- iLaw Website
- Documentation Center
Case
Stared
Case name
The play "The Wolf Bride"
Lèse-majesté
Name of persons / Name of Media
Patiwat
Case status
คำอธิบายสถานะคดี ภาษาอังกฤษ
Judgment / End of trial
Status of Accused
served penalty
Offense / order
Article 112 Criminal Code
Summary
A play "The Wolf Bride" was performed at the Grand Audithorium of Thammasat University on 13 October 2013 to commemmorate the 40th Anniversary of 14 October 1973. Later, the Royal Monarch Alert Protection Network reported to the police that content of the play might be an offense against the Article 112 of the Criminal Code.
Patiwat and Pornthi were arrested in August 2014, after the Coup d etat where numbers of individual were arrested for committed Lese majeste Crime. Patiwat and Pornthip were remanded in custody since their arrest, all attemp to bail were denied by the court. In December 2014 Patiwat and Pornthip pleaded guilty to the court, they were sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in prison in February 2015.
On 8 August 2016, Royal Gazette pubblished Royal Pardon Decree of 2016. Patiwat and Pornthip were qualified to be release prior to the actual prison term on 5 October and 6 October 2016 accordingly.
Patiwat was released on 12 August 2016, he was indetain for 729 days while Pornthip was released on 27 August, she was in detained for 743 days.
Basic information
Background of accused
Pativat is a student at the Faculty of Fine Art, Khonkhean University while he was arrested.
Pornthip is an activist, she started her activism since she was in high school. She is one of the founder of a group called Iskra Drama, the activist group that used cultural activities to reflect social problems.
Learn more about Pornthip through Pornthip: a Theater Group, a Dream [112 the Series]
The Royal Monarch Alert Protection Network [sic]
Legal Claims
Lèse-majesté
-
Form of restriction on freedom
Charge filed
-
Type of media
Other
-
Province
Bangkok
-
Court
Criminal Court
-
Black case
คำอธิบายคดีดำ ภาษาอังกฤษ
No: อ.3526/2557 Date: 2014-10-24 -
Red case
คำอธิบายดคีแดง ภาษาอังกฤษ
No: อ.506/2558 Date: 2015-02-23
Details of offence according to charge
Content of the play "The Wolf Bride" which performed in an event to commemorate the 40th Anniversary of the 14 October 1973 was likely to be an offense against the Article 112 of the Criminal Code.
Circumstance of arrest
The arrest of Pativat
13 August 2014
A military officer met with the dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts, Khonkhean University and asked the dean to call Pativat to meet him. When Pativat arrived, the military officer told him that the superior asked him to warn Pativat regarding his political action. The officer discussed with Pativat around 5 miniutes and took his photograph.
14 August 2014
In the morning, A military officer called Pativat and asked to meet him at a restuarant. He was asked to sign MOU to stop taking part in any political activity. Pativat went to the restuarant alone in the morning but he met no one there. He then went to his campus.
Pativat later returned to the restuarant once again with the dean. When he arrived at the restuarant he found that the police is waiting for him. The police showed an arrest warrant and arrested Pativat, he was then taken to the Chanasongkram Police Station in the same day.
The arrest of Porntip
15 August 2014
Porntip was arrested by an immigration police at Hat Yai International Airport while she is traveling aboard.
Progress of case
31 October 2013
At the Louis Tavern Hotel, the Royal Monarch Alert Protection Network [sic] held a meeting to discuss about anti monarchy movement. During the meeting, the organizer showed a part of the play "The Wolf Bride" to the participants who were members of the network. The organizer also pointed out that content of the play could be considered as lèse majesté.
At the end of the meeting, the organizer urged the participants to report the case to the police stations near their house on 1 November 2013, the organizer also distributed the video clip of the play so the participants can use as an evidence. Finally, there were 52 participants who expressed their interest to report the case on the mentioned date.
2 November 2013
The Royal Monarch Alert Protection Network concluded that its member went to file complaints against those who were involved in the play such as authors, actors as well as supporters in 13 different police stations including.
