the European Union are only subject to prosecution if they qualify as actions within strictly defined normative limits, or if the German Ministry of 38
Justice explicitly approves of such action. The limitation of prosecution of persons that form an internationally operating terrorist group is worth a second look: in principle, any crime of §§ 129 or 129a StGB that is committed abroad may be prosecuted. However, unless perpetrators commit actions within Germany, or harm German citizens abroad, or are Germans by themselves, or have their whereabouts in Germany, their prosecution must be approved by the Ministry of Justice. To put it the other way round, if a foreigner lives in Germany and plans violent crimes against foreign nationals that are intended to be committed outside of Germany, the case does not necessarily have to be prosecuted, but needs approval by the German Ministry of Justice. Prosecutorial authorization may be granted for special cases, or for specified groups, for actions committed in the past, or for actions that are planned in the future. According to § 129b StGB, the Ministry of Justice has to consider whether or not the state power opposed is respecting human dignity, or whether or not related terrorist activities are harming the peaceful coexistence of peoples, when considering such 39
approval. This leaves the door open for an attitude of laissez faire (or even of actively 36
Therefore, §§ 5 and 6 StGB only speak of the applicability of German Criminal Law on actions committed abroad and directed against national legal values (§ 5) or violating internationally recognized universal values (§ 6). However, since the UN has not succeeded in signing and enacting an international covenant on counter terrorism, applicability of § 6 (9) is very limited. 37
BGBl I, 3390 (22 August 2002). 38
See in this volume, the contribution of Bernhard Kretschmer, Criminal Involvement in Terrorist Associations – Classification and Fundamental Principles of the German Criminal Code Section 129a StGB, 13(9) GERM. L.J. (2012). 39
It is noteworthy that German criminal law has an important complement to §129b StGB, the so-­‐called ‘Völkerstrafgesetzbuch’ (Law on Crimes against Peoples). Although the defendants Ignace Murwanashyaka and Straton Musoni had conspired and participated in mass murder and therefore qualified under § 129b I as members of a terrorist organization committing serious crimes, they were indicted according to the Law on crimes against peoples; concerning the law on crimes against people, see in general, CHRISTOPH SAFFERLING, INTERNATIONALES STRAFRECHT (International criminal law, 319 ff. (2011); concerning the indictment of Ignace 2012] Right to Resistance and Terrorism 1087 supporting groups) in cases where state power shows large-­‐scale disrespect for human rights. One of the more recent examples for such non-­‐interference with the planning and execution of non-­‐state power that is directed against a government are the cases of 40
Tunisia and Libya. Another example of a national conflict where state government and large numbers of citizens, calling for democratic reform, are unable to regain mutual trust and where the Ministry of Justice might consider non-­‐prosecution of the planning of 41
violent attacks on state institutions is Syria. In early 2011, mass demonstrations with calls for democratic development evolved in Syria. Despite opposition to the existing regime was for months insisting upon peaceful acts of resistance such as demonstrations etc., many participants and organizers of demonstrations and other forms of civil obedience found themselves victims to state 42
suppression. In order to strengthen possibilities of democratic change, many Western states called on one hand for a strengthening of non-­‐violent actions, on the other hand for a better organization of Syrian political opposition in exile, leading to the forming of a so 43
called ‘Syrian National Council’ . With a UN peace initiative – the so called ‘Annan plan’ – Murwanashyaka and Straton Mussoni, see http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2011-­‐05/ruanda-­‐
kriegsverbrecher-­‐ (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 40
Tunisia, as well as Syria, are both states where recent large scale uprisings against a corrupt and at times undemocratic regime resulted in the over through of the existing regime and a subsequent attempt at organizing a more democratic form of government. In both cases, European governments were first relatively slow in their reaction. However, in the case of Libya they later even actively sought UN and NATO support for resistance against a Libyan regime that tried to militarily crush peaceful demonstrators and their grassroots organizations, thus not only respecting armed resistance as being a legal form of getting rid of an oppressive regime, but actively supporting it; see i.e. UN Security Council, Operation Unified Protector: Protection of civilians and civilian-­‐
populated areas & enforcement of the No-­‐Fly Zone -­‐ October 2011, 8 UN Security Council Resolution 1973, §§ 4 (2011), available at: http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_10/20111005_111005-­‐
factsheet_protection_civilians.pdf (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 41
While isolated media reports on the US facilitating arms smuggling into Syria are hard to verify, US Secretary of State did confirm to finance communications equipment of the Free Syrian Army, thus directly supporting armed opposition against violent oppression of dissent by the Syrian government. In such a situation, it might be counterproductive if Germany treats organizing of violent resistance in Syria being equivalent to organizing a terrorist group; see Reena Ninan, Hillary Clinton Says Syrian President Assad ‘Must Go,’ ABC NEWS (1 April 2012), see http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/secretary-­‐hillary-­‐clinton-­‐syrian-­‐president-­‐
assad/story?id=16049737#.T_DGH_W6odQ (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 42
Concerning non-­‐violent action in Syria and state repression, see i.e. Al Jazeera and agencies, Fresh violence hits Syrian towns, AL JAZEERA (30 April 2011), available online at: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/04/20114309234489989.html (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 43
The Syrian National Council was formed on 23 August 2011, in Istanbul as an umbrella organization of most Syrian opposition groups; see i.e. Opposition unite behind Syrian National Council, BBC NEWS (28 March 2012), available online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-­‐middle-­‐east-­‐17533651 (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 1088 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
44
failing , it became apparent that some western states were facilitating arms smuggling to the armed ‘Free Syrian Army’ and thus implicitly vindicating that the Syrian people have a right to resistance against an oppressive regime that was named as culprit in numerous acts of mass killings of civilians. In this situation, Western support of an opposition that in some parts resorts to violent acts of resistance may fit into foreign policy considerations and therefore constitutes an exception to prosecuting groups that organize themselves with the goal of pressuring foreign institutions by taking violent action or by threatening violent action. It thus may constitute an exception in accordance to § 129b StGB last sentence. IV. Terrorism vs. State-­‐Terrorism? This leads us to the question of how to differentiate between illegal terrorism and legitimate resistance to state power on an international level. The question ought to be put exactly in a contrary way: when is state power against its own citizens justified and when does it step over the line and turn into acts of state terror? When looking at the German context, we find that most authors will agree to the notion, that NS legislation between 1933 and 1945 had the aim of distorting law in order to turn it into a means for racial etc. suppression. In the case of the East German totalitarian state (German Democratic Republic, GDR), courts went to great lengths in order to show, that perpetrators were guilty under both legal systems, thereby implying that GDR laws were not in their entirety a means to suppress people, but were selectively abused in order to achieve the goal of pressuring citizens into compliance with non-­‐democratic forms of 45 governance. This shows how courts draw out differences in the evaluation of state power suppressing democratic opposition and as a consequence may have to deal with differences in argument when facing suspects that claim acts of violence against state power are justified since they constitute a lawful resistance to a non-­‐democratic government. In the same line of argument, we find worrying questions when looking at conflicts happening in front of our eyes and in part with German/NATO etc. participation. When the armed struggle of the ‘Taliban’ (with the assumption that at least a part of the political 44
For adoption of the so-­‐called Annan peace initative, see UN 2042 (2012); for UN assessment after the failing of this plan on the ground, see the report of the Secretary-­‐General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force of 5 June 2012 (S/2012/403). 45
For parallel application of both West and East German law in one case (and therefore the vindication that East German law had been recognized as law with legitimate binding force), see in general, KLAUS MARXEN & GERHARD WERLE, GEWALTTATEN AN DER DEUTSCH-­‐DEUTSCHEN GRENZE (Violence in German-­‐German border), Vol. 2-­‐1 XXXVII ff. (2002); for application in a concrete case, see i.e. LG Berlin (527) 2 Js 26/90 Ks (10/92), in KLAUS MARXEN & GERHARD WERLE, GEWALTTATEN AN DER DEUTSCH-­‐DEUTSCHEN GRENZE Vol 2-­‐2 (Violence in German-­‐German border) 568, 573ff. (2002). 2012] Right to Resistance and Terrorism 1089 fundamentalist movement in Afghanistan is genuine Afghan and not of Pakistani origin) is directed against a regime, that was accused of vote fraud and showed at least (past) tolerance for cruel treatment of prisoners, the latter being in part committed by allied foreign powers, it might be misunderstood as a of legitimate form of resistance against an oppressive regime. Only the fact that the Taliban had been much worse saves the West from further questions to the subject; better having imperfect elections than no elections at all. In the case of Syria, World opinion seems to be far more divided: at a time when we face widespread reports of killings of peaceful demonstrators, at a time when we see any fact 46
finding mission from the outside being seriously hampered or totally forbidden at all , we had difficulties for quite a while in determining, if these killings constitute acts of state terror. So the question that arises is whether it is legitimate for the Syrian opposition to face repeated acts of serious violence against civilians committed by state power with armed resistance. For Germany, this is a clear situation where state authority may tolerate organizations to call for violence against foreign institutions and not to prosecute them for supporting a terrorist organization. To put it into the language of the § 129b StGB: mass killings of civilians by Syrian institutions show so much disrespect for human rights and leave so little hope for peaceful development of democratic forms of government, that resistance by the Syrian opposition (that fits the definition may be justified and prevent things from getting worse. When looking at the Syrian situation, we find political power not allowing political dissent for a long time. Because of this inability to voice dissent without facing indiscriminate killings, peaceful demonstrations and acts of state violence resulted in a development that is at the brink of all out civil war. Obviously, the Syrian government’s claim that demonstrators and people related to civil disobedience are terrorists, disregarding the law shows, how the official Syrian definition of terrorism is in lack of independence from political judgments and political interference; opposing opinions had not been integrated into existing political power structures. The peaceful integration of mass protests into a political process of forming a new political party did not happen. Still, the criteria of whether a terrorist group may be exempt from prosecution as lined out by § 129b StGB seems to be problematic. The legal norm does not state more than the interdiction to harm ‘basic values of a state order that respects human dignity’. Related norms do not comment on how to asses or how to verify ‘respect for human dignity’. It does not outline what kind of ‘basic values’ are protected internationally to a degree that 46
Syria agreed to the Arab League deploring a monitoring mission to Syria on 19 December 2011 and suspended this mission on 29 January 2012, due ‘to the critical deterioration of the situation’. See BBC News Middle East, Syria FM: We weren’t playing for time, available online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-­‐middle-­‐east-­‐
16246286 (19 December 2011), and Arab League halts Syria mission, available online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-­‐middle-­‐east-­‐16778534 (28 January 2012), BBC NEWS, available online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-­‐middle-­‐east-­‐16778534 (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 1090 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
justifies cross-­‐boundary prosecution, neither does it explain whether there are acceptable degrees of infringing upon such ‘basic values’. Although the anti-­‐government protests in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt had been successful in obliterating previous regimes and installing publicly elected governments, we still have no clear concept or measurement for assessing a situation where disrespect for human rights by a repressive government is so obvious that suppressing opposition abroad is no longer justified. But it is not only law that offers little help in solving this riddle – politics also does not offer much to solve related questions. The UN Security Council is most of the time held up in deadlock with one or more members opposing outspoken resolutions. It seems as if legal principles and taboos concerning sovereignty are more important than the livelihoods of faraway people. 47
At this point it is worth reconsidering Art. 20 IV German Basic Law : as long as a state is not able or not willing to guarantee the right to peaceful demonstration in cases of controversial topics, there might occur a scenario where resistance against state power – with all the means that might be necessary in a given context – can obtain the predicate of ‘legitimate’ action. We see the classic situation of legitimate self-­‐defense against violent crime like robbery put on a level that allows for self-­‐defense against abusive and violent state authority. V. Due Process of Law as a Means to Entangle Terrorism and State-­‐Terrorism If we are to overcome related problems, we have to draw a very clear line between illegitimate terrorist violence and legitimate state authority. The fact that actions are committed by state institutions or by members of such institutions does not prevent such actions from becoming acts of terrorism only because they can lay claim to the execution of state power (otherwise no revolution – neither the American one, nor the Chinese one – might ever be able to claim legitimacy for herself). So if we are to distinguish acts of violence and claim that a distinct act of violence is a terrorist act committed by a state and by those who act on its behalf, we have to acknowledge that such an act of violence can be opposed by anyone with any means. Otherwise, if there is no undue execution of state power, which means the execution of state power is legitimate, only non-­‐violent opposition may be allowed. Therefore, any international agreement on terrorism has to take a stance on this second level of definition and make clear, what situations justify (even violent) resistance to state actions. Since state action is never legitimate per se only because we face an institutional subject, we have to put forward criteria different from 47
See Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany), available online: http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/aufgaben/rechtsgrundlagen/grundgesetz/index.html (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 2012] Right to Resistance and Terrorism 1091 just citing a subject with institutional (state) qualities. Instead we see state power in the need of explaining itself and show in what ways it is effectively restricting itself so human rights are guaranteed. One of the most striking reasons for monopolizing power in the hands of state institutions was the assumption that state building will result in a legal framework, preventing anarchy of both, citizen and the state alike, and thus committing institutions to act in accordance to the law. As long as state institutions are bound by law, the problem of the arbitrariness of execution of power can be solved. State institutions that have to answer questions concerning their legitimacy are not free to do as they like, but have to reason and to defend their actions vis-­‐a-­‐vis other institutions and a larger public. Criminal law with its monopoly on the power to punish and to act retroactively upon violations of individual and collective rights or interests has a long-­‐standing tradition within this discourse. There are only a very few other fields of knowledge that can trace their discourse concerning limits to arbitrary state action longer than criminal law. One of the first instances where this discourse became relevant to criminal law on the one hand and to constitutional law on the other was the English Magna Charta with its limits to arbitrary detention. In order to distinguish criminal law from revenge, criminal law judiciary has developed ever more sophisticated institutional guarantees that try to balance the public interest in effective prosecution of crimes with a set of procedural guarantees of the accused. To name only a few: the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, differentiation of judicial institutions in the dual powers of judge and prosecutor, all the elements of the Miranda clause etc., they all try to curb on arbitrary execution of state power. So if we are to prevent the ‘war against terror’ to turn into a combat of violence and counter violence that will end with no moral distinction between both sides (since both sides use covert actions, do not reveal the reasons for choosing certain targets, do not justify their actions through procedures that can be reconstructed by neutral observers (like courts), and do not allow for any reasoning between both sides), we have to try and reintroduce actions against terror on an international scale into a framework of due process. This due process cannot be limited to nationals living abroad, but has to comprise anybody that becomes a terrorist suspect. VI. Possibilities for International Guaranties of Due Process So if we want to push forward for a draft version of an international covenant of anti-­‐
terrorism, we have to consider material law as well as procedural law. First, on the side of material law, we have to limit international measures against terror to more serious forms of crime. Any material definition of terrorism may try to parallel the 1092 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
48
German StGB Art. 129a with its definition of terrorism as an aggravated form of gang violence. In order to minimize political interference on the international level, we should be able to apply relevant norms with as little political considerations as possible. Therefore it might be wise to take an approach that does exclude any reference to political aims in its definition of terrorist actions or terrorist violence. This will relieve much pressure when dealing with mass demonstrations and forms of so called ‘illegal gatherings’. As long as these forms of expressing ones opinion in public or of organizing members with similar views are non-­‐violent, they have to be allowed regardless of any ideological or religious considerations. Nobody has the right to violate the right to life just because a victim does not share a certain point of view or a certain belief. If we think of the most recent example of the Arab uprisings against their autocratic rulers, we can state that nobody can expect the international society to call anybody a terrorist because he or she tries to make him-­‐ or herself heard – either on the internet or in demonstrations etc. In continental European law, the right to resist infringements to one’s own rights or to the rights of a third party is always a reason to legitimize violations of rights to others. If we face a robbery, we are legally entitled to defend ourselves. As the German Basic Law states 49
in Art. 20 IV, the same right has to apply against state terror. However, this demand of material law will not be fruitful for any draft, unless we can come forward with a procedure to assess situations of self-­‐defense against state action. We might differentiate between two different sets of accusations: on one hand state institutions and state power is opposed via the exercise of democratic rights, on the other hand, state institutions and state power is opposed by violent actions. As long as a so-­‐called suspect is adhering to democratic forms of discourse, we have to deny such a case may be connected in any way to terrorism. Unless demonstrators or political activists advocate for severe forms of political discrimination, racism etc. and thus put themselves outside any democratic discourse, even a call for a new constitution has to be tolerated as a legitimate form of political participation. A restrictive material definition of terrorism that refers only to the respect of human rights and omits an endorsement of a specific political agenda might therefore solve some of the related problems. In case somebody claims he has a right to defend himself against state power and has therefore the right to take even violent action, we have to consider procedural reciprocity in international affairs. We cannot adjudicate a claim of self-­‐defense unless we can see what happened prior to a suspect terrorist action. As long as we consider it being part of ‘internal affairs’ to determine if demonstrations or state violence are legitimate forms of 48
See Strafgesetzbuch (German Criminal Code), available online at: http://www.gesetze-­‐im-­‐internet.de/stgb/ (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 49
See Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, supra note 47. 2012] Right to Resistance and Terrorism 1093 executing rights or power, the international community may try to ignore the problem. But once a terrorist suspect moves to another country or plans, organizes, and commits terrorist actions from abroad, we have to find a solution. In such cases, it will be necessary for states that want terrorists prosecuted abroad, or that ask for extradition, or that want to execute their own law in lawless swathes of failed and semi-­‐failed states, to allow international inspections of the human rights situation on the ground. It will be hard to convince the international community that a state is a victim and not abusing its power as long as this state does not allow for independent investigations of alleged crimes. Such an investigation should not be understood as a call for foreign interference in the matters of sovereign states, but as a means to increase international credibility and accountability. Only when some states are confident enough to not fear their institutions will fail international scrutiny, other states will face the fact that their oppressive actions are neither tolerable nor legitimate if seen from an international perspective. Another major obstacle to procedural justice is the lack of common ground between the terrorist and the state he opposes. Since neither side trusts the other and both reciprocally do not acknowledge any legitimacy of the other side, they are not able to cooperate in any legal procedure. The terrorist denies the jurisdiction of the court and the state does not accept limits to its power of pursuing terrorists. If the terrorist accepts the court, he has to deny the legitimacy of his struggle at least to a certain degree; if the state accepts procedural limits, it fears any procedural rights will be abused to obstruct justice and instrumentalize legal procedures for advocating terrorist ideals. The German national answer to this problem was the separation of the right to defense on one hand and the personal relationship between accused and lawyer on the other hand. Whenever a lawyer was suspected of serious collaboration with terrorist suspects and therefore becoming at least close to being a member of a terrorist gang, the judiciary had been able to break up the defense team and appoint a ‘neutral’ defense lawyer. In case of international terrorism, this might be a blueprint for introducing an international defense institution that acts as a safeguard for the procedural rights of the accused. So even if a jihadist does not see the need for a judicial process, since he is wanting to fight and kill ‘infidels’ and expects himself to be elevated to heaven in case he is killed, we should have more options than a simple shoot and kill where ever and whenever we can. At the same time, we can prevent the defense team from colluding with the accused in a criminal way and therefore to harm public interests for a second time. VII. Conclusion: Proposals for a UN Covenant on Anti-­‐Terrorism If we sum up the above, we can put forward the following key points for a future UN covenant on Anti-­‐Terrorism: the crime of international terror is any action by a person that aims or commits murder, serious harm to others, commits rape, abducts innocent persons or threatens to do so, when the attacker prepares any such action from outside the 1094 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
targeted state and claims to have a moral obligation to do so. No religious, racial, or ideological reasons can legitimize the above crimes. Further, if suspects claim to act in defense against serious abuse of state power, they will not be treated as terrorists on an international level but as innocents, unless this claim is refuted by an independent international inquiry. A state that denies an international inquiry into allegations of serious abuse of state power is barred from pursuing terrorists on an international level. Any prosecution of terrorists that does aim at court action in the country that engages in prosecution has to get approval by an international anti-­‐terror organization. Unless an independent defense team has contributed to the decision of an international anti-­‐terror organization, such organization cannot give approval to any action against suspected terrorists. Bilateral agreements between states can provide for different procedures, but they cannot be extended beyond the contracting states. "#$%&'()!
!
*+(! ,-'.&(! /0! 100(&$%2(! 3.4.5(6(4$7! .)! .! 8/44(&$%45! 9.&$/#!
0/#!8/6:.4%();!*.<!=()%>(4&(!?%$+%4!$+(!1@!2)A!$+(!9#((>/6!/0!
1)$.B'%)+6(4$C!*+(!D((>!0/#!.!=($+%4E%45F!!
!
!"#$%&'#()*+,-+"!
!
!
"A!G4$#/>H&$%/4!
!!
#$%! &%'%()*+,'*-+! -.! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! -.! 1-)2,+*%0! 3! ,0! ,! .4+&,)%+',5! *004%! -.!
'$
6*+'%(+,'*-+,57!',/!5,8!3!%)%(9%&!:%'8%%+!'$%!%+&!-.!'$%!;< !1%+'4(=!,+&!'$%!0',('!-.!'$%!
'$
>? ! 1%+'4(=@! #$*0! %)%(9%&! ,0! ,+! *004%! *+! 1,0%0! 8$%(%! 1-)2,+*%0! 8$*1$! 8%(%! .-4+&! '-!
$,A%!'$%*(!25,1%!-.!),+,9%)%+'B!*+!'$%!0%+0%!-.!,!&%1*0*-+C),D*+9!1%+'(%B!*+!'$%!E+*'%&!
F*+9&-)! 6EF7B! 1,((*%&! -4'! ,55! '$%*(! :40*+%00! ,1'*A*'=B! *+! '%()0! -.! 2(-&41'*-+! ,+&!
1-))%(1*,5*G,'*-+B! *+! ,+-'$%(! 1-4+'(=@! ! H'! ,! '*)%! 8$%+! '$%! EF! 8,0! %0',:5*0$*+9! *'0! ',/!
0=0'%)! %,(5*%(! '$,+! -'$%(! 1-4+'(*%0B! '$%! ',/! 1-4('0! -.! '$*0! 1-4+'(=! :%9,+! '-! &%A%5-2! '$%!
I1%+'(,5!),+,9%)%+'!,+&!1-+'(-5!'%0'J!,0!,!'%0'!.-(!%0',:5*0$*+9!1-)2,+*%0K!',/!(%0*&%+1%!
*+!'$%0%!0*'4,'*-+0!,+&!'-!1-+0*&%(!'$%!1-)2,+*%0!,'!0',D%!,0!',/!(%0*&%+'0!*+!'$%!EF!-+!'$%!
;
9(-4+&!'$,'!'$%*(!&%1*0*-+C),D*+9!1%+'(%!8,0!5-1,'%&!'$%(%@ !!L41$!&%1*0*-+0!,22%,(%&!'-!
$,A%!:%%+!&(*A%+!:=!,+!*+'%(%0'!'-!2(%A%+'!!1-)2,+*%0!1,((=*+9!-4'!'$%*(!:40*+%00!,:(-,&!
>
.(-)!%01,2*+9!EF!',/,'*-+!-+!'$%*(!8-(5&8*&%!*+1-)%B !,+&!'$40!'-!$,A%!:%%+!)-'*A,'%&!
M
:=!,!02%1*.*1!,+'*C,A-*&,+1%!24(2-0%@ !N-+%'$%5%00B!'$%!I1%+'(,5!),+,9%)%+'!,+&!1-+'(-5J!
'%0'! .-()%&! '$%! :,0*0! -.! '$%! I25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J! '%0'! 8$*1$B! 4+&%(! '$%!
O(9,+*G,'*-+! .-(! P1-+-)*1! Q--2%(,'*-+! ,+&! R%A%5-2)%+'! 6OPQR7! S-&%5! .-(! :*5,'%(,5!
T
1-+A%+'*-+0! ,9,*+0'! &-4:5%! ',/,'*-+B ! *0! 14((%+'5=! ,&-2'%&! ,0! ,! '*%:(%,D%(! (45%B! +.).! ,0! ,!
1(*'%(*,! .-(! ,55-1,'*+9! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! -.! 1-)2,+*%0! *+! 1,0%0! 8$%(%! :-'$! 1-+'(,1'*+9!
"
!U%0%,(1$%(!*+!PE!,+&!V+'%(+,'*-+,5!#,/!W,8!4+&%(!'$%!U*',!W%A*!S-+',51*+*!(%0%,(1$!9(,+'0!2(-9(,)B!X,145'=!-.!
P1-+-)*10B!E+*A%(0*'Y!Z-5*'%1+*1,!&%55%!S,(1$%!6V',5=7@!P),*5[!5@1%(*-+*\4+*A2)@*'@!!
;
!HN]^HUHR!SVWWPUB!W_NNP!OH#LB!`!a@!aELB!ZUVNQVZWPL!OX!VN#PUNH#VONHW!#HbH#VON!cT!6>??<7@!
>
! ]*-A,++*! S-01$%''*B! /*+0+-)# 12,*+&'3# 1+0-+4+&'2,# )# 5+6+2+# 7+# %2+5+88,# 7)5# 95'&)# ,4# )44)&2+:)# 6'-'0)6)-23# ;%'5)#
&*+2)*+,#*+1,5%2+:,#7)+#&'1+#7+#7,99+'#*)1+7)-8'#7)55)#9)*1,-)#0+%*+7+&<)B!>!NPO#PZH!M;B!Md!6>??<7@!
M
T
!H5'$-49$!041$!,!24(2-0%!8,0!+-'!0','%&!,'!'$,'!'*)%@!
! OPQR! SORPW! #Hb! QONePN#VON! ON! VNQOSP! HNR! QHZV#HW! 6>?;?7@! #$*0! S-&%5B! 8$*1$! (%2(%0%+'0! ,! +-+C:*+&*+9! 0%'! -.!
94*&%5*+%0! .-(! 1-4+'(*%0! %+'%(*+9! *+'-! :*5,'%(,5! 1-+A%+'*-+0B! .*(0'! ,&-2'%&! :=! '$%! OPQR! *+! ;<fM! ,+&! 2%(*-&*1,55=!
42&,'%&B! *0! 8*&%5=! ',D%+! ,0! ,! (%.%(%+1%! :=! :-'$! PE! ,+&! %/'(,CPE! 1-4+'(*%0@! #$%! :*5,'%(,5! 1-+A%+'*-+0! ,9,*+0'!
&-4:5%!',/,'*-+!8*55!:%!(%.%((%&!'-B!$%(%*+,.'%(B!,0!I&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0@J!
;?<f!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
c
L','%0! 1-+0*&%(! ,! 1-)2,+=! ,0! (%0*&%+'! 4+&%(! '$%*(! -8+! &-)%0'*1! 5,8B ! ,+&! 8$*1$! *0! ,50-!
40%&B! ,0! -+%! ,)-+90'! ,5'%(+,'*A%! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(0! .-(! 1-(2-(,'%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%B! :=! ,!
f
+4):%(!-.!P4(-2%,+!E+*-+!6PE7!S%):%(!L','%0!4+&%(!'$%*(!&-)%0'*1!5,8@ !!!V+!'4(+B!'$%!
,55-1,'*-+! -.! 1-(2-(,'%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! '-! ,! 1-4+'(=! ,55-80! '$%! L','%! ,'! *004%! '-! ',/! '$%!
1-)2,+=!-+!*'0!8-(5&8*&%!*+1-)%B!'$%(%:=!(%2(%0%+'*+9!,!.,1'-(!-.!4')-0'!*)2-(',+1%!.-(!
'$%!,''(*:4'*-+!-.!',/*+9!(*9$'0@!
!
]*A%+! '$%! $*0'-(*1,5! :,1D9(-4+&! -.! '$%! 25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J! 1(*'%(*-+! ,0!
&%01(*:%&!,:-A%B!'$%!2(%0%+'!,('*15%!,+,5=G%0!8$%'$%(!'$%!,225*1,'*-+!-.!041$!,!1-++%1'*+9!
.,1'-(! .-(! &%'%()*+*+9! 1-)2,+*%0K! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! :=! PE! S%):%(! L','%0! *0! 1-+0*0'%+'! 8*'$!
1-)2,+*%0K!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!'$(-49$-4'!'$%!PE!(%1-9+*G%&!:=!H('*15%0!T<!,+&!cT!
-.!'$%!#(%,'=!-+!'$%!X4+1'*-+*+9!-.!'$%!P4(-2%,+!E+*-+!6#XPE7B!-(!8$%'$%(!'$%!-:i%1'*A%!
*'0%5.! -.! '$*0! .4+&,)%+',5! .(%%&-)! 8-45&! *+&*1,'%! '$%! +%%&! .-(! ,! (%'$*+D*+9! -.! '$%! '*%C
:(%,D%(!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.-(!1-(2-(,'%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!8*'$*+!'$%!PE@!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
V+! '$%! ,4'$-(j0! A*%8B! '$%(%! ,(%! ,! +4):%(! -.! (%,0-+0! .-(! (,*0*+9! '$*0! *004%B! ,+&! .-(!
,''%)2'*+9! '-! .*+&! ,! 2-00*:5%! (%02-+0%@! ! X*(0'5=B! '$%! ,225*1,'*-+! -.! '$%! I25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%!
),+,9%)%+'J!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!3!*+!'$%!%A%+'!-.!1-)2,+*%0!)-A*+9!'$%*(!:40*+%00!,1'*A*'=!
.(-)! '$%! -(*9*+! L','%! '-! -'$%(! PE! 1-4+'(*%0! 3! ,''(,1'0! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! :,1D! '-! '$%!
S%):%(! L','%! -.! -(*9*+! 8$%+! '$-0%! 1-)2,+*%0! D%%2! '$%*(! &%1*0*-+C),D*+9! 1%+'(%! '$%(%k!
'$*0! 1-45&! ,(94,:5=! :%! (%9,(&%&! ,0! ,! (%0'(*1'*A%! %..%1'@! ^-8%A%(B! '$%! P4(-2%,+! Q-4('! -.!
h40'*1%! 6PQh7! $,0! (%2%,'%&5=! 0','%&B! *+! *'0! &*(%1'! ',/! (45*+90B! '$,'! '$%! #XPEK0! 2(-A*0*-+0! -+!
.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!3!*+!,&&*'*-+!'-!(%l4*(*+9!'$%!$-0'!S%):%(!L','%!'-!'(%,'!.-(%*9+!
+,'*-+,50!,+&!1-)2,+*%0!*+!'$%!0,)%!8,=!,0!*'0!-8+!+,'*-+,50!3!,50-!2(-$*:*'!'$%!S%):%(!
L','%! -.! -(*9*+! .(-)! $*+&%(*+9! '$%! %0',:5*0$)%+'! *+! ,+-'$%(! S%):%(! L','%! -.! -+%! -.! *'0!
d !!#
+,'*-+,50!-(!1-)2,+*%0 @ $%!PQh!$,0!',D%+!'$*0!2-0*'*-+!8$*5%!(%1-9+*G*+9!'$%!5%9*'*),1=!-.!
(%0'(*1'*-+0!-+!'$*0!.(%%&-)!.-(!2(%A%+'*+9!,:40*A%!2(,1'*1%0B!+.).!I'(,+0,1'*-+0!1,((*%&!-4'!
+-'! *+! '$%! 1-+'%/'! -.! +-(),5! 1-))%(1*,5! -2%(,'*-+0B! :4'! 0-5%5=! .-(! '$%! 24(2-0%! -.!
m
8(-+9.455=! -:',*+*+9! ,&A,+',9%0! 2(-A*&%&! .-(! :=! Q-))4+*'=! 5,8@J ! #$%0%! '(,+0,1'*-+0!
0$-45&!:%!',D%+!*+'-!,11-4+'!*+!2(-A*&*+9!,!(%02-+0%!'-!'$%!*004%@!
!
L%1-+&5=B!'$%!,1,&%)*1!',/!5*'%(,'4(%!$,0!:%%+!&%A-'*+9!)41$!,''%+'*-+!'-!,+-'$%(!*004%!
(,*0%&! :=! '$%! PQh! 1,0%! 5,8B! +,)%5=B! '$%! 1-)2,'*:*5*'=! -.! %/*'! ',/%0! 5%A*%&! :=! *+&*A*&4,5!
S%):%(!L','%0!*+!1-++%1'*-+!8*'$!'$%!2*'-14)*#-.!'$%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!-.!',/2,=%(0!'-!-'$%(!
c
!=7@!
f
!#$*0!*0!'$%!1,0%!-.!X(,+1%B!]%(),+=B!^4+9,(=B!V',5=B!'$%!N%'$%(5,+&B!Z-5,+&B!L5-A%+*,!,+&!L2,*+B!*+!,&&*'*-+!'-!
'$%!EF@!!!!
d
!>))#).0@B!Q,0%!QC>fTn<fB!=(=B#;<<m!PQU!VCTf<cB!2,(,@!>;k!Q,0%!QCTTfn?MB!?'*@1#A#>9)-&)*B!2,(,@!M;@!
m
!>))#).0.3!!Q,0%!QC>;>n<dB!()-2*,13!;<<<!PQU!VC;Tc<B!2,(,@!>Tk!Q,0%!QCM>;n?cB!B,4,)7B#>??d!PQU!VCcd<cB!2,(,@!Mm@!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;?<d!
<
S%):%(!L','%0@ !!p$*50'!'$*0!-'$%(!'$%)%!*0!,50-!-.!4')-0'!*)2-(',+1%B!'$%!1-)2,'*:*5*'=!
8*'$!,('@!T<!,+&!cT!-.!#XPE!-.!,!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!&%'%()*+*+9!'$%!I,''(,1'*-+J!-.!'$%!',/!
(%0*&%+1%! :,1D! '-! ,! 1-4+'(=! .(-)! 8$*1$! ,! 1-)2,+=! 8*0$%0! '-! -2%(,'%! ,+! -4':-4+&!
'(,+0.%(!1,+!:%!(%9,(&%&!,0!2(%5*)*+,(=!'-!'$%!&*01400*-+0!,:-4'!%/*'!',/%0@!#$*0!*0!:%1,40%!
+-! 041$! ',/%0! ,(%! 5%A*%&! ,0! 5-+9! ,0! '$%! ,225*1,'*-+! -.! ,! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! 2(%A%+'0! '$%!
'(,+0.%(!-.!'$%!',/!(%0*&%+1%@!
!!
#$*(&5=B! ,11-(&*+9! '-! '$%! ,4'$-(B! '$%! *004%! 8-45&! :%! 5%.'! 4+(%0-5A%&! %A%+! :=! ,! 2-'%+'*,5!
R*(%1'*A%! *+'(-&41*+9! '$%! Q-))-+! Q-+0-5*&,'%&! Q-(2-(,'%! #,/! a,0%! 6QQQ#a7! .-(!
)45'*+,'*-+,5!9(-420!8*'$*+!'$%!PE@!L41$!,!R*(%1'*A%!8-45&!,55-8!,55!)45'*+,'*-+,5!9(-420!
'-!-2'!.-(!1-))-+!(45%0!-+!'$%!&%'%()*+,'*-+!-.!'$%!',/,:5%!:,0*0!,+&!'-!'$%!1(-00C:-(&%(!
-..0%''*+9!-.!2(-.*'0!,+&!5-00%0!-.!'$%!9(-420K!1-)2,+*%0!*+!&*..%(%+'!1-4+'(*%0B!,+&!8-45&!
5%,&!'-!'$%!0$,(*+9!-.!'$*0!1-+0-5*&,'%&!',/!:,0%!,)-+90'!S%):%(!L','%0!,11-(&*+9!'-!,+!
;?
,22-('*-+)%+'! .-()45,@! ! X4('$%(B! *.! .-55-8*+9! '$%! Q-))*00*-+j0! Z(-2-0,5 ! *+! ,('@! f6T7! ,!
&*(%1'*A%!-.!'$*0!0-('!8-45&!0'*55!40%!'$%!25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'!,0!,!'*%:(%,D%(!(45%!
.-(! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! ,55-1,'*-+B! .-(! 1-)2,+*%0j! (%0*&%+'0! *+! )-(%! '$,+! -+%! S%):%(! L','%@!
N-+%'$%5%00B! 041$! ,! 2(-A*0*-+! 8-45&! -+5=! 0%(A%! '-! *+&*1,'%! '$%! 0','%! *+! 8$*1$! ,! 2,(%+'!
1-)2,+=!1-45&!-2'!.-(!'$%!QQQ#a!01$%)%@!#$*0!8-45&!'$%+!1,40%!'$%!2(-.*'!-(!5-00!-.!'$%!
2,(%+'! 1-)2,+=! '-! :%! 04))%&! 42! 8*'$! 2(-.*'0! ,+&! 5-00%0! -.! ,55! *+'(,CPE! 04:0*&*,(*%0! .-(!
;;
'$%!04:0%l4%+'!,22-('*-+)%+' !-.!'$*0!1-+0-5*&,'%&!',/!:,0%!,)-+90'!'$%!S%):%(!L','%0!
-.!QQQ#a!9(-42!%+'*'*%0@!!!
!
H11-(&*+95=B! '$%! 25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'! ,0! *+&*1,'%&! *+! ,('@! f6T7! -.! '$%! 8-45&C:%!
QQQ#a! R*(%1'*A%! 8-45&! ,(94,:5=! $,A%! ,! (-5%! 7+44)*)-2# .(-)! ,55-1,'*+9! '-! '$%! L','%! -.!
(%0*&%+1%!'$%!2-8%(!-.!8-(5&8*&%!',/,'*-+@!!W,0'!:4'!+-'!5%,0'B!'$%!OPQR!*'0%5.B!.(-)!>??;!
'-! >??MB! 1-+0*&%(%&! 2-00*:5%! ,5'%(+,'*A%0! '-! '$%! I25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J! ,+&!
;>
0-)%!1-4+'(*%0!$,A%!1%,0%&!40%!-.!041$!*1%:(%,D%(!(45%@ !!!
!
X-(!'$%!24(2-0%!-.!'$%!-A%(,55!,+,5=0*0B!'$*0!2,2%(!*0!&*A*&%&!*+'-!.-4(!2,('0@!!Z,('!aB!,.'%(!
(%A*%8*+9!'$%!1-+'%+'0!,+&!'$%!-:i%1'*A%!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'B!04)),(*G%0!'$%!
1-+1%2'!-.!,:40%!-.!(*9$'0!,0!02%1*.*%&!:=!'$%!PQh!1,0%!5,8@!!V+!5*9$'!-.!'$%!-:i%1'*A%!-.!'$%!
