HUMAN RIGHTS COURSE OUTLINE TABLE

TOPICS

I. HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS IN THE PHILIPPINES

“The Old Struggle for Human Rights, New Problems Posed by Security” by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno
Supreme Court

Human rights - inherent in humans. Removal is not possible.

Stems from the right to life right to be alive, right to the life you can enjoy
Dignity - conscience, free to speak
Develop - right to education; to enjoy sport

Terrorism led to the erosion of human rights. It was used to justify acts against human rights. US and
NATO - were forerunners of human rights, but they were also the first ones to violate these. They invaded
countries, sanction assassination of suspected terrorists and misplaced communities.

The state is supposed to be the guarantor of human rights but they were the first ones to violate these.

II. HUMAN RIGHTS, ITS ATTRIBUTES, ORIGIN AND THE THREE GENERATIONS

A. Fundamental Powers of the State:

1. Police Power
Police power- plenary, general. Because of this, there is restriction as to human rights.
Extrajudicial killings - not a police power. It is merely a police operation.
2. Eminent Domain
Taking of private property for public use with just compensation. Take note, there could be lawful taking without
just compensation when the state uses its police power
3. Taxation
Limits the rights to develop.

B. Fundamental Rights of the People

1. Classification of Rights:
1.1 As to Nature: Civil Political, Economic, Social, Cultural
1.2 As to Source: Natural, Constitutional, Statutory
1.3 Life, Liberty, Property - basic qualification

C. Due Process
1. Substantive versus Procedural
2. Standards of Review:
2.1 Clear and Present Danger Test
2.2 Dangerous Tendency Test
2.3 Balancing of Interest Test
3. Levels of Scrutiny
3.1 Rational Basis Test
3.2 Intermediate Scrutiny Test
3.3 Strict Scrutiny Test
4. Facial Challenge:
4.1 Overbreadth
4.2 Void-for-Vagueness Test

D. Three Generations
1. Civil and Political Rights
2. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
3. International Instruments

Readings:
- Art. II, Sec 5.; Art. III, Secs. 1 and 9, Philippine Constitution
- PBM Emp. Org. v. PBM Co., Inc. 51 SCRA 198 (1973)
- Why is the right to free speech more important than property rights? Because free speech pertains to the
dignity of the person. It cannot be bought by money.
- Simon v. CHR, G.R. No. 100150, 5 January 1994
 - Baldoza v. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 152 (1976)
- David v. Arroyo, 489 SCRA 152 (2006)
- Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council 632 SCRA 146 (2010)
- Alberto T. Muyot, Philippine Law and Jurisprudence on Human Rights, The Institute of Human Rights,
University of the Philippines Law Center, U.P. Law Center Printery, pages 1-5

III. STATE RESPONSIBILITY

State – guarantor of human rights

Rule of Law

State actors

International State Responsibility – wrongful acts

Derivative State Responsibility – Can a State be held responsible of acts of another State?

CASE/WORDS/PHRASES

PP v. Andre Marti GR81561 January 18, 1991

-state is the guarantor of rights. Bill of rights can be invoked only against them.

PART 1.1. What are the responsibilities of the state as the guarantor of rights

Velasquez – Rodriguez v. Honduras Inter-American Court of Human Rights, July 29, 1988 Series C, No.
(1988)
-the ones who kidnapped Velasquez were organs of the state. They were military men who brought
Velasquez in the camp in broad daylight. When they were kidnapping him, a policeman approached and
asked what their business was and never intervened.
-Sir also added that the responsibilities of the state as to protecting human rights are:
 Preserve/protect and enhance
 Investigate
 Punish
 Compensate
 And in case the body cannot be found, to continue searching for the body

Delalic, it-965-21-a, Feb. 20, 2001

Delalic et al - they did not come from the government. They were combatants. But were they considered
state actors?
Requisites of a state
Sovereignity - Yes. They can do whatever they want over the people they govern
People - Yes
Territory - Yes
Government - Yes

They can be held liable because they are acting as a state (de facto government).

