Criminal
Trial
MUZENDA
J:
The
accused is facing a charge of Murder as defined in section 47(1)(a)
or (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter
9:23]
and the State alleges that on 24 February 2019, and at Zandoyi
Village, Bvumbura, Chief Mutambara, Chimanimani in Manicaland, the
accused unlawfully caused the death of Mejury Matiza by striking her
several times on her body with a stick, intending to kill her or
realising that there was a real risk or possibility that her
continued conduct might cause the death continued to engage in that
conduct despite the risk or possibility thereby causing injuries from
which the said Mejury Matiza died.
The
accused pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.
In
her Defence Outline, (Annexure “B”) she stated that she never
assaulted the deceased either as alleged or at all. She denies
causing the death of the deceased or act in a manner in which the
deceased's death could have been foreseeable.
According
to accused she saw deceased slip and fall hard on a rocky and stony
surface at her homestead, thereafter she observed the deceased fall
three more times. When deceased fell for the fourth time, accused
went to her aid and carried deceased home.
She
further stated that she will dispute the evidence of Gracious Matiza,
Godfrey and Joseph Matiza, in as far as it suggests that she
assaulted the deceased and caused some visible injuries.
She
indicated that she will accept the rest of the State evidence subject
to clarification of the pathological report only.
She
prayed for an acquittal.
The
facts of the matter appear from the Summary of the State case,
(Annexure “A”).
Accused
is aged 28 years, deceased was accused's step daughter aged eleven
(11) years. On 24 February 2019 at around 1230 hours, the accused was
at home with her two step daughters and her son Leon.
The
accused sent Gracious, aged ten years, to a neighbour's house.
Accused picked a stick, called deceased into the bed-room house and
whilst inside the house, assaulted deceased several times upon her
body. Deceased exited the house crying holding her head and back.
Accused sent deceased to go and fetch water. On her way to fetch
water deceased was instructed to drive a beast away from the fields,
on her way deceased fell down three times and the fourth time she
became unconscious.
Accused
took the deceased to their homestead, deceased was vomiting.
The
deceased's father, Joseph Matiza, rushed to the scene from the
garden when he heard deceased crying. Joseph enquired from the
accused what had happened but accused person denied any knowledge as
to what could have happened.
Joseph
took the deceased to Mutambara Mission Hospital whereupon arrival she
was further referred to Mutare Provincial Hospital where she was
admitted. On 9 March 2019 deceased died.
A
post-mortem by Dr Aisa Serranole concluded that the cause of death
was due to brain haemorrhage, head contusion and head injury.
STATE
CASE
The
evidence of the State witnesses namely Temba Mutsakani Manzete,
Caroline Kitsire, Innocent Zano, Shepherd Mataure, Catherine
Mvundure, Blessing Zumba, Partson Mudimbwa and Christina Chikodza was
upon the application of the State and consent of the defence counsel,
admitted in court in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure
and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].
The
confirmed warned and cautioned statement of the accused was produced
by consent and marked exh 1 the English version of the statement
reads:
“I
understood the nature of the allegations being levelled against me by
the State. I do not admit to the charge. On this day I sent the now
deceased to the well to fetch some water. On the way I further
instructed her to drive away some cattle so that they should not
enter into the field. She then slipped and fell down as she ran to
drive cattle. I approached her and she appeared to be very weak and I
lifted her and ferried her home. I did not assault the now deceased.
She was later taken by Joseph Matiza to hospital.”
The
State called Gracious Matiza, as its first witness.
Deceased
was her elder sister, and accused is the witness's step mother, to
her (Gracious). Accused was in court because she assaulted Mejury.
She did not know the offence which had been committed by Mejury that
caused accused to assault her. What she recalls was that when she
came back to her parent's homestead from the errand she had been
tasked by the accused, she heard accused calling the now deceased for
the latter to go into the house where accused was.
This
call to the deceased occurred after accused had picked a firewood
stub.
Deceased
heeded to the call and went into the house. Later, the witness heard
sounds of someone being beaten, she then observed deceased emerging
from the house crying. She was holding a five litre plastic container
in one of her hands. The witness heard accused ordering deceased to
go and drive some cattle which were about to go into the field.