1.Kannayao District Police Station, Bangkok
2.Muang Nontaburi Police Station, Nonthaburi
3.Bangbuatong District Police Station, Nonthaburi
4.Bang Bal District Police Station, Ayudhaya
5.Bang Pa-In District Police Station, Ayudhaya
6.Muang District Police Station, Nakhon Pathom
7.Muang District Police Station, Ratchaburi
8.Cha Am District Police Station, Phetchaburi
9.Muang District Police Station, Kamphaengphet
10.Muang District Police Station,Phitsanulok
11.Muang District Police Station, Kalasin
12.Muang District Police Station, Roi Et
13.Muang District Police Station, Chachoengsao
14 August 2014
Pol.Lt.Col. Somyot Udomraksasub, Deputy Superintendent of Investigation at the Chanasongkram Police Station led the force to arrest Pativat who was accused of being involved in the play "The Wolf Bride" in Khonkhean Province. Pativat was the first accused in this case to be arrested.
Pol.Lt.Col. Somyot revealed that Pativat used to perform in the play which the content can be considered as lèse majesté. Concerning the lawsuit, Pativat accepted that he performed in the play but denied the lèse majesté charge.
After the arrest, Pativat was taken to Chanasongkram Police Station which has the jurisdiction over the area where the play was perfoemed.
15 August 2013
Pativat was taken to the Criminal Court by the inquiry officers in order to request for a provisional detention order. Meanwhile, Pativat's relative submitted a request for temporary release with cash deposit in the sum of 300,000 Baht.
Around 5.45 pm. the court denied to grant Pativat on temporary release given that
"The accused performed the lèse majesté play in front of a large number of audiences in the Grand Auditorium of Thammasat University, records of the play was also publicized widely via Facebook and websites. The case is therefore severe with high penalties, if the accused is release he may flee."
After the court denied to grant Pativat on temporary release, he was taken to detain at the Bangkok Remand Prison.
Having learned about this case, the Asian Human Rights Commission later issued a statement expressed its concern on this case. It stated that the arrest of Pativat showed that the oppression of freedom of expression happen from time to time since the coup.
Around noon on the same day, the police arrested Pornthip, another activist of the Iskra drama group at the Hatyai International Airport. Pornthip was arrested while she presented her passport to the immigration, Pornthip was on her way to study abroad. It was expected that she was arrested because of her involvement with the play. After her arrest, Pornthip was taken to the Chanasongkram Police Station.
16 August 2014
Pornthip was taken to the Criminal Court by the inquiry officers in order to request for a provisional detention order. Meanwhile, Phawinee Chumsri, a defense lawyer, requested for temporary release with cash deposit in the sum of 500,000 Baht.
Around 2 PM, the court denied to grant Pornthip on temporary release given that the act of the accused affected the reputation of the Monarchy as well as hurt the feeling of the people. The court also fears that the accused may flee if she is released.
After the court denied to grant Pornthip on temporary release, she was taken to detain at the Central Women's Correctional Institution
18 August 2014
Jaran Ditapichai, a chair of organizing committee of the event to commemorate the 40th anniversary of 14 October 1973 publicized the open letter to the NCPO. In the letter, Jaran stated that the play was one of the cultural performances in the event.
Jaran stated that the content of the play may related to the monarchy but it was not lèse majesté. In the letter, Jaran also protested against the arrest of both accused given that it was clearly a suppression against freedom of expression.
ฺBeside Jaran, the Asian Human Rights Commission also issued a statement concerning the lawsuit against both accused, pointed that freedom of expression was criminalized.
26 August 2014
Hearing on opposition to custody filing
The Court dismissed a motion opposing the custody filing claiming the inquiry officials still found it necessary to have the two accused in their custody since the investigation had not been completed. The Court asked the inquiry officials to expedite their work on the inquiry file since it may not grant another custody filing.
After the Court had dismissed the motion opposing the custody filing, the accused lawyer has proposed 300,000 baht each as deposit to apply for temporary release of both alleged offenders, but it was turned down by the Court with a claim that there was no compelling conditions to change the original order.
8 September 2014
Hearing on opposition to the third custody filing
At The Criminal Court, the inquiry official filed to extend custody of both Patiwat and Pornthip for the third time and the accused’s lawyer submitted a motion opposing the custody filing.
The case of Pornthip
The inquiry official pleaded to the Court that the investigation had not been completed, pending more background check, finger printing of both the accused, and the submission of the inquiry file to their further commanders. Thus, the Court was asked to extend custody of the alleged offenders for another twelve days and the police also opposed if there was any attempt to apply for bail. The inquiry official also mentioned that it might take the Royal Thai Police Commission about a month to review the inquiry file. Thus, there was possibility to have the custody of the accused extended for another three rounds.
