Practical Application of Corporal (and Capital?) Punishment in the Juvenile Justice Systems of Malaysia and Indonesia

Robin Fagan, Lia Giovanni, Anne Harris, Tess Tannehill

I. INTRODUCTION (Estimated Parts I & II will be 4-5 pages)

International standards for the treatment of juveniles in criminal justice systems are

supposed to ensure that all children, regardless of citizenship, economic circumstances, or

geographic location, are dealt with in an at least a minimally humane manner. Use of capital and

corporal punishment are forbidden by these standards as counter to humane treatment. Under

these standards, a twelve year-old child should be equally able to expect freedom from corporal

or capital punishment in any criminal justice system. What if he is caught in a suburb of Kuala

Lumpur, or a rural Terengganu, or in downtown Jakarta? Unfortunately for our twelve year-old

friend, whether he would indeed be subject to these forms of punishment, or the threat of these

forms of punishment, would vary depending on the jurisdiction in which his case is adjudicated.

This paper will explore the application in practice of corporal and capital punishment for

a juvenile caught up in the juvenile justice systems of Malaysia and Indonesia. Part II of this

paper delineates the international agreements which articulate standards for treatment of

juveniles in detention, with particular focus on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of

the Child. Part III explores the extent to which Malaysia and Indonesia have embraced these

standards in their domestic laws. Part IV provides with quantitative data regarding usage of

corporal and capital punishments of juveniles in both countries. Part V outlines alternative

rehabilitation schemes in the countries that provide options for the juvenile justice systems to

deter, punish, and rehabilitate that are compliant with the standards set by the United Nations.

Finally, Part VI discusses the extent to which the countries are complying with the international

1

standards for treatment of juveniles, the feasibility of achieving full compliance in each country,

and reforms that each could put in place to increase their compliance.

II. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND AGREEMENTS

The United Nations, as an influential international organizations working towards

international peace, progress, and human rights,1 has adopted conventions and declarations in its

General Assembly to advance its goals.2 The General Assembly is composed of all 192 members

of the United Nations,3 and the resolutions it passes are intended to provide a framework for

member states to “harmonize the actions” they take to address issues.4 In the 1989, the General

Assembly took up the issue of the human rights of juveniles and adopted resolution

A/RES/44/25, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”).5

Since its adoption, the CRC has been accepted by a 194 countries, including both

Malaysia and Indonesia.6 Malaysia acceded to the CRC on February 17, 1995.7 Indonesia

ratified CRC on September 5, 1990. In becoming parties to this convention, both countries

agreed to abide by its terms. The CRC prohibits use of both corporal and capital punishment of

juveniles. Article 37 of the CRC addresses this issue directly. Additional articles provide

clarification as to persons covered, obtain parties’ agreement on the individual dignity interests

underlying the convention, and limit a party’s ability to sign the CRC but evade its provisions.

Article 6, for example, provides general statements which identify some of the policy

behind adoption of the CRC, which the party to the convention accepts on ratification or

acceptance of, or accession or succession to, the convention in their home country. Section 1 of

1 http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml.2 http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/subsidiary/.3 http://www.un.org/en/ga/.4 http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml.5 http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r025.htm (adopted Nov. 20, 1989).6 http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en.7 http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en.

2

Article 6 explicitly demands agreement, from all the party countries, that each party

“recognize[s] that every child has the inherent right to life.”8 Article 1, Section 2, commits the

parties to agree to “ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the

child.”9 While these sections offer broad concepts of purpose and values and obtain the

agreement of CRC parties to these concepts, the detailed information about the actions that

parties must take or ban to comply with the convention are contained elsewhere in the document.

Article 1 is more specific. It identifies the age of majority at 18 years old, so that all

provisions in the CRC’s articles specifically apply to all persons under 18 years old.10 If the

child’s country recognizes an earlier age at which children reach majority, then the CRC

recognizes that earlier date.11 However, that younger age of majority must have been specified in

the laws applicable to the child, such as the child’s country’s domestic laws.12 This section also

illustrates a potential weakness in the CRC, conflicts between provisions of the CRC and a

country’s domestic laws, which may have been enacted for legitimate governmental reasons.

