Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 17298/90

by A.A.

against Switzerland

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

11 January 1993, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 1 October 1990 by

A.A. against Switzerland and registered on 15 October 1990 under file

No. 17298/90;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

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

summarised as follows.

The applicant, a Swiss citizen and businessman, resided at

Buttisholz in Switzerland. He died in 1991. His heirs are the widow,

Mrs. R.A.-W., and his four children, M.H.-A., R.A.A., S.A. and E.A.

The applicant was represented before the Commission by

Mr. L.A. Minelli, a lawyer residing at Forch in Switzerland, who is now

also representing the applicant's heirs before the Commission.

A. Particular circumstances of the case

I.

In 1977/78 various companies, which the three S. brothers had

founded in the Canton of Uri, merged with two building firms, A.B. AG

and C.B. AG in the Canton of Lucerne whose board members were the

applicant and a certain R.B.

In May 1981 the Investigating Office (Verhöramt) of the Canton

of Uri instituted criminal investigations against various persons

involved in the new company.

On 21 March 1986 the Uri Public Prosecutor's Office

(Staatsanwaltschaft) indicted altogether 14 persons, among them the

applicant. The latter was indicted of forging documents

(Urkundenfälschung), obtaining a false registration (Erschleichung

einer falschen Beurkundung), fraud (Betrug) and misappropriation of

funds (Veruntreuung).

According to a time-table issued on 28 October 1986 by the Uri

Regional Court (Landgericht), the trial began on 17 November 1986. The

applicant was heard on 18 November, 2 December 1986 and 19 January

1987. At this last hearing the applicant put forward various requests

for the taking of evidence.

On 12 March 1987 the Uri Regional Court convicted the applicant

of forging documents, obtaining a false registration and

misappropriation of funds, and sentenced him to four years'

imprisonment. The other co-accused were convicted and received prison

sentences of between four months and five years and 10 months.

The judgment counted 136 pages. It listed in detail the final

requests of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the defence as well as

the final statements (Schlussanträge) of the accused.

With regard to the applicant's requests at the hearing for the

taking of further evidence the Court found, with reference to Section

180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Canton of Uri

(Strafprozessordnung; see below Relevant domestic law), that these

requests had been filed out of time. The Court further noted that all

the parties to the proceedings had had the possibility to be present

when the co-accused were interrogated, and themselves to put questions.

II.

On 6 August 1987 the applicant filed an appeal (Berufung) against

this decision with the Court of Appeal (Obergericht) of the Canton of

Uri. Therein he requested inter alia that certain persons be

questioned, certain documents be handed out, and the preparation of an

expert opinion be ordered.

On 28 October 1987 the applicant filed a further request for the

taking of evidence.

In the ensuing appeal proceedings the Court of Appeal first heard

twelve other co-accused. Each co-accused was heard individually, the

Public Prosecutor, the accused and his lawyer being present. The

subject of each hearing concerned the charges brought against the

respective co-accused. According to Section 33 para. 2 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure of the Canton of Uri the oral submissions of the

Public Prosecutor and the defence were not recorded in the minutes

(Protokoll).

The applicant was heard on 1 June 1988. During the hearing the

Public Prosecutor relied on statements made by the applicant or the

other co-accused when they had been heard.

By dates of 1, 15 and 29 June 1988 the Court of Appeal of the

Canton of Uri gave its judgment. It convicted the applicant of the

offences of forging documents, obtaining a false registration, fraud

and embezzlement of funds, and sentenced him to five years'

imprisonment.

The judgment stated at the outset that on grounds of

practicability the applicant's appeal proceedings had been separated

from those concerning other accused.

Under the heading "Requests for the taking of evidence according

to statement of 6 August 1987" ("Beweisergänzungsbegehren gemäss

Eingabe vom 6. August 1987"), p. 5 the Court of Appeal found that it

was permissible for a Canton to enact a provision such as Section 180

of the Code of Criminal Procedure which required the compliance with

certain formal conditions. The Court found that in any event defects

of the right to a fair hearing in the first instance proceedings could

be healed in the course of the appeal hearing if the appeal court

enjoyed full jurisdiction. The Court then explained with regard to the

requests for the taking of evidence why they had to be rejected, inter

alia, as the matter was clear ("das Beweisthema gilt als erstellt").

The Court of Appeal further addressed the applicant's complaint

that he had not been present when the co-accused were heard, and that

therefore their statements should not be used against him. The Court

found that the applicant had had the possibility during the

investigations, in the framework of the right to consult the case-file,

to submit further written questions and to ask for the questioning of

further witnesses. This the applicant had in fact done, though some

of the requests had been filed out of time.