<
! >))# ).0.B! R,+*%5%! H01-5*B! CD+2# 2'D)1# '-7# 4%-7'6)-2'5# 4*))7,61E# 2<)# +69'&2# ,4# 2<)# F)# $'12)"*+)# 7)&+1+,-# ,-# CG#
6)6!)*# 12'2)1# 7,6)12+&# 5'H13! ;! RVUV##O! P! ZUH#VQH@#UVaE#HUVH@VN#PUNHqVONHWP! <<! 6>??f7k! S*1$,%5! W,+9B! F+)#
0)6)+-1&<'421*)&<5+&<)-# I'<6)-!)7+)*%-0)-# 4%*# JCD+2# K'D)1L# +6# $+&<2)# 7)*# >&5%11'-2*'0)# :,-# MN# B,@,22# +-# 7)*#
I)&<21'&<2)# O3# *+! L#PEPU! ENR! pVU#LQ^HX#! VN#PUNH#VONHW! >;MC>>f! 6>??f7k! P(*D! F%))%(%+B! P)-7+-0# ('1)1# Q+5)7# !"#
F%2&<# (,%*21# =E# K<)# :'-# F+R@# '-7# S%R%*'# ('1)13# +-# PQh[! UPQPN#! RPePWOZSPN#L! VN! RVUPQ#! #HbH#VON! >;<C>f?! 6S*1$,%5!
W,+9B!h-0%2$!L1$41$!`!Q5,40!L',(*+9%(!%&0@B!>??f7@!
;?
! QOSn>?;;n;>;nTB! Q-))*00*-+j0! Z(-2-0,5! .-(! ,! Q-4+1*5! R*(%1'*A%! -+! ,! Q-))-+! Q-+0-5*&,'%&! Q-(2-(,'%! #,/!
a,0%!6QQQ#a7!!!
;;
!=7.!,'!H('@!mf@!!
;>
!]*-A,++*!S-01$%''*B!1%9*'#+-'%!>@!
;?<m!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
.(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! ,+&! -.! '$%! 1-+1%2'! -.! ,:40*A%! 2(,1'*1%0B! Z,('! Q! ,+,5=G%0! '$%!
2-00*:5%!.(*1'*-+!:%'8%%+!'$%!%/%(1*0%!-.!'$%!(*9$'!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!:=!1-)2,+*%0!,+&!'$%!
I25,1%! -.! ),+,9%)%+'J! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(@! ! Z,('! R! .-()45,'%0! ,! $=2-'$%0*0! ,:-4'! '$%!
,225*1,'*-+!-.!,+!,5'%(+,'*A%!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(B!,+&!1-+1540*A%!-:0%(A,'*-+0!.-55-8!*+!Z,('!
P@!
!
!
IA! *+(! 9#((>/6! /0! 1)$.B'%)+6(4$! 0/#! 8/6:.4%()! .4>! $+(! 8/4&(:$! /0! "BH)%2(! -#.&$%&(!
16(#5%45!0#/6!$+(!18JK)!8.)(L'.MA!
!
=.#K<)#(,-2)-21#'-7#2<)#/!R)&2+:)1#,4#(,69'-+)1T#Q*))7,6#,4#C12'!5+1<6)-2#
#
H5'$-49$!H('@!cT!-.!'$%!#XPE!0','%0!'$,'!1-)2,+*%0!9-A%(+%&!:=!+,'*-+,5!5,80!-.!S%):%(!
L','%0! ,(%! '-! :%! '(%,'%&! *+! '$%! 0,)%! 8,=! ,0! +,'4(,5! 2%(0-+0B! '$%0%! 1-)2,+*%0! ,(%!
I1(%,'4(%0!-.!+,'*-+,5!5,8J!,+&!1,+!-+5=!%/*0'!*+!0-!.,(!,0!'$%=!&-!+-'!:(%,D!'$%!1-++%1'*+9!
.,1'-(0! 8*'$! '$%! 1-4+'(=! -.! *+1-(2-(,'*-+B! ,0! '$%! PQh! 0','%&! *+! '$%! 5,+&),(D! ;<mm! F'+5"#
;M
?'+5! (45*+9@ ! ! #$*0! PQh! &%1*0*-+! 15,(*.*%&! '$,'! '$%! I(*9$'! -.! 2(*),(=! %0',:5*0$)%+'J! -.!
*+&*A*&4,50B! +.).! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! *+&*A*&4,50! 4+&%(! ,('@! T<! '-! 5%,A%! '$%! 1-4+'(=! -.! -(*9*+! *+!
-(&%(! '-! 0%'! 42! ,+&! ),+,9%! 4+&%(',D*+90! *+! ,+-'$%(! 1-4+'(=! 8$*5%! D%%2*+9! '$%*(!
+,'*-+,5*'=B!.*+&0!+-!%l4*A,5%+'!*+!'$%!1,0%!-.!1-)2,+*%0B!.-(!8$-)!'$%!-4'9-*+9!'(,+0.%(!
-.!'$%!$%,&!-..*1%!,5-+%B!H<)-#!*)'@+-0#2<)#&,--)&2+-0#4'&2,*1#*);%+*)7#!"#-'2+,-'5#5'H#,4#
+-&,*9,*'2+,-# 4,*# 2<)+*# )D+12)-&)# '1# 5)0'5# 9)*1,-1B! *0! +-'! 1-A%(%&! :=! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.!
;T
%0',:5*0$)%+'@ ! ! N# &,-2*'*+,B! '$*0! 8,0! 1-+.*()%&! :=! '$%! 5,'%0'! PQh! (45*+9B! '$%! >?;;!
;c
O'2+,-'5#M*+7!(45*+9B !8$%(%!'$%!PQh!.-4+&!'$,'!,!1-)2,+=!8$*1$!$,&!:%%+!*+1-(2-(,'%&!
;M
!Q,0%!m;nmdB!F'+5"#?'+5B#;<mm!PQU!cTmMB!2,(,@!;<@!#$*0!(45*+9!8,0!8*&%5=!1-))%+'%&!-+!:=!'$%!5*'%(,'4(%[!+-2)*#
'5+'B! L%(A,,0! e,+! #$*%5B! F'+5"# ?'+5# ('1)E# K'D# P5'--+-0# '-7# 2<)# C%*,9)'-# I+0<2# ,4# C12'!5+1<6)-2.# N# >)2!'&@B!
PEUOZPHN! #HbH#VON! McdCMff! 6;<mm7k! O''-! L,+&(-1D! `! H+&(%,! H40'),++B! F'1# =-2)*-'2+,-'5)# M)1)551&<'421*)&<2#
-'&<# 7)*# F'+5"# ?'+5UC-21&<)+7%-0# 7)1# C%*,9V+1&<)-# M)*+&<21<,41E# W%,# :'7+1XB! UPQ^#! RPU! VN#PUNH#VONHWPN!
pVU#LQ^HX#!>T<C>cM!6;<m<7k!!a-4',(&!W,:,(&%!`!S,(*%!Q$,+',5B!(<*,-+;%)#7)#R%*+19*%7)-&)#7)#5'#(,%*#7)#R%12+&)#
7)1# (,66%-'%2Y1# )%*,9Y)--)1.# $+!*)# &+*&%5'2+,-# 7)1# 9)*1,--)1# )2# 7)1# 1)*:+&)1B! hOEUNHW! RE! RUOV#! VN#PUNH#VONHW!
T>mCTM;!6;<m<7k!N%)%0*-!e,(,!&%!Z,GB!K*'15'7,#7)#5'#1)7)#1,&+'5#Z1)7)#7)#7+*)&&+[-\#)-#)5#]6!+2,#7)#5'#(,6%-+7'7#
C&,-[6+&'#C%*,9)'3!*+!UPeVL#H!RP! VNL#V#EQVONPL! PEUOZPHL#md;Cmm>!6;<m<7k!a%(+$,(&!](-r.%5&!`!#$-),0!Fs+*9B!F'1#
=-2)*-'2+,-'5)#M)1)551&<'421*)&<2#+-#7)*#C%*,9V+1&<)-#M)6)+-1&<'423!UPQ^#!RPU!VN#PUNH#VONHWPN!VN! pVU#LQ^HX#!TMMC
TT?!6;<<>7@!
;T
;c
!Q,0%!m;nmdB!F'+5"#?'+5B#;<mmB!1%9*'!+-'%!;MB!,'!2,(,@!>T@!!!!!!
!Q,0%!QCMd;n;?B!O'2+,-'5#M*+73#>?;;@!!V+!'$%!0*'4,'*-+!,'!0',D%B!'$%!'(,+0.%(!-.!'$%!25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'!
*)25*%&!3!'$%!PQh!+-'%&!3!'$%!'(,+0.%(!-.!',/!(%0*&%+1%!4+&%(!'$%!EFCN%'$%(5,+&!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+B!,+&!'$%!
PQh! $,&! '-! &%,5! 8*'$! '$%! *004%! -.! 8$%'$%(! %/*'! ',/%0! *)2-0%&! :=! '$%! N%'$%(5,+&! 8%(%! 1-)2,'*:5%! 8*'$! '$%!
.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'@!!#$%!PQh!(45*+9!'$40!1-+1%(+%&!'$%!',/!1-+0%l4%+1%0!-.!2<)#&<'-0)!-.!'$%!1-++%1'*+9!
.,1'-(!4+&%(!&-4:5%!',/!'(%,'*%0@!#$*0!5%,A%0!-2%+!'$%!&*..%(%+'!*004%!3!&%,5'!8*'$!*+!'$*0!8-(D!3!,:-4'!8$%'$%(!'$%!
'995+&'2+,-#,4#2<)#&,--)&2+-0#4'&2,*!*+!*'0%5.!1,+!1(%,'%!,!(%0'(*1'*-+!'-!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'B!8$%+!'$*0!
,225*1,'*-+! ,''(,1'0! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! '-! ,! 1-4+'(=! .(-)! 8$*1$! ,! 1-)2,+=! -2%(,'%0! ,+! -4':-4+&! '(,+0.%(! 61))!
+-4*'B!2,(,@!>@,+&!M7@!!!!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;?<<!
*+! '$%! N%'$%(5,+&0! ,+&! $,&! '(,+0.%((%&! *'0! 25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'! '-! '$%! EF!
8*'$-4'! ,..%1'*+9! *'0! 0','40! ,0! ,! 1-)2,+=! *+1-(2-(,'%&! 4+&%(! N%'$%(5,+&0! 5,8B! 8,0!
%+'*'5%&!'-!(%5=!-+!H('0@!T<!,+&!cT@!!H.'%(!(%,..*()*+9!S%):%(!L','%0j!2-8%(!'-!&%.*+%!'$%!
1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!(%l4*(%&!-.!1-)2,+*%0!.-(!'$%0%!'-!:%!(%9,(&%&!,0!*+1-(2-(,'%&!4+&%(!
+,'*-+,5! 5,8! ,+&! '$40! ,0! %+i-=*+9! '$%! (*9$'! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'B! '$%! PQh! +-'%&! '$,'B! *+! '$%!
0*'4,'*-+! ,'! $,+&B! '$%! 1-)2,+=B! &4%! '-! '$%! .%,'4(%0! -.! R4'1$! 5,8B! (%),*+%&! A,5*&5=!
;f
*+1-(2-(,'%&! *+! '$%! N%'$%(5,+&0@ ! ! p$%'$%(! 1-)2,+*%0! ,(%! ,:5%! '-! '(,+0.%(! '$%! $%,&!
-..*1%! 8$*50'! D%%2*+9! '$%! (%9*0'%(%&! -..*1%! *+! '$%! 1-4+'(=! -.! *+1-(2-(,'*-+B! ,+&! %+i-=*+9!
'$*0!D*+&!-.!'(,+0.%(!-.!2(-'%1'*-+!-.!H('0@!T<!,+&!cTB!&%2%+&0!'$%(%.-(%!-+!+,'*-+,5!5,8@!!
!
;d
N%A%('$%5%00B! *+! '$%! >??c! >C^=(# >"12)*61! (45*+9B ! '$%! PQh! *+&*1,'%&! '$,'! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.!
%0',:5*0$)%+'! -.! 1-)2,+*%0! 1-A%(0! ,55! )%,04(%0! 8$*1$! 2%()*'! -(! %A%+! )%(%5=! .,1*5*','%!
,11%00!'-!,+-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%!:=!2,('*1*2,'*+9!*+!'$%!%1-+-)*1!5*.%!-.!'$%!1-4+'(=!,+&!
(%1-9+*G%&!'$,'!*+'(,CPE!)%(9%(0!,(%!-+%!-.!'$%!)-&,5*'*%0!.-(!%/%(1*0*+9!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!
;m
%0',:5*0$)%+'@ ! ! L4:0%l4%+'5=B! '$%! 1-+'%+'0! -.! '$%! (*9$'! -.! 2(*),(=! %0',:5*0$)%+'! .-(!
;<
1-)2,+*%0!8%(%!.4('$%(!15,(*.*%&!:=!'$%!PQh!*+!'$%!>??m!('*2)1+,!(45*+9[ !'$%!PQh!02%1*.*%&!
'$,'B! %/1%2'! .-(! -A%((*&*+9! (%l4*(%)%+'0! *+! '$%! 24:5*1! *+'%(%0'B! ,! S%):%(! L','%! 1,++-'!
2(%A%+'! ,! 1-)2,+=! .-()%&! *+! *'0! i4(*0&*1'*-+! .(-)! '(,+0.%((*+9! *'0! (%9*0'%(%&! -..*1%! '-!
,+-'$%(! S%):%(! L','%! 8*'$! 1-+A%(0*-+! -.! *'0! 5%9,5! .-()! *+'-! ,! +%8! .-()! -..%(%&! :=! '$%!
>?
L','%!-.!&%0'*+,'*-+@ !!#$%!'(,+0.%(!-.!'$%!(%9*0'%(%&!-..*1%!*0B!:=!&%.*+*'*-+B!+%1%00,(=!.-(!
1-+A%('*+9! '$%! 1-)2,+=j0! 5%9,5! .-()! *+'-! ,! +%8! 5%9,5! .-()! -..%(%&! :=! '$%! L','%! -.!
&%0'*+,'*-+@! ^-8%A%(B! ('*2)1+,# *)25*1*'5=! *+&*1,'%0! '$,'! ,! 1-)2,+=! *0! %+'*'5%&! '-! '(,+0.%(!
)+2<)*! '$%! (%9*0'%(%&! -..*1%! ,5-+%! ,*! '$%! (%9*0'%(%&! -..*1%! '-9%'$%(! 8*'$! '$%! 1%+'(,5!
,&)*+*0'(,'*-+n$%,&!-..*1%!'-!,+-'$%(!1-4+'(=!-.!'$%!PE@!!
!
;f
!=7.!,'!2,(,@!>fC>m@!!
;d
!Q,0%!QC!T;;n?MB!>C^=(#>"12)61B#>??c!PQU!VC;?m?c@!
;m
!=7#@!,'!2,(,@!;m!,+&!;<@!!
;<
!Q,0%!Q!>;?n?fB!('*2)1+,B#>??m!PQU!VC<fT;@!!H)-+90'!'$%!A,0'!5*'%(,'4(%!-+!'$*0!(45*+9[!E8%!](-$),++B!N,+1=!
](401$*+0D%B! S)1&<*V-@%-0)-# 7)1# _)08%01# :,-# M)1)551&<'42)-# +--)*<'5!# 7)*# CG# U# 7+)# I)&<211'&<)# ('*2)1+,B!
PEUOZtVLQ^P! qPV#LQ^UVX#! XuU! pVU#LQ^HX#LUPQ^#! TfMCTfT! 6>??m7k! L'%.,+! W%*:5%! `! h-1$%+! ^-..),++B! ('*2)1+,# U#
4,*20)52)-7)# >+282<),*+)3# 0*)-8`!)*1&<*)+2)-7)*# Q,*6H)&<1)5# %-7# ^)*!,2# 6'2)*+)55*)&<25+&<)*#
_)08%01!)1&<*V-@%-0)-B! aP#UVPaLCaPUH#PU! cmCfM! 6>??<7k! e%(-+*D,! F-(-)! `! Z%'%(! S%'G*+9%(B! Q*))7,6# ,4#
C12'!5+1<6)-2# 4,*# (,69'-+)1E# 2<)# C%*,9)'-# (,%*2# ,4# a%12+&)# &,-4+*61# '-7# *)4+-)1# +21# F'+5"# ?'+5# F)&+1+,-# +-# 2<)#
('*2)1+,# ('1)# (UbcdedfB! f! PEUOZPHN! QOSZHN_! HNR! XVNHNQVHW! WHp! UPeVPp! ;>cC;f?! 6>??<7k! h,+! a-$(%+Dv)2%(B!
(,*9,*'2)# ?,!+5+2"# '&*,11# C%*,9)'-# S,*7)*1E# >2+55# -,# Q*))7,6# ,4# C6+0*'2+,-# 4,*# (,69'-+)1XB! PEUOZPHN! WHp!
UPZOU#PUB!m>C<>!6>??<7k!],%',+%!]-&&*+!`!a(*1%!]-&&*+B!N**g2#h('*2)1+,hE#5TY2)-7%)#7)#5'#5+!)*2Y#7TY2'!5+11)6)-2#
9,%*# 5)1# 1,&+Y2Y1# hY6+0*'-2)1hB! ;cd! hOEUNHW! RPL! #UVaENHEb! n! RUOV#! PEUOZwPN! ddCdm! 6>??<7k! X(,+x-*0! Sy5*+B!
FY95'&)6)-2# 7)# 1+i0)# 1,&+'5# 7'-1# 5'# (,66%-'%2Y# )%*,9Y)--)3# ;>?m! WH! LPSHVNP! hEUVRVzEP! C! PN#UPZUVLP! P#! HXXHVUPL!
>??<B!TMCTc!6>??<7k!W41,!Q%(*-+*B!K<)#(*,11U!,*7)*#?,!+5+2"#,4#(,69'-+)1#H+2<+-#2<)#C%*,9)'-#(,66%-+2"#'42)*#
2<)#('*2)1+,#I%5+-0#,4#2<)#C(aB!#^P!hOEUNHW!OX!aELVNPLL!WHp!M;;CMMd!6>?;?7@!
>?
!=7.!,'!2,(,@!;;;C;;>@!
;;??!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
V'!1-45&!:%!,004)%&!'$,'!'$%!I1%+'(,5!,&)*+*0'(,'*-+JB!*@%@!I$%,&!-..*1%JB!1-*+1*&%0!8*'$!'$%!
I25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'@J! Q-+0%l4%+'5=B! *.! '$%! (%9*0'%(%&! -..*1%! 8%(%! '(,+0.%((%&!
'-9%'$%(! 8*'$! '$%! $%,&! -..*1%B! '$*0! '(,+0.%(! 8-45&! ,50-! *)25=! '$%! '(,+0.%(! -.! '$%! ',/!
(%0*&%+1%!:=!A*('4%!-.!H('@!T!-.!'$%!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!:,0%&!-+!'$%!OPQR!S-&%5@!#$%!
%/%(1*0%! -.! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! 2(*),(=! %0',:5*0$)%+'! 8-45&! *+! '$*0! 1,0%! 1-*+1*&%! 8*'$! '$%!
'(,+0.%(! -.! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! 4+&%(! '$%! I25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'! 1(*'%(*,J@! ! #$%!
0,)%!-4'1-)%!8-45&!,50-!-114(B!*+!5*9$'!-.!'$%!O'2+,-'5#M*+7!(45*+9B!*+!'$%!1,0%!-.!'(,+0.%(!
-.!'$%!$%,&!-..*1%!,5-+%B!-+5=!8$%+!'$*0!'(,+0.%(!*0!2%()*''%&!:=!'$%!+,'*-+,5!5,80!-.!'$%!
1-4+'(=!-.!-(*9*+@!!O+!'$%!1-+'(,(=B!'$%!'(,+0.%(!-.!'$%!*)0+12)*)7#,44+&)#'5,-)!6,11-)2,+*%&!
:=! 1-+A%(0*-+! -.! '$%! 5%9,5! .-()! ,0! (%l4*(%&! :=! '$%! ('*2)1+,! (45*+97! 8-45&! .,55! 8*'$*+! '$%!
01-2%! -.! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! 2(-A*0*-+0! 68$%+! 24(04*+9! '$%! -:i%1'*A%! -.! '$%0%!
2(-A*0*-+07B! :4'! *'! 8-45&! +-'! *)25=! '$%! '(,+0.%(! -.! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! 4+&%(! '$%! I25,1%! -.!
%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J!1(*'%(*-+@!!
!!!!!!!
Q-+0%l4%+'5=B!4+&%(!'$%!&-)*+,+'!*+'%(2(%','*-+!-.!'$%!I%..%1'*A%!25,1%!-.!),+,9%)%+'J!
>;
,0!'$%!25,1%!8$%(%!'$%!),*+!,+&!04:0',+'*,5!:40*+%00!&%1*0*-+0!,(%!),&%B !'%+0*-+!1-45&!
,(*0%!8$%(%!'$%(%!*0!'(,+0.%(!'-!,+-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%!-.!'$%!(%9*0'%(%&!-..*1%!8*'$-4'!'$%!
$%,&! -..*1%@! V+! '$*0! 0*'4,'*-+! '$%! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! 9*A%+! :=! '$%! I%..%1'*A%! 25,1%! -.!
),+,9%)%+'J! 3! 8$*1$! 8-45&! 2-*+'! '-! -+%! 5-1,'*-+! -.! '$%! 1-)2,+=! .-(! ',/! 24(2-0%0! 3!
8-45&!(*0D!:%*+9!,'!-&&0!8*'$!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!2(*),(=!%0',:5*0$)%+'B!8$*1$!8-45&!*+&*1,'%!
,+-'$%(!5-1,'*-+@!!
!!!!!!
a=! 1-+'(,0'B! *+! %/%(1*0*+9! '$%! {(*9$'! -.! 0%1-+&,(=! %0',:5*0$)%+'{B! '$%! 1-)2,+=B! 8$*50'!
),*+',*+*+9! *'0! $%,&! -..*1%! *+! '$%! 1-4+'(=! *+! 8$*1$! *'! 8,0! *+1-(2-(,'%&B! 8-45&! 0%'! 42! *+!
,+-'$%(! PE! 0','%! ,! 04:0*&*,(=B! ,! :(,+1$B! -(! ,+! ,9%+1=@! ! p$%(%,0! +-! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! *004%!
8-45&! ,(*0%! *+! '$%! 1,0%! -.! 1(%,'*-+! -.! ,! :(,+1$! -(! -.! ,+! ,9%+1=B! '$%! 0%''*+9! 42! -.! ,!
04:0*&*,(=! 1(%,'%&! *+! ,+-'$%(! PE! S%):%(! L','%! ,+&! ),+,9%&! *+! '$,'! L','%! 8-45&! (%045'!
6,9,*+B! 4+&%(! '$%! 25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'! 1(*'%(*,7! *+! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! -.! '$*0!
04:0*&*,(=!:%*+9!5-1,'%&!*+!'$%!L','%!-.!*'0!(%9*0'%(%&!-..*1%!,+&!1%+'(,5!,&)*+*0'(,'*-+@!!V+!
'$*0! 0*'4,'*-+B! '$%! %/%(1*0%! -.! '$%! (*9$'! -.! 0%1-+&,(=! %0',:5*0$)%+'! 8-45&! 9-! -+! *+! '$%!
0,)%!&*(%1'*-+!,0!'$%!25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'!1(*'%(*,!'-!*+&*1,'%!'$%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!
,+&! '$%! 5-1,'*-+! -.! '$%! 1-)2,+=@! ! N%A%('$%5%00B! *.! '$%! 04:0*&*,(=! 1(%,'%&! *+! ,+-'$%(!
S%):%(!L','%!8%(%!),+,9%&!.(-)!'$%!L','%!-.!'$%!2,(%+'!1-)2,+=B!'$%!I%..%1'*A%!25,1%!
-.!),+,9%)%+'J!1(*'%(*-+!8-45&!5-1,'%!'$%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!*+!,!L','%!&*..%(%+'!.(-)!'$,'!-.!
'$%! 5-1,'*-+! -.! '$%! 1-)2,+=! ,0! (%045'*+9! .(-)! '$%! %/%(1*0%! -.! '$%! (*9$'! -.! 0%1-+&,(=!
%0',:5*0$)%+'@!!!!!!!
!
H(94,:5=B!*+!,55!0*'4,'*-+0!8$%(%!'$%!%/%(1*0%!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!8-45&!(%045'!
*+! ,! 5-1,'*-+! &*..%(%+'! .(-)! '$%! 5-1,'*-+! -.! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%B! '$%! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(0!
(%l4*(%&! .-(! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! 24(2-0%0! ,+&! '$%*(! ,225*1,'*-+! 1-45&! :%! I'%0'%&J! ,9,*+0'! '$%!
>;
!Q-))%+',(=!-.!H('*15%!T!-.!'$%!OPQR!S-&%5B!2,(,@!>T@!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;?;!
-:i%1'*A%!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!*'0%5.B!0*+1%!'$%!PQh!0','%&!'$,'!S%):%(!L','%0!
>>
)40'!%/%(1*0%!'$%*(!1-)2%'%+1%!*+!'$%!&*(%1'!',/,'*-+!,(%,!1-+0*0'%+'5=!8*'$!PE!5,8 !,+&!
>M
2(-A*0*-+0!9(,+'*+9!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!,(%!4+1-+&*'*-+,5@ !
!
R%02*'%!'$%!&*..%(%+1%!*+!'$%!1-+'%+'0!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!2(*),(=!%0',:5*0$)%+'!.-(!+,'4(,5!
2%(0-+0! ,0! 1-)2,(%&! '-! .-(! 1-)2,+*%0B! '$%! PQh! 1,0%5,8! $,0! ),&%! *'! 15%,(! '$,'! '$%!
-:i%1'*A%! -.! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! 9(,+'%&! :=! '$%! #(%,'=! *0! '$%! 0,)%! .-(! :-'$!
1,'%9-(*%0! -.! ',/2,=%(0[! *'! $,0! *+! .,1'! 0','%&B! *+! ,! +4):%(! -.! (45*+90! 1-+1%(+*+9! :-'$!
*+&*A*&4,50! ,+&! 1-)2,+*%0B! '$,'! '$*0! -:i%1'*A%! *0! '-! I,00*0'! %1-+-)*1! ,+&! 0-1*,5!
*+'%(2%+%'(,'*-+! 8*'$*+! '$%! Q-))4+*'=! *+! '$%! 02$%(%! -.! ,1'*A*'*%0! ,0! 0%5.C%)25-=%&!
>T
2%(0-+0J ! ,+&! '$,'B! ,11-(&*+95=B! I.(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! *0! *+'%+&%&! '-! ,55-8! ,!
Q-))4+*'=!+,'*-+,5!'-!2,('*1*2,'%B!-+!,!0',:5%!,+&!1-+'*+4*+9!:,0*0B!*+!'$%!%1-+-)*1!5*.%!
>c
-.!,!S%):%(!L','%!-'$%(!'$,+!$*0!L','%!-.!-(*9*+!,+&!'-!2(-.*'!'$%(%.(-)J @!!a=!(%.%((*+9!'-!
I,!Q-))4+*'=!+,'*-+,5JB!'$%!PQh!)%,+'!'-!*+&*1,'%!:-'$!*+&*A*&4,50!,+&!1-)2,+*%0!.(-)!
,+=!PE!S%):%(!L','%@!!,0!+-'%&!,:-A%B!*'!$,0!,50-!(%1-9+*G%&!'$,'!,('0@!T<!,+&!cT!1-A%(!,55!
)%,04(%0!2%()*''*+9!-(!%A%+!)%(%5=!.,1*5*','*+9!,11%00!'-!,+-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%!'$(-49$!
2,('*1*2,'*-+! *+! '$%! %1-+-)*1! 5*.%! -.! '$%! 1-4+'(=! 4+&%(! '$%! 0,)%! 1-+&*'*-+0! ,0! -'2+,-'5#
>f
,9)*'2,*1B !,+&!'$,'!I$,A*+9!(%9,(&!'-!'$,'!-:i%1'*A%!-.!*+'%9(,'*-+!*+!'$%!$-0'!S%):%(!
L','%B! '$%! 1-+1%2'! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! *+A-5A%0! '$%! ,1'4,5! 24(04*'! -.! ,+! %1-+-)*1! ,1'*A*'=!
>d
'$(-49$! ,! .*/%&! %0',:5*0$)%+'! *+! '$,'! L','%! .-(! ,+! *+&%.*+*'%! 2%(*-&J ! Q-+0%l4%+'5=B! '$%!
.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!I2(%0422-0%0!,1'4,5!%0',:5*0$)%+'!-.!'$%!1-)2,+=!1-+1%(+%&!
>m
*+!'$%!$-0'!S%):%(!L','%!,+&!'$%!24(04*'!-.!9%+4*+%!%1-+-)*1!,1'*A*'=!'$%(%J@ !!!
!
#$%0%! 0','%)%+'0! 15%,(5=! *+&*1,'%! '$,'! '$%! -:i%1'*A%! -.! %1-+-)*1! *+'%9(,'*-+! *+! '$%!
S%):%(!L','%!-.!&%0'*+,'*-+B!:=!)%,+0!-.!,!.*/%&!%0',:5*0$)%+'!1,((=*+9!-+!*+&%.*+*'%5=!,!
9%+4*+%!%1-+-)*1!,1'*A*'=B!1$,(,1'%(*G%0!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!-.!:-'$!*+&*A*&4,50!
,+&! 1-)2,+*%0! ,0! (%9,(&0! '$%! %/%(1*0%! -.! %*'$%(! '$%! (*9$'! -.! 2(*),(=! -(! '$%! (*9$'! -.!
0%1-+&,(=! %0',:5*0$)%+'@! ! H0! ,! (%045'B! '$%! 0','%)%+'0! 1-45&! ,50-! :%! 04..*1*%+'! '-! 0499%0'!
>>
! >))# )@0@B! Q,0%! QCM;;n<dB! I,"'5# S'-@# ,4# >&,25'-7B# ;<<<! PQU! VC>fc;B! 2,(,@! ;<k! h-*+%&! Q,0%0! QCM<dn<m! ,+&! QC
T;?n<mB!?)2'550)1)551&<'423#>??;!PQU!VC;d>dB!2,(,@!Mdk!Q,0%!QCM;<n?>B!?'--+-)-3!>??T!PQU!VCdTddB!2,(,@!;<k!Q,0%!
QCTTfn?MB!?'*@1A>9)-&)*3!>??c!PQU!VC;?mMdB!2,(,@!><@!
>M
!Q,0%!>d?nmMB!':,+*#4+1&'53#;<mf!PQU!>dMB!2,(,@!>f@!
>T
!Q,0%!>ndTB!I)"-)*13!;<dT!PQU!fM;B!2,(,@!>;k!Q,0%!QC;<fn?TB!('7!%*"#>&<H)99)13#>??f!PQU!VCd<<cB!2,(,@!cM@!
>c
!Q,0%!QCccn<T!M)!<'*7#g;<<co!PQU!VCT;fcB!2,(,@!>cB!Q,0%!QC;<fn?TB!1%9*'!+-'%!>TB!,'!2,(,!@!cM@!!
>f
!Q,0%!QCT;;n?MB!>C^=(#>"12)61B!2,(,@!;m@!
>d
! Q,0%! QC;<fn?TB! 1%9*'# +-'%! >TB! ,'! 2,(,@! cTB! 1*'*+9! Q,0%! QC>>;nm<B! Q'&2,*2'6)3# ;<<;! PQU! VCM<?cB! 2,(,@! >?! ,+&!
Q,0%!QC>Tfnm<B!(,66+11+,-#:.#G-+2)7#B+-07,63!;<<;!PQU!VCTcmcB!2,(,@!>;@!
>m
!Q,0%!QC;<fn?TB!1%9*'#+-'%!>TB!,'!2,(,@!cT@!
;;?>!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
'$,'!1,0%0!-.!'!%1+:)#9*'&2+&)1!',D%!25,1%!8$%(%!-2%(,'-(0!*)2(-2%(5=!%/%(1*0%!'$%!(*9$'!-.!
%0',:5*0$)%+'B!40*+9!*'!.-(!,!&*..%(%+'!-:i%1'*A%@!
!!!!!
#
==.# K<)# (,-&)92# ,4# N!%1+:)# P*'&2+&)1# '1# '# P,11+!5)# a%12+4+&'2+,-# 4,*# I)12*+&2+,-1# ,4# 2<)#
Q*))7,6#,4#C12'!5+1<6)-2#
!
h40'!5*D%!'$%!-:i%1'*A%!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'B!'$%!1-+1%2'!-.!'!%1+:)#9*'&2+&)1!*0!
,!4+*',(=!-+%B!,225=*+9!'-!:-'$!*+&*A*&4,50!,+&!1-)2,+*%0@!3!V'0!2(%0%+1%!1,+!:%!'$%!-+5=!
i40'*.*1,'*-+!-.!+,'*-+,5!)%,04(%0!(%0'(*1'*+9!.(%%&-)!.-(!,+'*C,A-*&,+1%!(%,0-+0!3@!#$%!PQh!
1,0%! 5,8! *0! &%A%5-2*+9! '$%! 1-+1%2'! -.! '!%1)# ,4# *+0<21! 3! -(! '!%1+:)# 9*'&2+&)1! *+! '$%!
02%1'(4)!-.!PE!5,8!,+&!*+!(%5,'*-+!'-!,55!.4+&,)%+',5!.(%%&-)0!*+!1,0%0!*+A-5A*+9!+,'4(,5!
><
,+&! 5%9,5! 2%(0-+0@! #$%! 1-+1%2'! $,0! ,''(,1'%&! *+'%+0%! 01$-5,(5=! &%:,'%! ,55! -A%(! P4(-2%@ !!
p*'$!02%1*.*1!(%9,(&!'-!'$%!%/%(1*0%!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!,+&!'$%!,(%,!-.!&*(%1'!
',/,'*-+B!'$%!>??f!('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1!(45*+9!1,+!:%!(%9,(&%&!,0!'$%!)-0'!0*9+*.*1,+'B!,0!
'$%! PQh! +-'! -+5=! &%.*+%&! '$%! ,:40*A%! 2(,1'*1%0B! ! :=! (%,..*()*+9! ,! &%.*+*'*-+! ,5(%,&=!
2(-A*&%&! *+! 0%A%(,5! 2(%A*-40! (45*+90B! :4'! ,50-! *+&*1,'%&! $-8! '$%! %/*0'%+1%! -.! ,+! ,:40*A%!
M?
2(,1'*1%!1-45&!:%!&%'%1'%&@ !!
!!!!!!!
V+!'$,'!1,0%B!,!EF!1-)2,+=!$,&!0%'!42!,!04:0*&*,(=!*+!V(%5,+&!.-(!'$%!24(2-0%!-.!$,A*+9!'$%!
04:0*&*,(=j0! 2(-.*'0! ',/%&! ,'! '$%! V(*0$! 1-(2-(,'%! ',/! (,'%B! 8$*1$! 8,0! 04:0',+'*,55=! 5-8%(!
'$,+! '$%! ,225*1,:5%! EF! 1-(2-(,'%! ',/! (,'%@! p$*50'! '$%! EF! ',/! ,4'$-(*'=B! ,11-(&*+9! '-! EF!
5,8B!$,&!,225*%&!*'0!+,'*-+,5!Q-+'(-55%&!X-(%*9+!Q-)2,+*%0!6QXQ7!5%9*05,'*-+!6:=!,''(*:4'*+9!
'-!'$%!EF!2,(%+'!1-)2,+=!'$%!2(-.*'0!,11(4%&!'-!'$%!V(*0$!04:0*&*,(=7B!'$%!PQhB!*+!,00%00*+9!
'$%!*+1-)2,'*:*5*'=!-.!EF!QXQ!',/!5%9*05,'*-+!8*'$!PE!5,8!3!0','%&!,9,*+!'$,'!,('0@!T<!,+&!cT!
><
! H)-+9! '$%! +4)%(-40! 1-+'(*:4'*-+0[! W-4*0! N%A*55%! a(-8+B! =1# 2<)*)# '# 0)-)*'5# 9*+-&+95)# ,4# '!%1)# ,4# *+0<21# +-#
C%*,9)'-#(,66%-+2"#$'HXB!+-!VNL#V#E#VONHW!R_NHSVQL!OX!PEUOZPHN!VN#P]UH#VONB!e-5@!VV!c;;B!c;MCc;c!6R%*(&(%!Q4('*+!
`!#-)!^%4D%50!%&0@B!;<<T7k!H+&%(0!Fi559(%+B!/-#2<)#S,*7)*#,4#N!%1)UK<)#a%*+19*%7)-&)#,4#2<)#C%*,9)'-#(,%*2#,4#
a%12+&)#,-#&+*&%6:)-2+,-3#4*'%7#'-7#,2<)*#6+1%1)1#,4#(,66%-+2"#$'HB!;;! PEUOZPHN! aELVNPLL! WHp! UPeVPp!;d<C;<T!
6>???7k!F,(0'%+!P+90*9@L-(%+0%+B!N!%1)#,4#I+0<21#+-#(,66%-+2"#$'HE#N#P*+-&+95)#,4#>%!12'-&)#,*#?)*)5"#I<)2,*+&3!
TM! QOSSON! SHUFP#! WHp! UPeVPp! T>MCTc<! 6>??f7k! Z*%((%! L1$,))-B! N*!+2*'0)# '-7# N!%1)# ,4# I+0<21# +-# C(# $)0'5#
>"12)6B!;T!PEUOZPHN!WHp!hOEUNHW!M3#Mc;CMdf!6>??m7k!U*',!&%!5,!X%(*,B!P*,<+!+2+,-#,4#'!%1)#,4#Z(,66%-+2"\#$'HE#K<)#
(*)'2+,-#,4#'#-)H#0)-)*'5#9*+-&+95)#,4#C(#5'H#2<*,%0<#2'DB!Tc!QOSSON!SHUFP#!WHp!UPeVPp!M<cCTT;!6>??m7@!!!
M?
! #$*0! (45*+9! $,0! ,50-! :%%+! ,''(,1'*+9! 8*&%! 01$-5,(5=! &%:,'%k! *+'%(! ,5*,[! h,+! L%&%)4+&B! ('7!%*"e>&<H)99)1E!