The above case is embodied in Articles on State Responsibility in Article 4 which also covers de facto
governments

PART 1.2. Who are state actors - State actors are acting on behalf of the state. States act through their
agents, or state actors. Violations of human rights can only be committed by state actors. According to
Part 1, Chapter 2, Articles on State Responsibility - the general rule is that the only conduct attributed to
the State at the international level is that of its organs of government, or of others who have acted under
the direction, instigation or control of those organs, i.e. as agents of the State.

Term “international responsibility” in article 1 covers the relations which arise under international law from
the internationally wrongful act of a State, whether such relations are limited to the wrongdoing State and
one injured State or whether they extend also to other States or indeed to other subjects of international
law, and whether they are centred on obligations of restitution or compensation or also give the injured
State the possibility of responding by way of countermeasures.

The State is a real organized entity, a legal person with full authority to act under international law.
But to recognize this is not to deny the elementary fact that the State cannot act of itself. An “act of the
State” must involve some action or omission by a human being or group: “States can act only by and
through their agents and representatives.” The question is which persons should be considered as acting
on behalf of the State, i.e. what constitutes an “act of the State” for the purposes of State responsibility.

Nicaragua v. United States of America International Court of Justice,June 27, 1988

So in this case, it was asked what level of involvement should US have to make the acts of contras
attributable to them? They should have had active involvement, I.e. they should have “on the ground
presence”.

Oposa v. Factoran GR101063, July 30, 1993

The Writ of Kalikasan, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC Rule 7

PART 2. Article 2. Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State

There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission:
(a) is attributable to the State under international law; and
(b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State

There is no exception to these two elements. The question remains, is damage a necessary element? Or
fault?

In Re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1(1943)

In this case, the acts of the troops under Yamashita against noncombatant civilians could be attributed to
him because, command responsibility existed. What are the elements of command responsibility?
1. There should be superior-subordinate relationship
2. Th superior knew or had reason to know that the criminal act was about to or had been committed
3. Superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the criminal act or punsih
the perpetrator thereof.

PART 3. Attribution to the State-

The rule that the characterization of conduct as unlawful in international law cannot be affected by the
characterization of the same act as lawful in internal law makes no exception for cases where rules of
international law require a State to conform to the provisions of its internal law, for instance by applying
to aliens the same legal treatment as to nationals. It is true that in such a case, compliance with internal
law is relevant to the question of international responsibility. But this is because the rule of international
law makes it relevant, e.g. by incorporating the standard of compliance with internal law as the applicable
international standard or as an aspect of it. Especially in the fields of injury to aliens and their property
and of human rights, the content and application of internal law will often be relevant to the question of
international responsibility. In every case it will be seen on analysis that either the provisions of internal
law are relevant as facts in applying the applicable international standard, or else that they are actually
incorporated in some form, conditionally or unconditionally, into that standard.

In determining what constitutes an organ of a State for the purposes of responsibility, the internal law and
practice of each State are of prime importance. The structure of the State and the functions of its organs
are not, in general, governed by international law.

The State as a subject of international law is held responsible for the conduct of all the organs,
instrumentalities and officials which form part of its organization and act in that capacity, whether or not
they have separate legal personality under its internal law.

Article 4, Chapter 2, states: Article 4. Conduct of organs of a State

1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether
the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the
organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central Government or of a
territorial unit of the State.
2. An organ includes (A/N: not exclusive) any person or entity which has that status in accordance with
the internal law of the State.

Belgium v. Spain, (1970) ICJ Rep Barcelona Traction case –

In this case the Court differentiated the obligations of the State towards all the State (obligations erga
omnes) and towards certain states only. The former - States other than the injured State may invoke
responsibility if the obligation in question was owed “to the international community as a whole”.
Belgians’s rights as stakeholders under a company not incorporated under Belgian law cannot be
considered obligations erga omnes. Thus diplomatic protection can only be extended by the state to which
the company owes its nationality. In this case that state should have been Canada.

US v. Mexico, 4 RIAA (1926) Neer Claim

Here the Court said that the state has the responsibility to take care of persons (i.e. respect their human
rights; safeguard them) regardless of their nationality; IN CASE OF VIOLATION, conduct SUFFICIENT
INVESTIGATION (I.e. depends on the time/context) and punish those who violate human rights.