Pornthip opposed the custody filing claiming that the inquiry official had collected all evidence and the matter of the case dealt with facts and was not complicated. Also, the accused have made no attempt to either flee or tamper with the evidence.
For Pornthip, the Court allowed the extension of custody since the inquiry official still had the necessity to propose the inquiry file to their commanders and her objection did not sound credible, although the inquiry official was told to expedite the investigation. The Court promised to review the next request for custody filing more stringently.
The case of Patiwat
The inquiry official pleaded to the Court that the investigation had not been completed, pending more background check, finger printing of both the accused, and the submission of the inquiry file to their further commanders. Thus, the Court was asked to extend custody of the alleged offenders for another twelve days and the police also opposed if there was any attempt to apply for bail. The inquiry official also mentioned that it might take the Royal Thai Police Commission about a month to review the inquiry file. Thus, there was possibility to have the custody of the accused extended for another three rounds.
Patiwat opposed the custody filing claiming that the inquiry official had collected all evidence and the matter of the case dealt with facts and was not complicated. Also, the accused have made no attempt to either flee or tamper with the evidence.
For Patiwat, the Court allowed the extension of custody since the inquiry official still had the necessity to propose the inquiry file to their commanders and her objection did not sound credible, although the inquiry official was told to expedite the investigation. The Court promised to review the next request for custody filing more stringently.
19 September 2014
Hearing on opposition to the fourth custody filing
25 September 2014
Hearing on opposition to the fifth custody filing
The case of Patiwat
The accused’s lawyer has submitted a motion opposing the custody filing since the inquiry official claimed that the inquiry file had been submitted for a review of the three tiers of their commanders including the Bangkok Metropolitan Police Division 1, the Bangkok Metropolitan Police Bureau and the Royal Thai Police to decide whether or not the case should be prosecuted. At present, it was being reviewed by the Criminal Affairs, the Royal Thai Police and evidence in the case including a VCD recording the performance of the Wolf Bride was being verified.
The accused’s lawyer contended that the process had nothing to do with the alleged offenders, who would not be able to tamper with the evidence. Therefore, it was not necessary to hold the accused in custody during the investigation. In addition, that it would compromise the opportunities of the alleged offenders to continue to be held in custody, and one of them had her mother who was going to have an operation.
After reviewing the request for custody and objection to it, the Court deemed it fit to dismiss the objection since the case was being reviewed by the commanding officials and the inquiry official still found it necessary to wait for the verification of the VCD used as evidence in this case and the process was not done yet. The objection did not sound credible. But since the Court had given enough time to the inquiry official, in order to expedite the process, the custody shall be extended only for another six days.
In addition, the accused’s lawyer has applied for bail placing cash for the amount of 600,000 baht and the reasons that the alleged offenders have not made any attempt to flee and they were willing to cooperate during the arrest. Also, one of the alleged offenders is a student with good demeanor and academic performance as well as has contributed to social activities and his university.
The Court turned down the bail request claiming that it had turned down such request before and the reasons had been made clear herein.
26 September 2014
Hearing on opposition to the fifth custody filing
The case of Pornthip
The accused’s lawyer have submitted a motion opposing the custody filing since the inquiry official claimed that the inquiry file had been submitted for a review of the three tiers of their commanders including the Bangkok Metropolitan Police Division 1, the Bangkok Metropolitan Police Bureau and the Royal Thai Police to decide whether or not the case should be prosecuted. At present, it was being reviewed by the Criminal Affairs, the Royal Thai Police and evidence in the case including a VCD recording the performance of the Wolf’s Bride was being verified.
The accused’s lawyer contended that the process had nothing to do with the acused, who would not be able to tamper with the evidence. Therefore, it was not necessary to hold the alleged offenders in custody during the investigation.
After reviewing the request for custody and objection to it, the Court deemed it fit to dismiss the objection since the case was being reviewed by the commanding officials and the inquiry official still found it necessary to wait for the verification of the VCD used as evidence in this case and the process was not done yet. The objection did not sound credible. But since the Court had given enough time to the inquiry official, in order to expedite the process, the custody shall be extended only for another five days.
