Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 26614/95

by Edward HUMEN

against Poland

__________

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 3 December 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs G.H. THUNE, President

MM J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 7 April 1994 by

Edward HUMEN against Poland and registered on 3 March 1995 under file

No. 26614/95;

Having regard to :

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

1 April 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 5 June 1996;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1950, is a worker

residing in Gdansk, Poland.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows:

A. Particular circumstances of the case

a) Proceedings relating to the request for compensation for

unjustified conviction

On 5 January 1983 the Gdansk Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki)

convicted the applicant of participating in an illegal assembly and

sentenced him, under martial law as then in force, to sixteen months'

imprisonment. On 8 June 1983 the Supreme Court (S*d Najwyzszy) upheld

this judgment.

On 3 March 1993 the Supreme Court, upon an extraordinary appeal

filed by the Prosecutor General (Prokurator Generalny), quashed the

judgments of 1983 and acquitted the applicant, finding that he had

exercised his basic civil liberties as "he had taken part in a peaceful

and patriotic manifestation".

On 13 April 1993 the applicant lodged a request based on Section

487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the Gdansk Regional Court.

He sought compensation for his unjustified conviction of 1983 and his

detention on remand imposed in the course of those proceedings. He

also alleged that his health had been damaged as a result of his

detention. At the material time the applicant was serving a sentence

imposed in other criminal proceedings in Kwidzyn prison.

On 15 June 1993 the Gdansk Regional Court requested the applicant

to adduce certain documents relating to his request.

On 30 July 1993 the Gdansk Regional Court informed the applicant

that it was dealing with requests for compensation submitted in the

first six months of 1992. The applicant's attention was drawn to the

fact that he had failed to submit the documents requested on 15 June

1993. The applicant adduced the documents in question on an

unspecified date in September 1993 and requested the court to schedule

a hearing.

On 6 November 1993 the Chief Justice of the Gdansk Regional

Court, in reply to the applicant's complaint dated 10 August 1993,

informed him that there were twenty-eight similar compensation cases

registered with the Criminal Division of that court. As a consequence,

it was difficult to foresee precisely when a hearing in his case would

take place.

On 9 November 1993 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court

about the length of the proceedings in his case. Subsequently, his

complaint was transferred to the Gdansk Court of Appeal (S*d

Apelacyjny) which, on 23 December 1993, informed the applicant that his

case would probably be dealt with in the first three months of 1994.

On 8 January 1994 the Gdansk Regional Court, in reply to the

applicant's subsequent complaint, informed him that it was still

dealing with other requests for compensation submitted prior to his.

However, a hearing in his case would be scheduled as soon as possible.

On 24 January 1994 the applicant again complained to the Gdansk

Regional Court about the excessive length of the proceedings. In a

letter of 8 February 1994 the court informed the applicant that it was

not feasible to schedule a hearing for any date in the first half of

1994. On 14 February 1994 the applicant complained to the Chief Justice

of the Gdansk Regional Court about the length of the proceedings and

asked him when the first hearing would be held. On 23 March 1994 the

Chief Justice informed the applicant that his case would probably be

dealt with in June or July 1994.

On 28 March 1994 the applicant complained to the Minister of

Justice about inactivity on the part of the Gdansk Regional Court.

On 17 June 1994 the Gdansk Regional Court held a hearing and

found that evidence needed to be taken from medical experts in order

to assess whether there was a causal link between the state of the

applicant's health and the detention imposed in 1983. The court also

called documentary evidence relating to the financial loss possibly

sustained by the applicant as a result of the deprivation of his

liberty and his subsequent conviction. The hearing was, accordingly,

adjourned.

On 3 and 24 October 1994 the applicant complained to the Chief

Justice of the Gdansk Regional Court about the length of the

proceedings. On 25 October 1994 the Chief Justice informed the

applicant that on 20 October 1994 the case-file had been sent to the

experts of the Faculty of Forensic Medicine of the Gdansk Academy of

Medicine. Therefore, the date of the next hearing could not be fixed

until the experts had submitted their reports.

On 1 December 1994 the applicant was examined by a neurologist

who expressed the opinion that the applicant should also undergo a

brain tomography examination. The Faculty of Radiology of the Gdansk

Academy of Medicine fixed the date of the examination for 22 December

1994. In the meantime, on 19 December 1994, the applicant had been

granted twenty-four hours' leave from prison and had failed to return.