France v. Mexico, (1929) Caire Claim –

Article 7. Excess of authority or contravention of instructions. - The conduct of an organ of a State or of a
person or entity empowered to exercise elements of the governmental authority shall be considered an
act of the State under international law if the organ, person or entity acts in that capacity, even if it exceeds
its authority or contravenes instructions.

Hence in this case - that the two officers, even if they are deemed to have acted outside their competence
… and even if their superiors countermanded an order, have involved the responsibility of the State, since
they acted under cover of their status as officers and used means placed at their disposal on account of
that status.

In another case the acts should have been “carried out by persons cloaked with governmental authority”.

UK v. Albania, Corfu Channel Case, (1949) ICJ Rep

It was not proven that Albania was the one who planted the mines BUT it was proven that they knew that
there were mines in the Corfu Channel (part of their territory). Having known this they have the
responsibility to inform other states of the danger.

U.S. v. Iran (1980) ICJ Rep -

The policy thus announced by the Ayatollah Khomeini, of maintaining the occupation of the Embassy and
the detention of its inmates as hostages for the purpose of exerting pressure on the United States
Government was complied with by other Iranian authorities and endorsed by them repeatedly in
statements made in various contexts. The result of that policy was fundamentally to transform the legal
nature of the situation created by the occupation of the Embassy and the detention of its diplomatic and
consular staff as hostages. The approval given to these facts by the Ayatollah Khomeini and other organs
of the Iranian State, and the decision to perpetuate them, translated continuing occupation of the Embassy
and detention of the hostages into acts of that State.

Home Missionary Society Claim, US v. Great Britain -

Arbitral Court did not find GB liable for the killings of the missionaries in Sierra Lione. It held:

It is a well-established principle of international law that no government can be held responsible for the
act of rebellious bodies of men committed in violation of its authority, where it is itself guilty of no breach
of good faith, or of no negligence in suppressing insurrection… Finally it is obvious that the Missionary
Society must have been aware of the difficulties and perils to which it exposes itself in its task of carrying
Christianity to so remote and barbarous a people (assumed all risks).
Chorzow Factory Case, Germany v. Poland PCIJ

The Court also decided on the question: did the act of Poland resulted to an obligation that entails
reparation? The Court held yes--International law does not prevent one State from granting to another
the right to have recourse to international tribunal in order to obtain direct awards to nationals of latter
state due to the injury made by the former state. But there is nothing in the Geneva Convention which
shows that the former state will incur liability outside its violations of the said Convention (parti. Arts. 6-
22). Here, Poland’s infractions were within those articles hence Germany has the right for compensation.
The Court said reparation is the indispensable complement of a failure to comply a Convention
and there is no need to state this in the Convention itself.

It is the principle of International law that the reparation of a wrong may be consist in indemnity
corresponding to the damage which the nationals of the injured State have suffered as a result of the act
which is contrary to international law. The rules of law governing the reparation are the rules of
international law in force between the two States concerned, and not the law governing relations between
the State which has committed a wrongful act and the individual who has suffered damage.

Part 4. EXERCISE OF THE STATE’S SOVEREIGNTY IN REPRESENTING THEIR CITIZENS’ RIGHTS

UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
North America Dredging Company Claim (1926)

The subject matter here is the Calvo clause - they will have the same remedies as Mexicans but cannot
claim diplomatic assistance. They did not waive their American citizenship; you cannot contract out the
sovereignty of the state.

Chinese Flour Importer Assn. v. Price Stabilization Board 89 Phil 439

When the EO was executed by the President he was merely exercising rights of sovereignty. So that is
all right but as far as the EO provisions go against the Act’s provs, the latter shall prevail. So the rights of
old (and alien) importers (as per law) should be respected even though EO provides to allocate wheat
flour only to the Filipinos.

