DOCSLIB.ORG

European Arrest Warrants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
European Arrest Warrants EUROJUST News Issue No. 12 - September 2014 Dear reader, IN THIS ISSUE I am pleased to present the twelfth issue of Eurojust News. This issue focuses on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), the most prominent mutual recognition tool. The EAW is celebrating 10 years of exist- 1 Introduction ence, so now is a good time to consider its strengths and weaknesses, especially as the call for reform within one year has been sounded by the European Parliament. 4 History of the EAW Jan Van Gaever, a Deputy Prosecutor General in Brussels, formally introduces this newsletter with a discussion of the issues surrounding the EAW, including suggestions for its improvement and a possible 5 Eurojust and enhanced role for Eurojust. Following Mr Van Gaever’s introduction, we move on to Eurojust’s activities cooperation partners in the area, case examples highlighting the role of Eurojust and the work of Eurojust’s Judicial Coopera- Practical and legal tion Instruments Team. 10 issues The Spring Conference of the European Criminal Bar Association, held in Warsaw on 25-26 April, was entitled Legal aid – privilege for criminals or essential for fair proceedings?. A forum such as this 10 ECBA Spring Conference provides an opportunity for practitioners and experts, including Eurojust, to exchange information on topics that are relevant for the EU criminal justice area. 12 Interviews with Baroness Ludford, Eurojust hosted a strategic seminar in June, entitled The European Arrest Warrant: Which way for- Professor Weyembergh, ward?, in which leading figures in Europe’s legislative sphere gave presentations that provided valuable Professor Mitsilegas discussion points and background, and held workshops on a range of highly relevant topics. Professor and Judge Bay Larsen Anne Weyembergh gave the keynote speech at the seminar, and we were fortunate that she could spare the time to provide Eurojust News with an interview. Baroness Sarah Ludford, a former Liberal Democrat MEP from the UK, gave a keynote speech at the meeting of the Consultative Forum on the future of the European Arrest Warrant. Baroness Ludford was also kind enough to provide an enlightening interview for this issue of Eurojust News. Professor Val- samis Mitsilegas of University College London provides his perspective of the first ten years of the EAW. Judge Lars Bay Larsen of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) shares his thoughts on the development of the EAW, the protection of fun- damental human rights, and cases before the ECJ. If you have any comments concerning this issue of Eurojust News, please contact our Press & PR Ser- vice at [email protected]. Michèle Coninsx, President of Eurojust © shutterstock European Arrest Warrant 12 Introduction an Van Gaever is Deputy Prosecutor houdingsbevel in de praktijk) and is guest General in Brussels, with responsibility professor for Belgian judicial trainees and Jfor, among other things, international for national and international magistrates. EUROJUST Maanweg 174 cooperation in criminal matters. Mr Van Mr Van Gaever is also a member of the edi- NL - 2516 AB The Hague Gaever is the author of various works on torial board of the Tijdschrift voor Stafrecht criminal law, criminal procedural law and (Journal of Criminal Law). Tel: +31 70 412 5000 international cooperation in criminal mat- Fax: +31 70 412 5005 ters (including a book on the European Ar- Mr Van Gaever kindly agreed to provide an [email protected] rest Warrant in practice, Het Europees aan- introduction to the EAW for Eurojust News. www.eurojust.europa.eu EUROJUST News Mutual recognition is the cornerstone of the EAW Framework Decision. Mutual recognition implies mutual trust With regard to the Nordic Arrest War- consider the merits of the accusation. It rant (NAW), we cannot exclude the pos- might be convenient to call to mind an sibility that this system might inspire old but still valid rule applicable in ex- tradition proceedings, namely the Non- the EAW system, although one should Inquiry Rule. To paraphrase an Ameri- keepand influence in mind thatfurther the Commissiondevelopments Pro of- can judge, the Non-Inquiry Rule is the posal for the EAW Framework Decision, well-established rule that extradition entailing a system much closer to the proceedings are not to be converted NAW, did not survive the debate stage. into a dress rehearsal trial. Comparison and cross-pollination be- Belgian law prohibits surrender in the and should be carefully assessed. The event of a possible infringement of fun- leveltween of the approximation EAW and the NAWof legal is difficult norms damental rights. Although such infringe- and mutual trust between the Nordic ment is quite often invoked by defence States is more developed than within counsel in order to have surrender re- the European Union. To quote Profes- fused, these allegations are seldom ac- sor Anne Weyembergh, “When it comes cepted, especially because many of the to the abolition of the specialty principle arguments invoked bear no relation Mr Jan Van Gaever the question arises as to whether the at- whatsoever to fundamental rights. Ac- tained level of trust in the EU area is ma- cording to the established jurisprudence ‘We have been celebrating the 10th an- ture enough for such a move” (even after of the Belgian Supreme Court, courts niversary of the entry into force of the 10 years of application of the EAW). evaluate indisputably if there is a real Council Framework Decision on the Eu- and personal risk of infringement of the ropean Arrest Warrant. This might be a Instead of seeing Europe’s cultural di- requested person’s fundamental rights good time to evaluate what we have and versity as an obstacle to harmonisation, and assess if the factual background al- what we lack when considering where we we should use this to our advantage. lows the assumption of respect for these want to go. During this decade, numer- If the Commission (or Eurojust) could rights in the issuing State to be refuted. ous assessments have been carried out, lead the way to the creation of a trilin- The courts do not have to assess the level especially at EU level, safeguarding the gual European database on jurispru- of respect for fundamental rights in the advantages of the new system of surren- issuing State as they themselves are not der and resolving dysfunctions or trying important topics of the EAW system, competent to supervise the entire foreign to (e.g. the different level of implementa- dence related in a first stage to the most procedure from the moment of initiating tion in the Member States). According to other countries in trying to resolve the the proceedings to the execution of the the Commission, consolidation is the key mostwe could criticised benefit issues, from the such experience as the use of sentence. They only have to ensure that word for the coming years. Neverthe- of grounds for refusal, the use of legal there are no serious reasons for believ- less, as already indicated by, inter alia, remedies or fundamental rights. This ing that the execution of the EAW would the Commission, there is still room for might also allow a better mechanism lead to such an infringement. In general, improvement. This is certainly not an for advising on how to interpret dispo- Belgian jurisprudence has since 2004 sitions of the EAW Framework Decision evolved to a (further) restriction on the a potential EU legislative initiative. One and would lead to a better understand- application of grounds for refusal, taking shouldeasy task, be veryespecially careful when because reflecting of the real on into consideration that surrender is the risk of regression in the event of reopen- foreign judicial authorities. rule and refusal the exception. ing negotiations. The challenge is there- ing in the field on how to cooperate with fore to come to a common understanding, Mutual recognition is the cornerstone Before launching an EAW, a check should perhaps in the form of a Memorandum of of the EAW Framework Decision. Mu- be performed on trial readiness and to Understanding signed by the competent tual recognition implies mutual trust. verify if the transfer of the execution of authorities of the Member States and the It’s well known that not all executing the sentence or the transfer of proceed- Commission, which can be implemented authorities apply the same level of mu- ings to the Member State of nationality or at national level or can lead to the use of a tual trust. Belgian judicial authorities residence of the requested person would common manual with binding guidelines. have repeatedly emphasized that this be more expedient. When talking about An alternative might be a horizontal in- concept needs to remain rock solid, choosing between an EAW or MLA re- strument on mutual recognition, although leaving no margin for interpretation, quest, one should not be blind to the fact and as such does not allow courts to that it may take about 45 days to have a this option requires further reflection. 2 EUROJUST News person surrendered and that it may take tackling the situation of multiple EAW between six months and two years to requests, requiring a coherent inter- have an MLA request for the interroga- pretation of Article 16 of the EAW tion of the same person executed and re- Framework Decision and perhaps turned, with no guarantees regarding the leading to a revision of this article, quality of the interrogation. We will see providing Eurojust with a stronger what the future will bring once the Euro- role in such cases. However, one has pean Investigation Order is operational. to take into account the Commission’s EAW cases registered at Eurojust point of view not to recognize Euro- To tackle what seem to be dispro- just’s decisions as binding, despite portionate EAWs, judicial authorities the possibility offered by Article 85 of should be given the freedom to put the the Treaty on the Functioning of the execution of the EAW and the subse- European Union (TFEU).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The European Arrest Warrant Conflicts Between European and German
    The European Arrest Warrant ─ Conflicts between European and German Constitutional Law? by Beate Hoppe, Kai Werner and Jan Asmus Bischoff, Hamburg (Germany) I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 II. The European Arrest Warrant under the Treaty of Nice ............................................... 2 1. Third pillar as the legal basis for the EAW 3 2. Provisions of the EAW 4 3. Aims and Benefits of the EAW 6 III. The German Implementation Legislation and the Judgment by the Federal Constitutional Court ................................................................................................................ 7 1. The European Arrest Warrant Act of 21 July 2004 8 2. Federal Constitutional Court Judgment of 18 July 2005 8 3. Changes in Legislation and their Constitutionality 12 IV. The Treaty of Lisbon ....................................................................................................... 15 1. Legislative Competences under the Treaty of Lisbon in the field of Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters 15 2. Legislative Acts and their effect in the Member States’ legal orders 17 3. Consequences for the Arrest Warrant 18 V. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 19 I. Introduction More than ever before, the European Union influences national criminal law and national criminal procedure. Actual trends include ever closer harmonization
    [Show full text]
  • THEMIS 2017 Semi-Final a Czech Republic
    THEMIS 2017 Semi-final A Czech Republic THEMIS 2017 Semifinal A: INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS Execution of the European Arrest Warrant within Deportations from Non-EU Countries CZECH REPUBLIC Team members: Ond řejka Kocichová Kate řina Studecká Tereza Tupá Tutor: Pavel Pražák THEMIS 2017 Semi-final A Czech Republic Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2 I. Judicial and Police Cooperation .............................................................................................. 3 II. Extradition and Deportation in International Law ................................................................. 5 II.a Extradition ........................................................................................................................ 5 II.b Deportation ...................................................................................................................... 6 III. European Arrest Warrant and Regulation of International Arrest Warrant Concurrence .... 9 IV. Problematic aspects of Execution of the EAW within Deportations from Non-EU Countries .................................................................................................................................. 10 V. Possible Solutions................................................................................................................ 16 VI. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • European Arrest Warrants Ensuring an Effective Defence
    European Arrest Warrants Ensuring an effective defence a JUSTICE report European Arrest Warrants Ensuring an effective defence JUSTICE – advancing access to justice, human rights and the rule of law JUSTICE is an independent law reform and human rights organisation. It works largely through policy-orientated research; interventions in court proceedings; education and training; briefings, lobbying and policy advice. It is the British section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). JUSTICE relies heavily on the help of its members and supporters for the funds to carry out its work. For more information visit www.justice.org.uk. JUSTICE, 59 Carter Lane, London EC4V 5AQ 020 7329 5100 [email protected] www.justice.org.uk © JUSTICE 2012 ISBN 978 0 907247 54 8 Designed by Adkins Design Printed by Short Run Press Ltd European Arrest Warrants: ensuring an effective defence JUSTICE Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................7 Chapter 2 Recommendations ...........................................................................................................10 Chapter 3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................18 Chapter 4 Analysis of Case Questionnaires .......................................................................................21 Chapter 5 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................34
    [Show full text]
  • Written Evidence Submitted by Dr Helena Farrand Carrapico Associate Professor in Criminology and International Relations at Nort
    Written evidence submitted by Dr Helena Farrand Carrapico Associate Professor in Criminology and International Relations at Northumbria University (FRE0040) Thank you for your letter of the 5th of June and for the opportunity to respond to the Call for Evidence on the Progress of the Negotiations on the UK’s Future Relationship with the EU. Given that my area of expertise focuses on the governance of the European Union’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, I would like to focus my contribution on the UK-EU future relationship in the field of internal security. The United Kingdom currently takes part in the European Union (EU)’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), the world’s most integrated internal security cooperation area. This policy area was created with the aim of ensuring EU citizens and residents’ access to effective justice and fundamental rights, as well as providing protection against crime and terrorism. In order to fulfil this aim, the AFSJ is focused on improving all forms of cooperation between law enforcement and judicial authorities, including the exchange of information, the creation of centralised databases and the promotion of joint operations. Since the early 90s, the UK developed a system of opt-ins and opt-outs (Protocols 19, 21 and 36 of the Treaty of Lisbon) that allowed it, on the basis of selective participation, to substantially benefit from and contribute to the development of the AFSJ, at the same time as it has enabled the country to avoid taking part in measures which are perceived as not being aligned with its national interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Belgium and the European Arrest Warrant
    Michaël Meysman1 Belgium and the European Arrest Warrant: Is European Criminal Cooperation Under Pressure? Refusal of European Arrest Warrant Surrender in the Case Jauregui Espina as Proof of Failing Mutual Trust Abstract: In its judgment of the 19th of November 2013, Belgium’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, confirmed an earlier judgment of the so-called kamer van inbeschuldiging- stelling (KI) of the Court of Appeal in Ghent in response to a surrender demanded in accordance with a number of European arrest warrants issued by Spain. This surrender was brushed off the table by the KI on the basis of a motivation basedon themutual trust concerning thecompliance with fundamental rights within the context of European cooperation in criminal matters.2This motivation seems bound to raise eyebrows amongst those who advocate this classic tenet of cross-border cooperation.This article frames this recent judgement within a European context, and investigates whether there is indeeda European tendency to step away from blind trust in lieu of (successfully) in- voking fundamental rights to refuse cooperation. The case under scrutiny already seems to be pointing in that direction as far as the member states are concerned. Moreover, it seems to be confirmed by recent statements within the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by the Advocates General, as well as through the new procedural wind blowing through the Union with the Procedural Roadmap. On the other hand, the ECJ shows itself more reluctant than expected, giving rise to a situation in which member states 1 The author is a Researcher at the Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP) at the Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law of the Ghent University.
    [Show full text]
  • EXTRADITION EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT This Leaflet Covers: • Information About Fair Trials International • Frequently Asked
    EXTRADITION EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT This leaflet covers: Information about Fair Trials International Frequently Asked Questions The extradition process General advice on extradition It was last updated in February 2013 About Fair Trials International Since 1992 Fair Trial International has worked for the better protection of fair trial rights and defended the rights of people facing criminal charges in a country other than their own. Our vision is a world where every person’s right to a fair trial is respected, whatever their nationality, wherever they are accused. Fair Trials International was established to help people arrested outside their own country to defend their right to a fair trial. Every year we help hundreds of people and their families to navigate a foreign legal system by offering practical advice, including contacts of local lawyers; guidance on key issues encountered by people arrested abroad; and basic information on different legal systems and local sources of support. As a charity, we do not charge for any of the assistance that we provide. We believe that respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law are the hallmarks of a just society and that the right to a fair trial is at the heart of this. Sadly too many shocking cases of injustice demonstrate how, time and again, this most basic human right is being abused. We fight against injustice by lobbying for the legal reforms needed to ensure that the right to a fair trial is respected in practice. Working with our clients and international networks, we also campaign for changes to criminal justice laws which are being abused and overused.
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT This Warrant Has Been Issued by a Competent Judicial Authority. I Request That the Person Mentioned Belo
    EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT 1 This warrant has been issued by a competent judicial authority. I request that the person mentioned below be arrested and surrendered for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order. 1 This warrant must be written in, or translated into, one of the official languages of the executing Member State, when that State is known, or any other language accepted by that State. EN (a) Information regarding the identity of the requested person: Name: Forename(s): Maiden name, where applicable: Aliases, where applicable: Sex: Nationality: Date of birth: Place of birth: Residence and/or known address: Language(s) which the requested person understands (if known): Distinctive marks/description of the requested person: Photo and fingerprints of the requested person, if they are available and can be transmitted, or contact details of the person to be contacted in order to obtain such information or a DNA profile (where this evidence can be supplied but has not been included) (b) Decision on which the warrant is based: 1. Arrest warrant or judicial decision having the same effect: Type: 2. Enforceable judgement: Reference: 2 EN (c) Indications on the length of the sentence: 1. Maximum length of the custodial sentence or detention order which may be imposed for the offence(s): 2. Length of the custod ial sentence or detention order imposed: Remaining sentence to be served: (d) Decision rendered in absentia and: – The person concerned has been summoned in person or otherwise informed of the date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia or – The person concerned has not been summoned in person or otherwise informed of the date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia but has the following legal guarantees after surrender (such guarantees can be given in advance) fournies à l'avance): Specify the legal guarantees 3 EN (e) Offences: This warrant relates to in total: offences.
    [Show full text]
  • European Arrest Warrant
    MASTER THESIS Titel der Master Thesis / Title of the Master‘s Thesis European Arrest Warrant verfasst von / submitted by Madalina Covrig angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws (LL.M.) Wien, 2017 / Vienna 2017 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / A 992 628 Postgraduate programme code as it appears on the student record sheet: Universitätslehrgang lt. Studienblatt / International Legal Studies Postgraduate programme as it appears on the student record sheet: Betreut von / Supervisor: Univ.-Prof. ret. Dr. Gerhard HAFNER Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 II.Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters ................................................................................... 7 1.Case-study. Framework Decision in Belgian Criminal Law ............................................ 10 1.1. Principles of Judicial Cooperation ...................................................................... 13 1.1.1.Prevalance of International Law .................................................................... 14 1.1.2.Ne bis in idem .......................................................................................... 14 2.Judicial assistance in criminal matters .............................................................................. 19 2.1.International letter rogatory.Romanian Criminal Law .............................................. 21 III.Applicability
    [Show full text]
  • 10-201.13-Italy-EU-Extradition-Treaty.Pdf
    TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-201.13 ________________________________________________________________________ EXTRADITION Instrument Amending the Treaty of October 13, 1983 Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ITALY Signed at Rome May 3, 2006 with Annex NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 (80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)— “. .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence . of the treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof.” ITALY Extradition Instrument amending the treaty of October 13, 1983. Signed at Rome May 3, 2006; Transmitted by the President of the United States of America to the Senate September 28, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-14, 109th Congress, 2d Session); Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations July 29, 2008 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-12, 110th Congress, 2d Session); Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate September 23, 2008; Ratified by the President December 11, 2008; Exchange of Instruments of Ratification at Rome May 28, 2009; Entered into force February 1, 2010. With annex. Instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America and the European Union signed 25 June 2003, as to the application of the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Italian Republic signed 13 October 1983 1.
    [Show full text]
  • European Arrest Warrant Own Nationals
    European Arrest Warrant Own Nationals Tedrick misfires her peacefulness sidewards, sigillary and possessory. Same and allotted Ambrosius flies while unavoidable Clive cowhides her interludes incisively and whizzed intemperately. Chance fetch her valvule hereunder, translunar and unexplained. This tomb is financed with sturdy support have the Justice Programme of the European Union. Extradition arrest warrant has been arrested was filed as nationals to a european convention on that they can involve. European Arrest Warrant might secure further streamlined and improved. The new system imposed strict times limits and a more streamlined process. BY type of article. The Polish team met with the Ministry of Justice to discuss our concerns and observations about ensuring what was termed dual representation in the Commission proposal. It does not mean a person to domestic criminal jurisdiction, stored on law of justice arena for her own nationals and other lawyer will include extradition. Laws of Uganda, Cap. This warrant as national arrest warrant had never traditionally been some countries concerned that declared implementing laws. Decisions are complicated and european warrant as nationals if extradition. This makes it difficult for a fool to bankrupt a proportionality assessment in the abstract where the principle of legality is strongly favoured. There punishable by european warrant may be possible to nationals and they at various extradition? Good defence lawyer currently serving a hearing is more effectively enforced, please contact was termed dual pricing by european arrest warrant own nationals. A Brexit bonanza for fugitives from justice InFacts. The european affairs. In the person is not grant extradition of schengen area of european arrest warrant own nationals for? Convention shall be done something that lukaszewski, which reviews where action.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Fundamental Rights in Cross-Border Proceedings: Are Alternatives to the European Arrest Warrant a Solution?
    Protecting fundamental rights in cross-border proceedings: Are alternatives to the European Arrest Warrant a solution? About Fair Trials 0 Fair Trials is a global criminal justice watchdog with offices in London, Brussels and Washington, D.C., focused on improving the right to a fair trial in accordance with international standards. Fair Trials’ work is premised on the belief that fair trials are one of the cornerstones of a just society: they prevent lives from being ruined by miscarriages of justice and make societies safer by contributing to fair and effective justice systems that maintain public trust. Although universally recognised in principle, in practice the basic human right to a fair trial is being routinely abused. Its work combines: (a) helping suspects to understand and exercise their rights; (b) building an engaged and informed network of fair trial defenders (including NGOs, lawyers and academics); and (c) fighting the underlying causes of unfair trials through research, litigation, political advocacy and campaigns. In Europe, we coordinate the Legal Experts Advisory Panel (LEAP) – the leading criminal justice network in Europe consisting of over 180 criminal defence law firms, academic institutions and civil society organisations. More information about this network and its work on the right to a fair trial in Europe can be found here. Contacts Laure Baudrihaye-Gérard Ilze Tralmaka Legal Director (Europe) Legal and Policy Officer +32 (0)2 894 99 55 +32 (0) 279 23 958 [email protected] [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • European Arrest Warrant
    European Arrest Warrant European Implementation Assessment STUDY EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Author: Wouter van Ballegooij Ex-Post Evaluation Unit PE 642.839 – June 2020 EN European Arrest Warrant European Implementation Assessment On 6 November 2019, the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) requested authorisation to draw up an own-initiative implementation report on the Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (FD EAW, 2002/584/JHA) (rapporteur: Javier Zarzalejos, EPP, Spain). The Conference of Committee Chairs gave its authorisation on 26 November. This triggered the automatic production of a European implementation assessment by the Ex-Post Evaluation Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS). This study provides an assessment and conclusions on the implementation of the FD EAW. It also contains recommendations on how to address the shortcomings identified, as per the request of the rapporteur. It is intended to contribute to the Parliament's discussions on this topic, improving understanding of the subject, and ultimately feeding into the implementation report. The study concludes that the FD EAW has simplified and sped up handover procedures, including for some high- profile cases of serious crime and terrorism. A number of outstanding challenges relate back to core debates concerning judicial independence, the nature of mutual recognition and its relationship with international and EU law and values, constitutional principles and additional harmonisation measures. Furthermore, there are gaps in effectiveness, efficiency and coherence with other measures and the application of digital tools.
    [Show full text]