She
saw deceased obliging to the order but before deceased could reach
where the cattle were, she fell, she saw her rising, stood up but
fell again for the second time, stood up once again but fell for the
third time, she managed to rise but fell for the fourth time.
At
the fourth fall she never rose again.
When
she heard the deceased being assaulted by accused inside the house,
she was standing at a distance of about fifteen metres from the
house.
She
identified the firewood stub in court as the one which was used by
accused to assault the deceased.
She
further told the court that when deceased fell accused was standing
within the yard of the family's homestead.
Accused
later went to where deceased was lying, lifted her up, tried to
console deceased and carried her to the house.
She
added that when deceased emerged from the house immediately after the
assault she observed that deceased was touching the back of her head
and also her back along the waist. She does not agree with the
accused when the latter says she never assaulted the deceased.
Under
cross-examination by Mr Chinzamba,
the witness disputed that where deceased fell is a rocky or stony
area. She also stated that she did not access the house or hut where
deceased was being assaulted but she could hear deceased screaming
whilst inside the house and simultaneously accused was hushing her to
keep quiet.
At
the time of the assault the witness could see her uncle, Godfrey
Matiza, seated at his homestead, but she would not know whether
Godfrey could hear deceased screaming.
She
also repeated what she stated in her evidence in chief that when
deceased emerged from the house where the assault took place she was
holding her left side of the head and back; did so even at the time
she went to fetch water and was still sobbing and at times cried
loudly. She also confirmed that when deceased went to drive the
cattle, she ran but still holding her back and waist.
The
witness elaborated that when deceased fell, she did so by the face
and stomach, she never fell on her back.
She
also noted that when deceased emerged from the house after the
assault she was drooling.
After
accused lifted deceased the witness noted an injury on the left side
of her belly region, Godfrey and Joseph also saw the injury.
She
also told the court that she is the one who identified the firewood
stub, she found it near the outside fireplace, the stub had been left
by the accused inside the house, she had previously seen the stick
before the assault of the deceased when accused was standing at the
door of her house.
The
witness was also questioned about the relationship of the deceased
and accused.
She
told the court that the relationship between the two had developed
into acrimony of late when she saw accused denying deceased food and
on the other occasion, assaulted her.
The
witness had since left the parental homestead and gone to stay with
an aunt in Chegutu. She concluded her cross-examination answers by
stating that from the first fall to the point where she finally
collapsed without being able to rise again was a short distance.
The
State then called Godfrey Matiza as a witness.
He
is the young brother to deceased's father. On the fateful day he
was at his homestead 40-50, metres away from the scene of the alleged
assault where he was shelling maize. He later saw deceased coming
towards his homestead crying. He remonstrated her against unexplained
crying and asked her why she was crying, she did not tell him.
He
observed her walking with one hand holding her hand on the left had
side, he saw her walking for a short distance and fell, he was at a
distance of 4-5 metres from where deceased was.
He
later heard accused ordering deceased to go and drive some cattle
which were about to go into a nearby maize crop field, as she moved
towards that field, she fell again.
She
placed the water containers down and staggered going towards where
the cattle were. She called the name of the lead ox three times after
the call, she fell again.
At
that stage accused walked through a pathway which has stones or rocks
on either side going to where deceased was lying.
The
witness confirmed that there are sparsely distributed stones around
the area but stated that the deceased fell headlong and at the place
she fell for the second time the area is grassy, the second place of
fall was 6 metres away from the first place she had fallen.
He
observed the accused lifting deceased and taking her to the house.
She placed deceased at a place where accused normally conducted her
prayers and accused started praying.
When
the witness finally followed accused to the latter's homestead, he
found deceased lying but observed drool oozing from deceased's
mouth and nostrils.
The
witness assisted deceased's father to look for transport to ferry
deceased to Mutambara Hospital. He further told the court that he
noted a fresh wound close to deceased's rib cage area when the
father was changing her clothes in preparation to take deceased to
the hospital. To the witness, the relationship between deceased and
accused was cordial.
Under
cross-examination he told the court that because of the distance
between his brother's and his homestead he did perceive deceased
screaming. When deceased approached the witness's homestead, he saw
Gracious standing by the wreck built for plates, outside the house.