S*+2+1&<)# I)0)5%-0)-# 8%*# j+-8%*)&<-%-01!)12)%)*%-0# -%*# +6# Q'55)# *)+-# @`-125+&<)*# M)12'52%-0)-#
)%*,9'*)&<21@,-4,*6B! aP#UVPaLCaPUH#PU! >;;<C>;>?! 6>??f7k! Z$*5*2! a,D%(B! P)-7+-0# ('1)1# Q+5)7# !"# GB# (,%*21# =E# K<)#
('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1#('1)3#2<)#(Q(#'-7#F+:+7)-7#M$/#'-7#2<)#^,7'4,-)#b#('1)3!PQh!UPQPN#!RPePWOZSPN#L!VN!RVUPQ#!
#HbH#VONB!M;;CM>;!6S*1$,%5!W,+9B!h-0%2$!L1$41$!`!Q5,40!L',(*+9%(!%&0@B!>??f7k!S,+.(%&!Fs25*+!`!h,+!L%&%)4+&[!
F'1# S?QU>&<*)+!)-# :,6# k.# c.# bddl# U%-2'%05+&<3# 7+)# CMUI)&<21H+7*+0@)+2# 7)*# 7)%21&<)-#
j+-8%*)&<-%-01!)12)%)*%-0# -'&<# ('7!%*"# >&<H)99)1# 8%# !)1)+2+0)-m3! aP#UVPaLCaPUH#PU! >TTC>Tm! 6>??d7k! S,4(-!
a%9$*+B! $'# 1)-2)-8'# ('7!%*"# >&<H)99)1# )# +5# J6'55)'!+5)L# 9*+-&+9+,# 7)55'# 5+!)*2n# # 7+# 12'!+5+6)-2,3! c?! UHLLP]NH!
#UVaE#HUVH!!<mMC<<M!6>??d7k!!](,$,)%!#4(+%(B!K<)#$)0+2+6'&"#,4#(Q(#$)0+15'2+,-#_+2<+-#2<)#(,66%-+2"3!<! #^P! PQ!
#Hb!hOEUNHW!>MCTd!6>??d7@!!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;?M!
M;
-.! '$%! #(%,'=B ! :=! 9(,+'*+9! '$%! (*9$'! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'B! $,A%! '$%! 45'*),'%! 24(2-0%! -.!
,00*0'*+9! %1-+-)*1! ,+&! 0-1*,5! *+'%(2%+%'(,'*-+! 8*'$*+! '$%! *+'%(+,5! ),(D%'! ,+&! 0'(%00%&!
'$,'!'$*0!24(2-0%!1-45&!+-'!:%!,1$*%A%&!*+!'$%!1,0%!-.!,!I5%''%(C:-/J!-(!I.(-+'J!04:0*&*,(=!
M>
8$*1$!&-%0!+-'!1,((=!-4'!,+=!%1-+-)*1!,1'*A*'=!*+!'$%!$-0'!L','%@ !!O+!'$%0%!9(-4+&0B!'$%!
PQh!(%,1$%&!'$%!1-+1540*-+!'$,'!'$%!QXQ!5%9*05,'*-+!8,0!*+1-)2,'*:5%!8*'$!,('0@!T<!,+&!cT!
-.!'$%!#(%,'=!,+&!1-45&!'$40!+-'!:%!,225*%&B!4+5%00!'$,'!,225*1,'*-+!0%(A%0!-+5=!'-!2(%A%+'!
MM
H<,55"#'*2+4+&+'5#'**'-0)6)-21#+-2)-7)7#2,#)1&'9)#2<)#-'2+,-'5#2'D#-,*6'55"#9'"'!5)@ !!V+!
(%.%((*+9! '-! 8$-55=! ,('*.*1*,5! ,((,+9%)%+'0B! '$%! PQh! (%,..*()%&! '$%! &%.*+*'*-+! -.! ,:40*A%!
MT
2(,1'*1%0! '$,'! *'! $,&! ,5(%,&=! 40%&! *+! 0%A%(,5! 2(%A*-40! ',/! 5,8! (45*+90B ! :4'! *'! ,50-! 8%+'!
.,('$%(! :=! 02%1*.=*+9! '$,'! QXQ! 5%9*05,'*-+! )40'! +-'! :%! ,225*%&! 8$%(%B! -+! '$%! :,0*0! -.!
-:i%1'*A%! .,1'-(0! 8$*1$! '$%! *+'%(%0'%&! 1-)2,+=! )40'! :%! ,55-8%&! '-! &%)-+0'(,'%B! ,+&!
8$*1$! )40'! :%! ,01%(',*+,:5%! :=! '$*(&! 2,('*%0B! *'! *0! 2(-A%+! '$,'B! 7)19+2)# 2'D# 6,2+:)1B! '$%!
04:0*&*,(=! *0! ,1'4,55=! %0',:5*0$%&! *+! '$%! $-0'! L',9%! ,+&! 1,((*%0! -4'! ,! 0)-%+-)! %1-+-)*1!
Mc
,1'*A*'=@ !!#$%!-:i%1'*A%!.,1'-(0!8$*1$!)40'!:%!&%)-+0'(,'%&!(%5,'%B!*+!2,('*145,(B!'-!'$%!
Mf
2$=0*1,5!%/*0'%+1%!-.!'$%!04:0*&*,(=!*+!'%()0!-.!2(%)*0%0B!0',..B!,+&!%l4*2)%+'@ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
V+!,&&*'*-+!'-!*+&*1,'*+9!'$%!%A*&%+1%!'-!:%!1-+0*&%(%&!.-(!&*0'*+94*0$*+9!1,0%0!-.!9%+4*+%!
%0',:5*0$)%+'! .(-)! 8$-55=! ,('*.*1*,5! ,((,+9%)%+'0B! '$%! PQh! *&%+'*.*%&! '$%! 1-+0'*'4%+'!
%5%)%+'0!-.!8$-55=!,('*.*1*,5!,((,+9%)%+'0!,+&!*'!&*&!0-!:=!,225=*+9!,!'8-.-5&!'%0'!'$,'!*'!
Md
$,&!&%A%5-2%&!*+!'$%!C615'-7U>2'*@) !(45*+9!*+!'$%!1-))-+!,9(*145'4(,5!2-5*1=!.*%5&B!,+&!
Mm
*+! '$%! j'5+4'D! (45*+9 ! *+! '$%! e,54%! H&&%&! #,/! 6eH#7! .*%5&@! a=! I*)2-('*+9J! *+'-! '$%! &*(%1'!
',/,'*-+!.*%5&!'$%!%5%)%+'0!-.!,:40%!-.!(*9$'0!'$,'!*'!$,&!*&%+'*.*%&!*+!'$-0%!(45*+90B!'$%!PQh!
0'(%00%&!'$,'B!.-(!,!8$-55=!,('*.*1*,5!,((,+9%)%+'!'-!%/*0'!!
!
g#o$%(%! )40'! :%B! *+! ,&&*'*-+! '-! ,! 04:i%1'*A%! %5%)%+'!
1-+0*0'*+9! *+! '$%! *+'%+'*-+! '-! -:',*+! ,! ',/! ,&A,+',9%B!
-:i%1'*A%! 1*(14)0',+1%0! 0$-8*+9! '$,'B! &%02*'%! .-(),5!
-:0%(A,+1%! -.! '$%! 1-+&*'*-+0! 5,*&! &-8+! :=! Q-))4+*'=!
M;
!!p$*1$!8%(%!+4):%(%&B!(%02%1'*A%5=B!H('@!TM!,+&!H('@!Tm!-.!'$%!PQ!#(%,'=!,'!'$%!'*)%!-.!'$%!PQh!(45*+9@!
M>
!Q,0%!QC;<fn?TB!1%9*'!+-'%!>TB!,'!2,(,@!fm@!
MM
!=7.!,'!2,(,@!dc@!
MT
!C.0.3!Q,0%!QC>fTn<fB!1%9*'#+-'%!>T!,'B!2,(,@!>fk!Q,0%!QCM>Tn??B!$'-@<,*12Uj,<,*123!>??>!PQU!VC;;dd<B!2,(,@!Mdk!
Q,0%! QC<n?>B! F)# $'12)"*+)# 7%# >'+55'-2B! >??T! PQU! VC>T?<B! 2,(,@! T<k! Q,0%! QCTTfn?MB! ?'*@1# A# >9)-&)*3! >??c! PQU! VC
;?mMdB!2,(,@!cd@!
Mc
!Q,0%!QC;<fn?TB!1%9*'!+-'%!>TB!,'!2,(,@!fcCff@!
Mf
!=7.!,'!2,(,@!fd@!
Md
!Q,0%!QC;;?n<<B!C615'-7U>2'*@)3#>???B!PQU!VC;;cf<B!2,(,@!c>!,+&!cM@!
Mm
!Q,0%!QC>ccn?>B!j'5+4'D!g>??foB!2,(,@!dT!,+&!dc@!
;;?T!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
5,8B! '$%! -:i%1'*A%! 24(04%&! :=! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.!
%0',:5*0$)%+'|6*@%@B! ,00*0'*+9! %1-+-)*1! ,+&! 0-1*,5!
*+'%(2%+%'(,'*-+! 8*'$*+! '$%! PE! '$(-49$! ,! 9%+4*+%!
%1-+-)*1! ,1'*A*'=! *+! '$%! $-0'! L','%7|$,0! +-'! :%%+!
M<
,1$*%A%&@ !!!!!
!!!!!
('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1!'$40!0$-8%&!'$%!,225*1,'*-+!-.!'$%!0,)%!'%0'!6*+154&*+9!'$%!04:i%1'*A%!
,+&!'$%!-:i%1'*A%!%5%)%+'07!.-(!*&%+'*.=*+9!'$%!,:40*A%!2(,1'*1%0!.(-)!-+%!,(%,!-.!PE!5,8!
'-!,+-'$%(B!,+&!15,(*.*%&!'$,'B!*+!'$%!.*%5&!-.!&*(%1'!',/!5,8B!8$-55=!,('*.*1*,5!,((,+9%)%+'0!3!
041$! ,0! '$%! 0%''*+9! 42! *+! -'$%(! S%):%(! L','%0! -.! 04:0*&*,(*%0! +-'! 1,((=*+9! -+! 9%+4*+%!
%1-+-)*1!,1'*A*'*%0!3!,(%!0=+-+=)-40!-.!,:40%@!Q-+0%l4%+'5=B!.(-)!('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1!*'!
*0!,50-!2-00*:5%!'-!&%&41%!'$,'!,!IEC'(,+0,1'*-+J!3!041$!,0!'$%!1(%,'*-+!-.!,!04:0*&*,(=!:=!,!
+,'*-+,5!-.!S%):%(!L','%!H!*+!S%):%(!L','%!a!.-(!',/!0,A*+90!(%,0-+B!,+&!'$%!.,1'!'$,'!'$%!
,1'*A*'=! -.! '$%! 04:0*&*,(=! *0! 6'+-5"! &*(%1'%&! '-8,(&0! S%):%(! L','%! H! 3! ,)-4+'0! '-!
1*(14)A%+'*-+! 8$*1$! *0! -,2! I8$-55=! ,('*.*1*,5JB! *@%@B! 8$*1$! *0! +-'! ,:40%B! *.! '$%! 04:0*&*,(=!
1,((*%0!-+!0-)%!9%+4*+%!,1'*A*'=!*+!S%):%(!L','%!a@!!!!!
!!!!
N-+%'$%5%00B!'$%!.,1'!'$,'B!*+!('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1B!'$%!PQh!1-+0*&%(%&!*+!2(*+1*25%!'$%!1,0%!
-.! I5%''%(C:-/J! ,+&! I.(-+'C04:0*&*,(*%0J! ,0! .,55*+9! 8*'$*+! '$%! I8$-55=! ,('*.*1*,5!
,((,+9%)%+'0J!'$,'!S%):%(!L','%0!1,+!1-):,'!3!,+&!'$40B!*)25*%&5=B!8*'$*+!'$%!1-+1%2'!
-.! ,:40%! 3! 9*A%0! (*0%! '-! '$%! l4%0'*-+! -.! 8$%'$%(! ,+&! $-8! ('7!%*"# >&<H)99)1! 1,+! :%!
T?
(%1-+1*5%&!8*'$!'$%!;<<<!()-2*,1!(45*+9@ !!N-',:5=B!*+!()-2*,1B!R,+*0$!+,'*-+,50!$,&!0%'!42!
,!2(*A,'%!1-)2,+=!*+!'$%!EF!,+&!'$*0!1-)2,+=!$,&!-2%+%&!,!:(,+1$!*+!R%+),(DB!8$%(%!,55!
:40*+%00! ,1'*A*'=! 8,0! &%%)%&! '-! :%! 1,((*%&! -4'@! H5'$-49$! '$%! (%5%A,+'! R,+*0$! ,4'$-(*'=!
$,&! (%.40%&! '-! (%9*0'%(! '$%! :(,+1$! -+! '$%! 9(-4+&! '$,'! '$%! R,+*0$! .-4+&%(0! -.! '$%! EF!
1-)2,+=!$,&!1*(14)A%+'%&!2(-A*0*-+0!-.!R,+*0$!1-)2,+=!5,8!(%l4*(*+9!,!)*+*)4)!0$,(%!
1,2*',5!.-(!'$%!24(2-0%!-.!2(-'%1'*+9!1(%&*'-(0B!'$%!PQh!$,&!(%i%1'%&!'$*0!2-0*'*-+@!!#$%!PQh!
$,&!%00%+'*,55=!.-4+&!'$,'!'$%!(%.40,5!'-!(%9*0'%(!'$%!:(,+1$!8-45&!2(%A%+'!'$%!1-)2,+=!
%0',:5*0$%&!*+!'$%!EF!:=!'$%!R,+*0$!+,'*-+,50!.(-)!%/%(1*0*+9!*'0!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!
T;
94,(,+'%%&!:=!'$%!#(%,'=B !,+&!'$,'!'$%(%!8,0!+-!2(-A%+!2(%i4&*1%!'-!1(%&*'-(0B!8$-!8%(%!
,:5%!'-!D+-8B!'$%!PQh!$*9$5*9$'%&B!'$,'!'$%!1-)2,+=!8,0!9-A%(+%&!:=!'$%!5,8!-.!,!S%):%(!
L','%! -'$%(! '$,+! R%+),(D! ,+&! 8%(%! ,:5%! '-! (%.%(! '-! 1%(',*+! (45%0! -.! PE! 5,8! 2(-'%1'*+9!
T>
'$%)@ !
!!!!!
a%1,40%!*+!()-2*,1!'$%!2,(%+'!1-)2,+=!*+!'$%!EF!$,&!-+5=!'$%!(%9*0'%(%&!-..*1%!'$%(%!,+&!
8,0! ,(94,:5=! '$%! D*+&! -.! I5%''%(C:-/J! -(! I.(-+'J! 1-)2,+=! '$,'B! ,11-(&*+9! '-! ('7!%*"#
M<
!Q,0%!QC;<fn?TB!1%9*'#+-'%!>TB!,'#2,(,@!fT@!
T?
!Q,0%!QC>;>n<dB!()-2*,13!;<<<!PQU!VC;Tc<@!
T;
!=7.#'2#2,(,@!>;@!
T>
!=7.#'2#!2,(,@!Mf@!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;?c!
>&<H)99)1B! ,! 04:0*&*,(=! 1-45&! +-'! :%B! 2,('! -.! '$%! 5*'%(,'4(%! $,0! .-4+&! *'! &*..*145'! '-!
TM
(%1-+1*5%! '$%! '8-! (45*+90! ,+&! $,0! '$40! 0%%+! ,! 1$,+9%! *+! '$%! PQh! 1,0%C5,8@ ! ! ^-8%A%(B! *+!
'$%! ,4'$-(j0! A*%8B! *'! *0! 2-00*:5%! '-! (%1-+1*5%! '$%! '8-! (45*+90! :=! $,A*+9! (%9,(&! '-! '$%!
1-+0%l4%+1%0! -.! '$%! ,((,+9%)%+'0! ,'! 0',D%! *+! '$%! 1-+1(%'%! 1,0%0! .-(! '$*(&! 2,('*%0j!
*+'%(%0'0@! ! #$*0! 2%(02%1'*A%! 0$-80! '$%! 0*)*5,(*'=! -.! '$%! 1-+1%2'! -.! ,:40%! *+! '$%! 1-)2,+=!
5,8! .*%5&! ,+&! *+! '$%! ',/! 5,8! .*%5&B! &%02*'%! ,! &*..%(%+'! '%()*+-5-9=[! '$%! 1$-*1%! -.! ,! )-(%!
.,A-(,:5%!1-)2,+=!5,8!5%9*05,'*-+!6I.-(4)C0$-22*+9J7B!A*,!,!IEC'(,+0,1'*-+JB!*0!+-'!-+!*'0!
-8+!04..*1*%+'!'-!2(-A%!,:40%!8*'$-4'!,!2(-A%+!2(%i4&*1%!'-!'$%!2(-'%1'*-+!-.!02%1*.*1!'$*(&!
2,('*%0j! *+'%(%0'0! 6041$! ,0! 1(%&*'-(0B! *+! ()-2*,17! '-! '$%! 0,)%! %/'%+'! ,0! '$%! 1$-*1%! '-!
%/%(1*0%! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! *+! ,! S%):%(! L','%! 8*'$! ,! )-(%! .,A-(,:5%! ',/!
5%9*05,'*-+!'$,+!'$%!S%):%(!L','%!-.!-(*9*+!*0!+-'!04..*1*%+'!'-!2(-A%!,:40%!6*@%@B!'-!2(-A%!,!
I8$-55=! ,('*.*1*,5! ,((,+9%)%+'J7@! ! ^-8%A%(! *'! 1,+! :%1-)%! 0-! *.! '$%! ,:0%+1%! -.! ,! 9%+4*+%!
%1-+-)*1!,1'*A*'=!*+!'$%!$-0'!S%):%(!L','%!0$-80!'$,'!'$%!,-5"!-:i%1'*A%!6,+&!-4'1-)%7!
1-+0*0'0! -.! ,! 2(%i4&*1%! '-! '$%! .*+,+1*,5! *+'%(%0'! -.! '$%! S%):%(! L','%! -.! -(*9*+! 6('7!%*"#
>&<H)99)17@!!V+!,&&*'*-+B!'$%!'8-!(45*+90!1-45&!+-'!:%!0%%+!,0!*+1-+0*0'%+'!8*'$!%,1$!-'$%(!
1-+0*&%(*+9! '$,'B! *+! ()-2*,1B! '$%! 0%1-+&,(=! %0',:5*0$)%+'! *+! R%+),(D! 40%&! '-! 1,((=! -+! ,!
9%+4*+%! %1-+-)*1! ,1'*A*'=B! ,+&! 8-45&! $,A%! '$40! )%'! '$%! (%l4*(%)%+'! -.! +-'! :%*+9! ,!
I5%''%(C:-/J! -(! I.(-+'C04:0*&*,(=J! :(,+1$! ,0! 0%'! -4'! :=! '$%! PQh! *+! ('7!%*"# >&<H)99)1! '-!
*&%+'*.=! '$%! 1,0%0! 8$%+! '$%! 40%! -.! '$%! .(%%&-)! '-! 0%'! 42! 0%1-+&,(=! %0',:5*0$)%+'0! *0!
2(-'%1'%&!:=!'$%!#(%,'=!&4%!'-!*'0!+-'!:%*+9!,+!'!%1+:)#9*'&2+&)@!!!!!
!!!!!
#$%! 1-+1%2'! -.! ,:40%! ,0! ,! 8$-55=! ,('*.*1*,5! ,((,+9%)%+'! (%045'*+9! *+! ,! 2(%i4&*1%! '-! '$%!
.*+,+1*,5!*+'%(%0'!-.!,!S%):%(!L','%!8,0!1-+.*()%&B!,+&!02%1*.*%&!*+!9(%,'%(!&%',*5B!*+!'$%!
TT
$'66)*1 # (45*+9@! ! a%59*,+! ',/! ,4'$-(*'=B! :=! ,225=*+9! ,! +,'*-+,5! ,+'*C,:40%! 2(-A*0*-+B!
(%15,00*.*%&! *+'%(%0'! 2,*&! :=! ,! a%59*,+! 04:0*&*,(=! -+! .4+&0! 5%+'! :=! '$%! 2,(%+'! 1-)2,+=!
%0',:5*0$%&! *+! ,+-'$%(! S%):%(! L','%! ,0! ',/,:5%! &*A*&%+&0! 0*+1%! *+'%(%0'! 2,=)%+'0!
%/1%%&%&! 5*)*'0@! ! #$%! a%59*,+! ',/! 5%9*05,'*-+! '$40! *+'(-&41%&! ,! &*..%(%+1%! *+! '(%,')%+'!
:%'8%%+! (%0*&%+'! 04:0*&*,(*%0! ,11-(&*+9! '-! 8$%'$%(! -(! +-'! '$%*(! 2,(%+'! 1-)2,+*%0! ,(%!
0%,'%&! *+! a%59*4)@! ! #$%! PQh! 3! 1-+0*0'%+'! 8*'$! *'0! 2(%A*-40! 1,0%C5,8! 3! (%9,(&%&! '$*0!
&*..%(%+'*,5! '(%,')%+'! ,0! 1(%,'*+9! ,! (%0'(*1'*-+! -+! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! -+! '$%!
9(-4+&! '$,'! *'! ),&%! *'! 5%00! ,''(,1'*A%! .-(! 1-)2,+*%0! :,0%&! *+! -'$%(! S%):%(! L','%0! '-!
1(%,'%!,!04:0*&*,(=!*+!a%59*4)@!!H5'$-49$!,!+,'*-+,5!)%,04(%!1(%,'*+9!'$*0!(%0'(*1'*-+!'-!'$%!
.(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! 1-45&! :%! i40'*.*%&B! '$%! PQh! %/25,*+%&B! 8$%+! ',(9%'*+9! H<,55"#
'*2+4+&+'5# '**'-0)6)-21! &%0*9+%&! '-! 1*(14)A%+'! +,'*-+,5! 5%9*05,'*-+! -.! '$%! S%):%(! L','%0!
1-+1%(+%&B!!
!
gVo+! -(&%(! .-(! ,! (%0'(*1'*-+! -+! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.!
%0',:5*0$)%+'! '-! :%! i40'*.*%&! -+! '$%! 9(-4+&! -.!
TM
! U*',! &%! 5,! X%(*,B! P*,<+!+2+,-# ,4# '!%1)# ,4# Z(,66%-+2"\# 5'HE# 2<)# &*)'2+,-# ,4# '# -)H# 0)-)*'5# 9*+-&+95)# ,4# C(# $'H#
2<*,%0<#2'DB!Tc!QOSSON!SHUFP#!WHp!UPeVPp!M<cB!T>mCT><!6>??m7@!
TT
!Q,0%!QC;?cn?dB!$'66)*A^'-#(5))4413!>??m!PQU!VC;dM@!
;;?f!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
2(%A%+'*-+!-.!,:40*A%!2(,1'*1%0B!'$%!02%1*.*1!-:i%1'*A%!-.!
041$!,!(%0'(*1'*-+!)40'!:%!'-!2(%A%+'!1-+&41'!*+A-5A*+9!
'$%!1(%,'*-+!-.!8$-55=!,('*.*1*,5!,((,+9%)%+'0!8$*1$!&-!
+-'!(%.5%1'!%1-+-)*1!(%,5*'=B!H+2<#'#:+)H#2,#)1&'9+-0#2<)#
2'D# -,*6'55"# 7%)# ,-# 2<)# 9*,4+21# 9%+%(,'%&! :=! ,1'*A*'*%0!
Tc
1,((*%&!-4'!-+!+,'*-+,5!'%((*'-(=@ !
!
#$*0! 0','%)%+'B! -+! '$%! -+%! $,+&B! 1-+.*()0! '$,'! *+! '$%! PQh! ',/! 1,0%5,8! '!%1+:)# 9*'&2+&)1!
1-*+1*&%! 8*'$! H<,55"# '*2+4+&+'5# '**'-0)6)-21@! ! O+! '$%! -'$%(! $,+&B! *'! ),D%0! %A%+! )-(%!
%/25*1*'! '$,+! *+! ('7!%*"# >&<H)99)1! '$,'! 2(%i4&*1*+9! '$%! .*+,+1*,5! *+'%(%0'0! -.! S%):%(!
L','%0B! 8*'$-4'! ,! 1-((%02-+&*+9! %1-+-)*1! ,1'*A*'=B! ),D%0! ,+! ,((,+9%)%+'! ,:40*A%@!!
Q-+0%l4%+'5=B! *+! '$%! ,4'$-(j0! A*%8B! *'! *0! 2-00*:5%! '-! (%1-+1*5%! ()-2*,1! 8*'$! ('7!%*"#
>&<H)99)1! ,+&! $'66)*1B! :=! +-'*+9! '$,'! '$%! PQh! $,0! %/2(%00%&! '$%! &*0'*+1'*-+! :%'8%%+!
Tf
)%(%!1*(14)A%+'*-+!,+&!,:40%!8*'$!,!&*..%(%+'!,22(-,1$@!!V+!()-2*,1B !*'!$,0!&-+%!0-!8*'$!
I2-0*'*A%J! 5,+94,9%B! :=! %00%+'*,55=! *+&*1,'*+9! H<)-# ,! 1*(14)A%+'*-+! +1# '55,H)7! ,+&! :=!
02%1*.=*+9!'$,'!*'!*0!,55-8%&!H<)-!*'!&-%0!+-'!1,40%!,!2(%i4&*1%!'-!'$*(&!2,('*%0j!2(-'%1'*-+@!
V+!('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1!,+&!$'66)*1B!*'!$,0!&-+%!0-!8*'$!I+%9,'*A%J!5,+94,9%!:=!*+&*1,'*+9B!
45'*),'%5=B!8$%+!,!1*(14)A%+'*-+!3!I8$-55=!,('*.*1*,5!,((,+9%)%+'J!3!*0!-,2#'55,H)73!,+&!:=!
15,(*.=*+9!'$,'!*'!*0!+-'!,55-8%&!8$%+!*'!,-5"#1,40%0#'#9*)R%7+&)!'-!'$%!.*+,+1*,5!*+'%(%0'0!6',/!
(%A%+4%07! -.! '$%! S%):%(! L','%! -.! -(*9*+B! 8$*1$! *0! '$%! 1,0%! *+! '$%! ,:0%+1%! -.! ,! 9%+4*+%!
Td
%1-+-)*1!,1'*A*'=!*+!'$%!$-0'!L','%@!!S-(%-A%(B!*+!'$%!(%1%+'!Q,00+'#(45*+9 !1-+1%(+*+9!'$%!
Tm
,225*1,'*-+!-.!'$%!,+'*C,:40%!15,40%!-.!'$%!S%(9%(!R*(%1'*A%B !'$%!PQh!(%,..*()%&B!,0!*'!$,&!
T<
2(%A*-405=!&-+%B !'$,'!'$*0!,+'*C,:40%!15,40%!I(%.5%1'0!'$%!9%+%(,5!2(*+1*25%!-.!PE!5,8!'$,'!
,:40%! -.! (*9$'0! *0! 2(-$*:*'%&J! ,+&! 1*'%&! ,0! (%5%A,+'! 2(%A*-40! (45*+90! 1-+1%(+*+9! '$*0!
c?
2(*+1*25%!(45*+90!*004%&!*+!&*..%(%+'!,(%,0B!+,)%5=!'$%!j'5+4'D!(45*+9 !*+!'$%!eH#!,(%,B!'$%!
c;
1-)2,+=! 5,8! ()-2*,1! (45*+9 ! 1-+1%(+*+9! '$%! %/%(1*0%! -.! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'B!
c>
,+&! '$%! 2(%A*-40! B,4,)7# (45*+9 ! (%9,(&*+9! '$%! ,+'*C,:40%! 15,40%! -.! '$%! S%(9%(! R*(%1'*A%!
*'0%5.@!!#,D*+9!*+'-!1-+0*&%(,'*-+!'$,'!*+'(,CPE!)%(9%(0!$,A%!:%%+!(%9,(&%&!:=!'$%!PQh!,0!
-+%!-.!'$%!)%'$-&0!.-(!1-)2,+*%0!'-!%/%(1*0%!'$%*(!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'B!'$%!Q,00+'#
Tc
!=7.!,'!2,(,@!>m@!
Tf
!Q,0%!QC>;>n<dB!1%9*'!+-'%!T?@!
Td
!Q,0%!QC;>fn;?B!Q,00+'B!>?;;@!
Tm
! H('@! ;;6,7! -.! R*(%1'*A%! <?nTMTnPPQ! -.! >M! h45=! ;<<?B! 04:0%l4%+'5=! (%25,1%&! :=! R*(%1'*A%! >??<n;MMnPQ! -.! ;<!
O1'-:%(!>??<@!
T<
!Q,0%!QCM>;n?cB!1%9*'#+-'%!mB!,'!Mm@!
c?
!Q,0%!QC>ccn?>B!1%9*'#+-'%!Mm@!
c;
!Q,0%!QC>;>n<dB!1%9*'!+-'%!T?@!
c>
!Q,0%!QCM>;n?c!B1%9*'#+-'%!m@!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;?d!
(45*+9! -..%(0! .4('$%(! *+24'0! -+! $-8! '-! &%'%1'! I8$-55=! ,('*.*1*,5! ,((,+9%)%+'0J! *+! '$-0%!
2,('*145,(!0*'4,'*-+0!8$%(%!!,2<!',/C0,A*+90!-:i%1'*A%0!,+&!+-+C',/!-:i%1'*A%0!,(%!*+&*1,'%&!
:=!'$%!%1-+-)*1!-2%(,'-(0@!!
!
V+!'$*0!(45*+9!'$%!PQh!8%+'!0-!.,(!,0!'-!02%1*.=!'$%!1-+1%2'!-.!IA,5*&!1-))%(1*,5!(%,0-+0J!
,+&! '$%! (%5,'*-+! :%'8%%+! -'$%(! -:i%1'*A%0! ,+&! ',/C0,A*+90! -:i%1'*A%0! 8$*1$! 0$-45&! %/*0'!
8$%+!:-'$!D*+&0!-.!-:i%1'*A%0!,(%!24(04%&!*+!-(&%(!.-(!,!)%(9%(!+-'!'-!.,55!8*'$*+!'$%!,+'*C
,:40%!15,40%!-.!'$%!S%(9%(!R*(%1'*A%@!H!Z-('494%0%!$-5&*+9!1-)2,+=!$,&!,1l4*(%&!'$(%%!
-'$%(! 1-)2,+*%0! 8$-! $,&! *+14((%&! 4+4'*5*G%&! 5-00%0! .-(! ,! +4):%(! -.! =%,(0B! ,+&! $,&!
(%l4%0'%&! '$%! ',/! ,4'$-(*'*%0! '-! ,55-8! '$%0%! 5-00%0! '-! :%! 0%'! -..! ,9,*+0'! *'0! -8+! ',/,:5%!
2(-.*'0@!#$%!',/!,4'$-(*'*%0!(%.40%&!'-!,55-8!'$%!&%&41'*-+!-.!5-00%0!-.!-+%!-.!'$%!,1l4*(%&!
1-)2,+=!8$-!$,&!1,((*%&!-4'!+-!,1'*A*'*%0B!$,&!9%+%(,'%&!+-!2(-.*'B!$,&!*+A%0'%&!-+5=!*+!
0%14(*'*%0B! ,+&! $,&! *+14((%&! ',/! 5-00%0! ,)-4+'*+9! '-! ,22(-/*),'%5=! }>! )*55*-+@! #$%!
,1l4*(*+9!1-)2,+=!,(94%&!'$,'!'$%!)%(9%(!,+&!(%045'*+9!(%0'(41'4(*+9!9%+%(,'%&!:%+%.*'0!
*+!'%()0!-.!0,A*+90!*+!,&)*+*0'(,'*A%!,+&!),+,9%)%+'!1-0'0B!,+&!'$,'!'$%0%!-'$%(!(%,0-+0!
1-+0'*'4'%&!A,5*&!1-))%(1*,5!(%,0-+0@!
!
#$%! PQhB! ,.'%(! (%1,55*+9! *'0! 2(%A*-40! 1,0%! 5,8! 4+&%(! 8$*1$! *+! -(&%(! .-(! '$%(%! '-! :%! A,5*&!
1-))%(1*,5! (%,0-+0! ,! )%(9%(! )40'! :%! )-'*A,'%&! :=! )-(%! '$,+! 24(%5=! ',/! ,&A,+',9%0B!
(%,..*()%&!'$,'B!*.!0%A%(,5!-:i%1'*A%0!,(%!*+A-5A%&B!',/!1-+0*&%(,'*-+0!0$-45&!+-'!&-)*+,'%@!!
#$%! PQh! ,11%2'%&! '$,'B! &%02*'%! '$%! .,1'! '$,'! '$%! ,1l4*(%&! 1-)2,+=! &*&! +-'! 1,((=! -4'!
,1'*A*'*%0!,+&!'$%!*+'%+'*-+!-.!'$%!,1l4*(*+9!1-)2,+=!'-!',D%!-A%(!'$%!5-00%0B!*'!1-45&!0'*55!
:%!2-00*:5%!.-(!'$%!)%(9%(!'-!:%!1,((*%&!-4'!.-(!A,5*&!1-))%(1*,5!(%,0-+0B!,+&!,50-!0','%&!
'$,'! (%0'(41'4(*+90! ,+&! (,'*-+,5*G,'*-+0! 4+&%(',D%+! .-(! 1-0'C0,A*+9! 24(2-0%0! 1,+! *+A-5A%!
A,5*&!1-))%(1*,5!(%,0-+0!4+&%(!'$%!S%(9%(!R*(%1'*A%@!!N%A%('$%5%00B!*'!0'(%00%&!'$,'B!8$%+!
&%1*&*+9! 8$%'$%(! ,+! -2%(,'*-+! .,550! 4+&%(! '$*0! 1,'%9-(=B! 2<)# 5):)5# ,4# 2<)# *)1%52+-0# 2'D#
'7:'-2'0)1!0$-45&!:%!',D%+!*+'-!,11-4+'@!!#$%!PQh!1-+154&%&!'$,'!'$%!9(-42j0!1-0'!0,A*+90!
8%(%! 6'*0+-'5# H<)-# &,69'*)7# 2,# 2<)# 5):)5# ,4# 2'D# !)-)4+21B! ,+&! '$%(%.-(%! '$,'! '$%! 1-0'!
cM
0,A*+90!&*&!+-'!1-+0'*'4'%!,!A,5*&!1-))%(1*,5!(%,0-+@ !!PA%+'4,55=B!*+!5*9$'!-.!'$*0!.*+&*+9B!
'$%!PQh!(45%&!'$,'!*'!*0!42!'-!'$%!+,'*-+,5!1-4('!'-!&%1*&%!8$%'$%(!'$%!'(,+0.%(!-.!',/!5-00%0!
,0!,!(%045'!-.!'$%!)%(9%(!$,0!A,5*&!4+&%(5=*+9!1-))%(1*,5!(%,0-+0@!!
!
OA%(,55B! '$%! 1-+1%2'! -.! ,:40*A%! 2(,1'*1%0! 3! ,+&! '$%! 1-+1(%'%! )-&,5*'*%0! .-(! *&%+'*.=*+9!
8$-55=!,('*.*1*,5!,((,+9%)%+'0!3!,22%,(!8%55!&%.*+%&!:=!'$%!PQh!1,0%C5,8B!:-'$!*+!0*'4,'*-+0!
8$%(%! +-+C',/! -:i%1'*A%0! &-! +-'! %)%(9%! ,+&! *+! 0*'4,'*-+0! 8$%(%! ',/! -:i%1'*A%0! 1-C%/*0'!
8*'$!+-+C',/!-:i%1'*A%0@!!H+!,:40*A%!2(,1'*1%!-+5=!%/*0'0!8$%(%!)+2<)*#',/!0,A*+90!-:i%1'*A%0!
,+&!-4'1-)%0!,(%!'$%!,-5"!-+%0!,*#o!*.!'$%=!,(%!24(04%&!'-9%'$%(!8*'$!-'$%(!-:i%1'*A%0!3!*.!
'$%=!,(%!'$%!9*)7,6+-'-2#-+%0B!8$*1$!),=!*+A-5A%!,!l4,+'*','*A%!,00%00)%+'!,0!*+!Q,00+'@!!
V+!%*'$%(!1,0%B!'$%!-:i%1'*A%!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!*0!+-'!24(04%&!:=!%1-+-)*1!
cM
!Q,0%!QC;>fn;?B!Q,00+'B!>?;;B!2,(,@!Td@!
;;?m!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
,9%+'0B! ,+&! '$%*(! 2-00*:*5*'=! -.! %/%(1*0*+9! '$*0! .(%%&-)! 1,+! :%! (%0'(*1'%&! :=! +,'*-+,5!
2(-A*0*-+0!$,A*+9!,+'*C,A-*&,+1%!24(2-0%0@!
!!!!!!
#$*0!9*A%0!(*0%!'-!'$%!l4%0'*-+!,0!'-!8$%'$%(!+,'*-+,5!2(-A*0*-+0!-.!S%):%(!L','%0!-+!',/!
(%0*&%+1%!-.!1-)2,+*%0!,+&!*+&*A*&4,50!3!*+!,&&*'*-+!'-!*+&*1,'*+9!'$%!.4+&,)%+',5!+%/40!
.-(!&*(%1'!',/,'*-+!3!1,+!,50-!:%!(%9,(&%&!,0!.,55*+9!8*'$*+!'$%!1,'%9-(=!-.!2(-A*0*-+0!$,A*+9!
,! 9%+%(,5! ,+'*C,A-*&,+1%! 24(2-0%B! &4%! '-! '$%*(! :%*+9! ,*)%&! ,'! 0%14(*+9! ',/! (%A%+4%0@! ! V+!
'$%!,4'$-(K0!A*%8B!'$%!(%02-+0%!0$-45&!:%!2-0*'*A%!:%1,40%!'$%!2(-'%1'*-+!-.!.*01,5!(%A%+4%!
*0! ,50-B! :=! &%.*+*'*-+B! '$%! D%=! 24(2-0%! -.! 02%1*.*1! ,+'*C,A-*&,+1%! )%,04(%0B! 8$*1$! ',(9%'!
2,('*145,(!',/2,=%(K0!:%$,A*-(!,*)%&!,'!(%&41*+9!'$%!',/!:4(&%+@!!
!
