Talk:Alex Saab

Standard of English and translations

• The standard of English in this article is poor. I have tagged a few of the sentences that are poorly written but there are many others.
• Many of the translated quotes in the article are difficult to understand. There is a way of dealing with quotations from non-English languages (see MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE):

"Quotations from foreign-language sources should appear with a translation into English, preferably a modern one. Quotations that are translations should be explicitly distinguished from those that are not. Indicate the original source of a translation (if it is available, and not first published within Wikipedia), and the original language (if that is not clear from the context).

If the original, untranslated text is available, provide a reference for it or include it, as appropriate.

When editors themselves translate foreign text into English, care must always be taken to include the original text, in italics (except for non-Latin-based writing systems), and to use actual and (if at all possible) common English words in the translation. Unless you are certain of your competency to translate something, see Wikipedia:Translation for assistance".

Burrobert (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Twitter

We currently include twitter quotes from the Venezuelan foreign affairs minister and someone called Roberto Deniz. Twitter has some other quotes that we could include:

• Aaron Maté: "Everyone should know the name of Alex Saab. Kidnapped and tortured under US orders for the crime of trying to feed Venezuelans while under US sanctions that are designed to prevent that. The global Mafia Don in DC can’t tolerate such defiance".
• Joe Emersberger quotes Dan Kovalik as saying: "The US put pressure on Cabo Verde to arrest, detain and extradite Alex Saab for the crime of helping Venezuela overcome sanctions that are in themselves illegal"
• Max Blumenthal described Saab as "the Venezuelan diplomat who was actually kidnapped under US orders for trying to feed his people under US economic siege".

Burrobert (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

If someone looks closer at the article, they will notice that Roberto Deniz is a journalist from Armando.info, the investigative journalism web portal that first reported on Saab's relationship with the Local Committees for Supply and Production (CLAP). This is particularly important since the National Commission of Telecommunications, the regulatory government telecommunications agency, prohibited the journalists to make any mention of Saab in 2018, two years before he was arrested. The current quote from both Arreaza and Deniz illustrates the change of position by the Venezuelan administration after Saab's capture.

I don't know how much these quotes would improve the article, whose authors haven't been mentioned yet, but The Grayzone, in which both Blumenthal and Maté have been regular contributors, was deprecated from Wikipedia in 2020 (see WP:RSP), so their statements probably shouldn't be included per the same rationale. Likewise, Emersberger is a contrbiutor of Telesur and Venezuelanalysis, which have been deemed to be deprecated and as unreliable, respectively, specially for Venezuelan topics. Furthermore, their position is already covered and considered in the article, including that Saab is helping Venezuela evade US sanctions and that he has been tortured, namely by his defense and by his CNN interview, so their additions would not contribute very much to the content. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with the argument that, if a source is deprecated, then anyone who has written for that source is also deprecated. If there is a policy statement supporting your position let me know. Anyway, Dan Kovalik wrote on his own Twitter account that "The United States is putting pressure on Cape Verde to arrest, detain and extradite Alex Saab for the crime of helping Venezuela overcome sanctions that are in themselves illegal". Burrobert (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Being a contributor to a deprecated source is definitely not in itself a reason not to quote, but might make us pause and think about the rationale. The bigger issue, I think, is that there is no evidence that these tweets are noteworthy, unless they are picked up by reliable secondary sources. What makes these tweets noteworthy? The foreign minister is noteworthy as the voice of government, and there is at least one secondary source for his tweet indicating its noteworthiness. I'd delete the Roberto Deniz tweet and not add any more unless news sources cover them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Someone, somewhere should try to construct an encyclopaedia based only on tweets. It would make for interesting reading. We need to be more careful here though; even more so since this is a BLP. Burrobert (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying the depreciated source applies to the NPR affiliate citation you took down? Was it you who took it down? Am new here. I was also questioned as why I only took a particular interest in Venezuela as if there is some rule that you have to focus on multiple things. It is relevant that a voice who was present at the Saab hearing was expressing skepticism he was an informant, that counters the other narratives and is an important detail. I get why the Youtube of Alex Suarez on Saab was not permissible, it was not part of a series, am learning. But the NPR affiliate quoting Suarez? I put in notes when I cited it this time why it was relevant, it has not been explained why it was not relevant. How do I appeal the decision? Juliacohen2022 (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It was NoonIcarus who apparently thinks the NPR affiliate is depreciated, but he referred me to this thread to justify taking down the edit and I still dont see why it was taken down. Juliacohen2022 (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

