Supreme Court of Justice Decision No. 189/2025 – Criminal Case Concerning the Offense of Sexual Assault Committed Against a Minor

Decision No. 189/2025 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) – Criminal Case No. 189/2025 – was published in the Official Gazette No. 522 of June 4, 2025, concerning the offense of sexual assault committed against a minor (the issue is identical, however, in the case of adults as well).

Specifically:

In the case in which the complaint was filed, a woman was indicted for having, in 2022, coerced her 3½-year-old daughter “𝑠𝑎̆ 𝑖̂𝑖 𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑧𝑒 𝑣𝑖𝑧𝑢𝑎𝑙, 𝑖̂𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑝𝑒, organic, pre-computer era𝑟𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑎̆ 𝑎 𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑖𝑎 𝑐𝑢 𝑚𝑎̂𝑛𝑎, 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑢 𝑓𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑖̂𝑛𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑎̆ 𝑐𝑢 𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑒“Fonul Mobil,” 𝑖𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑎̆ 𝑠𝑎̆𝑝𝑡𝑎̂𝑚𝑎̂𝑛𝑖 𝑚𝑎𝑖 𝑡𝑎̂𝑟𝑧𝑖𝑢 “𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑖-𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑖 𝑠𝑎̆ 𝑜 𝑠𝑎̆𝑟𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑠̧𝑖 𝑠̧𝑖-𝑎 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑏𝑎 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑎 𝑎𝑐𝑒“stella.”

The court of first instance ruled that “𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑎̆ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑎̆ 𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑎̆ 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑛𝑢 𝑎 𝑢𝑟𝑚𝑎̆𝑟𝑖𝑡 𝑠𝑎̆ 𝑜𝑏𝑡̧𝑖𝑛𝑎̆ 𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡̧𝑖𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑎̆, new 𝑐𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑧𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎̂𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑎̆ 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑙 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑒.”

The prosecution has filed an appeal.

On appeal, the High Court was asked by the court (the Bucharest Court of Appeal) whether, in the case of the crime of sexual assault committed against a minor, for the elements of the offense to be met, 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐚̆ 𝐬̧𝐢 𝐢̂𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭̧𝐢𝐞𝐢 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐝 management of the company's operations𝐫𝐢𝐢 𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐢 𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭̧𝐢𝐢 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐞.

Why was this question raised ex officio? The Court of Appeals states:

– In the case of sexual assault, the legislature does not provide an exhaustive list of such acts, as it did in the case of rape (the act is committed through 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐥 𝐝𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚̆ 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐚̆ 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚̂𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥, 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐚𝐮 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐥, pre-existing conditions penetration of the vaginal wall𝐥𝐚̆);

-“In practice, the situation is𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡̦𝑖𝑖 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑡̦𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑎̆𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑖 𝑎𝑢 𝑢𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑣𝑜𝑐, 𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑧𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎̂𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒 of the natural sex – e.g., 𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑖 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑖, 𝑎 𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑟𝑖 𝑎 𝑎𝑏𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑖 𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑖, 𝑖̂𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑎 𝑜 𝑠𝑎̆𝑟𝑢𝑡𝑎 𝑜𝑟𝑖 𝑑𝑒 𝑎-𝑖 𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝑏𝑙𝑢𝑧𝑎 𝑒𝑡𝑐. – 𝑐𝑎𝑧 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒, 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑢 𝑎 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖 𝑑𝑎𝑐𝑎̆ 𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎 𝑠𝑒 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑢 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑖 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡̦𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑖 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑎̆, there is no need to worry about the 𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑎̆, which presents𝑒𝑎 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑖 𝑢𝑟𝑚𝑎̆𝑟𝑖𝑡 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑟”;

– In Constitutional Court Decision No. 92/2023, the Constitutional Court held, in accordance with its previous case law (Constitutional Court Decision No. 420/2017), that by the term “act of a sexual nature,” as used in Article 219 of the Criminal Code, the legislature intended “𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑜𝑏𝑡̦𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡̦𝑖𝑒𝑖 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑟𝑖 𝑎 𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡̦𝑖𝑒𝑖 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑒 𝑑𝑒“𝑐𝑎̂𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑡̦𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑒”.