Article 51, Section 2 addresses directly the risk of a party using a domestic law to

circumvent a provision of the CRC. This article addresses the practice of reservations. A party

may make a declaration or statement of reservation, typically on its ratification, acceptance,

accession, or succession to a treaty.13 In a statement of reservation, a party explicitly reserves

some part of the treaty from application to itself.14 The risks of a party making a reservation to a

8 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/44/25&Lang=E, pg. 167.9 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/44/25&Lang=E, pg. 167.10 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/44/25&Lang=E, pg. 167. (For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.)11 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/44/25&Lang=E, pg. 167.12 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/44/25&Lang=E, pg. 16713 http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en#EndDec.14 http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en#EndDec. For example, the United States ratified the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en#EndDec. Article 6 of the ICCPR recognizes the death penalty as an exception to the right to life, states that abolishment of the death penalty is its ultimate objective, and binds parties that have not yet abolished the death penalty to certain

3

portion of a treaty include ambiguity, uncertainty, and implement difficulties; a party may

effectively excuse itself from a critical feature of the treaty.15 Article 51, Section 2 states that

“[a] reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be

permitted.”16 Thus limiting a country’s ability to sign on to, and surreptitiously opt of, CRC.

Neither Malaysia nor Indonesia made any reservation upon ratification or accession to CRC.

Article 37 directly addresses capital punishment and indirectly addresses corporal

punishment.17 In regards to capital punishment, 37(a) states, “[n]either capital punishment nor

life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by

persons below eighteen years of age.”18 Parties to the convention are thus agreeing to refrain

from any capital punishment of those under eighteen, no matter the circumstances of the child’s

arrest and conviction. This would include those convicted of serious offences, violent crimes,

terrorism, and involvement in the drug trade.

procedural safeguards in its implementation. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm. However, the U.S. entered a reservation on Article 6 and has not abolished the death penalty. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)(upholding the use of the death penalty). However, the procedural safeguards laid out in Article 6, such as the right to seek pardon or commutation of the death sentence, are part of the U.S. federal criminal justice system. http://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency.htm. 15 Alain Pellet, Special Rapporteur, United Nations, First Report on the Law and Practice Relating to Reservations to Treaties, 141-145, A/CN.4/470. Yearbook of the International Law Commission:-1995, vol. II(1), available at, http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_470.pdf.16 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/44/25&Lang=E.17 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37 states: “Parties shall ensure that: (a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age; (b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time; (c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances; (d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.18 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/44/25&Lang=E.

4

Article 37 reference to corporal punishment is less direct. 37(a) states, “[n]o child shall

be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”19 While

37(c) states that “[e]very child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for

the inherent dignity of the human person.”20 These statements did not explicitly label corporal

punishment as a cruel, inhuman, or degrading form of treatment, and some parties did not

interpret the language to include corporal punishment. By 2006, the Committee on the Rights of

the Child, the UN committee charged with monitoring the issue, had recommended prohibition

of corporal punishment in schools, penal institutions, and within families, to more than 130

parties.21 The Committee also lamented wide acceptance and practice of corporal punishment.22

As a result, the Committee decided to issue general comments, of which General

Comment 8(2006) was one,23 concerning violence against children to guide parties in grasping

“the provisions of the Convention concerning the protection of children against all forms of

violence.”24 The Committee stated unambiguously that CRC parties were obligated to move

quickly to prohibit corporal punishment and eliminate tolerance of all corporal punishment and

“other cruel or degrading forms of punishment” of juveniles.25 The Committee also stated that

parties must enact legislative, awareness-raising, and education measures to further these goals.26

III. DOMESTIC LAW OF MALAYSIA AND INDONESIA (Estimated will be 10 pages)

Both Malaysia and Indonesia have enacted domestic legislation to give effect to the CRC

within their own countries. Both countries also have a full panoply of laws in their domestic

19 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/44/25&Lang=E.20 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/44/25&Lang=E.21 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/G07/407/71/pdf/G0740771.pdf?OpenElement.22 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/G07/407/71/pdf/G0740771.pdf?OpenElement.23 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/comments.htm.24 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/G07/407/71/pdf/G0740771.pdf?OpenElement.25 http://tb.ohchr.org/default.aspx?Symbol=CRC/C/GC/8: “General Comment Nº 8 (2006):The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (arts. 19; 28, para. 2; and 37, inter alia).”26 crc/c/gc/8, General Comment No. 8 (2006), http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/G07/407/71/pdf/G0740771.pdf?OpenElement.