Although
the witness confirmed that where deceased fell there is a stony
surface, he did not see deceased's head hitting the ground, nor
upon observing her did her discern any visible injuries on the head.
He
did not ask the accused whether she had assaulted the deceased, he
only got the information from Gracious.
He
identified the stick and handed it to the police.
The
State then called Joseph Matiza, deceased's father.
The
relationship between deceased and accused used to be very cordial but
as time moved on it became unfriendly.
On
the day in question he recalled being summoned by accused through
deceased who was sent to call the father who was at the garden. Upon
arriving at the homestead he was told by the accused that deceased
had caused his son Leon to fall. The accused did not know what
deceased had done to her son Leon.
After
the briefing, the witness went back to the garden barely had he
settled at the garden did the witness hear deceased crying he called
out to accused to establish what had caused deceased to scream, he
did not get a response from the accused, the witness resolved to go
back to the homestead to find out.
He
found Gracious standing near the wreck for the plates and observed
accused giving order to deceased to drive away the beasts. He then
saw the accused carrying the deceased in her arms. He asked the
accused as to what had happened to the deceased and accused told him
that she knew nothing that could have happened to the deceased that
led to the condition deceased was then in.
At
the time deceased was handed over to the witness, her blouse was
unravelled, it exposed a fresh injury just below her abdomen, above
the hip. The witness asked accused whether she had not done anything
to the deceased but she told him that she has not done anything to
her. He kept on asking accused that question because earlier on
accused had told him what deceased had done to Leon.
He
was asked to describe the terrain where the deceased fell and he told
the court that from his homestead going towards Godfrey Matiza's
place, there is a lawn surface but on another side there are some
gravel or stones or erosion brought about by cyclone Idai.
Under
cross-examination by defence counsel, the witness stated that from
the date he took deceased to hospital he was seeing accused after a
long period of time. After the death of his daughter he asked accused
to go and stay with her parents.
He
was asked about the injury he saw on the body of the deceased, he
remained adamant that he saw it.
Before
he left the garden for the second time, he heard deceased crying,
from a distance he saw her coming out of the house/hut, stood between
two huts where there was a wreck and when he returned to the
homestead he was surprised to see her emaciated compared to the
condition she had been.
Before
the alleged assault, deceased was healthy.
The
State then called Assistant Inspector Herbert Chari.
His
evidence is that the place where deceased stayed is stony there are
both big and small stones. Under cross-examination he stated that he
saw the place where deceased fell, if one hits against such surface
one may sustain injuries. However the place where deceased finally
fell was patchy grass. The stick allegedly used to assault the now
deceased was given to the police by Gracious.
The
State then called Constable Tinashe Chikomo, the investigating
officer in this matter.
He
drew the sketch plan which was produced by consent and marked exh
number 2. He also produced the stub, exh number 3, the certificate of
weight, exh number 4. He confirmed that the scene of the crime is
rocky. The rest of his evidence is what he heard from State
witnesses.
The
last witness to be called by the State was Dr Blessing Zamba, a
medical doctor.
He
was called specifically to assist the court in explaining the medical
terms of the post mortem.
The
post mortem showed that there were no visible wounds or injuries. The
skull indicated that there were no fractures but the left side of the
brain showed that there was significant internal bleeding, there was
clotted blood on the left side covering the entire side of the left
side, the brain was swollen, the lungs were congested because of the
nature of the injuries on the head, the head was hit against a hard
object resulting in severe brain oedema.
For
one to sustain that injury, severe force could have been used.
The
post mortem report was produced as exh number 5.
Under
cross examination, the doctor was asked if the stick, exh 3, could
have caused the injuries, he answered in the affirmative.
He
further explained that depending on the degree of force used by the
assailant and also the vulnerability of the victim, yes the stub
could have caused such an injury on the head.
The
haematoma was located on the left hand side of the head and a blunt
object cannot be ruled out. He added that if a skull could have hit
on a sharp edged stone that sharp object could have raptured the
skull.
After
the evidence of the medical doctor, the State closed its case.
The
defence counsel applied for discharge of the accused at the close of
the State case.
He
submitted that the State had failed to lead evidence which is
reliable. The State witnesses were insufficient, inconsistent and
contradictory. The State failed to prove the cause of death of the
deceased. The State failed to call a pathologist who should have
discounted the other possible cause of death like falling on a stony
area, the State thus left a number of medical questions hanging.
The
defence also submitted that the State witnesses were contradictory on
the aspect of whether there were visible injuries or not on the
deceased.
Also
there was conflicting evidence on where the stub was recovered and by
whom.
The
defence also attacked the State on whether deceased fell on a rocky
surface or not.
The
defence prayed that the accused be discharged at the close of the
State case.
In
response the State submitted an application of this nature, the test
is whether the State had managed to prove a prima facie case for an
accused to answer, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It
submitted that Gracious Matiza saw accused calling deceased into the
house holding a stub and heard deceased being assaulted and that she
was screaming. Godfrey Matiza saw the deceased crying falling down
staggering and falling down again. The doctor confirmed that a blunt
force trauma was used to inflict the injury and a stick produced in
court could have caused such an injury on an eleven (11) year old
girl.
The
State contended that the accused had a case to answer.
After
the application and State response I dismissed the application and
indicated that my reasons for such a dismissal of the application
would follow.
I
ordered that accused be put on her defence, she had a case to answer.
The
accused adopted her defence outline, confirmed warned and cautioned
statement to form the basis of her defence.
She
denies assaulting the deceased in any way.
She
admitted most of the State witnesses evidence from the falling of
Leon, her summoning of the husband from the garden, the return of the
husband from the garden, the presence of Gracious at the scene, the
sending of the deceased to fetch water, the order to drive the cattle
and the falling of the deceased on four occasions.
What
she disputes is the assaulting of the deceased and the knowledge of
the stick allegedly used on the date in question to assault the
deceased.
The
accused did not put a spirited challenge to the evidence that
deceased emerged from the house where she was crying and was seen by
Godfrey Matiza crying.
The
accused's counsel never challenged this crucial piece of evidence,
the question that remains to be probed is why was the deceased
crying?
The
next question for this court to decide is whether this court to
decide is whether the accused assaulted the deceased leading to the
injuries that ultimately caused deceased's death?
APPLICATION
FOR DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED AT THE CLOSE OF STATE CASE
The
court gave ex
tempo
ruling dismissing the application for discharge at the close of the
State case and indicated that full reasons for such a dismissal will
be provided in the main judgment. These are they.
In
the matter of S
v Kachipare
it was held:
“the
wording of section 198(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act
[Chapter 9:07] made it clear that where at the end of the State case,
there is no evidence upon which a reasonable court might convict, the
court has no discretion: it must discharge the accused. The court may
not exercise its discretion against the accused if it has reason to
suppose that the inadequate State evidence might be bolstered by the
defence evidence. The evidence in this ease was purely circumstantial
and was not evidence upon which a reasonable man might draw inference
suggested by the State. The appellant should have been discharged at
that stage of the trial.”
In
the matter of S
v Morgan Richard Tsvangirai and Others
it was held:
“In
terms of section 198(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act,
where at the end of the State case the court considers that there is
no evidence that the accused committed the offence, it has no
discretion but to acquit.
In
particular, the court must discharge the accused at the close of the
case for the prosecution where:
(a)
there is no evidence to prove an essential element of the offence.
(b)
there is no evidence on which a reasonable court acting carefully,
might properly convict.(c) the evidence adduced on behalf of the
State is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable court could
safely act on it.
Whilst
it is settled that a court must acquit at the end of the State case
where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has been so
manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely
convict on it, such cases will be rare and would occur only in most
exceptional cases where the witnesses credibility is so utterly
destroyed that no part of his material evidence can possible be
believable.”
Accused
was seen by Gracious Matiza holding a firewood stub standing at the
entrance of her house, called deceased into the house, was heard by
Gracious assaulting deceased, deceased was heard screaming obviously
in pain during the assault and when deceased emerged from the house
where the assault was taking place she was crying holding her head
and her back. Immediately thereafter she was ordered to go and fetch
water.
On
her way to fetch water she fell, rose up, staggered and fell again.
This
chain of events was chronicled by Gracious Matiza.
In
the court's view her evidence was believable and consistent. Indeed
the State had established a prima
facie
case for the accused to answer.
It
was so ordered.