To this we must also add an earlier decision by the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) handed down in an appeal in the interest of the law (3/2005), which has been widely criticized in legal scholarship ever since.

Professors from the law schools in Bucharest, Cluj, and Timișoara, who submitted opinions on the matter, held that sexual gratification is not a necessary element of the crime of sexual assault.

The professor's opinion Valerian Cioclei is available here: https://drept.unibuc.ro/…/1,%202025,%206.%20Valerian…

The High Court concurred, ruling that “𝐢̂𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐳𝐮𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭̧𝐢𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐢 𝐝𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐚̆ 𝐬𝐚̆𝐯𝐚̂𝐫𝐬̧𝐢𝐭𝐚̆ 𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐚 𝐮𝐧𝐮𝐢 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫, pre-zutt of art. 219¹ line. (1), line. (2) and line. (3) lit. 𝐚) 𝐬𝐢 𝐛) 𝐝𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐥 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐥, penetration and penetration𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐢 𝐧𝐮 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐚̆ 𝐬̧𝐢 𝐢̂𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭̧𝐢𝐞𝐢 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐫𝐦𝐚̆𝐫𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐮𝐢 𝐨𝐛𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐢 𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐢 𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐢 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐞.”

The Supreme Court’s reasoning states that:

– In order to identify the sexual acts that constitute the material element of sexual assault offenses committed against a minor, one must take into account the 𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐥 𝐣𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐢of this offense, which consists of social relations pertaining to the sexual freedom and inviolability, psychological freedom, bodily integrity, or even the life of the minor;

– The legislature did not include in the definition of the offense a condition regarding the perpetrator’s intent—namely, to obtain sexual gratification—which would complete the objective or subjective element of the crime, therefore, 𝐧𝐮 𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐭̧𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐩𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭̧𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐚̆ 𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐟𝐞𝐥 𝐝𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭̧𝐚̆ 𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞, since it would constitute an impermissible addition to the law, an interpretation that exceeds the intent of the legislature;

– the only criterion taken into account is the victim’s sexual freedom and integrity, and in no way the perpetrator’s motivation or intended purpose;

– The fact that the legislature did not intend to include, as an element of the offense of sexual assault against a minor, a requirement regarding the intent to obtain sexual gratification is evident from the statutory definition of the offense itself, which, in Article 219¹(3)(d) of the Criminal Code, (3)(d) of the Criminal Code provides for the commission of the offense of sexual assault against a minor for the purpose of producing pornographic materials;

– through this regulatory approach 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐮𝐥 𝐚 𝐮𝐫𝐦𝐚̆𝐫𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐚̆;

– if, in order to establish the material element of the crime of sexual assault committed against a minor, it were required that the sexual act be capable of satisfying the perpetrator, this would mean excluding acts committed by persons who are unable to derive sexual satisfaction (impotence, frigidity) or acts committed with the intent to torment or humiliate the victim and which infringe upon sexual freedom and integrity;

– Decisions No. 420/2017 and No. 92/2023 of the Constitutional Court are decisions dismissing the exception of unconstitutionality; the reasoning set forth therein is relevant and binding only insofar as it upholds the constitutionality of the statutory text and cannot alter the definition of a criminal offense;

– The aim of obtaining sexual gratification, to which the Constitutional Court refers, may serve as an indication or a point of reference regarding the existence of a sexual act in the specific circumstances in which it was committed, but it is not an indispensable element in defining it nor a condition for the existence of the crime of sexual assault committed against a minor.

