diff --git a/build_jurisprudence_shards.py b/build_jurisprudence_shards.py
index 8d579073..3093bf79 100644
--- a/build_jurisprudence_shards.py
+++ b/build_jurisprudence_shards.py
@@ -27,9 +27,11 @@
 import json
 import re
 from collections import Counter, defaultdict
-from datetime import datetime, timezone
+from datetime import date, datetime, timezone
 from pathlib import Path
 
+import jur_paragraph_ids as pids
+
 
 ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parent
 DEFAULT_INFO = ROOT / 'mysite_pythonanywhere' / 'jurisprudence_info.json'
@@ -71,6 +73,26 @@ def paragraph_number(raw: str):
     return s
 
 
+MONTH_NUMBERS = {m: i for i, m in enumerate(
+    ('jan', 'feb', 'mar', 'apr', 'may', 'jun', 'jul', 'aug', 'sep', 'oct', 'nov', 'dec'), 1)}
+
+
+def iso_date(raw: str | None) -> str | None:
+    """'6 Apr 2018' / '17 March 2025' / '2018-04-06' -> '2018-04-06'; else None."""
+    s = re.sub(r'\s+', ' ', (raw or '').strip())
+    m = re.fullmatch(r'(\d{4})-(\d{2})-(\d{2})', s)
+    if m:
+        return s
+    m = re.fullmatch(r'(\d{1,2})\.? ([A-Za-z]{3,9})\.?,? (\d{4})', s)
+    if not m or m.group(2)[:3].lower() not in MONTH_NUMBERS:
+        return None
+    day, month, year = int(m.group(1)), MONTH_NUMBERS[m.group(2)[:3].lower()], int(m.group(3))
+    try:
+        return date(year, month, day).isoformat()
+    except ValueError:
+        return None
+
+
 def compact_document(doc: dict) -> dict:
     """Keep Tier-1 fields useful to the browser; drop body-only bookkeeping."""
     keys = [
@@ -100,8 +122,29 @@ def compact_document(doc: dict) -> dict:
         'jurisSubstantiveArticles', 'jurisProceduralArticles',
         'jurisDownloads', 'jurisLastCheckedAt',
         'firstAddedAt', 'lastVerifiedAt',
+        'outcomeFlags', 'outcomeOperativeIds',
+        # docIds of records merged into this one; old links resolve through them.
+        'alternativeIds',
     ]
-    return {k: doc[k] for k in keys if k in doc and doc[k] not in (None, '', [])}
+    out = {k: doc[k] for k in keys if k in doc and doc[k] not in (None, '', [])}
+    out.update(iso_dates(doc))
+    return out
+
+
+def iso_dates(doc: dict) -> dict:
+    """ISO 8601 twins of the free-text dates ("06 Apr 2018", "17 March 2025").
+
+    Derived here, on every build, so they cannot be lost the way the earlier
+    one-off normalisation of documents.json was.
+    """
+    out = {}
+    adopted = iso_date(doc.get('jurisDecisionDate')) or iso_date(doc.get('adoptionDate'))
+    if adopted:
+        out['adoptionDateIso'] = adopted
+    submitted = iso_date(doc.get('submittedDate'))
+    if submitted:
+        out['submittedDateIso'] = submitted
+    return out
 
 
 def is_placeholder_title(value: str | None) -> bool:
@@ -152,9 +195,10 @@ def lite_document(doc: dict) -> dict:
         'jurisCountry', 'jurisSubmissionDate', 'jurisDecisionDate',
         'jurisSubstantiveIssues', 'jurisProceduralIssues',
         'jurisSubstantiveArticles', 'jurisProceduralArticles',
-        'firstAddedAt', 'lastVerifiedAt',
+        'firstAddedAt', 'lastVerifiedAt', 'alternativeIds',
     ]
     out = {k: doc[k] for k in keys if k in doc and doc[k] not in (None, '', [])}
+    out.update(iso_dates(doc))
     title = public_title(doc)
     out['name'] = title
     out['nameShort'] = title
@@ -268,7 +312,7 @@ def load_paragraphs(doc: dict) -> list[dict]:
         original_id = item.get('ID')
         original_source_id = item.get('OriginalID')
         rows.append({
-            'id': f'{doc["docId"]}-{idx:04d}',
+            'id': None,  # label-based, set below
             'docId': doc['docId'],
             'idx': idx,
             'n': paragraph_number(original_id),
@@ -293,9 +337,47 @@ def load_paragraphs(doc: dict) -> list[dict]:
             'year': doc.get('year'),
             'outcome': doc.get('outcome'),
         })
+    for row, para_id in zip(rows, pids.label_ids(doc['docId'], [r['n'] for r in rows])):
+        row['id'] = para_id
     return rows
 
 
+def read_previous(shard_dir: Path, doc_ids: set[str]) -> dict[str, list[dict]]:
+    """The previous build's paragraphs ({id, text}) of the documents being rebuilt."""
+    previous: dict[str, list[dict]] = defaultdict(list)
+    for path in sorted(shard_dir.glob('*.json')) if shard_dir.exists() else []:
+        for p in read_json(path).get('paragraphs', []):
+            if p.get('docId') in doc_ids:
+                previous[p['docId']].append({'id': p['id'], 'text': p.get('text') or '', 'idx': p.get('idx') or 0})
+    for paras in previous.values():
+        paras.sort(key=lambda p: p['idx'])
+    return previous
+
+
+def build_redirects(docs: list[dict], by_doc: dict[str, list[dict]], previous: dict[str, list[dict]],
+                    redirects_path: Path, decisions: dict) -> tuple[dict, list[dict], list[str]]:
+    """Align the previous build to this one and update the cumulative map."""
+    update: dict = {}
+    review: list[dict] = []
+    for doc in docs:
+        old = previous.get(doc['docId'])
+        if not old:
+            continue
+        new = [{'id': p['id'], 'text': p['text']} for p in by_doc.get(doc['docId'], [])]
+        doc_redirects, doc_review = pids.align(old, new)
+        update.update(doc_redirects)
+        for item in doc_review:
+            item['docId'] = doc['docId']
+        review.extend(doc_review)
+    update = pids.apply_decisions(update, decisions)
+    reviewed = set(decisions)
+    review = [item for item in review if item['oldId'] not in reviewed]
+    existing = read_json(redirects_path).get('redirects', {}) if redirects_path.exists() else {}
+    live_ids = {p['id'] for paras in by_doc.values() for p in paras}
+    redirects, dangling = pids.merge_redirects(existing, update, live_ids, set(by_doc))
+    return redirects, review, dangling
+
+
 def main() -> int:
     ap = argparse.ArgumentParser(description=__doc__)
     ap.add_argument('--info', type=Path, default=DEFAULT_INFO)
@@ -303,6 +385,12 @@ def main() -> int:
     ap.add_argument('--treaty', help='Restrict to one treaty body, e.g. CRPD')
     ap.add_argument('--all', action='store_true', help='Build every treaty present in jurisprudence_info.json')
     ap.add_argument('--pretty', action='store_true', help='Pretty-print shard JSON for inspection')
+    ap.add_argument('--previous', type=Path,
+                    help='Shards of the previous build to redirect from (default: OUT/shards, read before overwriting)')
+    ap.add_argument('--decisions', type=Path,
+                    help='Reviewed redirects, {oldId: newId or null}, overriding provisional matches')
+    ap.add_argument('--review-out', type=Path, default=ROOT / 'jur_paragraph_redirect_review.json',
+                    help='Where to write redirects the text alignment could not settle')
     args = ap.parse_args()
 
     if not args.all and not args.treaty:
@@ -317,6 +405,7 @@ def main() -> int:
     shard_paragraphs: dict[str, list[dict]] = defaultdict(list)
     shard_docs: dict[str, list[str]] = defaultdict(list)
     all_paragraphs = []
+    by_doc: dict[str, list[dict]] = {}
     diagnostics = []
 
     for doc in docs:
@@ -331,12 +420,23 @@ def main() -> int:
         doc['wordCount'] = sum(len(p['text'].split()) for p in paragraphs)
         doc['labelCount'] = sum(len(p['labels']) for p in paragraphs)
         doc['articlesCited'] = extract_articles_cited(paragraphs)
+        by_doc[doc['docId']] = paragraphs
         shard_docs[shard_id].append(doc['docId'])
         shard_paragraphs[shard_id].extend(paragraphs)
         all_paragraphs.extend(paragraphs)
 
     out = args.out
     shard_out = out / 'shards'
+    previous = read_previous(args.previous or shard_out, set(by_doc))
+    decisions = read_json(args.decisions) if args.decisions else {}
+    redirects_path = out / 'paragraph-redirects.json'
+    redirects, review, dangling = build_redirects(docs, by_doc, previous, redirects_path, decisions)
+    legacy = pids.legacy_index(redirects)
+    for p in all_paragraphs:
+        if p['id'] in legacy:
+            p['legacyIds'] = legacy[p['id']]
+    if dangling:
+        diagnostics.append(f'{len(dangling)} redirects point at ids that no longer exist, e.g. {dangling[:3]}')
     if shard_out.exists():
         for old_shard in shard_out.glob('*.json'):
             old_shard.unlink()
@@ -345,6 +445,13 @@ def main() -> int:
     write_json(out / 'documents-lite.json', docs_lite, pretty=args.pretty)
     facets = build_facets(docs, all_paragraphs)
     write_json(out / 'facets.json', facets, pretty=True)
+    write_json(redirects_path, {
+        'scheme': '{docId}:{label}; a repeated label gets ~2, ~3; unlabelled records u1, u2',
+        'note': 'Every jurisprudence paragraph id ever published -> its current id; null: the old record was not a paragraph of the decision.',
+        'count': len(redirects),
+        'redirects': redirects,
+    })
+    write_json(args.review_out, review, pretty=True)
 
     built_at = datetime.now(timezone.utc).replace(microsecond=0).isoformat()
     shard_files = {}
@@ -393,11 +500,16 @@ def main() -> int:
                 'sha': sha256_file(out / 'facets.json'),
                 'bytes': (out / 'facets.json').stat().st_size,
             },
+            'paragraph-redirects.json': {
+                'sha': sha256_file(redirects_path),
+                'bytes': redirects_path.stat().st_size,
+                'redirects': len(redirects),
+            },
             **shard_files,
         },
         'schema': {
             'document': ['docId', 'type', 'treaty', 'symbol', 'country', 'year', 'communicationYear?', 'adoptionYear?', 'title', 'outcome', 'adoptionDate?', 'languages', 'link', 'sourceFile', 'sourceFormat', 'shardId', 'paragraphCount', 'wordCount', 'labelCount', 'caseLabels'],
-            'paragraph': ['id', 'docId', 'idx', 'n', 'paragraphId', 'originalParagraphId?', 'rawParagraphId?', 'idCorrection?', 'generatedParagraphId?', 'generatedIdReason?', 'namespace?', 'section', 'text', 'footnotes?', 'labels', 'sourceFormat?', 'ocrStatus?', 'ocrMeanConf?', 'ocrLowConfRatio?', 'type', 'treaty', 'country', 'year', 'outcome'],
+            'paragraph': ['id', 'legacyIds?', 'docId', 'idx', 'n', 'paragraphId', 'originalParagraphId?', 'rawParagraphId?', 'idCorrection?', 'generatedParagraphId?', 'generatedIdReason?', 'namespace?', 'section', 'text', 'footnotes?', 'labels', 'sourceFormat?', 'ocrStatus?', 'ocrMeanConf?', 'ocrLowConfRatio?', 'type', 'treaty', 'country', 'year', 'outcome'],
         },
         'diagnostics': diagnostics,
     }
@@ -407,6 +519,7 @@ def main() -> int:
     print(f'  documents:  {len(docs)}')
     print(f'  paragraphs: {len(all_paragraphs)}')
     print(f'  shards:     {len(shard_files)}')
+    print(f'  redirects:  {len(redirects)} ({len(review)} to review -> {args.review_out})')
     print(f'  out:        {out}')
     if diagnostics:
         print(f'  diagnostics: {len(diagnostics)}')
diff --git a/clean_extract.py b/clean_extract.py
index 3a12e6c0..ecbe2d62 100644
--- a/clean_extract.py
+++ b/clean_extract.py
@@ -46,9 +46,25 @@ def _is_separator_block(text: str) -> bool:
 # "10  Ibid., para. 11."). The "N  text" pattern with two spaces is the
 # fingerprint we use when no underscore separator is present.
 _FOOTNOTE_LEAD = re.compile(r'^\s*\d{1,3}\s+[A-Z]')
+_DECIMAL_PARA_LEAD = re.compile(r'^\s*\d{1,3}[.~]\d{1,2}\b')
 
 
-def _clean_page_text(page: fitz.Page) -> str:
+def _is_body_block_in_margin(y0: float, y1: float, text: str) -> bool:
+    """A margin-band block that is body text, not a running header or footer.
+
+    PyMuPDF blocks are whole paragraphs, so a paragraph that starts near the
+    top of a page (y0 < TOP_MARGIN_Y) or a short one at the very bottom
+    (y0 > BOTTOM_MARGIN_Y) would otherwise be dropped whole. Older and
+    re-typeset jurisprudence PDFs put body text there (CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992
+    paras. 5.1 and 8.2, CCPR/C/18/D/74/1980 paras. 1.3 and 9.2).
+    """
+    if _DECIMAL_PARA_LEAD.match(text):
+        return True
+    lines = [l for l in text.splitlines() if l.strip()]
+    return y0 < TOP_MARGIN_Y and y1 > TOP_MARGIN_Y + 15 and len(lines) >= 2
+
+
+def _clean_page_text(page: fitz.Page, keep_body_in_margins: bool = False, blocks: list | None = None) -> str:
     """Return the page's body text with headers, footers and footnotes stripped.
 
     Detection strategy (combined — first applicable rule wins):
@@ -61,15 +77,22 @@ def _clean_page_text(page: fitz.Page) -> str:
          x-indent for this page; any block whose x0 differs and whose first
          line matches the "N <text>" footnote-marker pattern → treat as
          footnote AND drop every following block.
+
+    With keep_body_in_margins, rule A spares margin-band blocks that look like
+    body text (see _is_body_block_in_margin). Jurisprudence ingestion uses it,
+    and passes its own `blocks` (page.get_text("blocks") tuples whose text
+    carries footnote markers); the GC/SP callers keep the original behaviour.
     """
-    blocks = page.get_text("blocks")
+    if blocks is None:
+        blocks = page.get_text("blocks")
 
     # First pass: filter by y-band, keep raw block tuples.
     in_band = []
     for b in blocks:
         x0, y0, x1, y1, text, *_ = b
         if y0 < TOP_MARGIN_Y or y0 > BOTTOM_MARGIN_Y:
-            continue
+            if not (keep_body_in_margins and text and _is_body_block_in_margin(y0, y1, text)):
+                continue
         if not (text and text.strip()):
             continue
         in_band.append((y0, x0, text))
diff --git a/docs/assets/app.css b/docs/assets/app.css
index 84a1ef7c..1cbd1ae3 100644
--- a/docs/assets/app.css
+++ b/docs/assets/app.css
@@ -5658,6 +5658,24 @@ body.is-corpus-loading #q { cursor: progress; }
   outline: 0;
 }
 
+/* v19.81: notes whose reference OCR garbled, listed under the paragraph. */
+.fn-unanchored {
+  margin-top: 6px;
+  padding-top: 4px;
+  border-top: 1px dashed var(--rule-soft);
+  font-size: 0.85em;
+  color: var(--ink-3);
+}
+/* In the reader the paragraph is a two-column grid (gutter | text): keep
+   the list under the text, not in the gutter. */
+.docs-reader-para > .fn-unanchored { grid-column: 2; margin-top: -10px; }
+.fn-unanchored-label {
+  font-family: var(--mono);
+  font-size: 10px;
+  letter-spacing: 0.04em;
+  margin-right: 4px;
+}
+
 .fn-popover {
   position: absolute;
   z-index: 9000;
diff --git a/docs/assets/app.js b/docs/assets/app.js
index 80264904..e30ede38 100644
--- a/docs/assets/app.js
+++ b/docs/assets/app.js
@@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ const state = {
   manifest: null,
   paragraphs: [],
   paragraphById: new Map(),     // id → paragraph, for O(1) FlexSearch hydration
+  paraIdAlias: new Map(),       // v19.80: superseded JUR paragraph id → canonical id
+                                // (null = record removed), from shard legacyIds and
+                                // /api/paragraph redirects — see resolveParagraphId
   documents: new Map(),
   facets: null,
   baseFacets: null,
@@ -244,6 +247,7 @@ async function _apiGet(base, path, params, timeoutMs) {
       const error = new Error(message);
       error.status = res.status;
       error.detail = detail;
+      error.payload = payload;   // v19.80: /api/paragraph 404s carry {doc_id, removed}
       throw error;
     }
     return await res.json();
@@ -474,6 +478,7 @@ async function fetchSearchPage(params) {
 // shape has to satisfy paintDossier + renderResult + workspace marks
 // without further conditional logic in those code paths.
 function adaptApiHit(h) {
+  _registerLegacyParaIds({ id: h.para_id, legacyIds: h.legacy_ids });   // v19.80, when the server sends them
   const year = documentResearchYear({
     type: h.type,
     year: h.year,
@@ -584,7 +589,11 @@ const URL_KEYS = { q: 'q', scope: 'scope', tb: 'tb', g: 'g', gm: 'gm', y1: 'y1',
 function documentIdForParagraphId(paraId) {
   if (!paraId) return null;
   const id = String(paraId);
-  const positional = id.replace(/-\d{4}$/, '');
+  // v19.80: JUR paragraph ids are label-based, "<docId>:<label>". A colon
+  // never occurs in a docId or a label, so the docId is everything before
+  // the first one. GC / SP (and legacy JUR) ids stay positional "<docId>-NNNN".
+  const colon = id.indexOf(':');
+  const positional = colon > 0 ? id.slice(0, colon) : id.replace(/-\d{4}$/, '');
   if (state.documents.has(positional)) return positional;
 
   // A merged duplicate keeps its old id alive through alternativeIds
@@ -593,6 +602,7 @@ function documentIdForParagraphId(paraId) {
   for (const d of state.documents.values()) {
     if (Array.isArray(d.alternativeIds) && d.alternativeIds.includes(positional)) return d.docId;
   }
+  if (colon > 0) return null;
 
   // Defensive fallback for legacy/non-positional paragraph IDs: choose the
   // longest document-id prefix so similarly named documents cannot collide.
@@ -603,6 +613,69 @@ function documentIdForParagraphId(paraId) {
   return best;
 }
 
+// True when paraId names a paragraph of docId, in either id scheme:
+// positional "<docId>-NNNN" (GC, SP, legacy JUR) or "<docId>:<label>" (JUR).
+function _paraIdInDoc(paraId, docId) {
+  if (!paraId || !docId) return false;
+  const id = String(paraId);
+  return id.startsWith(docId + '-') || id.startsWith(docId + ':');
+}
+
+// v19.80: index a JUR paragraph's superseded ids (shard `legacyIds`: its old
+// positional id plus any earlier label ids) so links and saved items made
+// under them still land on it. Called wherever a JUR paragraph enters
+// state.paragraphById. Returns how many ids were indexed.
+function _registerLegacyParaIds(p) {
+  const ids = p?.legacyIds || p?.legacy_ids;
+  if (!p?.id || !Array.isArray(ids)) return 0;
+  let n = 0;
+  for (const old of ids) {
+    if (old && old !== p.id) { state.paraIdAlias.set(old, p.id); n++; }
+  }
+  return n;
+}
+
+// v19.80: the one resolver for paragraph ids that come from outside this
+// session — ?p= links, workspace bookmarks / notes / pins, citation, related
+// and ask-source rows. JUR ids changed from positional to label-based in the
+// 2026-10 re-ingest; GC and SP ids never change. Resolves to
+//   - the id itself when it is a loaded paragraph or not a JUR id,
+//   - the canonical id when the shard legacyIds or /api/paragraph know it,
+//   - null when the old record was removed (not a paragraph of the
+//     decision) — callers fall back to the document,
+//   - the id unchanged when nothing is known (API offline, shard not yet
+//     loaded); that outcome is not cached, so a later call can still win.
+// The 9 MB paragraph-redirects.json is deliberately not loaded here.
+const _paraIdResolving = new Map();   // id → in-flight Promise
+async function resolveParagraphId(paraId) {
+  if (!paraId) return paraId;
+  const id = String(paraId);
+  if (state.paragraphById.has(id)) return id;
+  if (state.paraIdAlias.has(id)) return state.paraIdAlias.get(id);
+  const doc = state.documents.get(documentIdForParagraphId(id) || '');
+  if (doc?.type !== 'jur') return id;
+  if (!apiEnabled() || state.apiOnline === false) return id;
+  if (_paraIdResolving.has(id)) return _paraIdResolving.get(id);
+  const run = (async () => {
+    let canon;
+    try {
+      const body = await apiFetch(`/api/paragraph/${encodeURIComponent(id)}`);
+      canon = body?.para_id || id;
+      // Keep the body so a workspace row can show it before the shard loads.
+      if (!state.paragraphById.has(canon)) state.paragraphById.set(canon, adaptApiHit(body));
+    } catch (e) {
+      if (e.status !== 404) return id;            // network / server error: retry later
+      // `removed` may sit at the top level or inside FastAPI's `detail`.
+      canon = (e.payload?.removed || e.detail?.removed) ? null : id;   // else remember the miss
+    }
+    state.paraIdAlias.set(id, canon);
+    if (canon && canon !== id) _wsMigrateParaIds();
+    return canon;
+  })().finally(() => _paraIdResolving.delete(id));
+  _paraIdResolving.set(id, run);
+  return run;
+}
+
 function paragraphPermalink(para, { preserveSearch = false } = {}) {
   const paraId = para?.id;
   if (!paraId) return null;
@@ -655,6 +728,9 @@ function upgradeLegacyParagraphLink() {
   if (positional && positional !== docId) {
     url.searchParams.set(URL_KEYS.p, docId + paraId.slice(positional.length));
   }
+  // A superseded JUR id ("<docId>-NNNN" or an earlier label) keeps its
+  // docId, so routing it to the document is enough here; openDocReader
+  // swaps in the canonical id once the shard (and its legacyIds) is in.
   url.hash = `documents/${encodeURIComponent(docId)}`;
   history.replaceState(null, '', url.toString());
 }
@@ -697,7 +773,7 @@ function encodeUrlState() {
   const docMatch = hashNow.match(/^#documents\/(.+)$/);
   const docHashId = docMatch ? decodeURIComponent(docMatch[1]) : null;
   const incomingP = new URLSearchParams(window.location.search).get('p');
-  if (docHashId && incomingP && incomingP.startsWith(docHashId + '-')) {
+  if (docHashId && incomingP && _paraIdInDoc(incomingP, docHashId)) {
     u.set(URL_KEYS.p, incomingP);
   }
   if (state.filters.reportTypes.size) u.set(URL_KEYS.rt, [...state.filters.reportTypes].join('|'));
@@ -1683,7 +1759,7 @@ function applyUrlState(parsed) {
   const docMatch = hash.match(/^documents\/(.+)$/);
   const docHashId = docMatch ? decodeURIComponent(docMatch[1]) : null;
   const paraIdBelongsToDoc = parsed.activeId && docHashId
-    && parsed.activeId.startsWith(docHashId + '-');
+    && _paraIdInDoc(parsed.activeId, docHashId);
   state.activeId = paraIdBelongsToDoc ? parsed.activeId : null;
 }
 
@@ -2380,7 +2456,7 @@ function parseDocsHash() {
   const paraId = fromQuery || state.activeId || null;
   // Only honour the paraId when it actually belongs to the docId we're
   // opening, otherwise ignore (it's probably a search-view share URL).
-  const paraOk = docId && paraId && paraId.startsWith(docId + '-');
+  const paraOk = docId && paraId && _paraIdInDoc(paraId, docId);
   return { docId, paraId: paraOk ? paraId : null };
 }
 
@@ -2568,7 +2644,7 @@ async function openDocReader(docId, { paraId = null, fromUrl = false } = {}) {
         // Paragraph ids are positional, and a merged duplicate's paragraphs
         // are position-identical to the survivor's — carry the pinpoint over
         // before the URL is rewritten below.
-        if (paraId && paraId.startsWith(`${docId}-`)) {
+        if (paraId && _paraIdInDoc(paraId, docId)) {
           paraId = d.docId + paraId.slice(docId.length);
         }
         // Rewrite the URL silently to the new canonical id so subsequent
@@ -2653,6 +2729,19 @@ async function openDocReader(docId, { paraId = null, fromUrl = false } = {}) {
     if (runId !== state.docsOpenRun) return;
   }
 