In its judgment the Court of Appeal then dealt in detail with the

various points raised by the applicant in his appeal against the

conviction and sentence of the Regional Court.

III.

The applicant filed a plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde)

against the decision of the Court of Appeal which was dismissed by the

Federal Court (Bundesgericht) on 29 March 1990.

The applicant also filed a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche

Beschwerde) with the Federal Court. Therein he complained inter alia

that no minutes had been prepared of the Court of Appeal hearing; it

was impossible many months later when preparing the Court judgment to

remember what had been said by the Prosecutor also in favour of the

applicant.

The applicant further complained that the Court of Appeal had

regarded the requests for the taking of evidence at the Regional Court

hearing as being out of time. With reference to Article 6 of the

Convention, he stated that the Court of Appeal had been excessively

formal when distinguishing, according to Section 180 para. 1 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, which requests for the taking of evidence

could be made before entering into the merits of the case, and which

could be made during the oral submissions.

The applicant also complained that as he never had had the

possibility to put complementary questions to the co-accused, and yet

the lower courts had relied on their statements when assessing the

evidence, the decision was unjust.

The Federal Court dismissed the applicant's public law appeal on

29 March 1990. The decision, numbering 59 pages, was served on the

applicant on 18 May 1990.

In respect of the applicant's complaint that the Court of Appeal

had applied Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with

excessive formalism, the Federal Court considered that any defect in

the right to a fair hearing was healed if the person concerned had the

possibility to express himself before an appeal body which had the

jurisdiction freely to examine all those questions which could have

been put before the lower court.

With regard to the applicant's complaints that no minutes had

been prepared on the hearing before the Court of Appeal, the Federal

Court found that the Court of Appeal had acted in accordance with the

law, namely Section 33 of the Uri Code of Criminal Procedure.

According to the constant practice of the Court of Appeal, only the

requests (Anträge) of the parties to the proceedings were recorded in

the minutes; no violation of constitutional rights could be seen

therein. The Court continued:

[Translation]

"If the rule mentioned complies with the Constitution, it does

not become unconstitutional if criminal proceedings are conducted

against a number of participants... The applicant maintains that

due to the absence of any minutes he was unable to ascertain what

was stated in the proceedings against the co-accused. To this

the reply must be given that according to the practice of the

Court of Appeal he could have learned about the requests of the

parties from the minutes and about the respective oral

submissions from the notes of the pleadings of the other lawyers,

if due to time constraints he could not, or did not want to,

participate in all the hearings. There was in any event no

violation of constitutional rights."

[German]

"Hält die erwähnte Regelung vor der Verfassung stand, so wird sie

nicht dadurch verfassungswidrig, dass ein Strafverfahren gegen

mehrere Beteiligte geführt wird ... Wenn der Beschwerdeführer

vorbringt, er habe wegen Fehlens des Protokolls nicht feststellen

können, was in den Verfahren gegen die Mitangeklagten vorgetragen

worden sei, so ist ihm entgegenzuhalten, dass er nach der

erwähnten Praxis des Obergerichts die Anträge der

Verfahrensbeteiligten dem Protokoll und die dazu gemachten

mündlichen Ausführungen den Plädoyernotizen der andern Anwälte

entnehmen konnte, wenn er wegen zeitlicher Überforderung nicht

allen Verhandlungen beiwohnen konnte oder wollte. Eine

Verletzung verfassungsmässiger Rechte liegt jedenfalls nicht

vor." (p. 9).

With regard to the applicant's complaints that he had never had

the possibility at least once to be present when the co-accused were

questioned and to put complementary questions to them, the Federal

Court found that in view of the extraordinary complexity of the case

it was understandable that the applicant was not personally invited to

every questioning of every co-accused. The Court noted that the

applicant actually admitted having been able to consult the statements

of the co-accused. The Court concluded (p. 20) that "as long as he had

the possibility to put complementary questions in writing and to call

up new witnesses, (Article 6 para. 3 of the Convention) is not

violated" ("Hatte er aber die Möglichkeit, schriftliche

Ergänzungsfragen zu stellen und neue Zeugen anzurufen, so ist (Artikel

6 Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK) nicht verletzt").

B. Relevant domestic law

Section 33 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the

Canton of Uri states that the minutes of the hearing must "record its

course and the essential result and must contain the requests made and

decisions taken during the hearing, and the judgment" ("deren Gang und

Ergebnis im wesentlichen wiedergeben sowie die im Laufe der Verhandlung

gestellten Anträge, ergangenen Entscheide und den Urteilsspruch

enthalten").

Section 180 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the

Canton of Uri states:

[Translation]

"1. Before entering into the substantial issues of the case,

preliminary questions may be put with regard to jurisdiction, the

composition of the court, the standing down of judges and the

exclusion of the public. Requests may also be made with regard

to complementing the investigations, admitting new documents of

evidence, hearing, by the court, of previous or new witnesses and

experts, and taking evidence at the scene ...."

[German]

"1. Vor dem Eintreten in die Hauptsachen können Vorfragen über

die Zuständigkeit, die Besetzung des Gerichts, den Ausstand, den

Ausschluss der Öffentlichkeit sowie Begehren um Ergänzung der

Untersuchung, um Zulassung neuer Beweisurkunden, um gerichtliche

Einvernahme bisheriger oder neuer Zeugen und Sachverständigen und

um Durchführung eines gerichtlichen Augenscheins gestellt werden

...."

COMPLAINTS

1. When introducing the application the applicant complained that

he was not able duly to gather, before the Court of Appeal hearing took

place in his case, from official court minutes what the co-accused, the

prosecution and the defence had said.

He submitted that it was impossible to reply in the Court of

Appeal hearing to the submissions of the prosecution to the extent that

these referred to submissions made in proceedings against other

co-accused.

He complained that due to the lack of extensive court minutes the

courts, when reaching their decision, could only occasionally rely on

minutes; for the rest they had to attempt to reconstruct from memory

the course of the many hearings and the oral submissions of the

prosecution and the defence.

The applicant also complained that the lack of court minutes did

not allow him duly to prepare his defence.

The applicant, who relied in respect of these complaints on

Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention, submitted that

comprehensive court minutes would have been particularly important in

a complex court case such as the present one, involving altogether 14

co-accused.

2. The applicant also complained under Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention that he was not able to make additional requests during the

Court of Appeal hearing for the taking of evidence. This should have

been possible at least until the Public Prosecutor spoke.

3. Under Article 6 para. 3 (d) of the Convention the applicant

complained that it was not possible to put questions to the co-accused,

as he only learned from the Public Prosecutor's submissions what they

had said about the applicant at their trials. For instance, the

applicant was not informed when the co-accused S. would be questioned

for which reason it was not possible for him to be present.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 1 October 1990 and registered

on 15 October 1990.

On 27 May 1991 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit

written observations on the admissibility and merits of the

application.

The Government's observations were received by letter dated

16 September 1991 and the applicant's observations were dated

28 October 1991.

On 11 December 1991 the Government informed the Commission of the

applicant's decease.

On 27 January 1992 the applicant's heirs informed the Commission

that they intended to pursue the application.

On 15 February 1992 the Commission decided to invite the

Government to comment on the question whether the applicant's heirs

could pursue the application.

The Government's observations were received by letter dated

27 March and communicated to the applicant's heirs on 6 April 1992.

THE LAW

1. When filing the application the applicant complained under

Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (b) and (d) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-b, 6-3-d) that in

the criminal proceedings instituted against him certain court minutes

were not prepared; that he was not able to make additional requests for

the taking of evidence during the Court of Appeal hearing; and that he

could not put questions to the co-accused.

By letter of 11 December 1992 the Government informed the

Commission of the applicant's death. By letter of 27 January 1991 the

applicant's wife and children informed the Commission that they were

the applicant's heirs and wished to continue the application.

The applicant's heirs submit that during the criminal proceedings

instituted against the applicant, lasting more than ten years, they

suffered severe disadvantages. Reference is made to the applicant's

unemployment and press reports. Moreover, the outcome of the

proceedings implied enormous court costs and costs for the defence.

If the Convention organs uphold the present application, the heirs can

claim compensation.

The Government consider that the disadvantages suffered by the

applicant's heirs do not directly relate to the facts giving rise to

the application. Moreover, the damages claimed do not concern the

object of the application. The applicant's heirs cannot claim the

costs of the Regional Court or Court of Appeal proceedings; solely the

costs of the Federal Court proceedings may be considered. There is no

general interest warranting continuation of the application.

The Commission recalls the case-law of the Convention organs

according to which the fact that an applicant dies does not in itself

dispose of his complaint. In principle, it falls to the Convention

organ before which the case is pending to decide whether the

application should be further examined or whether it should be struck

off the list of cases. Special consideration should thereby be given

to the intentions expressed by the applicant's legal successor and to

the nature of the complaint (see Eur. Court H.R., Deweer judgment of

27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 19 et seq., paras. 37 et seq.;

No. 8261/78, Dec. 9.10.82, D.R. 30 p. 5; No. 10300/83, Dec. 12.12.84,

D.R. 40 p. 180; Mathes v. Austria, Comm. Report 13.1.92, paras. 17 et

seq.).

The Court has accepted the wish of members of the family upon the

applicant's death, to have the proceedings continued without examining

the legal interest of the heirs in this continuation (see Eur. Court

H.R., Colozza judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 7,

para. 6 (concerning criminal proceedings); Vocaturo judgment of 24 May

1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 29, para.2; G. v. Italy judgment of

27 February 1992, Series A no. 228-F, p. 65, para. 2; Pandolfelli and

Palumbo judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 231-B, para. 2;

X. v. France judgment of 31 March 1992, Series A no. 236, para. 26).

In the present case the applicant complained under Article 6

paras. 1 and 3 (b) and (d) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-b, 6-3-d) of the Convention

of unfairness of the criminal proceedings instituted against him. In

these proceedings he was convicted of forging documents, obtaining a

false registration, fraud and embezzlement and sentenced to five years'

imprisonment.

The applicant's heirs are close family members, i.e. his wife and

his children. The Commission accepts that they were so affected by the

outcome of the criminal proceedings instituted against their husband

and father, respectively, in particular the conviction and

comparatively severe prison sentence imposed on him, that they can

claim to have themselves a sufficient legal interest justifying the

further examination of the application on their behalf.

The Commission is therefore called upon to deal with the separate

complaints raised in the application.

2. The first complaint, under Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (a) and (b)

(Art. 6-1, 6-3-a, 6-3-b ) of the Convention, is that before the Court

of Appeal the applicant was not able duly to gather from official court

minutes what the co-accused, the prosecution and the defence had said

at the hearings concerning the co-accused. Thus, he was not able duly

to prepare his defence. Moreover, the courts when reaching their

judgments had to attempt to reconstruct from memory the course of the

oral submissions.

a) The Government submit that the applicant did not exhaust domestic

remedies within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

Thus, he never expressly raised before the domestic authorities the

complaint that the Court of Appeal in its judgment had to reconstruct

from memory the course of the proceedings.

The Commission observes that in his public law appeal to the

Federal Court the applicant complained that no minutes had been

prepared of the Court of Appeal hearing, and that the Court when

preparing its judgment could not remember many months later what had

previously been stated.

Thus, the applicant sufficiently raised before the Federal Court

the complaint he is now raising before the Commission. It follows that

this complaint cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic

remedies within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

b) The Government submit that the submissions during the Court of

Appeal proceedings concerning the applicant's case were reproduced in

that Court's judgment. In respect of the proceedings concerning the

other accused, the written statements of the Public Prosecutor and the

defence were in the case-file and thus accessible to the applicant.

While the time between the hearings was brief the Government contend

that the case was complex and had to be conducted in such a manner as

to enable the judges to grasp the case as a whole.

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention states, insofar

as

relevant:

"In the determination ... of any criminal charge against

him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ..."

Article 6 para. 3 (a) and (b) (Art. 6-3-a, 6-3-b) state:

"Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following

minimum rights:

a. to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands

and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against

him;

b. to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of

his defence ..."

The Commission considers that, under the above provisions the

applicant was entitled to be informed of the charges brought against

him and to comment upon, and if necessary challenge, those facts and

elements of evidence upon which the judgment would eventually rely.

In the present case, the complaint about the lack of minutes is

directed against the Court of Appeal and relates to appeal proceedings.

At that stage the applicant must have been well aware of the charges

brought against him and the co-accused. Furthermore, the applicant's

lawyer had access to the case-file containing written statements of the

co-accused and the Public Prosecutor's Office. Moreover, as the

Federal Court stated in its decision of 29 March 1990, the lawyer was

able to be present at the hearings concerning the various co-accused

and to take notes of any statements made by the parties which he

considered relevant to the applicant's case. Finally, it has not been

contended that during the hearing concerning his own case the applicant

or his lawyer could not put questions to the Public Prosecutor, for

instance when the latter referred to statements made in other hearings.