He did not appear before the experts who were to carry out the brain

tomography examination. Apparently in view of that fact, on 13 January

1995, the Gdansk Regional Court stayed the proceedings. On 17 February

1995 it resumed the proceedings as the applicant had informed the court

that service of a summons or other court documents on him could be

effected at his home address. Subsequently, the court requested the

experts to fix another date for the brain tomography examination.

On 11 April 1995 the Chief Justice of the Gdansk Regional Court

informed the President of the Criminal Division of that court that the

applicant had refused to give his consent for the brain tomography

examination and threatened to go on hunger-strike in order to obtain

a date for the next hearing.

The Gdansk Regional Court scheduled a hearing for 2 June 1995.

On the same day the court pronounced a decision partly granting the

applicant's claim, i.e. awarding him the sum of new PLZ 5,000. On

5 July 1995, upon the applicant's appeal, the Gdansk Court of Appeal

quashed the decision of the court of first instance and remitted the

case back to that court.

In the subsequent proceedings the Gdansk Regional Court held four

hearings: on 11 October 1995 and on 12 January, 9 February and 6 March

1996. On 6 March 1996 the court made a decision granting the applicant

compensation in the sum of new PLZ 6,800. The decision was served on

the applicant on 18 March 1996. Since he did not appeal against it,

the decision became final on 26 March 1996. On 1 October 1996 the

applicant went to the Financial Department of the Gdansk Regional Court

and received the sum granted in cash.

b) Criminal proceedings against the applicant

i) concerning the charge of aggravated theft

On 7 May 1992 the Gdansk District Court (S*d Rejonowy) convicted

the applicant of aggravated theft and sentenced him to one year's

imprisonment. On 14 October 1992 the Gdansk Regional Court altered the

sentence to two years' imprisonment, holding that the period of the

applicant's detention on remand should be deducted from the sentence.

As a result, the applicant served the remainder of this sentence from

29 January 1993 to 13 May 1994.

ii) concerning the charge of burglary

On 29 January 1993 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of

having committed burglary. On 31 January 1993 the Gdansk District

Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) detained him on remand in view of the

reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question.

On 23 February 1993 the investigating prosecutor prolonged the

detention on remand until 28 April 1993.

On 20 April 1993 the Gdansk District Court prolonged the

applicant's detention for a further three months in view of the

reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he

had been charged and the fact that the investigations were not

completed. On 4 May 1993, upon the applicant's appeal, the Gdansk

Regional Court upheld this decision.

On 18 May and 1 June 1993 the Gdansk District Prosecutor

dismissed the applicant's subsequent requests for release in view of

the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question

and the need to complete the investigations.

On 9 June 1993 the Gdansk District Prosecutor lodged a bill of

indictment with the Gdansk District Court.

On 28 July, 5 October and 13 October 1993 the Gdansk District

Court dismissed further requests for release by the applicant in view

of the serious nature of the charge laid against him. On 3 November

1993 the Gdansk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against

the decision of 5 October 1993, upholding the reasons given therefor.

Subsequently, the applicant challenged the presiding judge. On

24 November 1993 the Gdansk District Court dismissed his challenge as

there was no indication of lack of impartiality on her part. However,

shortly afterwards the presiding judge requested the Gdansk District

Court to allow her to step down as the applicant had been uttering

threats against her in his letters sent from prison. The request was

granted on 14 January 1994.

On 24 January and 21 February 1994 the Gdansk District Court

again refused to release the applicant from detention on remand in view

of the serious nature of the charge laid against him and the need to

ensure the due course of the proceedings. On 7 March 1994 the Gdansk

Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the District

Court's decision of 21 February 1994 holding that the reasons given

therefor were justified.

On 19 April 1994 the Gdansk District Court held a hearing.

During the hearing the applicant again unsuccessfully requested the

court to release him. The court found that the grounds previously

given to justify his detention still existed. On 5 May 1994 the Gdansk

Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against this decision.

On 13 May 1994 the Gdansk District Court convicted the applicant

of burglary, sentenced him to two years and four months' imprisonment

and deducted the period of his detention on remand from 29 January 1993

to 13 May 1994 from the sentence.

On 25 May 1994 the Gdansk District Court refused the applicant's

request for release in view of the severity of the sentence imposed.