#$*0!$-5&0!'(4%B!'-!,+!%A%+!9(%,'%(!%/'%+'B!*+!5*9$'!-.!'$%!$*0'-(*1,5!-(*9*+!-.!'$%!I25,1%!-.!
%..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! .-(! ,55-1,'*+9! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%B! 14((%+'5=!
,&-2'%&! :=! '$%! OPQR! S-&%5B! .(-)! '$%! I1%+'(,5! ),+,9%)%+'! ,+&! 1-+'(-5! '%0'J! .*(0'!
&%A%5-2%&!*+!'$%!EF!.-(!4+&%15,(%&!,+'*C,A-*&,+1%!(%,0-+0@!
!!!!!
V.!,11%2'*+9!'$,'!'$%!2(-A*0*-+0!-+!',/!(%0*&%+1%!-.!S%):%(!L','%0B!8$%+!,''(,1'*+9!:,1D!
'$%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!-.!-4'!)-A*+9!',/2,=%(0!'-!'$%!L','%!-.!-(*9*+B!1,+!:%!%l4,'%&!'-!9%+%(*1!
,+'*C,A-*&,+1%!2(-A*0*-+0B!'$%0%!2(-A*0*-+0!8-45&!+%%&!'-!:%!1-+0*0'%+'!8*'$!'$%!-:i%1'*A%!
-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!,+&!2(%A%+'!-+5=!,:40*A%!2(,1'*1%0@!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!
8A! *+(! 1<(#&%)(! /0! $+(! =%5+$! /0! 1)$.B'%)+6(4$! BN! 8/6:.4%()! .4>! $+(! ,-'.&(! /0! 100(&$%2(!
3.4.5(6(4$7!.)!.!8#%$(#%.!0/#!"''/&.$%45!*.<!=()%>(4&(!
!
=.# K<)# N995+&'2+,-# ,4# '# F,6)12+&# ^)*1+,-# ,4# 2<)# JP5'&)# ,4# C44)&2+:)# ?'-'0)6)-2L# '-7# +21#
F)4)-&)#:+1UnU:+1#(5'*+4+&'2+,-#I);%)121#!"#2<)#C%*,9)'-#(,66+11+,-E#'#('1)#>2%7"##
!
#$%! ,225*1,'*-+B! :=! ,! S%):%(! L','%B! -.! +,'*-+,5! 2(-A*0*-+0! -+! 1-(2-(,'%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%!
8$*1$!*+'%+&!'-!I,''(,1'J!:,1D!'-!'$%!1-4+'(=!-.!&%2,('4(%!'$%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!-.!',/2,=%(0!
)-A*+9!'-!-'$%(!PE!1-4+'(*%0!1,)%!4+&%(!01(4'*+=!-.!'$%!P4(-2%,+!Q-))*00*-+!*+!>?;?@!!
#$*0! -114((%&! 8$%+! '$%! Q-))*00*-+! (%l4%0'%&! 15,(*.*1,'*-+0! .(-)! V',5=! ,:-4'! 1%(',*+!
2(-A*0*-+0! -.! *'0! &*(%1'! ',/! 1-&%! 6#EVU7! 8$*1$! 1-+0*&%(B! ,0! V',5*,+! ',/! (%0*&%+'0B! 1%(',*+!
1-)2,+*%0!1(%,'%&!,:(-,&B!,+&!'$40!0%'!42!*+!-'$%(!PE!S%):%(!L','%0@!!#$%!1,0%B!'$-49$!
1-+1%(+*+9! ,+! *+&*A*&4,5! S%):%(! L','%B! ,22%,(0! '-! :%! -.! 9%+%(,5! *+'%(%0'! :%1,40%! '$%!
cT
,(94)%+'0!'$,'!'$%!V',5*,+!',/!,4'$-(*'= !6HP7!04:)*''%&!*+!*'0!(%02-+0%!'-!'$%!P4(-2%,+!
Q-))*00*-+! %00%+'*,55=! &%)-+0'(,'%&! *'0! .(%%&-)! *+! %0',:5*0$*+9! '$%! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(0!
.-(! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! ,+&! *+! ,225=*+9! '$%0%! .,1'-(0! *+! '$%! 8,=! '$,'! *'! 1-+0*&%(0! )-0'!
,22(-2(*,'%!'-!2(-'%1'!*'0!',/!(%A%+4%0B!,+&!8-45&!'$40!:%!5*D%5=!'-!:%!0$,(%&!:=!'$%!',/!
,4'$-(*'=!-.!,+=!-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%!8$*1$!8-45&!:%!&(*A%+!:=!'$%!0,)%!1-+1%(+@!
cT
!IH9%+G*,!&%55%!P+'(,'%J!g$%(%*+,.'%(!IHPJo@!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;?<!
!!
cc
L2%1*.*1,55=B! 1%(',*+! V',5*,+! ',/! 2(-A*0*-+0 ! %0',:5*0$! ,! (%:4'',:5%! 2(%04)2'*-+! '$,'! ,!
1-)2,+=B! %A%+! *.! 1(%,'%&! ,:(-,&B! *0! ,! ',/! (%0*&%+'! *+! V',5=! 8$%+! '$%! ),i-(*'=! -.! *'0!
)%):%(0! -(! &*(%1'-(0! ,(%! (%0*&%+'! *+! V',5=! -(! 8$%+! *'! *0! 1-+'(-55%&! :=! V',5*,+! (%0*&%+'!
1-)2,+*%0@! ! #$*0! 2(%04)2'*-+B! +,)%&! 4,*)+0-U7*)11+-0B! *0! *+'%+&%&! '-! ,55-8! ,+! %..%1'*A%!
,225*1,'*-+! -.! -+%! -.! '$%! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(0! 5,*&! &-8+! :=! '$%! #EVU! .-(! %0',:5*0$*+9! ,!
1-)2,+=K0! ',/! (%0*&%+1%B! '$%! I1%+'(,5! ,&)*+*0'(,'*-+J! .,1'-(B! ,11-(&*+9! '-! 8$*1$! ,!
1-)2,+=! *0! ',/! (%0*&%+'! *+! V',5=! *.! *'0! &%1*0*-+C),D*+9! 1%+'(%! *0! 5-1,'%&! *+! '$%! V',5*,+!
'%((*'-(=@!!p$%+!,!1-)2,+=B!%A%+!*.!1(%,'%&!*+!,+=!-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%B!$,0!'$%!),i-(*'=!
-.!*'0!)%):%(0!-(!&*(%1'-(0!*+!V',5=!-(!8$%+!*'!*0!1-+'(-55%&!:=!V',5*,+!(%0*&%+'!1-)2,+*%0B!
'$%! I.-(%*9+C&(%00*+9J! 2(%04)2'*-+! 8-(D0! :=! ,004)*+9! '$,'! '$%! 1-)2,+=K0! &%1*0*-+C
),D*+9!1%+'(%!*0!5-1,'%&!*+!V',5=!,+&!'$40!'$%!1-)2,+=!*0!,+!V',5*,+!',/!(%0*&%+'!&4%!'-!'$%!
cf
I1%+'(,5!,&)*+*0'(,'*-+J!.,1'-(@ !!
!!!!!!
V'! 1,+! :%! +-'%&! '$,'! 0*'4,'*-+0! 8$*1$B! 4+&%(! V',5*,+! 2(-A*0*-+0B! 8-45&! .,55! 4+&%(! '$%!
2(%04)2'*-+! -.! 4,*)+0-U7*)11+-0! 02%1*.*1,55=B! 8$%(%! '$%! ),i-(*'=! -.! &*(%1'-(0! -.! '$%!
1-)2,+=!(%9*0'%(%&!*+!,+-'$%(!1-4+'(=!,(%!(%0*&*+9!*+!V',5=B!)*((-(!'$%!0*'4,'*-+!8$*1$B!,'!
'$
'$%! 0',('! -.! '$%! >? ! 1%+'4(=B! $,&! :%%+! %/,)*+%&! :=! '$%! EFK0! ^-40%! -.! W-(&0! *+! '$%!
cd
5,+&),(D! F)# S))*1! 1,0%@ ! #$*0! ),(D%&! ,! ),i-(! 0'%2! *+! '$%! &%A%5-2)%+'! -.! '$%! I1%+'(,5!
),+,9%)%+'! ,+&! 1-+'(-5J! 1(*'%(*,@! ! V+! '$,'! 0*'4,'*-+B! '$%! ),i-(*'=! -.! &*(%1'-(0! 8%(%!
(%0*&%+'! *+! '$%! EF! &%02*'%! '$%! .,1'! '$,'! '$%! 1-)2,+=! 8,0! (%9*0'%(%&! *+! L-4'$! H.(*1,! ,+&!
1,((*%&!-+!:40*+%00!'$%(%@!#$%!^-40%!-.!W-(&0!(%9,(&%&!'$%!1-)2,+=!,0!(%0*&%+'!*+!'$%!EFB!
:=! ,004)*+9! '$,'! '$%! &%1*0*-+C),D*+9! 1%+'(%! 8,0! 5-1,'%&! '$%(%B! i40'! 5*D%! '$%! V',5*,+!
2(-A*0*-+0! 8$*1$! 1,)%! 4+&%(! 01(4'*+=! -.! '$%! P4(-2%,+! Q-))*00*-+! &-! *+! '$%! %A%+'! '$,'!
'$%! ),i-(*'=! -.! &*(%1'-(0! *0! (%0*&%+'! *+! V',5=@! ! #$%! I1%+'(,5! ,&)*+*0'(,'*-+J! 1-++%1'*+9!
.,1'-(B! &4%! '-! *'0! .-140*+9! -+! '$%! 1-)2,+=K0! &%1*0*-+C),D*+9! 1%+'(%B! 1,+! :%! (%9,(&%&! ,0!
'$%!&-)%0'*1!%l4*A,5%+'!-.!'$%!I25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J!1(*'%(*,!40%&!:=!,('@!T!-.!
&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!:,0%&!-+!'$%!OPQR!S-&%5@!!
!!!!!
a%.-(%! '$%! (%l4%0'! -.! 15,(*.*1,'*-+0! :=! '$%! P4(-2%,+! Q-))*00*-+B! V',5*,+! ',/! 1-4('0!
%/,)*+%&! '$%! ,225*1,'*-+! -.! '$%! 4,*)+0-U7*)11+-0! 2(%04)2'*-+! *+! 0*'4,'*-+0! 8$%(%! '$%!
.-(%*9+!1-)2,+=!1-+'(-55%&!:=!V',5*,+!(%0*&%+'0!8,0!,!$-5&*+9!1-)2,+=!$,A*+9!*+'%(%0'0!*+!
V',5*,+! 1-)2,+*%0B! ,+&! $,&! 404,55=! &*0'*+94*0$%&! $-5&*+9! 1-)2,+*%0! 8*'$-4'! ,+!
-(9,+*G,'*-+,5! 0'(41'4(%! *+! '$%! 1-4+'(=! -.! *+1-(2-(,'*-+! .(-)! $-5&*+90! 8$*1$! $,&! 0-)%!
&%9(%%!-.!2(%0%+1%!*+!'$%!PE!S%):%(!L','%!8$%(%!'$%=!8%(%!0%'!42!,+&!,!&%9(%%!-.!&,=C
'-C&,=! ),+,9%(*,5! ,4'-+-)=! '$%(%@! ! X-(! %/,)25%B! ,! ]%(),+! $-5&*+9! 1-)2,+=! 8$*1$B! -+!
cc
!H('@!dMB!2,(@!cC:*0B!'%(!,+&!l4,('%(!-.!'$%!#EVU@!
cf
! H! 0*)*5,(! 2(%04)2'*-+! *0! ,50-! ,225*%&! 4+&%(! L2,+*0$! ',/! 5,8B! 8$*1$! 1-+0*&%(0! 1-)2,+*%0! 1(%,'%&! *+! -'$%(!
1-4+'(*%0!,0!',/!(%0*&%+'0!*.!)-0'!-.!'$%*(!%1-+-)*1!*+'%(%0'0!,(%!5-1,'%&!*+!L2,*+@!
cd
!F)#S))*1#(,-1,5+7'2)7#?+-)13#$+6+2)7#:.#j,H)!g;<?co!>!F@a@!f;>@!
;;;?!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
'$%! :,0*0! -.! &-14)%+',(=! %A*&%+1%! 2(%0%+'%&! :=! '$%! H@PB! 8,0! .-()%&! :=! *'0! 0-5%! V',5*,+!
0$,(%$-5&%(! -+5=! '-! %01,2%! V',5*,+! ',/! 2(-A*0*-+0! :=! :%+%.*'*+9! .(-)! )-(%! .,A-(,:5%!
]%(),+! ',/! 2(-A*0*-+0! ,+&! 8$-0%! &%1*0*-+C),D*+9! 1%+'(%! 8,0! *+! V',5=B! 8,0! (%9,(&%&! ,0!
cm
I.-(%*9+C&(%00%&J!,+&!'$40!,0!',/!(%0*&%+'!*+!V',5=@ !!#$%!]%(),+!1-)2,+=!$%5&!0$,(%0!*+!
V',5*,+!1-)2,+*%0B!8,0!),+,9%&!:=!'$%!0,)%!V',5*,+!',/!(%0*&%+'0!8$-!8%(%!,50-!&*(%1'-(0!
-.! *'0! 2,(%+'! $-5&*+9! 1-)2,+=B! $,&! +-! .*+,+1*,5! ,4'-+-)=B! 8,0! .455=! 04:i%1'! '-! '$%!
&*(%1'*-+!-.!)%):%(0!5*A*+9!*+!V',5=B!,+&!$,&!+%*'$%(!,!0%,'!+-(!%)25-=%%0!*+!]%(),+=@!!O+!
'$%!1-+'(,(=B!,!R4'1$!$-5&*+9!1-)2,+=!8$*1$B!&%02*'%!:%*+9!04:i%1'!'-!*+0'(41'*-+0!*004%&!
:=! '$%! V',5*,+! 2,(%+'! 1-)2,+=B! &*&! +-'! -8+! *+! V',5=! ,+=! (%,5! %0','%B! :,+D! ,11-4+'0B!
(%2(%0%+','*A%!-..*1%0B!-(!-'$%(!5*+D0B!:4'!$,&!,+!-..*1%!*+!H)0'%(&,)B!%)25-=%&!,!R4'1$!
+,'*-+,5! 8$-! 8,0! ,50-! ,+! %/2%('! *+! ,&)*+*0'(,'*-+! ,+&! ,4&*'B! 2,*&! 1-)2%+0,'*-+! '-! 5-1,5!
,4&*'-(0!,+&!(%0-('%&!'-!5%9,5B!',/!,+&!,11-4+'*+9!1-+045'*+9!0%(A*1%0!2(-A*&%&!:=!,!R4'1$!
c<
1-+045'*+9! .*()B! 8,0! .-4+&! +-'! '-! :%! (%0*&%+'! *+! V',5=@ ! ! V+! '$,'! 1,0%! '$%! 1-4('! ,'',1$%&!
*)2-(',+1%!'-!'$%!%/*0'%+1%!-.!,+!,4'-+-)-40!-(9,+*G,'*-+,5!0'(41'4(%!*+!'$%!N%'$%(5,+&0!
,+&! (%9,(&%&! '$%! (%5,'*-+! :%'8%%+! '$%! V',5*,+! 2,(%+'! 1-)2,+=! ,+&! '$%! R4'1$! $-5&*+9!
1-)2,+=!,0!.,55*+9!8*'$*+!'$%!+-(),5!(%5,'*-+0$*2!-.!1-+'(-5B!5%,A*+9!%+-49$!,4'-+-)=!'-!
'$%!&,=C'-C&,=!.*+,+1*,5!$-5&*+9!0%(A*1%0!,1'*A*'=!-.!'$%!1-)2,+=B!,5'$-49$!D%%2*+9!*'!4+&%(!
'$%! +-(),5! 042%(A*0*-+! -.! '$%! 2,(%+'! 1-)2,+=@! ! V+! '$*0! 1,0%B! 8$*50'! (%9,(&*+9! '$%! R4'1$!
$-5&*+9! ,0! +-'! (%0*&*+9! *+! V',5=B! '$%! 1-4('! ,50-! 0','%&! '$,'! '$%! I1%+'(,5! ,&)*+*0'(,'*-+J!
1(*'%(*-+! .-(! *&%+'*.=*+9! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! *0! ,58,=0! ,225*1,:5%! 8$%+! '$%! (%0*&%+1%! *+! '$%!
fd
.-(%*9+!1-4+'(=!*0!,-5"#6,2+:'2)7#!"#2'D#):'1+,-#,*#2'D#':,+7'-&)#*)'1,-1B #8$*1$!*'!.-4+&!
+-'! '-! :%! '$%! 1,0%! *+! '$%! 02%1*.*1! 0*'4,'*-+@! ! #$%(%.-(%B! *+! ,225=*+9! '$(-49$! '$%!
2(%04)2'*-+! -.! I.-(%*9+C&(%00*+9J! ,! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! .-(! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! 6'$%! I1%+'(,5!
,&)*+*0'(,'*-+J7! (%2(%0%+'*+9! *'0! &-)%0'*1! '(,+05,'*-+! -.! '$%! I25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%!
),+,9%)%+'! 1(*'%(*,JB! '$%! V',5*,+! ',/! 1,0%C5,8B! 8$*1$! 2(%1%&%&! '$%! P4(-2%,+!
Q-))*00*-+K0! (%l4%0'! .-(! 15,(*.*1,'*-+B! %/2(%005=! 0','%&! '$,'! *'! (%1-9+*G%0! '$,'! '$*0!
1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.45.*50!,+!,+'*C,A-*&,+1%!(-5%!3!'$%!0,)%!24(2-0%!'$,'!'$%!EFK0!^-40%!-.!
W-(&0!0%%)0!'-!$,A%!:%%+!24(04*+9B!8*'$-4'!-2%+5=!*+&*1,'*+9!,0!)41$B!*+!*'0!%,(5*%(!1,0%C
5,8@!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
V+! >?;?! '$%! P4(-2%,+! Q-))*00*-+! l4%0'*-+%&! '$%! 1-)2,'*:*5*'=! -.! '$%! V',5*,+! 2(-A*0*-+0!
0%''*+9! '$%! 2(%04)2'*-+! -.! 4,*)+0-U7*)11+-0! 8*'$! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! ,+&! 8*'$!
f;
fb#
'$%!.(%%!)-A%)%+'!-.!1,2*',5 !*+!5*9$'!-.!'$%!PQh!1,0%5,8!,+&B!*+!2,('*145,(B!-.!'$%!S'*!+)*
cm
!Z(-A*+1*,5!#,/!Q-4('!-.!a%554+-B!M!R%1%):%(!>??d!3!;T!h,+4,(=!>??mB!(45*+90!;dMn?;n>??d!,+&!;dTn?;n>??d@!!!
c<
!U%9*-+,5!#,/!Q-4('!-.!#401,+=B!0%G@!bbeB!M!R%1%):%(!>??d!3!;m!h,+4,(=!>??mB!+@!f;n>cn>d@!
f?
!=7@!,'!2,(,@!T@!
f;
!Q,0%!dddn;?n#HbE@!
f>
!Q,0%!QCMfTn?;!S'*!+)*3#>??M!PQU!VC;c?;M@!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
fM#
;;;;!
,+&!('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1 (45*+90@!!^-8%A%(B!*'!7+7#-,2#0,#'1#4'*#'1#2,#&'55#+-2,#;%)12+,-#2<)#
&,69'2+!+5+2"#,4#2<)#J95'&)#,4#)44)&2+:)#6'-'0)6)-2L#&*+2)*+,-#H+2<#2<)#)D)*&+1)#,4#4*))7,6#
,4# )12'!5+1<6)-2# !"# &,69'-+)1@! #$*0! ,(94,:5=! .,1*5*','%&! '$%! (%02-+0%0! :=! '$%! HP@! ! V+! *'0!
fT
(%02-+0%0B !'$%!HP!!1-+0*&%(%&!'$%!PQhK0!i4&9)%+'0!*+!S'*!+)*#,+&!('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1#,0!
*((%5%A,+'!'-!'$%!*004%!4+&%(!1-+0*&%(,'*-+3#,+&!*'!,(94%&!'$,'!'$%!1-+0'*'4%+'!%5%)%+'0!-.!
'$%!1-+1%2'!-.!',/!(%0*&%+1%B!,+&!*+!2,('*145,(!'$%!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!9*A%+!:=!'$%!I1%+'(,5!
,&)*+*0'(,'*-+JB! ,(%! 7+12+-&2# .(-)! '$%! %/%(1*0%! -.! ,! 9%+4*+%! %1-+-)*1! ,1'*A*'=! *+! ,+-'$%(!
S%):%(!L','%@!#$%!HP!.4('$%(!,&&%&!'$,'!'$%!I1%+'(,5!,&)*+*0'(,'*-+J!1(*'%(*,!*0!1-+0*0'%+'!
8*'$! '$%! 0-54'*-+0! ,&-2'%&! :=! -'$%(! i4(*0&*1'*-+0! ,+&! 8*'$! '$%! 1(*'%(*-+! -.! {25,1%! -.!
%..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J! *+1-(2-(,'%&! *+! '$%! OPQR! S-&%5! ,+&! *+! :*5,'%(,5! ',/! 1-+A%+'*-+0!
:,0%&! -+! '$*0! S-&%5B! ,+&! 0'(%00%&! '$%! 2-00*:*5*'*%0! 5%.'! '-! '$%! 1-+1%(+%&! 1-)2,+*%0! '-!
(%:4'!'$%!2(%04)2'*-+!:=!&%)-+0'(,'*+9!'$,'!'$%*(!&%1*0*-+C),D*+9!1%+'(%!*0!+-'!5-1,'%&!
*+!V',5=@!!V+!0-!&-*+9B!'$%!V',5*,+!',/!,4'$-(*'=!%/2(%005=!0','%&!'$,'!'$%!%A*&%+1%!'-!:%!40%&!
'-!2(-A%!'$%!5-1,'*-+!-.!'$%!1%+'(,5!,&)*+*0'(,'*-+!,:(-,&!*+!-(&%(!.-(!,!',/2,=%(!'-!(%:4'!
'$%!2(%04)2'*-+!-.! 4,*)+0-U7*)11+-0!*0!'$%!0,)%!,0!1-45&!0%(A%!'-!2(-A%!'$%!%/*0'%+1%!-.!
'$%!I%..%1'*A%!25,1%!-.!),+,9%)%+'J!.-(!'$%!24(2-0%!-.!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0@!!
!!!!
V((%02%1'*A%! -.! '$%! 2,('*145,(! V',5*,+! 2(-A*0*-+0! ,'! 0',D%! *+! '$%! 1-+1(%'%! 1,0%B! '$%0%!
,(94)%+'0! 04:)*''%&! :=! '$%! HP! ,22%,(! -.! 9%+%(,5! *+'%(%0'! .(-)! '$%! A*%82-*+'! -.! -'$%(!
S%):%(! L','%0! '--! :%1,40%! *+! &%.%+&*+9! '$%! I1%+'(,5! ,&)*+*0'(,'*-+J! 1(*'%(*,! '$%! V',5*,+!
',/!,4'$-(*'=!45'*),'%5=!%+&%&!42!&%.%+&*+9!'$%!I25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J!1(*'%(*,!
8$*1$!*0!404,55=!%)25-=%&!:=!S%):%(!L,'%0!*+!'$%*(!:*5,'%(,5!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0@!
!!!!!
#$%!P4(-2%,+!Q-))*00*-+B!:,0%&!-+!'$%!15,(*.*1,'*-+!,:-4'!'$%!:4(&%+!-.!2(--.!2(-A*&%&!
fc
:=!'$%!HPB!&%1*&%&!+-'!'-!24(04%!'$%!1,0%!.4('$%(@ !!V'!%00%+'*,55=!1,)%!'-!'$*0!1-+1540*-+!
-+! '$%! 9(-4+&0! '$,'! ,! S%):%(! L','%! *0! %+'*'5%&! '-! &%1*&%! '$%! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(0! '-!
&%'%()*+%! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! *+! *'0! i4(*0&*1'*-+B! ,+&! '$,'! ,! (%0'(*1'*-+! '-! .4+&,)%+',5!
.(%%&-)0!1-45&!:%!.-4+&B!*+!*'0!A*%8B!-+5=!*.!*'!8%(%!*)2-00*:5%!.-(!,!',/2,=%(!'-!(%:4'!'$%!
2(%04)2'*-+! -.! %/*0'%+1%! -.! ,! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(@! ! #$%! P4(-2%,+! Q-))*00*-+! 8,0! '$40!
0,'*0.*%&! '$,'! 3! .(-)! '$%! *+.-(),'*-+! *'! (%1%*A%&! 3! '$%(%! ,(%! +-! 2(--.0! *+&*1,'*+9! '$,'! ,!
',/2,=%(!8-45&!:%!4+,:5%!'-!(%:4'!'$%!2(%04)2'*-+@!!
!!!!!
H5'$-49$! '$%! HPK0! ,(94)%+'0! 1-+A*+1%&! '$%! P4(-2%,+! Q-))*00*-+B! '$%(%! ,22%,(! '-! :%!
-'$%(! ,02%1'0! 8$*1$! $,A%! +-'! :%%+! &%,5'! 8*'$! :=! '$%! P4(-2%,+! Q-))*00*-+! *'0%5.! *+! *'0!
(%l4%0'0! .-(! 15,(*.*1,'*-+0B! :4'! ),=! 0'*55! 9*A%! (*0%! '-! &-4:'0! ,0! '-! 8$%'$%(! ,! 2(%04)2'*-+!
*+'%+&%&! '-! ,225=! '$%! I1%+'(,5! ,&)*+*0'(,'*-+J! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(B! ,+&! '$%! I25,1%! -.!
%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'!1(*'%(*,J!*+!*'0%5.B!,(%!1-)2,'*:5%!8*'$!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!
fM
!Q,0%!QC;<fn?TB!1%9*'!+-'%!>T3!(%'(-B!2,(@!aB!VV@!
fT
!U%.@!MC;<>Mn>?;?@!
fc
!P4(-2%,+!Q-))*00*-+K0!5%''%(0!'-!V',5=!-+!T!h4+%!>?;?!,+&!;;!h,+4,(=!>?;;@!
;;;>!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
,+&! *'0! %1-+-)*1! *+'%9(,'*-+! -:i%1'*A%@! ! V+&%%&B! 0$-('5=! ,.'%(! '$%! *+'(-&41'*-+! -.! '$%!
4,*)+0-U7*)11+-0! 2(%04)2'*-+B! 2,('! -.! '$%! V',5*,+! 5*'%(,'4(%! ,(94%&! '$,'! '$*0! 8,0!
*+1-)2,'*:5%! 8*'$! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'B! -+! '$%! 9(-4+&! '$,'B! *+! ,&&*'*-+! '-!
&*004,&*+9!'$%!1(%,'*-+!-.!1-)2,+*%0!*+!-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%0B!'$%!2(-A*0*-+0!%0',:5*0$*+9!
'$*0! 2(%04)2'*-+! &-! +-'! 0%'! ,+=! 5*)*'! '-! '$%*(! 01-2%! ,+&! ,225=! '-! ,55! -'$%(! PE! S%):%(!
ff
L','%0B!*((%02%1'*A%!-.!'$%*(!',/!(%9*)%0@ !!!
!
!
==.#K<)#2'D#*)1+7)-&)#7)4+-+2+,-#'-7#2<)#)D)*&+1)#,4#&,69'-+)1T#4*))7,6#,4#)12'!5+1<6)-2#'1#
+-7)9)-7)-2#4*,6#)'&<#,2<)*X###
#
V'! *0! *)2-(',+'! '$,'B! ,0! &*01400%&! *+! 2,('! aB! '$%! 25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J! ,0! ,!
'*%:(%,D%(!(45%!.-(!1-(2-(,'%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!,55-1,'*-+!1,+!:%!,'!-&&0!8*'$!'$%!%/%(1*0%!:=!
1-)2,+*%0! -.! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'@! #$*0! 1,+! -114(! *+! ,! 0*'4,'*-+! *+! 8$*1$B! .-(!
%/,)25%B! ,! 1-)2,+=! )-A%0! *'0! (%9*0'%(%&! -..*1%! ,5-+%! '-! ,+-'$%(! S%):%(! L','%! :=!
1-+A%('*+9! *'0! 5%9,5! .-()! ,0! ,55-8%&! :=! '$%! ('*2)1+,! (45*+9B! ,+&! 1,((*%0! -4'! *+! '$*0! L','%! ,!
9%+4*+%!:40*+%00!,1'*A*'=!*+!'%()0!-.!2(-&41'*-+!,+&!1-))%(1*,5*G,'*-+!*+'%9(,'*+9!*'!*+'-!
'$%!5-1,5!%1-+-)=@!!#$*0!.-()!-.!-4':-4+&!'(,+0.%(!8-45&!:%!9*,2)&2)7!:=!'$%!2(-A*0*-+0!
-+! 1-)2,+*%0K! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! :%1,40%! *'! 8-45&! :%! 1-+0*0'%+'! 8*'$! '$%*(!
%1-+-)*1! *+'%9(,'*-+! -:i%1'*A%@! ! N%A%('$%5%00B! *'! 8-45&! +-'! :%! (%1-9+*G%&! :=! '$%! HPK0!
2-0*'*-+B!8$*1$!8-45&!(%9,(&!'$%!1-)2,+=!,0!4,*)+0-U7*)11)7!,+&!8-45&!,50-!:%!*((%5%A,+'!
4+&%(!'$%!I25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J!1(*'%(*,B!8$*1$!8-45&!5%,A%!'$%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!
4+,..%1'%&@!!V+!.,1'B!*+!*'0!(%02-+0%0!'-!'$%!P4(-2%,+!Q-))*00*-+B!'$%!V',5*,+!',/!,4'$-(*'=!
*&%+'*.*%&! '$%! 9%+4*+%! +,'4(%! -.! '$%! %0',:5*0$)%+'! *+! ,+-'$%(! L','%! %/1540*A%5=! 8*'$! '$%!
5-1,'*-+!*+!'$,'!-'$%(!L','%!-.!'$%!25,1%!-.!&%1*0*-+C),D*+9B!8*'$-4'!)%+'*-+*+9!'$%!1,0%0!
-.! 2-00*:5%! &*00-1*,'*-+! :%'8%%+! '$*0! 25,1%! ,+&! '$%! 25,1%! 8$%(%! '$%! 2(-&41'*-+! ,+&!
1-))%(1*,5*G,'*-+! ,1'*A*'=! *0! 1,((*%&! -+@! ! N%A%('$%5%00B! '$%! *)2-(',+1%! -.! '$%! 5-1,'*-+! -.!
'$%! 1-)2,+=K0! 2(-&41'*A%! ,1'*A*'=! 15%,(5=! %)%(9%0! .(-)! '$%! ('7!%*"# >&<H)99)1! (45*+9B!
8$*1$B! ,0! 2(%A*-405=! +-'%&B! ),&%! *'! 15%,(! '$,'! +,'*-+,5! ,+'*C,A-*&,+1%! 2(-A*0*-+0! ,(%!
*+1-)2,'*:5%! 8*'$! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! 8$%+! '$%! 1(%,'*-+! -.! ,! 04:0*&*,(=! *+!
,+-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%!5%,&0!'-!,!9%+4*+%!%1-+-)*1!,1'*A*'=!*+!'$*0!0%1-+&!L','%!,+&!'$40!
1,++-'!:%!(%9,(&%&!,0!,!8$-55=!,('*.*1*,5!,((,+9%)%+'@!!
!!!!!
ff
! >))! Z@! a%('-5,0-! `! P@a(%00,+B! $)# J)12)*,:)12+8+,-+L# '55'# 9*,:'# 7)55'# 9*)1%-8+,-)# 7+# *)1+7)-8'# o# N5&%-)#
&,-1+7)*'8+,-+# &,-# 9'*2+&,5'*)# *+0%'*7,# '55)# <,57+-0# 12'2+&<)B! Mf! VW! XVLQOB! cf;dB! 6>??f7k! W@R%5! X%&%(*1-B! >,&+)2n#
)12)*)#)#9*)1%-8+,-)#7+#*)1+7)-8'#'+#1)-1+#7)5#F.$.#bbpebddfE#'*2+&,5+#qp#)#qk#7)5#K*'22'2,#(C3#(,-:)-8+,-+#&,-2*,#5'#
7,99+'# +69,1+8+,-)# )# 7+1'995+&'8+,-)# 7)55'# -,*6'# +-2)*-'# 7+# &%+# '5# &,66'# rU!+1# 7)55TN*2.# lp# 7)5# K%+*B! T;! VW! XVLQO!
6>??f7k! S,(1-! ](%99*B! I)&)-2+# 1:+5%99+# )# ;%)12+,-+# 7+# &,69'2+!+5+2n# &,6%-+2'*+'# 7)55)# 7+19,1+8+,-+# 7+# &,-2*'12,# '5#
4)-,6)-,#7)55'#&,1+77)22'#J)12)*,:)12+8+,-)L#1,&+)2'*+'B!WVV;!UHLLP]NH!#UVaE#HUVH!;?cC;MT!6>??<7@!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;;M!
H5'$-49$! '$%! PQh! $,0! +-'! 2(-A*&%&B! *+! '$*0! (45*+9B! ,! &%.*+*'*-+! -.! {25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%!
fd
),+,9%)%+'{! -'$%(! '$,+! '$%! OPQR! &%.*+*'*-+B ! '$%! 5*'%(,'4(%! $,0! :%%+! (%,&*+9! '$%!
('7!%*"# >&<H)99)1! (45*+9! ,0! *)25=*+9! ,! 0*9+*.*1,+'! +%/40! :%'8%%+! '$%! I%..%1'*A%!
),+,9%)%+'J! *+! ,! 2,('*145,(! 25,1%! ,+&! 1-+&41'B! *+! '$,'! 25,1%B! -.! ,! 9%+4*+%! %1-+-)*1!
fm
,1'*A*'=@ ! ! S-(%! 02%1*.*1,55=B! 0-)%! ,4'$-(0! *+'%(2(%'! '$%! (45*+9! ,0! )%,+*+9! '$,'! '$%! PQh!
*&%+'*.*%0! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! -.! ,! 1-)2,+=! 6.-(! &*(%1'! ',/,'*-+! 24(2-0%07! 8*'$! '$%! 25,1%!
8$%(%!*'0!%1-+-)*1!,1'*A*'=!*0!1-+1(%'%5=!1,((*%&!-+@!!#$*0!25,1%!8-45&!:%!*+!'$%!S%):%(!
L','%! 8$%(%! '$%! 1-)2,+=! 1,+! &%)-+0'(,'%! :-'$! ,+! %1-+-)*1! *+'%9(,'*-+! 6%..%1'*A%!
%/%(1*0%! -.! ,! 9%+4*+%! ,1'*A*'=7! ,+&! ,! '%)2-(,5! *+'%9(,'*-+! 62,('*1*2,'*-+! *+! '$%! %1-+-)*1!
f<
5*.%! -+! ,! 0',:5%! ,+&! 1-+'*+4*+9! :,0%07B ! 8$*1$B! 45'*),'%5=B! 8-45&! ),D%! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%!
d?
1-*+1*&%!8*'$!'$%!25,1%!8$%(%!'$%!1-)2,+=K0!2(-.*'!*0!2(-&41%&@ !!E+&-4:'%&5=B!'$%!5-1,5!
2(-&41'*-+!-.!8%,5'$B!,0!,!(%045'!-.!0-1*-C%1-+-)*1!*+'%9(,'*-+B!,55-80!,!+,'4(,5!2%(0-+!-(!
,! 1-)2,+=! '-! 2,('*1*2,'%! -+! ,! 0',:5%! ,+&! 1-+'*+4-40! :,0*0! *+! '$%! %1-+-)*1! 5*.%! -.! ,!
S%):%(!L','%!-'$%(!'$,+!'$,'!-.!-(*9*+B!,+&!'-!:%+%.*'! '$%(%.(-)B! '$%(%:=! ,1$*%A*+9! '$%!
9-,5!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!8$*1$B!,0!(%2%,'%&5=!*+&*1,'%&!:=!'$%!PQhB!1-+0*0'0!-.!
*+'%9(,'*-+!
*+!
'$%!
$-0'!
L','%@!!
!
O+!'$%!-'$%(!$,+&B!('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1B!8$*5%!+-'!2(-A*&*+9!3,0!2-*+'%&!-4'!:=!'$%!H@P@3!,!
&%.*+*'*-+!-.!',/!(%0*&%+1%!&*..%(%+'!.(-)!'$%!1(*'%(*-+!*+&*1,'%&!:=!'$%!OPQR!S-&%5B!5%&!'-!
'$%! 0,)%! (%045'! 8$*1$! 8-45&! $,A%! &%(*A%&! *+! '$%! 1-+1(%'%! 0*'4,'*-+! .(-)! ,! (%.40,5! '-!
(%1-9+*G%!'$%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!-.!'$%!V(*0$!1-)2,+=!*+!'$%!EF3#+.).!*'!5%&!'-!'$%!*)2-00*:*5*'=!-.!
',/*+9!'$%!2(-.*'0!-.!'$%!V(*0$!1-)2,+=!*+!'$%!EF!*+!'$%!2(%0%+1%!-.!,+!%..%1'*A%!%1-+-)*1!
*+'%9(,'*-+!-.!'$%!04:0*&*,(=!*+!V(%5,+&@!!
!
Q-+0%l4%+'5=B! '$%! 2-0*'*-+! ',D%+! :=! '$%! V',5*,+! ',/! ,4'$-(*'=! *+! &%.%+&*+9! '$%! I25,1%! -.!
%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!3,5'$-49$!'$%=!8-45&!2(-:,:5=!:%!0$,(%&!:=!'$%!
',/!,4'$-(*'*%0!-.!,+=!-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%0!:-'$!-+!'$%!:,0*0!-.!'$%!OPQR!S-&%5B!,+&!,50-!
:%1,40%!*'!8-45&!,55-8!'$%)!'-!0$%&!.(-)!2-'%+'*,5!01(4'*+=!*'0!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.-(!',/!
(%0*&%+1%3! 0'*55! 0%%)0! '-! 5%,A%! &-4:'0! ,0! (%9,(&0! *'0! 1-+0*0'%+1=! 8*'$! '$%! ! %1-+-)*1!
*+'%9(,'*-+! -:i%1'*A%! -.! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! ,+&! 8*'$! '$%! (%5,'%&! .(%%&-)! '-!