5

penal codes prohibiting and mandating conduct and prescribing punishments for failure to

comply. Both codes contain laws which allow for punishments which conflicts with the

provisions of the CRC.

A. Malaysia

Though Malaysia acceded to the CRC in 1995, and thereafter enacted the Malaysian

Child act of 2001, its criminal code still permits corporal punishment of juveniles.

(i) Malaysian Child Act 2001

The Malaysia Child Act 2001 (Act 611 of the Laws of Malaysia) is a consolidation of

three previous laws which related to child protection and juvenile justice.27 The Act’s purpose is

to ensure that protections are maintained for children caught up in the legal environment, either

the criminal justice system or child protection and care.28 The Act criminalizes actions

detrimental to the child, such as abuse, neglect, abandonment or exposing a child to physical or

emotional injuries.29 Part 2, section 3 of the Act established the National Council for the

Protection of Children, an office which advises the government on child protection issues.30 The

Council is responsible for the design of a management system to report cases of children in need

of protection and to develop programs to educate the public on the prevention of child abuse and

neglect.31 Part IV, Sections 11-16, ordered the creation of a Court for Children, to handle to

special needs of those, and only those, defendants under eighteen years.32

27http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/Child-Act-2001.pdf ; http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/protection_4209.html. The three previous laws were the Juvenile Courts Act 1947, Women and Young Girls Protection Act 1973 and http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/protection_4209.html. Child Protection Act 1991.28 http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/protection_4209.html. 29 http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/protection_4209.html. 30 http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/protection_4209.html. 31 http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/protection_4209.html. 32 http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/protection_4209.html.

6

Part X of the Act specifically sets out the “Criminal Procedure in Court for Children.”33

Some provisions clearly embody protective aspects, such as Chapter 1, mandating that children

be separated from adult prisoners, and Chapter 2, requiring a parent or guardian to attend the

legal proceedings.34 Others, however, do not, such as Chapter 3, Section 92, Manner of

Executing Whipping.35 This provision is in direct conflict with the CRC and Malaysia’s

obligations as a party to that convention. Yet Chapter 3, Section 97, does state that death

sentences shall not be imposed on prisoners who were children at the time of the offense, which

comports with Malaysia’s CRC obligations.36

(ii) Malaysian Penal Code

The Malaysian criminal law prescribes caning as an additional punishment to

imprisonment.37 Even for those convicted only of non-violent offences, such as possession of

drugs and alien smuggling.38 Those convicted of very serious offences may also have a sentence

of caning added to their term of confinement.39 For example, judges routinely included caning in

sentences of those convicted of such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and robbery.40 While the law

does exempt some person from this punishment, such as men older than 50 and all women, male

children are not an exempt group.41 “Male children 10 years of age and older may be given up to

10 strokes of a ‘light cane.’”42

33 http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/Child-Act-2001.pdf.34 http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/Child-Act-2001.pdf.35 http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/Child-Act-2001.pdf.36 http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/Child-Act-2001.pdf.37 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135998.htm.38 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135998.htm.39 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135998.htm.40 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135998.htm (“The caning was carried out with a half-inch-thick wooden cane that could cause welts and scarring.)41 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135998.htm.42 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135998.htm.