PP v. Chan Fook 42 Phil 230

There was unreasonable search which made the evidence inadmissible and Chan Fook acquitted. The
Court held that the state ought to recognize the rights of aliens in its land. Exercise of sovereignty should
not contravene such rights

Kwong Sing v. City of Manila 41 Phil 103

Consistent with police power (exercise of sovereignty) the state can impose laws which would regulate
conduct of foreigners. Hence the ordinance issued here requiring the issuance of receipt in Spanish and
in English is not unreasonable.

Youmans Case, U.S. v. United Mexican State 1926

U.S. vs. Panama, 6 United Rep, Intl. Arb Awards 308
Texas Cattle Case, American Mexican Claims Com. 1948
Germany v. U.S. ICJ June 23, 2001, Las Grand Case
It does not matter for this purpose whether the territorial unit in question is a component unit of a federal
State or a specific autonomous area, and it is equally irrelevant whether the internal law of the State in
question gives the federal parliament power to compel the component unit to abide by the State’s
international obligations

Whereas the international responsibility of a State is engaged by the action of the competent organs and
authorities acting in that State, whatever they may be; whereas the United States should take all
measures at its disposal to ensure that Walter LaGrand is not executed pending the final decision in these
proceedings; whereas, according to the information available to the Court, implementation of the
measures indicated in the present Order falls within the jurisdiction of the Governor of Arizona; whereas
the Government of the United States is consequently under the obligation to transmit the present
Order to the said Governor; whereas the Governor of Arizona is under the obligation to act in conformity
with the international undertakings of the United States.

Boffolo Claim, Italy v. Venezuela, 10 UN Rep Intl. Arb Awards 234 (1908)
Borovsky v. Com of Immigration, 90 Phil 107

In this case the court held that Borovksy is an undesirable agent, yes, but he must be released because
he had been in prison for 2 years already - undue delay (context: case of vagrancy only!). The state has
the obligation to find a suitable deportation destination

Li Sien Giap v. Director of Lands, 59 Phil 687

The state can create allowable class legislation for the protection and preservation of the state and its
sovereignty.

Radick v. Hutchins 95 US 210

PART 5 (for the purpose of this outline) - Article 10. Conduct of an insurrectional or other movement
1. The conduct of an insurrectional movement which becomes the new Government of a State shall
be considered an act of that State under international law.
2. The conduct of a movement, insurrectional or other, which succeeds in establishing a new State in
part of the territory of a pre-existing State or in a territory under its administration shall be considered an
act of the new State under international law.
3. This article is without prejudice to the attribution to a State of any conduct, however related to that
of the movement concerned, which is to be considered an act of that State by virtue of articles 4 to 9.

Where the insurrectional or other movement succeeds in establishing a new State, either in part of the
territory of the pre-existing State or in a territory which was previously under its administration, the
attribution to the new State of the conduct of the insurrectional or other movement is again justified by
virtue of the continuity between the organization of the movement and the organization of the State to
which it has given rise. Effectively the same entity which previously had the characteristics of an
insurrectional or other movement has become the Government of the State it was struggling to establish.
The predecessor State will not be responsible for those acts. The only possibility is that the new State be
required to assume responsibility for conduct committed with a view to its own establishment, and this
represents the accepted rule.

Par. 1 - However, the rule in paragraph 1 should not be pressed too far in the case of Governments of
national reconciliation, formed following an agreement between the existing authorities and the leaders
of an insurrectional movement

U.S. v. Guatemala, Shufeldt Claim, 1930, 5 Hackworth, p 485 2 UN Rep Arb Awards 1079 - invocation
of municipal law not allowed
Sambiaggo Case, (Italy v. Venezuela) Venezuela Arbitration of 1903,, p 666
Bolivar Railway Co v. Ralston, Venezuela Arb, of 1903 p 388 when the rebels lose - state cannot be held
liable. What if it is a three way type? And the state becomes two? - exam
U.S. v. Great Britain, US – GB Claims Arb 1920 (Nielsen Report)
Rosa Gelbtrunk Claim, US v. El Salvadsor, Arb Tribunal 1902 - claims disallowed. When the soldiers
looted Gelbtrunk’s property they were protecting the state at that time from revolutionaries. The state has
the obligation to protect and the corresponding obligation is for the citizen to help the State.
French Co. of Venezuela Railroad Case 10 UN Rep Intl Arb Awards 285 - same with Bolivar.
Kummerov Case 10 UN Rep Intl arb Award 361 - liability of the government even if not incurred by law
can be incurred through agreement.
Dix Case 9 UN Rep Intl Arb awards 119
Ambatielos Case Greece v. UK ICJ Rep 28, 952 - case on UK’s obligation to arbitrate. Yung right
rin ni Ambatielos under UK law for redress