1$--0%!'$%!.-()!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'@!!!!
!!!!
H&)*''%&5=B!'$%!,(94)%+'!8$%(%:=!'$%!1-+0'*'4%+'!%5%)%+'0!-.!'$%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!1-+1%2'!
,(%! &*0'*+1'! .(-)! '$%! %/%(1*0%! -.! ,! 9%+4*+%! %1-+-)*1! ,1'*A*'=! *+! ,+-'$%(! S%):%(! L','%!
fd
!Ig#o$%!25,1%!8$%(%!'$%!)-0'!0%+*-(!2%(0-+!-(!9(-42!-.!2%(0-+0!6.-(!%/,)25%B!,!a-,(&!-.!R*(%1'-(07!),D%0!*'0!
&%1*0*-+J7[!OPQR!QOSSPN#HU_!ON!HU#@!TB!2,(,@!>T!
fm
! Z*%(2,-5-! e,5%+'%B! 5'# I)1+7)-8'# Q+1&'5)# -)5# F+*+22,# K*+!%2'*+,# =-2)*-'8+,-'5)# )# (,6%-+2'*+,3! >! NPO#PZH! ;;B! >?!
6>??<7@!
f<
!S-01$%''*B!1%9*'#+-'%!>k!aPN!h@S@#PUUH!`!ZP#PU!@h@pH##PWB!PEUOZPHN!#Hb!WHp!6>??m7B!,'!T>@!!
d?
!S-01$%''*B!1%9*'#+-'%!>B!,'!Mm@!
;;;T!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
)*9$'!:%!0422-('%&B!-+!,!.*(0'!(%,&*+9B!:=!5%9*05,'*-+!,+&!PQh!1,0%5,8!*+!'$%!,(%,!-.!eH#@!!
d;
p*'$! (%02%1'! '-! 5%9*05,'*-+B! *'! *0! 04..*1*%+'! '-! +-'%! '$,'! U%945,'*-+! >m>n>?;; ! 0','%0! I'$%!
25,1%! 8$%(%! '$%! :40*+%00! -.! ,! ',/,:5%! 2%(0-+! *0! %0',:5*0$%&! 0$,55! :%! '$%! 25,1%! 8$%(%! '$%!
.4+1'*-+0! -.! '$%! :40*+%00K0! 1%+'(,5! ,&)*+*0'(,'*-+! ,(%! 1,((*%&! -4'J! ,+&! '$,'B! *+! -(&%(! '-!
&%'%()*+%!'$,'!25,1%B!!
!
gHo11-4+'! 0$,55! :%! ',D%+! -.! '$%! 25,1%! 8$%(%! %00%+'*,5!
&%1*0*-+0! 1-+1%(+*+9! '$%! 9%+%(,5! ),+,9%)%+'! -.! '$%!
:40*+%00! ,(%! ',D%+B! '$%! 25,1%! 8$%(%! '$%! (%9*0'%(%&!
-..*1%! -.! '$%! :40*+%00! *0! 5-1,'%&! ,+&! '$%! 25,1%! 8$%(%!
),+,9%)%+'!)%%'0@!p$%(%!'$%0%!1(*'%(*,!&-!+-'!,55-8!
'$%! 25,1%! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! -.! ,! :40*+%00! '-! :%!
&%'%()*+%&! 8*'$! 1%(',*+'=B! '$%! 25,1%! 8$%(%! %00%+'*,5!
&%1*0*-+0! 1-+1%(+*+9! '$%! 9%+%(,5! ),+,9%)%+'! -.! '$%!
d>
:40*+%00!,(%!',D%+!0$,55!',D%!2(%1%&%+1%@ !!!
!
H0!(%9,(&0!PQhK0!(45*+90!*+!'$*0!,(%,B!*+!'$%!>??d!P5'-8)*#$%D)6!,%*0!(45*+9!'$%!PQh!0','%&!
'$,'! I'$%! 25,1%! -.! ,! 1-)2,+=K0! :40*+%00! *0! '$%! 25,1%! 8$%(%! '$%! %00%+'*,5! &%1*0*-+0!
1-+1%(+*+9! *'0! 9%+%(,5! ),+,9%)%+'! ,(%! ',D%+! ,+&! 8$%(%! '$%! .4+1'*-+0! -.! '$%! 1%+'(,5!
dM
,&)*+*0'(,'*-+!,(%!%/%(1*0%&J !,+&!1-+154&%&!'$,'!I,!.*1'*'*-40!2(%0%+1%B!041$!,0!'$,'!-.!,!
dT
K5%''%(C:-/K!-(!K:(,00C25,'%K!1-)2,+=B!1,++-'!:%!&%01(*:%&!,0!,!25,1%!-.!:40*+%00J !.-(!'$%!
24(2-0%! -.! '$%! #$*('%%+! eH#! R*(%1'*A%B! 8$*1$! 8,0! ,'! 0',D%@! #$%0%! P5'-8)*# $%D)6!,%*0!
dc
.*+&*+90!$,A%!)-(%!(%1%+'5=!:%%+!(%,..*()%&!*+!'$%!>?;;!>2,99)5@'69!(45*+9@ !!
!!!!!
N-+%'$%5%00B! &%02*'%! '$%! &%.*+*'*-+! 2(-A*&%&! :=! U%945,'*-+! >m>n>?;;B! ,+&! '$%!
1*(14)0',+1%! '$,'! '$%! PQhB! *+! P5'-8)*# $%D)6!,%*0B! (%.%((%&! '-B! +-2)*# '5+'B! *+! ('7!%*"#
>&<H)99)1!,0!,!2(%1%&%+'!*+!,+-'$%(!,(%,B!,!.4('$%(!,02%1'!1-)%0!*+'-!25,=@!!L2%1*.*1,55=B!
%A%+!*.!-+%!8%(%!'-!&(,8!'$%!+-'*-+!-.!1-)2,+=K0!(%0*&%+1%!.(-)!eH#C(%5,'%&!5%9*05,'*-+!
,+&! 1,0%C5,8B! '$%! 24(2-0%! -.! '$%! eH#! 5%9*05,'*-+! *0! &*..%(%+'! .(-)! '$%! 24(2-0%! -.! &*(%1'!
df! !
',/,'*-+B! 8$*1$! $,0! ,! &*..%(%+'! 4+&%(5=*+9! 2$*5-0-2$=@ #$40B! '$*0! +-'*-+! -.! (%0*&%+1%!
8-45&! +-'! 0%%)! '-! :%! $%52.45! *+! '$%! .*%5&! -.! &*(%1'! ',/,'*-+B! 8$*1$! 4+5*D%! eH#! (%),*+0!
d;
!U%945,'*-+!>m>n>?;;nPE!-.!;c!S,(1$!>?;;B!5,=*+9!&-8+!*)25%)%+'*+9!)%,04(%0!.-(!R*(%1'*A%!>??fn;;>nPQ!-+!
'$%!1-))-+!0=0'%)!-.!eH#!!
d>
!=7@#'2!H('@!M!
dM
!=7.!,'!2,(,@!f?Cf;@!
dT
!=7.!,'!2,(,@!f>!
dc
!Q,0%!QCT>;n;?B!>2,99)5@'69B!>?;;@!
df
! h-,1$*)! P+95*01$B! ^NKeM>K# '-7# F+*)&2# K'D)1E# F+44)*)-2# P%*9,1)1B! *+! eHWEP! HRRPR! #Hb! HNR! RVUPQ#! #HbH#VON!
LVSVWHUV#VPL!HNR!RVXXPUPNQPLB!>!6S*1$,%5!W,+9B!Z%'%(!S%5GB!P5%-+-(%!F(*0'-..%(00-+!%&0@B!>??<7@!!!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;;c!
4+&%(! +,'*-+,5! ',/! 1-)2%'%+1%B! ,+&! 8*'$! (%9,(&! '-! '$%! %/%(1*0%! -.! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.!
%0',:5*0$)%+'B! '$%! 5,''%(! ,5-+%! :%*+9! *+A-5A%&! *+! '$%! &*(%1'! ',/,'*-+! ,(%,! *+! ('7!%*"#
>&<H)99)1@!!S-(%-A%(B!'-!,004)%!'$,'!'$%!&%.*+*'*-+!-.!(%0*&%+1%!%)%(9*+9!.(-)!'$%!eH#!
5%9*05,'*-+! 8-45&! ,50-! ,225=! *+! '$%! ,(%,! -.! &*(%1'! ',/,'*-+! 8-45&! 1%(',*+5=! :%! ,22(-2(*,'%!
.-(!'$%!(%A%+4%!*+'%(%0'!-.!'$%!L','%!-.!5-1,'*-+!-.!'$%!25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'@!!a4'!
'$%!PQh!$,0!0','%&!*+!0%A%(,5!(45*+90!'$,'!'$%!+%%&!'-!2(%A%+'!(%&41'*-+!*+!',/!(%A%+4%0!*0!
+-'B! *+! *'0%5.B! ,! ),''%(! -.! -A%((*&*+9! 9%+%(,5! *+'%(%0'! i40'*.=*+9! ,! (%0'(*1'*-+! -+! ,! .(%%&-)!
dd
9(,+'%&!:=!'$%!#(%,'=@ !
!!!!
#8-!.4('$%(!,(94)%+'0!3-+!,!.*(0'!(%,&*+93!)*9$'!:%!24'!.-(8,(&!'-!,00%('!'$,'!'$%!I25,1%!
-.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J! 1(*'%(*,! 5,*&! &-8+! :=! :*5,'%(,5! ',/! 1-+A%+'*-+0! :,0%&! -+! '$%!
OPQR! S-&%5! 8-45&! :%! I,&-2'%&J! 4+&%(! PE! 5,8! ,+&! '$40! '$,'! '$*0! 1(*'%(*,! 8-45&B! :=!
&%.*+*'*-+B!+%A%(!1-+.5*1'!8*'$!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'@!!X*(0'B!*+!,!+4):%(!-.!&*(%1'!
',/,'*-+! (45*+90! 1-+1%(+*+9! '$%! .4+&,)%+',5! .(%%&-)0B! '$%! PQh! $,0! 1-+0*0'%+'5=! 0','%&!
'$,'B! ,'! '$%! 14((%+'! 0',9%! -.! PE! 5,8B! S%):%(! L','%0! ,(%! .(%%! '-! ,55-1,'%! :%'8%%+!
'$%)0%5A%0! '$%! ',/*+9! 2-8%(0! ,11-(&*+9! '-! &-4:5%! ',/! 1-+A%+'*-+0! :,0%&! -+! '$%! OPQR!
dm
S-&%5B ! *@%@! %/,1'5=! ,11-(&*+9! '-! '$-0%! &-4:5%! ',/! 1-+A%+'*-+0! '$,'! 404,55=! *+&*1,'%! '$%!
I25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!1(*'%(*,!.-(!,55-1,'*+9!',/!(%0*&%+1%@!!L%1-+&B!'$%!.%8!
PE! R*(%1'*A%0! *+! '$%! .*%5&! -.! &*(%1'! ',/,'*-+! 1-+1%(+*+9! 1-)2,+*%0! 6041$! ,0! '$%! Z,(%+'C
L4:0*&*,(=! R*(%1'*A%B! '$%! S%(9%(! R*(%1'*A%B! '$%! V+'%(%0'C(-=,5'*%0! R*(%1'*A%7! (%.%(! '-! I,+=!
1-)2,+*%0!8$*1$@@@,11-(&*+9!'-!',/!5,80!-.!,!S%):%(!L','%B!*0!1-+0*&%(%&!'-!:%!(%0*&%+'!*+!
'$,'!S%):%(!L','%!.-(!',/!24(2-0%0!,+&B!4+&%(!'$%!'%()0!-.!,!&-4:5%!',/,'*-+!,9(%%)%+'!
1-+154&%&!8*'$!,!'$*(&!1-4+'(=B!*0!+-'!1-+0*&%(%&!'-!:%!(%0*&%+'!.-(!',/!24(2-0%0!-4'0*&%!
d<
'$%!Q-))4+*'=J@ !!
!
N%A%('$%5%00B!'$%0%!,(94)%+'0!1,+!)%%'!'$(%%!-:i%1'*-+0!8$*1$!0499%0'!'$,'!-)+2<)*#'$%!
PQhK0!,11%2',+1%!-.!'$%!&*0'(*:4'*-+!-.!',/*+9!2-8%(0!,11-(&*+9!'-!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!
-,*# '$%! PE! R*(%1'*A%0K! (%.%(%+1%! '-! '$%! +,'*-+,5! 5,80! -.! S%):%(! L','%0! 1,+! :%! ',D%+! ,0!
*)25=*+9!'$,'!'$%!25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'!,0!,!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!1-45&!:%!(%9,(&%&!
,0!'5H'"1!1-)2,'*:5%!8*'$!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'@!!
!
H! .*(0'! -:i%1'*-+! *0! 0499%0'%&! :=! '$%! PQhK0! -8+! 8-(&*+9! *+! '$-0%! 1,0%0! 8$%(%! *'0! (45*+90!
(%1-9+*G%&! S%):%(! L','%0K! .(%%&-)! '-! .-55-8! '$%! OPQR! S-&%5! *+! %+'%(*+9! *+'-! :*5,'%(,5!
1-+A%+'*-+0! .-(! %5*)*+,'*+9! &-4:5%! ',/,'*-+@! ! V+! .,1'B! '$%! PQh! (%,1$%&! '$,'! 2-0*'*-+! :=!
0','*+9! I*+! '$%! ,:0%+1%! -.! ,+=! 4+*.=*+9! -(! $,()-+*G*+9! Q-))4+*'=! )%,04(%0@@@*'! *0! +-'!
dd
!>))#).0.3!Q,0%!QC;<fn?TB!1%9*'!+-'%!>TB!,'!2,(,@!T<!,+&!'$%!1,0%C5,8!1*'%&!'$%(%@!
dm
!>))#).0@B!Q,0%!QCMMfn<fB!M+55"B!;<<m!PQU!VC?>d<MB!2,(,@!M;k!Q,0%!QCM?dn<dB!>'+-2UM,!'+-#sO3#;<<<!PQU!VCf;f;B!
2,(,@!cdk!Q,0%!QCc;Mn?MB!:'-#j+52)-3!>??f!PQU!VC;<cdB!2,(,@!Td@!!
d<
! Q-4+1*5! R*(%1'*A%! <?nTMcnPPQ! 6Z,(%+'CL4:0*&*,(=! R*(%1'*A%7B! H('@! >k! Q-4+1*5! R*(%1'*A%! >??<n;MMnPQ! 6S%(9%(!
R*(%1'*A%7B!H('@!Mk!Q-4+1*5!R*(%1'*A%!>??MnT<nPQ!6*+'%(%0'C(-=,5'*%0!R*(%1'*A%7B!H('@!M@!!
;;;f!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
4+(%,0-+,:5%J! .-(! '$%! S%):%(! L','%0! '-! :,0%! '$%*(! :*5,'%(,5! 1-+A%+'*-+0! -+! '$%! OPQR!
m?
S-&%5@ ! ! H(94,:5=B! 0','*+9! '$,'! .-55-8*+9! '$%! OPQR! S-&%5! *0! -,2# %-*)'1,-'!5)# &-%0! +-'!
+%1%00,(*5=!)%,+!'$,'!'$*0!1$-*1%!6*)25=*+9!'$%!(%5,'%&!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.-(!',/!(%0*&%+1%7!
*0! '$%! !)12# 9,11+!5)# -2'*-+B! :4'! *'! -+5=! )%,+0! '$,'! *'! *0! ,! 2-00*:5%! 7)4'%52# ,92+,-# *+! '$%!
,:0%+1%! -.! ,! )-(%! 04*',:5%! ,5'%(+,'*A%@! ! #$*0! *)25*%&! )%,+*+9! *0! %A*&%+'! *+! '$%! PQhK0!
0','%)%+'! 8$%(%:=! S%):%(! L','%0! $,A%! '$*0! .(%%&-)! +-# 2<)# '!1)-&)# ,4# '-"# %-+4"+-0# ,*#
<'*6,-+1+-0#PE!)%,04(%@!!
!
L%1-+&B! *'! 1-45&! :%! +-'%&! '$,'B! *+! 1%(',*+! 1,0%0! 8$%+! '$%! &*0'(*:4'*-+! -.! ',/*+9! 2-8%(0!
,11-(&*+9! '-! &-4:5%! ',/! 1-+A%+'*-+0! (%045'%&! *+! &*01(*)*+,'*-+0! *+! '$%! $-0'! L','%! ,9,*+0'!
',/2,=%(0! %/%(1*0*+9! ,! .4+&,)%+',5! .(%%&-)B! '$%! PQh! 8%+'! ,0! .,(! ,0! %0',:5*0$*+9! 8$*1$!
L','%! 0$-45&! ',D%! *+'-! ,11-4+'! '$%! ',/2,=%(K0! -A%(,55! ,:*5*'=C'-C2,=B! ,+&! '$40! 8$*1$! L','%!
0$-45&!',D%!7)#4'&2,!'$%!(-5%!-.!(%0*&%+1%!L','%@!!H+&!*'!&*&!0-!*((%02%1'*A%!-.!8$*1$!L','%!
8,0!(%9,(&%&!,0!'$%!(%0*&%+1%!L','%!4+&%(!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0k!,5'$-49$!'$%!PQh!&*&!0-!
m;!
*+! '$%! >&<%6'&@)*# 5*+%! -.! 1,0%C5,8! 1-+1%(+*+9! +,'4(,5! 2%(0-+0B '$%! PQhK0! ,22(-,1$! 8,0!
m>
(%9,(&%&!:=!'$%!5*'%(,'4(% !,0!,225=*+9!6%2'2+1#6%2'-7+1!'-!1-)2,+*%0!'--@!V+'%(%0'*+95=B!
*+!'$%!>&<%6'&@)*#(45*+9B!'$%!PQhB!:=!(%1-9+*G*+9!'$,'!'$%!(%0*&%+1%!L','%!*0!+-(),55=!'$%!
mM
-+%!*+!8$*1$!'$%!.*+,+1*,5!*+'%(%0'0!-.!'$%!',/2,=%(!,(%!1%+'%(%&B !*)25*1*'5=!,11%2'%&!'$*0!
+-(),5! 1*(14)0',+1%! ,0! 4+&%(5=*+9! i40'*.*1,'*-+! .-(! S%):%(! L','%0K! .(%%&-)! '-! 1-+.-()!
:*5,'%(,5!'(%,'*%0!'-!'$%!OPQR!S-&%5!,0!(%9,(&0!'$%!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.-(!',/!(%0*&%+1%!'--@!
V+! 1-+0%l4%+1%B!*'!1-45&! :%! *+.%((%&B!'#&,-2*'*+,3# '$,'! *'! 8-45&! :%! &*..*145'! .-(! ,! S%):%(!
L','%! -.! 5-1,'*-+! -.! '$%! I25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J! -.! ,! 1-)2,+=! 8$*1$B! :=!
,004)2'*-+B!$,0!*'0!(%9*0'%(%&!-..*1%!,+&!*'0!:40*+%00!,1'*A*'=!*+!,+-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%B!'-!
i40'*.=!'$%!15,*)!-.!',/!(%0*&%+1%!-+!'$%!:,0*0!-.!'$%!25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'!,5-+%!
8$%+!'$%!.*+,+1*,5!*+'%(%0'0!-.!'$%!1-)2,+=!,(%!1-+1%+'(,'%&!*+!,+-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%@!V+!
'$*0!0*'4,'*-+B!*'!8-45&!:%!'$%!5,''%(!L','%!8$*1$B!,(94,:5=!-+!'$%!:,0*0!-.!'$%!i40'*.*1,'*-+!
:,0%&!-+!'$%!1-+1%+'(,'*-+!-.!.*+,+1*,5!*+'%(%0'0B!8-45&!+%%&!'-!:%!,:5%!'-!15,*)!'$%!',/!
(%0*&%+1%@!
!
#$*(&5=B!*'!1-45&!8%55!:%!,(94%&!'$,'B!:%1,40%!-.!'$%!5,1D!-.!,!4+*.-()!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.-(!
',/! (%0*&%+1%! 8*'$*+! '$%! PEB! '$%! ',/! R*(%1'*A%0B! 8$*1$! ,(%! ,*)%&! ,'! %5*)*+,'*+9! &-4:5%!
',/,'*-+! .-(! 02%1*.*1! -2%(,'*-+0! :%'8%%+! 1-)2,+*%0! -.! &*..%(%+'! S%):%(! L','%0B!
-)&)11'*+5"# $,&! '-! (%.%(! '-! +,'*-+,5! 6,+&! &-4:5%! ',/! 1-+A%+'*-+07! &%.*+*'*-+0! -.! ',/!
(%0*&%+1%@! ! V+! -'$%(! 8-(&0B! '$%! 1*(14)0',+1%! '$,'! '$%! PQh! ,11%2'%&! S%):%(! L','%0K!
m?
!Q,0%!QCMMfn<fB!1%9*'!+-'%!d<B!,'!2,(,@!M?CM;k!Q,0%!QCc;Mn?MB!:'-#j+52)-3!>??f!PQU!VC;<cdB!2,(,@!TdCTmk!Q,0%!QC
Td?n?TB!OB!>??f!PQU!VCdT?<B!2,(,@!TTC!Tc@!
m;
!>))#)@0@B!Q,0%!QC>d<n?MB!>&<%6'&@)*#g;<<co!PQU!VC>>c!
m>
! h,+! p-4'%(0B! Q+1&'5# S'**+)*1# 2,# (,69'-+)1T# (*,11US,*7)*# C12'!5+1<6)-2# +-# 2<)# ('1)U$'H# ,4# 2<)# C(# (,%*2# ,4#
a%12+&)B!;T!_PHUaOOF!OX!PEUOZPHN!!WHp!dM!6;<<c7@!
mM
!>&<%6'&@)*3!1%9*'!+-'%!m>B!,'!2,(,0@!M>CMM!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;;d!
.(%%&-)! '-! &*0'(*:4'%! ',/*+9! (*9$'0! ,+&! '$,'! PE! R*(%1'*A%0! (%.%(! '-! +,'*-+,5! ',/! 5,80! ,+&!
&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!1,++-'!*+&*1,'%!'$,'!,+=!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!*0!:=!&%.*+*'*-+!,&-2'%&!
4+&%(!PE!5,8!+**)19)&2+:)!-.!*'0!2-'%+'*,5!%..%1'!-+!'$%!%/%(1*0%!-.!.4+&,)%+',5!.(%%&-)@!
O+! '$%! 1-+'(,(=B! '$*0! 1*(14)0',+1%! 1,+! -+5=! )%,+! '$,'B! ,'! '$%! 14((%+'! 0',9%! -.!
&%A%5-2)%+'! -.! PE! ',/! 5,8B! S%):%(! L','%0! ,(%! 0'*55! .(%%! '-! &%'%()*+%! '$%! 1-++%1'*+9!
.,1'-(0B!,+&B!*+!2,('*145,(B!*'!*+&*1,'%0!'$,'!'$%!*004%!-.!8$%'$%(!'$%!,225*1,'*-+!-.!,!02%1*.*1!
1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! .-(! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! ),=! (4+! 1-+'(,(=! '-! '$%! -:i%1'*A%! -.! ,! .4+&,)%+',5!
.(%%&-)!$,0!+-'!=%'!:%%+!(,*0%&@!
!
H11-(&*+95=B! ,5'$-49$! '$%! *+&*A*&4,5! S%):%(! L','%0! ,(%! .(%%! '-! 1$--0%! '$%! 1-++%1'*+9!
.,1'-(0!.-(!1-(2-(,'%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!,+&!'-!,225=!041$!.,1'-(0!,0!'$%=!&%%)!*'!,22(-2(*,'%B!
'$%! ,225*1,'*-+! -.! '$%0%! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(0! 1,++-'! :%! (%9,(&%&! ,0! %/%)2'! .(-)! 01(4'*+=!
4+&%(!PE!5,8@!!O+!'$%!1-+'(,(=B!'-!'$%!%/'%+'!'$,'!'$*0!1$-*1%!6,50-7!0%(A%0!,!9%+%(,5!,+'*C
,A-*&,+1%!24(2-0%!*'!,22%,(0!*+%A*',:5%!'$,'!6'$%!,225*1,'*-+!-.!'$%7!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!,'!
0',D%!0$-45&!:%!,:5%B!i40'!5*D%!-'$%(!,+'*C,A-*&,+1%!2(-A*0*-+0B!041$!,0!QXQ!4+&%(!01(4'*+=!
*+!('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1B!'-!0',+&!'$%!'%0'!-.!2(%A%+'*+9!1,5)5"!8$-55=!,('*.*1*,5!,((,+9%)%+'0B!
8$*1$B! ,0! 02%1*.*%&! :=! '$%! PQhB! 1,++-'! :%! ,004)%&! '-! %/*0'! *+! '$%! %A%+'! -.! ,! 9%+4*+%!
*+'%9(,'*-+!*+!'$%!$-0'!L','%@!!
!
#
===.#F+44)*)-2#N11)116)-2#4,*#F+44)*)-2#>+2%'2+,-1#'-7#ZQ%*2<)*\#N*0%6)-21#4,*#'#I)2<+-@+-0#
,4#2<)#(,--)&2+-0#Q'&2,*#
!
#$*0! 2-0*'*-+! 0%%)%&! '-! :%! *)25*%&5=! ,11%2'%&! :=! '$%! P4(-2%,+! Q-))*00*-+! *'0%5.! *+! *'0!
>??d! Q-))4+*1,'*-+! -+! '$%! ,225*1,'*-+! -.! ,+'*C,:40%! )%,04(%0! *+! '$%! ,(%,! -.! &*(%1'!
mT
',/,'*-+B ! 8$*1$! %/2(%005=! 0','%&B! :=! ,+,5=G*+9! '$%! PQhK0! 1,0%C5,8B! '$,'! I'$%! -:i%1'*A%! -.!
)*+*)*G*+9! -+%K0! ',/! :4(&%+! *0! *+! *'0%5.! ,! A,5*&! 1-))%(1*,5! 1-+0*&%(,'*-+! ,0! 5-+9! ,0! '$%!
,((,+9%)%+'0!%+'%(%&!*+'-!8*'$!,!A*%8!'-!,1$*%A*+9!*'!&-!+-'!,)-4+'!'-!,('*.*1*,5!'(,+0.%(0!
mc
-.! 2(-.*'0BJ ! *@%@! ,0! 5-+9! ,0! ,! 9%+4*+%! :40*+%00! ,1'*A*'=! *0! 1,((*%&! -+! *+! '$%! $-0'! 1-4+'(=@!!
L2%1*.*1,55=B!'$%!P4(-2%,+!Q-))*00*-+!0','%&!!!
!
V+!-(&%(!.-(!,+'*C,:40%!(45%0!'-!:%!i40'*.*%&B!'$%=!)40'!:%!1-+.*+%&!'-!0*'4,'*-+0!*+!
8$*1$!'$%(%!*0!,!.4('$%(!%5%)%+'!-.!,:40%@!V+!*'0!(%1%+'!1,0%!5,8!'$%!PQh!$,0!9*A%+!
)-(%! %/25*1*'! 94*&,+1%! -+! '$%! 1(*'%(*,! .-(! &%'%1'*+9! ,:40*A%! 2(,1'*1%0B! *@%@! 8$-55=!
,('*.*1*,5! ,((,+9%)%+'0@! ! V+! ('7!%*"B! '$%! PQh! $%5&! '$,'! ,+! %0',:5*0$)%+'! *0! '-! :%!
(%9,(&%&!,0!9%+4*+%!8$%(%B!:,0%&!-+!,+!%A,54,'*-+!-.!-:i%1'*A%!.,1'-(0!8$*1$!,(%!
,01%(',*+,:5%!:=!'$*(&!2,('*%0B!*+!2,('*145,(!%A*&%+1%!-.!2$=0*1,5!%/*0'%+1%!*+!'%()0!
-.! 2(%)*0%0B! 0',..! ,+&! %l4*2)%+'B! *'! (%.5%1'0! %1-+-)*1! (%,5*'=B! *@%@! ,+! ,1'4,5!
mT
!Q-))4+*1,'*-+!QOS!6dmc7!>??d!.*+,5@!
mc
!=7@!,'!M@!
;;;m!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
%0',:5*0$)%+'!1,((=*+9!-+!9%+4*+%!%1-+-)*1!,1'*A*'*%0!,+&!+-'!,!)%(%!{5%''%(:-/{!
mf
-(!{.(-+'{!04:0*&*,(=J@J !!!
!
O+! '$%! -'$%(! $,+&B! '$%! P4(-2%,+! Q-))*00*-+! (%1-9+*G%&B! *+! '$%! 0,)%! Q-))4+*1,'*-+B!
'$,'!I*'!*0!+-'!,5'-9%'$%(!1%(',*+!$-8!'$-0%!1(*'%(*,!),=!,225=!*+!(%02%1'!-.B!.-(!%/,)25%B!
*+'(,C9(-42! .*+,+1*,5! 0%(A*1%0! ,+&! $-5&*+9! 1-)2,+*%0B! 8$-0%! ,1'*A*'*%0! 9%+%(,55=! &-! +-'!
md
(%l4*(%!0*9+*.*1,+'!2$=0*1,5!2(%0%+1%J !*+!'$%!$-0'!S%):%(!L','%@!
!
V+! '$%! ,4'$-(K0! A*%8B! '$*0! &*0'*+1'*-+! :%'8%%+! &*..%(%+'! 0*'4,'*-+0340%&! :=! '$%! P4(-2%,+!
Q-))*00*-+!,+&B!,0!+-'%&!,:-A%B!:=!'$%!V',5*,+!',/!1,0%5,83*0!'$%!D%=!.-(!*&%+'*.=*+9!'$%!
1,0%0!8$%+!'$%!,225*1,'*-+!-.!'$%!I25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J!1(*'%(*,!:=!'$%!S%):%(!
L','%!-.!I%)*9(,'*-+J!1,+!:%!1-+0*0'%+'!8*'$!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!-.!1-)2,+*%0!
,+&!-'$%(!1,0%0!8$%+!*'!1,++-'@!!
!
kk
V+!5*9$'!-.!'$%!%5%)%+'0!(%.%((%&!'-!:=!'$%!PQh!*+!('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1B !8$-0%!2(%0%+1%!-(!
,:0%+1%! 1,+! %/154&%! -(! *+&*1,'%! '$%! -:i%1'*A%! ,02%1'! -.! ,+! {,:40*A%! 2(,1'*1%{B! *'! 1,+! :%!
,(94%&! '$,'B! *+! 0*'4,'*-+0! -.! 6)*)# <,57+-0# &,69'-+)1! 0%'! 42! *+! ,+-'$%(! S%):%(! L','%!
8*'$-4'! ,+! -(9,+*G,'*-+,5! 0'(41'4(%B! ,+! ,+'*C,A-*&,+1%! 2(-A*0*-+! 5*D%! '$%! V',5*,+! I.-(%*9+C
&(%00*+9J! 2(%04)2'*-+! ,+&! '$%! 4+&%(5=*+9! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! 9*A%+! :=! '$%! 1%+'(,5!
,&)*+*0'(,'*-+n25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'!*0!%+'*(%5=!1-+0*0'%+'!8*'$!'$%!PQh!1,0%C5,8@!!
#$*0! *0! :%1,40%B! *+! '$-0%! 0*'4,'*-+0B! '$%! 24(2-0%! -.! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! *0! +-'!
,1$*%A%&! &4%! '-! '$%! 5'&@# ,4# '-"# +-2)0*'2+,-# *+! '$%! -'$%(! PE! S%):%(! L','%! ,'! 0',D%@! ! V+!
-'$%(!8-(&0B!*+!'$%!0*'4,'*-+0!,'!0',D%!'$%!D*+&!-.!1-++%1'*-+!8*'$!'$%!'%((*'-(=!-.!,+-'$%(!
PE!1-4+'(=!8$*1$!*0B!,11-(&*+9!'-!'$%!PQh!1,0%!5,8B!+%1%00,(=!,+&!04..*1*%+'!'-!,1$*%A%!'$%!
-:i%1'*A%!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!3*@%@!'$%!%/%(1*0%!-.!,!9%+4*+%!:40*+%00!,1'*A*'=!
m<
-+! ,! 0',:5%! ,+&! 1-+'*+4-40! :,0%! 5%,&*+9! '-! %1-+-)*1! *+'%9(,'*-+! *+! '$,'! 1-4+'(= 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
&-%0!+-'!%/*0'@!!V+!'$*0!D*+&!-.!0*'4,'*-+B!'$%!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.-(!',/!(%0*&%+1%!5=*+9!*+!'$%!
25,1%!8$%(%!'$%!),+,9%(*,5!&%1*0*-+0!,(%!',D%+!&-%0!+-'!(*0D!$*+&%(*+9!'$%!24(2-0%!-.!'$%!
.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'@!!H11-(&*+9!'-!'$%!,4'$-(B!041$!(%,5*G,'*-+!*0!,50-!1-+0*0'%+'!8*'$!
<?
'$%! (%1-9+*'*-+! :=! '$%! P4(-2%,+! Q-))*00*-+B! *+! *'0! >??d! Q-))4+*1,'*-+B ! '$,'! '$%!
1(*'%(*,! -.! %/%(1*0%! -.! ,! 9%+4*+%! %1-+-)*1! ,1'*A*'=! )*9$'! +-'! ,225=! I*+! (%02%1'! -.B! .-(!
%/,)25%@@@$-5&*+9!1-)2,+*%0B!8$-0%!,1'*A*'*%0!9%+%(,55=!&-!+-'!(%l4*(%!0*9+*.*1,+'!2$=0*1,5!
2(%0%+1%J@! #$%! (%,5*G,'*-+! '$,'! '$%! ,1'*A*'=! -.! $-5&*+9! 1-)2,+*%0! &-%0! +-'! (%l4*(%!
1+0-+4+&'-2# 2$=0*1,5! 2(%0%+1%B! ,+&! '$40! ,! 0*9+*.*1,+'! -(9,+*G,'*-+,5! 0'(41'4(%B! &-%0! +-'!
mf
!=7@!,'!T@!!
md
!=7.!
mm
!>))!Q,&:4(=!L1$8%22%0B!1%9*'!+-'%!>TB!,'!2,(,@!fd@!
m<
!=7.!
<?
!QOS!6dmc7!>??d!.*+,5B!,'!T@!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;;<!
*+&*1,'%! '$,'! '$%! ,1'*A*'=! 1,+! :%! 1,((*%&! -4'! 8*'$! -,! 2$=0*1,5! 2(%0%+1%! -(! 8*'$! 041$! ,!
6+-+6'5#2(%0%+1%!,0!'-!5%,&!'-!-,#*)'5#*+'%(,1'*-+!8*'$!'$%!5-1,5!%1-+-)=@!
!
H0!+-'%&!:=!'$%!5*'%(,'4(%B!'$%!PQhK0!1,0%!5,8!-+!,:40%!-.!(*9$'0!*+!(%5,'*-+!'-!'$%!.(%%&-)!
-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!5*)*'0!'$%!01-2%!-.!'$%!I.-(%*9+C&(%00*+9J!2(%04)2'*-+!:=!*+&*1,'*+9!'$,'!
-+5=! 8$-55=! ,('*.*1*,5! ,((,+9%)%+'0! 1,+! :%! 1-+'(,0'%&! :=! +,'*-+,5! ,+'*C,A-*&,+1%!
<;! !
)%,04(%0@ Q-+0%l4%+'5=B! *'! 0$-45&! ,50-! :%! (%9,(&%&! ,0! 5*)*'*+9! '$%! ,225*1,'*-+! -.! '$%!
I1%+'(,5! ,&)*+*0'(,'*-+JnI25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! .-(! ',/!
(%0*&%+1%!'-!'$-0%!1-)2,+*%0!0%'!42!*+!-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%0!.-(!,A-*&,+1%!24(2-0%0@!!#$*0!
8,0! *)25*%&5=! (%1-9+*G%&! :=! '$%! V',5*,+! 1,0%! 5,8! 8$%+! 0','*+9! '$,'! '$%! I1%+'(,5!
,&)*+*0'(,'*-+J! 1(*'%(*,! )40'! ,58,=0! :%! ,225*%&! 8$%+! ,! 1-)2,+=! *0! 0%'C42! :=! V',5*,+!
',/2,=%(0!!*+!'$%!.-(%*9+!1-4+'(=!,+&!8$%+!'$%!0%''*+9!42!-.!,!1-)2,+=!*0!,-5"#6,2+:'2)7#
<>
!"#2'D#):'1+,-#,*#2'D#':,+7'-&)#*)'1,-1@ ###$*0!2-0*'*-+!*0!.455=!1-+0*0'%+'!8*'$!'$%!.*+&*+90!
-.! '$%! PQh! 1,0%5,8! '$,'! 5*)*'%&! '$%! ,225*1,'*-+! -.! ,+'*C,A-*&,+1%! )%,04(%0! '-! 8$-55=!
,('*.*1*,5!,((,+9%)%+'0@!!
!
H0! ,! (%045'B! '$%! ,225*1,'*-+! -.! '$*0! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! 8-45&! +-! 5-+9%(! :%! i40'*.*%&! :=! PE!
1,0%5,8!*.!*'!8%(%!'-!$*+&%(!'$%!1(%,'*-+!-.!1-)2,+*%0!*+!-'$%(!PE!1-4+'(*%0B!-(!'$%!'(,+0.%(!
<M
'$%(%! -.! '$%! (%9*0'%(%&! -..*1%! ,0! ,55-8%&! :=! '$%! ('*2)1+,! (45*+9 B! .-(! 9%+4*+%! :40*+%00!
(%,0-+0@! #$*0! 1-+1540*-+! 8-45&! ,50-! ,225=! *.! '$%! 1(%,'*-+! -.! 1-)2,+*%0B! *+! -'$%(! PE!
1-4+'(*%0B! 8,0! i40'*.*%&! :=! ',/! 0,A*+90! (%,0-+0B! :4'! ! (%045'0! *+! '$%! %/%(1*0%! -.! ,! 9%+4*+%!
:40*+%00!,1'*A*'=!,+&!'$40!5%,&0!'-!,!9%+4*+%!%1-+-)*1!*+'%9(,'*-+!*+!'$%!$-0'!1-4+'(=@!!
!