My comment has nothing to do with the local source WLRN being deprecated but, and I repeat, Alex Suarez having nothing to do with Alex Saab and the importance of his statements about the case, or lack thereof, better said. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

CounterPunch

Regarding the reliability of Counterpunch, the Perennial Source list says "There is no consensus regarding the reliability of CounterPunch. As a biased or opinionated source, its statements should be attributed". The statements sourced to CounterPunch have been attributed.

A question was asked about whether something that appeared in CounterPunch was noteworthy. I think the following statement is noteworthy as it provides the reader with a list of countries which oppose the detention of Saab, something we have not done elsewhere.

Roger Harris, a board member of the Task Force on the Americas, wrote in CounterPunch that Iran, China, Russia, the United Nations, the African Union, ECOWAS, and Venezuela had written diplomatic letters to Cape Verde asking that Saab's extradition be refused based on the "principles of immunity and inviolability of consular rights".

The other statement that references Counterpunch is

according to CounterPunch, the US asked that the period allowed for its response be extended to 7 October.

This statement could be combined with an earlier sentence. The key point is the date for the response from the US. Something like :The US is required to respond by 7 October" would work.

In the earlier sentence a wikilink to the "Task Force on the Americas" has been added but the page does not exist. Burrobert (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The fact the Task Force has no WP page might be a clue to its lack of notability. Here is its page on Harris, who is a retired conservationist active in the Peace and Freedom Party. Harris' CounterPunch article in seems to have been re-posted unchanged from Dissident Voice, which I don't think has any editorial oversight: [1] If the content is not sourcable from elsewhere, maybe it isn't noteworthy? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable". Since you created the red links to Roger Harris and "Task Force on the Americas", I assume you consider them notable. I think readers would appreciate knowing the position of various countries and groups on Saab. It is the type of factual information that readers look for in an encyclopaedia. I think the article can be judged against CounterPunch's standards since it was published there. Burrobert (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The statement regarding support is misleading and should be edited accordingly. Per WP:RS/P, other sources should be added. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

How is it misleading? What actually happened? Did those countries write to Cape Verde? What are your sources? Burrobert (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is not the same as the United Nations, and the ECOWAS Court of Justice is not the same as the Economic Community of West African States, for instance. It's important that other misrepresentations don't take place (for example, if a subordinate body of the African Union showed the support instead of the entire organization, if any), as BobFromBrockley mentioned, which is the purpose of major sources in the first place. Considering this and what was said above, I'm not sure how much this statement should be trusted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

No extradition treaty between Cape Verde and the US

Apparently Cape Verde has no extradition treaty with the US. We have not mentioned that fact, which seems quite pertinent. Any thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It would be an interesting point to discuss. The legitimacy of the extradition appears to be based mostly in the INTERPOl notice, regardless of the moment when it was issued, and the fact that Saab is also sought in Colombia. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am sure there are other legal angles to consider. However, the non-existence of an extradition treaty does seem to be a relevant detail. Burrobert (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources

On what basis are CounterPunch and Al Bawaba being tagged as unreliable sources? Burrobert (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Burrobert (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Mostly BobFromBrockley's comments in its respective section, I will try to give more details briefly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe I can elaborate further. BobFromBrockley specifically said that CounterPunch's article seems to have been re-posted unchanged from Dissident Voice, which I don't think has any editorial oversight, which should be inmeidately a red flag. However, I there are some other issues at hand. Besides the misrepresentation that I explained above (The United Nations Human Rights Committee is not the same as the United Nations, and the ECOWAS Court of Justice is not the same as the Economic Community of West African States), both articles clearly lack neutrality. In the case of Counterpunch, some of the examples are the following:

• Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab remains defiant
• he is fighting extradition to the US for the “crime” of trying to procure humanitarian supplies of food, fuel, and medicine from Iran in violation of illegal US sanctions.
• Saab continues to fight this flagrant attempt of extra-territorial judicial overreach by the US.
• To begin with, Saab’s arrest on June 12, 2020, was arbitrary, illegal, and irregular.
• Such is the truly farcical legal basis for the diplomat’s detention.
• This was denied on the absurd grounds (...)
• This legal theatre around the Saab case serves as an obfuscation for what is fundamentally a political case of the US (...)
• Saab, however, remains defiant ([sic], again)

Just to to mention some. Its wording sounds more like an opinion piece than a news article, and that alone should be enough to preclude its inclusion. It should be reminded that Saab has criminal investigations open in Colombia, Liechtenstein and the United States; even if there are objections regarding irregularities or comments about due process, they should be expressed in an impartial manner.

While Al Bawaba appears to have a more neutral tone, there are still parts that are troublesome:

• Unfortunately, rather than focus on the humanitarian needs of Alex Saab the Cape Verde authorities decided to politicise a health matter and focussed instead on the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Court to rule on Mr Saab’s application.
• (...) but once again the Cape Verde authorities elected to politicise the matter rather than demonstrate the compassion which the TRB espouses in its decision of yesterday.

Fortunately, the content sourced by Al Bawaba should be more readily available someplace else.

I also see you have started a thread in the reliable sources noticeboard (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#CounterPunch and Al Bawaba), and I would have had hoped that at least a notification was left in this talk page. Regards. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• None of the points address why CounterPunch and Al Bawaba are unreliable for the specific statements that they are being used for in this article. The statements are factual, not opinion. Do you have sources which cast doubt on those statements? The statements seem fairly uncontroversial.
• You placed an unreliable tag against these two sources but then introduce a tweet as a source for a controversial claim about a third party. ﴾͡๏̯͡๏﴿ O'RLY?

Burrobert (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The reliability concerns were explained, including the lack of editorial oversight and the misrepresentation of content. Regarding the tweet, that has already been discussed above; in this case Anatoly Kurmanaev has been The New York Times' correspondent in Venezuela, and his account is verified in Twitter.

Anatoly Kurmanaev is not exempt from the policy requirement that Twitter cannot be used for controversial claims about third parties. Burrobert (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd likewise appreacite the seriousness that this matter deserves. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I've given my view at RSP. I'm pasting here what I said about Al Bawaba: I'm less familiar with Al Bawaba, but their reporting on Alex Saab seems a little off to me. As NoonIcarus notes on the talk page, their reporting in the cited article[2] seems pretty partisan. It is also almost entirely made up of quotes from the defense team, suggesting it a lot of it is copied from a press release or similar. It seems Al Bawaba has quite a large number of articles on Saab,[3] which are all basically long verbatim quotes from the defense team. The latest, "Defense Team Responds, Alex Saab, is a Victim of a Failing Judicial System in Cape Verde",[4] makes not attempt at neutral reporting. I suspect this is a case of churnalism, with the co-ordinated PR campaign using an online magazine's desire for content to seed biased opinion in the newsphere. I don't know if this is a common MO for al Bawaba, but I think it needs to be treated with extreme caution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The statements we are sourcing to Al Bawaba are simple and uncontroversial statements of fact, not opinion. Do you have any reason to suspect those statements are wrong? Burrobert (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Not specifically, I just think we can find better sources if they are true, hence the better source tag. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

For the record, this discussion led to a decision on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to deprecate CounterPunch (see WP:COUNTERPUNCH). There was no consensus on Al-Bawaba.[5] BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

'Mentioned in the Panama papers'

I removed the phrase 'mentioned in the Panama Papers' from the description 'Alex Nain Saab Morán is a Colombian businessman of Lebanese descent mentioned in the Panama Papers.' My reason is that the fact that he is 'mentioned' in the Panama papers is a detail that can't be the most important thing about him, unless it's a way to hint that he is corrupt without actually saying it, which is hardly compatible with the BLP. User:NoonIcarus reverted my removal with the edit summary 'Significant coverage of the issue'. I don't think that this justification makes sense. The Panama papers are not mentioned anywhere in the article. If this is supposed to mean that there is significant coverage of the fact that he is mentioned in the Panama papers, this isn't true - little of the coverage of Saab deals specifically with the Panama papers. If it's supposed to mean that the Panama papers are themselves significant coverage, there is no reason to mention the source of that coverage in the lede any more than an introductory sentence such as 'XY is a businessman mentioned in El País' would make sense.--79.100.149.219 (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

At present, the anon IP is right. The Papers are not mentioned in our article at all, so this should not be in the lead. If there is significant coverage, this should be covered in the article, and then could go back in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking now, I am not sure there is extensive coverage, but there seems to be in relation to the Pandora Papers. I'm looking through sources now and may add stuff, but this might be an undeveloped topic in our article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: I have expanded the information about Saab's mention in the Panama Papers. Here are some few more outlets that comment about this:[6][7][8] With the current info it might be proper to include again the information in the lead. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Category 'Colombian criminals'

As far as I can see, he hasn't been convicted of a crime by any court yet. I don't think indictments are enough to justify such a description in a biography of a living person.--79.100.149.219 (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The guy is in jail because he was kidnapped while he was traveling. And just because USA accuses him of something should not be enough to categorize him as a criminal. Also, if this is going to stay, for example we can consider Obama for the category of "American criminals" as he approved drone attacks that killed thousands people.--Andres arg (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

@Wallyfromdilbert: Hi. The image from the infobox belongs to the Broward County of Florida, as it is stated in its Commons page description, and it has been used by multiple outlets; arrests.org is merely adding its watermark. As such, I believe that there shouldn't be doubts about the authenticity of the picture and that it should be restored. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I should also mention: the photo has been in the article since 23 October; I only restored it after a copyvio image was included in the infobox and deleted shortly thereafter. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source, then that should be used for the image, rather than a source that states, "No claims to the accuracy of this information are made." Wikipedia has already had major issues in the past from using unreliably sourced mug shots. WP:BLPIMAGE also discusses these concerns. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

twitter refs need to be removed

Per WP:RSSELF, Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Per WP:TWITTER, Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves Unless the tweets are from a verified account of Alex Saab, they cannot be used as sources in this BLP. If the information that the twitter refs support cannot be verified in a reliable source, that information also needs to be removed. Schazjmd (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: All of the Twitter references have been removed by this date. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, NoonIcarus. Schazjmd (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of referenced content

@Burrobert: Despite continuing to point out my "idiosyncratic" English, you have additionally removed referenced content from the article; as such, the "Expand article" edit summary is misleading, since no content was apparently added besides the one already included, and the changes appear to consist only in a revert with minor changes. In the removed text there were several important facts, including the following:

• that according to the judicial documents Alex Saab planned to turn himself in to the authorities, per the Agencia EFE source:[9]
• that the assistance offered by the prosecution to Saab's family consisted in their exit from the country (leaving an ambiguous sentence left for the reader to wonder what it meant)
• that Judge Scola specifically ruled that "the public’s right to access criminal proceedings outweighs any concerns about his family’s safety"
• that lawyer Rivkin is participating in a proceeding in the appeals court of Atlanta, which is different from the trial in Miami.

All of the text can be consulted in the sources. Without this information, the article remains without much needed context. I have included quotes to the references that should make it easier to verify the information, but I ask you to be careful the next time and ask me if you have any concerns regarding content that you have difficulties to find. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

To describe the following sentence as “idiosyncratic” is being kind:

"Another of Saab's lawyers that sought that Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of diplomatic immunity, David B. Rivkin, rejected that Saab cooperated, arguing that the only purpose of Saab's meetings with US officials was to "confirm that neither he nor any company related to him had done anything wrong" and that the meetings were held with the "full knowledge and support" of the Maduro government, that the release of the documents were an attempt to harm Venezuela and its relationship with Saab, and that it showed that the government's case was weak".

I have broken into into a number of sentences for readability and understandability.

• The edit you linked to does contain some added material, e.g 2 x” as well as falsifying documents to obtain contracts for the construction of affordable housing”. The summary also contains my reason for removing some text.
• “according to the judicial documents Alex Saab planned to turn himself in to the authorities”. The source does not exactly say he “planned” to do this. It says he was going to surrender to the US justice. Hardly worth arguing about.
• “the public’s right to access criminal proceedings outweighs any concerns about his family’s safety”. Afaict this was not in any of the sources you were using when I removed the text. When you re-added the text you linked it to a source that I had later added. Anyway, you have found a source which is the main thing.