+  // v19.80: a JUR pinpoint that is not one of this case's paragraphs is a
+  // superseded id (old positional "<docId>-NNNN" or an earlier label) from
+  // a shared link, a citation row or a saved item. The shard is in by now,
+  // so its legacyIds usually answer locally; otherwise the API does. A
+  // removed record (null) opens the case at the top. The canonical id
+  // replaces the old one in the URL, so the next share uses it.
+  let paraIdResolved = false;
+  if (paraId && doc.type === 'jur' && state.paragraphById.get(paraId)?.docId !== docId) {
+    const canon = await resolveParagraphId(paraId);
+    if (runId !== state.docsOpenRun) return;
+    if (canon !== paraId) { paraId = canon; paraIdResolved = true; }
+  }
+
   state.docsActiveDocId = docId;
   state.docsActiveParaId = paraId;
 
@@ -2667,7 +2756,7 @@ async function openDocReader(docId, { paraId = null, fromUrl = false } = {}) {
   }
 
   // URL: keep the user's deep link alive on reload / share.
-  if (!fromUrl) {
+  if (!fromUrl || paraIdResolved) {
     const url = new URL(window.location);
     url.hash = `documents/${encodeURIComponent(docId)}`;
     if (paraId) url.searchParams.set('p', paraId); else url.searchParams.delete('p');
@@ -2692,13 +2781,13 @@ async function openDocReader(docId, { paraId = null, fromUrl = false } = {}) {
 // popovers cannot print.
 function buildPrintFootnotes() {
   document.getElementById('print-footnotes')?.remove();
-  const docId = state.docsReaderDocId || document.querySelector('#docs-reader-body .docs-reader-para')?.dataset.paraId?.replace(/-\d{4}$/, '');
+  const docId = state.docsReaderDocId || documentIdForParagraphId(document.querySelector('#docs-reader-body .docs-reader-para')?.dataset.paraId);
   if (!docId) return;
   const items = [];
   for (const el of document.querySelectorAll('#docs-reader-body .docs-reader-para')) {
     const para = state.paragraphById.get(el.dataset.paraId);
     for (const fn of (para?.footnotes || [])) {
-      if (fn && typeof fn === 'object' && fn.text) items.push(`<li><span class="mono">${escape(String(fn.n ?? ''))}</span> ${escape(fn.text)}</li>`);
+      if (fn && typeof fn === 'object' && fn.text) items.push(`<li><span class="mono">${escape(String(fn.mark ?? fn.n ?? ''))}</span> ${escape(fn.text)}</li>`);
     }
   }
   if (!items.length) return;
@@ -3132,6 +3221,7 @@ function paintDocReaderBody(doc, paraId) {
           ${hasNote ? '<span class="docs-para-note-flag" title="You have a note on this paragraph">✎</span>' : ''}
         </div>
         <p class="docs-reader-para-text serif">${annotateTreatyText(emphasiseTrailingSubhead(renderParagraphHtml(p.text, p.footnotes, { terms: readerTerms }), doc?.type), doc?.committee, p?.citedArticles)}</p>
+        ${renderUnanchoredNotes(p.footnotes)}
       </div>`;
   }).join('');
 
@@ -3334,7 +3424,7 @@ function _relatedRowsHtml(paraId) {
   const rows = state.related?.[paraId] || [];
   return rows.map(([otherId, score]) => {
     const p = state.paragraphById.get(otherId);
-    const doc = state.documents.get(p?.docId || otherId.replace(/-\d{4}$/, ''));
+    const doc = state.documents.get(p?.docId || documentIdForParagraphId(otherId) || '');
     if (!doc) return '';
     const snippet = String(p?.text || '').replace(/\[\[fn:\d+\]\]/g, '').replace(/\s+/g, ' ').trim().slice(0, 150);
     return `<li><a class="related-row" href="#" data-doc="${escape(doc.docId)}" data-para="${escape(otherId)}" title="similarity ${score}">
@@ -4421,6 +4511,8 @@ async function checkDocParagraphs(doc) {
       try {
         const body = await apiFetch(`/api/document/${encodeURIComponent(doc.docId)}`, {}, 12_000);
         paras = (body.paragraphs || []).map(p => ({ id: p.para_id, docId: doc.docId, idx: p.idx, n: p.n, section: p.section, text: p.text, type: doc.type }));
+        // v19.80: index superseded JUR ids if the server lists them.
+        for (const p of body.paragraphs || []) _registerLegacyParaIds({ id: p.para_id, legacyIds: p.legacy_ids || p.legacyIds });
       } catch (e) {
         console.warn('[check] /api/document failed, trying the shard:', e.message);
       }
@@ -7723,7 +7815,10 @@ function paintLowMemoryFallback() {
 // shard is a no-op because state.jur.loadedShards is checked upstream.
 function _ingestJurShardData(shard) {
   const additions = [];
+  let legacy = 0;
   for (const p of shard.paragraphs || []) {
+    // v19.80: index superseded ids first — also for paragraphs skipped below.
+    legacy += _registerLegacyParaIds(p);
     // Skip only when this paragraph is already resident in state.paragraphs
     // (a prior shard ingest). An `_apiOnly` entry lives in paragraphById
     // but NOT in the array, so it must NOT block the shard's full record
@@ -7759,6 +7854,9 @@ function _ingestJurShardData(shard) {
       });
     }
   }
+  // Saved workspace items under an id this shard supersedes move onto the
+  // canonical id now, so the ★ / note marks show on the right paragraph.
+  if (legacy && _wsMigrateParaIds() && state.view === 'workspace') renderWorkspace();
   return additions.length;
 }
 
@@ -9813,13 +9911,13 @@ function paintDossier() {
       if (isMobileViewport()) {
         const rendered = renderParagraphHtml(para.text, para.footnotes);
         const annotated = annotateTreatyText(rendered, doc?.committee, para?.citedArticles);
-        return `<blockquote><span class="pn">¶ ${para.n ?? para.idx}</span><p>${highlightTagAware(annotated, terms)}</p></blockquote>`;
+        return `<blockquote><span class="pn">¶ ${para.n ?? para.idx}</span><p>${highlightTagAware(annotated, terms)}</p>${renderUnanchoredNotes(para.footnotes)}</blockquote>`;
       }
       const ctx = getDossierContext(para, { expanded: state.dossierExpanded });
       if (!ctx) {
         const rendered = renderParagraphHtml(para.text, para.footnotes);
         const annotated = annotateTreatyText(rendered, doc?.committee, para?.citedArticles);
-        return `<blockquote><span class="pn">¶ ${para.n ?? para.idx}</span><p>${highlightTagAware(annotated, terms)}</p></blockquote>`;
+        return `<blockquote><span class="pn">¶ ${para.n ?? para.idx}</span><p>${highlightTagAware(annotated, terms)}</p>${renderUnanchoredNotes(para.footnotes)}</blockquote>`;
       }
 
       // Section heading row — only when this paragraph belongs to a
@@ -9857,6 +9955,7 @@ function paintDossier() {
           <blockquote>
             <span class="pn">¶ ${para.n ?? para.idx}</span>
             <p>${highlightTagAware(_activeAnnotated, terms)}</p>
+            ${renderUnanchoredNotes(para.footnotes)}
           </blockquote>
         </div>`;
 
@@ -11354,10 +11453,20 @@ function _lsSet(key, value) {
   catch { return false; }
 }
 
+// v19.80: the canonical id for a superseded JUR id when it is already known
+// (sync; see resolveParagraphId). A workspace row painted before its entry
+// was migrated still carries the old id, and its ×, ★ and note editor must
+// act on the migrated entry rather than recreate the old one.
+function _canonParaId(paraId) {
+  const c = state.paraIdAlias.get(paraId);
+  return typeof c === 'string' ? c : paraId;
+}
+
 // ─────────── B1 Bookmarks ───────────
 function bmList() { return _lsGet(_LS.bm, []); }
 function bmHas(paraId) { return bmList().some(b => b.paraId === paraId); }
 function bmToggle(paraId) {
+  paraId = _canonParaId(paraId);
   const list = bmList();
   const idx = list.findIndex(b => b.paraId === paraId);
   if (idx >= 0) list.splice(idx, 1);
@@ -11385,6 +11494,7 @@ function bmToggle(paraId) {
 // ─────────── B2 Notes ───────────
 function noteGet(paraId) { return _lsGet(_LS.notes, {})[paraId] || ''; }
 function noteSet(paraId, text) {
+  paraId = _canonParaId(paraId);
   const all = _lsGet(_LS.notes, {});
   if (!text || !text.trim()) delete all[paraId];
   else all[paraId] = text;
@@ -11397,6 +11507,7 @@ function noteHas(paraId) { return !!noteGet(paraId); }
 function pinList() { return _lsGet(_LS.pins, []); }
 function pinHas(paraId) { return pinList().some(p => p.paraId === paraId); }
 function pinToggle(paraId) {
+  paraId = _canonParaId(paraId);
   const list = pinList();
   const idx = list.findIndex(p => p.paraId === paraId);
   if (idx >= 0) list.splice(idx, 1);
@@ -11412,6 +11523,83 @@ function pinToggle(paraId) {
   return pinHas(paraId);
 }
 
+// ─────────── v19.80: superseded JUR ids in the workspace ───────────
+// Bookmarks, notes and pins saved before the JUR id change carry old
+// positional ids. Once an old id's canonical id is known (state.paraIdAlias,
+// filled from shard legacyIds and resolveParagraphId), rewrite the stored
+// entry onto it — notes move with their paragraph. Ids that cannot be
+// resolved, including removed records, are left exactly as they were.
+function _wsMigrateParaIds() {
+  const canon = (id) => {
+    const c = state.paraIdAlias.get(id);
+    return typeof c === 'string' && c !== id ? c : null;
+  };
+  let changed = false;
+  for (const key of [_LS.bm, _LS.pins]) {
+    const list = _lsGet(key, []);
+    if (!Array.isArray(list)) continue;
+    const seen = new Set();
+    const out = [];
+    let dirty = false;
+    for (const item of list) {
+      const c = canon(item?.paraId);
+      if (c) { item.paraId = c; dirty = true; }
+      // Saved under both the old and the new id → keep the earlier one.
+      if (item?.paraId && seen.has(item.paraId)) { dirty = true; continue; }
+      if (item?.paraId) seen.add(item.paraId);
+      out.push(item);
+    }
+    if (dirty) { _lsSet(key, out); changed = true; }
+  }
+  const notes = _lsGet(_LS.notes, {});
+  let notesDirty = false;
+  for (const id of Object.keys(notes || {})) {
+    const c = canon(id);
+    if (!c) continue;
+    // A note under each id → keep both texts rather than lose one.
+    notes[c] = notes[c] && notes[c] !== notes[id] ? `${notes[c]}\n\n${notes[id]}` : notes[id];
+    delete notes[id];
+    notesDirty = true;
+  }
+  if (notesDirty) { _lsSet(_LS.notes, notes); changed = true; }
+  if (changed) paintWorkspaceBadge();
+  return changed;
+}
+
+// Move entries whose canonical id is already known (e.g. just imported from
+// a backup), then ask the resolver about every stored JUR id that is still
+// positional and unloaded (API only — this never pulls shards), and repaint
+// once if any entry moved. Each id is asked at most once per session:
+// resolveParagraphId caches hits, misses and removals.
+let _wsResolving = false;
+async function _wsResolveLegacyIds() {
+  if (_wsResolving) return;
+  let moved = _wsMigrateParaIds();
+  const ids = new Set([
+    ...bmList().map(b => b?.paraId),
+    ...Object.keys(_lsGet(_LS.notes, {}) || {}),
+    ...pinList().map(p => p?.paraId),
+  ]);
+  const pending = [...ids].filter(id => typeof id === 'string' && !id.includes(':')
+    && !state.paragraphById.has(id) && !state.paraIdAlias.has(id)
+    && state.documents.get(documentIdForParagraphId(id) || '')?.type === 'jur');
+  _wsResolving = true;
+  try {
+    for (const id of pending) {
+      const c = await resolveParagraphId(id);
+      // A new id, a removal, or the body arriving from the API all repaint.
+      if (c !== id || state.paragraphById.has(id)) moved = true;
+    }
+  } finally {
+    _wsResolving = false;
+  }
+  if (pending.length) _wsMigrateParaIds();
+  // Not while the user is typing in a row's note — a repaint steals focus;
+  // the setters above map a stale old id onto the canonical one anyway.
+  if (moved && state.view === 'workspace'
+      && !document.activeElement?.closest?.('#workspace-body')) renderWorkspace();
+}
+
 // ─────────── B5 Saved searches ───────────
 function ssList() { return _lsGet(_LS.ss, []); }
 function ssAdd(name, url) {
@@ -12278,14 +12466,21 @@ function renderWorkspace() {
       navigateToSearchUrl(a.getAttribute('href') || '');
     });
   });
+  // v19.80: move saved items with superseded JUR ids onto canonical ids.
+  _wsResolveLegacyIds();
 }
 
 // Extract a docId from a paragraph id of the form "<docId>-NNNN".  Used when
 // the paragraph isn't yet in state.paragraphById (e.g. a workspace bookmark
 // for a JUR case opened on a fresh page load before the JUR shard fetched).
+// v19.80: JUR ids are "<docId>:<label>" — the docId is everything before the
+// first colon (never part of a docId or a label); legacy ids stay positional.
 function _docIdFromParaId(paraId) {
   if (!paraId) return null;
-  const m = String(paraId).match(/^(.+)-\d{4,}$/);
+  const s = String(paraId);
+  const colon = s.indexOf(':');
+  if (colon > 0) return s.slice(0, colon);
+  const m = s.match(/^(.+)-\d{4,}$/);
   return m ? m[1] : null;
 }
 
@@ -12318,6 +12513,25 @@ async function jumpToParagraph(paraId) {
     if (runId !== state.jumpRun) return;
   }
 
+  // v19.80: a saved or synthesised JUR id may be superseded (positional
+  // "<docId>-NNNN", or an earlier label). Resolve it now that the shards
+  // and their legacyIds are in. A removed or unresolvable id — or a cmdk
+  // "-0001" for a case that never had positional ids — opens the case's
+  // first paragraph instead; the saved item itself is left as it is.
+  if (targetScope === 'jur') {
+    const canon = await resolveParagraphId(paraId);
+    if (runId !== state.jumpRun) return;
+    if (canon && canon !== paraId) {
+      paraId = canon;
+    } else if (!state.paragraphById.has(paraId) && doc) {
+      let first = null;
+      for (const p of state.paragraphs) {
+        if (p.docId === doc.docId && (!first || (p.idx ?? 0) < (first.idx ?? 0))) first = p;
+      }
+      if (first) paraId = first.id;
+    }
+  }
+
   // Switch scope tab if we're not already on a compatible one.  "All sources"
   // is fine for any target — leave it alone if it's already active.
   if (state.scope !== targetScope && state.scope !== 'all') {
@@ -13055,22 +13269,7 @@ function renderParagraphHtml(text, footnotes, opts = {}) {
     const before = t.slice(last, m.index);
     html += terms ? highlight(before, terms) : escape(before);
     const n = Number(m[1]);
-    const fn = byN.get(n);
-    const fnText = (fn && fn.text) || '';
-    const resolved = (fn && fn.resolvedText) || '';
-    const flags = [];
-    if (fn?.isIbid)     flags.push('ibid');
-    if (fn?.isCrossRef) flags.push(`xref:${fn.referencesNote ?? ''}`);
-    if (fn?.isSelfRef)  flags.push(`selfref:${fn.referencesPara ?? ''}`);
-    html += '<button type="button" class="fn-marker" '
-          + `data-fn-n="${n}" `
-          + `data-fn-text="${escape(fnText)}" `
-          + (resolved ? `data-fn-resolved="${escape(resolved)}" ` : '')
-          + (flags.length ? `data-fn-flags="${escape(flags.join(' '))}" ` : '')
-          + `aria-label="Footnote ${n}: ${escape(fnText.slice(0, 80))}${fnText.length > 80 ? '…' : ''}" `
-          + `aria-expanded="false">`
-          + `<sup>${n}</sup>`
-          + '</button>';
+    html += _fnButtonHtml(n, byN.get(n));
     last = m.index + m[0].length;
   }
   const tail = t.slice(last);
@@ -13078,6 +13277,42 @@ function renderParagraphHtml(text, footnotes, opts = {}) {
   return html;
 }
 
+// One footnote marker button. Lettered notes of old UN compilations show
+// their printed mark ("a/"); `n` stays the key the [[fn:N]] marker uses.
+function _fnButtonHtml(n, fn) {
+  const fnText = (fn && fn.text) || '';
+  const resolved = (fn && fn.resolvedText) || '';
+  const label = (fn && fn.mark) || String(n);
+  const flags = [];
+  if (fn?.isIbid)     flags.push('ibid');
+  if (fn?.isCrossRef) flags.push(`xref:${fn.referencesNote ?? ''}`);
+  if (fn?.isSelfRef)  flags.push(`selfref:${fn.referencesPara ?? ''}`);
+  if (fn?.anchored === false) flags.push('unanchored');
+  return '<button type="button" class="fn-marker" '
+       + `data-fn-n="${n}" `
+       + `data-fn-label="${escape(label)}" `
+       + `data-fn-text="${escape(fnText)}" `
+       + (resolved ? `data-fn-resolved="${escape(resolved)}" ` : '')
+       + (flags.length ? `data-fn-flags="${escape(flags.join(' '))}" ` : '')
+       + `aria-label="Footnote ${escape(label)}: ${escape(fnText.slice(0, 80))}${fnText.length > 80 ? '…' : ''}" `
+       + `aria-expanded="false">`
+       + `<sup>${escape(label)}</sup>`
+       + '</button>';
+}
+
+// v19.81: a PDF note whose reference the text does not show legibly (OCR
+// garbled the mark) travels on the decision's last paragraph with
+// `anchored: false`. List those under the paragraph, each opening the
+// usual popover, so they are not reachable through search alone.
+function renderUnanchoredNotes(footnotes) {
+  const loose = (Array.isArray(footnotes) ? footnotes : []).filter(f => f && f.anchored === false && f.text);
+  if (!loose.length) return '';
+  return '<div class="fn-unanchored">'
+       + '<span class="fn-unanchored-label folio">Notes not marked in the text</span> '
+       + loose.map(f => _fnButtonHtml(f.n, f)).join(' ')
+       + '</div>';
+}
+
 // Returns true if any of `terms` (case-insensitive substring) appears in any
 // of the paragraph's footnote bodies. Used to flag "match in citation" pills
 // in the search results when the visible snippet itself doesn't contain the
@@ -13125,12 +13360,13 @@ function openFnPopover(triggerBtn) {
   if (!triggerBtn) return;
   if (_fnPopoverTrigger === triggerBtn) { closeFnPopover(); return; }
   closeFnPopover();
-  const n = triggerBtn.dataset.fnN || '';
+  const n = triggerBtn.dataset.fnLabel || triggerBtn.dataset.fnN || '';
   const text = triggerBtn.dataset.fnText || '';
   const resolved = triggerBtn.dataset.fnResolved || '';
   const flags = (triggerBtn.dataset.fnFlags || '').trim();
   const pop = _ensureFnPopover();
-  pop.querySelector('.fn-popover-n').textContent = n;
+  pop.querySelector('.fn-popover-n').textContent =
+    flags.split(' ').includes('unanchored') ? `${n} · not marked in the text` : n;
   // When a footnote carries resolvedText (Ibid., See note N, bare
   // Para. N.), show BOTH the literal text and the full citation it
   // resolves to so readers don't have to chase the reference.
diff --git a/ingest_jurisprudence.py b/ingest_jurisprudence.py
index 0fc3697b..452817b5 100644
--- a/ingest_jurisprudence.py
+++ b/ingest_jurisprudence.py
@@ -44,14 +44,16 @@
 
 Only English documents are ingested in v1 (per the user's decision).
 
-Outcome taxonomy (per the user's decision: split violation):
-  views                      Substantive merits decision (no specific outcome label)
+Outcome taxonomy (per the user's decision: split violation), read from the
+operative paragraph(s) — see classify_outcome:
   violation_found            Committee found a violation
   merits_no_violation        Committee found no violation on the merits
   inadmissible               Communication declared inadmissible
   discontinued               Procedure discontinued (settled, withdrawn, …)
-  decision                   Decision (other) — admissibility/procedural ruling
-  other                      Anything else (incl. records with no recognisable title)
+  admissible                 Separate admissibility decision
+  unresolved                 No operative finding recognised; check by hand
+Earlier builds also wrote views / decision / other; those records predate
+the operative-paragraph classifier.
 
 Usage:
     python3 ingest_jurisprudence.py --treaty CRPD            # pilot — all CRPD
@@ -68,6 +70,7 @@
 import subprocess
 import sys
 import tempfile
+from collections import Counter
 from datetime import date
 from html.parser import HTMLParser
 from pathlib import Path
@@ -206,115 +209,169 @@ def symbol_matches_treaty(symbol: str, treaty: str) -> bool:
 
 
 # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-# Outcome classifier — title first, body fallback
+# Outcome classifier — operative paragraphs of the majority text
 # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-def classify_outcome(title: str, body_text: str) -> str:
-    t = (title or '').lower()
-    b = (body_text or '').lower()
-    decision_body = b
-    for marker in re.finditer(
-        r'\b(?:individual opinion|separate opinion|dissenting opinion)\b',
-        b,
-    ):
-        # Some files mention separate opinions in the header metadata. Only
-        # strip them when the marker appears where a trailing opinion section
-        # would normally begin.
-        if marker.start() > len(b) * 0.6:
-            decision_body = b[:marker.start()]
-            break
-    tail = decision_body[-22000:]
+MAIN_NAMESPACES = {None, '', 'ocr', 'docx_fallback'}
+
+# Paragraphs that carry the Committee's operative finding.
+OPERATIVE_STRONG = re.compile(
+    r'acting under article\s+\d+'
+    r'|\b(?:therefore|accordingly|hereby|thus)\s+decides\b'
+    r'|\bdecides?\s*:'
+    r'|\bdecides?\s+to\s+discontinue'
+    r'|\bdecided\s+to\s+discontinue',
+    re.I,
+)
+OPERATIVE_WEAK = re.compile(r'\bis of the (?:view|opinion) that\b', re.I)
+
+# Negative findings — removed from the text before the positive test, so
+# "does not disclose a violation" can never count as a violation.
+NEG = re.compile(
+    r'(?:do|does|did|would|will|could|can)\s+not\s+(?:\w+\s+){0,3}?'
+    r'(?:disclose|reveal|establish|constitute|amount|violate|show|support|give rise)\w*'
+    r'[^.;]{0,80}?(?:violation|breach|article)'
+    r'|\bno\s+violations?\b'
+    r'|\b(?:has|have|had)\s+not\s+(?:been\s+)?(?:violated|breached)'
+    r'|not\s+in\s+a\s+position\s+to\s+(?:find|conclude|establish)[^.;]{0,100}?(?:violation|breach)'
+    r'|cannot\s+(?:find|conclude)[^.;]{0,80}?(?:violation|breach)',
+    re.I,
+)
+POS = re.compile(
+    r'\b(?:disclose|discloses|disclosed|reveal|reveals|revealed|constitute|constitutes|constituted'
+    r'|amount|amounts|amounted|establish|establishes|show|shows)\s+(?:to\s+)?'
+    r'(?:a\s+|an\s+|the\s+following\s+|several\s+|multiple\s+)?(?:\w+\s+){0,2}?(?:violations?|breach(?:es)?)\b'
+    r'|\b(?:has|have|had)\s+(?:thereby\s+|also\s+)?(?:violated|breached|infringed)\b'
+    r'|\bviolated\s+(?:the\s+)?(?:author|complainant|petitioner|victim|his|her|their|its)'
+    r'|\bin\s+violation\s+of\s+(?:article|articles|his|her|their|the\s+author)'
+    r'|\b(?:failed|failing)\s+to\s+(?:fulfil|fulfill|comply\s+with|discharge|meet)\s+its\s+obligations'
+    r'|\bobligation\s+to\s+refrain\s+from\s+(?:forcibly\s+)?(?:returning|expelling|extraditing|deporting|removing)'
+    r'|\bwould,?\s+(?:if\s+implemented,?\s+)?(?:violate|constitute\s+a\s+(?:violation|breach)|amount\s+to\s+a\s+(?:violation|breach))'
+    r'|\bthere\s+(?:has|have)\s+been\s+(?:a\s+)?violations?',
+    re.I,
+)
+INADMISSIBLE_OP = re.compile(
+    r'decides?\s*:?\s*\(?a\)?\s*that\s+the\s+(?:communication|complaint|petition)\s+(?:is|be\s+declared)\s+inadmissible'
+    r'|(?:declares|declared)\s+the\s+(?:communication|complaint|petition)\s+inadmissible'
+    r'|(?:that\s+)?the\s+(?:communication|complaint|petition)\s+is\s+(?:therefore\s+)?inadmissible'
+    r'|decides?\s+that\s+the\s+(?:communication|complaint)\s+is\s+inadmissible',
+    re.I,
+)
+ADMISSIBLE_OP = re.compile(
+    r'decides?\s*:?\s*\(?a\)?\s*that\s+the\s+(?:communication|complaint)\s+is\s+admissible', re.I)
+DISCONTINUED_OP = re.compile(r'discontinu', re.I)
+# Committee-voice finding that part of the case is inadmissible (not a State
+# party argument): "the Committee considers/declares ... inadmissible".
+PARTIAL_INADMISSIBLE = re.compile(
+    r'\b(?:committee|it)\s+(?:therefore\s+|accordingly\s+)?(?:considers|finds|concludes|declares)\b'
+    r'[^.]{0,200}?\binadmissible'
+    r'|\b(?:this|that|these|those|the\s+remaining)\s+(?:part|parts|claims?|allegations?)\s+of\s+the\s+'
+    r'(?:communication|complaint)\s+(?:is|are)\s+(?:therefore\s+)?inadmissible',
+    re.I,
+)
+
+
+TRAILER = re.compile(r'\bAPPENDIX\b|\bNotes\s+(?:[a-z1-9]\s*/|!)')
 