WHETHER
ACCUSED ASSAULTED THE DECEASED
Joseph
Matiza, deceased's biological father during his testimony provided
very essential information that explains the reaction of the accused.
On
that day the accused threatened to assault Leon with a stick. Leon
ran towards deceased presumably seeking refuge or protection, the
deceased evaded Leon's thrust and fell. The accused was not happy
about the conduct of the deceased. She sent deceased to go and call
Joseph, the father who was attending to his garden. Joseph heeded and
went back to the homestead. He was told about the fall of Leon due to
the conduct of the deceased. Joseph did not reprimand the deceased or
comment on that. He went back to the garden.
After
a while Joseph heard deceased screaming from the direction of the
homestead. He immediately went back to find out the cause of the
crying. He tried to call out accused's name to find out what was
happening but he did not get a response.
Upon
arrival at the homestead he observed Gracious standing at the wreck
for plates. He then saw accused carrying the deceased in her arms.
From
the foregoing chronicle of events we conclude that the accused was
incensed by the fall of Leon and to her, deceased had caused
accused's son to fall. When she saw that the father had not
punished the deceased she decided to punish deceased by assaulting
her.
Gracious
Matiza, though of a tender age of eleven years, appeared
extraordinarily calm to a rigorous cross-examination by the defence
but she did not shake or prevaricate nor contradict herself. Her
story is very clear:
Upon
her return from where she had been send by the accused, she saw
accused calling deceased into the house. Accused was holding a stub
in her hand. The deceased entered the house and immediately
thereafter Gracious heard the sound of beating, contemporaneously
deceased screamed and accused was telling her to keep quiet.
Later
Gracious saw deceased emerging from the house holding her head and
back part of her waist crying.
The
deceased was sent to go and fetch water. She obliged albeit in pain
and still crying. Gracious saw her falling on four occasions, the
four occasions relating to deceased's fall are confirmed by accused
in her defence outline.
At
the time deceased was sent to go and fetch water, she was weak and at
one occasion staggered after the first fall.
The
defence contend that there was conflicting evidence on the part of
the State witnesses, but the accused seem to agree unreservedly on
what transpired from the time deceased left her (accused's) house
after the assault.
The
court is conscious to the fact that there is a single witness
pertaining to what transpired at the house where deceased was
assaulted.
In
the matter of David
Worswick v the State
the then Learned Chief Justice DUMBUTSHENA held that:
“Whenever
the court considers and assesses the evidence of a single witness,
its first duty is to examine his evidence critically. In this regard
it is salutary to pay attention to what DIEMONT JA, said in S
v Sauls and Ors
'There
is no rule of thumb test or formula to apply when it comes to a
consideration of the credibility of the single witness. The trial
judge will weigh his evidence will consider its merits and demerits
and having done so, will decide whether its trustworthy and whether
despite the fact that there are shortcomings or defects or
contradiction in the testimony, he is satisfied that the truth has
been told.
The
cautionary rule referred to by DE VILLIERS JP in 1932 may be a guide
to a right decision but it does not mean 'the appeal must succeed
if any criticism, however slender of the witnesses evidence were well
founded' (per SCHREINER JA in R v NHLAPO)
it has been said, more than once that the exercise of caution must
not be allowed to displace the exercise of common sense.'”
In
the matter of SFW
Group & Ano v Martel & Another
the technique generally employed by these courts in factual disputes
where there are two irreconcilable versions on the evidence, may be
summarised as follows:
“To
come to a conclusion on the disputed issues, a court must make
findings on:
(a)
the credibility of the witnesses. This depends on the court's
impression which in turn depends on a variety of subsidiary factors
such as -
(i)
the witness candour and demeanour in the witness box;
(ii)
his bias, latent and blatant;
(iii)
internal contradictions in his evidence;
(iv)
external contradictions with what was pleaded or put on his behalf or
with established fact or with his own extra-curial statements or
actions;
(v)
the probability or improbability of particular aspects of his
version; and
(vi)
the calibre and cogency of his performance compared to that of other
witnesses testimony about the same incident or events.
(b)
the reliability of the witnesses: this depends apart from the factors
mentioned under (a)(ii), (iv) and (v) above.
On
(i) the opportunities the witness concerned had to experience or
observe the event in question and (ii) the quality, integrity and
independence of his recall thereof.