Estonia v. Lithuania PCIJ

Rhodore Forest Claim 3 UN Rep Intl Arb award 1406

Finnish Shipowners Claim 3 UN Rep Intl Arb awards 1484
Robert E. Brown Case 6 UN Rep Intl Arb awards 120
Debenture Holders of San Marco Co 1931, 5 UN Rep Arb awards 191
Panevetzus Saldutiskis Railway PCIJ ser. A/B no. 76 At. 16 (1939)
Mavrommatic Palestine Concessions PCIJ ser A. No. 2 at 12 (1924)
IV. SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (end of coverage of exam)

a. Human Rights treaties

b. Customary law; Jus cogens, erga omnes, Actio popularis
c. General Principles of Law
Incorporation clause in the 1987 Constitution Sec. 2 Art. II
d. Judicial Decisions and Teachings
International Court of Justice
International Criminal Court
Ad hoc criminal tribunal
Regional Courts
Hybrid or internationalized courts
Marten’s Clause

CASE/WORDS/PHRASES

North Sea Continental Shelf Case (West Germany vs. Denmark and West Germany vs. Netherland, ICJ
Feb. 20 1969)
Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company, (Belgium v. Spain)
Kuroda v. Jalandoni, GR No. L-2662 March 26, 1949
Pacta sunt servanda
State’s consent to be bound
Customary law – objective and subjective elements
Opinio Juris (Opino juris sivi necessitates)
Doctrine of Customary Law
Peremtory norms (jus cogens)
Obligatio erga omnes
Universal Jurisdiction
Actio popularis
General principles of law
Yogyakarta Principles
Incorporation Clause in 1987 Constitution
International Criminal Court
Ad hoc criminal tribunals
Martens Clause

V. INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS

a. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

b. International Covenant on Civil and Political rights and 2 protocols
c. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
d. Rights and Freedoms under the International Bill of Rights
e. Judicial Writs
Writ of Habeas Corpus
Writ of Amparo
Writ of Habeas Data
f. Rights of foundling
g. Rights of nationality

CASE/WORDS/PHRASES

Pretty v. UK (2346/02) European Court of Human Rights 2002

Pp v. Cayat, GR No. L-45987, May 5, 1935
Beltran v. Sec. of Health GR No. 133640,1336611 and 139147, Nov. 25, 2005
Marcos v. Manlapus, GR No. 88211, Sept. 15, 1989 and Oct. 27, 1989
American Bible Society v. City of Manila GR No. L-9637 April 30, 1957
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance GR No. 115455, Oct. 30,1995
Sahin v. Turkey No. 44774/98 EC+HR, nov. 10, 2005
Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire 315 US 568 (1942)
PP vs. Doriquez GR No. L-24444-45 July 29, 1968
 Romualdez Marcos v. Comelec GR No. 119976, Sept. 18, 1995
Aquino v. Comelec GR No. 120265, Sept.18, 1995
Agote v. Lorenzo 142675 July 22, 2005
PP vs. Ladjaalam GR No. 136149-51 Sept 19, 2000
Poe Llamanzares v. Comelec GR 221697

VI. APPLICATION, ENFORCEMENT AND LIMITATIONS

Domestic Application of IHRL

Monist Theory
Dualist Theory

International Application of IHRL

State’s Consent to be bound Enforcement Mechanism
Against Individual
-domestic enforcement
-international enforcement

States
-Court Action
-Diplomatic means
-Retorsion
-Countermeasures
-Military intervention