-    # Title-based fast path (covers ~70 % of cases)
-    if 'inadmissible' in t or 'inadmissibility' in t:
+
+def is_main_body(p: dict) -> bool:
+    if p.get('Namespace') not in MAIN_NAMESPACES:
+        return False
+    pid = str(p.get('ID') or '')
+    if re.match(r'^(?:OP|A)\d+-', pid):
+        return False
+    section = (p.get('Section') or '')
+    if isinstance(section, list):
+        section = ' '.join(map(str, section))
+    # Old CAT/CCPR texts put the whole decision under an "ANNEX" heading,
+    # so only opinions and appendices are excluded here.
+    if re.search(r'\bopinion\b|\bappendix\b', section, re.I):
+        return False
+    return bool((p.get('Text') or '').strip())
+
+
+def operative_paragraphs(paragraphs: list[dict], window: int = 6) -> list[dict]:
+    main = [p for p in paragraphs if is_main_body(p)]
+    tail = main[-window:]
+    strong = [p for p in tail if OPERATIVE_STRONG.search(p['Text'])]
+    if strong:
+        return strong
+    weak = [p for p in tail if OPERATIVE_WEAK.search(p['Text'])]
+    if weak:
+        return weak[-1:]
+    return main[-3:]
+
+
+def _title_fallback(title: str) -> str | None:
+    t = (title or '').lower()
+    # The OHCHR catalogue's generic "DECISION/VIEWS" label says nothing.
+    t = re.sub(r'decision\s*/\s*views?', ' ', t)
+    if 'inadmissib' in t:
         return 'inadmissible'
     if 'discontinu' in t:
         return 'discontinued'
-    if 'no violation' in t or 'merits — no violation' in t:
+    if re.search(r'\bno[nt]?[- ]violation|\bno violation', t):
         return 'merits_no_violation'
     if 'violation' in t:
-        # Title says "Views Violation" or "Violation found"
         return 'violation_found'
-    if 'views' in t:
-        # Generic "Views" — body must clarify
-        if ('no violation' in tail or 'has not violated' in tail
-            or 'did not violate' in tail
-            or 'do not disclose a violation' in tail
-            or 'does not disclose a violation' in tail
-            or 'do not reveal any violation' in tail
-            or 'does not reveal any violation' in tail):
-            return 'merits_no_violation'
-        if (
-            'has failed to fulfil its obligations' in tail
-            or 'failed to fulfil its obligations' in tail
-            or 'constituted a violation' in tail
-            or 'constitute a violation' in tail
-            or 'would amount to a breach' in tail
-            or 'amounted to a breach' in tail
-            or 'failed to discharge its obligations' in tail
-            or 'failing to discharge its obligations' in tail
-            or re.search(r'(?:considers|finds|concludes)[^.]{0,120}(?:that .{0,60})?violation of (?:article|articles)', tail)
-        ):
-            return 'violation_found'
-        return 'views'
-    if 'decision' in t:
-        if 'decided to discontinue' in tail or 'decides to discontinue' in tail:
-            return 'discontinued'
-        if re.search(r'therefore decides:\s*\(?a\)?\s+that the communication is inadmissible', tail):
-            return 'inadmissible'
-        return 'decision'
-
-    # No useful title — read the decision/conclusion end of the body first.
-    if (
-        re.search(r'therefore decides:\s*\(?a\)?\s+that the communication is inadmissible', tail)
-        or 'declares the communication inadmissible' in tail
-        or 'communication is inadmissible under article' in tail
-        or 'communication is inadmissible pursuant to article' in tail
-    ):
-        return 'inadmissible'
-    if (
-        'decides to discontinue' in tail
-        or 'decided to discontinue' in tail
-        or 'decision of discontinuance' in tail
-        or 'discontinuance decision' in tail
-        or 'discontinue the consideration of communication' in tail
-    ):
-        return 'discontinued'
-    if (
-        'has not violated' in tail
-        or 'did not violate' in tail
-        or 'do not disclose a violation' in tail
-        or 'does not disclose a violation' in tail
-        or 'do not disclose any violation' in tail
-        or 'does not disclose any violation' in tail
-        or 'do not reveal a violation' in tail
-        or 'does not reveal a violation' in tail
-        or 'do not reveal any violation' in tail
-        or 'does not reveal any violation' in tail
-    ):
-        return 'merits_no_violation'
-    if (
-        'has failed to fulfil its obligations' in tail
-        or 'failed to fulfil its obligations' in tail
-        or 'constituted a violation' in tail
-        or 'constitute a violation' in tail
-        or 'would amount to a breach' in tail
-        or 'amounted to a breach' in tail
-        or 'failed to discharge its obligations' in tail
-        or 'failing to discharge its obligations' in tail
-        or 'has violated the rights' in tail
-        or 'has violated her rights' in tail
-        or 'has violated his rights' in tail
-        or 'has violated their rights' in tail
-        or 'infringed the rights' in tail
-        or 'would, if implemented, violate' in tail
-        or re.search(r'(?:considers|finds|concludes)[^.]{0,120}(?:that .{0,60})?violation of (?:article|articles)', tail)
-        or re.search(r'amount(?:s|ed) to a violation of (?:article|articles)', tail)
-        or re.search(r'in violation of (?:the author|his|her|their)[^.]{0,120}rights under (?:article|articles)', tail)
-        or re.search(r'violated (?:the author|his|her|their|its)[^.]{0,120}rights under article', tail)
-        or re.search(r'violated the author[^.]{0,180}rights under (?:article|articles)', tail)
-    ):
-        return 'violation_found'
-    return 'other'
+    return None
+
+
+def classify_outcome(paragraphs: list[dict], title: str = '') -> dict:
+    """Classify a decision from its operative paragraph(s).
+
+    The old classifier read the catalogue title first ("DECISION/VIEWS"
+    matched "views") and then grepped a 22,000-character tail of the whole
+    text, so admissibility reasoning or a State party's "no violations
+    occurred" decided the outcome (CCPR/C/130/D/2674/2015,
+    CCPR/C/137/D/3662/2019, CCPR/C/82/D/903/1999). This reads only the
+    majority text's operative paragraphs, never opinions or appendices, and
+    returns "unresolved" rather than guessing.
+
+    Returns {outcome, flags, operative_ids}; outcome is one of
+    violation_found | merits_no_violation | inadmissible | discontinued |
+    admissible | unresolved. flags may hold partial_inadmissibility,
+    partial_no_violation, from_title_fallback.
+    """
+    ops = operative_paragraphs(paragraphs)
+    # Old PDFs inline the notes and appended opinions into the last paragraph.
+    op_text = ' '.join(TRAILER.split(p['Text'], 1)[0] for p in ops)
+    neg_hit = bool(NEG.search(op_text))
+    pos_hit = bool(POS.search(NEG.sub(' ', op_text)))
+    inad_hit = bool(INADMISSIBLE_OP.search(op_text))
+    flags: set[str] = set()
+
+    if inad_hit and not OPERATIVE_WEAK.search(op_text):
+        # "The Committee therefore decides: (a) that the communication is
+        # inadmissible" - a pure admissibility decision, whatever the
+        # reasoning paragraphs quote from the author's claims.
+        outcome = 'inadmissible'
+    elif pos_hit:
+        outcome = 'violation_found'
+        if neg_hit:
+            flags.add('partial_no_violation')
+    elif neg_hit:
+        outcome = 'merits_no_violation'
+    elif inad_hit:
+        outcome = 'inadmissible'
+    elif DISCONTINUED_OP.search(op_text):
+        outcome = 'discontinued'
+    elif ADMISSIBLE_OP.search(op_text):
+        outcome = 'admissible'
+    else:
+        outcome = _title_fallback(title) or 'unresolved'
+        if outcome != 'unresolved':
+            flags.add('from_title_fallback')
+
+    if outcome in ('violation_found', 'merits_no_violation'):
+        main = [p for p in paragraphs if is_main_body(p)]
+        if inad_hit or any(PARTIAL_INADMISSIBLE.search(p['Text']) for p in main):
+            flags.add('partial_inadmissibility')
+
+    return {
+        'outcome': outcome,
+        'flags': sorted(flags),
+        'operative_ids': [p.get('ID') for p in ops],
+    }
 
 
 # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -426,7 +483,9 @@ def label_paragraph(text: str) -> list[str]:
 # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 # DOCX extractor
 # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-PARA_NUM = re.compile(r'^((?:\d+\.\d+(?:\.\d+)*|\d+\.))\s+(.*)', re.DOTALL)
+# Decimal IDs may carry a closing period ("2.6.\tThe complainant ..." in CAT
+# files); without it such paragraphs were glued to the one before.
+PARA_NUM = re.compile(r'^((?:\d+\.\d+(?:\.\d+)*\.?|\d+\.))\s+(.*)', re.DOTALL)
 HEADER_KEYWORDS = (
     'committee on the', 'human rights committee', 'committee against torture',
     'views adopted', 'decision adopted', 'communication submitted by:',
@@ -436,6 +495,35 @@ def label_paragraph(text: str) -> list[str]:
 )
 
 
+_ENGLISH_WORDS = re.compile(r'\b(?:the|of|and|to|that|in|is|which|by|for)\b', re.IGNORECASE)
+_ROMANCE_WORDS = re.compile(r'\b(?:de|la|que|el|los|las|del|les|des|et|le|du|en|una|une)\b', re.IGNORECASE)
+_ORIGINAL_LANGUAGE = re.compile(r'\bOriginal\s*:\s*(?:French|Spanish|Arabic|Chinese|Russian)\b', re.IGNORECASE)
+
+
+def _is_translation_note(text: str, following: list[str]) -> bool:
+    """An "[Original: Spanish]" note above an English translation.
+
+    English documents mark annexed opinions written in another language this
+    way; only a block that really is in that language should be skipped
+    (CCPR/C/144/D/2982/2017 lost both opinions).
+    """
+    if not _ORIGINAL_LANGUAGE.search(text):
+        return False
+    sample = ' '.join(following)
+    english = len(_ENGLISH_WORDS.findall(sample))
+    return english >= 10 and english > 2 * len(_ROMANCE_WORDS.findall(sample))
+
+
+def _drop_translation_notes(pages: list[str]) -> list[str]:
+    """Blank "[Original: Spanish]" lines that head English translations."""
+    lines = [(i, j, l) for i, page in enumerate(pages) for j, l in enumerate(page.splitlines())]
+    split = [page.splitlines() for page in pages]
+    for k, (i, j, line) in enumerate(lines):
+        if _is_translation_note(line, [l for _, _, l in lines[k + 1:k + 25]]):
+            split[i][j] = ''
+    return ['\n'.join(page) for page in split]
+
+
 def _is_non_english_annex_marker(text: str) -> bool:
     """Detect non-English annex blocks that slipped into an English source."""
     t = re.sub(r'\s+', ' ', text.strip())
@@ -471,13 +559,12 @@ def _docx_text_from_el(el: ET.Element) -> str:
 
 
 def _extract_docx_footnote_map(path: Path) -> dict[int, str]:
-    """Return DOCX footnotes as {visible_number: text}.
+    """Return DOCX footnotes as {w:id: text}.
 
     Word stores true footnotes in ``word/footnotes.xml`` and references them
     from body paragraphs by ``w:footnoteReference/@w:id``. Separator records
-    have negative ids and are ignored. For UN jurisprudence files the id is
-    the visible footnote number, which matches the website's existing
-    ``[[fn:N]]`` marker contract.
+    have negative ids and are ignored. The id is a storage key, not the
+    printed number: see _docx_footnote_labels.
     """
     try:
         with ZipFile(path) as z:
@@ -507,8 +594,102 @@ def _extract_docx_footnote_map(path: Path) -> dict[int, str]:
     return footnotes
 
 
+def _docx_footnote_number_format(n: int, fmt: str) -> str:
+    if fmt in ('lowerLetter', 'upperLetter'):
+        s = chr(ord('a') + (n - 1) % 26) * ((n - 1) // 26 + 1)
+        return s.upper() if fmt == 'upperLetter' else s
+    if fmt in ('lowerRoman', 'upperRoman'):
+        out, k = '', n
+        for v, r in ((1000, 'm'), (900, 'cm'), (500, 'd'), (400, 'cd'), (100, 'c'), (90, 'xc'),
+                     (50, 'l'), (40, 'xl'), (10, 'x'), (9, 'ix'), (5, 'v'), (4, 'iv'), (1, 'i')):
+            while k >= v:
+                out, k = out + r, k - v
+        return out.upper() if fmt == 'upperRoman' else out
+    if fmt == 'chicago':  # *, †, ‡, §, then doubled
+        return '*†‡§'[(n - 1) % 4] * ((n - 1) // 4 + 1)
+    return str(n)
+
+
+def _docx_footnote_pr(el) -> dict:
+    out = {}
+    if el is None:
+        return out
+    for key in ('numFmt', 'numStart', 'numRestart'):
+        c = el.find(f'{W}{key}')
+        if c is not None and c.get(f'{W}val') is not None:
+            out[key] = c.get(f'{W}val')
+    return out
+
+
+def _docx_footnote_labels(path: Path) -> dict[int, str | None]:
+    """Return {footnote w:id: printed label}; None for custom-mark notes.
+
+    The w:id is not the printed number. UN templates spend ids on title-page
+    notes set with custom marks (``*``, ``**``, ``***``, i.e.
+    ``w:customMarkFollows``) and some files on a ``continuationNotice``
+    record, so the first body note can be id 4 or 5 (CCPR/C/139/D/2929/2017
+    printed 8-12 as 11-15). Word numbers the other notes in reference order,
+    from ``numStart``, restarting per section when ``numRestart`` is
+    ``eachSect``, formatted by ``numFmt``. Per-page restarts depend on
+    pagination and are numbered as continuous.
+    """
+    try:
+        with ZipFile(path) as z:
+            names = set(z.namelist())
+            doc = ET.fromstring(z.read('word/document.xml'))
+            settings = ET.fromstring(z.read('word/settings.xml')) if 'word/settings.xml' in names else None
+    except Exception:
+        return {}
+    defaults = {'numFmt': 'decimal', 'numStart': '1', 'numRestart': 'continuous'}
+    if settings is not None:
+        defaults.update(_docx_footnote_pr(settings.find(f'{W}footnotePr')))
+    body = doc.find(f'{W}body')
+    if body is None:
+        return {}
+    # A w:sectPr in a paragraph's w:pPr closes the section ending there; the
+    # trailing w:body/w:sectPr closes the last one.
+    sections: list[tuple[list, dict]] = []
+    current: list = []
+    for child in body:
+        if child.tag == f'{W}sectPr':
+            sections.append((current, _docx_footnote_pr(child.find(f'{W}footnotePr'))))
+            current = []
+            continue
+        current.append(child)
+        sp = child.find(f'{W}pPr/{W}sectPr') if child.tag == f'{W}p' else None
+        if sp is not None:
+            sections.append((current, _docx_footnote_pr(sp.find(f'{W}footnotePr'))))
+            current = []
+    if current:
+        sections.append((current, {}))
+
+    labels: dict[int, str | None] = {}
+    counter = None
+    for elements, sect_pr in sections:
+        pr = {**defaults, **sect_pr}
+        if counter is None or pr['numRestart'] == 'eachSect':
+            counter = int(pr['numStart']) - 1
+        for el in elements:
+            for ref in el.iter(f'{W}footnoteReference'):
+                try:
+                    fid = int(ref.get(f'{W}id'))
+                except (TypeError, ValueError):
+                    continue
+                if ref.get(f'{W}customMarkFollows') in ('1', 'true', 'on'):
+                    labels[fid] = None
+                    continue
+                counter += 1
+                labels[fid] = _docx_footnote_number_format(counter, pr['numFmt'])
+    return labels
+
+
 def _iter_docx_body_paragraphs_with_footnote_markers(path: Path) -> list[tuple[str, list[int]]]:
-    """Return body paragraph text with ``[[fn:N]]`` tokens in reference order."""
+    """Return body paragraph text with ``[[fn:N]]`` tokens in reference order.
+
+    N is the printed footnote number; the returned refs are w:ids, for the
+    text lookup. Custom-mark notes (title-page ``*``) get no marker.
+    """
+    labels = _docx_footnote_labels(path)
     try:
         with ZipFile(path) as z:
             root = ET.fromstring(z.read('word/document.xml'))
@@ -537,15 +718,20 @@ def _iter_docx_body_paragraphs_with_footnote_markers(path: Path) -> list[tuple[s
                     n = int(raw_id)
                 except (TypeError, ValueError):
                     continue
-                if n >= 1:
-                    parts.append(f'[[fn:{n}]]')
+                if n >= 1 and labels.get(n, str(n)) is not None:
+                    parts.append(f'[[fn:{labels.get(n, n)}]]')
                     refs.append(n)
         out.append((''.join(parts), refs))
     return out
 
 
-def _footnotes_for_refs(refs: list[int], footnote_map: dict[int, str]) -> list[dict]:
-    """Build stable paragraph-local footnote objects from referenced ids."""
+def _footnotes_for_refs(refs: list[int], footnote_map: dict[int, str],
+                        labels: dict[int, str | None] | None = None) -> list[dict]:
+    """Build stable paragraph-local footnote objects from referenced ids.
+
+    ``n`` is the printed number (see _docx_footnote_labels), not the w:id.
+    """
+    labels = labels or {}
     seen: set[int] = set()
     items = []
     for n in refs:
@@ -555,7 +741,8 @@ def _footnotes_for_refs(refs: list[int], footnote_map: dict[int, str]) -> list[d
         if not text:
             continue
         seen.add(n)
-        items.append({'n': n, 'text': text})
+        label = labels.get(n) or str(n)
+        items.append({'n': int(label) if label.isdigit() else label, 'text': text})
     return items
 
 
@@ -569,6 +756,7 @@ def extract_docx_paragraphs(path: Path) -> list[dict]:
     """
     doc = DocxDocument(path)
     footnote_map = _extract_docx_footnote_map(path)
+    footnote_labels = _docx_footnote_labels(path)
     body_paragraphs = _iter_docx_body_paragraphs_with_footnote_markers(path)
     state = 'PRE_BODY'
     current_section = None
@@ -590,17 +778,19 @@ def _flush():
                     'Labels': [],
                     'Text': text,
                 }
-                footnotes = _footnotes_for_refs(pending_refs, footnote_map)
+                footnotes = _footnotes_for_refs(pending_refs, footnote_map, footnote_labels)
                 if footnotes:
                     row['Footnotes'] = footnotes
                 paragraphs.append(row)
         pending_refs = []
 
     para_source = body_paragraphs if body_paragraphs else [(p.text, []) for p in doc.paragraphs]
-    for raw_text, refs in para_source:
+    for k, (raw_text, refs) in enumerate(para_source):
         t = raw_text.strip()
         if not t:
             continue
+        if _is_translation_note(t, [x for x, _ in para_source[k + 1:k + 15]]):
+            continue
         if _is_non_english_annex_marker(t):
             if state == 'PRE_BODY':
                 continue
@@ -1027,17 +1217,25 @@ def _is_signature_line(text: str) -> bool:
     r'(?:the\s+)?facts(?:\s+as\s+(?:submitted|presented)\s+by\s+the\s+authors?)?|'
     r'factual\s+background|'
     r'complaints?|'
-    r'(?:the\s+)?state\s+party[’\']?s\s+(?:observations|submissions?)|'
-    r'(?:the\s+)?author[’\']?s\s+(?:comments|observations)|'
+    r'(?:the\s+)?state\s+party[’\']?s\s+(?:observations|submissions?)(?:\s+(?:on|and)\s+.{1,80})?|'
+    r'(?:the\s+)?authors?[’\']?s?[’\']?\s+(?:comments|observations)(?:\s+(?:on|thereon)\b.{0,80})?|'
+    r'examination\s+of\s+the\s+merits|'
     r'issues?\s+and\s+proceedings\s+before\s+the\s+committee|'
     r'consideration\s+of\s+(?:admissibility|the\s+merits)|'
     r'(?:the\s+)?committee[’\']?s\s+consideration|'
     r'admissibility|merits|conclusions?|'
     r'decision\s+on\s+admissibility|'
-    r'individual\s+opinion(?:\s+.*)?|separate\s+opinion(?:\s+.*)?|dissenting\s+opinion(?:\s+.*)?|concurring\s+opinion(?:\s+.*)?|annex'
+    r'individual\s+opinion(?:\s+.*)?|separate\s+opinion(?:\s+.*)?|dissenting\s+opinion(?:\s+.*)?|concurring\s+opinion(?:\s+.*)?|joint\s+opinion(?:\s+.*)?|(?:annex|appendix)(?:\s+(?:[ivx]+|\d+))?'
     r')$',
     re.IGNORECASE,
 )
+PDF_NUMBERED_OPINION_HEADING = re.compile(
+    r'^\d{1,2}\.\s+(?:individual|separate|dissenting|concurring|joint)\s+(?:\w+\s+)?opinion\b',
+    re.IGNORECASE,
+)
+# A paragraph number OCR mangled: "10.%", ">.", "4.]", "§.".
+PDF_GARBLED_MARKER = re.compile(r'^(\d{1,2}(?:\.\d{1,2})?)?\.?[%\]\)}>|§*]{1,2}\.?\s+(?=[A-Z“"(])')
+PDF_ENDNOTES_START = re.compile(r'^(?:Notes|Note\s+\d{1,2}\b.*|-\s?\*\s?-)$')
 TESSERACT_TSV_LEAK = re.compile(
     r'(?<!\d)[1-5][\t ]+\d+[\t ]+\d+[\t ]+\d+[\t ]+\d+[\t ]+\d+[\t ]+\d+[\t ]+\d+[\t ]+\d+[\t ]+\d+[\t ]+-?\d+(?:\.\d+)?[\t ]+'
 )
@@ -1070,14 +1268,61 @@ def _strip_tesseract_tsv_leaks(text: str) -> str:
     ``the5<TSV metadata>only5<TSV metadata>thing``. Replacing the TSV metadata
     with a space preserves the surrounding words: ``the only thing``.
     """
+    text = _repair_tesseract_tsv_leaks(text)
     text = TESSERACT_TSV_LEAK.sub(' ', text)
     text = TESSERACT_TSV_LINE_START.sub('', text)
     return text
 
 
-def _pdf_marker_action(raw_id: str, rest: str, current_id: str | None) -> str:
+# One leaked TSV row header: level page block par line word left top width
+# height conf. The level digit is glued to the previous word, so there is no
+# lookbehind: "2.35\t1\t1\t1\t29..." is paragraph marker "2.3" followed by a
+# level-5 row. Tabs survive in OCR page text; stored paragraphs have spaces.
+TESSERACT_TSV_ROW = re.compile(
+    r'([1-5])[\t ]+(\d+)[\t ]+(\d+)[\t ]+(\d+)[\t ]+(\d+)[\t ]+(\d+)'
+    r'[\t ]+\d+[\t ]+\d+[\t ]+\d+[\t ]+\d+[\t ]+-?\d+(?:\.\d+)?(?:[\t ]|$)'
+)
+
+
+def _repair_tesseract_tsv_leaks(text: str) -> str:
+    """Turn leaked Tesseract TSV rows back into words, restoring line breaks.
+
+    The leak (see ocr_jurisprudence.tesseract_tsv) packs the rows that follow
+    a word starting with '"' into that one word, line breaks and all.
+    Stripping only the row headers keeps the words but runs the lines
+    together, so a paragraph that starts on a swallowed line ("2.3 The
+    authors ...") merges into the one before. Each row carries its block,
+    paragraph and line number: start a new line whenever they change.
+    """
+    if not TESSERACT_TSV_ROW.search(text):
+        return text
+    out: list[str] = []
+    pos = 0
+    last_line = None
+    for m in TESSERACT_TSV_ROW.finditer(text):
+        out.append(text[pos:m.start()])
+        pos = m.end()
+        if m.group(6) == '0':
+            # Block/paragraph/line rows (word_num 0) carry no text.
+            continue
+        line = (m.group(3), m.group(4), m.group(5))
+        out.append('\n' if last_line is not None and line != last_line else ' ')
+        last_line = line
+    out.append(text[pos:])
+    repaired = ''.join(out)
+    repaired = re.sub(r'[ \t]+\n', '\n', repaired)
+    return re.sub(r'[ \t]{2,}', ' ', repaired)
+
+
+def _pdf_marker_action(raw_id: str, rest: str, current_id: str | None, previous_text: str = '') -> str:
     """Return `new`, `append_line`, or `append_rest` for a candidate marker."""
+    # A page number stuck to the end ("... system. ~92-") is not text.
+    prev = re.sub(r'\s[-~]?\d{1,4}[-~]$', '', (previous_text or '').rstrip())
+    ends_mid_sentence = bool(prev) and not prev.endswith(('.', ':', ';', '!', '?', ')', ']', '"', '”', '’'))
     if not current_id:
+        candidate = para_id_tuple(raw_id)
+        if candidate and len(candidate) == 1 and ends_mid_sentence:
+            return 'append_line'
         return 'new'
     rest = (rest or '').strip()
     current = para_id_tuple(current_id)
@@ -1098,6 +1343,12 @@ def _pdf_marker_action(raw_id: str, rest: str, current_id: str | None) -> str:
     # like impossible paragraph IDs. Keep them in the text, do not split.
     if len(candidate) > 1 and candidate[-1] >= 40:
         return 'append_line'
+    # "... in contravention of article\n17. The question arises ..." — an
+    # article number wrapped to the start of a line (CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991,
+    # para. 10.2). A real top-level paragraph follows a finished sentence or
+    # is the next number in sequence.
+    if len(candidate) == 1 and candidate[0] not in (1, current[0] + 1) and ends_mid_sentence:
+        return 'append_line'
     return 'new'
 