(c)
the probabilities: this necessitates an analysis and evaluation of
the probability or improbability of each party's version. On each
of the disputed issues.
In
the light of its assessment of (a), (b) and (c), the court will then,
as a final step, determine whether the party burdened with the onus
of proof has succeeded in discharging it.
The
hard case presumably rarely occurs when a court's credibility
findings compel it in one direction and its evaluation of general
probabilities in another. The more convincing the credibility
findings the less convincing will be the evaluation of general
probabilities. But when all factors are equipoised, probabilities
prevail.”
No
one saw the accused assaulting the deceased and as such the court has
to rely on circumstantial evidence in this matter.
In
the matter S
v Reddy and Others
the South African Appeal outlines the proper approach in
circumstantial evidence as follows:
“In
assessing circumstantial evidence one needs to be careful not to
approach it upon a piecemeal basis and to subject each individual
piece of evidence to a consideration of whether it excludes the
reasonable possibility that the explanation given by an accused is
true. It is only then that one can apply the oft quoted dictum in R
v Blom
where reference is made to two cardinal rules of logic: firstly, that
the inference sought to be drawn must be consistent with all the
proved facts and secondly, that the proved facts should be such that
they exclude every reasonable inference from them, save the one
sought to be drawn. The fact that a number of inferences can be drawn
from a certain fact taken in isolation, does not mean that in every
case the State, in order to discharge the onus which rests upon it,
is obliged to indulge in conjecture and find an answer to every
possible inference that ingenuity may suggest any more than the court
is called on to seek speculative explanations for conduct which on
the face of it is incriminating.”
Having
considered the facts and the law in this case we have come to the
conclusion that accused's version that deceased sustained the
injuries after falling on a stony area is improbable and not proved
at all.
The
mere presence of the rocky or stony surface does not necessarily mean
that the deceased fell on the stone and got injured.
The
deceased was assaulted by the accused and when she fell she had been
already injured in the head. The injuries detected by the pathologist
were caused by the accused who assaulted the deceased on the head and
back.
The
accused's intention was to chastise the deceased. She however
exerted great force in so doing.
We
are unable to find accused guilty of Murder in these circumstances.
The accused negligently caused the death of Merjury Matiza, she
failed to realise that by assaulting deceased on the head using a
blunt object could result in her death. Accordingly the accused is
found guilty of contravening section 49 of the Criminal Law
(Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter
9:23],
Culpable Homicide and Not Guilty of Murder.
Sentence
Accused
is a female first offender who was a step mother to the deceased.
In
arriving at an appropriate sentence the court will factor in both the
mitigatory and aggravating features in this case.
The
sentence provided for in section 49 of the Code stretches from life
imprisonment down to a fine exceeding level fourteen.
Such
a sentence shows that the law regards a conviction of culpable
homicide as a serious offence.
Deceased
collapsed four times showing that she was in great pain and when she
fell on the 4th
occasion she never regained consciousness till she passed on.
The
nature of the head injuries also show that the force used by the
accused was severe. Efforts must be made to guard against domestic
violence moreso against young children, worse if such violence ends
up in a loss of life of a young girl. Children are the future of the
nation and life must not be lost unnecessarily as in this case.
Accordingly,
accused is sentenced as follows:
4
years imprisonment of which 1 year imprisonment is suspended for 5
years on condition accused is not convicted of an offence involving
violence to the person of another and to which accused will be
sentenced to imprisonment without an option of a fine.
National
Prosecuting Authority,
State's legal practitioners
Mugadza
Chinzamba & Partners,
accused's legal practitioners - Pro-Deo
1.
1998 (2) ZLR 271 (S)
2.
At 271G-H per GUBBAY CJ (as he then was)
3.
2003 (2) ZLR 88 (H) per GARWE J (as he then was)
4.
See also Attorney-General v Bvuma and Ano. 1987 (2) ZLR 96 (S);
5.
SC27/88
6.
1981 (3) SA 172 (AD) at 180 E-G
7.
AD 10 November 1952, quoted in R v Bellingham 1955 (2) SA 566 (A) at
569
8.
2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA)
9.
1996 (2) SACR 1 (A)
10.
1939 AD 188 at 202-3
