ࡱ> 47123c  bjbjzz 4~]\~]\& d ,%x))))))8T)L+)^0T,.0.(X.X.= GJt<^>^>^>^>^>^>^$`cb^)GL=@=GLGLb^))X.X.Aw^WWWGLR )X.)X.<^WGL<^WW:[,N\X.p'2U6\ (^^0^ \.5dV5dN\N\n5d)\lGLGLWGLGLGLGLGLb^b^WGLGLGL^GLGLGLGL5dGLGLGLGLGLGLGLGLGL> *:   CRISTAL TOVAR (PETITIONER) V. DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF EXCLUTIA (RESPONDENT)  MEMORIAL FOR THE STATE TABLE OF CONTENT  TOC \o "1-3" 1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES  PAGEREF _Toc257290617 \h 3 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS  PAGEREF _Toc257290618 \h 5 2.1 Factual Background  PAGEREF _Toc257290619 \h 5 2.2 Petitioners Background and Arrival at La Casita  PAGEREF _Toc257290620 \h 6 2.3 La Casitas Purpose and Services  PAGEREF _Toc257290621 \h 7 2.4 Petitioner Declared Legally Incompetent and Subsequent Domestic Proceedings  PAGEREF _Toc257290622 \h 8 2.5 Proceedings Before the Inter-鶹ý Human Rights System  PAGEREF _Toc257290623 \h 10 3 LEGAL ANALYSIS  PAGEREF _Toc257290624 \h 11 3.1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION  PAGEREF _Toc257290625 \h 11 3.2 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS  PAGEREF _Toc257290626 \h 11 3.2.1 Lack of Timeliness  PAGEREF _Toc257290627 \h 11 3.2.2 Lack of Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies  PAGEREF _Toc257290628 \h 13 3.3 EXCLUTIA COMPLIED WITH ARTICLES 3, 5, 7 AND 11 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLES 1.1 AND 2  PAGEREF _Toc257290629 \h 15 3.3.1 Petitioners Right to Juridical Personality  PAGEREF _Toc257290630 \h 16 3.3.2 Petitioners Rights to Humane Treatment and Personal Liberty  PAGEREF _Toc257290631 \h 19 3.3.3 Petitioners Right to Privacy  PAGEREF _Toc257290632 \h 23 3.4 EXCLUTIA COMPLIED WITH ARTICLES 8, 25 AND 24 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLES 1.1 AND 2  PAGEREF _Toc257290633 \h 26 3.4.1 Article 41 of Exclutias Civil Code Complied with Petitioners Rights to A Fair Trial, Judicial Protection and Equal Protection of the Law  PAGEREF _Toc257290634 \h 26 3.4.2 The Pending Draft of Article 41 Complies with International Standards  PAGEREF _Toc257290635 \h 29 3.5 PROVISIONAL MEASURES  PAGEREF _Toc257290636 \h 32 4 CONCLUSION  PAGEREF _Toc257290637 \h 35 5 REQUEST FOR RELIEF  PAGEREF _Toc257290638 \h 35  1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES International Instruments 鶹ý Convention on Human Rights Articles 1.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 24, 25, 46, 51, 61, 62 passim Inter-鶹ý Commission on Human Rights, Rules of Procedure Article 25, 32, 76.33, 34 Convention Against Torture, Article 1..20 United Nations Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. www.un.org/documents/ga/res/46/a46r119.htm...19, 21, 22 World Health Organization, Constitution of the World Health Organization,  HYPERLINK "http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf" \t "_blank" http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf..24 Legal Books and Articles Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen. The Inter-鶹ý Court of Human Rights: Case Law and Commentary. Oxford University Press 2011.....27 Jo M Pasqualucci.The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-鶹ý Court of Human Rights.Cambridge University Press 2012.33 Janos Fiala-Butora,Disabling Torture: The Obligation to Investigate Ill-Treatment of Persons with Disabilities, 45 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 214 (2013)..21, 25 Lawrence Gostin,The Human Rights of Persons with Mental Disabilities: A Global Perspective on the Application of Human Rights Principles to Mental Health, 63 Md. L. Rev. 20 (2004).....19 Stephanie Ortoleva, Esq. & With Research Assistance from Alec Knight,Who's Missing? Women with Disabilities in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 National Action Plans, 18 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L. 395 (2012)....17 Michael L. Perlin,"Abandoned Love": The Impact of Wyatt v. Stickney on the Intersection Between International Human Rights and Domestic Mental Disability Law, 35 Law & Psychol. Rev. 121 (2011)...20, 21 Egan TM, Siegert RJ, Fairley NA. Use of hormonal contraceptives in an institutional setting: reasons for use, consent and safety in women with psychiatric and intellectual disabilities. New Zealand Medical Journal. August 1993.  HYPERLINK "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8341476" \t "_blank" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/834147624 Legal Cases: Inter-鶹ý Court of Human Rights -Albn Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHr, 22 Nov. 2007.24 -Artavia Murillo et al. (in vitro fertilizations) v. Costa Rica (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 28 November 201223, 24 -Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile (Merits, Reparations and Costs), 24 February 2012.25 -Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 19 September 2006.27 -Garca Asto and Ramrez Rojas v. Peru (Monitoring Compliance with Judgment), IACtHR, 26 November 2013..29 -Genie-Lacayo v. Nicaragua (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 29 January 1997..26 -Ituango Massacres v. Colombia (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Cost), 1 July 2006....26 -Juvenile Reeducation Institute v. Paraguay (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 2 September 2004.29, 30 -Las Palmeras v. Colombia (Merits), IACtHR, 6 December 2001.....26, 27 -Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 29 March 2006...16, 18, 19 -Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 1 March 2005.14 -Tibi v. Ecuador (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 7 September 2004....29 -Tiu Tojn v. Guatemala (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 26 September 200813 -Velsquez-Rodrguez v. Honduras (Merits), IACtHR, 29 July 1988ts, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 26 September 2008.12 -Velsquez-Rodrguez v. Honduras (Preliminary Objections), IACtHR, 29 July 1987....12 -Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 4 July 2006.24, 28 -Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil (Reasoned Opinion of Judge Sergio Garca-Ramrez), IACtHR, 4 July 200628 -Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 17 June 2005.26, 29 Legal Cases: European Court of Human Rights -Bellet v. France, ECHR, 4 December 1995.....31 -Helle v. Finland, ECHR, 19 December 1997...32 -Herczegfalvy v. Austria, ECHR, 24 September 1992.....19, 21 -Munjaz v. United Kingdom, ECHR, 17 July 2012..21, 22 -Obermeier v. Austria, ECHR, 28 June 1990....32 -R.R. v. Poland, ECHR, 26 May 2011...25 -Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, ECHR, 24 June 1993.32 -Valainas v. Lithuania, ECHR, 24 July 2001...25 -Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, ECHR, 24 October 1979..28, 30 -Yankov v. Bulgaria, ECHR, 11 March 200425 Advisory Opinions Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2) and 7(6) of the 鶹ý Convention on Human Rights)(Advisory Opinion),IACtHR,30 January 1987.......14 Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b) of the ACHR(Advisory Opinion), IACtHR, 10 August 1990.15 Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica(Advisory Opinion), IACtHR, 19 January 1984..28 Commission Reports Victor Rosario Congo (Ecuador), IACHR, 13 April 1999......19, 21 Children Deprived of Liberty in the Complexo de Tatuap of FEBEM (Brazil), IACHR, 25 November 2008.33 Belfort Istriz (Venezuela), IACHR, 15 April 2010.34 Mara Eugenia Morales de Sierra (Guatemala), IACHR, 19 January 2001.....27 Committee Reports Argentina, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 17-28 September 2012..31 El Salvador, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2-13 September 2013.31 Paraguay, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 15-19 April 2013....31 Peru, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 16-20 April 2012...31 Recommendation 818 on the Situation of the Mentally Ill, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 197731 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS 2.1 Factual Background 1. The Democratic Republic of Exclutia (Exclutia) is a founding Member State of the Organization of 鶹ý States (OAS). Within the past ten years, Exclutia has demonstrated a significant regard for providing legal protection to persons with disabilities. Exclutia ratified the Inter-鶹ý Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities in October 2004 and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in August 2008. Similarly, Exclutia passed a constitutional amendment in 2008 which gave human rights treaties the same status as constitutional provisions. In 2009, Exclutia enacted the National Law for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities. The State also allocated more resources to the National Council of Persons with Disabilities. Furthermore, Exclutia funds and maintains shelters for persons with disabilities. 2. 2,735,080 individuals with disabilities live in Exclutia. This accounts for more than 13% of Exclutias total population. 400 of these individuals reside at La Casita, a state-run organization. Petitioner Cristal Tovar is one of La Casitas residents. 2.2 Petitioners Background and Arrival at La Casita 3. Petitioner is a thirty-three year old woman with mental and physical disabilities. She has been permanently blind since she was fifteen years-old. After Petitioners mother passed away in April 2006, Petitioner was evicted from her apartment for failing to pay rent. Petitioner begged for money at a public square during the day and slept on a bench near a fountain during the night. On August 3, 2006, a police officer, acting under Exclutias Sheltering our Poor initiative, drove Petitioner to La Casita. 4. Upon her arrival, Petitioner met with a social worker who asked Petitioner questions regarding her family and ability to take care of herself. Then, Petitioner was given a general medical examination by an attending physician. She met with a psychiatrist who asked Petitioner about her childhood and family. Petitioners responses, coupled with her symptoms of insomnia, led the psychiatrist to conclude Petitioner suffered from major depression, a mental disability. Given her blindness and her diagnosis of depression, Cristal was taken to the area of the shelter that housed women with mental and intellectual disabilities. 2.3 La Casitas Purpose and Services 5. La Casita is a state-funded shelter that houses people with physical, mental, intellectual and/or sensory disabilities and homeless people. The only requirement for admission is that the individuals do not have any type of support to live in the community. The shelter is organized into seven areas, separating men, women and children based on their respective medical needs and care. Each resident has his or her own bed. La Casita has common areas for residents to eat in or watch television and park areas for residents to freely walk around. La Casita also provides residents with food, medication and basic cleaning items for hygiene. There is an emergency room with medical supplies and a support staff that provides daily physical therapy, psychological services and training in daily life. Because some residents engage in sexual activity, La Casita administers contraceptives to all adult female residents every three to four months. Finally, residents who are in crisis and may potentially harm themselves, other residents, or hospital staff are placed in isolation rooms for four to five hours. 2.4 Petitioner Declared Legally Incompetent and Subsequent Domestic Proceedings 6. After three weeks of observing Petitioners stay at the shelter, La Casita Director, Dr. Lira filed a request to declare Petitioner legally incompetent. Following the procedures and rules governed by Article 41 of Exclutias Civil Code, a judge reviewed the evidence, declared Petitioner legally incompetent and appointed Dr. Lira as Petitioners guardian, subject to yearly review. Revoking a declaration of incompetency must be ordered by a judge. 7. In late 2007, Petitioner experienced several severe symptoms. Petitioner was sent to Ral Cano National Hospital for treatment and observation. During this hospitalization, Petitioner told a nurse she wanted to leave the shelter. 8. The nurse contacted Disability is not Inability (ODNEI), a disability rights organization. On February 21, 2008, ODNEI filed a motion to vacate Petitioners declaration of incompetency, a motion which may be filed against any court decision under the laws of Exclutia. On September 18, 2008 the trial court judge ruled that the motion was inadmissible because ODNEI lacked standing. On October 1, 2008, ODNEI appealed this decision. At the hearing, Dr. Lira explained that La Casita provided healthcare and shelter for Petitioner. On April 18, 2009 the appellate court decided the merits of the case in a replacement judgment and ruled that there was no abuse on the part of Petitioners guardian. Instead, the appellate court informed Petitioner and ODNEI that the appropriate remedy for challenging the declaration of incompetency would be an unconstitutionality action. 9. Six months before the appellate courts decision, on November 2, 2008, ODNEI filed a petition for a constitutional remedy, alleging the conditions at La Casita violated the rights of the individuals with disabilities living in that shelter. On December 2, 2008, the Second Constitutional Chamber exercised its concentrated, centralized control over the constitutionality of the domestic laws and granted the petition on the basis that the infrastructure and the lack of food and basic items constituted a violation. The next day, ODNEI received notice of the judgment in Petitioners favor. Exclutian law provides habeas corpus relief for any interested party; ODNEI did not file a writ for habeas corpus. Six months after this decision, Exclutia allocated $200,000 to remodel the shelters infrastructure and improve its conditions. Using this budget, Exclutia painted the shelter, bought new mattresses, bedding, and furniture for personal use, hired a new food service provider, made repairs to the drainage system, and installed lighting in the green spaces. 2.5 Proceedings Before the Inter-鶹ý Human Rights System 10. On September 2, 2009, ODNEI filed a petition before the Inter-鶹ý Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), alleging that to Petitioners detriment, Exclutia violated Articles 3, 5, 7, 8 , 11, 24 and 25 of the 鶹ý Convention, all in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2. The IACHR granted precautionary measures to La Casitas residents. The IACHR then forwarded the pertinent parts to the State on December 22, 2009. Exclutia submitted its written observations raising an objection based on Article 46.1(b) and denying the merits of the case to the IACHR on March 29, 2010. The IACHR issued Admissibility Report No.55/11 on October 21, 2011, declaring the alleged violations admissible, followed by the Parties submitting additional observations on the merits. The IACHR approved Merits Report No. 12/13, finding Exclutia violated the named rights and made recommendations with respect to the situation at La Casita and measures of non-repetition. Exclutia and Petitioner received notice of Merits Report No. 12/13 on March 14, 2013. Then, Exclutia amended Article 41 of its Civil Codecurrently pending approval before the session of the Social Inclusion Committee of Congress. On June 14, 2013, Exclutia received a two-month extension to comply with the IACHRs recommendations, waiving its rights to file later preliminary objections on the basis of Article 51. On August 14, 2013, the IACHR refused to grant Exclutias request for a second extension and stated the amended bill did not comply with international standards. 11. On April 6, 2014, Petitioner learned that one of her friends, a fellow La Casita resident, died of a heart attack. Unable to calm down, Petitioner cried, screamed and physically pushed a staff member. She was restrained, placed in an isolation room for four hours and returned to her dormitory. On April 18, 2014, ODNEI asked the Court to grant provisional measures on her behalf. These provisional measures only concern La Casitas use of isolation rooms. 12. The IACHR submitted the case to the Court for the present adjudication. 3 LEGAL ANALYSIS 3.1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 13. The Honorable Court has jurisdiction to hear this case. Exclutia is a founding Member State of the OAS. In 1989, Exclutia ratified the 鶹ý Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court. The Court is authorized to adjudicate matters concerning application and interpretation of the ACHR pursuant to Articles 61 and 62. 3.2 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 3.2.1 Lack of Timeliness 14. ODNEIs initial petition on behalf of Petitioner to the IACHR was inadmissible. More than six months elapsed between the December 2, 2008 constitutional courts ruling and September 1, 2009 when ODNEI filed the initial petition. This means the Court should dismiss Petitioners case. 15. Exclutia waived its opportunity to raise any preliminary challenges on the basis of Article 51, which would require the IACHR to submit a case to this Court within three months of its March 14, 2013 Merits Report No. 12/13 or be forced to surrender its ability to do so. However, under Article 46(1)(b) of the ACHR and Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure, a petition must be filed within six months after the alleged victim has been notified of a decision that exhausted all available effective domestic remedies. Exclutia properly preserved its right to object to the timeliness of the initial petition because the State promptly submitted its written observations and objections for lack of timeliness to the IACHR by March 29, 2010. Exclutias request for an extension to comply with the IACHRs recommendations did not cause the State to forfeit this objection. The IACHR should not have found the initial petition to be admissible. 16. Furthermore, the State does not directly raise a preliminary objection based upon the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Instead, it contends that ODNEI exhausted all effective domestic remedies on December 2, 2008 when the Second Constitutional Chamber granted its petition for a constitutional remedy. Following this decision, ODNEI should have filed a writ of habeas corpus or submitted a petition to the IACHR within six months. ODNEI did neither. 17. Although ODNEI was still pursuing domestic remedies within six months of its September 1, 2009 petition, ODNEI sought the wrong remedies. The Court defines adequate domestic remedies as those being suitable to address an infringement of a legal right. ODNEIs motions to vacate in the trial court and its appeal were not proper domestic remedies because both were properly dismissed for a lack of standing and a finding of no abuse. Moreover, with the adjudication on the merits, the appellate court correctly determined and informed ODNEI that the appropriate remedy for Petitioner was an unconstitutionality action before the constitutional court. 18. Because there is no diffuse or decentralized control over the constitutionality of Exclutias national provisions, the trial court and appellate court were incapable of ordering Petitioners release for reasons other than those provided in Article 41 of Exclutias Civil Code. ODNEIs motion to vacate was a remedy unavailable to the interested party due to a lack of standing. Even on its merits, the motion to vacate was ineffective, because ODNEI failed to prove abuse on the part of Petitioners guardian. 3.2.2 Lack of Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 19. Even if the Court does not find the Second Constitutional Chambers ruling satisfactory, it should alternatively dismiss this case on the basis that an effective, available domestic remedy still remains to be exhaustedthe writ of habeas corpus. 20. It is the States burden to prove that the writ of habeas still remains and that if used, it would be an effective remedy. In this unique case, where ODNEI won a declaration of unconstitutionality, the writ of habeas is an enforcement mechanism of an already granted judgment. This remedy does not require a separate preservation before adjudication on the merits by the IACHR. 21. If ODNEI was unsatisfied with the Second Constitutional Chambers decision and wanted to secure the Petitioners immediate release, then ODNEI could have used the broad procedural institution known as amparoa simple, prompt remedy designed for the protection of all of the rights recognized in the ACHR or in this case its more specific iteration, the writ of habeas corpus. While amparo comprises a whole series of remedies, habeas is specifically the amparo of freedom, the remedy most suited to effectuate Petitioners immediate release. 22. The writ of habeas is a judicial remedy designed to protect personal freedom and physical integrity against arbitrary detentions by use of a judicial decree ordering the authorities to bring a detained person before a judge so the lawfulness of ones detention may be determined and the release of an inappropriately held detainee granted. Among its essential judicial guarantees, habeas represents the appropriate means of guaranteeing liberty, controlling respect for a persons life and integrityand protecting individuals from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. 23. For these reasons, the State maintains that if the decision of the Second Constitutional Chamber alone was not enough, then its ruling could have been used as the basis for habeas. Hence, the Court should dismiss on the grounds of lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. For example, in a case concerning the allegedly illegal detainment of a merchant, the Court found the petitioner did not exhaust all of his domestic remedies and dismissed because the petitioner failed to make use of the writ of habeas.  24. Moreover, in the present case, none of the usual exceptions to the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies apply. First, Exclutias domestic legislation affords any interested party the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus. Second, there is no generalized fear in the legal community that prevents ODNEI from acquiring legal representation. In this case, Petitioner did in fact obtain legal representation and was not denied access to the remedy of habeas corpus, but simply failed to make use of the Second Constitutional Chambers decision to file a writ in the trial court or provide it to the appellate court when it adjudicated the matter on its merits. 25. Finally, there have been no unwarranted delays in rendering final judgments. All court decisions were rendered under a year in time: the longest, the trial courts decision to dismiss the motion to vacate, only took seven months, while the shortest, the decision of the Second Constitutional Chamber, was rendered in a months time. 26. Because Petitioner neither used the decision of the Second Constitutional Court as the basis for a writ of habeas nor filed a complaint to the IACHR within six months of its December 2, 2008 decision, the Court should dismiss the case either for its lack of timeliness or lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. 3.3 EXCLUTIA COMPLIED WITH ARTICLES 3, 5, 7 AND 11 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLES 1.1 AND 2 27. Exclutia did not violate Articles 3, 5, 7 or 11 in conjunction to Articles 1.1 and 2. Under Article 1.1, all persons are ensured the free and full exercise of [ACHR] rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of social condition. Article 2 states [w]here the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 28. When the OAS adopted the Inter-鶹ý Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities, this convention served as a guideline for how states should eliminate all forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities and for how states can make efforts toward completely integrating persons with disabilities into society. The existence of La Casita and its services are not tools of exclusion and discrimination. La Casita has only one admission requirement: the individual does not have any type of support to live in the community. The residents at La Casita are not forcefully or discriminatorily segregated from the community. The residents live at La Casita because it is their best option for support and healthcare. Exclutia did not discriminate against Petitioner for reasons of her physical or mental disabilities. At all times, Exclutia provided Petitioner with legal measures to effectuate her rights and freedoms. 3.3.1 Petitioners Right to Juridical Personality 29. Under Article 3, [e]very person has the right to recognition as a person before the law. The Court defines this right as whether a person is entitled to any given rights and whether such person can enforce such rights. It is the States duty to provide the means and legal conditions in general, so that the right to personality before the law may be exercised by its holders. Exclutia met this duty. 30. Within the past five years, Exclutia passed several social policies aimed at integrating persons with disabilities into the community. Even before implementing these social policies, Exclutia demonstrated a significant regard for providing legal rights to persons with disabilities. Exclutia ratified the Inter-鶹ý Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities in October 2004 and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in August 2008. In 2009, Exclutia enacted the National Law for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities. The U.N. regards these national action plans as opportunit[ies] to initiate strategic actions, outline priorities, identify the levels and sources of fiscal and other resources necessary to implement the plan, determine and assign the responsibilities for implementation, and establish realistic benchmarks and timeframes. The State also financially supports the National Council of Persons with Disabilities. 31. Pursuant to Article 3, the State is bound to guarantee to those persons in situations of vulnerability, exclusion and discrimination, the legal and administrative conditions that may secure for them the exercise of such right, pursuant to the principle of equality under the law. Such guarantees are present in this case. Beginning with Petitioners declaration of incompetency, Section 41 of Exclutias Civil Code permits individuals to legally challenge their declarations of incompetency. Furthermore, as the appellate court indicated to Petitioner and ODNEI, the appropriate remedy for challenging the declaration of incompetency would be an unconstitutionality action before the Constitutional Court of Exclutia. This demonstrates that Exclutia provides legal means for persons with disabilities to exercise their rights. 32. La Casita did not violate Petitioners right to juridical personality. Within the context of state shelters and psychiatric care facilities, La Casitas actions and services complied with Article 3. In Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, the Court evaluated an Article 3 violation in which the question concerned whether the petitioners existence and identities were ever legally recognized. The Court focused its analysis on the lack of official documentation of the existence of several members of the indigenous Sawhoyamaxa Community. The state hospital did not have any birth or death records, nor any other document provided by the State capable of evidencing [the petitioners] existence and identity. 33. In the present case, La Casita documented and provided records, recognizing Petitioners existence and identity. When Petitioner first arrived at La Casita, a social worker interviewed her and recorded her information. The attending physician and the psychiatrist both documented Petitioners medical exam and diagnosis of major depression. The trial court reviewed these files and records during Petitioners incompetency hearing. The domestic proceedings created more records when the judge requested another psychiatrist perform an expert medical examination of Petitioner. 34. Violating Article 3 implies an absolute denial of the possibility of being holder of such rightsand renders individuals vulnerable to the non-observance of the same by the State. That is not the case here. In Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, the Court ordered Paraguay to implement mechanisms enabling all persons to register their births and get any other identification documents, ensuring that these processes are, at all different levels, accessible both legally and geographically, to render the right to personality before the law operative. Those remedies are already present in this case. Exclutia and La Casita complied with Article 3, documented her existence and identity, and provided legal and administrative means for Petitioner to exercise her rights. 3.3.2 Petitioners Rights to Humane Treatment and Personal Liberty 35. Article 5 states [e]very person has the right to have [her] physical, mental, and moral integrity respected[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. As a resident at La Casita, Petitioner did not have an absolute right to physical liberty. The crux of analyzing Articles 5 and 7 pertains to the conditions and treatment received during detention, not its prima facie demonstration. For example in Herzcegfalvy v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the long-term detention of a man in prolonged physical restraints did not violate the European Convention because such treatment was a form of medical necessity. La Casita acted in the interests of the residents well-being. 36. The IACHR states that Article 5 must be interpreted in light of theUN Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care (MI Principles). These principles are regarded as the most complete standards for protection of the rights of persons with mental disability at the international levelserve as a guide to States in the design and/or reform of mental health systems and are of utmost utility in evaluating the practices of existing systems. Exclutia complied with these MI Principles. 37. La Casita is a state-funded shelter that houses people with physical, mental, intellectual and/or sensory disabilities and homeless people. The only requirement for admission is that the individuals do not have any type of support to live in the community. The shelter is organized into seven areas: separating men, women, and children based on their respective medical needs and care. Each resident has his or her own bed. La Casita has common areas for residents to eat in or watch television and park areas for residents to freely walk. La Casita also provides residents with food, medication, and basic hygiene items. There is an emergency room with medical supplies and a support staff that provides daily physical therapy, psychological services, and training in daily life. 38. The conditions at La Casita are not conditions of torture. Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT), defines torture as ...any act by which severe pain and suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person. As the ECHR established, [f]or a practice to constitute torture, it must meet each of CATs four elements: (1) severe pain, (2) intent, (3) purpose, and (4) an act or omission of a government authority. In the present case, Petitioner failed to establish those elements. 39. In Rosario Victor Congo v. Ecuador, the IACHR found that the State violated Article 5. Congo, a detainee with a mental disability, died of malnutrition, hydro-electrolitic imbalance, and heart and lung failure as a result of Ecuador's gross negligence and willful acts. While at the rehabilitation center, a guard harassed and beat Congo with a club. The State deprived Congo of any medical treatment and placed Congo in isolation where he was naked and cut off from communication. Petitioners circumstances are clearly distinguishable. She received medical treatment. She was never physically abused, never forced to be naked, and never cut off from communication. Additionally, Petitioner had liberty to walk around the park or visit the common areas. For example, a Czech Republic court found that the residents of a care home for persons with physical disabilities were deprived of their right to personal liberty because the residents were never allowed to leave their building. Exclutia complied with Petitioners right to humane treatment. 40. Furthermore, Petitioners four-hour stay in La Casitas isolation room did not violate her rights to humane treatment and personal liberty. Petitioners limited time in the isolation room does not qualify as arbitrary arrest or imprisonment under Article 7. In Munjaz v. The United Kingdom Judgment, the ECHR applied the MI Principles to assess the alleged violations of personal liberty. Principle 11 states that involuntary seclusion of a patient shall not be employed except in accordance with the officially approved procedures of the mental health facility and only when it is the only means available to prevent immediate or imminent harm to the patient or others. 41. The isolation rooms are not a mechanism of punishment. They do not degrade or dehumanize. The rationale and function of these rooms are grounded in concerns for resident and hospital staff safety. Under La Casitas policies, only individuals in crisis are placed in these rooms. Isolating individuals in crisis not only protects the individual from her own actions but also protects the hospital staff and other residents from potential physical harm. Additionally, without isolation, the actions of one emotionally and mentally unstable resident can trigger similar or more dramatic breakdowns in other residents. Isolation is a better alternative than using a taser gun or injecting residents with drugs to subdue them. 42. Here, La Casita followed its own policies in its decision to place Petitioner in an isolation room. Upon learning one of her friends died of a heart attack, Petitioner became hysterical and physically pushed a staff member when he asked her to calm down. Before Petitioner could act out further, staff members restrained and placed her in isolation for four hours. La Casita had a legitimate justification: Petitioners actions indicated that she could have harmed herself, other residents, or the staff. Petitioners four-hour stay was typical to stays La Casita gives other individuals in crisis. 43. The right to personal liberty and security is not an absolute right. Article 7 states that an individual may be deprived of her physical liberty for reasons and under the conditions established by law. There is legal basis for Petitioners deprivation of physical liberty. Article 41 of Exclutias Civil Code enumerates different grounds for regulating the legal capacity of individuals, including persons with disabilities. The trial court determined Petitioner incompetent and appointed Dr. Lira as her guardian. Thus, Petitioner surrendered certain rights; one of these rights being the ability to leave La Casita of her own volition. 44. Even if the Court finds that Petitioners initial detention is separate from her subsequent stay, she was not detained against her will. Petitioner did not resist or make any remarks when the police officer drove her to La Casita. During her intake interview with the social worker and her meetings with doctors, Petitioner voluntarily chose to answer their questions and remain at the shelter. For the three weeks between her arrival and declaration of incompetency, Petitioner was free to leave. She was not obligated to stay; she chose to stay. 3.3.3 Petitioners Right to Privacy 45. Under Article 11, [e]veryone has the right to have [her] honor respected and [her] dignity recognized. In Artavia Murillo v. Costa Rica, the Court stated that Article 11 requires the State to protect individuals against the arbitrary actions of State institutions that affect their private life. La Casita did not arbitrarily or abusively interfere with Petitioners privacy. 46. La Casitas policy of injecting all adult female residents with contraceptives did not violate Petitioners right to privacy. The Court holds that the decision of whether or not to become a parent is part of the right to privacy. However, the Court also states that States are responsible for regulating and overseeing the provision of health services to ensure effective protection of the right to life. Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The decision to inject all adult female residents with contraceptives was not arbitrary because it was made after staff became aware of sexual activity among the residents. Neither was this decision abusive; it was made in the interest of the residents health and safety. A study published by the New Zealand Medical Journal reported less than half of female patients with mental and physical disabilities knew how to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and less than 10% regularly used condoms. Instead of forbidding all sexual activity, La Casita provided contraceptives to protect them from sexually-transmitted diseases and accidental pregnancies. 47. With respect to the conditions and services at La Casita, Exclutia complied with Article 11. The Court interprets the right to privacy broadly, holding the protection of private life encompasses a series of factors associated with the dignity of the individual[and] aspects of physical and social identity. Yet, within the context of state hospitals and shelters, patients and residents do not have an absolute right. 48. Although La Casitas actions affected Petitioners physical identity, they did not disrespect or dishonor her identity. In Yankov v. Bulgaria, the ECHR held that the act of shaving a detainees head violated the right to privacy because its motive had been to humiliate and punish. Here, Petitioner received a haircut, however as La Casita staff explained, this was done to all of the residents for purposes of hygiene. La Casita did not force its residents to wear certain clothing with the intent of stripping away their dignity. This is distinguishable from a 2004 Hungarian court decision where the court found that forcing residents of a care home for mentally ill to wear pajamas during the day as a punishment for violating house rules constituted a privacy violation. Here, La Casitas resources are limited; it provides whatever clothing it can to its residents. The fact that the clothing is old or ill-fitting is not grounds for a privacy violation. 49. The Court characterizes the private sphere as by being exempt from and immune to abusive or arbitrary interference or attacks by third parties or by public authorities. In Valainas v. Lithuania, the ECHR held that [o]bliging the [detainee] to strip nakedshowed a clear lack of respect andleft him with feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him. However, none of La Casitas actions caused Petitioner to feel anguish and inferiority. La Casitas purpose is to provide shelter to those who are helpless. Its services do not humiliate or debase its residents. La Casita complied with Article 11. 3.4 EXCLUTIA COMPLIED WITH ARTICLES 8, 25 AND 24 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLES 1.1 AND 2 50. Exclutia complied with Articles 8, 25, and 24, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2. Exclutias proceeding for the declaration of incompetency afforded Petitioner a right to a fair judicial trial and equal protection under the law. Both the original declaration of incompetency and the appointment of Dr. Lira as Petitioners representative were the results of a fair trial adjudicated promptly by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal.  3.4.1 Article 41 of Exclutias Civil Code Complied with Petitioners Rights to A Fair Trial, Judicial Protection and Equal Protection of the Law 51. Article 8 ensures individuals the right to due process of law. In substance, due process of law consists of the guaranteed right of every person to a hearing within a reasonable time by a legally established competent, independent, and impartial tribunal. Further, Article 25 requires said procedures to be accessible and simple with the bodies in charge of them equipped with the necessary technical and material conditions to provide a timely response to the requests made within their framework. 52. For example, in the case of Genie-Lacayo v. Nicaragua, concerning the alleged murder of a 16 year-old boy by Nicaraguan military personnel, the Court found a period of five years exceeded the limits of reasonableness. Because litigation continued unresolved for more than five years, the Court held that Nicaragua violated Article 8. 53. Moreover, it is not enough that such recourses exist formally: they must be effective in giving results or responses to violations of the rights established in the ACHR. For instance, in the case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia, the Court found that Colombias military tribunals lacked the independence and impartiality required by Article 8 to adjudicate a matter rising from an armed operation by the Colombian National Police and Army. The Court explained it was self-evident that the relatives of the victims did not have an effective remedy. As a result, the Court held Colombia violated Article 25 by failing to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations. 54. Under Article 24, all persons are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. The right to equal protection of the law requires national legislation to accord its protections without discrimination. Distinctions based on reasonable and objective criteria may serve a legitimate state interest so long as such distinctions pursue a legitimate aim and employ means which are proportional to the end sought. 55. Everyone affected by a diminution of physical or mental capacities is entitled to receive special attention designed to help achieve the greatest possible development of personality. No discrimination exists if the difference in treatment has a legitimate purpose and it does not lead to situations contrary to justice, to reason or to the nature of things. 56. States have a duty to supervise and guarantee that in all psychiatric institutions patients receive worthy, humane, and professional treatment and that they are protected against exploitation, abuse, and degradation. The State as guarantor must provide assistance to individuals who are unable to take care of themselves or whose capacity to do so is seriously impaired. 57. Finally, deference should be given to the state authorities determinations of mental disability, because states have the best capacity to evaluate the evidence. Nonetheless, decisions adopted by domestic bodies should be duly justified; otherwise, they are arbitrary decisions. For instance, in Claude-Reyes et al v. Chile, the Court found an appellate courts decision arbitrary, because it did not make even the least reference to the reasons why it was evident from the facts and background in the application that [the appeal] was clearly without grounds. 58. In the present case, Petitioner was granted a prompt, fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal. The declaration of incompetency was filed and decided in less than two months. The judge who declared Petitioner incompetent pursuant to Article 41 of the Civil Code did so only after examining the documentation submitted, ordering an independent medical examination of the petitioner, and learning that she had no relatives to care for her. 59. Additionally, under the current terms of Article 41 of the Civil Code, the extent and time limit of Dr. Liras guardianship over Petitioner must be reviewed every year. Furthermore, at any time, the Public Ministry or guardian may request the review and/or revocation of the declaration of incompetency. Otherwise, in the event the judge finds that Petitioners clinical symptoms improved during one of her yearly reviews, the judge may revoke the guardianship. 60. Finally, the decisions of both the trial court and appellate court are justified. Both clearly stated the grounds upon which the motions to vacate were denied. Initially, the trial court on September 18, 2008 denied ODNEIs initial motion to vacate based upon a lack of standing. Then, the appellate court denied the appeal on the grounds of no abuse on part of Petitioners guardian. Thus, the Court should find that the current Article 41 of the Civil Code does not violate Articles 8, 25, and 24 of the ACHR. 3.4.2 The Pending Draft of Article 41 Complies with International Standards 61. Conversely, in the event the Court finds the current Article 41 of the Civil Code to be insufficient in safeguarding the rights enumerated in the ACHR, the Court should alternatively find that Exclutia was acting in good faith under its obligation pursuant to Article 1.1 to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the ACHR by undertaking to adopt, in accordance with its constitutional processes, legislation necessary to give effects to those rights or freedoms. 62. The amended Article 41 of Exclutias Civil Code will ensure future proceedings for declarations of incompetency comply with the rights found in Articles 8, 25, and 24. Article 2 obligates Party States to establish, in accordance with their Constitutional procedures, legislative or other measures as may be necessary for effective exercise of the rights and freedoms protected by the ACHR. The changes made to the Article 41 of the Civil Code are effective in achieving the goal and purpose of the treaty, i.e., have effet utile. 63. Legislation alone is not enough to guarantee full effectiveness of the protected rights. States must comply with their obligations in good faithpacta sunt servandathey cannot simply justify failure to perform on their own internal law. Thus, while mental illness may entail restricting or modifying access to court, it may not justify the inopportunity to be heard either in person or through representation. For example, in Tiu Tojn v. Guatemala, the Court held that in order to guarantee the members of indigenous communities the right to a fair trial, the State needed to ensure that they understand legal proceedingsoffering them interpreters or other effective means. 64. Even if the current legislation is inadequate, Exclutia argues that Congress pending bill to amend Article 41 of the Civil Code meets the international standards on human rights for persons with disabilities. The draft legislation mirrors the 1977 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recommendations to states in establishing independent special mental welfare tribunals or commissions which could by their own initiative discharge patients where confinement is no longer necessary. The 1977 Parliamentary Assembly recommended legislative changes to ensure court decisions are not based on medical reports only, but also allow mental patients the right to be heard. The amended draft requires the judge to consider the opinions of any interested parties by means of a public hearing. 65. Exclutia acknowledges that the draft does not fully incorporate the goals of the U. N. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In its concluding observations, that committee urged Peru, Argentina, Paraguay, and El Salvador to abolish the practice of judicial interdiction and replace laws allowing for guardianship and trusteeship with substitute decision-making models that uphold the autonomy, wishes and preferences of the persons concerned. Although the present draft of Article 41 does not create a complete supported decision-making model of trusteeship, the State reminds the Court that Article 41 is limited to only individuals who cannot express their will by any means and need the assistance of another person, and is governed by the principles of suitability, necessity, and proportionality. 66. At the same time, Exclutia argues that the writ of habeas is an alternative means of satisfying its Article 1.1 and Article 2 obligations to effectuate Articles 8, 25 and 24. In particular, the State relies upon the ECHRs reasoning that the right of access to a court must be practical and effective in that it offers an individual a clear, practical opportunity to challenge an act that is an interference with his rights. 67. On the other hand, the ECHR recognizes that any shortcomings in the fairness of the proceedings may be remedied at a later stage, either at the same level or by a higher court. Furthermore, it maintains that procedural flaws can be remedied if an independent judicial body reviews the claim and examines the matter in light of the circumstances of the case. 68. Thus, the writ of habeas satisfies Exclutias obligations. Because Exclutia is a monist state via the constitutional amendment passed in 2008 giving human right treaties the same status as constitutional provisions, the constitutional courts can continue to challenge the validity of Exclutias older domestic laws through the writ of habeas and prevent numerous potenial violations from occurring. 3.5 PROVISIONAL MEASURES 69. The Court should deny the request for provisional measures on behalf of Petitioner and lift the precautionary measures granted for two reasons. First, the State implemented the connected precautionary measures effectively to the extent that the requested provisional measures are neither pertinent nor necessary. Second, La Casitas previous conditions and services did not violate the rights established in the ACHR. 70. The State contends that if the Court denies the request for provisional measures on behalf of Petitioner, then the IACHR must lift its precautionary measures according to the IACHRs updated Rules of Procedure. Previously, when considering provisional measures, the Court only evaluated arguments directly related to the extreme gravity, urgency, and need to avoid irreparable damages. The Court could not consider arguments on the merits of the matter. However, the IACHRs updated Rules of Procedure now permit the Court to evaluate the merits. Articles 25(8), 76(1), and 25(13) implicitly vest the Court with the authority to review the underlying claim giving rise to the granted precautionary measures. 71. First, Article 25(8) clarifies that the IACHRs grant of precautionary measures and its adoption by the State do not constitute a prejudgment on any of the rights protected by the ACHR. Second, Article 76(1) permits the IACHR to request the Court adopt provisional measures in cases of extreme seriousness and urgency, when it becomes necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Third, Article 25(13) explicitly prohibits the IACHR from considering new requests for precautionary measures after the dismissal of provisional measures by the Court, unless there are new facts justifying doing so. Thus, taken together with Articles 25(8) and 76(1), Article 25(13) implies that the Court now has the power to evaluate underlying claims and repeal precautionary measures granted by the IACHR. In this sense, Article 25(13) is an exception that confirms the rule. 71. Precautionary measures are granted only in serious and urgent situations. When they are granted, they have an exceptional naturemaintained in force only so long as necessary. Precautionary measures should be lifted when the underlying situation is determined to either no longer exist or be found to have never existed. For the purposes of this test, serious refers to grave impact, of a most intense or elevated degree, which actions or omissions could have on a protected right. Similarly, urgent refers to a risk or threat that is imminent, requiring immediate response, capable of materializing without preventive or protective action. Irreparable refers to injuries of such naturenot a question of goods or legal interestswhere reparation, restoration, or compensation would be inadequate. These elements must be present in every instance; Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating their existence to the Court. 72. In the present case, Petitioner cannot establish the prima facie elements. The State has effectively implemented the precautionary measures. Petitioners four-hour isolation was an aberration committed in the interest of protecting the safety of others. There is no ongoing serious and urgent situation presenting a risk of irreparable harm to her or to the other residents. Alternatively, the previous practices never violated the rights contained within the ACHR and should be permitted. 73. As previously analyzed in section 3.3.2 concerning Articles 5 and 7, the practice of placing individuals in crisis in the isolation rooms is not of grave impact. It does not impact a protected right in a serious manner. Even if the Court disagrees, Petitioners four-hour isolation on April 6, 2014 was the only incidence of breach. The threat of future detainment to her or the other residents is not imminent because the practice is not arbitrary. Petitioner was placed into isolation because she was in crisis she was a threat to herself and others. 74. Finally, the harm is not irreparable. Her detainment and the previous detainment of other residents were limited in time. As discussed above, four to five hours of isolation does not amount to an Article 5 or 7 violation if the isolation is justified. Whatever alleged harm she or previous residents suffered by being placed in isolation, it was of such a nature that it could adequately compensated by damages, restoration, or reparation. 75. For these reasons, the Court should deny the request for provisional measures and lift the precautionary measures placed upon La Casita. 4 CONCLUSION 76. Exclutia did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of her disabilities. As a blind woman with a severe mental disability, Petitioner needed resources and support. Exclutia provided Petitioner with shelter, healthcare and support from a community of persons with disabilities. Under Article 41 of Exclutias Civil Code, Exclutia provided Petitioner with the due process of law, judicial protection, and equal protection of the law. Thus, Exclutia acted in compliance with Articles 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 24 and 25 in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2. 5 REQUEST FOR RELIEF 77. Exclutia respectfully requests: The Court dismiss this case for lack of timeliness; Alternatively, dismiss this case based upon the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies; On the merits, find the State in compliance with Articles 1.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 24, and 25; Dismiss the request for provisional measures; and Lift the precautionary measures granted by the IACHR.  Hypothetical Case (hereinafter HC) 6.  Id.  Id.  Clarification Questions (hereinafter CQ) 21.  CQ 30.  Id.  CQ 8; HC 13.  HC 5.  Id.  HC 14; CQ 8.  HC 13.  HC 7, 19.  HC 7.  HC 9, 10.  HC 12.  Id.  HC 18.  HC 19.  Id.  Id.  HC 20, 14.  CQ 8; HC 13.  Id.  Id.  HC 15.  Id.  HC 16.  HC 16; CQ 32.  HC 26.  HC 24.  HC 22.  HC 23, 6; CQ 24.  CQ 68.  HC 27-28.  HC 29.  HC 29-30.  HC 31.  HC 32; CQ 36.  Id.  HC 33.  Id.  Id.  Id.; CQ 15.  HC 34; CQ 20.  Id.; CQ 17.  CQ 19.  CQ 61.  HC 34.  CQ 16.  HC 35.  Id.  HC 35.  Id.  HC 36.  Id.  Id.  HC 37; CQ 38.  HC 38.  Id.  HC 40.  Id.  Id.  HC 41.  CQ 43.  HC 42.  HC 6.  Id.  ACHR, Art. 61-62.  HC 35.  ACHR, Art. 51.  ACHR, Art. 46(1)(b); IACHR Rules of Procedure, Art. 32(1).  HC 37.  HC 34.  Velsquez-Rodrguez v. Honduras (Preliminary Objections), IACtHR, 29 July 1987, 64.  HC 32-33.  HC 33.  CQ 17.  HC 32.  HC 33.  HC 34.  Velsquez-Rodrguez v. Honduras (Preliminary Objections), IACtHR, 29 July 1987, 64.  Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2) and 7(6) of the 鶹ý Convention on Human Rights),IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of 30 January 30, 1987, Ser. A, No. 8, 32.  Id. at 34.  Id. at 33.  Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 1 March 2005, 79.  Tibi v. Ecuador (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 7 September 2004, 3, 44.  CQ 61; ACHR, Art. 46(2)(a).  Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b) of the 鶹ý Convention on Human Rights), IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of 10 August 1990, Ser. A, No. 35.  ACHR, Art. 46(2)(b).  ACHR, Art. 46(2)(c).  HC 32-34.  ACHR, Art. 1.1.  ACHR, Art. 2.  Lawrence Gostin,The Human Rights of Persons with Mental Disabilities: A Global Perspective on the Application of Human Rights Principles to Mental Health, 63 Md. L. Rev. 20, 52 (2004).  HC 13.  ACHR, Art. 3.  Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 29 March 2006, 188.  Id. at 189.  HC 5.  HC 6.  CQ 30.  Stephanie Ortoleva, Esq. & With Research Assistance from Alec Knight,Who's Missing? Women with Disabilities in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 National Action Plans, 18 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L. 395, 398 (2012).  CQ, 30.  Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 29 March 2006, 189.  HC 21, 37.  HC 34.  Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 29 March 2006, 192.  Id. at 190.  Id.  HC 18.  Id.  Id.  HC 22.  Id.  Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 29 March 2006, 193.  ACHR, Art. 5.  Lawrence Gostin,The Human Rights of Persons with Mental Disabilities: A Global Perspective on the Application of Human Rights Principles to Mental Health, 63 Md. L. Rev. 20, 58 (2004).  Herczegfalvy v. Austria, ECHR, 24 September 1992, 140.  Victor Rosario Congo (Ecuador), IACHR, 13 April 1999, 54.  Michael L. Perlin,"Abandoned Love": The Impact of Wyatt v. Stickney on the Intersection Between International Human Rights and Domestic Mental Disability Law, 35 Law & Psychol. Rev. 121, 135 (2011).  CQ 8; HC 13.  HC 13.  HC 14.  HC 15.  Id.  HC 16.  Id.; CQ 32.  Convention Against Torture, Art. 1.  Herczegfalvy v. Austria, ECHR, 24 September 1992, 140.  Michael L. Perlin,"Abandoned Love": The Impact of Wyatt v. Stickney on the Intersection Between International Human Rights and Domestic Mental Disability Law, 35 Law & Psychol. Rev. 121, 135 (2011).  Victor Rosario Congo (Ecuador), IACHR, 13 April 1999, 9.  Id. at 10.  HC 25-28.  Janos Fiala-Butora,Disabling Torture: The Obligation to Investigate Ill-Treatment of Persons with Disabilities, 45 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 214, 224-25 (2013).  Munjaz v. United Kingdom, ECHR, 17 July 2012, 38.  United Nations Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/46/a46r119.htm (emphasis added).  HC 24.  HC 40.  Id.  HC 24.  ACHR, Art. 7.2.  HC 21.  HC 23.  CQ 28.  HC 18-20.  HC 12, 22.  Artavia Murillo et al. (in vitro fertilizations) v. Costa Rica (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 28 November 2012, 142.  HC 26.  Artavia Murillo et al. (in vitro fertilizations) v. Costa Rica (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 28 November 2012, 143.  Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 4 July 2006, 99; Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. (Merits, reparations and costs), IACtHR, 22 November 2007, 121.  World Health Organization, Constitution of the World Health Organization,  HYPERLINK "http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf" \t "_blank" http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf, p. 1.  HC 26.  Egan TM, Siegert RJ, Fairley NA. Use of hormonal contraceptives in an institutional setting: reasons for use, consent and safety in women with psychiatric and intellectual disabilities. New Zealand Medical Journal. August 1993.  HYPERLINK "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8341476" \t "_blank" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8341476.  Artavia Murillo et al. (in vitro fertilizations) v. Costa Rica (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 28 November 2012, 143.  Id.; see also R.R. v. Poland, ECHR, 26 May 2011, 197.  Yankov v. Bulgaria, ECHR, 11 March 2004, 120, 130.  HC 24.  Janos Fiala-Butora,Disabling Torture: The Obligation to Investigate Ill-Treatment of Persons with Disabilities, 45 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 214, 226-27 (2013)  HC 24.  See. e.g. Ituango Massacres v. Colombia (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Cost), 1 July 2006, 194; Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile (Merits, Reparations and Costs), 24 February 2012, 161.  Valainas v. Lithuania, ECHR, 24 July 2001, 385, 417.  HC 4.  IACHR, Arts. 8(1), 25(1).  Genie-Lacayo v. Nicaragua (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 29 January 1997, 74.  Id.  Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 17 June 2005, 102.  Genie-Lacayo v. Nicaragua (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 29 January 1997, 81.  Id. at 81, 97.  Las Palmeras v. Colombia (Merits), IACtHR, 6 December 2001, 58.  Id. at 2, 53-54.  Id. at 2, 60-61.  Id.  ACHR, Art. 24.  Mara Eugenia Morales de Sierra (Guatemala), IACHR, 19 January 2001, 31.  Id.  Additional Protocol to the ACHR in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 18.  Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica(Advisory Opinion), IACtHR, 19 January 1984, No. 34; Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen. The Inter-鶹ý Court of Human Rights: Case Law and Commentary. Oxford University Press 2011, p. 577.  Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 4 July 2006, 108.  Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil (Reasoned Opinion of Judge Sergio Garca-Ramrez), IACtHR, 4 July 2006, 8.  Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, ECHR, 24 October 1979, 40.  Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 19 September 2006, 120.  Id. at 135-136.  HC 22-23.  HC 22.  CQ 24.  HC 21.  CQ 68.  HC 32.  HC 24.  Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 17 June 2005, 100.  Juvenile Reeducation Institute v. Paraguay (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 2 September 2004, 206.  Tiu Tojn v. Guatemala (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 26 September 2008, 99.  Garca Asto and Ramrez Rojas v. Peru (Monitoring Compliance with Judgment), IACtHR, 26 Nov. 2013, 4.  Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, ECHR, 24 October 1979, 60.  Tiu Tojn v. Guatemala (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, 26 September 2008, 100.  CQ 68.  Recommendation 818 on the Situation of the Mentally Ill, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 1977, 13(I)(ii).  Id.  HC 37.  16-20 April 2012 (Peru), 25; 17-28 September 2012 (Argentina), 19; 15-19 April 2013 (Paraguay), 30; 2-13 September 2013 (El Salvador), 28.  CQ 47; HC 37.  Bellet v. France, ECHR, 4 December 1995, 36.  Helle v. Finland, ECHR, 19 December 1997, 54; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, ECHR, 24 June 1993, 52.  Obermeier v. Austria, ECHR, 28 June 1990, 70.  CQ 21.  IACHR Rules of Procedure, Art. 76(2).  HC 41.  Children Deprived of Liberty in the Complexo de Tatuap of FEBEM (Brazil), 25 November 2008, 4.  Id. at 13.  IACHR Rules of Procedure, Art. 25(8).  IACHR Rules of Procedure, Art. 76(1).  IACHR Rules of Procedure, Art. 25(13).  IACHR Rules of Procedure, Art. 25(1); Children Deprived of Liberty in the Complexo de Tatuap of FEBEM (Brazil), 25 November 2008, 16.  IACHR Rules of Procedure, Art. 25(2)(a); Belfort Istriz (Venezuela), 15 April 2010, 8.  IACHR Rules of Procedure, Art. 25(2)(b); Belfort Istriz (Venezuela), 15 April 2010, 8.  IACHR Rules of Procedure, Art. 25(2)(c); Belfort Istriz (Venezuela), 15 April 2010, 8.  Jo M Pasqualucci. The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-鶹ý Court of Human Rights. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press 2012, p. 265.  HC 41.  HC 24, 40.  HC 24.     204  PAGE 1 IJXY\]tǻzfzQz9.jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu(jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu&hKhx5OJQJmHnHtHuhKhxOJQJmHnHuhKhxOJQJjhKhxOJQJUhKh2pOJQJhKhx5OJQJhKhTS5OJQJh 5OJQJh 5B*OJQJ\ph"""jhNUmHnHu#h7h 5B*OJQJ\ph"""$%()JWXZ[\]tuvwxyz$a$gdTSgd $x-DM a$gd z{|}~ L V &  D$  $  ~$ gd2p$a$gdx$a$gdTS        , - G H I J K L O P ۯǛjNjjj6jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu0jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu.hKhx5CJOJQJaJmHnHtHu'hKhxCJOJQJaJmHnHu.j}hKhxOJQJUmHnHu&hKhx5OJQJmHnHtHuhKhxOJQJmHnHu(jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu 6 7 Q R S T U V Y Z ˷˟˷˷˟˷g˷˟˷6jqhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu6jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu.hKhx5CJOJQJaJmHnHtHu'hKhxCJOJQJaJmHnHu0jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu6jwhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu   ˷˟{fNff{{f.jkhKhxOJQJUmHnHu(jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu&hKhx5OJQJmHnHtHuhKhxOJQJmHnHu.hKhx5CJOJQJaJmHnHtHu'hKhxCJOJQJaJmHnHu0jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu6jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu ! " $ % & ) * A B \ ] ^ ` a b g h { | ӯï×ӯkR0jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu.hKhx5CJOJQJaJmHnHtHu'hKhxCJOJQJaJmHnHu.jehKhxOJQJUmHnHu&hKhx5OJQJmHnHtHuhKhxOJQJmHnHu(jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu.jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu& b f  b 4bgdTSgd2p ~$  $  D$  E F ` ˷˟˷˷˟s_sJs(jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu&hKhx5OJQJmHnHtHuhKhxOJQJmHnHu6j_hKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu.hKhx5CJOJQJaJmHnHtHu'hKhxCJOJQJaJmHnHu0jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu6jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu` a b d e f k l  