<T
#$%!$=2-'$%0*0!-.!)%(%#<,57+-0#1-)2,+*%0#)+2<)*!8*'$-4'!,+!-(9,+*G,'*-+,5!0'(41'4(% !,*#
8*'$! ,! 041$! ,! )*+*),5! 0'(41'4(%! ,0! +-'! '-! *+'%9(,'%! '$%*(! ,1'*A*'=! *+'-! '$%! %1-+-)=! -.!
,+-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%B!8-45&!'$%(%.-(%!+%%&!'-!:%!&*0'*+94*0$%&!.(-)!,'!5%,0'!'$(%%!-'$%(!
0*'4,'*-+0[! 6,7! $-5&*+9! 1-)2,+*%0! $,A*+9! ,+! -(9,+*G,'*-+,5! 0'(41'4(%! 8$*1$B! %A%+! *.! +-'!
0*9+*.*1,+'B!0$-8!041$!,!'$(%0$-5&!,0!'-!&%)-+0'(,'%!,!04..*1*%+'!5%A%5!-.!*+'%9(,'*-+!*+!'$%!
%1-+-)=! -.! '$%! $-0'! 1-4+'(=! '$,'! 1-45&! :%! +%1%00,(=! '-! '$%*(! 1,((=*+9! -+! ,! 9%+4*+%!
0%(A*1%C,1'*A*'=! '$%(%k! 6:7! )*/%&! $-5&*+9! 1-)2,+*%0! 1,((=*+9! -+! :-'$! .*+,+1*,5! ,+&!
),+4.,1'4(*+9n1-))%(1*,5! ,1'*A*'*%0! *+! '$%! $-0'! 1-4+'(=k! ,+&! 617# 1-)2,+*%0! 1,((=*+9! -+!
24(%5=! ),+4.,1'4(*+9! -(! 1-))%(1*,5! ,1'*A*'*%0! .455=! *+'%9(,'%&! *+! '$%! .-(%*9+! 1-4+'(=! -.!
*+1-(2-(,'*-+@!!!
!
<;
!S,(1%55-!Z-99*-5*B!O%,:)#5,0+&<)#7+#9+'-+4+&'8+,-)#4+1&'5)#+-2)*-'8+,-'5)B!T!NPO#PUH!d!6>?;;7@!!!
<>
!!!>))#1%9*'B!*+!2,(,9(,2$!!Q@!VB!'$%!U%9*-+,5!#,/!Q-4('!-.!#401,+=!(45*+9B!1*'%&!1%9*'B!+-'%0!c<!,+&!f?@!!
<M
!=.).!8*'$!1-+A%(0*-+!-.!'$%!5%9,5!.-()!*+'-!,!.-()!-..%(%&!:=!'$%!L','%!-.!&%0'*+,'*-+[!1))!Q,('%0*-B!1%9*'!+-'%!
;<B!,'!2,(,@!;;;C;;>@!!!
<T
!!>))!Z(-A*+1*,5!#,/!Q-4('!-.!a%554+-B!1%9*'!+-'%!cm@!
;;>?!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
p*'$!(%9,(&!'-!'$%0%!-'$%(!0*'4,'*-+0B!*+!'$%!,4'$-(K0!A*%8B!%A%+!*+!'$-0%!1,0%0!8$%(%!'$%!
),+,9%(*,5! &%1*0*-+0! 8%(%! ',D%+! *+! -+%! 1-4+'(=B! :4'! '$%! 1-)2,+=! '(,+0.%((%&! *'0!
(%9*0'%(%&!-..*1%B!,0!,55-8%&!4+&%(!'$%!('*2)1+,#*%5+-0B!'-!,!0%1-+&!PE!1-4+'(=!,+&!1,((*%&!
-4'!,!9%+4*+%!,1'*A*'=!*+!'$*0!-'$%(!1-4+'(=B!8$*1$!5%,&0!'-!,+!%..%1'*A%!*+'%9(,'*-+!'$%(%!*+!
'%()0! -.! 2$=0*1,5! 2(%0%+1%! ,+&! (%5,'*-+0! 8*'$! 5-1,5! %1-+-)*1! -2%(,'-(0! (%045'*+9! *+!
1-))%(1*,5! :%+%.*'0B! '$%! ,225*1,'*-+! -.! '$%! I25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J! ,0! ,!
1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.-(!',/!(%0*&%+1%!6,0!,11%2'%&!4+&%(!'$%!OPQR!S-&%5!-.!&%1*0*-+C),D*+9!
1%+'(%7!:=!'$%!.*(0'!1-4+'(=!8-45&!1-+'(,0'!8*'$!'$%!9-,5!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'@!!
#$*0! 8-45&! -114(! :%1,40%B! *+! '$%0%! 0*'4,'*-+0B! *'! 8-45&! :%! *)2-00*:5%! '-! .*+&! ,+! '!%1+:)#
9*'&2+&)!:%$*+&!'$%!0%''*+9!42!-.!'$%!1-)2,+=!&4%!'-!'$%!%1-+-)*1!*+'%(2%+%'(,'*-+!*+!'$%!
-'$%(! S%):%(! L','%! ,'! 0',D%@! ! #$*0! *+'%(2%+%'(,'*-+! 8-45&! ,1$*%A%! '$%! -:i%1'*A%! -.! '$%!
<c
.(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'B! :4'! 8-45&! (*0D! :%*+9! &*01-4(,9%& ! :=! '$%! ,225*1,'*-+! -.! '$%!
I25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J!*'0%5.@!!
!
Q-+0%l4%+'5=B! *'! .-55-80! '$,'B! .-(! 2(-A*+9! '$%! %/*0'%+1%! -.! 0*'4,'*-+0! 8$%(%! '$%! I25,1%! -.!
%..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J! 0$-45&! +-! 5-+9%(! :%! ,225*%&! *+! ,55! 1,0%0! -.! 9%+4*+%! %1-+-)*1!
*+'%9(,'*-+!*+!'$%!$-0'!S%):%(!L','%B!'$%!%A*&%+1%!'-!:%!40%&!:=!'$%!',/2,=%(B!4+&%(!'$%!
('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1#(45*+93#'-!&%)-+0'(,'%!,+!,1'4,5!%1-+-)*1!,1'*A*'=!*+!'$%!$-0'!1-4+'(=B!
<f
0$-45&!:%!+%1%00,(=!,+&!04..*1*%+'@!S-(%-A%(B!.(-)!'$%!Q,00+'!(45*+9B !*'!1-45&!:%!,(94%&!
6%2'2+1#6%2'-7+1!'$,'B!8$%+!:-'$!',/!0,A*+90!(%,0-+0!,+&!:40*+%00!(%,0-+0!8%(%!%/2(%005=!
*+&*1,'%&! :=! '$%! 1-)2,+=! 1-+1%(+%&! .-(! *'0! 1-+1%+'(,'*-+! -.! '$%! :40*+%00! ,1'*A*'=! *+! '$%!
$-0'!S%):%(!L','%B!'$%!(%5%A,+1%!-.!'$%!%5%)%+'0!*+&*1,'%&!*+!('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1#1-45&!
:%! 0'(%+9'$%+%&! '$(-49$! ,! l4,+'*','*A%! ,00%00)%+'! -.! '$%! 2(%&-)*+,+1%! -.! -'$%(!
%1-+-)*1!:%+%.*'0!-A%(!',/!:%+%.*'0!&%(*A*+9!.(-)!'$%!5-1,'*-+!*+!'$%!-'$%(!PE!1-4+'(=!,'!
0',D%@!!
!
<d
H0! ,5(%,&=! +-'%&B ! '$%! PQh! 0','%&B! *+! ('7!%*"# >&<H)99)1B! '$,'! '$%! ,00%00)%+'! -.! '$%!
2(%0%+1%! -(! ,:0%+1%! -.! 8$-55=! ,('*.*1*,5! ,((,+9%)%+'0! )40'! :%! :,0%&! -+! %5%)%+'0! 8$*1$!
,(%!-:i%1'*A%!,+&!,01%(',*+,:5%!:=!'$*(&!2,('*%0@!!#$%0%!%5%)%+'0!1-+0*0'B!*+!2,('*145,(B!-.!
'$%!2$=0*1,5!2(%0%+1%!-.!'$%!.-(%*9+!04:0*&*,(=!*+!'%()0!-.!2(%)*0%0B!0',..B!,+&!%l4*2)%+'!
,+&! *+! '$%! 9%+4*+%! %/%(1*0%! -.! '$%! ,1'*A*'*%0! *+! '$%! $-0'! 1-4+'(=@! ! #$%! 02%1*.*1,'*-+! {+-#
9'*2+&%5'*{! *+&*1,'%0! '$,'B! ,5'$-49$! '$%0%! %5%)%+'0! )*9$'! +-'! :%! 4+*l4%B! '$%=! )40'! '$%!
(%9,(&%&! ,0! '$%! )-0'! *)2-(',+'! -+%0@! ! #$%! ,&%l4,'%! 2(%0%+1%! -.! '$%0%! %5%)%+'0B!
%02%1*,55=!*.!.4('$%(!%+$,+1%&!'$(-49$!,!l4,+'*','*A%!,00%00)%+'!-.!'$%!+-+C',/!:%+%.*'0B!!
,55-80! '$%! ,1'*A*'=! ,1'4,55=! 2%(.-()%&B! ,11-(&*+9! '-! '$%! &%1*0*-+! -.! '$%! PQhB! '-! :%!
1-+0*&%(%&!,0!'$%!2(*),(=!24(2-0%!,+&!-4'1-)%!-.!'$%!1(%,'*-+!-.!'$%!1-)2,+=!*+!,+-'$%(!
<c
!H0!*'!8,0!,(94%&!:=!'$%!V',5*,+!5*'%(,'4(%!8*'$!(%9,(&!'-!'$%!I.-(%*9+C&(%00*+9J!2(%04)2'*-+!*+'%+&%&!'-!,225=!
'$%!I1%+'(,5!,&)*+*0'(,'*-+J!1(*'%(*,[!0%%!042(,B!*+!2,(,9(,2$!QB!V@B!'$%!5*'%(,'4(%!1*'%&!*+!+-'%!ff@!
<f
!!!>))#X-99*,B#1%9*'!+-'%!TdB!,'!2,(,@!Td@!
<d
!>))#'$%!&*01400*-+!1%9*'!*+!2,(,9(,$!aB!VVB!,:-4'!'$%!Q,&:4(=!!L1$8%22%0!(45*+9@!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;>;!
S%):%(! L','%B! 8$*1$! )%%'0! '$%! %1-+-)*1! *+'%9(,'*-+! -:i%1'*A%! -.! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.!
%0',:5*0$)%+'! ,+&! ),D%0! *'! 2-00*:5%! '-! ,004)%! '$,'! ',/! 0,A*+90! (%,0-+03%A%+! 8$%+!
%/*0'*+93-+5=!$,A%!,!0%1-+&,(=!(-5%@!!
!
#$*0! 8-45&! :%! 0-! :%1,40%B! ,2,('! .(-)! '$%! l4,+'*','*A%! ,00%00)%+'! *+! Q,00+'! -.! '$%!
(%5%A,+1%! -.! +-+C',/! :%+%.*'0! ,0! -22-0%&! '-! ',/! :%+%.*'0B! '$%! PQh! &*&! +-'! *+&*1,'%! -'$%(!
02%1*.*1! .,1'-(0! '-! :%! 2(-A%+! .-(! &%)-+0'(,'*+9! '$%! 2(%A,*5*+9! +-+C',/! 24(2-0%B! *@%@! '$%!
%1-+-)*1! *+'%9(,'*-+! -:i%1'*A%@! ! a4'! *+! ('7!%*"# >&<H)99)1B# '$%! PQh! *+.%((%&! *'! .(-)! '$%!
2$=0*1,5!2(%0%+1%!-.!'$%!.-(%*9+!04:0*&*,(=!*+!'%()0!-.!2(%)*0%0B!0',..B!,+&!%l4*2)%+'!,+&!
*+!'$%!9%+4*+%!%/%(1*0%!-.!'$%!,1'*A*'=!*+!'$%!$-0'!1-4+'(=@!
!
V'!1,+!:%!,&&%&!'$,'!*+!,!)-&%(+B!1-)24'%(*G%&!%1-+-)=B!8$%(%!&%1*0*-+0!:=!)%):%(0!-.!
,! 1-)2,+=K0! :-,(&! -.! &*(%1'-(0! 1-45&! :%! ',D%+! :=! )%,+0! -.! %5%1'(-+*1! 1-))4+*1,'*-+B!
041$! ,0! %),*50B! A*&%-2$-+%! -(! A*&%-1-+.%(%+1*+9! :%'8%%+! *+&*A*&4,50! 5*A*+9! *+! &*..%(%+'!
1-4+'(*%0B! 5-1,'*+9! '$%! I25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J! ,0! *+'%+&%&! :=! '$%! OPQR!
Q-))%+',(=! 6I25,1%! 8$%(%! '$%! D%=! ),+,9%)%+'! ,+&! 1-))%(1*,5! &%1*0*-+0! '$,'! ,(%!
+%1%00,(=!.-(!'$%!1-+&41'!-.!'$%!%+'*'=K0!:40*+%00!,(%!*+!04:0',+1%!),&%J7!*+!,!2,('*145,(!
1-4+'(=! ),=! :%1-)%! )-(%! ,+&! )-(%! &*..*145'@! ! #$*0! *0! :%1,40%B! ,0! $*9$5*9$'%&! :=! '$%!
5*'%(,'4(%B!I*'!*0!2%(.%1'5=!2-00*:5%!.-(!,!1-)2,+=!'-!:%!9%+4*+%5=!),+,9%&!,+&!1-+'(-55%&!
<m
.(-)! 0%A%(,5! 1-4+'(*%0! 0*)45',+%-405=@J ! ! #$%! OPQR! *'0%5.! 0$-8%&! ,8,(%+%00! ,:-4'! '$%!
<<
*)2,1'! -.! 95-:,5! 1-))4+*1,'*-+! '%1$+-5-9=! *+! *'0! >??;! R*01400*-+! R(,.' ! 6.-55-8%&! :=! ,!
;??
>??M! R*01400*-+! R(,.' 7! 0499%0'*+9! 1$,+9%0! '-! '$%! 25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'!
1-+1%2'B!8$*1$!1-+0*&%(%&!0-)%!'*%:(%,D%(!'%0'0!'$,'!1-45&!:%!,+!,5'%(+,'*A%!'-!'$%!I25,1%!
-.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'B! ,+&! *+&*1,'%&B! ,)-+90'! '$%! 2-'%+'*,5! ,5'%(+,'*A%0B! I8$%(%! '$%!
%1-+-)*1! +%/40! *0! 0'(-+9%0'JB! *@%@! '$%! 95'&)# H<)*)# 2<)# )-2)*9*+1)T1# )&,-,6+&# 5+-@1# '*)#
12*,-0)12!
!
H5'$-49$!'$%0%!0499%0'*-+0!$,A%!+-'!=%'!(%045'%&!*+!'$%!(%25,1%)%+'!:=!'$%!OPQR!-.!'$%!
I25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J!8*'$!,+!,5'%(+,'*A%!1(*'%(*,B!041$!,0!2<)#95'&)#H<)*)#2<)#
)-2)*9*+1)T1# )&,-,6+&# 5+-@1! '*)# 12*,-0)12B! *'! .-55-80! .(-)! '$%! .-(%9-*+9! ,+,5=0*0! '$,'! ,!
1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! 041$! ,0! '$%! 5,''%(38$*1$! 1-45&! :%! *&%+'*.*%&! *+! '$%! 25,1%! 8$%(%! '$%!
1-)2,+=!1,((*%0!-+!*'0!,1'*A*'=!*+!'%()0!-.!2(-&41'*-+!,+&n-(!1-))%(1*,5*G,'*-+!,+&!40%0!,!
2$=0*1,5! 2(%0%+1%! .-(! '$*0! 24(2-0%38-45&! ,1'4,55=! *+&*1,'%! '$%! 25,1%! 8$%(%! '$%! 1-)2,+=!
0$-80! 1-+1(%'%! *+'%9(,'*-+! *+'-! '$%! 5-1,5! %1-+-)=@! ! V+! 0-! &-*+9B! *'! 8-45&! :%! .455=!
<m
!>))!1%9*'!+-'%!;B!,'!fd@!
<<
! OPQR! 6>??;7B! #^P! VSZHQ#! OX! #^P! QOSSENVQH#VON! UPeOWE#VON! ON! #^P! HZZWVQH#VON! OX! ! KZWHQP! OX!
PXXPQ#VeP! SHNH]PSPN#K! HL! H! #VPaUPHFPU! UEWPB! H! RVLQELLVON! ZHZPU! XUOS! #^P! #PQ^NVQHW! HReVLOU_!
]UOEZ! ON! SONV#OUVN]! #^P! HZZWVQH#VON! OX! PbVL#VN]! #UPH#_! NOUSL! XOU! #^P! #HbH#VON! OX! aELVNPLL!
ZUOXV#LB!,'!;;C;>@!!!
;??
! OPQR! 6>??M7! ZWHQP! OX! PXXPQ#VeP! SHNH]PSPN#! QONQPZ#[! LE]]PL#VONL! XOU! Q^HN]PL! #O! #^P! OPQR!
SORPW!#Hb!QONePN#VONB!RVLQELLVON!RUHX#!>d!SH_!>??MB!,'!c@!!
;;>>!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
1-+0*0'%+'! 8*'$! '$%! 24(2-0%! -.! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'B! *+! ,&&*'*-+! '-! -..%(*+9! ,!
',+9*:5%!.,1'-(!-.!1-++%1'*-+!8*'$!'$%!'%((*'-(=!-.!,+=!9*A%+!S%):%(!L','%@!!X4('$%()-(%B!
:=! ),D*+9! '$%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! -.! 1-)2,+*%0! 1-*+1*&%! 8*'$! '$%! 25,1%! 8$%(%! '$%*(! .*+,+1*,5!
*+'%(%0'0!,(%!1-+1%+'(,'%&B!,!'*%C:(%,D*+9!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!1-+0*0'*+9!-.!'$%!25,1%!-.!'$%!
1-)2,+=K0!15-0%0'!%1-+-)*1!5*+D0B!1-45&!:%!(%9,(&%&!,0!.455=!i40'*.*%&!:=!'$%!(%1-9+*'*-+!:=!
'$%!PQh!*'0%5.B!*+!'$%!>&<%6'&@)*#(45*+9B!'$,'!'$%!(%0*&%+1%!L','%!*0!+-(),55=!'$%!-+%!8$%(%!
;?;
'$%!.*+,+1*,5!*+'%(%0'0!-.!'$%!',/2,=%(!,(%!1%+'%(%&B !,+&!:=!'$%!45'*),'%!24(2-0%!-.!,+=!
',/,'*-+! 0=0'%)B! *@%@! '-! %+04(%! '$,'! ,55! +,'4(,5! -(! 5%9,5! 2%(0-+0! &%(*A*+9! *+1-)%! .(-)! ,!
i4(*0&*1'*-+! 1-+'(*:4'%! '-! 24:5*1! %/2%+&*'4(%! 8*'$*+! '$,'! L','%@! ! V+! .,1'B! '$%! 25,1%! -.! '$%!
1-)2,+=K0! 15-0%0'! %1-+-)*1! '*%0B! (%045'*+9! *+! '$%! 25,1%! 8$%(%! '$%! 1-)2,+=! $,0! *'0! ),*+!
%1-+-)*1!*+'%(%0'0!&4%!'-!(%5,'*-+0!8*'$!04225*%(0B!.*+,+1%(0!,+&!140'-)%(0B!8-45&!,50-!:%!
'$%! 25,1%! 8$%(%! )-0'! -.! '$%! 1-)2,+=K0! 2(-.*'! *0! 9%+%(,'%&! ,+&! 8$%(%! '$%! 1-)2,+=!
:%+%.*'0! .(-)! 5-1,5! 0%(A*1%0! *+! 1,((=*+9! -4'! *'0! -A%(,55! ,1'*A*'=@! ! #$*0! 2%(02%1'*A%! 5%+&0!
i40'*.*1,'*-+! '-! '$%! 1-)2,+=K0! 1-+'(*:4'*-+! '-! 24:5*1! 02%+&*+9! *+! '$%! 1-4+'(=! ,'! 0',D%!
'$(-49$! *'0! ',/,'*-+! -+! 8-(5&8*&%! *+1-)%! ,+&! '$%(%.-(%! '$(-49$! '$%! ,55-1,'*-+! -.! ',/!
(%0*&%+1%!'-!'$%!S%):%(!L','%!4+&%(!1-+0*&%(,'*-+@!!!!
!
H+-'$%(! (%,0-+! .-(! ,! (%'$*+D*+9! -.! '$%! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! .-(! ,! 1-)2,+=K0! ',/! (%0*&%+1%!
8*'$*+!'$%!PE!1-45&!:%!'$%!2-00*:5%!*+'(-&41'*-+!-.!,!P4(-2%,+!Z(*A,'%!Q-)2,+=!6PZQ7B!*@%@!
,! .-()! -.! 2(*A,'%! 5*)*'%&! 1-)2,+=! 9-A%(+%&! :=! P4(-2%,+! 5,8! 8$*1$B! ,11-(&*+9! '-! '$%!
;?>
Q-))*00*-+K0!2(-2-0,5B !8-45&!:%!,A,*5,:5%!'-!60),55!,+&!)%&*4)C0*G%&7!:40*+%00%0!.(-)!
,55! S%):%(! L','%0! ,+&! 1-45&! :%! 1(%,'%&! 8*'$! '$%! (%9*0'%(%&! -..*1%! *+! -+%! L','%! ,+&! '$%!
;?M
$%,&! -..*1%! 625,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'7! *+! ,+-'$%(! L','%@ ! ! a%1,40%! D%%2*+9! '$%!
(%9*0'%(%&! -..*1%! ,+&! '$%! $%,&! -..*1%! *+! '8-! &*..%(%+'! S%):%(! L','%0! 3! ,0! 8%55! ,0!
1-+1%+'(,'*+9!*'0!:40*+%00!,1'*A*'=!*+!'$%!S%):%(!L','%!-.!5-1,'*-+!-.!'$%!(%9*0'%(%&!-..*1%!
*.!'$*0!8%(%!)-(%!1-+A%+*%+'!3!8-45&!:%!-+%!-.!'$%!-'2%*'5#2(%(-9,'*A%0!-.!,+!PZQ!,0!2,('!
-.!*'0!-,*6'5#:40*+%00!-2%(,'*-+0B!*'!1-45&!:%!,(94%&!'$,'!'$%!S%):%(!L','%!-.!5-1,'*-+!-.!
'$%!I25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J!8-45&!:%!4+,:5%!'-!*+A-D%!9'*2+&%5'*#(%,0-+0B!041$!,0!
'-2+U'!%1)#(%,0-+0B!.-(!15,*)*+9!'$%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!-.!'$%!1-)2,+=@!!H'!'$%!0,)%!'*)%B!'$%!
-'$%(! S%):%(! L','%B! &4%! '-! '$%! %1-+-)*1! *+'%(%0'! -.! '$%! 1-)2,+=! :%*+9! 1-+1%+'(,'%&!
'$%(%B! 8-45&! :%! :%''%(! 25,1%&! '-! ,00%00! '$%! ',/2,=%(K0! -A%(,55! ,:*5*'=! '-! 2,=! ,+&! '$40! '-!
25,=!'$%!(-5%!-.!',/!(%0*&%+1%!S%):%(!L','%@!!!
!
H&)*''%&5=B! .(-)! '$%! A*%82-*+'! -.! '$%! S%):%(! L','%! -.! -(*9*+! -.! ,! 1-)2,+=! 8$-0%!
(%9*0'%(%&!-..*1%!8,0!'(,+0.%((%&!,+&!8$-0%!:40*+%00!8%(%!%+'*(%5=!1-+&41'%&!*+!,+-'$%(!
;?;
!>))!>&<%6'&@)*B!1%9*'#+-'%!m>B!,'!2,(,0@!M>CMM@!
;?>
!!Z(-2-0,5!.-(!,!Q-4+1*5!U%945,'*-+!-+!'$%!L','4'%!!.-(!,!P4(-2%,+!Z(*A,'%!Q-)2,+=B!QOS6>??m7M<fnM@!!
;?M
!X-(!,+!*+C&%2'$!,+,5=0*0!-.!'$%!Q-))*00*-+K0!Z(-2-0,5!.-(!,!PZQ!L','4'%B!1))!U-5,+&*+-!]4*&-''*B!K<)#C%*,9)'-#
P*+:'2)#(,69'-"E#K<)#(%**)-2#>+2%'2+,-B!;M!]PUS@!W@!h@!MM;!6>?;>7@!
!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;>M!
S%):%(! L','%! *+! '%()0! -.! 2(-&41'*-+! ,+&! 1-))%(1*,5*G,'*-+B! 1-+'*+4*+9! '-! ,225=! ,!
1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!9*A*+9!*)2-(',+1%!'-!'$%!&%1*0*-+C),D*+9!1%+'(%!8-45&!:%B!,+!%..%1'*A%!
)%,+0! .-(! 2(-'%1'*+9! *'0! (%A%+4%0! *+'%(%0'0@! N%A%('$%5%00B! '$*0! 8-45&! +-'! :%! *+! *'0%5.! ,!
5%9*'*),'%! (%,0-+! :%1,40%! '$%! PQh! $%5&! -+! 0%A%(,5! -11,0*-+0! '$,'! '$%! 2(-'%1'*-+! -.!
(%A%+4%0!*+'%(%0'!*0!+-'B!*+!*'0%5.B!,+!-A%((*&*+9!24:5*1!*+'%(%0'!(%,0-+!'-!i40'*.=!,!)%,04(%!
;?T
$,A*+9!,!&*004,0*A%!%..%1'!-+!'$%!%/%(1*0%!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'@ !!!
!
#-!04)!42B!*'!1,+!'$40!:%!,(94%&!'$,'B!&%02*'%!:%*+9!),&%!*+1(%,0*+95=!-:0-5%'%!*+!'$%!%(,!
-.! %5%1'(-+*1! 1-))4+*1,'*-+0B! '$%! (%0-('! '-! '$%! I25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J!
1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! .-(! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! :=! ,+! PE! S%):%(! L','%! 1,+! 0'*55! .*+&! ,! 6(%0*&4,57!
i40'*.*1,'*-+!-+5=!*+!'$-0%!1,0%0!-.!5-1,'*-+!-.!'$%!(%9*0'%(%&!-..*1%!-.!,!1-)2,+=!*+!,+-'$%(!
S%):%(!L','%!.-(!',/!,A-*&,+1%!24(2-0%0@!Q-+0%l4%+'5=B!*'!1,+!,50-!:%!*+.%((%&!'$,'!'$*0!
1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.-(!1-(2-(,'%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!5%+&0!*'0%5.!'-!1(*'*1*0)!-.!*+1-+0*0'%+1=!8*'$!
'$%!-:i%1'*A%!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!*+!,55!*+0',+1%0!8$%(%!'$%!2(%0%+1%!-.!'$%!
%5%)%+'0!*+&*1,'%&!:=!'$%!PQh!*+!('7!%*"#>&<H)99)1#&%2(*A%0!*'!-.!2-'%+'*,5!i40'*.*1,'*-+0!
-+!,+'*C,A-*&,+1%!9(-4+&0@!!
!
p*'$! (%9,(&! '-! '$%0%! 5,''%(! 1,0%0B! ,! (%'$*+D*+9! -.! '$%! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! '-! :%! 40%&! ,0! ,!
'*%:(%,D%(! (45%! .-(! ,! 1-)2,+=K0! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! ,55-1,'*-+B! 041$! ,0! 0%5%1'*+9! ,! +%8!
1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! :,0%&! -+! '$%! 95'&)# H<)*)# 2<)# &,69'-"# <'1# 2<)# &5,1)12# )&,-,6+&# 2+)1!
6-+%! -.! '$%! ,5'%(+,'*A%0! &*01400%&! *+! '$%! OPQR! 0*+1%! >??;C>??M7B! 8-45&! 1%(',*+5=! :%!
,22(-2(*,'%B!,+&!'$*0!8-45&!,225=!'-!,+!%A%+!9(%,'%(!%/'%+'!0$-45&!'$%!PZQ!:%!*+'(-&41%&@!
!
!
!
OA!PN:/$+()%)!0/#!$+(!"::'%&.$%/4!/0!.4!"'$(#4.$%2(!8/44(&$%45!9.&$/#!0/#!8/#:/#.$(!*.<!
=()%>(4&(!!!
!
V.!,+!,5'%(+,'*A%!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.-(!1-(2-(,'%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!24(2-0%0!35=*+9!*+!'$%!95'&)#
,4# 2<)# &,69'-"T1# &5,1)12# )&,-,6+&# 2+)13! 8%(%! '-! :%! *+'(-&41%&! 8*'$*+! '$%! PE! .-(!
,225*1,'*-+B!,0!,!'*%:(%,D%(!(45%B!'-!1-A%(!,55!0*'4,'*-+0!8$%(%!1-)2,+*%0!$,A%!,!$%,&!-..*1%!
*+! -+%! S%):%(! L','%! :4'! ,(%! *+'%9(,'%&! *+'-! '$%! %1-+-)=! -.! ,+-'$%(! S%):%(! L','%B! *'!
8-45&! :%! +%1%00,(=! '-! .*+&! ,! )%1$,+*0)! '-! %+04(%! '$%! 0)--'$! ,225*1,'*-+! -.! '$*0!
1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!4+&%(!1-+&*'*-+0!-.!5%9,5!1%(',*+'=@!!
!
V+! '$*0! (%02%1'B! *'! 1-45&! :%! +-'%&! '$,'! 0-)%! (%1%+'! &-4:5%! ',/! '(%,'*%0! 3041$! ,0! '$%! +%8!
;?c
&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+!:%'8%%+!'$%!N%'$%(5,+&0!,+&!'$%!EF 3!*+!H('@!T!+-!5-+9%(!,&-2'!
'$%!I25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J!1(*'%(*,!,0!,!'*%:(%,D%(!(45%!.-(!',/!(%0*&%+1%@!U,'$%(B!
;?T
;?c
!>))#('7!%*"#>&<H)99)13#1%9*'!+-'%!>T!,'!2,(,@!T<B!,+&!'$%!2(%A*-40!1,0%C5,8!1*'%&!*+!'$,'!+-'%@!
! EFCN%'$%(5,+&0! R-4:5%! #,/! Q-+A%+'*-+B! 0*9+%&! -+! >f! L%2'%):%(! >??mB! ,A,*5,:5%! -+5*+%! ,'[!
$''2[nn888@$)(1@9-A@4Dn',/'(%,'*%0n*+C.-(1%n>??mC+%'$%(5,+&0C4DC&'1@2&.!65,0'!,11%00%&[!M;!H4940'!>?;>7@!
;;>T!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
'$%=!%0',:5*0$!'$,'B!*+!1,0%0!8$%(%!:-'$!1-+'(,1'*+9!L','%0!(%9,(&!,!1-)2,+=!,0!'$%*(!-8+!
(%0*&%+'! 4+&%(! &-)%0'*1! 5,8B! '$%! (%0*&%+1%! 0$-45&! :%! ,55-1,'%&! :=! )%,+0! -.! ,9(%%)%+'!
:%'8%%+!'$%!S%):%(!L','%0!1-+1%(+%&@!L*)*5,(5=B!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!'$,'!0'*55!40%!'$%!
25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'! 1(*'%(*,! ,0! ,! '*%:(%,D%(! (45%! &-! (%l4*(%! ,+! ,9(%%)%+'!
:%'8%%+! '$%! 1-+1%(+%&! ',/! ,4'$-(*'*%0! -A%(! (%0*&%+1%! ,55-1,'*-+! *+! 1,0%0! 8$%(%! *'! *0!
*)2-00*:5%!'-!*&%+'*.=!'$%!25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'@!!L41$!,+!,9(%%)%+'!*0!(%,1$%&!
'$(-49$! '$%! )4'4,5! ,9(%%)%+'! 2(-1%&4(%! 6SHZ7! 0%'! -4'! :=! H('0@! >c! -.! '$%! OPQR! S-&%5!
;?f
,+&!-.!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!:,0%&!-+!*'@ !E+'*5!'$%!,9(%%)%+'!*0!(%,1$%&!38$*1$!),=!
;?d
',D%! ,! +4):%(! -.! =%,(0 3! '$%! 1-)2,+=! *0! 5%.'! 8*'$! 5%9,5! 4+1%(',*+'=@! S-(%-A%(B! *+! '$%!
%A%+'! '$,'! +-! ,9(%%)%+'! *0! (%,1$%&! -+! '$%! 5-1,'*-+! -.! '$%! I25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%!
),+,9%)%+'J! :%'8%%+! '8-! ',/! ,4'$-(*'*%0! :-'$! 15,*)*+9! '$,'! '$%! 1-)2,+=j0! &%1*0*-+C
),D*+9! 1%+'%(! *0! 5-1,'%&! *+! '$%*(! '%((*'-(=B! '$%! 1-)2,+=! 8-45&! (*0D! .,1*+9! 8-(58*&%!
',/,'*-+! *+! '8-! 1-4+'(*%0@! #$*0! (*0D! %/*0'0! :%1,40%! '$%! SHZ! 9%+%(,55=! (%l4*(%0! '$%!
1-+'(,1'*+9! L','%0! '-! ),D%! '$%*(! !)12# )44,*21! '-! (%,1$! ,+! ,9(%%)%+'B! :4'! +-'! '-! ,1'4,55=!
(%,1$!,+!,9(%%)%+'B!%-5)11#'$%!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+!,'!*004%!*+1-(2-(,'%0!,+!,(:*'(,'*-+!
15,40%!*+!'$%!1-+'%/'!-.!'$%!SHZB!,0!8,0!*+&%%&!(%1-))%+&%&!:=!'$%!>??m!(%A*0*-+!-.!H('@!
>c! -.! '$%! OPQR! S-&%5! ,+&! :=! '$%! P4(-2%,+! Q-))*00*-+! *+! *'0! >?;;! Q-))4+*1,'*-+! -+!
;?m
&-4:5%!',/,'*-+@ !O+5=!,!0),55!+4):%(!-.!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!,1'4,55=!1-+',*+!041$!,+!
;?<
,(:*'(,'*-+!15,40%B !'$40!*)25=*+9!'$,'!)-0'!1-)2,+*%0!8-45&!.,1%!5%9,5!4+1%(',*+'=!,+&!
(*0D0!-.!&-4:5%!',/,'*-+!*+!'$%!%A%+'!-.!&*0,9(%%)%+'!:%'8%%+!'8-!1-4+'(*%0!(%9,(&*+9!'$%!
5-1,'*-+!-.!'$%!25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'@!
!
H0! +-'%&! ,:-A%B! ,+! ,5'%(+,'*A%! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! .-(! 1-(2-(,'%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! 24(2-0%0!
:,0%&! -+! '$%! 25,1%! -.! '$%! 15-0%0'! %1-+-)*1! '*%0@! #$*0! 1-45&! :%! A%(*.*%&! '$(-49$! '$%!
,225*1,'*-+!-.!-:i%1'*A%!1(*'%(*,!041$!,0!'$%!2$=0*1,5!2(%0%+1%!*+!'%()0!-.!2(%)*0%0B!0',..B!
%l4*2)%+'B! ,+&! 2(-&41'*-+! ,1'*A*'=@! E0*+9! '$%! 25,1%! -.! %1-+-)*1! '*%0! ,0! ,! 1-++%1'*+9!
.,1'-(!.-(!1-(2-(,'%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!24(2-0%0!8-45&!:%!8%55!9(-4+&%&!.(-)!'$%!A*%82-*+'!-.!
'$%!A%(=!(,'*-+,5%!-.!,!',/!0=0'%)B!*+!,&&*'*-+!'-!:%*+9!%,0*%(!'-!A%(*.=!'$,+!'$%!I25,1%!-.!
%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J@!
!
V.! '$%! 25,1%! -.! '$%! 15-0%0'! %1-+-)*1! '*%0! 8%(%! ,004)%&! ,0! ,! +%8! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! *+!
&-4:5%! ',/! 1-+A%+'*-+0! :%'8%%+! S%):%(! L','%0B! '$%! 2(-A*0*-+! -.! '$%0%! &-4:5%! ',/!
;?f
!S*55%(B!O,'0B!,+&!a40B!1%9*'!+-'%!;B!,'!;TMB!$*9$5*9$'!'$,'!%0',:5*0$*+9!,!0*+95%!L','%!-.!(%0*&%+1%B!8$%(%!'$%!
'*%:(%,D%(!15,40%0!*+!H('@!T!-.!'$%!S-&%5!6,+&!-.!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+07!$,A%!.,*5%&B!*0!-+%!-.!'$%!)-0'!1-))-+!
0*'4,'*-+0!8$%(%!'$%!SHZ!*0!*+A-D%&@!
;?d
! =7.! ,'! ;TTB! 8$%(%! '$%! H4'$-(0! 0'(%00! '$,'! *'! *0! +-'! 4+404,5! .-(! ,! SHZ! '-! ',D%! :%'8%%+! m! ,+&! ;?! =%,(0! '-! :%!
1-+154&%&@!
;?m
;?<
!Q-))4+*1,'*-+!6>?;;7!d;>!.*+,5B!R-4:5%!#,/,'*-+!*+!'$%!L*+95%!S,(D%'B!,'!<C;?@!
!>))#)@0@B!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!:%'8%%+!X(,+1%!,+&!EF!6;<!h4+%!>??m7B!:%'8%%+!'$%!N%'$%(5,+&0!,+&!EF!6>f!
L%2'%):%(!>??m7!,+&!:%'8%%+!]%(),+=!,+&!EF!6M?!S,(1$!>?;?7@!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;>c!
1-+A%+'*-+0! &%,5*+9! 8*'$! 1-)2,+*%0K! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! 8-45&! +%%&! '-! :%! ,)%+&%&!
,11-(&*+95=@!R-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!,)%+&%&!*+!'$*0!),++%(!1-45&!0%'!-4'!'$%!25,1%!-.!'$%!
15-0%0'! %1-+-)*1! '*%0! ,0! ,! '*%:(%,D%(! 1(*'%(*,B! 8$*5%! 5%,A*+9! '$%! 25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%!
),+,9%)%+'! ,0! ,! 0%1-+&! ,+&! (%0*&4,5! 1(*'%(*,B! '-! :%! 40%&! -+5=! *+! '$%! 1,0%! -.! '$-0%!