 
@@ -1123,6 +1374,41 @@ def _is_front_matter_date_marker(raw_id: str, rest: str, has_paragraphs: bool, c
     )
 
 
+def _successors(label: tuple[int, ...]) -> set[tuple[int, ...]]:
+    if len(label) == 2:
+        a, b = label
+        return {(a, b + 1), (a + 1,), (a + 1, 1)}
+    (a,) = label
+    return {(a + 1,), (a + 1, 1), (a, 1)}
+
+
+def _label_orphans(paragraphs: list[dict], hints: dict[str, str | None]) -> list[dict]:
+    """Name generated paragraphs (G1, G2 ...) from the labels around them.
+
+    The label must follow the previous paragraph's and be followed by the
+    next one's; any digits OCR kept ("10" of "10.%") must agree. Otherwise
+    the paragraph keeps its generated id.
+    """
+    for i, para in enumerate(paragraphs):
+        pid = para.get('ID') or ''
+        if pid not in hints:
+            continue
+        para['GeneratedID'] = True
+        para['GeneratedIDReason'] = 'pdf_garbled_marker'
+        prev = next((para_id_tuple(p['ID']) for p in reversed(paragraphs[:i]) if para_id_tuple(p['ID'])), None)
+        nxt = next((para_id_tuple(p['ID']) for p in paragraphs[i + 1:] if para_id_tuple(p['ID'])), None)
+        if not prev or len(prev) > 2:
+            continue
+        options = [o for o in _successors(prev) if nxt is None or nxt in _successors(o)]
+        hint = para_id_tuple(hints.get(pid) or '')
+        if hint:
+            exact = [o for o in options if o == hint]
+            options = exact or [o for o in options if o[0] == hint[0]]
+        if len(options) == 1:
+            _set_corrected_para_id(para, '.'.join(map(str, options[0])) + '.', 'sequence_garbled_marker')
+    return paragraphs
+
+
 def _set_corrected_para_id(para: dict, corrected_id: str, reason: str) -> None:
     if para.get('ID') == corrected_id:
         return
@@ -1195,7 +1481,7 @@ def apply_paragraph_namespaces(paragraphs: list[dict]) -> list[dict]:
         low = section.lower()
         section_changed = section != last_section
         if section_changed:
-            is_opinion = bool(re.search(r'\b(?:individual|separate|dissenting|concurring)\s+opinion\b', low))
+            is_opinion = bool(re.search(r'\b(?:individual|separate|dissenting|concurring|joint)\s+opinion\b', low))
             is_annex = bool(re.search(r'\b(?:appendix|annex\s+(?:\d+|[ivx]+|[a-z]))\b', low, re.IGNORECASE))
             if is_opinion or (opinion_zone and re.match(r'^[A-Z]\.\s+', section)):
                 opinion_count += 1
@@ -1219,7 +1505,19 @@ def apply_paragraph_namespaces(paragraphs: list[dict]) -> list[dict]:
 
 def _is_opinion_section(section: str) -> bool:
     low = (section or '').strip().lower()
-    return bool(re.search(r'\b(?:individual|separate|dissenting|concurring)\s+opinion\b', low))
+    return bool(re.search(r'\b(?:individual|separate|dissenting|concurring|joint)\s+opinion\b', low))
+
+
+def _collects_unnumbered(section: str, opinion_zone: bool) -> bool:
+    """Sections whose unnumbered paragraphs are kept (as U1, U2, ...).
+
+    Besides opinions, an "APPENDIX" heading: old compilations append an
+    individual opinion under it with no heading of its own
+    (CCPR/C/38/D/275/1988).
+    """
+    return (_is_opinion_section(section)
+            or _is_namespaced_continuation_section(section, opinion_zone)
+            or bool(re.match(r'appendix\b', (section or '').strip(), re.IGNORECASE)))
 
 
 def _is_namespaced_continuation_section(section: str, opinion_zone: bool) -> bool:
@@ -1234,6 +1532,8 @@ def _is_pdf_noise_line(line: str) -> bool:
         return True
     if re.match(r'^page\s+\d+$', t, re.IGNORECASE):
         return True
+    if re.match(r'^[-~]\s?\d{1,4}\s?[-~]$', t):  # "-158-", OCR'd as "~92-"
+        return True
     if re.match(r'^GE\.\d{2}-\d{4,6}', t):
         return True
     if re.match(r'^[A-Z](?:\.\s*)?[A-Za-z .’\'-]+\s*[\[{]\s*signed\s*[\]}]', t, re.IGNORECASE):
@@ -1245,6 +1545,29 @@ def _is_pdf_noise_line(line: str) -> bool:
     return False
 
 
+RUNNING_HEADER_LINE = re.compile(
+    r'^(?:[A-Z]{2,6}/C/\d+/D/\d+/\d+(?:/Rev\.\d+)?|Annex|English|French|Spanish|Page\s+\d+|-\s?\d{1,4}\s?-)$',
+    re.IGNORECASE,
+)
+
+
+def _strip_running_header(page_text: str) -> str:
+    """Drop the running header at the top of an OCR'd page.
+
+    Old decisions repeat "CCPR/C/50/D/428/1990 / Annex / English / Page 4"
+    on every page. Read as a heading, "Annex" closed the open paragraph and
+    the rest of it was lost (CCPR/C/50/D/428/1990, para. 5.2). Only a run
+    that starts with the symbol or the page number counts as a header.
+    """
+    lines = page_text.splitlines()
+    k = 0
+    while k < min(len(lines), 6) and RUNNING_HEADER_LINE.match(lines[k].strip()):
+        k += 1
+    if k and re.match(r'^(?:[A-Z]{2,6}/C/|Page\s+\d)', lines[0].strip(), re.IGNORECASE):
+        return '\n'.join(lines[k:])
+    return page_text
+
+
 def _is_pdf_heading(line: str, previous_text: str = '') -> bool:
     """Best-effort heading detector for PDF text streams.
 
@@ -1264,13 +1587,15 @@ def _is_pdf_heading(line: str, previous_text: str = '') -> bool:
         return True
     if re.match(r'^(?:A|B|C|D|E|F)\.\s+.*\bindividual\s+opinion\b', t, re.IGNORECASE):
         return True
-    if t.endswith((',', ';', ':')):
+    if t.endswith((',', ';')):
         return False
     if t[0].islower():
         return False
     if previous_text and previous_text.rstrip()[-1:] not in '.!?)”’]':
         return False
-    low = re.sub(r'\s+', ' ', t.lower()).strip(' .')
+    low = re.sub(r'\s+', ' ', t.lower()).strip(' .:')
+    if t.endswith(':') and not PDF_HEADING_RE.match(low):
+        return False
     if PDF_HEADING_RE.match(low):
         return True
     lettered = re.match(r'^(?:A|B|C|D|E|F)\.\s+(.+)', t)
@@ -1297,15 +1622,23 @@ def _section_needs_continuation(section: str) -> bool:
     )
 
 
-def _clean_extracted_text(text: str) -> str:
+def _clean_extracted_text(text: str, keep_refs: bool = False) -> str:
     text = _strip_tesseract_tsv_leaks(text)
+    # Undo the forms of ocr_jurisprudence's old "authors" -> "author's"
+    # rewrite that cannot be genuine ("the author's' request", "The
+    # author's of the communication"); re-OCR restores the rest.
+    text = re.sub(r"\b([Aa]uthor)'s(['’])", r'\1s\2', text)
+    text = re.sub(r"\b([Aa]uthor)'s of\b", r'\1s of', text)
     text = re.sub(r'-\s*\n\s*', '', text)
-    text = re.sub(r'(?<=[.!?”\)])\s*\d{1,3}(?=\s+[A-Z])', '', text)
+    # A number after a sentence ("... Sweden.1 The State") is a note
+    # reference whose superscript the PDF lost. Paragraphs keep it as
+    # [[ref:N]] for _attach_notes, which links or drops it.
+    text = re.sub(r'(?<=[.!?”\)])\s*(\d{1,3})(?=\s+[A-Z])', r'[[ref:\1]]' if keep_refs else '', text)
     text = re.sub(r'[ \t]+', ' ', text)
     return text.strip()
 
 
-def _parse_pdf_text_pages(pages: list[str]) -> list[dict]:
+def _parse_pdf_text_pages(pages: list[str], page_notes: list[dict] | None = None) -> list[dict]:
     paragraphs: list[dict] = []
     current_id: str | None = None
     current_section = ''
@@ -1315,6 +1648,9 @@ def _parse_pdf_text_pages(pages: list[str]) -> list[dict]:
     unnumbered_counter = 0
     opinion_zone = False
     skip_non_english = False
+    skip_endnotes = False
+    orphan_count = 0
+    orphan_hints: dict[str, str | None] = {}
 
     def flush() -> None:
         nonlocal current_id, buf
@@ -1322,7 +1658,7 @@ def flush() -> None:
             current_id = None
             buf = []
             return
-        text = _clean_extracted_text(' '.join(x.strip() for x in buf if x.strip()))
+        text = _clean_extracted_text(' '.join(x.strip() for x in buf if x.strip()), keep_refs=True)
         if len(text) >= 20:
             paragraphs.append({
                 'ID': current_id,
@@ -1337,10 +1673,12 @@ def flush_unnumbered() -> None:
         nonlocal unnumbered_buf, unnumbered_counter
         if not unnumbered_buf:
             return
-        text = _clean_extracted_text(' '.join(x.strip() for x in unnumbered_buf if x.strip()))
+        text = _clean_extracted_text(' '.join(x.strip() for x in unnumbered_buf if x.strip()), keep_refs=True)
         unnumbered_buf = []
         if len(text) < 40:
             return
+        if len(text) < 130 and not re.search(r'[a-z]', text):
+            return  # an all-caps title ("INDIVIDUAL OPINIONS CONCERNING ...")
         unnumbered_counter += 1
         paragraphs.append({
             'ID': f'U{unnumbered_counter}.',
@@ -1361,8 +1699,14 @@ def starts_new_unnumbered_paragraph(line: str) -> bool:
             return True
         return False
 
+    endnote_lines: list[str] = []
+    foot_notes: list[dict] = []
+    pages = _drop_translation_notes(pages)
     for page_text in pages:
-        page_text = _strip_tesseract_tsv_leaks(page_text)
+        page_text = _strip_running_header(_strip_tesseract_tsv_leaks(page_text))
+        page_text, foot = _split_trailing_notes(page_text)
+        foot_notes.extend(_parse_note_lines(foot, 'page'))
+        page_first = True
         for raw_line in page_text.splitlines():
             line = raw_line.strip()
             if not line:
@@ -1387,7 +1731,61 @@ def starts_new_unnumbered_paragraph(line: str) -> bool:
                 opinion_zone = False
                 continue
 
+            line = re.sub(r'^(\d{1,3})~(\d{1,2})(?=\s|$)', r'\1.\2', line)
+            ocr_section_sign = re.match(r'^§\.?(\d{1,2})(?=\s)', line)
+            current_tuple = para_id_tuple(current_id)
+            if ocr_section_sign and current_tuple and len(current_tuple) == 2 \
+                    and int(ocr_section_sign.group(1)) == current_tuple[1] + 1:
+                # OCR reads "5" or "8" as "§"; the sequence says which.
+                line = f'{current_tuple[0]}.' + line[ocr_section_sign.start(1):]
+            if PDF_NUMBERED_OPINION_HEADING.match(line):
+                # "1. Individual opinion by Mr. Nisuke Ando (dissenting)"
+                flush_unnumbered()
+                flush()
+                current_section = re.sub(r'^\d{1,2}\.\s+', '', line).rstrip('.')
+                pending_heading = current_section
+                opinion_zone = True
+                unnumbered_counter = 0
+                continue
+            if PDF_ENDNOTES_START.match(line) and paragraphs:
+                # Endnotes of old compilations ("Notes", "Note 1 The Covenant
+                # ...", or numbered notes after the "-*-" end mark) follow the
+                # operative paragraph or an opinion; skip to the next opinion
+                # or appendix heading.
+                flush_unnumbered()
+                flush()
+                skip_endnotes = True
+                endnote_lines.append(line)
+                continue
+            if skip_endnotes:
+                heading = (_is_pdf_heading(line) and re.search(r'opinion|appendix|annex', line, re.IGNORECASE)) \
+                    or (len(line) <= 40 and re.match(r'(?:appendix|annex)\b', line, re.IGNORECASE))
+                # Notes end at a page that opens with prose: an opinion
+                # appended without a heading ("We share the view ...").
+                # Whether the last note finished its sentence; a block with no
+                # note text (its notes were cut off the page foot) has ended.
+                note_text = [l.strip() for l in endnote_lines
+                             if l.strip() and not re.fullmatch(r'Notes?|-\s?\*\s?-', l.strip()) and not _is_pdf_noise_line(l)]
+                note_done = not note_text or note_text[-1].endswith(('.', '"', '”', ')'))
+                prose = page_first and len(line) > 40 and not NOTE_START_LETTER.match(line) \
+                    and not line[0].islower() and note_done \
+                    and not NOTE_START_NUMBERED.match(line) \
+                    and not _page_continues_notes(page_text.splitlines(), endnote_lines)
+                if heading or prose:
+                    skip_endnotes = False
+                    if prose and not heading:
+                        current_section = 'Appendix'
+                        pending_heading = current_section
+                else:
+                    page_first = False
+                    endnote_lines.append(line)
+                    continue
+            page_first = False
+
             marker = PDF_PARA_MARKER.match(line)
+            if marker and marker.group(1).endswith(',') and re.match(r'\d', (marker.group(2) or '').strip()):
+                # "2, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14" — a list of articles, not "2."
+                marker = None
             if not marker and not opinion_zone:
                 top_marker = PDF_TOPLEVEL_MARKER.match(line)
                 if top_marker:
@@ -1411,7 +1809,12 @@ def starts_new_unnumbered_paragraph(line: str) -> bool:
                     continue
                 if _is_front_matter_date_marker(raw_id, rest, bool(paragraphs), current_section):
                     continue
-                action = _pdf_marker_action(raw_id, rest, current_id)
+                action = _pdf_marker_action(raw_id, rest, current_id, ' '.join(buf or unnumbered_buf))
+                if action == 'append_line' and not current_id and unnumbered_buf:
+                    # "... and thus violates article\n26, notwithstanding ..."
+                    # inside an unnumbered opinion paragraph.
+                    unnumbered_buf.append(line)
+                    continue
                 if action == 'append_line' and current_id:
                     buf.append(line)
                     continue
@@ -1442,13 +1845,13 @@ def starts_new_unnumbered_paragraph(line: str) -> bool:
                 current_section = line.rstrip('.')
                 pending_heading = current_section
                 opinion_zone = opinion_zone or _is_opinion_section(current_section)
-                if _is_opinion_section(current_section) or _is_namespaced_continuation_section(current_section, opinion_zone):
+                if _collects_unnumbered(current_section, opinion_zone):
                     unnumbered_counter = 0
                 continue
 
             if current_id:
                 buf.append(line)
-            elif _is_opinion_section(current_section) or _is_namespaced_continuation_section(current_section, opinion_zone):
+            elif _collects_unnumbered(current_section, opinion_zone):
                 if not unnumbered_buf and _section_needs_continuation(current_section):
                     current_section = f'{current_section} {line}'.strip()
                     pending_heading = current_section
@@ -1462,11 +1865,24 @@ def starts_new_unnumbered_paragraph(line: str) -> bool:
                     flush_unnumbered()
                     current_section = line.rstrip('.')
                     opinion_zone = opinion_zone or _is_opinion_section(current_section)
+                elif paragraphs and not opinion_zone and (len(line) >= 40 or PDF_GARBLED_MARKER.match(line)):
+                    # Body text after a heading whose paragraph number OCR
+                    # garbled ("10.% The Human Rights Committee ..."): keep it
+                    # as a generated paragraph; _label_orphans names it from
+                    # its neighbours when they leave one choice.
+                    orphan_count += 1
+                    current_id = f'G{orphan_count}.'
+                    garbled = PDF_GARBLED_MARKER.match(line)
+                    orphan_hints[current_id] = garbled.group(1) if garbled else None
+                    buf = [line[garbled.end():] if garbled else line]
 
     flush_unnumbered()
     flush()
+    paragraphs = _label_orphans(paragraphs, orphan_hints)
     paragraphs = repair_paragraph_id_sequence(paragraphs)
-    return apply_paragraph_namespaces(paragraphs)
+    paragraphs = apply_paragraph_namespaces(paragraphs)
+    notes = (page_notes or []) + foot_notes + _parse_note_lines(endnote_lines, 'end')
+    return _attach_notes(paragraphs, notes)
 
 
 def _load_ocr_pages(doc_id: str | None) -> list[str]:
@@ -1504,6 +1920,305 @@ def _load_ocr_meta(doc_id: str | None) -> dict | None:
     return None
 
 
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# PDF footnotes and endnotes
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Modern PDFs: references are superscript digits; the notes sit below a short
+# rule at the foot of the page. Old compilations and scans: references are
+# "a/", "b/" (or "(1)") in the text, and the notes either close each page or
+# follow the decision under "Notes" / after "-*-". The DOCX route keeps
+# footnotes as [{n, text}] with [[fn:n]] markers; PDFs now do the same, with
+# `mark` holding the printed mark when it is not the number ("a/").
+
+FN_REF_LETTER = re.compile(r'\s?(?<![\w/])([a-z]{1,2}|\*{1,3})\s?/(?=[\s.,;:)\]]|$)')
+FN_REF_PAREN = re.compile(r'(?<=[a-z.,;:”"’)\]])(\s?)\((\d{1,2})\)(?=[\s.,;:]|$)')
+# "paragraph (2)", "article 14 (1)": provisions, not note references.
+FN_REF_PAREN_NOT_AFTER = re.compile(
+    r'\b(?:paragraphs?|subparagraphs?|para|paras|articles?|art|section|sections|rule|rules|regulation|item|point)\.?$',
+    re.IGNORECASE)
+NOTE_START_LETTER = re.compile(r'^([a-zA-Z]{1,2}|\*{1,3})\s?/\s*(.*)$')
+NOTE_START_NUMBERED = re.compile(r'^(?:Note\s+)?(\d{1,2})(?:[./]\s*|\s+)(\S.*)$')
+MONTHS = r'(?:January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December)'
+PDF_FOOTER_LINE = re.compile(
+    r'^(?:GE\.\d{2}-\d{4,6}.*|\*\d{5,}\*|[A-Z]{2,6}/C/\d+/D/\S+|\d{1,3}|\d{1,3}/\d{1,3}|Please recycle.*)$'
+)
+
+
+def _letter_mark(raw: str) -> str:
+    raw = raw.lower()
+    # OCR doubles a letter now and then ("bh/" for "b/"); "aa/" is a real mark.
+    return raw if len(raw) == 2 and raw[0] == raw[1] else raw[0]
+
+
+def _pdf_page_blocks_and_notes(page) -> tuple[list[tuple], list[dict], str]:
+    """Body blocks with [[fn:N]] markers, the page's footnotes, and any text
+    that continues the previous page's last footnote.
+
+    Blocks come back as page.get_text("blocks") tuples for _clean_page_text.
+    The footnote area starts at a short horizontal rule drawn in the lower
+    part of the page, an underscore line, or failing both the first small-type
+    block that opens with a number.
+    """
+    d = page.get_text('dict')
+    text_blocks = [b for b in d['blocks'] if b.get('type') == 0]
+    sizes: Counter = Counter()
+    for b in text_blocks:
+        for l in b['lines']:
+            for s in l['spans']:
+                sizes[round(s['size'], 1)] += len(s['text'].strip())
+    body_size = sizes.most_common(1)[0][0] if sizes else 10.0
+    small = body_size - 0.5
+
+    height = page.rect.height
+
+    def only_small_below(y: float) -> bool:
+        """Everything under y is footnote type (the footer aside): a short
+        rule above body-size text is an underline, not the footnote rule."""
+        seen = False
+        for b in text_blocks:
+            if b['bbox'][1] < y - 1:
+                continue
+            for l in b['lines']:
+                line = ''.join(s['text'] for s in l['spans']).strip()
+                if not line or PDF_FOOTER_LINE.match(line):
+                    continue
+                if any(s['size'] >= small and len(s['text'].strip()) > 2 for s in l['spans']):
+                    return False
+                seen = True
+        return seen
+
+    def note_led(line) -> bool:
+        """A footnote's first line: a small number that is not a superscript
+        reference, then the note's text."""
+        spans = [s for s in line['spans'] if s['text'].strip()]
+        if not spans or spans[0]['size'] >= small or spans[0]['flags'] & 1:
+            return False
+        if len(spans) >= 2 and re.fullmatch(r'\s*\d{1,3}\s*', spans[0]['text']):
+            return True
+        # Number and text in one span: only in clearly smaller type, and not
+        # a date ("31 March 1994" on a title page).
+        return (spans[0]['size'] <= body_size * 0.85
+                and bool(re.match(r'\s*\d{1,3}\s+\S', spans[0]['text']))
+                and not re.match(rf'\s*\d{{1,2}}\s+{MONTHS}', spans[0]['text'], re.IGNORECASE))
+
+    lines_all = sorted(((l['bbox'][1], l) for b in text_blocks for l in b['lines']), key=lambda x: x[0])
+
+    def notes_below(y: float) -> bool:
+        """Old Word exports set footnotes in body type with a small number:
+        from y down the page every numbered line is a note, none a paragraph."""
+        below = [l for ly, l in lines_all if ly >= y - 1]
+        if not below or not note_led(below[0]):
+            return False
+        for l in below:
+            text = ''.join(s['text'] for s in l['spans']).strip()
+            size = max((s['size'] for s in l['spans'] if s['text'].strip()), default=0)
+            if size >= small and PDF_PARA_MARKER.match(text) and not note_led(l):
+                return False
+        return True
+
+    candidates = [
+        r.y0 for r in (dr.get('rect') for dr in page.get_drawings())
+        if r is not None and r.height <= 2.5 and 30 <= r.width <= 220 and r.y0 > height * 0.35
+    ]
+    for b in text_blocks:
+        text = ''.join(s['text'] for l in b['lines'] for s in l['spans'])
+        if b['bbox'][1] > height * 0.35 and re.fullmatch(r'\s*_{5,}\s*', text):
+            candidates.append(b['bbox'][1])
+    candidates += [ly for ly, l in lines_all if ly > height * 0.3 and note_led(l)]
+    sep_y = next((y for y in sorted(candidates) if only_small_below(y) or notes_below(y)), None)
+
+    blocks, note_lines = [], []
+    for b in text_blocks:
+        x0, y0, x1, y1 = b['bbox']
+        body_lines = []
+        for l in b['lines']:
+            in_notes = sep_y is not None and l['bbox'][1] >= sep_y - 1
+            parts = []
+            for s in l['spans']:
+                t = s['text']
+                if (not in_notes and s['flags'] & 1 and s['size'] < small
+                        and re.fullmatch(r'\s*\d{1,3}\s*', t)):
+                    parts.append(f'[[fn:{t.strip()}]]')
+                else:
+                    parts.append(t)
+            if in_notes:
+                note_lines.append((''.join(parts), l['spans']))
+            else:
+                body_lines.append(''.join(parts))
+        if body_lines:
+            blocks.append((x0, y0, x1, y1, '\n'.join(body_lines) + '\n', 0, 0))
+
+    notes: list[dict] = []
+    carry: list[str] = []
+    for text, spans in note_lines:
+        t = text.strip()
+        if not t or re.fullmatch(r'_{3,}', t) or PDF_FOOTER_LINE.match(t):
+            continue
+        first = next((s for s in spans if s['text'].strip()), None)
+        m = re.match(r'\s*(\d{1,3})(?:\s+|$)(.*)', first['text']) if first else None
+        if m and (first['size'] < small or first['flags'] & 1):
+            rest = (m.group(2) + ''.join(s['text'] for s in spans[spans.index(first) + 1:])).strip()
+            notes.append({'mark': m.group(1), 'text': rest, 'style': 'number'})
+        elif notes:
+            notes[-1]['text'] += ' ' + t
+        else:
+            carry.append(t)
+    return blocks, notes, ' '.join(carry)
+
+
+def _parse_note_lines(lines: list[str], kind: str) -> list[dict]:
+    """Endnote or page-foot lines -> [{mark, text, style}] in order."""
+    notes: list[dict] = []
+    style = None
+    pending_raw = None
+    for raw in lines:
+        t = raw.strip()
+        if not t or _is_pdf_noise_line(t) or re.fullmatch(r'Notes?|-\s?\*\s?-', t):
+            continue
+        if len(t) <= 3 and ' ' not in t and not t.isdigit() and style in (None, 'letter'):
+            # A mark on its own line, often garbled by OCR ("!I", "BI", "£/"
+            # for a/, b/, c/): the note is the next line, the mark is its
+            # place in the sequence.
+            pending_raw = t
+            continue
+        if pending_raw is not None:
+            style = 'letter'
+            mark = chr(ord('a') + sum(n['style'] == 'letter' for n in notes))
+            notes.append({'mark': mark, 'raw': pending_raw, 'text': t, 'style': 'letter', 'kind': kind})
+            pending_raw = None
+            continue
+        letter = NOTE_START_LETTER.match(t)
+        numbered = NOTE_START_NUMBERED.match(t)
+        if letter and style in (None, 'letter') and (letter.group(2) or len(letter.group(1)) <= 2):
+            style = 'letter'
+            notes.append({'mark': _letter_mark(letter.group(1)) if letter.group(1)[0] != '*' else letter.group(1),
+                          'text': letter.group(2), 'style': 'letter', 'kind': kind})
+        elif numbered and style in (None, 'number') and (not notes or int(numbered.group(1)) == int(notes[-1]['mark']) + 1
+                                                         or not notes):
+            style = 'number'
+            notes.append({'mark': numbered.group(1), 'text': numbered.group(2), 'style': 'number', 'kind': kind})
+        elif notes:
+            notes[-1]['text'] += ' ' + t
+    for note in notes:
+        note['text'] = _clean_extracted_text(note['text'])
+    return [n for n in notes if n['text']]
+
+
+def _page_continues_notes(page_lines: list[str], endnote_lines: list[str]) -> bool:
+    """Whether a page that opens with prose still belongs to the notes: the
+    next note of the sequence ("4." after 3, "c/" after b/) starts on it."""
+    notes = _parse_note_lines(endnote_lines, 'end')
+    if not notes:
+        return False
+    last = notes[-1]
+    if last['style'] == 'number':
+        want = re.compile(rf'^(?:Note\s+)?{int(last["mark"]) + 1}(?:[./]\s*|\s+)\S')
+    else:
+        want = re.compile(rf'^{re.escape(chr(ord(last["mark"][0]) + 1))}\s?/', re.IGNORECASE)
+    return any(want.match(l.strip()) for l in page_lines)
+
+
+def _split_trailing_notes(page_text: str) -> tuple[str, list[str]]:
+    """Cut "a/ ..." notes off the foot of an old page: from the first note
+    line in the lower part of the page after which no paragraph starts."""
+    lines = page_text.splitlines()
+    n = len(lines)
+    start = None
+    for i in range(n - 1, int(n * 0.4) - 1, -1):
+        t = lines[i].strip()
+        if PDF_PARA_MARKER.match(t) or PDF_NUMBERED_OPINION_HEADING.match(t):
+            break
+        m = NOTE_START_LETTER.match(t)
+        if m and '/' in t[:5] and m.group(2):
+            start = i
+    if start is None:
+        return page_text, []
+    return '\n'.join(lines[:start]), lines[start:]
+
+
+def _attach_notes(paragraphs: list[dict], notes: list[dict]) -> list[dict]:
+    """Link notes to the paragraphs that cite them; [[fn:n]] markers in text.
+
+    The k-th reference to a mark takes the k-th note with that mark, so marks
+    that restart on every page ("a/") pair up in order. Numbered notes keep
+    their printed number as n; lettered notes are numbered 1, 2, ... through
+    the document and keep the printed mark. A note nothing refers to is
+    attached to the decision's last paragraph, unanchored, so it is not lost.
+    """
+    # Title-page notes ("*/ Made public by decision of ...") belong to no
+    # paragraph; the DOCX route skips them too.
+    notes = [n for n in notes if not n['mark'].startswith('*')]
+    if not notes:
+        # Superscript references whose notes were not found: no dangling markers.
+        for para in paragraphs:
+            para['Text'] = re.sub(r'\[\[(?:fn|ref):\d{1,3}\]\]', '', para['Text'])
+        return paragraphs
+    ordinal = 0
+    for note in notes:
+        if note['style'] == 'number':
+            note['n'] = int(note['mark'])
+        else:
+            ordinal += 1
+            note['n'] = ordinal
+        note['used'] = False
+    queues: dict[tuple[str, str], list[dict]] = {}
+    for note in notes:
+        queues.setdefault((note['style'], note['mark']), []).append(note)
+    has_letter = any(n['style'] == 'letter' for n in notes)
+    has_endnumbers = any(n['style'] == 'number' and n.get('kind') == 'end' for n in notes)
+
+    def take(style: str, mark: str):
+        for note in queues.get((style, mark), []):
+            if not note['used']:
+                note['used'] = True
+                return note
+        return None
+
+    for para in paragraphs:
+        cited: list[dict] = []
+
+        def link(note, original: str) -> str:
+            if note is None:
+                return original
+            cited.append(note)
+            return f'[[fn:{note["n"]}]]'
+
+        text = para['Text']
+        text = re.sub(r'\[\[fn:(\d{1,3})\]\]', lambda m: link(take('number', m.group(1)), ''), text)
+        for note in notes:
+            if note.get('raw') and not note['used']:
+                # The garbled mark is repeated in the text as OCR read it.
+                text = re.sub(r'(?<=\S)\s' + re.escape(note['raw']) + r'(?=\s|$|[.,;:])',
+                              lambda m, note=note: link(take('letter', note['mark']), m.group(0)), text, count=1)
+        if has_letter:
+            text = FN_REF_LETTER.sub(lambda m: link(take('letter', _letter_mark(m.group(1)) if m.group(1)[0] != '*'
+                                                         else m.group(1)), m.group(0)), text)
+        if has_endnumbers:
+            text = FN_REF_PAREN.sub(
+                lambda m: m.group(0) if (m.group(1) and FN_REF_PAREN_NOT_AFTER.search(text[:m.start()]))
+                else link(take('number', m.group(2)), m.group(0)), text)
+        text = re.sub(r'\[\[ref:(\d{1,3})\]\]', lambda m: link(take('number', m.group(1)), ''), text)
+        para['Text'] = re.sub(r'\s{2,}', ' ', text).strip()
+        if cited:
+            items = para.setdefault('Footnotes', [])
+            for note in cited:
+                item = {'n': note['n'], 'text': note['text']}
+                if note['style'] != 'number':
+                    item['mark'] = note['mark'] + '/'
+                if item not in items:
+                    items.append(item)
+    unused = [n for n in notes if not n['used']]
+    if unused and paragraphs:
+        # On the decision's last paragraph, not on an appended opinion.
+        last = next((p for p in reversed(paragraphs) if not p.get('Namespace')), paragraphs[-1])
+        for note in unused:
+            item = {'n': note['n'], 'text': note['text'], 'anchored': False}
+            if note['style'] != 'number':
+                item['mark'] = note['mark'] + '/'
+            last.setdefault('Footnotes', []).append(item)
+    return paragraphs
+
+
 def extract_pdf_paragraphs(path: Path, doc_id: str | None = None) -> list[dict]:
     """Extract numbered jurisprudence paragraphs from a PDF.
 
@@ -1518,13 +2233,26 @@ def extract_pdf_paragraphs(path: Path, doc_id: str | None = None) -> list[dict]:
     doc = fitz.open(path)
     try:
         pages = []
+        notes: list[dict] = []
         for page in doc:
-            cleaned = _clean_page_text(page)
+            blocks, page_notes, carried = _pdf_page_blocks_and_notes(page)
+            cleaned = _clean_page_text(page, keep_body_in_margins=True, blocks=blocks)
             pages.append(cleaned if cleaned.strip() else page.get_text())
+            if carried and notes:
+                notes[-1]['text'] += ' ' + carried
+            for note in page_notes:
+                # Numbers run on (or restart at 1 in an annexed opinion); a
+                # line that only looks numbered continues the previous note.
+                if notes and note['mark'] not in ('1', str(int(notes[-1]['mark']) + 1)):
+                    notes[-1]['text'] += f" {note['mark']} {note['text']}"
+                else:
+                    notes.append(note)
     finally:
         doc.close()
+    for note in notes:
+        note['text'] = _clean_extracted_text(note['text'])
 
-    paragraphs = _parse_pdf_text_pages(pages)
+    paragraphs = _parse_pdf_text_pages(pages, notes)
     if paragraphs:
         return paragraphs
     unnumbered = extract_pdf_unnumbered_decision(pages)
@@ -1776,9 +2504,9 @@ def ingest_one(catalog_record: dict, manifest_entries: list[dict]) -> dict | Non
             n_lbl_paragraphs += 1
             case_label_set.update(labels)
 
-    # Outcome classification — title fallbacks to body text (first 12k chars)
-    body_blob = ' '.join(p['Text'] for p in paragraphs)
-    outcome = classify_outcome(catalog_record.get('title', ''), body_blob)
+    # Outcome from the operative paragraph(s); the title is a last resort.
+    outcome_result = classify_outcome(paragraphs, catalog_record.get('title', ''))
+    outcome = outcome_result['outcome']
 
     ocr_meta = _load_ocr_meta(doc_id) if fmt == 'pdf' else None
     source_format = fmt
@@ -1798,6 +2526,8 @@ def ingest_one(catalog_record: dict, manifest_entries: list[dict]) -> dict | Non
     # Year
     year = parse_year_from_symbol(sym)
     raw_date = catalog_record.get('submitted_date', '').strip()
+    # Year of the catalogue date: usually the adoption year, kept as the
+    # fallback year where no decision date is known.
     adoption_year = parse_year_from_date(raw_date)
 