In short, 𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐚 𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐳𝐚̆ 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐜𝐚̆ 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐚̆ 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐚 𝐬𝐚𝐮 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐚̆ 𝐚 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐢, 𝐧𝐮 𝐝𝐞 𝐜𝐞 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐮𝐥 𝐟𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐚 (an aspect that may, however, be taken into account, including in the determination of the sentence, any preventive measures, but especially for the assessment of the risk of recidivism, potential medical treatment, etc.).

An article analyzing judicial practice regarding the requirement that the act be intended to achieve sexual gratification (particularly in cases involving touching of the buttocks) can be read here: https://revistaprolege.ro/unele-aspecte-jurisprudentiale…/

NB: In this case, before the trial court, the legal classification had been changed from the offense of sexual assault under Article 219(1), (2)(a), (b), (c), and (2)(1), first sentence, of the Criminal Code (i.e., taking advantage of the victim’s inability to express her will, given her age), with the application of Art. 35(1) of the Criminal Code and Art. 41(1) of the Criminal Code, to the offense provided for in Art. 219¹(1), (1²), and (3)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code, with the application of Art. 35(1) of the Criminal Code and Art. 41(1) of the Criminal Code, with the application of Art. 5 of the Criminal Code, 𝐚𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮-𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐚 𝐟𝐢𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐚̆ 𝐦𝐚𝐢 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐚̆ 𝐂𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐥 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐢̂𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐠𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐚 𝐦𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐥 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚̆𝐫𝐢𝐢 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐳𝐞𝐢.

That’s to say, Law No. 217/2023 provides ever-better protection for minors…

How the more favorable law is determined is explained here: https://drept.unibuc.ro/…/1,%202024,%2017.%20George…

You can find other articles by my colleagues on Law No. 217/2023 here:

1. https://drept.unibuc.ro/ …/2,%202024,%208.%20Valerian…

2. https://drept.unibuc.ro/…/2,%202023,%206.%20Cristina…

3. https://drept.unibuc.ro/…/2,%202024,%207.%20George…

For another perspective—not necessarily a legal one—on sexual offenders, see also: https://www.juridice.ro/…/consideratii-cu-privire-la…

P.S. The first-instance judgment states, among other things, that “𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑖 𝑢𝑛𝑢𝑖 𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙, 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑎 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑎̆ 𝑎 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑖, 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑙 𝑝𝑠𝑖ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑧𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑧𝑎̆ 𝑐𝑎̆, I’m in the 3rd year of high school we can't combine them with𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑡/ to offer a𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑙𝑎 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑢 𝑢𝑛 𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑡.” I don’t know why a psychologist needed to say this, nor why we’re (still) talking about consent for sexual acts between adults and minors under 16…

The court of first instance also notes that “𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡̧𝑎̆ 𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡̧𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙 𝑠̧𝑖 𝑐𝑒𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑢𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑎̆ 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎̆ 𝑑𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙. 𝑆𝑝𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑏𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙, 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒, 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 (𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑙 𝑠𝑎𝑢 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑙 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙) pre-penetration, aggressive sexual behavior, I'm looking for a way to𝑟𝑎̆ 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑎̆ 𝑠𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑎𝑧𝑎̆ 𝑎𝑙“the term ‘rape’ is imprecise, rape can occur even without penetration.

𝐼̂𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑎̂𝑡 𝑑𝑜𝑠𝑎𝑟𝑢𝑙 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑖̂𝑛𝑐𝑎̆ 𝑝𝑒 𝑟𝑜𝑙, 𝑚-𝑎𝑚 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑎 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑖 𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑡 𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖̂𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑡̦𝑎 𝐼̂𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑖 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑡̦𝑖. 𝐶𝑎𝑧𝑢𝑙 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑖̂𝑛𝑠𝑎̆ 𝑢𝑛𝑢𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑥, 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑣 𝑑𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎 𝑎𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎̆𝑟𝑖𝑖 𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑖 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑒 𝑠̦𝑖 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑎̆𝑠𝑝𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑎̆ 𝑠̦𝑖 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑖.