最高法院坐司法部的高级法院
内禀矫顽力5211/04
之前：����������������������������������答:总统巴拉克
����������������������������������������������副总裁e·马扎
����������������������������������������������正义m . Cheshin
请愿者:��������������������������1.莫迪凯·瓦努努
����������������������������������������������2.公民权利协会
以色列
回答者：����������������������1.后方司令部的负责人
����������������������������������������������2.内政部长
请求命令
日期:�������������������������������������22塔木兹5764 (11.7.04)
对于上访者：�������������Atty。D.亚基尔，阿蒂。O.费勒
对于受访者：�����������Atty。美国Nitzan
判断
副总裁e·马扎:
The main purpose of this petition is the Petitioners� request that the Court instruct Respondent 1 (Head of the Home Front Command) to cancel an order of restrictions and supervision he had issued against Petitioner 1 (the Petitioner), and instruct Respondent 2 (the Minister of the Interior) to cancel an order he had issued barring the Petitioner from leaving
以色列
。此外，申诉人请求法院确定国防部（紧急）规例，1945年，是无效的，而且也决定紧急条例，5708-1948国家（从国家出口）的是第6 - 在发现附件应急条例（退出国家）条例，5709-1948国家的延伸 - 同样是无效的。
2.这起诉讼的背景是瓦努努事件，该事件在过去18年里一直困扰着法院和以色列社会。它的要点是已知的，我将总结它们:从1976年开始，请愿者被聘为核研究中心(CNR)的一个部门的技术人员。在和平时期
加利利战争中，他形成了自己极端左翼的世界观。安全人员与他会面讨论此事，当他发现他的名字被列入计划裁员名单时，他对以色列的总体态度，特别是对国家中央人民共和国的态度就更加消极了。最后，在1985年末，请愿人主动从中央人民广播电台辞职并离开
以色列
。他先去了
泰国然后
悉尼,
澳大利亚
，在那里，他改变了自己的宗教信仰。申诉人关于他在秘密采取了CNR，这是他自己的工作期间获得并聚集未经允许存在，以及在CNR场所和设施的照片秘密信息。申诉人解决有照片公布，揭示和发布自己的秘密信息。有了这个目标在心中，他试图联系记者谁也帮他完成他的计划。他在会见一位记者
澳大利亚
把他与彼得·霍尼亚姆，伦敦星期日泰晤士报的记者联系。Hounam was interested in the Petitioner�s information and photographs and they went to
伦敦
在一起。在伦敦，申诉人向胡南和报纸调查人员(包括一位名叫弗兰克·巴纳比(Frank Barnaby)的专家)透露了有关中国北车的高度机密信息，并将自己的照片交给了他们。以色列驻伦敦大使馆时,从报纸上问题的反馈,确认申请人实际上受雇于中国北车,《星期日泰晤士报》发表(5.10.1986)一个著名的故事,说明了在中国北车的照片,其中包括一个广泛的中国北车的工作描述,基于请愿者�年代的启示。
上诉人因将秘密资料及照片移交给未经许可的人，于年月日受地方法院审判
耶路撒冷
。Having heard the evidence, the Court convicted the Petitioner of aiding the enemy in its war against Israel, providing secret information with the aim of harming the State�s security, collecting secret information with the said aim - which constitute offences against sections 99, 113(b) and 113(c) of the Penal Law, 5737-1977. Having convicted him of the said offences, the Court sentenced the Petitioner (on 27.3.1988) to 18 years imprisonment, beginning 7.10.1986. The Petitioner�s appeal against his conviction and against the severity of his sentence was dismissed (CrimA 172/88瓦努努诉以色列国案， IsrSC 43(3) 265);在所有的假释请求被拒绝后，请愿人几乎服刑了整个刑期，并于2004年4月21日获释。
3.提交本请愿书所依据的两项命令于2004年4月19日发出，即在请愿人获释前两天。1945年《防卫(紧急情况)条例》第6(2)条规定，后方司令部司令行使职权，发布限制和监督命令，�并根据法规108，109和110表示的规定。The order states that it is �required and imperative for the defence of the State of Israel�. It orders that during the first six months after his release from prison the Petitioner will be subject to supervision by the Israeli police, and imposes restrictions on his freedom of movement: he is required to inform the police in advance of any change in his place of residence, and of his intention to spend the night other than in his known place of residence. The order also prohibits the Petitioner to approach without prior permission within 500 metres of places listed in an annex to the order (airports, marinas, overland border crossings and international borders) from which it is possible to leave the State of Israel, including the territories of Judea,
撒玛利亚和
加沙
区。此外，该命令禁止请愿人未经事先许可进入(或试图进入)任何外国外交代表
以色列
，以任何方式与外籍人士或居民保持联络或交换资料，或参与互联网聊天室。
禁止呈请人出境的命令是由内政部长根据《国家条例》第6条行使的权力签发的
紧急状况条例
(出国)，5708-1948。订单州部长确信有一个真正的危险,请愿者�年代离开这个国家可能会危害国家的安全,并考虑到参数提出请愿者和他的律师对秩序和发现他们没有说服力,下令禁止请愿者离开国家的12个月发行的订单。
4.答复者在确定请愿人获释日期的几个月前就认为有必要对他施加限制- -禁止他出境并限制他在该国境内的行动和接触。安全机构已经评估了一段时间，在他被释放后，请愿人可能会再次公布机密信息，如果这些信息被公开，可能会危及国家的最高安全关切。语句由请愿者在他的调查和在他的审判中,信他从细胞发送各种元素在以色列,和情报收集的信息关于他的监禁期间,所有建议似乎并不是所有的机密信息已经达到请愿者和被他聚集直到他辞职NRC给《星期日泰晤士报》报纸和出版。据估计，他还没有交出的另一项秘密情报仍藏在他的心里和记忆中，在他获释后，请愿人可能也会公布这一项情报。对请愿人从监狱释放后打算和有能力继续损害以色列国安全的关切也影响了假释委员会和法院的决定，它们一再驳回了请愿人提出的所有提前释放的上诉。随着他获释日期的临近，安全机构再次分析了收集到的关于请愿人的材料，包括最近在他的牢房中缴获的材料，以及他们对请愿人的危险的评估
以色列
�s vital security interests was reinforced.
With this background in mind, consideration was given to various ways of restricting the Petitioner�s movements and contacts. The option of placing Petitioner in administrative detention following his release was considered, but rejected due to the extreme severity of completely denying his freedom at the end of the long prison term he had served. Security agencies wanted to impose tight restrictions on Petitioner�s movements, but the Attorney General�s opinion led to the decision to impose more moderate restrictions. On 28.3.2004, the Minister of the Interior informed Petitioner that he was considering barring his exit from the country for twelve months after his release from prison. On 4.4.2004 the Head of the Home Front Command informed Petitioner that he was considering imposing on him various restrictions, itemized in the letter, for six months after his release. Petitioner and his attorney presented their objections to the Minister of the Interior and to the Head of the Home Front Command concerning the intention of issuing these orders against the Petitioner. Rejecting the objections to his intention of barring Petitioner from leaving the country, the Minister of the Interior noted that information given him by the security agencies showed that during his work in the NRC Petitioner was exposed to state secrets some of which he had not turned over and had not been published. He also noted that statements made by Petitioner at his trial, letters he wrote during his imprisonment, and material he had prepared during his imprisonment showed that there was real danger and high probability that were he to leave Israel after his release, Petitioner might reveal state secrets which had not yet been turned over or published. The Minister added that he had also weighed the degree of injury caused the Petitioner by the order and came to the conclusion that in balancing the injury caused the Petitioner by the order prohibiting him from leaving Israel as against the imperative of protecting state secrets, the security interest must take precedence. Similar arguments were stated by the Head of the Home Front Command in response to the objections presented by Petitioner and his attorney against the intention of imposing restrictions on Petitioner. In the reply to Petitioner�s attorney, it was made clear that the purpose is to prevent Petitioner from harming the security of the State, and that detailed information had shown that such danger existed if the order were not issued. At the same time, the General stated that, having examined the Petitioner�s objections, he found grounds for modifying the restrictions he had intended to impose, and itemized the modifications. The order he issued, described above, reflects the modifications.
5.请愿人的律师在其书面请愿书中，除其他外，对命令所依据的法律的法律效力提出质疑。采取这一立场的含义是，答复者没有权力发出命令。相比之下，上诉人的律师在我们面前的口头辩论中试图使我们相信，被告没有理由担心上诉人可能并且有能力通过揭露国家机密而损害国家安全;因此，应当取消这些武断、不合理和不成比例的限制性命令。在开始讨论针对请愿人所发布命令的公正性和合理性之前，我将简要解释为什么在我看来我们不能接受请愿人对被请愿人赖以发布命令的法律的有效性提出质疑。
6.1945年《防卫(紧急状态)条例》是主要的强制性立法，以色列建国后，根据《行政和法律条例》(5708-1948)第11节，该条例被纳入以色列法律。在国家成立后不久，就有人在最高法院提出，由于国家及其权力机构的建立所引起的一些变化，防卫条例应予以废除(根据该法令第11条后半部分的要求)。法院驳回了这一论点，裁定《防卫条例》仍然有效，并已纳入以色列法律，由立法机关改变或废除它们(HCJ 5/48)狮子诉Gubernik， IsrSC 1 58)。多年来，这一裁决多次得到强化;例如,680/88Schnitzer的诉首席军事检查员，IsrSC 42（4）617;最近HCJ 10467/03后方司令部的Sharbati诉头， IsrSC 58(1) 810)。摆在我们面前的上访者�律师认为,法院裁定�年代国防法规是以色列的一部分法律是错误的,在任何情况下,是时候放弃它,因为它违反了州和人权的价值观体现在《基本法》:人的尊严
自由
。
的状态
紧急状况条例
(出境)，5708-1948是内政部长根据《政府行政和法律条例》第9(a)条的权威颁布的。这些最初是次要立法，但当它们被主要立法所扩展时(在国家的扩展中)
紧急状况条例
该条例称，并成为条例的一部分（从国家出口）条例，5709-1948），他们被列入附件。因此，法规的规定升级为主要立法。This is grounded in the Court�s ruling in HCJ 243/52比亚尔诉财政部长，IsrSC 7 424，并已自那时以来，多次重申。（参见，例如决定法官巴拉克内禀矫顽力4472/90地方政府Oranit诉财政部长， isrsc46(1) 95，第99页)上诉人的律师力图使我们相信这项裁决对我们有利Bialer是时候废除它了。他们认为，紧急条例本质上是次要立法，任何主要立法都不能将其提升到初级立法的水平。根据他们的论点，州的第6条规定
紧急状况条例
(出境)是不合理的次要立法，与基本人权相冲突，法院应宣布其无效，或要求废除。
7. I am not persuaded by the arguments of the Petitioners� attorneys, namely, that the orders issued against Petitioner constitute a sufficient cause to reconsider the justice of the rulings in the cases of狮子和Bialer。在过去五十年中，最高法院一再重申、采纳和援引这些决定，使它们成为确立的裁决。要让最高法院偏离这种根深蒂固的裁决，就必须说服它这样做有重要的理由。在没有这些理由的情况下，法院最好是将请愿者提交立法机关;(cf CrimA 101/77Ringelstein诉以色列国，IsrSC 32（1）623，决定由法官哈伊姆·科恩页。627;和CrimA93分之2534玛丽莎诉以色列，IsrSC 51（2）612）。The Petitioners� attorneys did not offer weighty arguments to justify reconsidering the justice of the rulings made in the cases of狮子和Bialer。
此外，即使法院接受请愿人的论点，即《辩护(紧急情况)条例》和《国家条例》第6条
紧急状况条例
（从国家退出）不是一次立法，这将不足以废除他们。Even if it were true that despite their incorporation in primary legislation they remained secondary legislation, they constitute in any event �validity of Laws� which section 10 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty secures from abrogation. However, the Petitioners assumed that if their argument - namely, that the State of Emergency Regulations are secondary legislation - was accepted, this would pave the way to their principal argument, namely, that the Court is empowered to declare them null and void, or to instruct that they be made void for being clearly unreasonable. But this is not such a simple matter: secondary legislation which has been affirmed by a parliamentary committee may be seen �as having been indirectly legislated by the Knesset itself� (as stated by正义贝伦森在HCJ70分之108庄园诉财政部长， isrsc24(2) 442, 445)。因此，制定了一项规则，即法院在干预议会委员会确认的次级立法之前必须极为谨慎(见:HCJ 4769/90)Zidan控告劳工和福利部长， isrsc47(2) 147，第172页，连同引用的先例)。不用说，法院在被要求干预一个议会委员会所确认的次要立法时所遵循的原则更适用于审议的国家
紧急状况条例
，这是在由议会全体会议通过了一项法律确认。
然而，即使我们没有面临的障碍，从国家的约束力有效干预我们吧
紧急状况条例
,I would not accept the Petitioners� argument that the regulations must be repealed because they are clearly unreasonable. True, the implementation of emergency legislations - the ones that concern the present case and others that do not - injures not only the rights of individuals against whom they are implemented, but also injures the values that Israel, as a Jewish and democratic state, is obliged by its basic legislation to respect. Unfortunately, the implementation - like the very existence - of the emergency legislation is sometimes imperative, due to the fact that the State of Israel is still subject to danger and threats from within and without; and if this imperative were not so widely established, the case of the present Petitioner has served to demonstrate it. This does not mean that in actually implementing the emergency legislation the authority is free to ignore the basic rights of the affected individuals. The principle states that while the Basic Law has not detracted from the force of the �Validity of Laws�, it does influence their interpretation. The same principle applies to the emergency legislation. This means that though the Court does not examine the status of the emergency legislation while considering the tests of the limitation clause set in section 8 of the Basic Law, the Court is obliged to examine the justification of implementing a provision of the emergency legislation, as in the present case. That is to say, the Court�s examination is not supposed to focus on the reasonableness of the given provision in the emergency legislation, as such, but on the justice of applying it in the individual case brought before it. The Court must base its examination on two criteria: does the application of the emergency provision to a particular individual in the given circumstances meet its general purpose; and does the injury caused to the individual by its application pass the test of proportionality.
8.上诉人的律师对该命令的合理性提出质疑时辩称，基于真正的安全考虑，上诉人没有正当理由禁止其离开
以色列
限制他在国内的活动和接触。他们争辩说，发出这些命令的理由不正当:其目的只是为了伤害请愿人，以便继续惩罚他的行为，或使其他掌握国家机密的人离经叛道，并警告他们如果泄露机密，就会遭到灭口。对于被调查者担心上诉人会泄露并导致其公开之前未披露的国家机密，他们认为这种担心是没有根据的。他们认为，上诉人在1986年与《星期日泰晤士报》的工作人员和顾问面谈时，泄露了他所掌握的所有秘密信息。毫无争议的是，自从他18年前从NRC辞职以来，他没有获得任何机密信息，没有任何依据表明请愿者仍然可以泄露任何类型的机密。关于请愿人在过去- -在审判和监禁期间- -所作的陈述，即他仍然有秘密资料，但他没有透露，并将在他获释后透露，他们争辩说，这些资料毫无价值。他们以专家弗兰克·巴纳比(Frank Barnaby)的书面意见来支持这一论点，他曾在1986年为《星期日泰晤士报》询问过请愿人。专家说，当时进行的质询已引出了请愿人所掌握的所有资料。此外，请愿人的律师要求法院相信请愿人的声明，即他既不希望也不能暴露更多的国家机密，一旦被释放，他打算只在意识形态和公共领域反对核武器
以色列
和其他国家。请愿人的律师争辩说，对请愿人施加的限制，除其他外，是为了阻止他使用合法手段进行抗议
以色列
他们的政治和安全职位。他们还注意到施加上述限制，主要是禁止离境，对请愿人造成严重伤害。他们争辩说，自从请愿者的行动被公布以来，他就被谴责为叛徒，成为以色列公众仇恨和厌恶的对象。现在他已服刑，请愿人希望恢复他的生活，养活自己和成家，但他没有真正的机会这样做
以色列
。因此，在另一个地方创造自己新生活的目标，他希望离开
以色列
为好。
9.我们发现没有理由怀疑受访者的评估，即上诉人的长期监禁并没有打击或削弱他在任职期间收集到的有关核管理委员会的秘密信息的欲望和意图。请愿人在许多场合明确表示了他这样做的决心。我们特别重视回答者从他的牢房向不同的人发出的信件中引用的段落。例如，他在1998年11月15日的一封信中写道:
给以色列和全世界所有的间谍机构:我末底改·瓦努努通知你们……只要我一有空或有机会，我就会公布我所掌握的有关以色列核武器和核管理委员会在迪莫纳的所有活动的所有秘密和信息。这一次我要去
美国，国会，参议院，白宫，到
英国,
欧洲并宣誓作证，向他们报告这个种族主义、犹太复国主义和犹太国家的罪行
上诉人于2000年8月1日(致普罗特金夫人)的一封信宣称，他能够就迪莫纳反应堆生产的所有材料作证。在日期为2000年12月8日(致O - Hearn女士)的一封信中，请愿人声明，当他自由时，愿意为外国间谍机构工作�在2000年12月26日(给Ernest Schwartz先生)的信中，请愿人表示希望一旦他被释放，他将前往国际原子能机构
维也纳和作证
以色列
�s nuclear secrets. Another letter to Ms O�Hearn, written in June 2003, implies that Petitioner also hopes to obtain financial remuneration from writing a book in which he would reveal the secrets he knows. He states, inter alia, that �if anyone asks for an exclusive interview or some deal to do with the book, he will have to pay a million dollars for it.�
10.因此，毫无疑问，请愿人想要披露有关核管理委员会的机密信息的愿望和以往一样坚定和坚决。但请愿人是否还有能力继续通过揭露国家机密来损害国家利益，而不是像18年前《星期日泰晤士报》(Sunday Times)所公布的那样?受访者认为，这个问题也必须得到肯定的回答。他们的立场最近获得了大量证据。上诉人的牢房在被释放前被搜查过。里面发现了装有数千封信件和文件的板条箱，还有一些笔记本。经检查，发现其中载有请愿人在监禁期间手写的有秩序的笔记和许多图表。在这些笔记和图表呈请人重建从记忆结构，装置，方法和过程，在他的工作期间在NRC存在和操作。它被解释给我们，大部分的写作构成了信息，请愿者已经学习和记忆在他的任务过程中作为一个技术员在NRC的一个部门，在那里他工作了大约十年。 But among the data which he recorded in his notebooks there was also secret information which Petitioner had gathered in other departments of the NRC, to which according to the standard procedures he had no right of entry. It arose in the course of his interrogation and at his trial that the decision to gather secret information for the purpose of having it published had matured in Petitioner�s mind about two years before he resigned, and that during the last two years of his work (mainly when he was on night shift) he would enter other departments of the NRC, hunt for secret material and photograph documents which, even if he did not always understand them, he estimated that they contained top secret data. It goes without saying that when he was arrested the written material in his possession was seized, but Petitioner appears to be gifted with exceptional memory. The notebooks seized in his cell reveal that he could recall in minute detail the data and processes to which he had been exposed in his work, and had also memorized other data and processes he had learned about from the documents he had secretly copied and photographed in other departments of the NRC.
11.这些笔记本电脑的发现引发了两个问题：一，是出于什么目的也上诉人记住这种材料？二，什么可以从这些笔记本电脑有关的秘密信息呈请人保留在他的记忆的质量和范围学到什么？第一个问题是我们前面所讨论的，部分在公开法庭，部分摄像头，但并没有从检查笔记本阻止谁申诉人及其律师的存在。The second question was discussed before us in camera, with the consent of Petitioner�s attorneys, without Petitioner and his attorneys being present.���
Concerning the first question, Petitioner�s attorneys argued that the fact that Petitioner recorded the secret material did not mean that he intended to publish it. They argued that Petitioner recorded the material from memory in order to exercise his mind and his memory, which might have deteriorated in the conditions of isolation in which he spent a major part of his imprisonment. This strange explanation does not hold water. It is enough to look at the notebooks to see that meticulous, painstaking labour was invested in the scores of diagrams and pages of text. Moreover - whatever he had written in Hebrew he later took the trouble to translate into English. The Respondents� attorney was correct in stating that Petitioner�s notebooks were plain evidence of his intention to cause the material to be published after his release from prison. He must have written down the secret information he had stored in his mind for fear that he would forget it, and probably in order to recapitulate what he remembered, then translated it into English in order to have it accessible - or at least ready to be repeated orally - and get it published when he was released from prison.
12. As stated, the second question was discussed in camera out of the presence of Petitioner and the Petitioners� attorneys. In this context we were shown confidential opinions of experts on the subject (of which only the unclassified portions were shown to the Petitioners� attorneys). The court having studied these written opinions, it heard the experts give detailed explanations and answers to our questions. We cannot reveal the contents of these exchanges. What we can state is that having examined the notebooks, the experts concluded that the material recorded in them included not only the secret information that Petitioner gave the Sunday Times at the time, but also additional secret information which apparently he did not give the newspaper and that at any rate has never been published anywhere. This finding corresponds with what Petitioner himself said when interrogated by the security agencies (before his trial), concerning the information he had given the Sunday Times� correspondent and the newspaper�s investigators. The explanations we received from the experts persuaded us that the Respondents were correct in assuming that Petitioner still retains in his memory secret information which, if published, could damage incontestable security interests of the State of Israel.
13. Petitioner�s attorneys also protested against the severity of the restrictions imposed upon him. We agree that the restrictions are harsh and burdensome. However, we see no just cause to intervene against them.
内政部部长基于他决定离开酒吧上访
以色列州条例第6条赋予他的权力
紧急状况条例
(出国)，5708-1948。这一条例，是由国家延长的
紧急状况条例
（从国家出口）条例，5709-1948，且其出现的附件在文中称条例，规定：
内政部长可以禁止某人离开
以色列
如果有理由怀疑他的退出可能危及国家安全。
没有人会质疑每个人离开的权利的重要性
以色列
。More than five decades ago this Court determined that �a person�s freedom to move out of the country is a natural right� (正义西尔伯格内禀矫顽力111/53考夫曼诉内政部长案，IsrSC 7 534，536）。自那时以来 - 它需要提？- 这种自由已经写入了基本法：人的尊严和
自由,which determined (in section 6 (a)) that �every person is free to leave
以色列
�. But the Basic Law did not detract from the Minister�s authority embodied in the said regulation 6, which is a �valid laws�, in the sense defined by section 10 of the Basic Law. At the same time, as has been said, though the Basic Law does not invalidate regulation 6, it does affect its interpretation - hence the great caution which the Minister of the Interior must exercise in applying it, in view of the major importance of the right of the individual who is injured by its application (cf. statement my colleague总统在从当前一个不同的上下文中作出，在CMA93分之6654Binkin诉以色列国， isrsc48(1) 290,293。)�它必须通过双重考验：发令和其比例的目的。
内务部长对请愿者发布的命令经受住了双重考验。我们所看到的情况证明，请愿人如果获准离开以色列，就有可能公布他所掌握的秘密信息，如果公布，就可能危及国家安全。而且已经裁定，如果一个人出境可能危及国家安全的重大风险，内政部长有权禁止此人出境(HCJ 448/85)达希尔诉内政部长， IsrSC 40(2) 701;和内禀矫顽力4706/02萨拉诉内政部长， isrsc56(5) 695)。内政部长发布的命令是相称的。鉴于本案的情况，部长不可能只对出境权作出部分限制，因为很明显，一旦允许请愿人离开该国，国家就无法控制他的活动。然而，应当指出的是，部长只禁止请愿人在12个月的有限期限内离开该国。这并不意味着在上述期间结束时，部长将无法再颁布另一项命令，禁止请愿人在一段时间内离开该国。这意味着部长已承诺在当前禁售期结束时重新考虑请愿人退出的风险
以色列
可能危及国家安全的力量如此强大，以至于有理由发布新的禁令。
14. Concerning the purpose of the restrictions that the Head of the Home Front Command imposed on Petitioner�s freedom of movement within the State, and on his freedom to maintain contacts with others as he sees fit, we received (in camera) detailed explanations from a representative of the General Security Service. We cannot disclose these explanations, and all we can say is that the restrictions imposed on Petitioner were designed to improve to some extent the ability of the Israeli police and security agencies to supervise Petitioner so as to prevent him from using his liberty to move about freely either to violate the order forbidding him from leaving the country or to communicate the secret information he possesses to unauthorized elements. On the face of it, Petitioner�s attorneys were correct in stating that the restrictions imposed on Petitioner by the Head of the Home Front Command are not very efficient and cannot guarantee the purposes for which they were issued. But this �flaw� (which is indeed a flaw from the standpoint of the authorities) is due to the General�s decision to alleviate, as much as possible, both the substance and the scope of the restrictions to be imposed on Petitioner. For this alleviation surely the Petitioner has no cause for complaint.
15.上述理由使我得出结论，这项请愿必须不予受理。
副总统
总统巴拉克A.：
我同意这种说法。
总统
司法M. Cheshin：
我同意这种说法。
正义
如E. Mazza副总统意见所述，同意。
今天发布，8av, 5764�（04年7月26日）。
总统���������������������������������������������副总统�������������������������������������������������正义