ӯjNjjj6jYhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu0jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu.hKhx5CJOJQJaJmHnHtHu'hKhxCJOJQJaJmHnHu&hKhx5OJQJmHnHtHuhKhxOJQJmHnHu(jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu.jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu      " # A B \ ] ^ ` a b e f ˷˟˷˷˟s_sJs(jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu&hKhx5OJQJmHnHtHuhKhxOJQJmHnHu6jShKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu.hKhx5CJOJQJaJmHnHtHu'hKhxCJOJQJaJmHnHu0jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu6jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu lmӯjNjjj6jMhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu0jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu.hKhx5CJOJQJaJmHnHtHu'hKhxCJOJQJaJmHnHu&hKhx5OJQJmHnHtHuhKhxOJQJmHnHu(jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu.jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu./023456AB\˷˟{fNff{{f.jG hKhxOJQJUmHnHu(jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu&hKhx5OJQJmHnHtHuhKhxOJQJmHnHu.hKhx5CJOJQJaJmHnHtHu'hKhxCJOJQJaJmHnHu0jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu6jhKhxCJOJQJUaJmHnHu\]^`abcdwxӯï×ӯwnb^WPLhTS hTSh{Y hTShTShhTShx5OJQJhx5OJQJh2p5OJQJh2pOJQJjhKhxOJQJU.jA hKhxOJQJUmHnHu&hKhx5OJQJmHnHtHuhKhxOJQJmHnHu(jhKhxOJQJUmHnHu.j hKhxOJQJUmHnHuKLNO-DM ^gd2pgd2p-DM `gd 3-DM `gdyH -DM gd2pgdTS  8CIKL]d}ұååå|åp|ҙ|ÙÙh 3B*OJQJph"""h eB*OJQJph""" h3)h2p6B*OJQJph"""hl|?B*OJQJph"""h2pB*OJQJph"""#h eh2p56B*OJQJph"""h Njh2pB*OJQJph"""hXh2pB*OJQJph"""h e56B*OJQJph"""h2p56B*OJQJph""",ST3MNOaQVĵ}kZ hXh2p>*B*OJQJph"""#hXh2p6B*OJQJ]ph"""h2pB*OJQJph"""hl|?B*OJQJph"""h Njh2pB*OJQJph""" hXh2p6B*OJQJph"""hXh2pB*OJQJph"""#h2ph2p56B*OJQJph"""hl|?OJQJjh Njh2pOJQJUh Njh2pOJQJh eOJQJVnry).9CJ <=>PQ)*+Mѹѹřzn_jh Njh2pOJQJUh 3h2p:OJQJh 3h2p6OJQJh Njh2pOJQJh2pOJQJh3)h2pB*OJQJph""" hXh2p>*B*OJQJph"""h2pB*OJQJph"""hl|?B*OJQJph"""hXh2pB*OJQJph"""h Njh2pB*OJQJph""" hXh2p:B*OJQJph"""%KM=>*+x\aKgd2p^gd2p-DM ^gd2p -DM gd2pVW W8swyU[\]zzznnnnnnhl|?B*OJQJphhbzB*OJQJphh Njh2pB*OJQJph h 3h2p6B*OJQJphh2pB*OJQJphh2ph2p56OJQJh2p56OJQJhx56OJQJh2pOJQJhl|?OJQJjh Njh2pOJQJUh Njh2pOJQJ+e7`ab!JKLbӴyqeZRqehl|?OJQJh3)h2pOJQJh 3h2p6OJQJh2pOJQJ%hhl|?B*OJQJmH phsH %hh 3B*OJQJmH phsH (hh2p6B*OJQJmH phsH %hh2pB*OJQJmH phsH hl|?B*OJQJphh Njh2pB*OJQJph h 3h2p6B*OJQJphh2pB*OJQJph K5m #!g!!!:"}""#F#####$$,%-%%gdyHd-DM gd2pm$gd2p456UF l m n #!$!,!4!:!]!e!g!h!x!!!!!!!!!!!! "ννڱννννν悱νhLdB*OJQJph h 3hLd6B*OJQJph#hQh2p56B*OJQJphh 3B*OJQJph h 3h2p6B*OJQJphh2pB*OJQJphhl|?B*OJQJphh Njh2pB*OJQJphh3)h2pOJQJ3 "!"*"+"9":";"O"c"|"}"~""""""""####-#E#F#G#d#{###########ŰŝőŰŝj+hh2p5>*B*OJQJmH phsH h 3h2p6B*OJQJphh2pB*OJQJph%hhLdB*OJQJmH phsH (hh2p6B*OJQJmH phsH %hh2pB*OJQJmH phsH h 3B*OJQJphhLdB*OJQJphh Njh2pB*OJQJph&##J$^$_$e$g$$$$$$$+%,%-%%%̺̺̟ې̮jM32hyHhyHB*OJPJQJfHph"""q 8hyHhyH6B*OJPJQJ]fHph"""q 2hyH6B*OJPJQJ]fHph"""q h2pB*OJQJph"""h2p6B*OJQJ]ph"""hyH6B*OJQJ]ph"""hLdB*OJQJph"""#h Njh2p5B*OJQJ\ph"""h Njh2pB*OJQJph"""#h Njh2p6B*OJQJ]ph"""#hQh2p56B*OJQJph%%%%%%%&& &#&$&%&h&ʸwbwbW?$4h eh e6B*OJQJ]fHph"""q .h_g6B*OJQJ]fHph"""q h eh eOJQJ(hLdB*OJQJfHph%%%q .h eh eB*OJQJfHph%%%q 4h eh e6B*OJQJ]fHph%%%q h eh e56OJQJ#h eh e56B*OJQJph#h eB*CJOJQJ^JaJphhyHhyHOJPJQJ,hLdB*OJPJQJfHph"""q %%%$&%&&&&&G'Y'''((n(o(((U)V)k)l)))`gd{Ygd{Ygd{Yd-DM gd2pm$gd eh&&&&&&&&&&'7'E'F'G'X'Y''''' ((((c(m(n(o((((ȰȰӈvhSSS(h_gB*OJQJfHph"""q h eh e56OJQJ#h eh e56B*OJQJphh eh eOJPJQJ4h eh e6B*OJQJ]fHph"""q .h_g6B*OJQJ]fHph"""q h eh eOJQJ(hLdB*OJQJfHph"""q .h eh eB*OJQJfHph"""q ((()T)U)V)W)X)j)l)p))))))ɯ|ungn^UNF;0h5&DhOJQJh5&DhEOJQJhTSOJQJ h{Yh{Yh 3haJh 3hUaJ hTShI&B hTSh{Y hTShUh Njh2pB*OJQJph"""h eh eOJPJQJ,hLdB*OJPJQJfHph"""q 2h eh eB*OJPJQJfHph"""q 8h eh e6B*OJPJQJ]fHph"""q 2h_g6B*OJPJQJ]fHph"""q )))****j*****+$+]+l+m+n+++,<,X,Y,i,,,,,,,,,, - - - -¯ΤΙَ}Τu¯uj__h5&Dh#FOJQJh5&DhgOJQJh 3OJQJ!jh5&Dhx0JOJQJUh5&DhxOJQJh5&DhyDkOJQJh5&DhEOJQJ$jh5&Dh0J6OJQJUh5&DhA6OJQJh5&DhAOJQJ!jh5&Dh0JOJQJUh5&DhOJQJh5&DhUOJQJ%) -.D.E.L0222R777l9Z:= BJBKB_H2JJJJgdTS dgd5&Dm$gdTS`gdTSgd{Y`gd{Y dgdhgQm$ dgdTSm$ ---;-H-I---------- ....D.E.I.Q...../"/U/V/////J0K0L0P0U0Y0000031416111ѳѓѓ}}Ѿ}}}}}}ш}h5&Dhc%OJQJh5&DhgOJQJh5&DhOJQJ h{Yh{Y h 3hI&B h 3hUh5&DhI&BOJQJh5&DhOJQJh 3OJQJ!jh5&Dh0JOJQJUh5&DhyDkOJQJh5&Dh#FOJQJhhgQOJQJ112%2&2'2(222222222222g3{3|3}333^4f4u4v4w444444|ti^iii^iRiih5&DhNH6OJQJh5&DhyDkOJQJh5&DhNHOJQJhhgQOJQJ hTShTSh 3hh~aJh 3hI&BaJ hxaJh 3hUaJh5&DhI&BOJQJ!jh5&Dh0JOJQJUh5&DhOJQJ$jh5&DhU0J6OJQJUh5&Dhf6OJQJh5&DhUOJQJh5&DhfOJQJ 444555E5F5Q5q5w5x5y55556666666677P7Q7R7U7`7a7}7777=8>8?8ƻ⻨ѝynch5&DhdOJQJh5&DhfOJQJhhgQOJQJ hTShTS h 3hI&B h 3hh~ h 3hUh5&DhI&BOJQJhY,OJQJh5&DhuTOJQJh5&DhOJQJh5&DhyDkOJQJ!jh5&Dh0JOJQJUh5&DhOJQJh5&DhNHOJQJh 3OJQJ&?8K8]8888888 9$9%9&9'9N9b9i9j9k9l9o9w999999999999::: :ɾɭߢԑɆ~shshhs]ss]]sh5&DhyDkOJQJh5&DhOJQJh5&DhgOJQJhhgQOJQJh5&DhOJQJ!jh5&Dhc0JOJQJUh5&Dh7oOJQJ!jh5&Dh0JOJQJUh5&DheOJQJh5&DhNHOJQJh5&DhcOJQJh5&DhUOJQJh5&Dh OJQJh5&DhfOJQJ$ ::6:W:X:Y:Z:]:f::::::;";k;l;m;n;;;;;;;;<<<O<U<^<u<v<w<<<ƾѨѨvƳѨkkѳh5&DhdOJQJ!jh5&DhU0JOJQJUh5&Dh OJQJh5&DheOJQJh5&Dh7oOJQJh5&DhOJQJh5&DhsjOJQJhhgQOJQJh5&DhOJQJ!jh5&Dh0JOJQJUh5&DhgOJQJh 3OJQJh5&DhyDkOJQJ%<<<<===_=========>>W>X>>>>>>>?? ?O?꽪ߗvߌeZvOh5&Dh7oOJQJh5&DhOJQJ!jh5&Dh0JOJQJUh5&DhUOJQJh5&Dh OJQJh5&DhdOJQJhhgQOJQJh5&DhOJQJ$jh5&Dh0J6OJQJUh5&Dh6OJQJjh 30JOJQJUh 3OJQJh5&DhsjOJQJh5&DhuOJQJh5&Dh2OJQJO?S?[?\?`?l????? @$@+@,@Y@s@@@@"A#A$AlAA B B B BBBBJBKB̰̰xofof]V hTShTShxhaJhxhh~aJhxhUaJh5&DhOJQJ!jh5&Dhc0JOJQJU!jh5&Dhu0JOJQJUh5&DhUOJQJ!jh5&Dh0JOJQJUh5&DhOJQJh5&DhsjOJQJh5&DhdOJQJh5&DhuOJQJh 3OJQJh5&DhcOJQJ KBOBBBBBBBCdCeCoCuCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD*DlDzD|DDDDDDD⧜ڧڃڧrg\gh5&DhdOJQJh5&Dh;OJQJ!jh5&Dh;0JOJQJUhY,OJQJ!jh5&Dh 0JOJQJUh5&DhV FOJQJh5&Dh OJQJh5&Dh6OJQJ!jh5&Dh0JOJQJUh5&Dh7oOJQJh OJQJh5&DhUOJQJh5&DhOJQJhhgQOJQJ$DDDD EEXEYE[E^EEEEEEEEFFF&FYFlFmFnFrFtF}FFFFFFFGG?GRGdGGGøߢ߆{{{php{{h{{hh OJQJh5&DheOJQJh5&Dha OJQJh5&Dh OJQJ!jh5&Dh0JOJQJUh5&DhOJQJh5&DhdOJQJh5&Dh}:OJQJ!jh5&Dh;0JOJQJUh5&Dh7oOJQJh5&Dhh~OJQJh5&Dh;OJQJh5&DhV FOJQJ(GGGGGGH HHH\H]H^H_HcHsHHHHH,I-IIIIIIII/J0J2J6J:J?JSJ}J~JJJJJJJ KKKƻƻٻƝٝٝٝưٰٰٝ||h5&DhW<OJQJ hTShTS hW<aJhTShW<aJh5&Dhh~OJQJhhgQOJQJh5&DhI&BOJQJh5&DhsdOJQJh5&DhV FOJQJh OJQJ!jh5&Dh0JOJQJUh5&Dha OJQJh5&Dh}:OJQJ.JJ$L@LYLZLM8Q SUWWWXPZx\^`|cdfhfif0^`0gd5&Dm$ 0^`0gdTS dgd5&Dm$`gdTSgdTS dgdhgQm$gdTSKKKK!L"L#L$L@LYLZL^LLLM:MDMEMFMMMMNNOOfPPPP8Q*OJQJ hTShW<hhgQOJQJh5&DhW<B*OJQJph!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJUh5&DhW<OJQJifwhTlll&n#rkuFxz}}}Y،KKdZ-[$\$]K^KgdhgQm$d1$7$8$H$gdhgQm$d1$7$8$H$gd5&Dm$ dgd5&Dm$gdTS`gdTS dgdhgQm$ dgdhgQm$Tllllllljmkm n n&n*nnnDoEo'p(ppppqqq r!r"r#r'r@sAsttttkuouxu9vevwwwwCxDxFxJx$y%yy۾۱۾۾h5&DOJQJ$jh5&DhW<0J6OJQJU%jh5&DhW<0JOJPJQJUh5&DhW<OJPJQJh5&DhW<6OJQJ!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJUh5&DhW<OJQJhhgQOJQJ hTShTShW< h5&DhW<3yyyyzzzzK{L{k{{||H}I}}}}}}}})* !$;B㲮㖇qqeWh5&DhW<6OJQJ]hY,B*OJQJph*jh5&DhW<0JB*OJQJUphh5&DhW<B*OJQJph!h5&DhW<0JB*OJQJph hTShTShW< h5&DhW<hY,OJQJh5&DhW<6OJQJhhgQOJQJjh 0JOJQJUh5&DhW<OJQJ!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJUBdfhY]sXYτЄ67ŴŎņ~~r_r~$jh5&DhW<0J6OJQJUh5&DhW<6OJQJhY,OJQJhhgQOJQJ%jh5&DhW<0JOJPJQJU$h5&DhW<B*OJPJQJ]ph!h5&DhW<B*OJPJQJphh5&DhW<OJPJQJhhgQOJPJQJ!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJUh5&DhW<OJQJh OJQJ%lmڈljȉY׌،u`uMuuM%h5&DhW<B*CJOJQJaJph)jh5&DhW<0JCJOJQJUaJh5&DhW<CJOJQJaJ-jh5&DhW<0JCJOJPJQJUaJ#h5&DhW<6CJOJPJQJaJ h5&DhW<CJOJPJQJaJhhgQCJOJPJQJaJh OJQJhhgQOJQJ!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJUh5&DhW<OJQJhY,OJQJ،܌ލ`a@{}~ߏ[_E\]^͓̓ٴٴ٤َ٬٤ٴٴٴvc%h5&DhW<B*CJOJQJaJphhhgQB*CJOJQJaJphhMOJQJ*jh5&DhW<0JB*OJQJUphh OJQJhhgQOJQJ!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJUhY,OJQJh5&DhW<6OJQJh5&DhW<OJQJh5&DhW<B*OJQJphhhgQB*OJQJph!،[DpןU֧/00^`0gd5&Dm$ 0^`0gdTSgd_g 0^`0gd_ggdTS`gdTS dgd5&Dm$KKdZ-[$\$]K^KgdhgQm$ dgdhgQm$klŖƖǖDH./ӘԘ;<p"rөӝxxxqmf^SGS?hMOJQJh5&DhW<6OJQJh5&DhW<OJQJhhgQOJQJ hTShTShW< h5&DhW<*jh5&DhW<0JB*OJQJUphh5&DhW<B*OJQJphhhgQB*OJQJph,jhM0JB*CJOJQJUaJph%h5&DhwB*CJOJQJaJph%h5&DhW<B*CJOJQJaJph2jh5&DhW<0JB*CJOJQJUaJphĚŚ./ޝߝɞ78ԟ՟ן۟u,-g~ʱʱʱܜqqghhgQOJPJQJ%jh5&DhW<0JOJPJQJUhMOJPJQJh5&DhW<6OJPJQJh5&DhW<OJPJQJhMOJQJ0jh5&DhW<0JKH OJQJUhnH tH #h5&DhW<KH OJQJhnH tH hhgQOJQJ!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJUh5&DhW<OJQJ(QRTUY &3ۦܦէ֧ڧ./04Ժߜqf_XT_PI h_gh_gh5&DhM hTShW< hTShwh5&Dh_gOJQJ!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJUhMOJPJQJh5&DhW<6OJPJQJ]hY,6OJPJQJ] jh5&DhW<H*OJQJU#h5&DhW<KH OJQJhnH tH hhgQOJQJh5&DhW<OJQJh5&DhW<OJPJQJ%jh5&DhW<0JOJPJQJU -ЪѪߪƬjk߭Ů ¾ºᓋ||pp||h5&DhW<6OJQJh5&DhW<B*OJQJphhMOJQJ!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJUhhgQOJQJh5&Dh5&D56OJQJhwhM h5&Dhw.jh5&DhW<0J@B*OJQJUphh5&DhW<OJQJ%jh5&DhW<0J@OJQJU,Qó<}J&rsPmA26OP0gdTSgdTS`gdTS dgd5&Dm$ dgdhgQm$OPQU³ódz:;<@f|WXYj{|}?@AGHJN~ʽԢԢԢv.jh5&DhW<0J@B*OJQJUphh5&DhW<6OJQJhMOJQJhhgQOJQJ%jh5&DhW<0JOJPJQJUh5&DhW<OJPJQJhhgQOJPJQJh5&DhW<B*OJQJphh5&DhW<OJQJ!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJU.#Us;<&7>Lqrswھ PT_nxjkmqab!7 žh5&DhW<B*OJQJphh5&DhW<6OJQJh5&DhwOJQJhhgQhhgQOJQJ hTShTShw h5&DhwhM!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJUhMOJQJh5&DhW<OJQJhhgQOJQJ7?@AE|1'{|~"#J]/026IOH]bev㴞㴞h5&DhOJQJhhgQhhgQOJQJh5&DhwOJQJh5&DhW<B*OJQJphheg@OJQJhMOJQJhhgQOJQJh9uOJQJh5&DhW<OJQJ!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJU:456:NOPT}~JKL%&/0ƿl2jh5&DhW<0JOJQJUfHq %h5&DhW<OJQJfHq h9uOJQJh5&DhZaOJQJhhgQOJQJ hTShTShW< hTShW< hTShh5&DhW<B*OJQJph!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJUh5&DhW<OJQJheg@OJQJ#04tu]^wSTabfº²²§º²²tc!h5&DhW<B*OJPJQJphhhgQB*OJPJQJph h{Yh{Y hTShW<h{YOJQJh5&DhW<B*OJQJphh5&DhOJQJhhgQOJQJhxOJQJh5&DhW<OJQJ!jh5&DhW<0JOJQJU hNhW<OJPJQJmH sH hNhhgQOJPJQJmH sH &Tab[KRYgdxm$  & Fdgd5&D dgd5&Dm$gdTSgd{YgdTS dgd{Ym$ dgdhgQm$!>I &ǹǹzrg\gTgLgLgheg@OJQJhTSOJQJh5&DhI&BOJQJh5&Dh~\OJQJhhgQOJQJ hTShTSh{Y hTShsd hTShg hTShW<h{YB*OJPJQJph!h5&DhW<B*OJPJQJphhORB*OJPJQJphheg@B*OJPJQJphh_gB*OJPJQJphh<B*OJPJQJphhYB*OJPJQJphKLMORSTVYZ !+,-/23489:HI[\]_bcdfijtuvx{|hxhY6CJOJQJaJhxhYCJOJQJaJ)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJP +29H[bit{gdxm$#$%(*+5679<=>@BCDFSTghikxy hxhY6CJOJQJaJhxhYCJOJQJaJ)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJP#*5<BSgx %0gdxgdxm$ %&01:;DEFHKL`amn~#-.;<FGSTablmnv۶ۈ4hxhY0J5CJOJQJaJfHq %hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph(hxhY6B*CJOJQJaJphhxhY6CJOJQJaJhxhYCJOJQJaJ)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJ20:DK`m~-;FSal{qgdxm$gdxm$vz{|}?H׭׃hMhh17hxhY0J56CJOJQJaJfHq 4hxhY0JCJOJQJ\aJfHq 4hxhY0J5CJOJQJaJfHq ,jhxhY0J5CJOJQJUaJ%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph(hxhY6B*CJOJQJaJph)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJhxhYCJOJQJaJ1hxhY0JCJOJQJaJfHq &qr||i%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph"""hxhY6CJOJQJaJ1hxhY0JCJOJQJaJfHq 7hxhY0J56CJOJQJaJfHq )jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJhxhYCJOJQJaJ4hxhY0J5CJOJQJaJfHq %*5@K'4,<COV\gngdxm$gdx-DM gdxm$gdxm$ot"*+56@AKLخzgVDV#hxhY6CJOJPJQJaJ hxhYCJOJPJQJaJ%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph(hxhY6B*CJOJQJaJphhxhY6CJOJQJaJhxhYCJOJQJaJ)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJ(hxhY:B*CJOJQJaJph"""%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph"""(hxhY>**䴳ϴ"""'(456%,-.04<=>޴ޟwweT hxhYCJOJPJQJaJ#hxhY6CJOJPJQJaJ%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph(hxhY6B*CJOJQJaJph)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJ(hxhY:B*CJOJQJaJph"""(hxhY>*B*CJOJQJaJph"""%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph"""hxhYCJOJQJaJ>@CDOPQSVWX[\]ghilnopඣjU(hxhY:B*CJOJQJaJph"""(hxhY>*B*CJOJQJaJph"""%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph""" hxhYCJOJPJQJaJ%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph(hxhY6B*CJOJQJaJph)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJhxhYCJOJQJaJhxhY6CJOJQJaJ!"#$7 Ƴ۳۔xePe;e(hxhY:B*CJOJQJaJph"""(hxhY>*B*CJOJQJaJph"""%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph"""6hxhYB*CJOJQJaJfHph%%%q <hxhY6B*CJOJQJ]aJfHph%%%q %hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph(hxhY6B*CJOJQJaJphhxhYCJOJQJaJ)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJ" ")5Fmrphtgdxgdxm$-DM gdxm$gdxm$ "#$&)*567:FGmnoHM`rs۶ێ{f{Q{(hxhY:B*CJOJQJaJph"""(hxhY>**䴳ϴ"""%Y*䴳ϴ""")Y*䴳ʴϴ%%%%Y*䴳ϴ(Y6B*䴳ϴY6CϴY䴳ϴ)Y0䴳ϴ>Ҷܡ*B*CJOJQJaJph"""%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph""" hxhYCJOJPJQJaJ,hxhY6B*CJOJPJQJaJph%%%)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJ)hxhYB*CJOJPJQJaJph%%%6hxhYB*CJOJQJaJfHph%%%q <hxhY6B*CJOJQJ]aJfHph%%%q hxhYCJOJQJaJC[aopqrTghitu%yز{أزk{hxhY6CJOJQJaJ%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph(hxhY6B*CJOJQJaJphhxhYCJOJQJaJ)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJ hxhYCJOJPJQJaJ%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph"""(hxhY:B*CJOJQJaJph"""*)$0<|Mb-DM gdxm$gdxm$gdxm$")*+Bw(){|ǴǴ񢒀mmm]MhxhY:CJOJQJaJhxhY6CJOJQJaJ%jhxhYCJOJQJUaJ"hxhY5CJOJQJ\aJhxhYCJOJQJ\aJ"hxhY6CJOJQJ\aJ%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph(hxhY6B*CJOJQJaJph)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJhxhYCJOJQJaJ!"$%&d $&nnY(hxhYCJOJPJQJaJmH sH hxhYCJOJPJQJaJ#hxhYCJOJPJQJ]aJhxhY6CJOJQJaJ%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph(hxhY6B*CJOJQJaJph)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJ%jhxhYCJOJQJUaJhxhYCJOJQJaJ&01<=>RV_˸~iViViV%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph(hxhY6B*CJOJQJaJphhxhY6CJOJQJaJ(hxhY:B*CJOJQJaJph"""(hxhY>*B*CJOJQJaJph"""%hxhYB*CJOJQJaJph"""hxhYCJOJQJaJ)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJ hxhYCJOJPJQJaJ 9tu|}~ EFMNORSUVXbcd|ϺສສhxhY6CJOJQJaJ)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJ hxhYCJOJPJQJaJhxhYCJOJQJaJ hxhY@CJOJQJaJAEO&:HUbo [gdxm$gdxm$;=>EFGJOPQ 5ŶoN0:hxhYB*CJOJPJQJaJfHph"""q @hxhY6B*CJOJPJQJ]aJfHph"""q hxhYCJOJPJQJaJhxhY6CJOJQJaJ)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJ hxhY@CJOJQJaJhxhYCJOJQJaJ6hxhYB*CJOJQJaJfHph"""q <hxhY6B*CJOJQJ]aJfHph"""q 4}&'(+/1:;HIUVbcop   7;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; hxhY@CJOJQJaJhxhY6CJOJQJaJhxhYCJOJQJaJ)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJ:hxhYB*CJOJPJQJaJfHph"""q >VW[\]z;s01DEFVwxy|k hxhYCJOJPJQJaJ:hxhYB*CJOJPJQJaJfHph"""q @hxhY6B*CJOJPJQJ]aJfHph"""q )jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJ hxhY@CJOJQJaJhxhY6CJOJQJaJhxhYCJOJQJaJ*0Dw"LY$ O  :            gdsjgdxm$gdxm$"#LMYZ[$ % O P Q i w      : ; d u        P                    hYjhUh hjhYhjhYOJQJhxhY6CJOJQJaJ)jhxhY0JCJOJQJUaJhxhYCJOJQJaJA             & Fdgd5&D$a$gdsd  !$gd gdsj             ؼر魢h5&Dh~\OJQJhhsdhYOJQJh0JOJQJmHnHuhsdhY0JOJQJ!jhsdhY0JOJQJUh{h hYOJQJhYOJQJ 21h:pI&B/ =!"#$% }DyK _Toc257290617}DyK _Toc257290618}DyK _Toc257290619}DyK _Toc257290620}DyK _Toc257290621}DyK _Toc257290622}DyK _Toc257290623}DyK _Toc257290624}DyK _Toc257290625}DyK _Toc257290626}DyK _Toc257290627}DyK _Toc257290628}DyK _Toc257290629}DyK _Toc257290630}DyK _Toc257290631}DyK _Toc257290632}DyK _Toc257290633}DyK _Toc257290634}DyK _Toc257290635}DyK _Toc257290636}DyK _Toc257290637}DyK _Toc257290638 's666666666vvvvvvvvv6>6666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666866666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p(8HX`~8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH V@V TS Heading 1$$@&5OJPJQJ\^JaJ f@f TS Heading 2$$@&*56OJPJQJ\^JaJq DA`D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List @ sj0Footnote Text,Footnote Text Char Char Char Char Char,Footnote Text Char Char Char Char,Footnote reference,FA Fu,Footnote Text Char Char Char,Footnote Text Cha,FA Funotentext,FA Funotentext,Footnote Text Char Char,FA Fu?notente,Ca,FA Fu?notentext,C,ft sj0Footnote Text Char,Footnote Text Char Char Char Char Char Char,Footnote Text Char Char Char Char Char1,Footnote reference Char,FA Fu Char,Footnote Text Char Char Char Char1,Footnote Text Cha Char,FA Funotentext Char,FA Funotentext Char,Ca Char,C Char&` sj0Footnote Reference,Texto de nota al pie,Appel note de bas de page,Footnotes refss,Footnote number,referencia nota al pie,BVI fnr,f,4_G,16 Point,Superscript 6 Point,Texto nota al pie,Footnote Reference Char3,Footnote Reference Char1 Char,Ref. de nota alH*4@"4 sd0Header !.1. sd0 Header Char4 @B4 sd0Footer !.Q. sd0 Footer Char.)@a. sd0 Page NumberT@rT ~\ Colorful List - Accent 1 ^m$BOB W<apple-converted-space*W`* W<`Strong5\V^@V W<0 Normal (Web)dd[$\$CJOJQJ^JaJN/N TSHeading 1 Char5OJPJQJ\^JaJ R/R TSHeading 2 Char56OJPJQJ\^JaJ.@. {YpTOC 1x56@6 {YpTOC 2^ 5CJaJ22 {YpTOC 3^CJaJ22 {YpTOC 4 ^CJaJ22 {YpTOC 5!^CJaJ22 {YpTOC 6"^CJaJ22 {YpTOC 7#^CJaJ22 {YpTOC 8$^CJaJ22 {YpTOC 9%^CJaJ6U a6 M0 Hyperlink >*B*phPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭VvnB`2ǃ,!"E3p#9GQd; H xuv 0F[,F᚜K sO'3w #vfSVbsؠyX p5veuw 1z@ l,i!b I jZ2|9L$Z15xl.(zm${d:\@'23œln$^-@^i?D&|#td!6lġB"&63yy@t!HjpU*yeXry3~{s:FXI O5Y[Y!}S˪.7bd|n]671. tn/w/+[t6}PsںsL. J;̊iN $AI)t2 Lmx:(}\-i*xQCJuWl'QyI@ھ m2DBAR4 w¢naQ`ԲɁ W=0#xBdT/.3-F>bYL%׭˓KK 6HhfPQ=h)GBms]_Ԡ'CZѨys v@c])h7Jهic?FS.NP$ e&\Ӏ+I "'%QÕ@c![paAV.9Hd<ӮHVX*%A{Yr Aբ pxSL9":3U5U NC(p%u@;[d`4)]t#9M4W=P5*f̰lk<_X-C wT%Ժ}B% Y,] A̠&oʰŨ; \lc`|,bUvPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!R%theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] ""m##X$$ %H%%% &&&U''J((3))&**|++u,,-w-..P/>0%1i112W22l334u45567+88"9 :d;;;<X=>l>>?\@@,AAA/B}BCC!DDEFGHrJ LLMNOOPJQSvTUVXY;Zz[[\f_t`abdje ff'hhi!j@kllooCp$qqqrKst)wxyzX{||}6}}}~lǁ`}]̋kƎ.Ӑ;Ē.ޕ7ԗ,Q۞ТjߥO:W{?G~;۸jɹaȾ?{/4}J%t]  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?.5<oz+>ELW^i} %6J[fq|'.CPa)6DO^sfTmr~  # .    & 2 9 ? J Q   )PUSKWbiueq _g0E(2e +8ERdqw> | g!o!|!"'"Z"""#/#<####$2$$%{%%g&t&&&& " `  \V "#%h&() -14?8 :<O?KBDGKW}ZcTlyB،0 vL> sC&  z& K%)Jif،0  ,HJ6RT!$A]`{EadA]`l/2A]`w S V %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%XX"! ^&XX8@(  )B  l8cGa N?*"Straight Connector 1C"@m?PK![Content_Types].xmlAN0EH%] tA% T0'dly'-XӸ\AL:}^HUcd`p* VCLj__'2?첋Y%{VA!< psșk[1ool>)&a8}/PK!#j _rels/.relsj0 }qN/k؊c[F2e~"Kl`0;1 (6{PF783.#c(Y ̵W͘tT0Dlm#]ڀzgͿ0n @]nStLBS%M=lݑm7rf9`5Y4Բ~G>~WoPK!Gdrs/e2oDoc.xmlSK0W|/mDh{ZTyĒ_cMi{x^ofz>[N ٜ3儗u ታI0ީ_TVCH@\>PWUg>(G֣D&vDݚj9?VG #yc ~*mTTN,!zuz-4XXЎQe@}fʷh 5j=UPsbr!ӒfǙK#'ms@l4XSjŰ,ܢ$Ko/So91A·wsxU IyF,j8}ԷvESFg|/@H )30HX 7Z /qcJrf & ob?5͸ lcR߀LY,6y4,X0vq`B#\}e<bЫ`QKpڕ'֦퇼 PK!mdrs/downrev.xmlLMK@aԏҦٔRA*4;nB!MwE/3jM`I agn*&dm`2MVU gҰKNI  )uֱcX{LӶdzVgL{lX.Ѧ;y{psq}|}tތ%Dc[C)NpbUk@ISLpA]zPK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!#j ,_rels/.relsPK-!G,drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK-!m_drs/downrev.xmlPKd-B  l8cGa N?*"Straight Connector 2C"@q?PK![Content_Types].xmlAN0EH%] tA% T0'dly'-XӸ\AL:}^HUcd`p* VCLj__'2?첋Y%{VA!< psșk[1ool>)&a8}/PK!#j _rels/.relsj0 }qN/k؊c[F2e~"Kl`0;1 (6{PF783.#c(Y ̵W͘tT0Dlm#]ڀzgͿ0n @]nStLBS%M=lݑm7rf9`5Y4Բ~G>~WoPK!ruGdrs/e2oDoc.xmlSM0#,i-Q=Z.*v$ۚq3v уz~of|:N 7ƫãkpF ɧw1fA 16O)UE7,D9 ]FF\1!bf Uo[׶%k$sKrYPwL ${A VaЦ C*S4j^zhPrآ )< <`>uP,rH5-frıt9&ya#PoWaDJLD4YeC ϔ1N}Knset΋h j$~e|'WS%,չ<щx;xt_(qE_V~+|6@T\B43)KGs{L gfɓOf)~ԗ%,].0Q}gSzaP+zU4|}*.~^D^_|W?PK!Udrs/downrev.xmlLAK@aݴjic6D<8͎ln`o[5P qlTLd"sμa9SrcU8 d_DNR[=˲ذ,Ѧ;y{tsq}|}pތ'P 0‰mTy$-_\ßB_?PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!#j ,_rels/.relsPK-!ruG,drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK-!U`drs/downrev.xmlPKhB S  ?X$t $ t\ _Toc257251100 _Toc257254586 _Toc257290425 _Toc257290617 _Toc257250568 _Toc257251103 _Toc257254587 _Toc257290426 _Toc257290618 _Toc257250569 _Toc257251104 _Toc257254588 _Toc257290427 _Toc257290619 _Toc257250570 _Toc257251105 _Toc257254589 _Toc257290428 _Toc257290620 _Toc257251106 _Toc257254590 _Toc257290429 _Toc257290621 _Toc257251107 _Toc257254591 _Toc257290430 _Toc257290622 _Toc257251108 _Toc257254592 _Toc257290431 _Toc257290623 _Toc257251109 _Toc257254593 _Toc257290432 _Toc257290624 _Toc257251110 _Toc257254594 _Toc257290433 _Toc257290625 _Toc257251111 _Toc257254595 _Toc257290434 _Toc257290626 _Toc257251112 _Toc257254596 _Toc257290435 _Toc257290627 _Toc257251113 _Toc257254597 _Toc257290436 _Toc257290628 _Toc257251114 _Toc257254598 _Toc257290437 _Toc257290629 _Toc257251115 _Toc257254599 _Toc257290438 _Toc257290630 _Toc257251116 _Toc257254600 _Toc257290439 _Toc257290631 _Toc257251117 _Toc257254601 _Toc257290440 _Toc257290632 _Ref318127168 _Toc257251118 _Toc257254602 _Toc257290441 _Toc257290633 _Toc257251119 _Toc257254603 _Toc257290442 _Toc257290634 _Toc257251120 _Toc257254604 _Toc257290443 _Toc257290635 _Toc257251121 _Toc257254605 _Toc257290444 _Toc257290636 _Toc257251122 _Toc257254606 _Toc257290445 _Toc257290637 _Toc257251123 _Toc257254607 _Toc257290446 _Toc257290638V!V!V!V!V!l!l!l!l!l!&&&&&****R/R/R/R/ : : : :BBBBBBBB$D$D$D$D@D@D@D@DOOOO^^^^TdTdTdTduuuupppp֟֟֟֟&&&&6666TTTT  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[j!j!j!j!j!!!!!!C&C&C&C&C&****////I:I:I:I:BBBBBBBB>D>D>D>DXDXDXDXDOOOOg^g^g^g^dddduuuu----qqqqNNNN```` T _ b e W _ IO4; Z` >D]dMS"( PUpv39nstw$*hm:} GQ_eJRV]m%w%' (}0011.878??mHwHMMNNS$SSST%T\YfYhhhhkk9nDnooksvs$x0xXd" 7>nx]b %*0t}@F`f*0W_6Ap{/5o{ORrx_e+2dj("&-DP_dej&,[a,2hp$HQ$Wehnqw @F]gFLy~mt3 I 8owKav 7A"":":gghhSvUv~333333333333333333M f +0E&I&&L(P((l1p11556OOPIn*9wt*Qh^h`o(8^8`o(.p0^p`0o(.. ^ `o(... x^x`o( .... `^``o( ..... `^``o( ...... ^`o(....... ^`o(........^`.^`.pL^p`L.@ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PL^P`L.9wtIn         Mo=?'D~H /pUMNHaa TSSAK{Q s'"9V$c"0@8l|?eg@I&BDD5&DV F^OhgQOR{Ya^ZasdRhyDk2pbz;_guUsEg~\x Y,7oW<e< 3 LdI7wj#FGuTc%xyHc  e9uh~NY2f}:BdOsjg@@Unknown G*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial3*Ax Times7@Cambria7.@CalibriG=  jMS Mincho-3 fgK=   jMS Gothic-3 0000A$BCambria Math 1'hYY!#p&#0)K#HP $P'E2!xx , Jackie Young(Inter-American HR Moot Court Competition  Oh+'0  < H T`hpxJackie YoungNormal,Inter-鶹ý HR Moot Court Competition2Microsoft Office Word@F#@2@2#!՜.+,D՜.+,, hp|  p  Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAl#>H+http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8341476m+E9http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf#>+http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8341476m+9http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      "#$%&'(*+,-./0569Root Entry Fp'28Data 1TableIdWordDocument 4SummaryInformation(!DocumentSummaryInformation8)MsoDataStore;#2p'2KRCGTNUOQMXKGLSA==2;#2p'2Item  PropertiesUCompObj r   F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q