     # Tier-1 record
@@ -1818,8 +2548,13 @@ def ingest_one(catalog_record: dict, manifest_entries: list[dict]) -> dict | Non
         'adoptionYear': adoption_year,
         'title': catalog_record.get('title', '').strip(),
         'outcome': outcome,
+        'outcomeFlags': outcome_result['flags'],
+        'outcomeOperativeIds': outcome_result['operative_ids'],
+        # The catalogue only has the submission date. It used to be copied
+        # into adoptionDate too (CCPR/C/18/D/74/1980: 23 Mar 1983, adopted
+        # 29 Mar 1983); apply_jurisprudence_metadata.py fills the adoption
+        # date from the decision's front matter.
         'submittedDate': raw_date,
-        'adoptionDate': raw_date,
         'languages': ['en'],
         'link': catalog_record.get('download_page_url', '').strip(),
         'sourceFile': f'json_jurisprudence/{doc_id}.json',
diff --git a/jur_paragraph_ids.py b/jur_paragraph_ids.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..d35e24d6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/jur_paragraph_ids.py
@@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
+"""Label-based jurisprudence paragraph ids and the old -> new redirect map.
+
+Paragraph ids used to be positional, ``{docId}-{idx:04d}``, so recovering
+one missing paragraph renumbered every paragraph after it and broke saved
+citations. They are now built from the printed label:
+
+    ccpr-c-50-d-488-1992:8.2       paragraph 8.2
+    ccpr-c-50-d-488-1992:OP1-U3    third unnumbered paragraph of opinion 1
+    ccpr-c-134-d-2841-2016:2.1~2   second paragraph labelled 2.1
+    cat-c-14-d-6-1990:u7           seventh record without a label
+
+The colon never occurs in a docId or a label, so everything before the first
+colon is the docId. GC and SP ids are unchanged.
+
+When a rebuild changes a document's paragraphs, ``align`` matches the
+previous build's paragraphs to the new ones by text, and ``merge_redirects``
+folds the result into the cumulative map (docs/jur/paragraph-redirects.json):
+every id ever published resolves in one hop to a live id, or to None when
+the old record was not a paragraph of the decision (a session date read as
+"para. 25", say). Matches the text cannot settle go to a review queue;
+reviewed decisions come back through ``apply_decisions``.
+"""
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import re
+from collections import Counter
+from difflib import SequenceMatcher
+
+SEP = ':'
+
+# A passage counts as found in a new paragraph when this share of its words
+# appears there in order.
+CONTAINED = 0.8
+# Below this nothing in the new build resembles the old paragraph.
+RESEMBLES = 0.5
+# Old records shorter than this (in words) that vanish are scraps (a stray
+# page header); any longer removal is reviewed.
+SUBSTANTIVE_WORDS = 12
+# Words at the start of an old paragraph that identify where it began.
+LEAD_WORDS = 8
+# A rebuilt document that keeps less than this share of its old words lost
+# text in extraction; its ids are left alone and the document is reported.
+KEPT_WORDS = 0.6
+
+
+def label_ids(doc_id: str, labels: list[str | None]) -> list[str]:
+    """Paragraph ids for one document, in order, from the printed labels."""
+    seen: Counter = Counter()
+    unlabelled = 0
+    out = []
+    for raw in labels:
+        label = re.sub(r'\s+', '', str(raw or '')).replace(SEP, '-').rstrip('.')
+        if not label:
+            unlabelled += 1
+            label = f'u{unlabelled}'
+        seen[label] += 1
+        if seen[label] > 1:
+            label = f'{label}~{seen[label]}'
+        out.append(f'{doc_id}{SEP}{label}')
+    return out
+
+
+def doc_id_of(para_id: str) -> str | None:
+    """The docId of a label-based id; None for a positional one."""
+    return para_id.split(SEP, 1)[0] if SEP in para_id else None
+
+
+def _tokens(text: str) -> list[str]:
+    text = re.sub(r'\[\[fn:[^\]]*\]\]', ' ', text or '')
+    return re.sub(r'[^0-9a-z]+', ' ', text.lower()).split()
+
+
+def _excerpt(text: str, budget: int = 2400) -> str:
+    """Head and tail of a long paragraph: a passage merged into another
+    usually sits at its end, so a head-only excerpt would hide it."""
+    if len(text) <= budget:
+        return text
+    return text[:budget // 2] + ' […] ' + text[-budget // 2:]
+
+
+def _overlap(a: list[str], b: list[str]) -> tuple[int, bool]:
+    """Words of a found in b in order, and whether b holds a's opening words."""
+    sm = SequenceMatcher(None, a, b, autojunk=False)
+    blocks = sm.get_matching_blocks()
+    matched = sum(bl.size for bl in blocks)
+    lead = min(LEAD_WORDS, len(a))
+    starts = any(bl.a == 0 and bl.size >= lead for bl in blocks) if lead else False
+    return matched, starts
+
+
+def align(old: list[dict], new: list[dict]) -> tuple[dict[str, str | None], list[dict]]:
+    """Match one document's previous paragraphs to its new ones.
+
+    ``old`` and ``new`` are lists of {id, text}. Returns ({old id: new id or
+    None} for every old id that is not itself a live id of the same
+    passage, [review items]). A review item holds the old paragraph, the
+    provisional answer and the candidates with their scores. When the new
+    build lost much of the document's text, nothing is redirected and the
+    one review item says so: that is an extraction failure, not a removal.
+    """
+    new_ids = {p['id'] for p in new}
+    old_tok = [_tokens(p['text']) for p in old]
+    new_tok = [_tokens(p['text']) for p in new]
+
+    # Same paragraphs in the same order: only the ids changed (the move from
+    # positional to label ids, or a relabelling).
+    if old_tok == new_tok:
+        return {o['id']: n['id'] for o, n in zip(old, new) if o['id'] != n['id']}, []
+
+    old_words = [w for t in old_tok for w in t]
+    new_words = set(w for t in new_tok for w in t)
+    if old_words and sum(w in new_words for w in old_words) / len(old_words) < KEPT_WORDS:
+        return {}, [{
+            'oldId': None,
+            'reason': 'document_regression',
+            'detail': f'{len(old)} old paragraphs, {len(new)} new; most of the old text is missing',
+        }]
+
+    by_id = {p['id']: i for i, p in enumerate(new)}
+    new_sets = [set(t) for t in new_tok]
+    redirects: dict[str, str | None] = {}
+    review: list[dict] = []
+    for o, ot in zip(old, old_tok):
+        j = by_id.get(o['id'])
+        if j is not None and ot and new_tok[j]:
+            matched, starts = _overlap(ot, new_tok[j])
+            if matched / len(ot) >= RESEMBLES or (starts and matched / len(new_tok[j]) >= CONTAINED):
+                # The id still names the same passage, or the passage the old
+                # record began with when it was several run together.
+                continue
+        if not ot:
+            redirects[o['id']] = None
+            continue
+        oset = set(ot)
+        # Relative overlap, so a short paragraph split off the old one ranks too.
+        shortlist = sorted(range(len(new)), key=lambda k: -max(
+            len(oset & new_sets[k]) / len(oset), len(oset & new_sets[k]) / max(1, len(new_sets[k]))))[:6]
+        cands = []
+        for k in shortlist:
+            if not new_tok[k]:
+                continue
+            matched, starts = _overlap(ot, new_tok[k])
+            cands.append({
+                'id': new[k]['id'],
+                'text': _excerpt(new[k]['text']),
+                'containsOld': round(matched / len(ot), 3),   # the old passage is inside it
+                'insideOld': round(matched / len(new_tok[k]), 3),  # it is a piece of the old passage
+                'startsOld': starts,
+            })
+        merged = [c for c in cands if c['containsOld'] >= CONTAINED]
+        split = [c for c in cands if c['insideOld'] >= CONTAINED and c['startsOld']]
+        if merged:
+            merged.sort(key=lambda c: (-c['containsOld'], -c['insideOld']))
+            best = merged[0]
+            # Two new paragraphs that both hold the passage (repeated boilerplate).
+            confident = len(merged) == 1 or merged[1]['containsOld'] < best['containsOld'] - 0.1
+            reason = 'contained'
+        elif split:
+            # The old record was several paragraphs run together; it began with this one.
+            best, confident, reason = split[0], len(split) == 1, 'split'
+        else:
+            scored = sorted(cands, key=lambda c: -max(c['containsOld'], c['insideOld']))
+            best = scored[0] if scored and max(scored[0]['containsOld'], scored[0]['insideOld']) >= RESEMBLES else None
+            confident = best is None and len(ot) < SUBSTANTIVE_WORDS
+            reason = 'resembles' if best else 'removed'
+        target = best['id'] if best else None
+        redirects[o['id']] = target
+        if not confident:
+            review.append({
+                'oldId': o['id'],
+                'oldText': o['text'][:600],
+                'provisional': target,
+                'reason': reason,
+                'candidates': sorted(cands, key=lambda c: -max(c['containsOld'], c['insideOld']))[:4],
+            })
+    return redirects, review
+
+
+def apply_decisions(redirects: dict, decisions: dict) -> dict:
+    """Overlay reviewed answers ({old id: new id or None}) on provisional ones."""
+    out = dict(redirects)
+    for old_id, target in decisions.items():
+        if old_id in out:
+            out[old_id] = target
+    return out
+
+
+def merge_redirects(existing: dict, update: dict, live_ids: set[str], built_docs: set[str]) -> tuple[dict, list[str]]:
+    """Fold this build's redirects into the cumulative map.
+
+    Every target is chased to a live id (a -> b, b -> c gives a -> c). An id
+    that is live again stops being redirected. Targets inside the rebuilt
+    documents that are neither live nor redirected are reported (dangling).
+    """
+    merged = {**existing, **update}
+    out, dangling = {}, []
+    for old_id in merged:
+        if old_id in live_ids:
+            continue
+        target, hops = merged[old_id], 0
+        while target is not None and target not in live_ids and target in merged and hops < 50:
+            target, hops = merged[target], hops + 1
+        if target is not None and target not in live_ids and _doc(target) in built_docs:
+            dangling.append(old_id)
+        out[old_id] = target
+    return out, dangling
+
+
+def _doc(para_id: str) -> str:
+    return doc_id_of(para_id) or re.sub(r'-\d{4}$', '', para_id)
+
+
+def legacy_index(redirects: dict) -> dict[str, list[str]]:
+    """{live id: [old ids that resolve to it]} for the shards' legacyIds."""
+    index: dict[str, list[str]] = {}
+    for old_id, target in redirects.items():
+        if target is not None:
+            index.setdefault(target, []).append(old_id)
+    for ids in index.values():
+        ids.sort()
+    return index
diff --git a/ocr_jurisprudence.py b/ocr_jurisprudence.py
index dc6a3a7e..7dfa4e2d 100644
--- a/ocr_jurisprudence.py
+++ b/ocr_jurisprudence.py
@@ -83,7 +83,6 @@
     (re.compile(r'\bouthor\b', re.IGNORECASE), 'author'),
     (re.compile(r'\bresponnible\b', re.IGNORECASE), 'responsible'),
     (re.compile(r'\binetance\b', re.IGNORECASE), 'instance'),
-    (re.compile(r"\bauthor'?s\b", re.IGNORECASE), "author's"),
     (re.compile(r'\bites rules\b', re.IGNORECASE), 'its rules'),
     (re.compile(r'\bthy Optional Protocol\b', re.IGNORECASE), 'the Optional Protocol'),
     (re.compile(r'\bite decision\b', re.IGNORECASE), 'its decision'),
@@ -338,7 +337,10 @@ def tesseract_tsv(image: Path, *, psm: int, profile: str, preprocess: str) -> Oc
     lines: dict[tuple[int, int, int], list[tuple[int, str]]] = {}
     confs = []
     words = 0
-    reader = csv.DictReader(proc.stdout.splitlines(), delimiter='\t')
+    # QUOTE_NONE: Tesseract does not quote its TSV. With the default dialect a
+    # word that starts with '"' opens a quoted field that swallows the
+    # following rows, line breaks and all, into one "word" (CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991).
+    reader = csv.DictReader(proc.stdout.splitlines(), delimiter='\t', quoting=csv.QUOTE_NONE)
     for row in reader:
         txt = (row.get('text') or '').strip()
         if not txt:
diff --git a/scripts/audit_jur_quality.py b/scripts/audit_jur_quality.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..157958e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/audit_jur_quality.py
@@ -0,0 +1,301 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""Corpus-wide label-continuity and garbage scan of UNHRDB jurisprudence.
+
+Read-only. Reads the published build artefacts (docs/jur/documents.json and
+docs/jur/shards/*.json), which are what build_db.py loads into the API, and
+writes a JSON report. Optionally checks a random sample of documents against
+the live API to confirm the artefacts match what is served.
+
+The continuity rule is the one in vclt-interpreter/stage_b/check_continuity.py,
+extended so that a restart at "1" after an operative paragraph is reported as
+a separate part (two-part decisions, unnamespaced opinions) instead of a
+cascade of repeats.
+
+Usage:
+    python3 audit_jur_quality.py --repo ../generalcomments-repo --out report.json
+    python3 audit_jur_quality.py --repo ... --out ... --verify-api 40
+"""
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import argparse
+import json
+import random
+import re
+import ssl
+import urllib.request
+from collections import Counter, defaultdict
+from pathlib import Path
+
+API = 'https://150.254.115.204/unhrdb-api/api'
+
+MAIN_LABEL = re.compile(r'\d+(?:\.\d+)?')
+MONTHS = r'(?:january|february|march|april|may|june|july|august|september|october|november|december)'
+
+# B: garbage
+TSV_ROW = re.compile(r'(?:\b-?\d+(?:\.\d+)?[\t ]+){9,}-?\d+\.\d{3,6}\b')
+PAGE_NO = re.compile(r'(?:^|\s)-\s?\d{1,4}\s?-(?=\s|$)')
+OCR_TOKEN = re.compile(
+    r'[A-Za-z][~¥£|][A-Za-z:]'            # obliga~:ion, arti~~e
+    r'|\b[A-Z]{2}[a-z]{3,}\b'              # SUbjected
+    r'|\b[a-z]+[01][a-z]+\b'               # rtic1e
+    r'|\b\d+~\d+\b'                        # 8~5
+)
+HEADING_TAIL = re.compile(
+    r'[.!?”"\])]\s+((?:the\s+)?(?:facts\s+as\s+(?:submitted|presented)\s+by\s+the\s+authors?|'
+    r'examination\s+of\s+the\s+merits|consideration\s+of\s+(?:admissibility|the\s+merits)|'
+    r'issues\s+and\s+proceedings\s+before\s+the\s+committee|the\s+complaint|'
+    r'(?:the\s+)?state\s+party[’\']?s\s+(?:observations|submissions?)[^.]{0,80}|'
+    r'(?:the\s+)?author[’\']?s\s+(?:comments|observations)[^.]{0,80}|'
+    r'committee[’\']?s\s+decision\s+on\s+admissibility))\s*:?\s*$',
+    re.IGNORECASE,
+)
+ENDNOTE_TAIL = re.compile(r'(?:\]|\.)\s+(?:Notes?\s+\d|Notes\b|APPENDIX\b|Appendix\b|\*\s*/|-\*-)')
+TERMINAL = tuple('.;:!?)]"”’\'*')
+
+
+def check(labels: list[str]) -> list[str]:
+    """check_continuity.check, unchanged apart from taking clean labels."""
+    issues, seen, major, minor = [], set(), 0, 0
+    for lab in labels:
+        m = re.fullmatch(r'(\d+)(?:\.(\d+))?', lab)
+        if not m:
+            issues.append(f'odd label {lab!r}')
+            continue
+        if lab in seen:
+            issues.append(f'repeat {lab}')
+            continue
+        seen.add(lab)
+        a, b = int(m.group(1)), m.group(2)
+        if b is None:
+            if a != major + 1:
+                issues.append(f'out of sequence {lab} after {major}.{minor}' if minor else f'out of sequence {lab} after {major}')
+                continue
+            major, minor = a, 0
+        else:
+            b = int(b)
+            if a == major and b == minor + 1:
+                minor = b
+            elif a == major + 1 and b == 1:
+                major, minor = a, 1
+            elif a > major:
+                issues.append(f'gap before {lab} (last {major}.{minor})')
+                major, minor = a, b
+            elif a == major and b > minor + 1:
+                issues.append(f'gap {major}.{minor + 1}-{a}.{b - 1}')
+                minor = b
+            else:
+                issues.append(f'out of sequence {lab} after {major}.{minor}')
+    if labels and '.' in labels[-1]:
+        issues.append(f'no operative paragraph at the end (last label {labels[-1]})')
+    return issues
+
+
+def split_parts(labels: list[str]) -> list[list[str]]:
+    """Split a main-body label run where numbering restarts at 1 / 1.1."""
+    parts, cur = [], []
+    for lab in labels:
+        if cur and lab in ('1', '1.1') and len(cur) >= 3:
+            parts.append(cur)
+            cur = []
+        cur.append(lab)
+    if cur:
+        parts.append(cur)
+    return parts
+
+
+def missing_labels(labels: list[str]) -> list[str]:
+    """Labels a gap implies, e.g. 6.3 -> 6.5 gives 6.4."""
+    out, prev = [], None
+    for lab in labels:
+        m = re.fullmatch(r'(\d+)(?:\.(\d+))?', lab)
+        if not m:
+            continue
+        a, b = int(m.group(1)), int(m.group(2)) if m.group(2) else None
+        if prev:
+            pa, pb = prev
+            if b is not None and pb is not None and a == pa and b > pb + 1:
+                out += [f'{a}.{k}' for k in range(pb + 1, b)]
+            elif b is not None and a == pa + 1 and b > 1:
+                out += [f'{a}.{k}' for k in range(1, b)]
+            elif b is None and pb is None and a > pa + 1:
+                out += [str(k) for k in range(pa + 1, a)]
+        prev = (a, b)
+    return out
+
+
+def scan_doc(doc: dict, paras: list[dict]) -> dict:
+    flags: dict[str, list] = defaultdict(list)
+    ns = [(p.get('n') or '') for p in paras]
+    main = [(i, n) for i, n in enumerate(ns) if MAIN_LABEL.fullmatch(n) and not paras[i].get('namespace')]
+    main_labels = [n for _, n in main]
+
+    # ---- C: labels / structure
+    unlabelled = sum(1 for n in ns if not n)
+    if unlabelled:
+        flags['C_unlabelled_records'].append(unlabelled)
+    if main:
+        i0, first = main[0]
+        t0 = paras[i0]['text'].strip().lower()
+        if first not in ('1', '1.1') and (re.match(MONTHS, t0) or re.match(r'^[–-]\s*\d', t0) or int(first.split('.')[0]) > 3):
+            flags['C_header_record_as_paragraph'].append(first)
+    parts = split_parts(main_labels)
+    if len(parts) > 1:
+        flags['C_numbering_restarts'].append(len(parts))
+    issues = []
+    for part in parts:
+        issues += check(part)
+    gaps = [x for x in issues if x.startswith('gap')]
+    seq = [x for x in issues if x.startswith(('out of sequence', 'repeat', 'odd'))]
+    if seq:
+        flags['C_out_of_sequence_or_repeat'] += seq
+    op_labels = [n for n in ns if n.startswith('OP')]
+    op_numeric = [n for n in op_labels if re.fullmatch(r'OP\d+-\d+(?:\.\d+)?', n)]
+    for k, c in Counter(op_labels).items():
+        if c > 1:
+            flags['C_opinion_label_repeated'].append(k)
+    for prefix, grp in _group(op_numeric).items():
+        nums = [int(x.split('-')[1].split('.')[0]) for x in grp]
+        if nums and (nums[0] > 3 or any(b < a for a, b in zip(nums, nums[1:]))):
+            flags['C_opinion_numbering_odd'].append(prefix)
+    # Opinion text without an OP namespace
+    for i, p in enumerate(paras):
+        if p.get('namespace'):
+            continue
+        t = p['text']
+        if re.search(r'\b(?:individual|separate|dissenting|concurring)\s+opinion\s+(?:of|by)\s+(?:Mr|Ms|Mrs|Sir|Committee member)', t[:200], re.IGNORECASE):
+            flags['C_opinion_not_namespaced'].append(ns[i] or f'idx{i}')
+
+    # ---- A: missing / truncated / merged
+    if gaps:
+        flags['A_label_gap'] += gaps
+    miss = []
+    for part in parts:
+        miss += missing_labels(part)
+    texts = [p['text'] for p in paras]
+    for lab in miss:
+        if '.' not in lab:
+            continue
+        pat = re.compile(r'[.;:”"\]]\s+' + re.escape(lab).replace(r'\.', r'\s?[.~,]\s?') + r'\.?\s+[A-Z“"(]')
+        for i, t in enumerate(texts):
+            if pat.search(t[1:]):
+                flags['A_missing_label_found_inside_other_paragraph'].append(f'{lab} in {ns[i] or i}')
+                break
+    for i, p in enumerate(paras):
+        t = p['text'].rstrip()
+        if not t or p.get('namespace') or not ns[i]:
+            continue
+        nxt = paras[i + 1]['text'].lstrip() if i + 1 < len(paras) else ''
+        core = PAGE_NO.sub('', t).rstrip()
+        if re.search(r'[.;:!?”"’)\]]\s?\d{1,3}$|\.,$', core):
+            flags['B_stray_footnote_number_at_end'].append(ns[i])
+        elif not core.endswith(TERMINAL) and len(core) > 60:
+            flags['A_ends_mid_sentence'].append(ns[i])
+        if re.search(r'\b(?:article|articles|paragraph|paragraphs|rule|section|No\.|art\.)$', t, re.IGNORECASE):
+            flags['A_ends_on_reference_word'].append(ns[i])
+    for i, n in enumerate(ns):
+        if MAIN_LABEL.fullmatch(n) and '.' not in n and i > 0 and int(n) >= 15:
+            prev = paras[i - 1]['text'].rstrip()
+            if re.search(r'\b(?:article|articles|paragraph|paragraphs|rule)$', prev, re.IGNORECASE):
+                flags['A_reference_number_split_into_record'].append(f'{ns[i-1]}|{n}')
+
+    # ---- B: garbage
+    for i, t in enumerate(texts):
+        lab = ns[i] or f'idx{i}'
+        if TSV_ROW.search(t):
+            flags['B_tesseract_tsv_leak'].append(lab)
+        if PAGE_NO.search(t):
+            flags['B_page_number_in_text'].append(lab)
+        if HEADING_TAIL.search(t[-160:]):
+            flags['B_heading_appended'].append(lab)
+        if ENDNOTE_TAIL.search(t) and i >= len(texts) - 3:
+            flags['B_endnotes_or_appendix_appended'].append(lab)
+    tokens = sum(len(t.split()) for t in texts) or 1
+    noise = sum(len(OCR_TOKEN.findall(t)) for t in texts)
+    rate = noise / tokens * 1000
+    if rate >= 1.0:
+        flags['B_ocr_noise_per_1000_tokens'].append(round(rate, 2))
+
+    return {k: v for k, v in flags.items() if v}
+
+
+def _group(labels):
+    g = defaultdict(list)
+    for x in labels:
+        g[x.split('-')[0]].append(x)
+    return g
+
+
+def comm_key(doc):
+    """Communication number from the symbol: .../D/903/1999 -> 903."""
+    m = re.search(r'/D/(\d+)[/-]', doc.get('symbol') or '')
+    return (doc.get('treaty'), m.group(1)) if m else None
+
+
+def verify_api(sample, by_doc):
+    ctx = ssl._create_unverified_context()
+    mism = []
+    for doc_id in sample:
+        with urllib.request.urlopen(f'{API}/document/{doc_id}', timeout=60, context=ctx) as r:
+            api = json.loads(r.read())
+        a = [(p['n'], p['text']) for p in api['paragraphs']]
+        b = [(p.get('n'), p['text']) for p in by_doc[doc_id]]
+        if a != b:
+            mism.append(doc_id)
+    return mism
+
+
+def main():
+    ap = argparse.ArgumentParser()
+    ap.add_argument('--repo', required=True, type=Path)
+    ap.add_argument('--out', required=True, type=Path)
+    ap.add_argument('--verify-api', type=int, default=0)
+    args = ap.parse_args()
+
+    docs = {d['docId']: d for d in json.loads((args.repo / 'docs/jur/documents.json').read_text())}
+    by_doc = defaultdict(list)
+    for f in sorted((args.repo / 'docs/jur/shards').glob('*.json')):
+        for p in json.loads(f.read_text())['paragraphs']:
+            by_doc[p['docId']].append(p)
+    for v in by_doc.values():
+        v.sort(key=lambda p: p['idx'])
+
+    report, per_class_docs, per_class_hits = {}, Counter(), Counter()
+    by_format = defaultdict(Counter)
+    for doc_id, d in docs.items():
+        paras = by_doc.get(doc_id, [])
+        flags = scan_doc(d, paras)
+        if flags:
+            report[doc_id] = {'symbol': d.get('symbol'), 'sourceFormat': d.get('sourceFormat'), 'flags': flags}
+        for k, v in flags.items():
+            per_class_docs[k] += 1
+            per_class_hits[k] += len(v)
+            by_format[k][d.get('sourceFormat')] += 1
+
+    # C5: several records for one communication
+    groups = defaultdict(list)
+    for d in docs.values():
+        k = comm_key(d)
+        if k:
+            groups[k].append(d['docId'])
+    multi = {f'{k[0]} {k[1]}': v for k, v in groups.items() if len(v) > 1}
+
+    summary = {
+        'documents': len(docs),
+        'paragraphs': sum(len(v) for v in by_doc.values()),
+        'documents_with_any_flag': len(report),
+        'by_flag': {k: {'documents': per_class_docs[k], 'hits': per_class_hits[k], 'by_format': dict(by_format[k])}
+                    for k in sorted(per_class_docs)},
+        'C_several_records_same_communication': {'groups': len(multi), 'records': sum(len(v) for v in multi.values())},
+        'format_totals': dict(Counter(d.get('sourceFormat') for d in docs.values())),
+    }
+    if args.verify_api:
+        random.seed(20261006)
+        sample = random.sample(sorted(docs), args.verify_api)
+        summary['api_verification'] = {'sampled': len(sample), 'mismatched': verify_api(sample, by_doc)}
+    args.out.write_text(json.dumps({'summary': summary, 'same_communication': multi, 'documents': report},
+                                   ensure_ascii=False, indent=1))
+    print(json.dumps(summary, indent=1, ensure_ascii=False))
+
+
+if __name__ == '__main__':
+    main()
diff --git a/scripts/jev_redirect_review.py b/scripts/jev_redirect_review.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a89d6d57
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/jev_redirect_review.py
@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""Ask Jev (TypeSafe) to settle the paragraph redirects the text alignment could not.
+
+Input is the review queue build_jurisprudence_shards.py writes (--review-out):
+old paragraphs whose new home is uncertain, each with up to four candidate
+new paragraphs. Jev picks one candidate or "none" and returns a calibrated
+probability. Picks at p >= --accept go into the decisions file, which the
+next build reads with --decisions; the rest stay for a person, with Jev's
+pick as a suggestion. Every answer is logged with its probabilities.
+
+Documents whose rebuild lost most of their text (reason document_regression)
+are not asked: that is an extraction failure to fix, not a match to make.
+
+Sends the paragraph text (public UN decisions) to api.typesafe.ai. Uses the
+Jev client and key of the travaux project (pipeline/jev.py, travaux/.env).
+
+    python3 scripts/jev_redirect_review.py --review jur_paragraph_redirect_review.json \\
+        --decisions jur_paragraph_redirect_decisions.json
+"""
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import argparse
+import json
+import sys
+from pathlib import Path
+
+ACCEPT = 0.9  # as the travaux pipeline accepts Jev's speaker picks
+BATCH = 8
+LETTERS = 'ABCD'
+
+INSTRUCTIONS = (
+    "Consider only item {key} in the state. A citation points at the old paragraph of a UN treaty-body "
+    "decision. The decision was extracted again from its source, so paragraphs may now be renumbered, "
+    "split, merged or dropped, and the old text may carry OCR noise, a heading glued to its end, endnotes, "
+    "or front matter (session dates, lists of articles). Which new paragraph holds the passage the old "
+    "paragraph begins with, i.e. where a reader following the citation should land? Answer 'none' if the "
+    "old paragraph was front matter, an endnote or page debris, or if its passage is in none of them."
+)
+
+
+def load_jev(client_dir: Path):
+    sys.path.insert(0, str(client_dir))
+    import jev  # noqa: E402  (travaux/pipeline/jev.py)
+    return jev
+
+
+def item_state(item: dict) -> dict:
+    return {
+        'document': item['docId'],
+        'old_paragraph': {'id': item['oldId'].split(':', 1)[-1], 'text': item['oldText']},
+        'new_paragraphs': {LETTERS[i]: {'id': c['id'].split(':', 1)[-1], 'text': c.get('text', '')}
+                           for i, c in enumerate(item['candidates'][:len(LETTERS)])},
+    }
+
+
+def main() -> int:
+    ap = argparse.ArgumentParser(description=__doc__, formatter_class=argparse.RawDescriptionHelpFormatter)
+    ap.add_argument('--review', type=Path, required=True)
+    ap.add_argument('--decisions', type=Path, required=True, help='Write {oldId: newId or null} here')
+    ap.add_argument('--log', type=Path, help='Every answer with probabilities (default: DECISIONS.log.json)')
+    ap.add_argument('--accept', type=float, default=ACCEPT)
+    ap.add_argument('--jev-client', type=Path, default=Path('/Users/lszoszk/Desktop/AI/travaux/pipeline'))
+    ap.add_argument('--limit', type=int)
+    ap.add_argument('--dry-run', action='store_true', help='Print the first request and stop')
+    args = ap.parse_args()
+
+    items = [r for r in json.loads(args.review.read_text())
+             if r.get('reason') != 'document_regression' and r.get('candidates')]
+    if args.limit:
+        items = items[:args.limit]
+    jev = load_jev(args.jev_client)
+
+    decisions = json.loads(args.decisions.read_text()) if args.decisions.exists() else {}
+    log = []
+    for start in range(0, len(items), BATCH):
+        chunk = items[start:start + BATCH]
+        keys = [f'I{start + j}' for j in range(len(chunk))]
+        state = {'items': {k: item_state(it) for k, it in zip(keys, chunk)}}
+        questions = {}
+        for k, it in zip(keys, chunk):
+            options = {LETTERS[i]: f"new paragraph {LETTERS[i]} of item {k}"
+                       for i in range(min(len(it['candidates']), len(LETTERS)))}
+            options['none'] = 'none of them: the old passage is not in the new build'
+            questions[k] = jev.choice(INSTRUCTIONS.format(key=k), options)
+        if args.dry_run:
+            print(json.dumps({'state': state, 'questions': questions}, ensure_ascii=False, indent=1)[:4000])
+            return 0
+        answers = jev.ask(state, questions, task='unhrdb_redirect_review')
+        for k, it in zip(keys, chunk):
+            a = answers.get(k) or {}
+            pick = a.get('choice')
+            probs = a.get('probabilities') or {}
+            p = probs.get(pick) or 0.0
+            target = None if pick == 'none' else (
+                it['candidates'][LETTERS.index(pick)]['id'] if pick in LETTERS[:len(it['candidates'])] else '?')
+            accepted = target != '?' and p >= args.accept
+            if accepted:
+                decisions[it['oldId']] = target
+            log.append({'oldId': it['oldId'], 'provisional': it['provisional'], 'reason': it['reason'],
+                        'jev': target, 'p': round(p, 3), 'probabilities': probs, 'accepted': accepted})
+        print(f'{min(start + BATCH, len(items))}/{len(items)} asked', file=sys.stderr)
+
+    args.decisions.write_text(json.dumps(decisions, ensure_ascii=False, indent=1))
+    log_path = args.log or args.decisions.with_suffix('.log.json')
+    log_path.write_text(json.dumps(log, ensure_ascii=False, indent=1))
+    accepted = [x for x in log if x['accepted']]
+    print(f'{len(log)} asked; {len(accepted)} accepted at p >= {args.accept} '
+          f'({sum(x["jev"] != x["provisional"] for x in accepted)} differ from the provisional match); '
+          f'{len(log) - len(accepted)} left for review -> {log_path}')
+    return 0
+
+
+if __name__ == '__main__':
+    sys.exit(main())
diff --git a/tests/docs-reader.spec.ts b/tests/docs-reader.spec.ts
index 998068cc..19b20de4 100644
--- a/tests/docs-reader.spec.ts
+++ b/tests/docs-reader.spec.ts
@@ -390,11 +390,13 @@ test('R22. mergedDuplicate · the retired Narymbaev stub id still opens the case
   // ccpr-c-133-d-2904-2016-2907-2016 was a bare duplicate of the Narymbaev
   // record, merged away 2026-08-18. Its docId lives on via alternativeIds, and
   // a paragraph pinpoint carries over because the paragraphs are positional.
+  // v19.80: JUR ids are label-based now; the survivor's old positional id
+  // (-0005, ¶2.3) resolves through the shard legacyIds to "<docId>:2.3".
   await bootApp(page, '/index.html?p=ccpr-c-133-d-2904-2016-2907-2016-0005#documents/ccpr-c-133-d-2904-2016-2907-2016');
   await page.waitForTimeout(1200);
   await expect(page.locator('.docs-reader-title')).toContainText(/Narymbaev/i);
   await expect(page.locator('.docs-reader-para.is-active'))
-    .toHaveAttribute('data-para-id', 'ccpr-c-133-d-2904-2907-2016-0005', { timeout: 10_000 });
+    .toHaveAttribute('data-para-id', /^ccpr-c-133-d-2904-2907-2016(-0005|:2\.3)$/, { timeout: 10_000 });
 });
 