7

Some states have Shari'a laws which also prescribe caning; there are no exemptions for

females under Shari'a.43 Shari'a, administered by state authorities through Islamic courts, bind all

Muslims (many of whom are ethnic Malays). The laws and the degree of their enforcement

varied from state to state.44 Local Islamic officials cited deterrence rather than retribution as the

rationale for caning.45 They stated that the idea is to make offenders ashamed so that they will

repent and not re-offend and any injury is incidental.46 During the third quarter of 2009, the most

recent period for which information has been published. Shari'a courts sentenced four people to

caning, though none were juveniles.47

(iii) Objecting popular opinions

(TBD)

B. Indonesia

Indonesia signed and ratified the CRC in 1990. Indonesian laws protect children from

“inhumane punishment,” which has been interpreted to make corporal punishment for children

unlawful, no explicit prohibition exists. In provinces where Shari’a law has been adopted (e.g.,

Aceh), various corporal punishment methods, including flogging and stoning, are still

permitted.48

(i) Relevant Domestic Laws

43 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135998.htm (“In Shari'a caning, a smaller cane is used, and the caning official cannot lift the cane above his shoulder, thus reducing the impact. Additionally, the subject is fully covered with a robe so that the cane will not touch any part of the flesh.”)44 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135998.htm.45 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135998.htm.46 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135998.htm.47 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135998.htm.48 According to the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment Against Children.

8

The relevant domestic laws are the 1997 Children’s Court Law, the 2002/ 2003 Child

Protection Law, and the Indonesian Penal Code. Some jurisdictions, particularly Aceh, have

strong Sharia’ courts, as well.49

(ii) Objecting popular opinions

(TBD)

IV. STATISTICS REGARDING THE USE OF CORPORAL AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN JUVENILE DETENTION

(Estimated will be 10 pages)

A. Malaysia

Caning is allowed in Malaysia as an additional punishment option for at least 40 crimes,

despite the knowledge that such punishments contravene international human rights standards.

SUARAM, a Malaysian human rights group, reported in an 11 month period in 2002, thirteen

people were sentenced to whipping by the courts for various crimes typically involving sex or

drugs. SUARAM reported just two years prior the reported canings were for 53 people,

indicating the caning rates had dropped by two-thirds in just a few years.50 This statistic suggests

caning is not a common form of punishment in Malaysia, yet many local experts would suggest

this rather low number is also quite misleading. Given the common use of severe caning

punishments for illegal immigrants and those within the prison system, and milder canings for

school-children, one would expect the actual (unreported) caning statistic to be much greater.

B. Indonesia

49 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135992.htm (“Under the Shari'a court system in Aceh, 19 district religious courts and one court of appeals heard cases. The courts heard only cases involving Muslims and used decrees formulated by the local government rather than the penal code. Critics argued that Shari'a regulations were procedurally ambiguous. For example, defendants had a right to legal aid, but this right was inconsistently implemented. Although Shari'a cases were supposed to be tried in closed hearings, during the year there were numerous problems with trial proceedings going forward in open court.”) 50 www.amnesty.org; http://web.archive.org/web/20030504123553/http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGASA280032002

9

Indonesia has only recently introduced caning on the public stage and condoned the

process, with canings now allowed in Aceh province since 2005. Although there are no

published statistics, journalistic reports suggest these canings are reported at a rate of under one

per week, yet in actuality are believed to occur with greater frequency.

V. ALTERNATIVE REHABILITATION PROGRAMS

(Estimated will be 10 pages)Indonesia and Malaysia have both begun the process of implementing alternative

methods to corporal and capital punishment as punishment for crimes committed by juveniles.

MALAYSIA

In Malaysia, children under the age of eighteen may be sentenced to life in prison, be

caned, and even be sentenced to capital punishment in certain circumstances.51 For example,

Article 91(g) of the Child Act authorizes courts to “order the child, if a male, to be whipped with

not more than ten strokes of a light cane – (i) within the Court premises; and (ii) in the presence,

if he desires to be present, of the parent or guardian of the child”.52 While these options all exist,

the Malaysian government has become increasingly interested in providing alternate methods for

punishing Malaysian youth.53

The Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam)54, one of the organizations in

charge of ensuring compliance with the Child Act of 2001, has emphasized the need for

rehabilitative measures rather than violent means of punishment for Malaysian youth.55 One of

the ways in which Malaysia has shown such intent has been to create “alternative schools”.

