Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T19:33:53.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Symbolism as a Constraint on International Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2017

MARINA AKSENOVA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

International criminal law is being pulled in different directions by various conflicting considerations – deterrence, retribution, justice for victims, reconciliation, and setting the historical record. This trend is detrimental to the survival of the system as it erodes coherence and undermines its legitimacy. One may suggest that international criminal law needs a principle objective to bring order to the system. This article argues that while this statement may be true, it is equally important to have a discussion about pragmatic policy choices underlying the system. Acknowledging that the role of international criminal law is symbolic assists with constraining over-ambition implicit in the discipline. Treating symbolism as a policy consideration places necessary checks on other goals proclaimed by international courts and UN executive bodies and also serves as a tool informing the exercise of discretion in international criminal law.

Keywords

discretionlegitimacypolicy considerationpurposes of international criminal lawsymbolism
Type
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 475 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Robinson, D., ‘International Criminal Law as Justice: A Research Proposal’, (2013) 11 JICJ 699 Google Scholar.

2 ‘Classifying acts of evil: Naming the unspeakable’, The Economist, 18 April 2015; ‘Nice idea, now make it work’, The Economist, 6 December 2014.

3 Osiel, M., ‘The Banality of Good: Aligning Incentives Against Mass Atrocities’, (2005) 105 Columbia Law Review 1751 Google Scholar, at 1757; Damaška, M., ‘What is the Point of International Criminal Justice?’, (2008) 83 Chicago-Kent Law Review 329, at 331Google Scholar.

4 Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Notice of withdrawal of the charges against Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, ICC-01/09-02/11, T. Ch. V(B), 5 December 2014.

5 Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, Judgment on the appeals of Mr William Samoei Ruto and Mr Joshua Arap Sang against the decision of Trial Chamber V(A) of 19 August 2015 entitled ‘Decision on Prosecution Request for Admission of Prior Recorded Testimony’, ICC-01/09-01/11 OA 10, A. Ch., 12 February 2016.

6 Bernaz, N., ‘Sentencing and Penalties’, in Schabas, W. and Bernaz, N. (eds.), Routledge Handbook on International Criminal Law (2009), 289 at 298Google Scholar.

7 For example, Judge Odio Benito in her separate and dissenting opinion to the Lubanga judgment argued that it is incumbent upon the ICC to regard the interests of victims, and, as a result, provide comprehensive legal definitions that go beyond the circumstances of each individual case. See Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Odio Benito to the Trial Chamber I, Judgment pursuant Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06, T. Ch. I, 14 March 2012, at 7.

8 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony et al., Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the ‘Decision on the admissibility of the case under article 19 (1) of the Statute’ of 10 March 2009, ICC-02/04-01/05 OA 3, A. Ch., 16 September 2009, at 66.

9 Damaška, supra note 3; M. Drumbl, Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law (2007); Osiel, supra note 3.

10 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Judgement, ICTR Case No. 96-4-T, T. Ch., 2 September 1998.

11 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2187 UNTS 3, Art. 17.

12 The ICC Office of the Prosecutor expressed her support for the Agreement on the Creation of a Special Jurisdiction for Peace in Colombia that allows for reduced penalties of five to eight years of restriction of liberty for those who recognize their responsibility. See ICC OTP Report on Preliminary Examinations Activities (2015), 12 November 2015, at 149, 163.

13 Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, ICC-01/04-01/06, PT. Ch. I, 29 January 2007, at 37–44, at 242 et seq. See also Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Sentencing Judgment, ICC-01/04-01/06, T. Ch. I, 10 July 2012, at 37–44.

14 In this regard, it is interesting to observe how the ICC will approach the impending trial of Dominic Ongwen – a former child soldier who now faces trial for crimes committed as a member of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. See M. Kersten et al., ‘The Dominic Ongwen Trial and the Prosecution of Child Soldiers’, Justice in Conflict Symposium, 11 April 2016, available at justiceinconflict.org/2016/04/11/the-dominic-ongwen-trial-and-the-prosecution-of-child-soldiers-a-jic-symposium/ (accessed 17 November 2016).

15 Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Judgement, Case No. IT-96-22-A, A. Ch., 7 October 1997.