 test('R23. zoteroMetadata · an open document exposes Highwire citation tags; the shell does not', async ({ page }) => {
diff --git a/tests/footnote-marks.unit.mjs b/tests/footnote-marks.unit.mjs
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..75fc04d5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/footnote-marks.unit.mjs
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+// Unit checks for footnote rendering in docs/assets/app.js (v19.81): PDF
+// notes of old UN compilations show their printed mark ("a/"), and notes
+// that no legible reference points to are listed under the paragraph.
+//
+//   node tests/footnote-marks.unit.mjs
+import { readFileSync } from 'node:fs';
+import vm from 'node:vm';
+import assert from 'node:assert/strict';
+
+const SRC = readFileSync(new URL('../docs/assets/app.js', import.meta.url), 'utf8');
+
+function lift(name) {
+  const m = new RegExp(`^(?:function ${name}\\(|const ${name} = )`, 'm').exec(SRC);
+  if (!m) throw new Error(`not found in app.js: ${name}`);
+  const eol = SRC.indexOf('\n', m.index);
+  if (m[0].startsWith('const') && !SRC.slice(m.index, eol).includes('{')) return SRC.slice(m.index, eol);
+  const open = SRC.indexOf('{', SRC.indexOf(m[0].startsWith('const') ? '=' : ')', m.index));
+  let depth = 0;
+  for (let i = open; i < SRC.length; i++) {
+    if (SRC[i] === '{') depth++;
+    else if (SRC[i] === '}' && --depth === 0) return SRC.slice(m.index, i + 1);
+  }
+  throw new Error(`unbalanced: ${name}`);
+}
+
+const ctx = { highlight: (t) => t };
+vm.createContext(ctx);
+vm.runInContext(['escape', 'FN_MARKER_RE', 'stripFnMarkers', '_fnButtonHtml', 'renderUnanchoredNotes', 'renderParagraphHtml']
+  .map(lift).join('\n') + '\nthis.api = { renderParagraphHtml, renderUnanchoredNotes };', ctx);
+const { renderParagraphHtml, renderUnanchoredNotes } = ctx.api;
+
+let passed = 0;
+function test(name, fn) { fn(); passed++; console.log(`ok   ${name}`); }
+
+test('numbered footnotes still show their number', () => {
+  const html = renderParagraphHtml('A claim.[[fn:12]]', [{ n: 12, text: 'See general comment No. 16.' }]);
+  assert.match(html, /<sup>12<\/sup>/);
+  assert.match(html, /data-fn-label="12"/);
+});
+
+test('lettered notes show the printed mark', () => {
+  const html = renderParagraphHtml("as Victor Jan.[[fn:3]] Amongst", [{ n: 3, text: 'A well-known singer.', mark: 'c/' }]);
+  assert.match(html, /<sup>c\/<\/sup>/);
+  assert.match(html, /aria-label="Footnote c\/: A well-known singer\."/);
+  assert.match(html, /data-fn-n="3"/);
+});
+
+test('unanchored notes are listed, anchored ones are not', () => {
+  const html = renderUnanchoredNotes([
+    { n: 1, text: 'An opposition movement.', mark: 'a/', anchored: false },
+    { n: 3, text: 'A well-known singer.', mark: 'c/' },
+  ]);
+  assert.match(html, /Notes not marked in the text/);
+  assert.match(html, /<sup>a\/<\/sup>/);
+  assert.doesNotMatch(html, /c\//);
+  assert.match(html, /data-fn-flags="unanchored"/);
+});
+
+test('no list when every note is anchored', () => {
+  assert.equal(renderUnanchoredNotes([{ n: 1, text: 'x' }]), '');
+  assert.equal(renderUnanchoredNotes(undefined), '');
+});
+
+console.log(`\n${passed} passed`);
diff --git a/tests/paragraph-ids.unit.mjs b/tests/paragraph-ids.unit.mjs
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..1e7ed8f2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/paragraph-ids.unit.mjs
@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+// Unit checks for the paragraph-id helpers in docs/assets/app.js (v19.80:
+// JUR ids moved from positional "<docId>-NNNN" to "<docId>:<label>").
+// app.js is a browser script, so the pure helpers are lifted out of its text
+// and run in a vm context with a stub `state`, API and localStorage.
+//
+//   node tests/paragraph-ids.unit.mjs
+//
+// Not a Playwright spec (the name does not match *.spec.*), no dependencies.
+import { readFileSync } from 'node:fs';
+import vm from 'node:vm';
+import assert from 'node:assert/strict';
+
+const SRC = readFileSync(new URL('../docs/assets/app.js', import.meta.url), 'utf8');
+
+// Source of a top-level `function name(` / `const name =` declaration, cut at
+// its matching closing brace (the helpers have no braces inside strings).
+function lift(name) {
+  const m = new RegExp(`^(?:async function ${name}\\(|function ${name}\\(|const ${name} = )`, 'm').exec(SRC);
+  if (!m) throw new Error(`not found in app.js: ${name}`);
+  const eol = SRC.indexOf('\n', m.index);
+  if (m[0].startsWith('const') && !SRC.slice(m.index, eol).includes('{')) return SRC.slice(m.index, eol);
+  const open = SRC.indexOf('{', SRC.indexOf(m[0].startsWith('const') ? '=' : ')', m.index));
+  let depth = 0;
+  for (let i = open; i < SRC.length; i++) {
+    if (SRC[i] === '{') depth++;
+    else if (SRC[i] === '}' && --depth === 0) {
+      let end = i + 1;
+      if (SRC[end] === ';') end++;
+      return SRC.slice(m.index, end);
+    }
+  }
+  throw new Error(`unbalanced: ${name}`);
+}
+
+const store = new Map();
+const ctx = {
+  state: { paragraphById: new Map(), documents: new Map(), paraIdAlias: new Map(), apiOnline: true, paragraphs: [] },
+  localStorage: {
+    getItem: k => (store.has(k) ? store.get(k) : null),
+    setItem: (k, v) => store.set(k, String(v)),
+  },
+  apiOn: true,
+  fetches: [],
+  apiReplies: {},          // id → body | Error
+  paintWorkspaceBadge() {},
+};
+vm.createContext(ctx);
+vm.runInContext(`
+  function apiEnabled() { return apiOn; }
+  async function apiFetch(path) {
+    fetches.push(path);
+    const id = decodeURIComponent(path.replace('/api/paragraph/', ''));
+    const r = apiReplies[id];
+    if (r && !r.para_id) throw r;          // an Error from the outer realm
+    if (!r) { const e = new Error('Unknown'); e.status = 404; e.detail = 'Unknown para_id'; e.payload = { detail: 'Unknown para_id' }; throw e; }
+    return r;
+  }
+  function adaptApiHit(h) { return { id: h.para_id, docId: h.doc_id, text: h.text, _apiOnly: true }; }
+  ${['_LS', '_lsGet', '_lsSet', 'documentIdForParagraphId', '_paraIdInDoc', '_registerLegacyParaIds',
+     '_paraIdResolving', 'resolveParagraphId', '_docIdFromParaId', '_canonParaId', '_wsMigrateParaIds']
+    .map(lift).join('\n')}
+  globalThis.api = { documentIdForParagraphId, _paraIdInDoc, _registerLegacyParaIds, resolveParagraphId,
+                     _docIdFromParaId, _canonParaId, _wsMigrateParaIds, _LS };
+`, ctx);
+const { api, state } = ctx;
+
+const JUR = 'ccpr-c-50-d-488-1992';
+const SURVIVOR = 'ccpr-c-133-d-2904-2907-2016';
+const MERGED = 'ccpr-c-133-d-2904-2016-2907-2016';
+state.documents.set(JUR, { docId: JUR, type: 'jur' });
+state.documents.set(SURVIVOR, { docId: SURVIVOR, type: 'jur', alternativeIds: [MERGED] });
+state.documents.set('crpd-c-gc-6', { docId: 'crpd-c-gc-6', type: 'gc' });
+state.documents.set('crpd-c-gc-6-extra', { docId: 'crpd-c-gc-6-extra', type: 'gc' });
+
+let passed = 0;
+async function t(name, fn) {
+  try { await fn(); passed++; console.log(`ok   ${name}`); }
+  catch (e) { console.log(`FAIL ${name}\n     ${e.message}`); process.exitCode = 1; }
+}
+
+await t('_docIdFromParaId: label ids split on the first colon', () => {
+  assert.equal(api._docIdFromParaId(`${JUR}:8.2`), JUR);
+  assert.equal(api._docIdFromParaId(`${JUR}:OP1-U3`), JUR);
+  assert.equal(api._docIdFromParaId(`${JUR}:A1-2`), JUR);
+  assert.equal(api._docIdFromParaId(`${JUR}:2.1~2`), JUR);
+  assert.equal(api._docIdFromParaId(`${JUR}:u3`), JUR);
+});
+await t('_docIdFromParaId: positional GC / SP / legacy JUR ids', () => {
+  assert.equal(api._docIdFromParaId(`${JUR}-0005`), JUR);
+  assert.equal(api._docIdFromParaId('crpd-c-gc-6-0001'), 'crpd-c-gc-6');
+  assert.equal(api._docIdFromParaId('a-hrc-58-58-0008'), 'a-hrc-58-58');
+  assert.equal(api._docIdFromParaId('no-number'), null);
+  assert.equal(api._docIdFromParaId(''), null);
+});
+await t('documentIdForParagraphId: new, legacy, GC and alternativeIds', () => {
+  assert.equal(api.documentIdForParagraphId(`${JUR}:8.2`), JUR);
+  assert.equal(api.documentIdForParagraphId(`${JUR}:OP1-U3`), JUR);
+  assert.equal(api.documentIdForParagraphId(`${JUR}-0005`), JUR);
+  assert.equal(api.documentIdForParagraphId('crpd-c-gc-6-0024'), 'crpd-c-gc-6');
+  assert.equal(api.documentIdForParagraphId('crpd-c-gc-6-extra-0002'), 'crpd-c-gc-6-extra');
+  assert.equal(api.documentIdForParagraphId(`${MERGED}-0005`), SURVIVOR);
+  assert.equal(api.documentIdForParagraphId(`${MERGED}:2.3`), SURVIVOR);
+  assert.equal(api.documentIdForParagraphId('unknown-doc:8.2'), null);
+  assert.equal(api.documentIdForParagraphId(null), null);
+});
+await t('_paraIdInDoc: accepts both separators', () => {
+  assert.ok(api._paraIdInDoc(`${JUR}:8.2`, JUR));
+  assert.ok(api._paraIdInDoc(`${JUR}-0005`, JUR));
+  assert.ok(!api._paraIdInDoc(`${JUR}:8.2`, 'ccpr-c-50-d-48'));
+  assert.ok(!api._paraIdInDoc('crpd-c-gc-6-0001', JUR));
+  assert.ok(!api._paraIdInDoc(null, JUR));
+});
+
+// Legacy index, as _ingestJurShardData builds it from shard legacyIds.
+const shard = [
+  { id: `${JUR}:8.2`, docId: JUR, legacyIds: [`${JUR}-0005`] },
+  { id: `${JUR}:2.1~2`, docId: JUR, legacyIds: [`${JUR}-0003`, `${JUR}:2.1`] },
+  { id: `${JUR}:u1`, docId: JUR },
+];
+for (const p of shard) { api._registerLegacyParaIds(p); state.paragraphById.set(p.id, p); }
+
+await t('_registerLegacyParaIds: positional and earlier-label ids index to the new id', () => {
+  assert.equal(state.paraIdAlias.get(`${JUR}-0005`), `${JUR}:8.2`);
+  assert.equal(state.paraIdAlias.get(`${JUR}-0003`), `${JUR}:2.1~2`);
+  assert.equal(state.paraIdAlias.get(`${JUR}:2.1`), `${JUR}:2.1~2`);
+  assert.equal(api._registerLegacyParaIds({ id: 'x' }), 0);
+});
+await t('resolveParagraphId: loaded, legacy-indexed and GC ids need no API call', async () => {
+  ctx.fetches.length = 0;
+  assert.equal(await api.resolveParagraphId(`${JUR}:8.2`), `${JUR}:8.2`);
+  assert.equal(await api.resolveParagraphId(`${JUR}-0005`), `${JUR}:8.2`);
+  assert.equal(await api.resolveParagraphId(`${JUR}:2.1`), `${JUR}:2.1~2`);
+  assert.equal(await api.resolveParagraphId('crpd-c-gc-6-0099'), 'crpd-c-gc-6-0099');
+  assert.equal(ctx.fetches.length, 0);
+});
+await t('resolveParagraphId: API redirect, cached and coalesced', async () => {
+  ctx.fetches.length = 0;
+  ctx.apiReplies[`${JUR}-0009`] = { para_id: `${JUR}:9.1`, doc_id: JUR, text: 'x', redirected_from: `${JUR}-0009` };
+  const [a, b] = await Promise.all([api.resolveParagraphId(`${JUR}-0009`), api.resolveParagraphId(`${JUR}-0009`)]);
+  assert.equal(a, `${JUR}:9.1`);
+  assert.equal(b, `${JUR}:9.1`);
+  assert.equal(await api.resolveParagraphId(`${JUR}-0009`), `${JUR}:9.1`);
+  assert.deepEqual(ctx.fetches, [`/api/paragraph/${encodeURIComponent(`${JUR}-0009`)}`]);
+  assert.equal(state.paragraphById.get(`${JUR}:9.1`)?._apiOnly, true);
+});
+await t('resolveParagraphId: removed record → null (top-level or detail payload)', async () => {
+  const top = Object.assign(new Error('gone'), { status: 404, detail: 'removed', payload: { detail: 'removed', doc_id: JUR, removed: true } });
+  const nested = Object.assign(new Error('gone'), { status: 404, detail: { doc_id: JUR, removed: true }, payload: { detail: { doc_id: JUR, removed: true } } });
+  ctx.apiReplies[`${JUR}-0040`] = top;
+  ctx.apiReplies[`${JUR}-0041`] = nested;
+  assert.equal(await api.resolveParagraphId(`${JUR}-0040`), null);
+  assert.equal(await api.resolveParagraphId(`${JUR}-0041`), null);
+});
+await t('resolveParagraphId: unknown id kept; network error kept and retried', async () => {
+  assert.equal(await api.resolveParagraphId(`${JUR}-0077`), `${JUR}-0077`);
+  assert.equal(state.paraIdAlias.get(`${JUR}-0077`), `${JUR}-0077`);
+  ctx.apiReplies[`${JUR}-0078`] = Object.assign(new Error('timeout'), { status: undefined });
+  assert.equal(await api.resolveParagraphId(`${JUR}-0078`), `${JUR}-0078`);
+  assert.ok(!state.paraIdAlias.has(`${JUR}-0078`));
+});
+await t('resolveParagraphId: API off → id unchanged, no fetch, not cached', async () => {
+  ctx.apiOn = false; ctx.fetches.length = 0;
+  assert.equal(await api.resolveParagraphId(`${JUR}-0080`), `${JUR}-0080`);
+  assert.equal(ctx.fetches.length, 0);
+  assert.ok(!state.paraIdAlias.has(`${JUR}-0080`));
+  ctx.apiOn = true;
+});
+await t('_wsMigrateParaIds: bookmarks / notes / pins move, nothing is dropped', () => {
+  const { _LS } = api;
+  store.set(_LS.bm, JSON.stringify([
+    { paraId: `${JUR}-0005`, docId: JUR, addedAt: 1 },
+    { paraId: `${JUR}:8.2`, docId: JUR, addedAt: 2 },     // saved again under the new id
+    { paraId: `${JUR}-0040`, docId: JUR, addedAt: 3 },    // removed record: kept as is
+    { paraId: `${JUR}-0080`, docId: JUR, addedAt: 4 },    // unresolved: kept as is
+    { paraId: 'crpd-c-gc-6-0001', docId: 'crpd-c-gc-6', addedAt: 5 },
+  ]));
+  store.set(_LS.notes, JSON.stringify({ [`${JUR}-0003`]: 'old note', [`${JUR}:2.1`]: 'label note', 'crpd-c-gc-6-0001': 'gc' }));
+  store.set(_LS.pins, JSON.stringify([{ paraId: `${JUR}-0009`, docId: JUR, addedAt: 1 }]));
+  assert.equal(api._wsMigrateParaIds(), true);
+  const bm = JSON.parse(store.get(_LS.bm)).map(b => b.paraId);
+  assert.deepEqual(bm, [`${JUR}:8.2`, `${JUR}-0040`, `${JUR}-0080`, 'crpd-c-gc-6-0001']);
+  const notes = JSON.parse(store.get(_LS.notes));
+  assert.equal(notes[`${JUR}:2.1~2`], 'old note\n\nlabel note');
+  assert.equal(notes['crpd-c-gc-6-0001'], 'gc');
+  assert.ok(!(`${JUR}-0003` in notes));
+  assert.deepEqual(JSON.parse(store.get(_LS.pins)).map(p => p.paraId), [`${JUR}:9.1`]);
+  assert.equal(api._wsMigrateParaIds(), false);          // idempotent
+});
+await t('_canonParaId: maps known old ids only', () => {
+  assert.equal(api._canonParaId(`${JUR}-0005`), `${JUR}:8.2`);
+  assert.equal(api._canonParaId(`${JUR}-0040`), `${JUR}-0040`);   // removed → unchanged
+  assert.equal(api._canonParaId('crpd-c-gc-6-0001'), 'crpd-c-gc-6-0001');
+});
+
+console.log(`\n${passed} passed${process.exitCode ? ', some FAILED' : ''}`);
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CAT_C_27_D_162_2000_E.pdf b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CAT_C_27_D_162_2000_E.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..0f239228
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CAT_C_27_D_162_2000_E.pdf differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CAT_C_66_D_776_2016_E.docx b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CAT_C_66_D_776_2016_E.docx
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..f4d15056
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CAT_C_66_D_776_2016_E.docx differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CAT_C_68_D_852_2017_E.pdf b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CAT_C_68_D_852_2017_E.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..393a9849
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CAT_C_68_D_852_2017_E.pdf differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CAT_C_74_D_891_2018_E.docx b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CAT_C_74_D_891_2018_E.docx
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..deedcc98
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CAT_C_74_D_891_2018_E.docx differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_131_D_3163_2018_E.docx b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_131_D_3163_2018_E.docx
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..6144afdd
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_131_D_3163_2018_E.docx differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_131_D_3163_2018_E.pdf b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_131_D_3163_2018_E.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..e0975620
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_131_D_3163_2018_E.pdf differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_134_D_2841_2016_E.docx b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_134_D_2841_2016_E.docx
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7bf98c5b
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_134_D_2841_2016_E.docx differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_139_D_2929_2017_E.docx b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_139_D_2929_2017_E.docx
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..3abc7755
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_139_D_2929_2017_E.docx differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_139_D_2929_2017_E.pdf b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_139_D_2929_2017_E.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ede8481c
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_139_D_2929_2017_E.pdf differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_144_D_2982_2017_E.pdf b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_144_D_2982_2017_E.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..4c7123fa
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_144_D_2982_2017_E.pdf differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_18_D_74_1980_E.pdf b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_18_D_74_1980_E.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..9b000ce7
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_18_D_74_1980_E.pdf differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_50_D_488_1992_E.pdf b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_50_D_488_1992_E.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7a3aa2e3
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_50_D_488_1992_E.pdf differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_82_D_903_1999_E.docx b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_82_D_903_1999_E.docx
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..fc239d0e
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_82_D_903_1999_E.docx differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_82_D_903_1999_E.pdf b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_82_D_903_1999_E.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..dcfc3ebe
Binary files /dev/null and b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/CCPR_C_82_D_903_1999_E.pdf differ
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ccpr-c-130-d-2674-2015.paragraphs.json b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ccpr-c-130-d-2674-2015.paragraphs.json
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..26c9ead3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ccpr-c-130-d-2674-2015.paragraphs.json
@@ -0,0 +1,430 @@
+[
+  {
+    "ID": "1.1.",
+    "Section": "",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author of the communication is K.J., a national of Lithuania born in 1960. He claims that the State party has violated his rights under articles 14 (1) and 17 (1) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 20 February 1992. The author is represented by counsel."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "1.2.",
+    "Section": "",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 11 January 2016, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and asked the Committee to consider the admissibility of the communication separately from its merits. On 23 June 2016, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, decided to refuse the State party’s request."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.1.",
+    "Section": "Factual background",
+    "Labels": [
+      "Persons deprived of their liberty"
+    ],
+    "Text": "On 18 October 2013, the author was convicted of fraud by the Sirvintos Region District Court. That decision became final on 10 February 2014. V.S., who had been the former employee of the author, participated as a witness against the author in the criminal proceedings. At the investigation stage of the proceedings, the author was prohibited from establishing contact with V.S. in order to prevent him from influencing the witness before he testified in court."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.2.",
+    "Section": "Factual background",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 4 May 2006, one day before the court hearing, V.S. contacted the pretrial investigation officer to inform him of attempts made by the author to meet with him. V.S. was questioned by the officer about the allegations and at that meeting, V.S. agreed to cooperate with the investigative authorities in the interest of the investigation against the author on the suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (“undue influence on a witness”)."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.3.",
+    "Section": "Factual background",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 4 May 2006, the prosecutor submitted a request to the pretrial investigation judge for the authorization of secret acts to be taken against the author under two provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Lithuania: section 158 (1) (“the acts of pretrial investigation officers not disclosing their identity”) and section 160 (“surveillance”). In order to substantiate the request, the prosecutor informed the trial judge about the author’s attempts to meet V.S., stating that it was reasonable to assume that he would try to influence V.S. before he testified in court. The investigative measures would be aimed at gathering evidence to see whether that suspicion could be confirmed and at obtaining information with regard to two other suspects in the fraud case, who had absconded. The prosecutor’s request was granted on 4 May 2006, explicitly authorizing V.S. to interact with the author and make video and audio recordings of their conversations in accordance with the provisions of section 158 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (authorization 1).[[fn:4]] The authorization explicitly mentioned that V.S. had consented to cooperate with the investigative authorities, that recordings were to be made and that the necessary devices were to be installed on him. The period for the interference was limited to the period from 4 to 10 May 2006. The authorization further allowed the pretrial investigation officers to surveille the author within the period from 4 to 31 May 2006 and to make video and audio recordings of him in accordance with the provisions of section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (authorization 2).[[fn:5]] On 9 May 2006, at the prosecutor’s request, the pretrial investigation judge issued another authorization, approving a request to tap the author’s telephone in the period from 9 May to 9 June 2006.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 4,
+        "text": "Section 158 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that pretrial investigation officers may perform investigations without disclosing their identities. The officers under a separate order prescribed for in section 159 of the Code may perform simulations of criminal acts. Section 158 (2) provides that the acts of pretrial investigation officers not disclosing their identities are authorized by the order of the pretrial investigation judge, and only in the event that enough data exist about the person in respect of whom the investigation is performed. The pretrial investigation judge grants the order upon receiving the prosecutor’s request, the content of which must correspond to the order’s content provided for in paragraph 3 of that section of the Code. The following elements must be included in the order: (a) persons performing secret acts; (b) person against whom the secret acts are to be performed; (c) data about the person’s criminal offence; (d) specific acts that the persons are authorized to perform; (e) purpose of the measures; and (f) period of the secret acts. Section 158 (4) provides that incitement of a person to commit a crime is prohibited. Section 158 (6) provides that in exceptional circumstances, when there are no possibilities to detect persons committing crimes, investigation under the order prescribed in the article may be performed by persons who are not pretrial investigation officers."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 5,
+        "text": "Section 160 (“surveillance”) provides that the pretrial investigation judge, upon the request of the prosecutor, may authorize the surveillance of a person, vehicle or object. The following elements must be included in the order: (a) the person, vehicle or object under surveillance; (b) the data justifying the measure; and (c) the duration of the surveillance. Section 160 (2) provides that it should be indicated whether audio and video recording are permitted."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.4.",
+    "Section": "Factual background",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 21 May 2006, a telephone conversation between the author and V.S. was intercepted in which the author invited V.S. to meet him. The surveillance of the meeting between the author and V.S., which took place at a gas station, was performed by the pretrial investigation officers on 24 May 2006 from 7.13 p.m. to 7.55 p.m. The interaction was recorded with a video and an audio recorder, and the microphone was worn by V.S. According to the transcript of the conversation, the author tried to convince V.S. not to testify against him in the then ongoing criminal proceedings in exchange for financial benefits. V.S. explicitly refused to distort his testimony in the interest of the author and refused to accept any financial reward from him. The surveillance was recorded by the pretrial investigation officer in accordance with the relevant protocol enclosing the recordings and the transcript of the surveilled conversation. The information gathered through the interception of the telephone conversations between the author and V.S., having no relevance to the criminal proceedings, was destroyed before the pretrial investigation came to an end."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.5.",
+    "Section": "Factual background",
+    "Labels": [
+      "Persons deprived of their liberty"
+    ],
+    "Text": "On 12 March 2008, the author was convicted of witness tampering by the Alytus Region District Court and sentenced to pay a fine in the amount of 1,448 euros (approximately $2,241). The decision was upheld by the Kaunas Regional Court on 8 February 2009. On 21 September 2010, the Supreme Court of Lithuania rejected the author’s cassation appeal.[[fn:6]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 6,
+        "text": "Although it is not claimed, it appears from the file that the incriminating evidence was also used against the author in the context of the criminal proceedings regarding the charges of fraud."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "3.1.",
+    "Section": "Complaint",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author claims that the State party has violated his rights under article 17 (1) of the Covenant since the domestic authorities have arbitrarily interfered with his private life. He submits that the authorization to record the conversation between V.S. and himself and to “imitate” and “instigate” a criminal offence had been in force only until 10 May 2006. Accordingly, from 11 May 2006 onwards, the author was fully protected by article 17 of the Covenant. Given that the surveilled conversation took place on 24 May 2006, however, he argues that the interference with his private life had no legal basis."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "3.2.",
+    "Section": "Complaint",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In this context, the author notes that the authorization of 4 May 2006 was very specific as to the conditions under which secret measures of surveillance and recordings thereof could be made by private persons who were not pretrial investigation officials. He explains that in his appeals, he referred to article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), which is analogous to article 17 of the Covenant, and that the courts nonetheless rejected his applications, claiming that the impugned surveillance had been carried out in accordance with the authorization under section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code valid until 31 May 2006. As a result, the day of surveillance, according to the domestic authorities, was covered by the authorization. The author argues, however, that section 160 cannot be applied to his situation since V.S., given the specific circumstances of the case, should be regarded as a person performing an investigative act requiring a special authorization under section 158 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He argues that an interpretation to the contrary would afford prosecutors with an unrestricted and disproportionate discretionary power to entrust any private person to carry out a secret measure of surveillance, including the “simulation” and “stimulation” of a crime, and to make recordings thereof without any impartial judicial control."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "3.3.",
+    "Section": "Complaint",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author recalls that the permissible restrictions on private life must be interpreted strictly in order to be in harmony with article 17 of the Covenant.[[fn:7]] He refers to the views of the Committee in Rojas García v. Colombia[[fn:8]] and submits that even if accepting the position of the Supreme Court of Lithuania that the interference in his case had been in accordance with domestic law, it does not preclude a lawful interference from being considered arbitrary if it runs counter to the provisions of the Covenant.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 7,
+        "text": "The author refers to the Committee’s concluding observations on the Russian Federation (CCPR/C/79/Add.54), para. 19, and Jamaica (CCPR/C/79/Add.83), para. 20."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 8,
+        "text": "Rojas García v. Colombia (CCPR/C/71/D/687/1996), para. 10.3."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "3.4.",
+    "Section": "Complaint",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author requests the Committee to find a breach of article 17 (1) and to order the State party to reopen the author’s criminal case and to pay damages to him."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.1.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility[[fn:9]]",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In a note verbale dated 11 January 2016, the State party requested the Committee to declare the communication inadmissible for non-substantiation, for abuse of right of submission and for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, under articles 2, 3 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, respectively."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.2.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility[[fn:9]]",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State party argues that the unlawfulness of secret investigative measures may constitute a basis for damages against Lithuania in accordance with section 6.272 of the Civil Code. The State party refers to a decision of the Vilnius District Court dated 4 October 2013, in which the court awarded compensation to the applicant for damages inflicted by the State by performing the unlawful simulation of a criminal act. The State party argues that since the author failed to make use of this legal avenue, his complaint should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.3.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility[[fn:9]]",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State party is also of the view that the complaint should be declared inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. In addition, the State party submits that the author is misleading the Committee about the exact content of the authorized and performed secret investigative measures by stating that there had been an order against him authorizing V.S. to simulate criminal acts, and that his rights have been violated because such an investigative act was performed after the expiry of the authorization."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.4.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility[[fn:9]]",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Regarding the relevant domestic laws, the State party submits that they do provide for sufficient safeguards against unlawful and arbitrary interference with private life. The State party underlines that the Constitution of Lithuania articulates that any restriction on a person’s private life requires judicial authorization. In the context of criminal investigations, the privacy of a person may only be restricted when and as it is foreseen in the Criminal Procedure Code. In order to comply with these requirements at all times, effective control is exercised by the prosecutor, the pretrial investigation judge and other judicial tribunals. The requirement of proportionality has also been acknowledged in the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania. It is noted in particular that actions of surveillance are to be authorized by a pretrial investigation judge, and the orders should provide sufficient reasoning and explicitly indicate the terms under which an investigative act may be carried out, such as its subject, duration and whether recordings may be made. The relevant laws also prescribe for the disposal of the information gathered if certain prerequisites are met."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.5.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility[[fn:9]]",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Turning to the present case, the State party explains that section 158 of the Criminal Procedure Code, under which authorization 1 was granted, does not allow for performing a simulation of criminal acts, and it explicitly mentions that in order to carry out such an act, a separate authorization under section 159 is required. Such a special authorization had never been requested or granted in the case at hand, however, as the acts of V.S. did not require it. Furthermore, the State party underlines that the stimulation or instigation of criminal acts is strictly prohibited under sections 158 and 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Nevertheless, all of these claims by the author were thoroughly examined by the domestic courts, which concluded that the surveilled meeting had been initiated by the author himself. In addition, even though V.S. was willing to meet the author in the interest of the investigation, he neither requested financial benefits, nor agreed to distort his testimony in court. Accordingly, the allegations of the author regarding the simulation or stimulation of criminal acts by V.S. in the absence of a valid authorization are misleading and fully unsubstantiated."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.6.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility[[fn:9]]",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In addition, the State party notes that the secret investigative measures authorized by the order of 4 May 2006 – namely the permission given to V.S. to meet and record his conversations with the author (authorization 1) and the authorized surveillance of the author by the pretrial investigation officers with the possibility of making audio and video recordings (authorization 2) – conform to the requirements of lawfulness as established in the domestic law and in practice. It is further submitted that it appears from the prosecutor’s request that the surveillance pursued permissible aims, namely to gather evidence confirming whether the author might try to influence V.S., and to obtain information with regard to two other suspects in the fraud case who had absconded. The State party underlines that the requests were granted by the pretrial investigation judge. It also underlines that the authorization, in accordance with the provisions of the relevant domestic law, indicated the scope, duration and aims of the permitted investigative acts and made reference to the consent of V.S. to cooperate with the investigative authorities. The authorization also indicated that recordings could made, and that the necessary devices could be installed on his person."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.7.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility[[fn:9]]",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the State party submits that even though the impugned order of 4 May 2006 included a separate authorization allowing a private person, namely V.S., to carry out secret measures of surveillance and to make recordings thereof, that point is redundant because the challenged investigative act does not fall within the ambit of section 158 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The State party reiterates the Supreme Court’s reasoning establishing that section 158 is not to be confused with section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as was erroneously done by the pretrial investigation judge. A mere recording of a surveilled conversation is not to be construed as an act falling within the scope of section 158 (6). The Supreme Court held that the recording of a conversation, even if performed by a private individual, should fall within the scope of section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, authorization 2 entitling the investigative authorities to subject the author to secret surveillance within the period of 4 to 31 May 2006 and to make recordings thereof provided a lawful ground for the interference. It is further recalled from the judgment of the Supreme Court that, considering the fact that the way in which a surveillance should be carried out from a technical point of view is not regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code, it was not relevant for the assessment of this case whether the communication was, technically speaking, recorded by the pretrial investigation officers or by a private individual entrusted by them. The State party agrees with the position of the Supreme Court and states that even though it had been established by an expert in the domestic court proceedings that the microphone used for the purposes of surveillance must have been installed on V.S., in the circumstances of the present case, he cannot be considered as a person performing surveillance himself but rather as a person assisting the authorized officers to perform the surveillance from a distance and record the relevant conversation."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.8.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility[[fn:9]]",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In this regard, the State party also refers to the recommendations of the Attorney General of 12 October 2007 concerning the application of sections 158 and 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The recommendations indicate that under section 158, the following secret investigative actions may be carried out: secret surveillance of correspondence; secret search of premises or a person; secret seizure; secret entrance into premises, vehicles or objects in order to examine or seize certain documents or objects and/or to install certain devices; interaction with the person under investigation and the making of video and audio recordings thereof; and use of technical devices in the interest of monitoring conversations and other communication. It is further noted that actions under section 158 may be carried out in combination with investigative acts under section 154 (“monitoring and recording information transmitted through telecommunication networks”), section 159 (“simulation of criminal acts”) and section 160 (“surveillance”) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In such cases, the prosecutor may submit one combined request or a number of separate requests for the authorization. The recommendations further clarify that, under section 160, when observation is deemed necessary, it may cover the surveillance of a person, vehicle or object in order to secretly observe and make audio and video recordings of those actions. Usually, surveillance is performed from a distance, without direct contact with the subject of the surveillance and without installing any technical equipment inside any premises or vehicles."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.9.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility[[fn:9]]",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State party nonetheless argues that even if, as a general rule, surveillance is performed from a distance, entrusting V.S. with “facilitating” the audio recording in the interest of obtaining a better-quality recording should be considered lawful and reasonable. The State party insists that under section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code private persons may be retained by police officers to “facilitate” audio recordings, provided that the authorization allows for the making of audio recordings. In spite of the role of private persons in these scenarios, according to the State party, the surveillance is still to be considered as being performed by the pretrial investigation officers from a distance. The State party submits that there may be cases when an investigation carried out by a private person is unlawful; however, this is not the case here.[[fn:10]] Accordingly, authorization 1 was been required under the circumstances of the present case and was therefore redundant. In such circumstances, even though the challenged investigative act was carried out after the expiry of authorization 1, that had no impact on the lawfulness of the surveillance in the light of the undisputed fact that authorization 2 was still in force at the time of the interference.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 10,