51 Malaysia: Children’s Rights References In the Universal Periodic Review Crin Report: Malaysia Inhuman Sentencing, CHILDREN’S RIGHTS INFORMATION NETWORK (Feb. 11th, 2009), http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=22167&flag=report#aa. 52 See Article 91(g) of the Child Act of 2001. 53 See Suhakam Human Rights and The Administration of Juvenile Justice: Malaysian Human Rights Day 2008 report: http://www.suhakam.org.my/mhrd_report54 See, Charter of Suhakam on the website: http://www.suhakam.org.my/charter. 55 Welcoming Address by Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, Chairman of Suhakam. 2008 http://www.suhakam.org.my/mhrd_report

10

Juvenile offenders are sentenced to such places for a determined period of time rather than being

placed in prisons with adult prisoners. While the Child Act of 2001 requires that children need

to be placed separately from adults, a provision within the rules depends on what the local

conditions permit, therefore allowing children to be placed in adult prisons in certain

circumstances.56 The existence of the alternative schools allows for a more nurturing

environment than typical prisons, which oftentimes lack access to educational and other

important opportunities. Consequently, the significance of such a practice is considerable.

At the Henry Gurney schools in Malaysia, “alternative schools” that are limited to

juveniles only, rehabilitation program are offered that includes four phases: orientation, character

building, skills and pre-release/community work.57 Religious training and various activities are

also a part of what is available at these alternative schools. Additionally, computer labs and

state-level success for sports teams allow for the enrichment of students sentenced to such

institutions.58

INDONESIA

Indonesia has not yet implemented some of the measures taken by its neighbor, Malaysia.

The legal basis in dealing with juvenile delinquents is contained in the Juvenile Court Act

(1997). According to the Law, the judge has three alternatives in dealing with a child who

commits crimes: (i) The child may be sent back to his parents or family without any sanction; (ii)

The child may be sent to a government institution without any sanction; or (iii) The child may be

found guilty and punished. Within criminal sanctions, a court can sentence a child to

imprisonment, detention, fine, or supervision.59

56 See prison Act Section 49 (3) SMR http://www.suhakam.org.my/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=30217&folderId=236834&name=DLFE-7802.pdf57 Id. 58 Id. 59 http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No68/No68_16PA_Mardite.pdf

11

Many Indonesian children who are convicted of crimes are placed within adult detention

facilities due to overcrowding or lack of accessibility to juvenile justice centers.60 Such scenarios

allow these juvenile inmates to be at high risk for physical, sexual, and emotional abuse from the

other inmates.61

However, more recently, the Indonesian government has offered less restrictive options

for youth. In February of 2010, the government pardoned five hundred from juvenile detention

facilities saying that the best place for children is with their families.62 Additionally, the

Indonesian government is in the process of drafting a bill that would send children sentenced for

crimes to be sent to social rehabilitation homes rather than to prisons or juvenile justice centers.63

V. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, FUTURE TRENDS, AND SOME SUGGESTED REFORMS

(Estimated will be 10 pages)This section of the paper will draw heavily on our group’s field research, focusing on

current reform efforts and the feasibility of Indonesia and Malaysia becoming fully compliant

with the U.N. CRC.  While the previous section focuses on alternative forms of punishment (that

could be used in lieu of corporal punishment), this section of the paper will describe the extent to

which those alternatives have been adopted.  In addition, to the extent that they have not been

adopted, we will describe how feasible and timely future reform is likely to be.  Furthermore, we

will attempt to report on advocates’ lessons learned from previous reform efforts and perceived

implementation challenges in the future.  Overall, this portion of the analysis will be forward-

looking, as it will describe the perceived need for future reform (if any), the feasibility of that

reform, implementation challenges that will likely be encountered, and logical next steps, all of

60 http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/features/article_1568234.php/Seeking-justice-for-Indonesia-s-child-offenders-Feature61 Id. 62 See http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/sby-approves-the-release-of-500-juvenile-offenders/35949863 See infra note 56.

12

which shed light on the likelihood that Indonesia and Malaysia will become fully compliant with

the U.N. CRC in the near future.

CONCLUSION

(Estimated to be 1 paragraph)

Roles and Responsibilities

We will divide the work in a relatively straight forward manner: Robin and Tess will work on

Part 2, Robin will write part 3, Lia will write part 4, Tess will write part 6, and Anne will write

part 5.

13