16 Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Judgement, Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald and Judge Vohrah, Case No. IT-96-22-A, A. Ch, 7 October 1997, at 75.

17 Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Judgement, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cassese, IT-96-22-A, A. Ch, 7 October 1997, at 11.

18 For more discussion of the Erdemović case, see Brooks, R., ‘Law in the Heart of Darkness: Atrocity and Duress’, (2003) 43 Virginia Journal of International Law 861 Google Scholar.

19 Thomas, C.A., ‘The Uses and Abuses of Legitimacy in International Law’, (Winter 2014) 34 (4) Oxford J. Legal Stud. 729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 734.

20 J. Feinberg, Harm to Others (1984), at 11.

21 Hart refers to these criteria as the ‘rules of recognition’. See Hart, H.L.A. and Gardner, J., Punishment and Responsibility: Essays on Philosophy of Law (2009), at 100 Google Scholar.

22 Ibid., at 235; See also H. Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State (1945), at 110–24.

23 A. Ashworth, Sentencing and Criminal Justice (2010), at 75.

24 Fletcher, G., ‘Punishment and Responsibility’, in Patterson, D. (ed.), Companion to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (2010), 504 at 508CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 A. Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (1995), at 67.

26 Ibid., at 75.

27 von Hirsch, A., ‘Reduced Penalties for Juveniles: the Normative Dimension’, in von Hirsch, A., et al. (eds.), Principled Sentencing (2009), 323 at 323Google Scholar.

28 Hart, supra note 21, at 235–6. This position is in contrast with Kelsen's view that there exists a basic norm of international law (such as pacta sunt servanda, for example). Cf. Kelsen, supra note 22, at 369.

29 Rome Statute, supra note 11, Arts. 121–122.

30 For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) relied in its early jurisprudence on the international treaty rules on human rights banning torture to expand its subject matter jurisdiction and define the parameters of this offence in international criminal law. See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Trial Judgement, IT-95-17/1-T, T. Ch., 10 December 1998, at 143 et seq.

31 Hart, supra note 21, at 234.

32 Luban, D., ‘After the Honeymoon: Reflections on the Current State of International Criminal Justice’, (2013) 11 JICJ 505 Google Scholar.

33 ‘Do We Need the International Criminal Court?’, New York Times, 11 December 2014, available at www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/11/do-we-need-the-international-criminal-court (accessed 17 November 2016).

34 See, e.g., Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, UN Doc. S/Res/955 (1994), Art. 26; Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, UN Doc. S/RES/827 (1993), Art. 27 (enforcement of sentence). To that effect Bodansky argues that the institution's lack of coercive power means that it must rely more on perceived legitimacy as a basis of influence. See Bodansky, D., ‘Legitimacy in International Law and International Relations’, in Dunoff, J.L. and Pollack, M.A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (2012), 321 at 325Google Scholar.

35 Drumbl, supra note 9, at 173; Damaška, supra note 3, at 345; Van Der Wilt, H., ‘Why International Criminal Lawyers Should Read Mirjan Damaška’, in Stahn, C. and van den Herik, L. (eds.), Future Perspectives on International Criminal Justice (2010), 44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; S. Mohamed, ‘Deviance, Aspiration, and the Stories We Tell: Reconciling Mass Atrocity and the Criminal Law’, (2015) 124 Yale L.J. 1628.

36 Damaska, supra note 3.

37 Ibid., at 345.

38 Ibid., at 347.

39 Drumbl, supra note 9, at 173. See also Feinberg, J., ‘The Expressive Function of Punishment’, in Feinberg, J. (ed.), Doing and Deserving (1970), 95 Google Scholar.

40 Von Hirsch, et al. (eds.), supra note 27, at 117.

41 Duff, R.A., ‘Punishment, Retribution and Communication’, in von Hirsch, A., et al. (eds.), Principled Sentencing (2009), at 127–35Google Scholar.

42 Van der Wilt, supra note 35, at 99.

43 Ibid., footnote 39; Damaška, supra note 3, footnote 17.

44 See Aleksovski case, infra note 85, at 185.

45 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Appeal Judgement, IT-98-33-A, A. Ch., 19 April 2004, at 36.

46 The Prosecutor v. Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan, Decision on Additional Severance of Case 002 and Scope of Case 002, Case No. 002/19-09-2007-ECCCITC, T. Ch., 4 April 2014.