1-)2,+*%0B!041$!,0!$-5&*+9!1-)2,+*%0B!8$-0%!,1'*A*'=!1-45&!+-'!5%,&!'-!9%+4*+%!%1-+-)*1!
*+'%9(,'*-+! *+! '$%! $-0'! 1-4+'(=@! ! H5-+9! 8*'$! '$%! ,)%+&)%+'! -.! (%0*&%+1%! 2(-A*0*-+0! -.!
&-4:5%! ',/! 1-+A%+'*-+0B! ,'! '$,'! '*)%! R*(%1'*A%! >?;;n;f! -+! ,&)*+*0'(,'*A%! 1--2%(,'*-+!
;;?
:%'8%%+! S%):%(! L','%0B ! &4%! '-! :%! *+'(-&41%&! :=! S%):%(! L','%0! :=! ;! h,+4,(=! >?;MB!!
1-45&! ,50-! :%! ,)%+&%&! '-! 0%(A%! ,0! *+0'(4)%+'! .-(! '(,+0)*''*+9! *+.-(),'*-+! ,:-4'! '$%!
5-1,'*-+!-.!'$%!25,1%!-.!'$%!15-0%0'!%1-+-)*1!'*%0@!!!
!
H('@! m! -.! '$%! R*(%1'*A%! 14((%+'5=! 2(-A*&%0! .-(! ,4'-),'*1! %/1$,+9%! -.! *+.-(),'*-+! ,:-4'!
02%1*.*1! 1,'%9-(*%0! -.! *+1-)%! -:',*+%&! *+! ,! S%):%(! L','%! :=! +,'4(,5! 2%(0-+0! 8$-! ,(%!
(%0*&%+'!*+!,+-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%@!X(-)!;!h,+4,(=!>?;T!-+8,(&0B!H('@!m!!8*55!,55-8!'$%!,!
L','%! '-! ,++4,55=! (%1%*A%! *+.-(),'*-+! ,:-4'! 02%1*.*1! *+1-)%! (%1%*A%&! :=! *'0! (%0*&%+'!
*+&*A*&4,50!*+!,+=!PE!0-4(1%!L','%@!^-8%A%(B!*+!'$%!14((%+'!A%(0*-+B!H('@!m!&-%0!+-'!1-A%(!
2(-.*'0!%,(+%&!:=!1-)2,+*%0@!N%A%('$%5%00B!'$%!I25,1%!-.!'$%!15-0%0'!%1-+-)*1!'*%0J!1-45&!
:%! %/2%1'%&B! ,'! 5%,0'! .-(! 1-)2,+*%0! 8$*1$! ,(%! ,1'*A%! *+! '$%! *+&40'(*,5! ,+&! 1-))%(1*,5!
0%1'-(0B! '-! :%! '$%! 25,1%! 8$%(%! '$%=! $,A%! ,! 2$=0*1,5! 2(%0%+1%! ,+&! 8$%(%B! '$,+D0! '-! '$*0!
2(%0%+1%B!'$%=!,50-!$,A%!'$%!15-0%0'!(%5,'*-+0!*+!'%()0!-.!04225*%(0!,+&!140'-)%(0@!V+!-'$%(!
8-(&0B!'$%!I25,1%!-.!15-0%0!%1-+-)*1!'*%0J!8-45&!:%!'$%!25,1%!8$%(%!,!1-)2,+=j0!:40*+%00!
,1'*A*'=!*+!'%()0!-.!2(-&41'*-+!,+&!1-))%(1*,5*G,'*-+!*0!1,((*%&!-+!,+&!8$%(%!)-0'!-.!*'0!
2(-.*'0! ,(%! -:',*+%&@! S-(%-A%(B! '$%! 2$=0*1,5! 2(%0%+1%! *+! '%()0! -.! 2(%)*0%0B! 0',..! ,+&!
%l4*2)%+'! .-(! 1,((=*+9! -4'! '$%! 1-(%! :40*+%00! ,1'*A*'=! *+! ,! 02%1*.*1! 1-4+'(=! 8-45&! (%.5%1'B!
;;;
4+&%(!'$%!OPQR!&%.*+*'*-+!-.!2%(),+%+'!%0',:5*0$)%+'!6ZP7B !,'!5%,0'!'$%!2(%0%+1%!-.!,!
ZP!60$-45&!'$%!1-)2,+=!,'!0',D%!:%!(%9,(&%&!,0!(%0*&%+'!*+!,+-'$%(!S%):%(!L','%!4+&%(!
'$%!14((%+'5=!,&-2'%&!1(*'%(*-+!.-(!&%'%()*+,'*-+!-.!'$%!',/!(%0*&%+1%7@!#$%!ZP!*0!&%.*+%&!*+!
H('@!c!-.!'$%!OPQR!S-&%5!6,+&!-.!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!:,0%&!-+!*'7B!,0!,!.*/%&!25,1%!-.!
:40*+%00B! '$(-49$! 8$*1$! '$%! :40*+%00! -.! ,+! %+'%(2(*0%! *0! 8$-55=! -(! 2,('5=! 1,((*%&! -+@! V'0!
2(%0%+1%!*0!(%5%A,+'!:%1,40%!C!4+&%(!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!2(-A*0*-+0!:,0%&!-+!'$%!OPQR!
S-&%5B!*'!8-45&!,''(*:4'%!'-!'$%!L','%!-.!5-1,'*-+!-.!'$%!ZP!'$%!(*9$'!'-!',/!'$%!2(-.*'0!6,0!,!
;;>
I0-4(1%!1-4+'(=J7!%,(+%&!:=!'$%!ZP!*'0%5.!*+!*'0!i4(*0&*1'*-+@ !V+!'4(+B!'$*0!',/,'*-+!(*9$'!-.!
'$%!1-4+'(=!-.!5-1,'*-+!-.!'$%!ZP!8-45&!5%,&!'$%!2(-.*'0!-:',*+%&!:=!'$%!1-)2,+=!*+!'$,'!
1-4+'(=B! '$(-49$! '$%! ZPB! '-! :%! 04:i%1'! '-! (%2-('*+9! -:5*9,'*-+0! '$%(%@! V.! )-0'! -.! '$%!
1-)2,+=K0!:40*+%00!,1'*A*'=!8%(%!1,((*%&!-+B!,+&!)-0'!-.!*'0!2(-.*'0!8%(%!-:',*+%&B!*+!'$%!
;;?
!Q-4+1*5!R*(%1'*A%!>?;;n;fnPE!-+!;c!X%:(4,(=!>?;;!-+!,&)*+*0'(,'*A%!1--2%(,'*-+!*+!'$%!.*%5&!-.!',/,'*-+!,+&!
(%2%,5*+9!R*(%1'*A%!ddnd<<nPPQB!*+!Oh!W!fTn;!-.!;;!S,(1$!>?;;@!
;;;
!#$*0!&%.*+*'*-+!*0!5,*&!&-8+!:=!H('@!c!-.!'$%!OPQR!S-&%5!,+&!-.!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!:,0%&!-+!'$*0!S-&%5!
,+&!*+154&%0B!,0!*5540'(,'*A%!%/,)25%0B!,+!-..*1%B!,!.,1'-(=!)2&.!
;;>
!H('@!d!-.!'$%!OPQR!S-&%5B!(%25*1,'%&!*+!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!:,0%&!-+!*'@!
;;>f!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
1-4+'(=! 8$%(%! '$%! ZP! *0! 5-1,'%&B! '$*0! 1-4+'(=! 8-45&! ,50-! :%! '$%! 25,1%! -.! '$%! 15-0%0'!
%1-+-)*1!'*%0@!H11-(&*+95=B!*+!0*'4,'*-+0!8$%(%!,!1-)2,+=j0!&%1*0*-+C),D*+9!1%+'%(!,+&!*'0!
25,1%! -.! '$%! 15-0%0'! %1-+-)*1! '*%0! ,(%! 5-1,'%&! *+! &*..%(%+'! S%):%(! L','%0B! '$%! 1-4+'(=!
8$%(%! '$%! 15-0%0'! %1-+-)*1! '*%0! 8%(%! 5-1,'%&! 8-45&! $,A%! '$*0! *+.-(),'*-+! ,A,*5,:5%@! V'!
0$-45&!'$40!:%!,:5%!'-!'(,+0)*'!'$*0!*+.-(),'*-+!'-!'$%!1-4+'(=!-.!5-1,'*-+!-.!'$%!&%1*0*-+C
),D*+9!1%+'(%B!,+&!'-!15,*)!',/!(%0*&%+1%!,'!'$%!'*)%!-.!'$*0!'(,+0)*00*-+!-.!*+.-(),'*-+!
*'0%5.B! -+! '$%! 9(-4+&! '$,'! '$%! %1-+-)*1! *+'%(%0'0! -.! '$%! 1-)2,+=! ,(%! 1-+1%+'(,'%&! *+! *'0!
i4(*0&*1'*-+@!!!
!
#-! %+04(%! '$%! 0)--'$! ,225*1,'*-+! -.! '$%! 25,1%! -.! '$%! 15-0%0'! %1-+-)*1! '*%0! ,0! ,! +%8!
1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.-(!1-(2-(,'%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!&%'%()*+,'*-+0B!H('@!m!-.!R*(%1'*A%!>?;;n;f!
1-45&! :%! ,)%+&%&! '-! *+154&%B! 8*'$*+! '$%! 01-2%! -.! 2(-A*0*-+0! 1-A%(*+9! '$%! ,4'-),'*1!
%/1$,+9%! -.! *+.-(),'*-+B! '$%! -:5*9,'*-+! '-! '(,+0)*'! *+.-(),'*-+! 1-+1%(+*+9! 1-)2,+*%0j!
2(-.*'0!-:',*+%&!*+!'$%!1-4+'(=!8$%(%!)-0'!-.!'$%!:40*+%00!,1'*A*'=!*0!1,((*%&!-4'@!
!
V+!'$%!14((%+'!A%(0*-+!-.!H('@!m!-.!'$%!R*(%1'*A%B!'$%!,4'-),'*1!'(,+0)*00*-+!-.!*+.-(),'*-+!
',D%0! 25,1%! .(-)! '$%! 0-4(1%! 1-4+'(=! '-! '$%! (%0*&%+1%! L','%! 6*)25*1*'5=B! '-! '$%! L','%!
(%9,(&%&! ,0! (%0*&%+1%! L','%! 4+&%(! 14((%+'! &-4:5%! ',/! 1-+A%+'*-+07B! 8*'$-4'! '$%! 0-4(1%!
L','%!),D*+9!,+=!15,*)!'-!(%0*&%+1%!*((%02%1'*A%!-.!'$%!2(-2-('*-+!-.!'$%!-A%(,55!',/2,=%(0K!
*+1-)%! -:',*+%&! *+! *'0! i4(*0&*1'*-+@! a=! 1-+'(,0'B! *+! ,+! ,)%+&%&! A%(0*-+! *+154&*+9!
1-)2,+*%0K!2(-.*'0B!'$%!0-4(1%!L','%B!42-+!:%*+9!,:5%!'-!*+&*1,'%!'$,'!*'!*0!'$%!I25,1%!-.!'$%!
15-0%0'! %1-+-)*1! '*%0J! -.! '$%! 1-)2,+=B! 8-45&! 15,*)! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! ,'! '$%! '*)%! -.!
'(,+0)*''*+9! *+.-(),'*-+! '-! '$%! L','%! 8$*1$! 8,0! (%9,(&%&! ,0! (%0*&%+1%! L','%! 42! '-! '$,'!
'*)%!-+!'$%!:,0*0!-.!'$%!6.-()%(7!I25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'!1(*'%(*,J@!!
!
V+!'$*0!8,=B!'$%!*&%+'*.*1,'*-+!-.!'$%!I25,1%!-.!'$%!15-0%0'!%1-+-)*1!'*%0J!,0!,!1-++%1'*+9!
.,1'-(! .-(! 1-)2,+*%0K! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! 8-45&! :%1-)%! 2-00*:5%! -+! ,! =%,(5=! :,0*0B! '$%(%:=!
),D*+9!'$*0!+%8!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.-(!',/!(%0*&%+1%!%,0=!'-!,225=!,+&!'$%(%.-(%!2(-)-'*+9!
'$%!,*)!-.!5%9,5!1%(',*+'=B!*+!,&&*'*-+!'-!:%*+9!1-+0*0'%+'!8*'$!'$%!24(2-0%!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!
-.! %0',:5*0$)%+'@! W,0'5=B! '$%! ,&-2'*-+! -.! '$%! 25,1%! -.! '$%! 15-0%0'! %1-+-)*1! '*%0! ,0! ,! +%8!
1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! .-(! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! *+! :*5,'%(,5! &-4:5%! ',/! 1-+A%+'*-+0! :%'8%%+! S%):%(!
L','%0!6,+&B!'$40B!8*'$*+!'$%!PE7!8-45&!+-'!:%!*+1-+0*0'%+'!8*'$!'$%!&%1*0*-+!'-!),*+',*+!
'$%!25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'!,0!,!'*%:(%,D%(!(45%!*+!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+0!:%'8%%+!
;;M
,+=! S%):%(! L','%! ,+&! ,+=! )D2*'UC%*,9)'-! 1-4+'(=B ! 8$*1$! ,(%! )-0'5=! :,0%&! %*'$%(! -+!
;;T
;;c
'$%! OPQR! S-&%5 ! -(! -+! '$%! EN! S-&%5! #,/! Q-+A%+'*-+@ ! V+! .,1'B! '$%! -:i%1'*A%! -.! '$%!
;;M
! #$*0! 1$-*1%! +-8,&,=0! ,22%,(0! '-! $,A%! 0',('%&! '-! :%! 1,55%&! *+'-! l4%0'*-+! ,+=8,=[! ).0.3! '$%! &-4:5%! ',/!
1-+A%+'*-+! :%'8%%+! V',5=! ,+&! '$%! ELHB! *+! H('@! TB! &-%0! +-'! *+&*1,'%! '$%! 25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'! ,0! ,!
'*%:(%,D%(!(45%B!:4'!0*)25=!0','%0!'$,'B!*.!,!1-)2,+=!*0!(%9,(&%&!,0!',/!(%0*&%+'!:=!:-'$!1-+'(,1'*+9!!L','%0!4+&%(!
'$%*(!&-)%0'*1!5,8B!',/!(%0*&%+1%!*0!,55-1,'%&!A*,!,+!,9(%%)%+'!:%'8%%+!'$%!,4'$-(*'*%0!-.!'$%!'8-!1-4+'(*%0@!L%%!
'$%!Q-+A%+'*-+!,9,*+0'!&-4:5%!',/,'*-+!:%'8%%+!'$%!ELH!,+&!V',5=!6;<mT7B!H('@!T6M7@!!
;;T
!p$%+!%+'%(%&!*+'-!8*'$!&%A%5-2%&!1-4+'(*%0@!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;>d!
.(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! *+! '%()0! -.! 9%+4*+%! %1-+-)*1! *+'%9(,'*-+B! 8$*1$! 0499%0'0! ,!
(%'$*+D*+9!-.!'$%!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.-(!1-(2-(,'%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!%/,1'5=!:%1,40%!-.!'$%!+%%&!
.-(!1-+0*0'%+1=!:%'8%%+!'$%!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!,+&!'$%!%1-+-)*1!*+'%9(,'*-+!9-,5;;fB!-+5=!
,225*%0!8*'$*+!'$%!PE!,+&!:%'8%%+!'$%!PE!,+&!'$%!-'$%(!PPH!1-4+'(*%0!68$*1$!,(%!:-4+&!
;;d
'-!,225=!PE!.4+&,)%+',5!.(%%&-)07@ !!
!!!!!
H!(%'$*+D*+9!-.!'$%!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!*+!,!&-4:5%!',/!1-+A%+'*-+!:%'8%%+!,+!PE!S%):%(!
L','%!,+&!,+!%/'(,CP4(-2%,+!1-4+'(=!1-45&!:%!),&%!,22(-2(*,'%!,+=8,=!:=!'%1$+-5-9*1,5!
&%A%5-2)%+'0!,0!0$-8+!*+!2,(,9(,2$!Q;;mB!:4'!8-45&!+-'!:%!(%l4*(%&!:=!'$%!-:i%1'*A%!-.!
,! 042%(*-(! 5%9,5! -(&%(! :%1,40%! +-! #(%,'=! 1-)2,(,:5%! '-! '$%! #XPE! 6,+&! '$%(%.-(%! +-!
2(-A*0*-+! $,A*+9! ,+! %1-+-)*1! *+'%9(,'*-+! -:i%1'*A%! 041$! ,0! '$,'! -.! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.!
%0',:5*0$)%+'!9(,+'%&!:=!H('0@!T<!,+&!cT!-.!'$%!#XPE7!%/*0'0!:%'8%%+!,+!PE!S%):%(!L','%!
,+&!,+!%/'(,CP4(-2%,+!1-4+'(=@!!
^-8%A%(B!8*'$*+!'$%!P4(-2%,+!*+'%(+,5!),(D%'B!'$%!+%%&!.-(!1-+0*0'%+1=!8*'$!'$%!-:i%1'*A%!
-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!*0!'$%!D%=!%5%)%+'!'$,'!8-45&!i40'*.=!,+=!1$-*1%!'-!1$,+9%!
'$%! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! '-! '$%! 25,1%! -.! 15-0%0'! %1-+-)*1! '*%0@! L41$! ,! 1$,+9%! *0! .4('$%(!
i40'*.*%&! :=! ,55! '$%! 1*(14)0',+1%0! 1,40*+9! '$%! 25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'! 1(*'%(*,! '-!
:%1-)%!*+1(%,0*+95=!-:0-5%'%@!!!!
!
!!
1A!8/4&'H)%/4)!
!
H0! 0$-8+! *+! 2,(,9(,2$! aB! ,:-A%B! '$%! 9%+%(,5! PE! 5,8! 2(*+1*25%! -.! 2(-$*:*'*+9! ,:40*A%!
2(,1'*1%0B!%02%1*,55=!,0!,225*%&!:=!'$%!PQh!'-!,00%00!+,'*-+,5!5,80!(%0'(*1'*+9!.4+&,)%+',5!
.(%%&-)B! 1-+0'*'4'%0! '$%! 1(*'%(*-+! .-(! %/,)*+*+9! '$%! 2-'%+'*,5! *+1-)2,'*:*5*'=! -.! ,+=!
+,'*-+,5! ,+'*C,A-*&,+1%! 2(-A*0*-+0! -.! ,+=! S%):%(! L','%! *+! '$%! &*(%1'! ',/,'*-+! ,(%,! 8*'$!
'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'@!!
!
H0! ,! (%045'B! '-! '$%! %/'%+'! '$,'! 2(-A*0*-+0! -+! 1-(2-(,'%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! ',D*+9! I'$%! 25,1%! -.!
%..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J! ,0! ,! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! 1-45&! :%! (%9,(&%&! ,0! $,A*+9! ,+! ,+'*C
;;c
!#$%!EN!S-&%5!#,/!Q-+A%+'*-+B!&%A%5-2%&!*+!;<m?!,+&!6i40'!5*D%!'$%!OPQR!S-&%57!2%(*-&*1,55=!42&,'%&B!0%(A%0!
,0! ,! (%.%(%+1%! .-(! &-4:5%! ',/! 1-+A%+'*-+0! :%'8%%+! &%A%5-2%&! ,+&! &%A%5-2*+9! 1-4+'(*%0B! ,+&B! *+! *'0! H('@! TB!
*+&*1,'%0! ,0! ,! '*%C:(%,D%(! (45%! .-(! 1-(2-(,'%! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! '$%! 25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'B! 5*D%! '$%! OPQR!
S-&%5@! L%%! E+*'%&! N,'*-+0! S-&%5! R-4:5%! #,/! Q-+A%+'*-+! :%'8%%+! R%A%5-2%&! ,+&! R%A%5-2*+9! Q-4+'(*%0B! H('@!
T6M7@!!
;;f
!H0!,(94%&!1%9*'B!*+!2,(,9(,2$0!!Q@!VV!,+&!Q@!VVV@!
!
;;d
! N-',:5=B! '$%! PPH! 1-4+'(*%0! ,(%! :-4+&! '-! ,225=! PE! .4+&,)%+',5! .(%%&-)0B! ,+&! '$40! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.!
%0',:5*0$)%+'!'--B!:=!'$%!PPH!H9(%%)%+'!6H('@!M;7@!
;;m
!L%%!1%9*'B!*+!2,(,9(,2$!Q@VVVB!'$%!,(94)%+'!1-+1%(+*+9!'$%!)-&%(+B!1-)24'%(*G%&!%1-+-)=!,+&!'$%!,8,(%+%00!
0$-8+!:=!'$%!OPQR!,:-4'!'$%!*)2,1'!-.!'%1$+-5-9*1,5!&%A%5-2)%+'0@!
;;>m!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
,A-*&,+1%! 24(2-0%! 3! 8$*1$! 1%(',*+5=! $-5&0! '(4%! *+! 5*9$'! -.! '$%! $*0'-(*1,5! -(*9*+! -.! '$*0!
1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! 3! '$%0%! +,'*-+,5! 2(-A*0*-+0! ,(%! 1-)2,'*:5%! 8*'$! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.!
%0',:5*0$)%+'! -+5=! 8$%+! '$%=! ',(9%'! 8$-55=! ,('*.*1*,5! ,((,+9%)%+'0@! V+! -'$%(! 8-(&0B! '$%!
,225*1,'*-+! -.! '$*0! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! *0! 1-)2,'*:5%! 8*'$! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'!
8$%+!*'!*0!,*)%&!,'!1-4+'%(*+9!-4':-4+&!'(,+0.%(0!-(!'$%!0%''*+9!42!-.!1-)2,+*%0!,:(-,&!
'$,'! &-! +-'! (%045'! *+! ,! 9%+4*+%! %1-+-)*1! *+'%9(,'*-+! *+! '$%! $-0'! S%):%(! L','%B! '$%(%:=!
)%%'*+9! '$%! (%l4*(%)%+'! 8$*1$! 8,0! *+&*1,'%&! :=! '$%! P4(-2%,+! Q-))*00*-+K0!
;;<!
1-))4+*1,'*-+!-+!'$%!1--(&*+,'*-+!-.!,+'*C,:40%!)%,04(%0@
!
V'!.-55-80!'$,'!'$%!40%!-.!I25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(3%A%+!*.!
1,55%&!*+'-!l4%0'*-+!,'!'$%!OPQR!5%A%5!*'0%5.!,0!%,(5=!,0!'$%!0',('!-.!'$%!14((%+'!)*55%++*4)3!
8-45&! 0'*55! :%! .455=! i40'*.*%&! 4+&%(! '$%! PQh! 1,0%5,8! -+! ,:40%! -.! (*9$'0! +-# 1,6)# 19)&+4+&#
1+2%'2+,-13# *@%@! *+! 1,0%! -.! )%(%! $-5&*+9! 1-)2,+*%0! 0%'! 42! *+! ,+-'$%(! S%):%(! L','%! '-7!
5,1D*+9!,!9%+4*+%!%1-+-)*1!*+'%9(,'*-+!*+!'$*0!L','%@!Q-+A%(0%5=B!*+!-'$%(!0*'4,'*-+0!8$*1$!
(%045'!*+!1-)2,+*%0j!9%+4*+%!%1-+-)*1!*+'%9(,'*-+!*+!'$%!S%):%(!L','%!-.!&%0'*+,'*-+B!'$%!
1-+1%2'!-.!,:40%!-.!(*9$'!%)%(9*+9!.(-)!'$%!PQh!1,0%5,8!,+&!*'0!,225*1,'*-+!'-!'$%!%/%(1*0%!
-.!'$%!.4+&,)%+',5!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'!7,)1#-,2#R%12+4"#2<)#&,-2+-%+-0#'995+&'2+,-#,4#
2<)#J95'&)#,4#)44)&2+:)#6'-'0)6)-2L#&,--)&2+-0#4'&2,*@#V+0'%,&B!'$%!PQh!1,0%C5,8!2(-A*&%0!
,!9--&!(%,0-+!.-(!,!(%'$*+D*+9!-.!'$%!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(!.-(!1-(2-(,'%!',/!(%0*&%+1%!5%,&*+9!
'-! '$%! 1$-*1%! -.! '$%! I25,1%! -.! '$%! 15-0%0'! %1-+-)*1! '*%0J! 3! -+%! -.! '$%! ,5'%(+,'*A%0!
1-+0*&%(%&! :=! '$%! OPQR3! ,0! '# -)H# &,--)&2+-0# 4'&2,*# '-! :%! 40%&! ,0! '*%:(%,D%(! (45%@! #$%!
25,1%! -.! 15-0%0'! %1-+-)*1! '*%0B! &4%! '-! *'0! :%*+9! :,0%&! -+! -:i%1'*A%5=! A%(*.*,:5%! %5%)%+'0B!
8-45&! :%! %,0*%(! '-! ,01%(',*+! :=! '$*(&! 2,('*%0! 6,+&! :=! ',/! ,4'$-(*'*%07! '$,+! '$%! 25,1%! -.!
%..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'B! '$%! 5,''%(! -.! 8$*1$! ,22%,(0! &%0'*+%&! '-! :%1-)%! -:0-5%'%! *+! '$%!
)-&%(+!1-)24'%(*G%&!%1-+-)=!,+&!&*0',+1%!1-))4+*1,'*-+!%+A*(-+)%+'0@!S-(%-A%(B!,0!
,(94%&! ,:-A%B! '$%! 25,1%! -.! 15-0%0'! %1-+-)*1! '*%0! 1-45&! :%! ,225*%&! A*,! ,+! ,)%+&)%+'! -.!
R*(%1'*A%!>?;;n;f!-+!,&)*+*0'(,'*A%!1--2%(,'*-+!:%'8%%+!S%):%(!L','%0@!
!
H0!,!&%.%+0%!-.!'$%!40%!-.!'$%!I25,1%!-.!%..%1'*A%!),+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(B!-+%!
)*9$'!2%($,20!04:)*'!'$,'B!:%1,40%!'$%!9%+%(,5!2(*+1*25%!-.!2(-$*:*'*-+!-.!,:40%!-.!(*9$'0!
;>?
*0! '$%! 0,)%! *+! ,55! ,(%,0B ! '$%! 1-+1%2'! -.! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! 0$-45&! ,50-! :%! '$%! 0,)%@! #$*0!
,(94)%+'!)*9$'!:%!0422-('%&!:=!+-'*+9!'$,'!'$%!%+'*(%!'&;%+1#&,66%-'%2'+*)!45'*),'%5=!
$,0! '$%! 0,)%! -:i%1'*A%! -.! ),(D%'! *+'%9(,'*-+@! N-+%'$%5%00B! *'! 1-45&! :%! -:i%1'%&! '$,'! 3*+!
,1$*%A*+9!'$*0!45'*),'%!,+&!1-))-+!9-,53!&*..%(%+'!2(-A*0*-+0!*+!&*..%(%+'!,(%,0!$,A%!'$%*(!
-8+!02%1*.*1!24(2-0%0B!8$*1$B!*+!-(&%(!'-!04225%)%+'!%,1$!-'$%(B!)40'!:%!&*..%(%+'!.(-)!
%,1$! -'$%(@! #$%! .4+&,)%+',5! .(%%&-)0! *+! 9%+%(,5B! ,+&! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! *+!
2,('*145,(B!$,A%!,!02%1*.*1!24(2-0%!8$*1$!*0!&*..%(%+'!.(-)!'$%!2,('*145,(!24(2-0%0!-.!eH#!
,+&! *+&*(%1'! ',/,'*-+! 5%9*05,'*-+@! p$%(%,0! '$%! 02%1*.*1! 24(2-0%! -.! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.!
%0',:5*0$)%+'! *0! ,! 9%+4*+%! %1-+-)*1! *+'%9(,'*-+! *+! '$%! $-0'! S%):%(! L','%B! '$%! 02%1*.*1!
;;<
!!QOS!6dmc7!>??d!.*+,5@!
;>?
!=7.!,'!2,(,@!aB!VV@!!
>?;>o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#$%!IZ5,1%!-.!P..%1'*A%!S,+,9%)%+'J!,0!,!Q-++%1'*+9!X,1'-(!
;;><!
24(2-0%! -.! eH#! ,+&! *+&*(%1'! ',/,'*-+! 5%9*05,'*-+! *0! '-! 1-+'(*:4'%! '-! ,+! %..*1*%+'! 0*+95%!
),(D%'! .-(! 9--&0! ,+&! 0%(A*1%0! 8*'$*+! '$%! PE! :=! 0%''*+9! 42! ,! +%4'(,5! ,+&! '(,+02,(%+'!
'4(+-A%(!',/!0=0'%)@!
!
S-(%-A%(B!8$*50'!'$%!2(-$*:*'*-+!-.!,:40%!-.!(*9$'0!*0!,!9%+%(,5!2(*+1*25%!,+&!,0!041$!),=!
$,A%! '$%! 0,)%! 9%+%(,5! 1-+'%+'! *+! '%()0! -.! *)2(-2%(! 40%! -.! (*9$'0! 9(,+'%&! :=! PE!
;>;
2(-A*0*-+0B ! *'0! 1-+1(%'%! ,225*1,'*-+! *+! &*..%(%+'! ,(%,0! *+A-5A%0! A%(*.=*+9! 8$%'$%(!
%1-+-)*1! ,9%+'0B! *+! '(=*+9! '-! :%+%.*'! .(-)! &*..%(%+'! 2(-A*0*-+0B! *)25%)%+'! -2%(,'*-+0!
8$*1$! (4+! ,9,*+0'! '$%! 02%1*.*1! 24(2-0%! -.! '$%! 2,('*145,(! 2(-A*0*-+0! ,'! 0',D%! .(-)! '*)%! '-!
'*)%@!!!!!!!!
!
;>>
H0! *+&*1,'%&! *+! 2,(,9(,2$! Q! ,:-A%! B! -+%! 1-45&! (,*0%! '$%! *004%! -.! 8$%'$%(! -(! +-'! '$%!
1-+1%2'0!-.!',/!(%0*&%+1%!5,*&!&-8+!.-(!*+&*(%1'!',/,'*-+!24(2-0%0!1-45&!,50-!,225=!8*'$*+!
'$%!PE!.-(!&*(%1'!',/,'*-+!24(2-0%0@!!V.!'$%!(%02-+0%!8%(%!*+!'$%!,..*(),'*A%B!,!1-++%1'*+9!
.,1'-(! .-(! &*(%1'! ',/! (%0*&%+1%B! 9*A%+! :=! '$%! 1-)2,+=K0! &%1*0*-+C),D*+9! 1%+'%(! 6I25,1%! -.!
%..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'J7B! 8-45&! *)25=! 40*+9! '$%! 0,)%! +-'*-+! -.! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! *+! '$%! '8-!
,(%,0! -.! &*(%1'! ,+&! -.! *+&*(%1'! ',/,'*-+@! N-+%'$%5%00B! *+! 0-! &-*+9B! *'! 8-45&! *9+-(%! '$%!
24(2-0%! -.! ,! .4+&,)%+',5! .(%%&-)! ,+&! ),=! &*004,&%! ',/2,=%(0! .(-)! %/%(1*0*+9! *'@! #$*0!
2(-:5%),'*1! *004%! 1,+! :%! &%.*+*'*A%5=! 0-5A%&! -+5=! *.! '$%! PQh! 8%(%! 9*A%+! '$%! -11,0*-+! '-!
&%1*&%! 8$%'$%(! '$%! 40%! -.! '$%! 25,1%! -.! ),+,9%)%+'! 1(*'%(*,! ,0! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! .-(!
1-(2-(,'%! (%0*&%+1%! *+! &*(%1'! ',/,'*-+! 8-45&! :%! 1-)2,'*:5%! 8*'$! '$%! #(%,'=K0! 2(-A*0*-+0@!
E2! '-! '$%! 2(%0%+'B! 4+5*D%! '$%! 1,0%! 5,8! -+! ,:40*A%! 2(,1'*1%0B! '$%! 1,0%! 5,8! -+! *+&*(%1'!
',/,'*-+B! *.! ',D%+! '-9%'$%(! 8*'$! '$%! &*(%1'! ',/! (45*+90! 1-+1%(+*+9! '$%! %/%(1*0%! -.! '$%!
.(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'B! &-%0! +-'! 0%%)! '-! -..%(! %A*&%+1%! '$,'! '$%! 0,)%! +-'*-+! -.! ',/!
(%0*&%+1%! ,225*%0! *+! '$%! '8-! ,(%,0! -.! &*(%1'! ,+&! *+&*(%1'! ',/,'*-+@! H0! ,5(%,&=! +-'%&B!
(%.%(%+1%0! *+! '$%! PE! 1-(2-(,'%! ',/! R*(%1'*A%0B! ,+&! *+! 0-)%! PQh! (45*+90B! '-! +,'*-+,5!
&%.*+*'*-+0! -.! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! ,+&! '-! S%):%(! L','%0K! .(%%&-)! '-! ,55-1,'%! ',/*+9! 2-8%(0!
,11-(&*+9! '-! &-4:5%! ',/! 1-+A%+'*-+0B! ,(%! ,50-! *((%5%A,+'! *+! '$*0! (%02%1'B! :%1,40%! '$%0%!
(%.%(%+1%0! )%(%5=! (%.5%1'! '$%! 5,1D! -.! ,! 4+*.-()! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! .-(! 1-(2-(,'%! ',/!
(%0*&%+1%!*+!14((%+'!PE!',/!5,8@!#$*0!1,+!-+5=!)%,+!'$,'!'$%!*004%!-.!'$%!1-+0*0'%+1=!-.!'$%!
25,1%! -.! %..%1'*A%! ),+,9%)%+'! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! 8*'$! '$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'! $,0!
;>M
+-'!=%'!:%%+!(,*0%&@ !!!!!
!
#$%(%.-(%B!*.!'$%!+,'*-+,5!2(-A*0*-+0!-+!',/!(%0*&%+1%!(%.5%1'*+9!'$%!25,1%!-.!),+,9%)%+'!
1(*'%(*,! 8%(%! 1$,55%+9%&! :%.-(%! '$%! PQh! ,+&! .-4+&! '-! :%! *+! :(%,1$! -.! '$%! (*9$'! -.!
%0',:5*0$)%+'B!'$*0!1-45&!9*A%!(%+%8%&!*)2%'40!6,'!5%,0'!8*'$*+!'$%!PE7!'-!,!(%'$*+D*+9!-.!
'$%!1-++%1'*+9!.,1'-(0!'-!:%!40%&!,0!,!'*%:(%,D%(!(45%!.-(!1-)2,+*%0j!',/!(%0*&%+1%@!L41$!,!
(45*+9! 1-45&! ,50-! &(*A%! 1$,+9%0! *+! '$%! +,'*-+,5! (45%0! -+! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! -+! :%$,5.! -.! ,55!
;>;
!H0!*5540'(,'%&!1%9*'B!*+!2,(,@!aB!VV@!
!>))#1%9*'!2,(,@!QB!VV@!
;>M
!!=7.!!
;>>
;;M?!
!!
] % ( ) , + ! W , 8 ! h - 4 ( +! , 5 !
!!!!ge-5@!;M!N-@!?<
S%):%(! L','%0! 8$-0%! 2(-A*0*-+0! -+! '$%! 1-++%1'*+9! .,1'-(! .-(! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! 1-45&!
2-'%+'*,55=!:%!.-4+&!*+!:(%,1$!-.!'$%!.(%%&-)!-.!%0',:5*0$)%+'@!
!
V+! 0-! &-*+9B! '$*0! (45*+9! 1-45&! *+&41%! S%):%(! L','%0! '-! 1--(&*+,'%! 8*'$! %,1$! -'$%(! *+!
%/%(1*0*+9!'$%*(!.*01,5!1-)2%'%+1%!.-(!&%0*9+*+9!(45%0!(%5,'*+9!'-!&*(%1'!',/,'*-+!*+!-(&%(!'-!
),D%! '$%0%! (45%0! )-(%! 1-+0*0'%+'! 8*'$! %,1$! -'$%(! ,+&! )-(%! 1-+0*0'%+'! 8*'$! '$%! 9-,5! -.!
'$%! .(%%&-)! -.! %0',:5*0$)%+'@! ! L41$! ,! 1--(&*+,'*-+! *+! 6(%70$,2*+9! ',/! (%0*&%+1%! (45%0!
8-45&!:%!.455=!*+!5*+%!8*'$!'$%!-:i%1'*A%!-.!%+04(*+9!'$,'!+,'*-+,5!&*(%1'!',/!0=0'%)0!8-(D!
'-9%'$%(! 2(-2%(5=! '-! '$%! :%+%.*'! -.! ,55! 61-(2-(,'%7! ',/2,=%(0! 8*'$! 1(-00C:-(&%(! :40*+%00!
,1'*A*'=B! 8$*1$! -:i%1'*A%! 8,0! *+&*1,'%&! :=! '$%! P4(-2%,+! Q-))*00*-+! *+! ,! >??f!
Q-))4+*1,'*-+! -+! IQ-C-(&*+,'*+9! S%):%(! L','%0K! &*(%1'! ',/! 0=0'%)0! *+! '$%! *+'%(+,5!
;>T
),(D%'@J !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
;>T
! Q-))4+*1,'*-+! QOS! 6>??f7! m>M! .*+,5B! ,'! T@! O+! '$*0! Q-))4+*1,'*-+B! ,)-+9! -'$%(0B! H&,)! q,5,0*+0D*B! X(,+1-!
U-11,',95*,',B! N# (,66%-+2"# '&2+,-# 2,# 4'&+5+2'2)# 2<)# &,U,*7+-'2+,-# ?)6!)*1# >2'2)1t# 2'D# 1"12)61.# K<)#
(,66%-+&'2+,-# ,4# 2<)# (,66+11+,-# J(,,*7+-'2+-0# ?)6!)*# >2'2)1t# 7+*)&2# 2'D# 1"12)61# +-# 2<)# =-2)*-'5# ?'*@)2LE# N#
-)H12)9#,-#2<)#12*'2)0"#,4#&,U,9)*'2+,-#!)2H))-#2<)#C%*,9)'-#(,66+11+,-#'-7#2<)#?)6!)*#>2'2)1!G-T#'8+,-)#
&,6%-+2'*+'# 9)*# '0):,5'*)# +5# &,,*7+-'6)-2,# 2*'# 05+# ,*7+-'6)-2+# 4+1&'5+# 7)05+# >2'2+# 6)6!*+# ;! UVeVL#H! RV! RVUV##O!