On 13 June 1994 the Gdansk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's

appeal against this decision.

On 22 September 1994 the Gdansk District Court ex officio

rectified an error in the applicant's sentence of 13 May 1994 and

ordered that the period of detention deducted from that sentence should

have been deducted from the sentence imposed on him on 14 October 1992

since in the meantime the applicant had been serving the latter.

On 26 October 1994 the Gdansk District Court dismissed the

applicant's appeal against the decision of 22 September 1994.

iii) concerning the charge of uttering threats

On 12 January 1994 the Gdansk District Court convicted the

applicant of uttering threats against K. and sentenced him to eight

months' imprisonment. On 15 April 1994 the Gdansk Regional Court

upheld the judgment of 12 January 1994.

c) Proceedings relating to the request for temporary suspension of

sentence

On 16 September 1994 a single judge sitting as the Gdansk

Regional Court refused to grant the applicant's request for temporary

suspension of his sentence as the applicant's personal situation did

not justify his release. On 23 September 1994, upon the applicant's

appeal, a panel of three judges sitting as the Gdansk Regional Court

upheld the decision of 16 September 1994.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Chapter 50 of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure, entitled

"Compensation for unjustified conviction, detention on remand or

arrest", provides that the State is liable for wrongful convictions or

for unjustifiedly depriving an individual of his liberty in the course

of criminal proceedings against him.

Section 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in the version

applicable at the material time) provided, insofar as relevant:

"1. An accused who, as a result of the reopening of the

criminal proceedings against him or of lodging an extraordinary

appeal, has been acquitted or resentenced under a more lenient

substantive provision, shall be entitled to compensation from the

State Treasury for the damage which he has suffered in

consequence of having served the whole or a part of the sentence

imposed on him.

...

4. The provisions of the present chapter shall be applied by

analogy to manifestly unjustified arrest or detention on remand."

Section 488 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in the

version applicable at the material time) provided, insofar as relevant:

"1. A request for compensation shall be submitted to a regional

court in whose jurisdiction the decision giving rise to the

request for compensation was given at first instance.

...

2. The court shall consist of three judges. The cases

relating to requests for compensation shall be given priority and

no court fees shall be required from the person concerned."

In practice, a request for compensation based on the foregoing

provisions is examined by a criminal court. As regards the conduct of

the proceedings, the court applies the rules of criminal procedure.

However, in respect of the evaluation of the pecuniary or non-pecuniary

damage sustained by an accused the court applies the principles set out

in the Civil Code pertaining to the assessment of such damage. The

person concerned is entitled to compensation, covering any financial

loss (e.g. arising from the impossibility of performing a professional

activity), damage to health and psychological harm resulting from the

execution of the sentence or detention on remand.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that the proceedings before the Gdansk

Regional Court, which concerned his request for compensation for

unjustified conviction in 1983, were unreasonably long.

2. He also complains that on three occasions the Gdansk District

Court and the Gdansk Regional Court convicted him on the basis of

insufficient evidence and that they incorrectly assessed the evidence

presented during the trials concerned.

3. He submits that he was detained on remand in the burglary case

and that the courts refused to order his release.

4. The applicant further complains that he was refused a temporary

suspension of his sentence.

He does not invoke any specific provisions of the Convention in

support of his complaints.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 7 April 1994 and registered on

3 March 1995.

On 16 January 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

applicant's complaint concerning the length of the proceedings relating

to his request for compensation for unjustified conviction to the

respondent Government.

The Government's written observations were submitted on 1 April

1996. The applicant replied on 5 June 1996. The translation of the

Government's observations was submitted on 17 June 1997.

On 9 July 1997 the Commission, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2(a) of

its Rules of Procedure, requested the respondent Government to submit

information relating to the course of the proceedings complained of

after 6 March 1996. The Government submitted the information requested

on 23 September 1997.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the proceedings relating to his

request for compensation for unjustified conviction in 1983 were

unreasonably long.

a) Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, insofar as relevant,

provides:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations

... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable

time by [a] ... tribunal established by law. ..."

The Government submit that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention

is applicable in the present case.