The accused did not apply for bail this time.
27 October 2014
Pretrial hearing
Both defendant asked the Court to postpone the pretrial hearing since they needed to consult with their lawyer regarding the litigation strategy. The Court granted the request and rescheduled the pretrial discovery to 29 December 2014.
28 October 2014
The defense lawyer applied for bail of both alleged offenders as three lecturers from the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies (IHRP), Mahidol University, agreed to place their academic credential as deposit.
The Court turned down the bail request claiming that the Criminal Court had ordered against the request before and the reasons had been made clear herein and there were no compelling conditions to change the original order.
7 November 2014
After the Court had turned down the bail request of both defendants on 28 October, their lawyer has appealed against the order of the Lower Court claiming that;
The two defendants had made no gesture to flee and had permanent residences and had no record of committing any criminal act. Also, both of them are well behaved and also their guarantors, the academics, were well respected.
18 November 2014
The defense lawyer has gone to listen to the decision of the Appeals Court at the Criminal Court. The Appeals Court made an order dated 11 November 2014 to dismiss the appeal to have both alleged offenders released claiming that the circumstance of the case has aggrieved public and compromised security of the national institution.
In addition, if the two accused were temporarily released, they might flee. Therefore, it was correct that the Lower Court had denied them bail and the appeal shall be dismissed.
29 December 2014
Pretrial discovery
In the Court Room no. 813, the Criminal Court, both defendants were there to give their initial evidence. The room was crowded with the trial observers. More chairs had to be brought in and some observers had to stand up.
When the judges ascended the bench, there was only the accused no.2 in the dock as the accused no.1 was still held in custody at the basement of the building. The court clerk had to make a phone call to ask the corrections officials to bring him up.
With the presence of both accused, the Court asked if they had been aware of the detail of the charge and what would they have to say. Both acknowledged their understanding of the charge and asked to plead guilty.
The defendant lawyer submitted a motion supporting the guilty plea asking the Court to suspend the punishment. The material submitted to the Court included audio and visual materials containing the speech of His Majesty the King which addressed the issue of lèse majesté prosecution.
The Court asked the public prosecutors if they would object the request, the public prosecutors said no.
The Court thus ordered that it deems fit that an effort shall be made to conduct a background check of the defendants to find ground to give leniency. Thus, the probation officials were instructed to find out more information about both accused and to report it to the Court within 45 days. Both defendants shall be brought to listen to the verdict on 23 February 2015 at 13.30.
23 February 2015
The reading of the verdict
Originally, the Criminal Court scheduled to read the verdict of this case at 13.30. But in the morning, a friend of Pornthip, posted in her Facebook that the Court has moved up the hearing from 13.30 to 9.30 AM the same day. The change came so abruptly and the defense lawyer had not been informed. They had to rush to get to the Court.
Despite this sudden change of the time, the court room was still inundated with a lot of trial observers including the defendants’ relatives and friends and two foreign observers from a foreign mission in Thailand.
Around 11.20 AM, the Court started to read the verdict. In a very brief statement, they were sentenced to five years each, but given that they have pleaded guilty, the punishment has been reduced by a half to two years and six months.
After the verdict reading, the two defendants were brought to the cell at the basement of the court building instantly, without having any time to talk to their relatives and supporters.
At the basement, Pornthip’s friends who were gathered to give her moral support in front of the women’s cell, started to sing to give her support. Even when the song was not finished, the officials have brought Pornthip back to the prison. Both Pornthip and Patiwat were brought into a pickup truck modified as a small vehicle for prisoner transportation which drove off to the prison immediately.
12 August 2016
Prachatai reported that Patiwat was released from the Bangkok Remand Prison while Pornthip who were also qualified to be release hasn't been release in the same day.
Lawyer from the Thai Lawyer for Human Right said that after Royal Pardon Decree was published in Royal Gazetta, the prison must release the detainee within 120 days. As for Pornthip her prison term as of 12 August 2016 was 55 days.
The prison could either release her prior to the end of the actual serving term or it coud held her until the end of her actual prison term on 6 October 2016. The lawyer also provided that Pornthip had submit her bio data to the authorities with regald to her resident after the release however, the Central Women Correctional Institution could not comfirm about the date of release yet.
27 August 2016
Pornthip was released from Central Women Correctional Institute
The Verdict
Summary of the verdict of the Court of First Instance
In a very brief statement, the Court said that the two defendants have performed in a play whose content is deemed an insult to the King and is found guilty for violating Article 112. They were sentenced to five years each, but given that they have pleaded guilty, the punishment has been reduced by a half to two years and six months.
From background check as instructed by the Court, it was found the defendants have had no criminal record. But given the severity of the act and since the performance has been made in front of general audience and even made accessible to public via websites, it has caused serious damage to the King and has made it unjustifiable to suspend the imprisonment.
Trial observation record
28 August 2014
Hearing on opposition to the second custody filing
After the custody term of Pornthip and Patiwat was completed, the inquiry official has asked to renew the custody for the second time while the attorneys of the alleged offenders have objected. The Court thus held a hearing and initially the attorneys of the alleged offenders stated that the Court shall conduct the hearing inside the court room at the basement in which no outsiders were allowed. Later, the court clerk informed attorneys of the alleged offenders that the hearing would be conducted in Court Room 802 and their relatives and observers were allowed to attend.
Around 9.45 AM, about ten people including the lawyer, relatives and observers, were present in the Court Room 802, while the inquiry officials from Chana Songkram Police Station arrived around 10.00am. Pornthip and Patiwat were then brought inside the room and the Court commenced the hearing a little of the two accused settled in the room.
Hearing on the objection to the custody filing against Patiwat
The Court commenced the hearing by asking Patiwat if he was aware of the objection to the custody filing, and he said yes.
The Court then read out the motion of the alleged offender including reasons to object the custody that a detailed investigation has been conducted at the time he was arrested, and while being held in custody in prison. Also, the accused has made no attempt to either flee or tamper with the evidence. Even though the charge was severe, but the act as alleged in the charge was only the performing in a play. In addition, the law invoked in this case is a law that restricts rights and liberties.
After reading the motion against custody filing, the Court explained that the purpose of this hearing was to review the objection to custody filing and the inquiry officials have claimed it necessary to hold the accused in further custody since the investigation had not been completed. The Court would only review the motion on the matter concerned with the investigation and would dismiss the rest. Therefore, the rest of the motion that dealt with the study of Patiwat which was highlighted by the attorneys as an important matter shall be dismissed, too.
Patiwat explained to the Court that the investigation had been completed since he was subjected to inquiry since 15 August and later the police even came to question him while he was held in custody in prison.
The Court asked the inquiry official regarding progress of the inquiry report, the inquiry official said that it was not done yet as three more witnesses had to be questioned and criminal record of both accused had to be investigated. Also, the inquiry report had to be submitted for review of the commanders. The lawyer of the accused contended that the process was an internal matter of the police and the accused shall not be able to intervene or tamper with. It was no longer necessary to hold the alleged offender in custody. The Court deemed that the request for custody filing is a matter subjected to the discretion of the inquiry official and whether or not all evidence had been collected completely. And even though the Court granted the custody filing as requested for by the police, the alleged offenders still have the right to apply for bail.
The inquiry official further explained that the investigation had not been done and more arrest warrants were being asked for. If the accused had been released, it would have affected the investigation of other accused wanted by other warrants. The inquiry official admitted that on 20 August he had gone to question Patiwat inside the prison. Most of the testimony pointed to different groups of individuals who have political affiliations detrimental to the monarchy. The inquiry official explained that if the investigation has been completed and all other alleged offenders have been arrested, he shall not apply for further custody. At this point, Patiwat stood up and interjected that he had not intention to tamper with the evidence and if he was allowed to have bail, he would have been too busy with his study and would have no time to do anything else.
The hearing on the objection of custody filing against Patiwat ended here.
The Court immediately continued with the hearing on Pornthip case.
Hearing on the objection to the custody filing against Pornthip
The Court commenced the hearing by asking Pornthip if she was aware of the objection to the custody filing, and she said yes.
The Court then read out the motion of the accused and Pornthip claimed that she objected the custody filing since she had given detailed information and denied the charge and asked to give evidence in the Court. The accused promised that she would not tamper with the evidence and even though the charge carries high penalty rate, it did not mean she would have to run. While the Court was reading out the motion of the alleged offender, a phone rang, and the Court asked all to turn off the volume their phones.
The Court further asked that apart from this motion, the accused or witness would like to make other statements or not. A relative of the alleged offender who proposed to be witness recounted the background of the accused to the Court, but the Court cut in and asked the witness to only speak about the investigation. Pornthip’s relative continued that while the alleged offender was held in custody, police officials have gone to her house in the province to collect more information. And since the accused had been subjected to an inquiry, she would not be able to tamper with the evidence.
The Court then turned to the inquiry official who explained that the investigation had not been completed and more witnesses had to be questioned. The lawyer stood up to explain to the Court that the accused was nabbed while she was about to broad a flight to work in another country. Her mother had to suffer a lot for she had borrowed a lot of money to make the journey possible. Thus, the accused had to tend to her family and she should not flee for that reason. The Court stated that the purpose of this hearing was about the objection to custody filing, and it was not a witness examination. Therefore, only reasons that challenged the request for custody should be made. The Court explained further that the custody filing rested mainly on the necessity of the officials. The Court also deemed that the alleged offenders could still apply for bail. But the lawyer of the accused explained that the investigation on the accused had been completed while they were in the prison. The lengthy inquiry took place from afternoon to around 8.00 PM. There was no reason to hold up the accused any further.
After the hearing, the Court asked the accused and the lawyer to wait for the decision in the Court Room and then descended the bench at around 10.30am.
While waiting for the decision, the alleged offenders had a chance to chat intimately with their relatives and observers. They looked high in their morale. Around 11.00am, the court clerk asked the inquiry official to answer to a phone in front of the bench. It was not possible to know whom he talked to and on what matter.
Around 11.15 AM, the judges returned and made a decision to dismiss the objection against the custody filing of both accused claiming that the investigation had not been completed and the inquiry official still found it necessary to question more witnesses and to conduct criminal background check. Meanwhile, the Court asked the inquiry official to expedite the writing of the inquiry report since they might not grant another custody filing.
After delivering the decision, the Court verbally reiterated to the inquiry official that an effort shall be made to expedite the investigation and asked the attorneys to apply for bail, but whether or not it would be granted was subjected to the discretion of the judge in charge.
19 September 2014
Hearing on the objection to the third custody filing
Court Room 612 of the Criminal Court
After the third custody of the accused ended, the inquiry official from the Chana Songkram Police Station requested for the fourth custody while the lawyer of the accused placed their objection. Thus, the Court conducted this hearing to review both parties’ motions.
Both accused were brought inside the court room around 14.30. Present in the trial were the inquiry officials and the accused’s lawyer plus around 15 observers and supporters of the alleged offenders.
The judges ascended the bench around 14.40, and the inquiry official gave evidence to the Court that the investigation had been completed and the file had been submitted to the Metropolitan Police Bureau. Since the case was related to national security, it had to be submitted for approval from the Royal Thai Police Commission and the National Police Chief. Thus, it was necessary to ask for another extension of the custody.
Patiwat, one of the alleged offenders, gave evidence to the Court that right now the police have questioned him and all other witnesses. The rest of the process was an internal matter of the police without having to have him in their custody. Thus, he objected the custody filing.
The Court explained to the two parties in dispute that since the investigation of the inquiry official had not been completed and there were no other reasons to justify the custody of the accused. And since the accused were deprived of their liberties, the inquiry official should then expedite the process in the meeting of the Police Commission. The requested 12 days of custody was too long. The Court deemed that six days should be enough. The inquiry official was asked to inform their commanding officials by letter to expedite the process and bring to their attention the opinion of the Court. By the calculation of the Court, the six days shall end on 27 September 14 and given that the inquiry official had five working days to proceed, they should be able to do it in time.
The inquiry official did not object the decision of the Court while the lawyer of the accused cited the necessity of the accused to continue his study in this semester. The Court explained that the reason could be supplied when applying for bail. It was an irrelevant issue to the reasons cited by the inquiry official to further hold the accused in custody. As for the case of Pornthip, the Court made the same decision.
After the hearing, the lawyer of the accused applied for bail for Pornthip placing the amount of 300,000 baht, but it was turned down by the Court which claimed the high penalty rate of the charge and that the circumstance of the case has aggrieved people of the whole nation. Also, the Court had already made a decision to grant further custody. No bail application on Patiwat was made this time as not all documents required could be acquired.