More idiosyncratic English, some which I have tried to rewrite but won’t bother with any more:

• “Camilla Fabri, Saab's wife, also rejected that cooperation took place in Twitter …” - we don’t normally say that people reject things “in Twitter”.
• “… Saab turned into a DEA informant in 2018 …” - “became a DEA informant” is more conventional.
• “In the audience where the documents were revealed …” - we don’t normally describe a lawyer at a trial as being “in the audience”.
• “However, during this audience, …” - people have an audience with the Pope, or with royalty. We don’t normally describe a trial as “an audience”.

Burrobert (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

As a small change for the moment, I changed "audience" to "hearing", as I recall and think that it is the closest translation to English from the Spanish word. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"Another of Saab's lawyers that sought that Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of diplomatic immunity, David B. Rivkin, rejected that Saab cooperated". Where do you come up with these sentences? I provided a simple, understandable version of this information which incorporated all the elements from the original mangled nonsense. Why reintroduce another mangled sentence? Burrobert (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The only difference of phrasing between both versions is that, on the issue of diplomatic immunity, the proposed version says "Rivkin is acting for Saab in the legal issue of diplomatic immunity before the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.", while the original version says "Another of Saab's lawyers that sought that the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of diplomatic immunity, David B. Rivkin". You can also compare it with the Spanish version of the AP article for reference: "Sin embargo, otro de los abogados de Saab que busca que una corte de apelaciones de Atlanta falle en favor de la inmunidad diplomática, negó todo tipo de cooperación." I don't see how the former is more understandable, or how the latter is "mangled nonsense", particularly since I have broken the sentence further, one of the observations. Besides that, the main difference is the position, and I honestly don't see how putting the introduction after the statement improves understandability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The current version is better than the Joycean prose referred to above. Burrobert (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that, in that case. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Alex Suarez

@Ravenswing: Since you have edited in the article, I'll ping you in this section hoping to further explain my concerns regarding this specific change. Besides the due weight concerns that I have expressed, where Alex Suarez is placed among high ranking government officials and judicial institutions, The addition remains poorly referenced: the book "The Diplomat" is nowhere to be seen in the WLRN source (a WP:SYNTH issue), and relies solely on a bare URL link from its Amazon description page, a clear primary source. I looked online for independent references that mention The Diplomat, to no avail. No independent coverage of the book has been demonstrated, as well as its relevance to be included in the article; it lacks reviews even from Amazon's own website. BLP specifically has a higher bar regarding verifiability. As such, the addition should be removed.

I should also note that the proposed change also refers to Suarez as a "Journalist/writer". None of these descriptions are used in the WLRN article, making the terms effectively unreferenced and original research. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I just came across a mention of a book using Amazon.com as source. That is not a WP:RS and therefore I deleted the sentence. The book itself can be cited if editors agree it is a WP:RS (status for which reviews, third party citations and non-self-published status would be useful). XavierItzm (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @XavierItzm:. The remaining statement is now Advocacy representative Alex Suarez was present at the hearing of Alex Saab in February 2022. This stresses the problem with the added text: this doesn't have any impact whatsoever on the trial on Saab, and Suarez does not have any relationship to Saab other than his trial. As far as I know, trials are public and any person can assist to them, meaning that Suarez also does not have any special status for being present at it. His only position mentioned is "president of the Hands Off Venezuela chapter of the University of North Florida in Jacksonville", which further suggests only a local and limited importance, contrary to a national one. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Seeing no response from the proponent for a week now, I'll proceed to remove the sentence for the stated reasons. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Funny, I was coming back exactly to check on what was going on with that irrelevant sentence. XavierItzm (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

error

Saab was not on his way to Venezuela from Iran, he was on his way to Iran from Venezuela. He had three letters in his briefcase, including one from Venezuelan President Maduro to the Supreme Leader of Iran. He still had the letters in his possession when he was arrested, obviously because he had not been to Iran to deliver them. 2600:4040:A53D:C200:D139:7CD3:28FA:D955 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right. This is something stated in the Associated Press reference, and I have changed the text accordingly. Thanks for the notice! --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

$25,000 million

This comes from the cited source translated from Spanish, but it’s not correct in any form. Is it $25 billion (which is 25000 million) or is it a mistranslation of $25 million, which makes more sense contextually? I don’t know the answer. 174.52.55.118 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)