Insofar as it has been alleged that the courts when preparing

their judgments had to attempt to reconstruct from memory the various

submissions at the hearing as they had no minutes at their disposal,

no reference is made to a particular court or to any particular

omissions. In the Commission's opinion, it suffices therefore to note

that both the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal in their

respective judgments carefully referred to, and dealt with, the various

points raised by the applicant.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

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

Convention.

3. The second complaint, also relating to Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention, is that the applicant was not able to

make additional requests during the Court of Appeal hearing for the

taking of evidence. This should have been possible at least until the

Public Prosecutor spoke.

The Government submit that this complaint in fact refers to the

proceedings before the Regional Court which found that certain requests

for evidence had been filed out of time. On the other hand, the Court

of Appeal did not refuse to admit supplementary evidence as being out

of time. In any event the applicant did not raise this complaint in

the domestic remedies, for which reason in this respect the application

did not comply with Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

The Commission has assessed the facts relating to this complaint

as follows.

On 12 March 1987 the Uri Regional Court decided, with reference

to Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Canton of Uri,

that the applicant's requests for the taking of evidence had been filed

out of time. The present application is not directed against this

decision.

The application also does not concern the decision of the Court

of Appeal of 1, 15 and 29 June 1988 which dismissed the applicant's

requests in his appeal for the taking of evidence. In any event,

according to the Convention organs' case-law, it is as a rule for the

national courts to assess the evidence before them. The Commission's

task under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is to

ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the

way in which the evidence was taken, were fair (cf. Eur. Court H.R.,

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

In the present case it does not appear unfair if the Court of Appeal

dismissed the applicant's requests inter alia as it regarded the matter

as being clear.

Finally, insofar as it is alleged that contrary to Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention the applicant was not able to make

additional requests during the Court of Appeal hearing for the taking

of evidence, the Commission finds that this complaint is not supported

by the facts. In particular, it has not been shown that the applicant

filed a particular request, and that the Court of Appeal rejected it

on the basis of Section 180 as being out of time.

This part of the application is therefore also manifestly ill-

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

Convention.

4. The third complaint, under Article 6 para. 3 (d) (Art. 6-3-b) of

the Convention, is that it was not possible for the applicant to put

questions to the co-accused, as he only learned from the Public

Prosecutor's submissions what they had said about the applicant at

their trials.

The Government recall that before the Regional Court all the

accused had the possibility to be present when the co-accused were

being questioned and themselves to put questions. The Court of Appeal

regarded the applicant's request to put questions to the co-accused

partly as being out of time. In any event that Court found that the

applicant had had the possibility to comment on all the documents of

the investigation in the case-file. Reference is further made to the

decision of the Federal Court according to which the applicant had had

the possibility to put supplementary questions and to call new

witnesses.

Article 6 para. 3 (d) (Art. 6-3-d) of the Convention states:

"3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following

minimum rights:

...

d. to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to

obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf

under the same conditions as witnesses against him."

The guarantees in Article 6 para. 3 (Art. 6-3) are specific

aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in para. 1 and the

Commission will consider the complaint under the two provisions taken

together (see Eur. Court H.R., Asch judgment, loc. cit. p. 10, para.

25).

According to the Convention organs' case-law, all evidence must

normally be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing

with a view to adversarial argument. This does not mean, however, that

the statement of a witness must always be made in court and in public

if it is to be admitted in evidence; in certain cases this may prove

impossible. Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-d) require

that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to

challenge and question a witness against him, either when he was making

his statement or at a later stage of the proceedings (Eur. Court H.R.,

Asch judgment, loc. cit. p. 10, para. 27).

In the present case the complaint at issue does not indicate

during which particular proceedings it was not possible for the

applicant to put questions to the co-accused.

Insofar as the complaint may be directed against the proceedings

before the Regional Court, the Commission notes the decision of that

Court of 12 March 1987 according to which all the parties to the

proceedings had the possibility to be present when the co-accused were

interrogated, and themselves to put questions.

Insofar as the complaint may be directed against the proceedings

before the Court of Appeal, the Commission notes the decision of the

Federal Court of 29 March 1990 according to which, even if the

applicant was not issued with a personal invitation, he or his lawyer

could in fact be present when the other co-accused were questioned.

Moreover, according to the decision of the Federal Court the applicant

had actually consulted the written statements of the co-accused and he

had had the possibility to put supplementary questions in writing and

to call new witnesses.

It follows that the remainder of the application is also

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

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. Krüger) (C.A. Nørgaard)

Menu

A.A. v. SWITZERLAND

A.A. v. SWITZERLAND

LEXI