47 These processes are studied in sociology. Mead developed a theory of ‘symbolic interactionism’ that claims that people act according to the meaning they attribute to things based on social interactions. Building on these ideas, Goffman described how human behavior is expressed in a number of dramatic social performances, in which symbols are used by different societies to set the parameters of these acts. See G. Mead, Mind, Self and Society (1934); E. Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1969).

48 R. Fausset and A. Blinder, ‘Era Ends as South Carolina Lowers Confederate Flag’, The New York Times, 10 July 2015, available at www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/south-carolina-confederate-flag.html?_r=0 (accessed 17 November 2016).

49 ‘Russia jails three women over twerking video at WW2 memorial’, BBC, 26 April 2015, available at www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32473009 (accessed 17 November 2016).

50 A. Cohen, Two-Dimensional Man: An Essay on the Anthropology of Power and Symbolism in Complex Societies (1976).

51 Draft Resolution, UN Doc. S/2015/508 (2015), at 2.

52 Ibid., at 3.

53 According to Bourdieu, the language is more than mere linguistics for it is an instrument embedded in the social and political context and reflects social divisions by setting standards common to various groups. See P. Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power (1991), at 53–5.

54 J.L. Austin, How to do Things with Words (1962), at 4–6.

55 W. Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (2010), at 898.

56 See, e.g., The Secretary-General, Report of the Secretary-General on the Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies, UN Doc. S/2004/616 (2004), at 38.

57 Golash, D., ‘The Justification of Punishment in the International Context’, in May, L. and Hoskings, Z. (eds.), International Criminal Law and Philosophy (2014), 201 at 202Google Scholar.

58 Duff, supra note 41, at 127.

59 Ibid.

60 I. Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals (1991), at 141.

61 Ibid., at 140 (emphasis added).

62 For a contemporary discussion on Kant's view of punishment, see Fletcher, G., ‘Law and Morality’, (1987) 87 Columbia Law Review 533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Kant, supra note 60.

64 Von Hirsch, supra note 27, at 117.

65 Ibid., at 116.

66 Ashworth, supra note 25, at 26.

67 Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Sentencing Judgement, Case No. IT-96-22T, T. Ch. I, 29 November 1996, at 64.

68 See, e.g., The Prosecutor v. Delalic, et al. (Čelebići), Appeal Judgement, Case No. IT-96-21-A, A. Ch., 20 February 2001, at 806; The Prosecutor v. Kordić and Cerkez, Appeal Judgement, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, A. Ch., 17 December 2004, at 1074; The Prosecutor v. Popovic et al., Judgement (Volumes I and II), Case No. IT-05-88-T, T. Ch. II, 10 June 2010, at 2128; Prosecutor v. Gacumbtsi, Judgement, ICTR-2001-64-T, T. Ch. III, 17 June 2004, at 354; Prosecutor v. Musema, Judgement, ICTR-96-13-A, T. Ch. I, 2 January 2000, at 986.

69 See, e.g., Lubanga Sentencing Judgement, supra note 13, at 36 (‘The “gravity of the crime”, as set out in Article 78(1) of the Statute and in Rule 145 of the Rules, is one of the principal factors to be considered in the determination of the sentence, which should be in proportion to the crime (Article 81(2)(a) of the Statute), and it should reflect the culpability of the convicted person (Rule 145(l)(a) of the Rules’).

70 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Décision relative à la peine (article 76 du Statut), ICC-01/04-01/07, T. Ch. II, 23 May 2014, at 37.

71 Ibid., at 38.

72 Bernaz, supra note 6, at 298.

73 Ohlin, J., ‘Proportional Sentences at the ICTY’, in Swart, B., et al. (eds.), The Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (2011), 322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Ibid., at 324–6.

75 Ibid., at 326–31. Cf. Sloane, R.D., ‘Sentencing for the “Crime of Crimes”, The Evolving “Common Law” of Sentencing of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’, (2007) 5 (3) Journal of International Criminal Justice 713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 719.

76 G. Fletcher, Basic Concepts of Criminal Law (1998), at 207.

77 E. Durkheim, The Division of Labour in Society (1984), at 45.

78 Hart, supra note 21, at 9–12.

79 K. Ambos, Treatise on International Criminal Law (2013), at 65.

80 R. Teitel, Transitional Justice (2010), at 47.

81 J. Bentham, ‘Punishment and Deterrence’, in Von Hirsch, et al. (eds.), supra note 27, at 53–7.

82 C. Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments and Other Writings (2008), at 26.

83 G. Fletcher, The Grammar of Criminal Law (2007), at 15.

84 Bentham, supra note 81, at 53–6.

85 See Erdemović Sentencing Judgement, supra note 67, at 65; Prosecutor v. Tadić, Third Sentencing Judgement, Case No. IT-94-1-A and IT-94-1-Abis, A. Ch., 26 January 2000, at 48; Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Appeal Judgement, Case No. IT-95-14/1-A, A. Ch., 24 March 2000, at 185; Čelebići, Appeal Judgement, supra note 68, at 801.

86 See Prosecutor v. Taylor, Sentencing Judgement, SCSL-03-1-T, 30 May 2012, at 97.

87 Sentence confirmed on appeal. See Prosecutor v. Taylor, Appeal Judgement, Case No. SCSL-03-1-A, A. Ch., 26 September 2013.

88 Harmon, M.B. and Gaynor, F., ‘Ordinary Sentences for Extraordinary Crimes’, (2007) 5 (3) Journal of International Criminal Justice 683, at 683 et seqCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Von Hirsch, supra note 27, at 43 et seq.

90 Mennecke, M., ‘Punishing Genocidaires: A Deterrent Effect or Not?’, (2007) 8 (4) Human Rights Law Review 319, at 323CrossRefGoogle Scholar et seq. See also Drumbl, supra note 9, at 169 et seq.

91 Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, Decision on Defence Applications for Judgments of Acquittal, ICC-01/09-01/11, T. Ch. V(A), 5 April 2016.

92 Ruto and Sang Judgment, supra note 5.

93 Damaška, supra note 3, at 347.

94 R. Cryer, et al. (eds.), An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (2010), at 497.

95 J. Roberts, Punishing Persistent Offenders: Community and Offender Perspectives (2008), at 31.

96 M. Osiel, Making Sense of Mass Atrocity (2009), at 25.

97 G.B. Vold, et al. (eds.), Theoretical Criminology (1998), at 4.

98 Luban, supra note 32. See also Hart, supra note 21, at 6.

99 Mill, J.S., ‘On Liberty’, in May, L. and Brown, J. (eds.), Philosophy of Law: Classic and Contemporary Readings (2011), at 369 Google Scholar.

100 I.H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1965), at 95.

101 See D. Lipstadt, The Eichmann Trial (Jewish Encounters Series) (2011).

102 Osiel, supra note 3, at 1756.

103 Ibid., at 105.

104 Ibid., at 91.

105 See, e.g., Mohamed, supra note 35.

106 Robinson, D., ‘Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law’, (2008) 21 (4) LJIL 925, at 933CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Ibid.

108 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331, Arts. 31–32. See also Golder v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A, no. 18.

109 Jürgen Habermas advised against balancing values, which are relative and subject to change. Instead, he suggested adjudication oriented by principles to decide which claim and which action is right. J. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory Between Law and Democracy (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought) (1998), at 253–61.

110 See ICTR Statute, supra note 34; ICTY Statute, supra note 34; The Secretary-General Report, supra note 56, at 38.

111 Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Judgement and Sentence, ICTR Case No. ICTR-95-54A, T. Ch. II, 22 January 2004, at 753; Prosecutor v. Momir Nikolic, Sentencing Judgement, ICTY Case No. IT-02-60/1-S, T. Ch. I, 2 December 2003, at 93.

112 Damaška, supra note 3, at 346.

113 Teitel, supra note 80, at 50.

114 Rome Statute, supra note 11, Art. 1.

115 The Secretary-General Report, supra note 56; R. Steinke, The Politics of International Criminal Justice: German Perspectives from Nuremberg to the Hague (2012).

116 Teitel, supra note 80, at 72; Steinke, supra note 115, at 9. Cf. Wilson, R., ‘Judging History: The Historical Record of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, (2005) 27 Human Rights Quarterly 908, at 914CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

117 Teitel, supra note 80, at 71–2.

118 Wilson, supra note 116, at 914.

119 See, e.g., Danner, A.M. and Martinez, J.S., ‘Guilty Associations: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility, and the Development of International Criminal Law’, (2005) 93 Cal. L. Rev. 75, at 75Google Scholar; Powles, S., ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise: Criminal Liability by Prosecutorial Ingenuity and Judicial Creativity?’, (2004) 2 (2) Journal of International Criminal Justice 606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 606; Werle, G. and Burghardt, B., ‘Indirect Perpetration: a Perfect Fit for International Prosecution of Armchair Killers?’, (2011) 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice 85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 88; Weigend, T., ‘Perpetration through an Organization: The Unexpected Career of a German Legal Concept’, (2011) 9 (1) Journal of International Criminal Justice 91, at 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Manacorda, S. and Meloni, C., ‘Indirect Perpetration versus Joint Criminal Enterprise: Concurring Approaches in the Practice of International Criminal Law’, (2011) 9 (1) Journal of International Criminal Justice 159, at 161CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

120 Ashworth, supra note 25, at 26; Robinson, supra note 106, at 926.

121 Hart, supra note 21, at 174.

122 ‘Judicial Decisions: International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment and Sentences (October 1, 1946)’, (1947) 41AJIL 172, at 221.

123 ICTY Statute, supra note 34, Art. 7(1); ICTR Statute, supra note 34, Art. 6(1); Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone and Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, UN Doc. S/2002/246 (2000), Art. 6(1); Law on the Establishment of Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, NS/RKM/1004/006 (2004), Art. 29, available at www.eccc.gov.kh/sites/default/files/legal-documents/KR_Law_as_amended_27_Oct_2004_Eng.pdf (accessed 18 November 2016).

124 Rome Statute, supra note 11, Art. 25(3).

125 Aksenova, M., ‘The Modes of Liability at the ICC: The Labels that don't Always Stick’, (2015) 15 (4) International Criminal Law Review 629, at 629CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

126 Roxin's control over crime theory: C. Roxin, Täterschaft und Tatherrschaft (1994).

127 Aksenova, supra note 125.

128 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Appeal Judgement, ICTR Case No. 2001-64-A, A. Ch., 7 July 2006, at 60.

129 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Appeals Judgement, ICTY Case No. IT-94-1, A. Ch., 15 July 1999, at 195–226.

130 Rome Statute, supra note 11, Art. 21(1)(c).

131 Ibid., Art. 22(1); J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1999), at 209.

132 Ashworth, supra note 25, at 87. Judge van den Wyngaert stressed the importance of ‘fair labeling’ in her concurring opinion to ‘Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute’. See Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Concurring opinion of Judge van den Wyngaert to Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-02/12-4, T. Ch. II, 18 December 2012, at 28.

133 Osiel argues in favour of modifying familiar legal classifications to suit international offences. See Osiel, supra note 96, at 21.

134 The principle of fair labelling requires maintaining the distinctions ‘to ensure a proportionate response to law-breaking, thereby assisting the law's educative and declaratory function in sustaining and reinforcing social values’. See Ashworth, supra note 25, at 86.

135 Rawls, supra note 131, at 211.

136 Ibid., at 51.

137 According to Franck, the legitimacy of international rule-making institutions is achieved if those addressed by the rules perceive the rule or institution as having come into being and operating in accordance with generally accepted rights of due process. He examined these four qualities of legitimacy with respect to the emerging right to democratic government. See T.M. Franck, ‘The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance’, (1992) 86(1) AJIL 46, at 51.

138 Both representatives for the victims and the defence made arguments to that effect. Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Abdullah Al-Senussi against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 11 October 2013 entitled ‘Decision on the admissibility of the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi’, ICC-01/11-01/11 OA6, A. Ch., 24 July 2014, at 204–10 (hereinafter Al-Senussi Appeal Judgment).

139 Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, Decision on the admissibility of the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi, ICC-01/11-01/11, Pt. Ch. I, 11 October 2013, at 292; Ibid., at 181, 189.

140 Al-Senussi Appeal Judgment, supra note 138, at 190, 229–30.

141 Ibid., at 218.

142 Ibid., at 219–20.

143 Ibid., at 191.