The Commission notes that the proceedings complained of involved

an examination of the applicant's request based on Section 487 of the

Polish Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision states that a person

charged with a criminal offence, but subsequently acquitted or

sentenced under a more lenient provision, shall be granted compensation

for unjustified conviction and detention resulting from such

conviction. According to the domestic law and practice, requests for

such compensation are examined by criminal courts under the general

principles of civil law pertaining to the assessment of damage provided

for by the Polish Civil Code.

Thus, assessing these proceedings under the relevant case-law

(see, a contrario, Eur. Court HR, Masson and Van Zon judgment of 28

September 1995, Series A no. 327-A, p. 19 et seq. para. 48 et seq.) the

Commission finds that they concerned a dispute over a right recognised

under Polish law. It further observes that the applicant's right was

to financial reparation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and that

its nature was "civil", notwithstanding the origin of the dispute and

the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.

Accordingly, the Commission finds that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention is applicable in respect of the proceedings under

consideration.

b) The Government submit that they do not have any reservations

regarding the temporal competence of the Commission since the

applicant's complaint concerns acts, decisions and events which

occurred after 30 April 1993.

It is true that Poland recognised the competence of the

Commission to receive individual applications "from any person, non-

governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be a

victim of a violation by Poland of the rights and freedoms recognised

in the Convention through any act, decision or event occurring after

30 April 1993."

However, the Commission notes that the proceedings complained of

commenced on 13 April 1993 (i.e. when the applicant lodged his request

for compensation with the Gdansk Regional Court), i.e. prior to 1 May

1993, the date on which Poland's declaration acknowledging the right

of individual petition took effect. Since, in that declaration Poland

limited the Commission's competence to facts subsequent to the

declaration, the Commission, by reason of its competence ratione

temporis, can examine the applicant's complaint only insofar as it

relates to the period after this date. Nonetheless, it can take into

account, in order to assess the length, the stage reached in the

proceedings at the beginning of the period under consideration

(No. 7984/77, Dec. 11.7.79, D.R. 16, p. 92).

c) The Government submit that in the light of the relevant criteria

for the notion of a "reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, deriving from the Convention

organs' case-law, the length of the proceedings in the applicant's case

before the Gdansk Regional Court was reasonable and no irregularities

can be found in the authorities' conduct.

The Government maintain that the applicant's case was,

undoubtedly, a complex one. This was due to the number of claims

submitted by the applicant. In particular, he requested compensation

for the deterioration of his financial situation on account of the

imposition of detention on him. As a result, the court needed to take

documentary evidence relating to his business activity from a local tax

office and trade guild. He also requested compensation for the damage

to his health resulting from his detention. Accordingly, the court had

to assess the facts relevant to his claim in the light of reports by

medical experts, who expressed the opinion that the applicant should

undergo a brain tomography.

The Government further submit that the conduct of the applicant

was the main factor contributing to the length of the proceedings

complained of. On 15 June 1993 the Gdansk Regional Court requested him

to submit documents relevant to his claim as he had failed to do so

when lodging his request with the court on 13 April 1993. The

applicant adduced the documents concerned as late as September 1993.

As a consequence, the court was not able to commence preparations for

a hearing. Furthermore, the applicant had failed to undergo the brain

tomography on 22 December 1994 and, subsequently, did not consent to

undergo it, although the next date for it was already scheduled for

April 1995. This delayed the preparation of the experts' report.

In contrast, there were no delays in the proceedings resulting

from inactivity on the part of the relevant courts, save for those

caused by the significant number of similar requests for compensation

lodged with the Gdansk Regional Court and the shortage of staff in that

court. In comparison to other regions of Poland, the Gdansk Regional

Court was confronted with a bigger number of such requests, as many

convictions rendered by the courts of the Gdansk region under martial

law were subsequently quashed as unjustified.

Moreover, the respective authorities immediately replied to the

applicant's complaints about the length of the proceedings. Thus, the

Gdansk Court of Appeal and the Minister of Justice repeatedly informed

him that the Gdansk Regional Court had to deal with such requests for

compensation in chronological order.

As a consequence, the Gdansk Regional Court displayed due

diligence in dealing with the applicant's case. For instance, this

transpires from the fact that it made efforts to schedule the brain

tomography examination as soon as possible. It also immediately

resumed the proceedings which had been stayed after the applicant had

failed to undergo this examination.

The applicant contests the Government's submissions. He replies

that the length of the proceedings in his case clearly exceeded a

"reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention. He stresses that the Gdansk Regional Court scheduled the

first hearing more than one year after the date on which he had lodged

his request. Furthermore, that court ordered unnecessary evidence from

a brain tomography test which resulted in the proceedings being

substantially prolonged.

The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria

established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question

of "reasonable time", and having regard to all the information in its

possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is

required.

2. The applicant complains that on three occasions the Gdansk

District Court and the Gdansk Regional Court convicted him on the basis

of insufficient evidence, made erroneous findings of fact and

incorrectly assessed the evidence presented during his trials.

The Commission finds that these complaints also fall within the

scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

a) It further notes that they firstly concern the proceedings

relating to the charge of aggravated theft which were terminated by the

judgment of the Gdansk Regional Court of 14 October 1992.

The Commission has already found that, by reason of its

competence ratione temporis, it can examine the applicant's complaints

only insofar as they relate to facts subsequent to 30 April 1993.

It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as

being incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the

Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

b) As regards the applicant's complaints about the proceedings

relating to the charge of burglary, which were terminated by the

judgment of the Gdansk District Court of 13 May 1994, the Commission

recalls that under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it "may only

deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted".

In respect of these proceedings the Commission notes that the

applicant appealed against the decision of the Gdansk District Court

of 22 September 1994 concerning the deduction of his detention on

remand from the sentence imposed. However, he failed to appeal against

that court's judgment on the merits to the Gdansk Regional Court.

As a result, the applicant has not complied with the requirement

as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article

26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. It follows that this part of the

application must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 3

(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

c) With regard to the applicant's complaints about the proceedings

relating to the charge of uttering threats, which were terminated by

the judgment of the Gdansk Regional Court of 15 April 1994, the

Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the

Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the

obligations undertaken by the Parties to the Convention. In

particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging

that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,

except where it considers that such errors might have involved a

possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention. The Commission refers, on this point, to its established

case-law (see e.g. No. 25062/94, Dec. 18.10.95, D.R. 83, p. 77).

The Commission further reiterates that the admissibility of

evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law. As a

rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them,

whereas it is the Commission's task to ascertain whether the

proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence

was taken, were fair (see Eur. Court HR, Asch v. Austria judgment of

26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 26).

The Commission has examined the applicant's above complaints as

they have been submitted by him. However, it finds no indication that

in the course of the proceedings complained of, he was debarred from

putting forward his submissions, or that the courts concerned rejected

any relevant evidence or that the proceedings were unfairly conducted

in any other way.

It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as

being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3. The applicant complains that in the burglary case he was detained

on remand and the courts refused to release him.

The Commission examined this complaint under Article 5 para. 3

(Art. 5-3) of the Convention, which provides, insofar as relevant:

"3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the

provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article ... shall be

entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending

trial. ...".

The Commission finds that on 29 January 1993 the applicant was

arrested on suspicion of having committed burglary. He was convicted

at first instance on 13 May 1994 by the Gdansk District Court.

Moreover, from 29 January 1993 to 13 May 1994 the applicant served his

sentence imposed by the final judgment of the Gdansk Regional Court of

14 October 1992.

The Commission, having regard to its competence ratione temporis,

can examine the above complaint only insofar as it relates to the

applicant's detention following 30 April 1993.

Furthermore, the period of the applicant's detention on remand

following 13 May 1994 does not fall under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3)

of the Convention since a person convicted at first instance and

subsequently detained cannot be considered to be detained "for the

purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on

reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence" within the meaning

of Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur.

Court HR, B. v. Austria judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175,

p. 15, para. 39).

Accordingly, the Commission observes that the whole period of the

applicant's detention on remand which could be considered under Article

5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention (i.e. from 1 May 1993 to 13 May

1994) was covered by a concurrent sentence arising from a previous

conviction.

It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as

being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

4. Finally, the applicant complains that he was refused temporary

suspension of his sentence.

However, the Commission recalls that the Convention does not

guarantee the right to have the execution of a sentence suspended

(No. 7648/76, Dec. 6.12.77, D.R. 11, p. 175).

It follows that the remainder of the application is inadmissible

as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the

Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the

applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings

relating to his request for compensation for unjustified

conviction;

unanimously,

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

Menu

HUMEN v. POLAND

HUMEN v. POLAND

LEXI