Restrictions and Limitations

Parameters to restrict exercise of human rights
Proportionality test

Derogation
Conditions allowing derogation of human rights

CASE/WORDS/PHRASES

Piandong v. Phil Case No. 869-1999, Human Rights Committee

PBM Emp. Org v. PBM Co., Inc. 51 SCRA 189 (1973)
Simon CHR GR 100150, 5 Jan 1994
Carino v. Commission on Human Rights 204 SCRA 483
EPZA vs. CHR, 208 SCRA 125
Baldoza v. Dimaano 71 SCRA 152 (1976)
David v. Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160 (2006
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council 632 SCRA 146 (2010)
Orquiola v. Tandang Sora Devt. Corp, 386 SCRA 201 (2002)
Govt. of HK v. Olalia, GR 153875, 19 April 2007
PP vs. Andre Marti 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
Waterhouse Drug v. NLRC GR 113271 (16 Oct 1997)
Zulueta v. CA 253 SCRA 699
Gamboa v. Chan 677 SCRA 385 (2012)
MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay 18 Dec 2008 GR 171947-48
In re Yamashita 327 US 1 (1946)

VII. MONITORING SYSTEMS

Charter Based
1503 Procedures
1235 Procedures

Treaty Based
Human Rights Committee
Monitoring bodies
 CASE/WORDS/PHRASES

Piandong v. The Phil Case No. 869-1999 Human Rights Committee

Baroy v. The Phil Case No. 1045-2002 HRC
Pimentel v. The Phil Case 1320-2004 HRC
Marcellana and Gumanoy v. The Phil Case 1560 2007 HRC
Lumanog and Santos v. The Phil 1466-2006 HRC
Larranaga v. The Phil 1421-2005 HRC
La Grand (Germany v. USA)
Weiss v. Austria
Bondarenko v. Belarus
Jong Kyu Song v. Rep of Korea
Tae-Hoon Park v. Rep of Korea
Keun Tae Kim v. Rep of Korea
Ajaz et al. v. Rep of Korea
Toala v. New Zealand
Joslin v. New Zealand
Winata et al. v. Australia
A v. Australia
C v. Australia
G.T. v. Australia
Sahid et al. v. New Zealand
Rogerson v. Australia
Love et al. v. Australia
Gillot v. France
Koi v. Portugal

VIII. THE UNITED NATIONS

Purposes
Organs
Offices, Agencies, Programmes, Subsidiary
Bodies

IX. MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

X. PHILIPPINE LAWS ON PROMOTING THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Read all laws on Children’s rights

Sanchez v. People GR 179090, June 5, 2009
Araneta v. People GR 274205, Junr 27, 2008

XI. THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS UNDER PHIL LAWS

Read international conventions and domestics laws on women’s rights

Ang Ladlad v. Comelec GR No. 190582 Apr 8, 2010

XII. THE RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS

Read international conventions and domestics laws on migrant workers

XIII. THE RIGHTS OF DISABLED PERSONS

Read international conventions and domestics laws on disabled persons

XIV. THE RIGHT AGAINST TORTURE

Torture – define
Non-refoulement

Read international conventions and domestics laws on TORTURE

XV. THE RIGHT AGAISNT ENFORECED DISAPPEARANCES

Enforced disappearance
2 components
Persons responsibility

Read international conventions and domestics laws on enforced disappearances

Kurt v. Turkey (15/1997/799/1002) May 25, 1998 European Court of Human Rights
Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras July 27, 1988 Inter American Court of Human Rights

XVI. THE INTENATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Four Principles
The Crimes
Organs
Command

Elements of Crimes pdf

Rome Statue

Prosecutor V. Alfred Musema ICTR-96-13-T, January 27, 2000

XVII. INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

Definition
2 Components
Application
Origin
Geneva Convention
Hague Conventions
Fundamental Rules of IHL
IHL v. IHRL
Protected Persons
ICRC
Current Issues

Read what is International Humanitarian Law? ICRC

Tadic, IT-94-1 July 15, 1999 Intl Criminal Tribunal of Former Yugoslavia
Delalic IT-965-21-a Feb 20, 2001