#UVaE#HUVO!VN#PUNHqVONHWP!;B!;<MC>?>!6>??d7k!Z*%'(-!L%5*1,'-B!$'#(,66,-#(,-1,5+7'2)7#(,*9,*'2)#K'D#S'1)#Z(((KS\#
2*'#)1+0)-8)#7+#'*6,-+88'8+,-)#7)55'#+69,12'#1%55)#1,&+)2n#)#9*,4+5+#7+#&,69'2+!+5+2n#&,-#05+#,*7+-'6)-2+#-'8+,-'5+3#+-!
>!UVeVL#H!RV!RVUV##O!#UVaE#HUVO!VN#PUNHqVONHWP!;f;B!;fdC;f<!6>??<7@!
Developments Criminalizing male circumcision? Case Note: Landgericht Cologne, Judgment of 7 May 2012 – No. 151 Ns 169/11 By Bijan Fateh-­‐Moghadam* A. Introduction th
On Thursday 19 of July 2012, just prior to the parliamentary summer holidays, the Deutscher Bundestag (German Parliament) passed a resolution based on a rather irritating motivation. The parliament intended to guarantee that “Jewish and Muslim religious life 1
will be further possible in Germany.” The resolution itself consisted in only one sentence: The German Government is requested to provide until fall 2012 – in due consideration of the constitutionally protected legal positions of the well-­‐being of the child, the right to bodily integrity, the right to religious freedom and the parental rights in education – draft legislation in order to safeguard that professionally performed male circumcision, without 2
unnecessary pain, is generally lawful under German law. What had happened to provoke such extraordinary political action in defense of religious freedom? The resolution responds directly to a decision of the Landgericht (Court of Appeal) Cologne from 7 May 3
2012 which declared that male circumcision in children amounts to criminal battery, even if performed lege artis and with the consent of the parents unless there is a medical indication for the procedure. In doing so, the court followed a restrictive position within the German criminal law literature that has been advocating the criminalization of male *
Dr. Bijan Fateh-­‐Moghadam is project researcher at the Excellency Research Cluster “Religion and Politics in Pre-­‐
Modern and Modern Cultures,” Westfälische Wilhelms-­‐Universität, Münster, Germany. Faculty of Law. Email: bijan.fateh@uni-­‐muenster.de. 1
Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 17/10332. 2
Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 17/10332. 3
LG Köln, Beschneidung, Judgement of Monday, 7 May 2012, No. 151 Ns 169/11, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 2128 = LG Köln, Beschneidung, Urteil of Monday, 7 May 2012, No. 151 Ns 169/11, Juristenzeitung (JZ), 805. Cf. comments by Werner Beulke & Annika Dießner, “(…) ein kleiner Schnitt für einen Menschen, aber ein großes Thema für die Menschheit.” (“A small cut on a man, but a big issue for humanity”). Warum das Urteil des LG Köln zur religiös motivierten Beschneidung von Knaben nicht überzeugt (Why the judgment of the Court of Cologne for religiously motivated circumcision of boys was not convincing), 7 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR INTERNATIONALE STRAFRECHTSDOGMATIK (ZIS) 338 (2012) and Barbara Rox, Anmerkung zu LG Köln, Urteil v. 7.5.2012 -­‐ 151 Ns 169/11, 67 JZ 806 (2012). An English translation of the judgment is provided by the ILM-­‐Website of Durham University, available at: http://www.dur.ac.uk/ilm/news/?itemno=14984 (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 1132 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
4
circumcision since 2008 with almost missionary zeal. From a comparative perspective the proposed blanked criminal prohibition of male circumcision in children – virtually excluding Jewish and Muslim religious life in Germany – would be an exceptional case. As far as it can 5
be seen, there is no jurisdiction globally, that rules out religious male circumcision. It is doubtful, however, that the Cologne Judgment is an appropriate interpretation of the 6
German law. B. Facts of the case The facts of the case are simple. The defendant, a physician, performed a circumcision on a then four-­‐year-­‐old boy in his medical practice in Cologne on 4 November 2010. The circumcision was requested by the Muslim parents of the child, without there being a curative medical indication for the procedure. The surgery was performed lege artis and under local anaesthesia. The physician used a scalpel, sutured the wound with four stiches and visited the child at home for aftercare in the evening of the same day. Two days later the boy was brought to the children`s emergency department of the University Hospital Cologne because of a secondary bleeding, which was treated successfully. Reportedly due to communication problems with the mother of the child the medical team at the University Hospital developed doubts about whether there had been valid consent of both parents, which is why the prosecution service got notice of the case. Although the investigation of the prosecution service brought about that the surgery was performed in 4
Initially Holm Putzke, Die strafrechtliche Relevanz der Beschneidung von Knaben. Zugleich ein Beitrag über die Grenzen der Einwilligung in Fällen der Personenfürsorge (a contribution on the boundaries of consent with regard to the right to care and custody of the child), in STRAFRECHT ZWISCHEN SYSTEM UND TELOS. FESTSCHRIFT FÜR ROLF DIETRICH HERZBERG ZUM 70. GEBURTSTAG AM 669 (Holm Putzke, Bernhard Hardtung, Tatjana Hörnle, et. al. eds., 2008); Rolf Dietrich Herzberg, Rechtliche Probleme der rituellen Beschneidung (Legal problems of ritual circumcision) JZ 332 (2009). Meanwhile adopted by parts of the commentary literature Theodor Lenckner & Detlev Sternberg-­‐Lieben, Vor §§ 32 ff. StGB, in STRAFGESETZBUCH. KOMMENTAR (Adolf Schönke & Horst Schröder eds., 28th ed., 2010), 554, Vorbem. §§ 32 ff., margin number 41.; Horst Schlehofer, Vor §§ 32 ff., in MÜNCHENER KOMMENTAR ZUM STRAFGESETZBUCH. §§ 1-­‐37 STGB (Bernd von Heintschel-­‐Heinegg ed., 2nd ed., 2011), at margin number 143. 5
Due to the (preliminary) findings of the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law in Freiburg i. Br., Germany, answering an urgent request of the Federal Department of Justice, no country could be identified that legally prohibits male circumcision of children. 6
For a more detailed exposition of the lawfulness of male circumcision cf. Bijan Fateh-­‐Moghadam, Religiöse Rechtfertigung? Die Beschneidung von Knaben zwischen Strafrecht, Religionsfreiheit und elterlichem Sorgerecht (Religious justification? Circumcision of boys between criminal law, freedom of religion and parental custody), 1 RECHTSWISSENSCHAFT ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR RECHTSWISSENSCHAFTLICHE FORSCHUNG 115 (2010); farther with variant reasoning: EDWARD SCHRAMM, EHE UND FAMILIE IM STRAFRECHT. 114 EINE STRAFRECHTSDOGMATISCHE UNTERSUCHUNG (A doctrinal investigation of the criminal law) 226 ff. (2011); BRIAN VALERIUS, KULTUR UND STRAFRECHT. DIE BERÜCKSICHTIGUNG KULTURELLER WERTVORSTELLUNGEN IN DER DEUTSCHEN STRAFRECHTSDOGMATIK, vol. 230 152 ff. (2011), and the critical comments on the Cologne Judgment of BEULKE & DIEßNER, supra note 3, and ROX, supra note 3. 2012] Criminalizing Male Circumcision? 1133 accordance with medical standards and with the consent of both parents, the physician was accused of causing dangerous bodily harm, an aggravated form of battery under § 224(2) no.2 of the Strafgesetzbuch – StGB (German criminal code): Causing bodily harm using a dangerous instrument. 7
The Amtsgericht (Trial Court) Cologne , as court of first instance, acquitted the defendant, arguing that the violation of the bodily integrity of the boy – undoubtedly meeting the objective definition (actus reus) of a criminal battery (§ 223(1) StGB) – was justified by the valid consent of both parents, which had been given in accordance with the well-­‐being of the child (Kindeswohl) in terms of § 1627 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB (German civil code). In balancing the rights of the parents concerning education and the care and custody of the child (Art. 6(2) Grundgesetz – GG (German basic law) and the right to religious freedom (Art. 4(1) (2) GG) against the right of bodily integrity of the child (Art. 2(2) GG) the court considers firstly that male circumcision is a traditional ritual practice, documenting the religious and cultural belonging to the Muslim community. For this reason it would, secondly, counteract an imminent stigmatization of the child. And thirdly, with regard to the right of bodily integrity of the child, the court emphasizes the importance of circumcision as a preventive medical measure, because of its positive hygiene effects, which had been proven by scientific medical evidence. The Landgericht Cologne – on appeal of the prosecution – took a radically different view on the lawfulness of male circumcision under German criminal law. For the first time in history a German court ruled, that male circumcision, if not medically necessary, is punishable as criminal battery (§ 223(1) StGB), even if performed lege artis and with the consent of both parents. In the very case the defendant was acquitted, nevertheless, because the court assumed that he acted in good faith with the conscience that he was allowed to perform the circumcision of the boy for religious reasons. He therefore – the court concluded – acted on the basis of a misconception of the law in the sense of the excuse of § 17 StGB that was unavoidable, because the lawfulness of male circumcision had not been answered consistently in the case law and literature. C. Reasoning of the court Starting point of the reasoning of the Landgericht Cologne is the largely uncontested view that male circumcision – like all surgical interventions – meets the objective criteria of criminal battery (§ 223(1) StGB). In discussing a rather marginal opinion in the academic literature, the court – convincingly – rejects the concept of “social adequacy” as a negative element of the actus reus, which had been occasionally proposed to justify male 8
circumcision. And indeed, it is far from convincing to argue, as most recently Thomas 7
AG Köln, Knabenbeschneidung, Judgement of Wednesday, 21 September 2011, No. 528 Ds 30/11; 34 Js 468/10. 8
Cf. LG Köln (note 3), 2128 ff. 1134 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
Exner did, that on the one hand parents may not validly consent to male circumcision 9
because this – according to Exner – would not be in the best interest of the child , whilst claiming at the same time that male circumcision is social adequate and therefore simply out of the scope of the criminal law. The lawfulness of male circumcision – as both court decisions at least implicitly recognize – depends vitally on the scope and the limitations of parental consent. Nevertheless, the reasoning of the court concerning the crucial defense of proxy consent in the criminal law is remarkably short, not even significantly longer than the discussion of the negligible concept of “social adequacy”. The conclusion of the court that the consent of the parents does not justify the circumcision of the boy is based on a balancing test. The court balances the basic rights of the parents (right to religious freedom; parental rights in education) against the basic rights of the child, particularly the right to bodily integrity and self-­‐
st
determination. Considering § 1627 1 sentence BGB the court assumes that the parental right to care and custody of the child (elterliches Sorgerecht) covers only educational measures which are in the best interests of the child. Against this background the court comes to the conclusion that “[…] the circumcision of a boy unable to consent to the operation is not in accordance with the best interests of the child neither from the perspective of avoiding a possible exclusion from their religious community, nor in the light of the parental rights in education (elterliches Erziehungsrecht). The basic rights of the parents in Art. 4(1) and Art. 6(2) of the Basic Law (GG) are restricted by the basic rights of the child to bodily integrity and self-­‐determination in Art. 2(1) and (2) 1st 10
sentence GG.” The main argument in support of the proposed outcome, the court derives from the st
principle of non-­‐violent education as established in § 1631(2) 1 sentence BGB and holds that when balancing the rights of the parents against the rights of the child, “the infringement of the bodily integrity caused by a circumcision for purposes of religious 11
education is at least disproportionate, even if necessary to that end […].” With respect to the hereby addressed principle of proportionality the court also emphasizes the permanent and irreparable nature of circumcision. “This change [of the child`s body] runs 9
Exner supposes that male circumcision – albeit being lawful qua social adequacy – is contrary to the self-­‐
determination interests of children and might even be violating their dignity (THOMAS EXNER, SOZIALADÄQUANZ IM STRAFRECHT. ZUR KNABENBESCHNEIDUNG (Social adequacy in criminal law), vol. 216 55 ff. (2011)). 10
LG Köln, supra note 3, at 2129. 11
Id. 2012] Criminalizing Male Circumcision? 1135 contrary to the interests of the child in deciding his religious affiliation independently later 12
in life.” Against this background, the court concludes, requiring from the parents to wait until their son is able to make his own decision about circumcision does not unacceptably diminish their rights in education. Finally the court refers – by way of an obiter dictum – to Art. 140 GG in conjunction with Art. 136(1) of the Weimar Constitution which states that civil and political rights shall not be restricted by the exercise of religious freedom, but 13
leaves open if this would be sufficient to determine the decision. D. Comment I. Freedom of religion versus well-­‐being of the child? In considering the rights of the child against the rights of the parents the Cologne Judgment does not bare a sort of prima facie plausibility. If the question is posed in the way the court does: ‘freedom of religion versus well-­‐being of the child’, how could the answer not be in favor of the child? Looking more closely, however, the first-­‐sight-­‐
plausibility turns out to be not more than a rhetorical effect of obscuring the – false – premises of the proposed balancing test. The entire reasoning of the court is presented as a process of weighing the rights of the parents against the – assumedly violated – rights of the child. The court does not elaborate why circumcision is supposed to violate the children`s basic rights and hereby is contrary to the well-­‐being of the child. What is simply taken for granted here, in reality points at the core normative problem of the case: What is the legal standard for determining a violation of the well-­‐being of the child, functioning as a limitation of parental proxy consent in the German criminal law? The court fails to explicitly expose its theoretical approach concerning the scope and limits of proxy consent in the criminal law, be it that it didn`t want to -­‐ or that it actually didn`t even recognize that there is a highly controversial question in criminal law theory to be answered. Implicitly the court follows a doctrine that may be characterized as positive standard of the well-­‐being of the child – as limitation of proxy consent – by way of an objective “best medical interest-­‐test”. The best medical interest-­‐test consists in an objective consideration of medical risks and benefits by the court, excluding any degree of parental discretion. In the light of the doctrines of criminal law this implies that the well-­‐established justification of proxy consent (stellvertretende Einwilligung), is tacitly substituted by an objective weighing of interests that is typical for the defense of necessity (Notstand). As a consequence, bodily interventions in children are supposed to be lawful only if the medical benefits of the procedure substantially outweigh its risks in terms of a curative medical indication. Conversely parents may not lawfully refuse to consent if there is a medical 12
Id. 13
Id., following an argument introduced by HERZBERG, supra note 4, at 337. 1136 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
indication for the procedure. With regard to male circumcision this means, in principle, either all children have to be circumcised, independently of what the parents think about it or no children at all. By way of entering a hospital or medical practice, according to this model, parents seem to mysteriously lose their right to the care and custody of the child (Sorgerecht). The State pushes itself in front of the parents and decides as parens patriae, as father of the nation, positively and uniformly whether circumcision is in the best interest of all children of the nation or not. Against the outlined interpretation of the ineloquent reasoning of the Landgericht Cologne one might argue that the judgment explicitly considers the rights of the parents in education and the right to religious freedom. Doesn`t this mean that the approach is not restricted to a best medical interest-­‐test, as is claimed above? No, it does not, because the best medical interest-­‐test in the Cologne Judgment operates to identify a violation of the well-­‐being of the child, while the parental rights in education and the right to religious freedom are solely considered as possible reasons to justify an assumed violation of the well-­‐being of the child. However, the consideration of parental rights by the court turns out to be merely rhetorical as it is not apparent how parental rights in education could ever justify a violation of the well-­‐being of the child. In fact, it was the court`s premise that parental education power is limited by the well-­‐being of the child. Effectively, the judgment depends solely on the determination of the well-­‐being of the child in relation to circumcision and here the court fails to recognize that the definition of the well-­‐being of the child is necessarily related to the parental right to the care and custody of the child (elterliches Sorgerecht). II. Primacy of the parental right to the care and custody of the child In determining the role of parents with regard to the definition of the well-­‐being of the child, the constitutional conceptualization of the triangulated relation between state, 14
parents and their children, has to be taken into consideration. The basic decisions of the constitution have influence on the doctrines of the criminal law insofar as they imply that the criminal defense of proxy consent is basically guaranteed by the fundamental right of parental education as well as by the right to the care and custody of the child in Art. 6(2) GG. Consequently, a complete replacement of the parental discretionary authority by the principle of necessity, as implied by the standard of best medical interest, would be unconstitutional. The German basic law conceptualizes the rights of parents and their children not as antagonistic legal positions. It rather recognizes that children are dependent on their parents in order to exercise their constitutional basic rights, so that the 14
Cf. for more details FATEH-­‐MOGHADAM, supra note 6, at 131 ff. 2012] Criminalizing Male Circumcision? 1137 15
well-­‐being of the child is necessarily at least co-­‐determined by the parents. So the well-­‐
being of the child is no objectively defined essentialist entity, but at least partly open to different subjective interpretation by the parents. In the German criminal law literature this is expressed by the notion that with the defense of proxy consent “the law assigns the exercise of the right to self-­‐determination of the child to the persons having the care and 16
custody of the child.” Whenever parents decide about curative, preventive or aesthetic bodily interventions like vaccines, plastic surgery, ear-­‐piercing or male circumcision, the interests of children with regard to bodily and religious self-­‐determination are primarily substantiated by their parents. The concretion of the well-­‐being of the child primarily rests with the persons having the care and custody of the child. This constitutionally guaranteed primacy of the parental care and custody of the child restrains the state to the role of a guardian (Wächteramt, Art. 6(2) GG), who negatively controls whether the decision of the 17
18
parents is indefensible in particular cases. This is a negative standard and implies that there is some elbow-­‐room, even when parents decide about bodily interventions. The parental discretionary authority is exceeded only if the decision amounts to an abuse of the right to care and custody of the child. According to the basic decisions of the German Constitution, in summary, it is not the state, nor the physicians, but the parents who primarily determine the well-­‐being of the child. III. Limitations to parental (proxy) consent to medical treatment In the process of determining whether parental consent is void due to an abuse of parental rights, three different aspects have to be taken into consideration: Firstly, the nature and quality of the bodily intervention, its direct negative health consequences and the medical risks involved. Secondly, the curative and preventive medical benefits as well as non-­‐
medical benefits of the procedure, including the benefits following from the exercise of 19
freedom of religion. Finally, the particular circumstances of circumcision have to be free from modalities that directly violate the well-­‐being of the child as in the case of bodily or 15
Cf. Christian Walter, Beschnitten. Der Staat muss sein Wächteramt ernst nehmen. Aber religiöse Gefahrenabwehr darf nicht in Religionsabwehr umschlagen (Circumcised: The state must take its role on guardian seriously; but defense of religious dangers must not turn into defense of religion), FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE SONNTAGSZEITUNG (FAZ) 6 (2012); ROX, supra note 3, at 808. 16
CLAUS ROXIN, STRAFRECHT ALLGEMEINER TEIL. GRUNDLAGEN. DER AUFBAU DER VERBRECHENSLEHRE, vol. 1 §13, margin number 92 ff.; margin number 16 (2006). 17
Cf. Matthias Jestaedt, Art. 6 Abs. 2 und 3, in BONNER KOMMENTAR ZUM GRUNDGESETZ (Rudolf Dolzer, Christian Waldhoff & Karin Graßhof eds., 139th ed., Dezember 1995-­‐1996), 1, margin number 42.; WALTER, supra note 15; ROX, supra note 3, at 808. 18
19
JESTAED, supra note 17, at margin number 44. Cf. BEULKE & DIEßNER, supra note 3, at 344, emphasizing that the parents are entitled to exercise the right to freedom of religion by proxy of the child. 1138 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
mental punishment, debasement, humiliation or cruel and excessive treatment. If one of these specific transgressing modalities is at hand, the nullity of consent is not open to nd
consideration, they function as strict barriers to consent (cf. § 1631(2) 2 sentence BGB). Whereas with regard to the balancing of the risks and benefits of the procedure it depends on whether the consideration of the parents is plainly indefensible. 20
Applying this three-­‐stage-­‐test on the case of male circumcision leads to the following conclusions: Male circumcision is a relatively simple intervention that, if performed by trained professionals, has no negative health consequences and only a small risk of 21
relatively light complications. These risks are counterbalanced by significant preventive benefits as proven by evidence-­‐based medicine and recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO). Circumcision does not only directly prevent illnesses related to the foreskin, like phimosis and para-­‐phimosis. Furthermore there exists conclusive medical 22
evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of urinary tract infections, genital cancer, various genital diseases and most prominently the risk of HIV-­‐Infection up to 60%. With regard to these benefits, the WHO refers to “preventive indications” for male circumcision, 23
which form the basis of extensive circumcision programs in the southern Africa. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in its long awaited renewed Policy Statement on Male Circumcision concludes that “the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for 24
families who choose it.” This indicates a further step in favor of preventive male 20
Cf. FATEH-­‐MOGHADAM, supra note 6, at 133 ff. A quite similar test is proposed for the English common law principle of the best interest of the child, Sir James Munby, Consent to Treatment: Patients Lacking Capacity and Children, in PRINCIPLES OF MEDICAL LAW 491, 556 at paras. 10.177 (Andrew Grubb, Judith Laing, Jean McHale & Ian Kennedy eds., 2010). 21
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), MALE CIRCUMCISION. GLOBAL TRENDS AND DETERMINANTS OF PREVALENCE, SAFETY AND ACCEPTABILITY 17 ff., available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf (last accessed: 31 August 2012): “Neonatal male circumcision is a relatively simple, quick and safe procedure when performed in a clinical setting under aseptic conditions by trained professionals. Complications rates are between 1 in 500 and 2 in 100 and are usually minor.” 22
Cf. Aaron A. R. Tobian & Ronald H. Gray, The Medical benefits of Male Circumcision, 306 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 1479 (2011); Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), supra note 21, 15 ff. with further references. 23
Cf. Bertran Auvert, Dirk Taljaard, Emmanuel Lagarde et. al., Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial, 2 PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE MEDICINE 1112 (2005); Ronald Gray, Godfrey Kigozi, David Serwadda et. al., Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Men in Rakai, Uganda: A Randomised Trial, 369 THE LANCET 657 (2007); Robert Bailey, Stephen Moses, Corette Parker et. al., Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Young Men in Kismu, Kenya: A Randomised Controlled Trial, 369 THE LANCET 643 (2007); Centers For Disease Control And Prevention, CDC HIV/AIDS SCIENCE FACTS: MALE CIRCUMCISION AND RISK FOR HIV TRANSMISSION AND OTHER HEALTH CONDITIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES. 24
American Academy of Pediatrics, TASK FORCE ON CIRCUMCISION, Circumcision Policy Statement, PEDIATRICS Volume 130, Number 3, September 2012, 585-­‐586, originally published online August 27, 2012, available at: 2012] Criminalizing Male Circumcision? 1139 circumcision. Although neonatal circumcision is still not recommended as routine procedure, the AAP urges physicians to inform parents about its health benefits and argues for third-­‐party payment for circumcision of male newborns. The statement is based on a systematic evaluation of English-­‐language peer-­‐reviewed literature from 1995 through 25
2010 which is published in a comprehensive accompanying technical report. Even if the AAP`s policy statement presumably will not remain uncontested within the medical community, it proves at least one thing: With regard to the evaluation of the medical risks and benefits of male circumcision, it is argued for different, even incommensurate but still rational positions. Opponents of male circumcision cannot ignore that systematic reviews provided by WHO, AAP and CDC clearly emphasize the preventive health benefits of male circumcision. Against the background of a remaining rational disagreement about the risk-­‐
benefit rationale of male circumcision, it is convincing what the American Academy of Pediatrics supposes, namely that “parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision 26
is in the best interests of their male child.” In any case, it is plainly out of question to qualify parental consent to male circumcision, given in accordance with the guidance of some of the globally most important public health institutions, as being an abuse of parental authority that justifies criminal punishment. In addition to preventive medical benefits, parents may also legitimately take into account 27
cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, when deciding about male circumcision. Free exercise of religion (Art. 4(2) GG) and the parental rights in education (Art. 6(2), 7(2) GG) include the right to decide about the religious denomination and education of the child as st
is also explicitly guaranteed by § 1(1) 1 Sentence Gesetz über die religiöse Kindererziehung -­‐ RelKErzG (statute law on religious education). In this respect the reasoning of the Cologne Judgment concerning a possible violation of the right to self-­‐determination of the circumcised child reveals a stunning misconception of the constitutional framework of the relation of parents and children with regard to religious education. The view of the court implies that the right to self-­‐determination in religious questions is achieved best, if religiously important decisions are postponed until the child reaches an age of consent. This is not the position of the law, however. The law assigns the right to free exercise of http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-­‐1989 2012 (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 25
American Academy of Pediatrics, TASK FORCE ON CIRCUMCISION, Technical Report, Male Circumcision, 130(3) PEDIATRICS 756-­‐758, originally published online on August 27, 2012, available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-­‐1990 (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 26
American Academy of Pediatrics, TASK FORCE ON CIRCUMCISION, Circumcision Policy Statement, supra note 24). 27
Id. at 585 ff. 1140 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
religion of the child to his parents (Art. 4(1), 6(2), 7(2) GG in conjunction with the RelKErzG) 28
until it reaches maturity with regard to religious affiliation. That religious education may – in particular cases – have rather traumatic effects on children is often reported, not least by the great autobiographical literary works of Thomas Bernhard, but this – for good reasons – didn´t lead to a corresponding restriction of the fundamental right to freedom of religion. Moreover, the assumption of the court that male circumcision sort of irreversibly determines the religious affiliation of the child and thus runs contrary to its self-­‐
determination interests is empirically wrong. Circumcision is not only common in different religious communities like Judaism and Islam but is equally performed for non-­‐religious reasons like curative and preventive medical benefits all over the world as the example of the U.S. shows, where the prevalence of non-­‐religious male circumcision is at least 29
between 50 and 60 percent. So, from the mere fact of a boy being circumcised one must not – as the court could have recognized with a little effort – jump to the conclusion of his belonging to a certain religious community or a religious community at all. Why then the circumcision of a boy might compromise his possibilities to decide about his religious affiliation later in life remains a secret of the court. With regard to the third stage (absence of transgressing modalities), finally, male circumcision in children regularly is not performed in a way that qualifies as a transgressing modality in terms of punishment, debasement or cruel and excessive treatment. Particularly in the case of religious circumcision following Jewish and Muslim tradition the boy is not being exploited or treated instrumentally, but rather dignified as a full member of the religious community, which is symbolized by traditional presents, ceremonial clothes et cetera. This is why the reference of the Cologne Judgment to the principle of non-­‐violent education in § 1631(2) BGB is misleading. The norm prohibits bodily punishment, nd
psychological injuries and other debasing measures (§ 1631(2) 2 sentence BGB), but none of these criteria are met by a properly performed male circumcision, at least as long as potential veto rights of further developed boys are recognized. Concluding, with regard to parental consent to male circumcision there is no abuse of parental authority, and therefore no violation of the well-­‐being of the child, unless the operation is performed not in accordance with medical standards. IV. Comparative analysis: Best interest versus best medical interest What is interesting from a comparative perspective is, that the restriction of the best interest of the child to the best medical interest as proposed by the Cologne Judgment is 28
Cf. BEULKE & DIEßNER, supra note 3, at 344. 29
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), supra note 21, 7 ff. reports 75%. 2012] Criminalizing Male Circumcision? 1141 not only incompatible with the German concept of proxy consent, but also clearly exceeds the standard of best interest as acknowledged in the Common Law tradition. In the Common Law of England and Wales the best interest of the child is defined objectively and 30
functions as a positive standard. Due to the parents patriae jurisdiction , a concept unknown in the German Law, the English courts are entitled to decide positively and in place of the parents what is in the best interest of a child with regard to an imminent circumcision. Remarkably, however, the English courts regularly allow non-­‐therapeutic 31
male circumcision in children for religious reasons. An outcome that is in accordance with the medical law literature, stating that “[…] male circumcision for ritual or other non-­‐
therapeutic reasons […] may […] be justified as being, overall, in the patient`s best 32
interests.” The reason for this outcome is that the best interest of the child is not restricted to the best medical interest. Best interest is a complex concept, taking into consideration all circumstances of the individual case and particularly the religious and cultural context of the child`s family. That is why English Courts simply imply that a circumcision is in the best interest of the child if 33
performed with the consent of both parents. Only in cases of conflict between the parents the courts take into consideration the religious and cultural context in which the 34
child is actually brought up. By way of prominently considering the consent of the parents, the English law standard of best interest, although coming from a different starting point, draws near the outlined negative standard of the German law. The rationale for opening the objective standard of best interest in a way that allows for parental elbow room, explicitly addresses the challenge for the law to deal with religious and cultural plurality: “Best interests have to be assessed by reference to general community standards, making due allowance for the entitlement of people, within the limits of what is permissible in accordance with those standards, to entertain divergent views about the moral and secular objectives they wish to pursue. Within limits the law will tolerate things which society as a whole may find undesirable. Thus the court passes no judgment on religious beliefs or on the tenets doctrines or rules of any particular section of society so 35
long as they are ‘legally and socially acceptable’ […].” This leads to some closing remarks, 30
SIR MUNBY, supra note 20, 492 ff. (para 10.02 ff). 31
(CA (Civ Div)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Re J (A Minor), Specific Issue Order of Thursday, 25 November 1999; Family Division, Re J (A Minor), Specific Issue Order of Thursday, 6 May 1999, No. [1999] 2 F.L.R. 678; (CA (Civ Div)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Re S (Children) Specific Issue Orders of Friday, 30 July 2004, No. [2004] EWCA Civ 1257, Westlaw. 32
SIR MUNBY (note 20), 556 (para 10.178). 33
(CA (Civ. Div.)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division), supra note 30; Family Division, supra note 30. 34
Family Division supra note 30. 35
SIR MUNBY, supra note 20, at 555 (para. 10.173 a.10.174). 1142 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
drawing a larger picture of the different legal standards in the treatment of children unable to consent. V. Pluralism and the religious neutrality of the criminal law The different criminal law approaches to the limitations of parental consent reflect very basic differences in how the law should cope with what John Rawls called the fact of 36
reasonable pluralism in modern societies. The positive standard of the well-­‐being of the child in combination with a restrictive objective best medical interest-­‐test – as proposed by the Cologne Judgment – reduces the scope for different religious and secular world views about what amounts to a ‘good life’ down to zero, at least if children are concerned. It is an attempt to legally enforce a single comprehensive doctrine of good education, tacitly accepting the exclusion of Jewish and Muslim families for the sake of the intactness of the body. The ‘sacralization of the foreskin’ is reminiscent of early catholic theologian doctrines of the necessity of bodily completeness, based on the assumption that we are not the rightful owners of our bodies, which in fact belongs to God – a paradox that Johanna Schiratzki has pre-­‐eminently related to as “banning God`s law in the name of the 37
holy body.” The secular taboo of circumcision, as proposed by the Cologne Judgment, is in its consequences anti-­‐religious, anti-­‐pluralistic and therefore all together anti-­‐modern if one accepts the insight of political liberalism that the fact of pluralism is one of the permanent characteristics of modern democratic cultures and therefore a challenge that all modern law systems have to meet. The wide definition of best interest of the common law tradition and even more the German Law`s doctrine of proxy parental consent, on the other hand, reflect a different constitutional and philosophical approach to the fact of pluralism. These legal doctrines, by way of granting parental discretionary authority, deliberately open the space for different, even incompatible, but still reasonable ethical conceptions of what constitutes a good life – and what constitutes good education. It abstains from authoritatively defining the one positive standard of the well-­‐being of the child in favor of a negative standard that allows state interventions into parental decisions only in exceptional cases of an abuse of the parental right to the care and custody of the child. From the Law`s perspective a liberal interpretation of proxy consent is fully compatible and even a consequence of the law`s 38
religious and ethically neutrality : It allows for the exercise of different world views in 36
JOHN RAWLS, POLITICAL LIBERALISM xix, xxiv, 4, 36, 37 (1993). 37
Johanna Schiratzki, Banning God's Law in the Name of the Holy Body -­‐ The Nordic Position on Ritual Male Circumcision, 5 THE FAMILY IN LAW 35 (2011). 38
Cf. STEFAN HUSTER, 90 DIE ETHISCHE NEUTRALITÄT DES STAATES. EINE LIBERALE INTERPRETATION DER VERFASSUNG (The ethical neutrality of the state. A liberal interpretation of the constitution, 2002). 2012] Criminalizing Male Circumcision? 1143 ethical questions of the good life, within the limits of an universal legal framework as defined by the negative standard of the well-­‐being of the child. From the perspective of a pluralistic civil society, the law`s religious neutrality demands something, however, that the Cologne Judgment, as well as its academic facilitators, refuse to appreciate: Tolerance towards different religious, secular and cultural conceptions of life. It is exactly this dialectic of universalistic principles and particularistic values that Jürgen Habermas describes as one of the core elements of political enlightenment. In explicit criticism of the Cologne Judgment on male circumcision Habermas states that the “universalistic concern of political enlightenment is not fulfilled until the particularistic claims for self-­‐assertion of 39
religious and cultural minorities experience fair recognition” . E. Conclusion and policy issues Summing up, the Cologne Judgment misjudges the constitutional framework of the criminal law defense of proxy consent. Male circumcision in children, if performed lege artis and with the consent of the parents, is lawful, because it does not exceed the general legal limits of parental consent. Parents who circumcise their sons following Jewish or 40
Muslim tradition do not claim for a legal privilege or “reasonable accommodation” , they rather utilize the parental right to the care and custody of the child and freedom of religion as guaranteed by the general law. The justification of male circumcision therefore does not follow from a religious or cultural defense but from the well-­‐established principles of parental proxy consent. Hence, also the – circular – argument of the Cologne Judgment with reference to Art. 140 GG in conjunction with Art. 136(1) of the Weimar Constitution is misleading, because male circumcision does not exceed the limits of the general law in the first place. With regard to a possible statutory regulation of male circumcision, as intended by the Deutscher Bundestag, it has to be emphasized, that such a regulation is not necessary in order to provide a special right or legal exception for religious male circumcision. Legislative action is reasonable, however, because of the legal uncertainty produced by the misleading judgment of the Landgericht Cologne. There are mainly two reasonable alternatives for the legislator to consider. Firstly the legislator could aim to simply clarify that parents may validly consent to male circumcision, due to already effective general principles of criminal and family law. Such a ‘minimally invasive’ regulation could be positioned within the family law section of the BGB or in the section about “consent to 39
Jürgen Habermas, POLYFONIE DER MEINUNGEN. WIE VIEL RELIGION VERTRÄGT DER LIBERALE STAAT? (Polyphony of opinions. How much religion is compatible with the liberal state?), available at: http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/wie-­‐viel-­‐religion-­‐vertraegt-­‐der-­‐liberale-­‐staat-­‐1.17432314 (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 40
JOCELYN MACLURE & CHARLES TAYLOR, SECULARISM AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE 65 ff. (2011). 1144 G e r m a n L a w J o u r n a l [Vol. 13 No. 09
41
treatment” that is about to be introduced into the BGB. Alternatively the parliament could provide a special statute on male circumcision, which regulates the requirements of lawful male circumcision in detail. In doing so, the legislator could i.a. safeguard that male circumcision is performed only by trained professionals according to medical standards and with the informed consent of both parents. The statute law could as well explicitly provide for a veto right of children, who are too young to consent on their own, but are old enough to generally understand what circumcision is about. The details of a legal framework for male circumcision – in any case – will have to be defined in the process of democratic deliberation. The legislator has to keep in mind, however, that legal barriers for male circumcision interfere with the basic rights of parents and children and therefore have to be justifiable with regard to the right of freedom of religion and the parental rights 42
in education. With regard to the primacy of parental care and custody, the right to religious freedom and the outlined risk-­‐benefit rationale of male circumcision, a blanket prohibition of male circumcision in children would be held unconstitutional by the Bundesverfassungsgericht – BVerfG (German Federal Constitutional Court) with near 43
certainty. At least inappropriate are proposals which require a serious religious motivation as a 44
necessary element of lawful circumcision. The requirement of a “religious indication” is not only doubtful under the aspect that the secular state is not entitled to engage in the true interpretation of personal religiosity, at the worst by way of an ethics committee. It rather disproportionally diminishes the possibility of male circumcision for secular reasons like preventive-­‐medical benefits. If a Jewish or Muslim citizen may lawfully circumcise his son for religious reasons, why then should a professor of medicine not be entitled to do so for medical reasons as it is common practice in the U.S.? Or consider the not very unlikely 41
Cf. draft statute on the rights of patients, available at: http://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/pdfs/ RegE_Gesetz_zur_Verbesserung_der_Rechte_von_Patientinnen_und_Patienten.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (last accessed: 31 August 2012). 42
Cf. Kyrill-­‐A Schwarz, Verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte der religiösen Beschneidung (Constitutional aspects of religious circumcision), 63 JZ 1125 (2008); Kai Zähle, Religionsfreiheit und fremdschädigende Praktiken. Zu den Grenzen des forum externum (Freedom of religion and practices that do harm to others), 134 ARCHIV DES ÖFFENTLICHEN RECHTS (AöR) 434 (2009); Michael Germann, Der menschliche Körper als Gegenstand der Religionsfreiheit (The human body as an object of religious freedom), in JURISPRUDENZ ZWISCHEN MEDIZIN UND KULTUR. FESTSCHRIFT ZUM 70. GEBURTSTAG VON GERFRIED FISCHER, 35 (Bernd-­‐Rüdiger Kern & Hans Lilie eds., 2010); SCHIRATZKI, supra note 36. 43
Whereas the occasionally reported warning, a statute that allows for male circumcision might on his part be unconstitutional, is rather unconvincing. The BVerfG grants the legislator a comprehensive discretionary authority in deciding how to fulfill its duty to protect the basic rights of children. A constitutional duty to prohibit male circumcision by the criminal law is therefore highly implausible. There are good reasons to believe that the right to bodily integrity of the child might be better protected by way of providing the possibility of lawful circumcision in medical settings; see SCHIRATZKI, supra note 36, at 50 ff. 44
Cf. SCHRAMM, supra note 6, at 229 ff. 2012] Criminalizing Male Circumcision? 1145 case of the professor of medicine and the religious Jew or Muslim being one and the same person. Male circumcision might turn out to be an ambiguous social practice that cannot always be reduced to a single determinant. This might be disturbing for narrow minded individuals who are used to think in black and white, but it should not be for a modern law st
system of the 21 century.