+        "text": "The State party refers to a domestic case (Decision of the Supreme Court of Lithuania in case No. 2K-7-141/2008), in which the Supreme Court found it unlawful for a private person to record a conversation with equipment belonging to the police, when doing so prior to the official operational investigation and without any authorization."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.10.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility[[fn:9]]",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State party further submits that having regard to the circumstances of the investigative act – namely that it pursued the above-mentioned aims, that it lasted only for a short period of time, that it was used for the intended purposes, thereby preventing the obstruction of the administration of justice, and that V.S. did not provoke the author to commit a crime – the interference has not only been lawful but also necessary and proportionate. It further states that, as explained above, the law prescribes sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness. In addition, it is argued that if someone commits a criminal offence, that person cannot expect to be afforded the same level of protection as persons observing the law."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.11.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility[[fn:9]]",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Lastly, the State party notes that the author submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights that was found inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. In spite of the limited reasoning provided by the Court, the State party argues that one may nevertheless presume that they found that the author’s claims were not sufficiently substantiated."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.12.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility[[fn:9]]",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In the light of the foregoing, the State party concludes that the interference with the author’s private life has been in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and as a result, the author’s allegations are misleading, lack substantiation and should therefore be declared inadmissible pursuant to articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol. The State party further reiterates its position that the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies contrary to article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.13.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility[[fn:9]]",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In notes verbales dated 9 May 2016 and 24 October 2016, the State party reiterated its position that the Committee should find the communication inadmissible for lack of substantiation, for abuse of right of submission and for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State party also submits that, should the Committee examine the merits of the complaint, it should consider the State party’s observations dated 11 January 2016 in respect of both the admissibility and the merits of the author’s claims, and establish that there has been no violation of article 17 (1) of the Covenant for the reasons set out therein. In its note verbale of 24 October 2016, the State party added that having regard to the author’s failure to complain about the violation of the fair trial guarantees under article 14 of the Covenant, his request for the reopening of the criminal proceedings as a remedy for the alleged violation of his rights under article 17 (1) of the Covenant is unsubstantiated."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "5.1.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In a letter dated 3 March 2016, the author responded to the observations of the State party. The author maintains that the acts of V.S., who kept communicating with the author and eventually met him, are to be regarded as an imitation of a crime and for that reason, a separate authorization should have been obtained. In any event, the recording device had been installed on V.S., which has not been disputed by the State party. In that regard, the author notes that one has to differentiate between an investigative act that is being carried out by the pretrial investigation officers themselves, in which the persons under surveillance are not aware of the surveillance, and an investigative act in which a private person, like V.S., is actively involved in the investigative act. It is argued that in the case of the latter, the private person who is actively involved in the recorded conversation has, by definition, an impact on the dialogue or, more generally, on the course of events. That is why it is of the utmost importance that private persons be explicitly authorized to conduct such an investigative act. The author therefore insists that no recording by private persons that is intended to be used against a suspect may take place without a formal authorization."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "5.2.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author requests that the Committee find a violation of article 17 (1) of the Covenant and order the State party to provide compensation for the damages suffered and to reopen the criminal case against him."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "5.3.",
+    "Section": "Additional comments from the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In a submission dated 26 January 2017, the author reiterated the above-mentioned arguments. In addition, he submitted that the State party had acknowledged in its observations that the only order that had still been in force on 24 May 2006 exclusively authorized the pretrial investigation officers to carry out investigative acts. In that period, the author and V.S. were prohibited from communicating with each other. Despite that fact, V.S., knowing that the investigative authorities were about to record his interaction with the author, had been willing to meet him. The author claims that V.S.’s reactions were obviously different from those of a person who had no knowledge of the surveillance. Moreover, V.S. was the one carrying the microphone, which was not denied by the State party and was also confirmed by an expert opinion obtained in the domestic proceedings. These circumstances clearly go beyond a simple observation the authorities had been authorized to perform, and amounts to a disproportionate interference with his private life."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "5.4.",
+    "Section": "Additional comments from the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Referring to the observation of the State party dated 24 October 2016, the author claims that the facts of his case give rise to a violation of his rights not only under article 17 (1) but also under article 14 (1) of the Covenant on the ground of the unlawfulness of the gathered evidence that has been used against him."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.1.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.2.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee notes that the author brought a similar claim to the European Court of Human Rights, which declared it inadmissible in 2013. It recalls that the concept of “the same matter” within the meaning of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol has to be understood as including the same claim concerning the same individual before another international body, while the prohibition in this paragraph relates to the same matter being under concurrent examination.[[fn:11]] Even if the present communication was submitted by the same individual to the European Court of Human Rights, it has already been determined by that body. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the State party has not entered a reservation to article 5 (2) (a) to preclude the Committee from examining communications that have been previously considered by another body. Accordingly, it has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 11,
+        "text": "See, e.g., Eglė Kusaitė v. Lithuania (CCPR/C/126/D/2716/2016), para. 7.2."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.3.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "With regard to article 14 (1) of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the author raised the violation of his rights under the cited article only in his very last submission without justifying his delay, even though it seems that the facts giving rise to this claim were already evident at the time of his first submission. In any event, the Committee observes that the author failed to prove that he had brought this claim before the domestic courts, nor did he advance any reasons as to why he might have been unable to do so or why such remedies would not have been effective in his case. In such circumstances, the Committee concludes that the author has failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies with respect to the alleged violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. This part of the complaint must therefore be declared inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.4.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "With regard to article 17 (1) of the Covenant, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that under section 6.272 of the Civil Code of Lithuania, the unlawfulness of an investigative act may serve as a basis for a claim for damages. The Committee recalls that article 5 (2) (b) does not oblige authors to exhaust judicial or other remedies which offer no reasonable prospect of success.[[fn:12]] The Committee considers that even though the State party cites jurisprudence where the domestic courts awarded compensation on the ground of the unlawful simulation of a criminal act, it failed to show that such a remedy would have been indeed effective in the present case in the light of the circumstance that the domestic courts failed to acknowledge the unlawfulness of the impugned measure. Accordingly, on the basis of the information before it, the Committee cannot conclude that the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The Committee therefore considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the author’s claims in relation to article 17 (1) of the Covenant.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 12,
+        "text": "See, e.g., Deepan Budlakoti v. Canada (CCPR/C/122/D/2264/2013), para. 8.4."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.5.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee further takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of abuse of right of submission, stating that the author has purposely submitted misleading information about the exact content of the authorized and performed secret investigative measures. The Committee considers that the information provided by the author reflects a difference of interpretation as to the scope and substance of the law and cannot be regarded as an abuse of the right of submission."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.6.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee further takes note of the State party’s argument that the complaint is not sufficiently substantiated under article 17 (1) of the Covenant. In that respect, the Committee observes the author’s claim that the State party has violated his rights under article 17 (1) of the Covenant since the domestic authorities have arbitrarily interfered with his private life by carrying out a secret investigative measure, which went as far as imitating and instigating a criminal act, without a valid and relevant authorization. The Committee observes the author’s arguments that the authorization of 4 May 2006 was very specific as to the conditions under which secret recordings could be made by private persons. Considering that, according to the author, the authorization allowing V.S. to perform an investigative act against the author and to record their interaction had been in force only until 10 May 2006, the surveillance carried out on 24 May 2006 with the active involvement of V.S. cannot be deemed to be covered by the authorization under section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code still in force at the time, and the interference therefore had no legal basis."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.7.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On the other hand, the Committee observes the State party’s argument, which was in line with the Supreme Court’s decision, that section 158 is not to be confused with section 160 and that the recording of conversations, even if performed by a private individual, falls within the scope of section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code since it is not relevant for the assessment of the case whether the communication was, technically speaking, recorded by the pretrial investigation officers or a private individual entrusted by them. The Committee takes note of the State party’s position that authorization 2, which was still in force on the day of the impugned interference, provided sufficient legal basis for the interference and was necessary and proportionate to the pursued aims, namely the prevention of crime and the proper administration of justice."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.8.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee further underlines the complexity of the issue at stake and takes note of the detailed analysis of the domestic courts of Lithuania, including that of the Supreme Court, as to the lawfulness of the impugned investigative measure. The Committee recalls that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to review facts and evidence, or the application of domestic legislation in a particular case, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.[[fn:13]] In such circumstances, in view of the information in the case file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate for purposes of admissibility that the application of domestic legislation by the domestic courts amounted to clear arbitrariness, manifest error or a denial of justice. The communication is therefore inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 13,
+        "text": "See e.g. Lin v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 9.3."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "7.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2, 3 and 5 (2) (a) and (b) of the Optional Protocol;"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP1-1.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Vasilka Sancin (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "I respectfully disagree with the majority’s finding with respect to the alleged violation of article 17 (1) of the Covenant, for two reasons. First, I consider that the author has met the prima facie standard of sufficient substantiation of his claim for the purposes of admissibility. Second, the author’s claim is intimately linked to the merits and should have therefore been analysed in the context of the consideration on the merits of the case, resulting in the finding of a violation for the reasons elaborated hereinafter.",
+    "OriginalID": "1.",
+    "Namespace": "OP1"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP1-2.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Vasilka Sancin (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In the present case, there was no contradiction between the parties that the investigative step, carried out on 24 May 2006 with the involvement of both V.S. and the pretrial investigation officers, amounted to an “interference” with the author’s right to privacy for which a valid legal basis was required. Thus, the question remains whether such interference was arbitrary or unlawful under article 17 of the Covenant.",
+    "OriginalID": "2.",
+    "Namespace": "OP1"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP1-3.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Vasilka Sancin (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Any interference with the right to privacy, in order to be permissible under article 17, must cumulatively meet conditions set out in paragraph 1. In other words, it must be provided for by law; be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant; and be reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case.[[fn:14]] An interference is not “unlawful” if it complies with the relevant domestic law, as interpreted by the national courts, and the Committee correctly recalled that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to review facts and evidence, or application of domestic legislation in a particular case, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice (see para. 6.8).",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 14,
+        "text": "See, e.g., Van Hulst v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/82/D/903/1999), para. 7.3."
+      }
+    ],
+    "OriginalID": "3.",
+    "Namespace": "OP1"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP1-4.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Vasilka Sancin (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Additionally, lawfulness also relates to the quality of the law, requiring it to be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects. Foreseeability in the special context of secret measures of surveillance requires that the law be sufficiently clear, in order to give citizens an adequate indication as to the circumstances and conditions on which public authorities are empowered to resort to any such secret measures.[[fn:15]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 15,
+        "text": "See, e.g., European Court of Human Rights, Khan v. United Kingdom (application No. 35394/97), judgment of 12 May 2000, para. 26."
+      }
+    ],
+    "OriginalID": "4.",
+    "Namespace": "OP1"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP1-5.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Vasilka Sancin (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The relevant procedural and substantive requirements for secret investigative acts in the present case are defined in sections 158 (“the acts of pretrial investigation officers not disclosing their identity”) and 160 (“surveillance”) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Lithuania. Section 158 (6) provides that in exceptional circumstances, when there are no possibilities to detect persons committing crimes, investigation under the order prescribed in the article may be performed by persons who are not pretrial investigation officers. In addition, it is indicated that the incitement of a person to commit a crime is prohibited under the surveillance warrant granted under that section. Under section 160, the surveillance of a person, vehicle or an object may be authorized, but in contrast to section 158, it contains no provision allowing for the authorized acts to be carried out by private persons and is also silent about the simulation and stimulation of criminal acts while performing investigative acts under the authorization granted thereunder.",
+    "OriginalID": "5.",
+    "Namespace": "OP1"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP1-6.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Vasilka Sancin (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Thus, the investigative act with the involvement of V.S. in my view falls within the ambit of section 158 for which the domestic authorities no longer had a valid authorization at the time of the interference. The State party’s interpretation – claiming that it is not relevant for the assessment of the case whether the communication was, technically speaking, recorded by the pretrial investigation officers or a private individual entrusted by them – seems to me disproportionally broad and therefore arbitrary. Had the lawmaker envisaged a possibility of having any direct contact under section 160 between the suspect and the person who was aware of the circumstance that they were being surveilled, it would have, similarly to section 158, explicitly prohibited the instigation of criminal acts. Therefore, surveillance under section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code seems to be limited to observation of the suspect from a distance, which was also supported by the recommendations of the Attorney General of Lithuania, holding that whereas secret investigative actions under section 158 may involve interaction with the person under investigation, under section 160, usually, surveillance is performed from a distance (see para. 4.8). If no private person affiliated with the authorities had been directly involved in the surveilled interaction, the present case would indeed be covered by section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The circumstances of the present case, however, suggest differently.",
+    "OriginalID": "6.",
+    "Namespace": "OP1"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP1-7.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Vasilka Sancin (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State party also argued that, as established by the Supreme Court of Lithuania, authorization 1, which was granted for a shorter period of time, specific to V.S., was redundant, and the pretrial investigation judge erred in granting it (see para. 4.7). This could be understood as revealing a different and even conflicting interpretation between the domestic authorities as to the scope of sections 158 and 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which raises doubts as to the clarity and foreseeability – the two quality requirements of lawfulness – of domestic laws.",
+    "OriginalID": "7.",
+    "Namespace": "OP1"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP1-8.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Vasilka Sancin (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In the light of the above, I conclude that the State party failed to present a proper legal basis and an authorization for the impugned interference, since the relevant provisions did not leave any discretion to the authorities to decide on whether to conduct the impugned investigative act with the assistance of a private person under one provision (sect. 160) instead of the other (sect. 158).",
+    "OriginalID": "8.",
+    "Namespace": "OP1"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP1-9.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Vasilka Sancin (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the communication should have been admitted and that the State party’s conduct discloses a violation of article 17 (1) of the Covenant.",
+    "OriginalID": "9.",
+    "Namespace": "OP1"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP2-1.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Furuya Shuichi (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "I am unable to concur with the majority’s conclusion, namely that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim under article 17 (1) and therefore, that this part of the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol.",
+    "OriginalID": "1.",
+    "Namespace": "OP2"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP2-2.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Furuya Shuichi (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Article 17 (1) provides that no one is to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with regards to privacy, family, home or correspondence. Thus, in determining a violation of article 17 (1), the Committee must decide two elements. It must first decide whether the conduct constitutes an interference with the author’s privacy, family, home or correspondence; if so decided, it must then decide whether the interference was arbitrary or unlawful.[[fn:16]] In my view, as the second step relates to the legal evaluation of the conduct in question, it is in principle to be examined at the stage of the merits.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 16,
+        "text": "A.B. v. Canada (CCPR/C/117/D/2387/2014), para. 8.7."
+      }
+    ],
+    "OriginalID": "2.",
+    "Namespace": "OP2"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP2-3.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Furuya Shuichi (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In particular, I cannot accept the reasoning adopted in the decision in the present case. The main ground for the conclusion of the decision is that it is generally for the courts of the State party to review facts and evidence, or the application of domestic legislation in a particular case, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or a denial of justice. The majority decision also finds that the author failed to demonstrate that the interpretation by the domestic courts of the State party, including that of the Supreme Court, in terms of the lawfulness of the impugned investigative measures amounted to clear arbitrariness, manifest error or a denial of justice. If a State party argues that a measure interfering with privacy was provided by law, an author would have to rebut that argument by demonstrating that the application of the law in question was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial justice. However, this appears extremely disadvantageous for the author at the stage of admissibility, and it is contrary to the wording of article 17, which prohibits mere “unlawful” interference. Under article 17, in my view, the threshold of proof is not to be higher than the “unlawfulness” in an ordinary sense, and the threshold for the purpose of admissibility should be lower than that for the merits.",
+    "OriginalID": "3.",
+    "Namespace": "OP2"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP2-4.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Furuya Shuichi (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In the present case, the author claims that the interaction between himself and V.S. was recorded with a video and audio recorder without his consent, and that fact was not contested by the State party. Thus, it follows that the author has sufficiently substantiated the existence of interference. Furthermore, there is a clear difference of interpretation between the author and the State party as to the scope and substance of the domestic law relating to the “lawfulness” of the interference. It seems to me that, while the interpretation by the State party is understandable, the interpretation by the author is not so unreasonable in terms of the involvement of private persons. In this regard, I believe that the author has demonstrated that the investigative measures taken by the State party were prima facie unlawful for the purpose of admissibility.",
+    "OriginalID": "4.",
+    "Namespace": "OP2"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP2-5.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Furuya Shuichi (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Furthermore, even if the Committee finds that the author has failed to demonstrate the unlawfulness of the measures taken by the State party, it must also decide whether the measures were arbitrary. According to the jurisprudence of the Committee, the notion of “arbitrariness” is not to be equated with “against the law”. Rather, it must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law, together with elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.[[fn:17]] In fact, the author submits that even if accepting the position of the Supreme Court that interference in his case had been in accordance with the domestic law, it does not preclude a lawful interference from being considered arbitrary if it runs counter to the provisions of the Covenant (para. 3.3). Nonetheless, the Committee failed to examine the alleged arbitrariness of the impugned measures.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 17,
+        "text": "Ibid.; and Ilyasov v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/111/D/2009/2010), para. 7.4."
+      }
+    ],
+    "OriginalID": "5.",
+    "Namespace": "OP2"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP2-6.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Furuya Shuichi (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In my view, the necessity and proportionality of the measures taken are to be considered in evaluating the arbitrariness. In the present case, the State party submits that the recording was aimed at gathering evidence to confirm whether the author might try to influence V.S. and to also obtain information with regards to two other suspects in the fraud case who had absconded. As for the first purpose, it is true that the author was prohibited from establishing contact with V.S. in order to prevent him from influencing the witness before he testified in court. However, if the real purpose was to prevent the author from influencing V.S., the most effective way of doing so was not by recording the conversation between the author and V.S., but rather by requesting that V.S. refrain from meeting with the author. Nonetheless, the investigative authorities requested that V.S. contact the author and record their conversation. In that regard, I have to think that the recording was not necessary for preventing the author from exercising influence over V.S., nor proportionate to that purpose. Compared with the first purpose, the second purpose – that of obtaining the information with regards to two other suspects who had absconded – seems to satisfy the necessity test. The State party, however, has not provided the Committee with any information on whether and to what extent the recording of the author’s conversation was proportionate to that purpose.",
+    "OriginalID": "6.",
+    "Namespace": "OP2"
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "OP2-7.",
+    "Section": "Individual opinion of Committee member Furuya Shuichi (dissenting)",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "For all of these reasons, I have to conclude that the author’s claim concerning his right under article 17 (1) is admissible. In addition, as the State party has failed to sufficiently demonstrate the necessity and proportionality of recording the author’s conversation with V.S., it constitutes a violation of article 17 (1).",
+    "OriginalID": "7.",
+    "Namespace": "OP2"
+  }
+]
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ccpr-c-137-d-3662-2019.paragraphs.json b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ccpr-c-137-d-3662-2019.paragraphs.json
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..dcc8ead9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ccpr-c-137-d-3662-2019.paragraphs.json
@@ -0,0 +1,496 @@
+[
+  {
+    "ID": "1.1.",
+    "Section": "",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author of the communication is G.A.P., a national of Romania born on 13 December 1959. He claims that, through the abusive use of covert surveillance against him, obtained on the basis of a collaboration agreement between the National Anti-Corruption Directorate and the Romanian Intelligence Service, the State party has violated his right to privacy and the private nature of correspondence under article 17 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 16 October 1993.[[fn:3]] The author is represented by counsel.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 3,
+        "text": "Romania has entered the following reservation: “Romania considers that, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2 (a) of the Protocol, the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider communications from an individual if the matter is being or has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.”"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "1.2.",
+    "Section": "",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 6 December 2019, the State party requested that the admissibility of the communication be examined separately from the merits.[[fn:4]] On 27 April 2021, pursuant to rule 94 of its rules of procedure, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteurs on new communications and interim measures, decided not to grant that request and to examine the admissibility of the communication together with its merits.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 4,
+        "text": "In accordance with rule 93 (1) of the Committee’s rules of procedure."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.1.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author is a well-known individual and businessman in Romania. He acted as the Vice-Chair of the Board of Directors of Log Trans, an international company, between July 2002 and April 2006. Log Trans signed an unincorporated joint venture agreement with the University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine on 12 April 2000 for the use of 225 hectares of land in Bucharest, known as Baneasa Farm, which is owned by the University. On the same date, the University filed an application to the sector 1 local subcommission to issue the property title for the land located at 42–44, Bucharest-Ploiesti Road[[fn:5]] and to register that land with the Land Registry of Bucharest sector 1. On 3 August 2000, the joint venture between Log Trans and the University was incorporated. Log Trans changed its name to SC Baneasa Investments SA and the University became a 49.88 per cent shareholder in Baneasa Investments and contributed the right to use 175 hectares from Baneasa Farm for 49 years. International Business Trading Corp contributed 101,507,200,000 lei for a share of over 50 per cent.[[fn:6]] There were five board directors. On 8 October 2002, the University’s title over Baneasa Farm[[fn:7]] was acknowledged by the court of sector 1 Bucharest, the relevant land book rectified and the property registered in the University’s name.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 5,
+        "text": "The property title was issued on 6 June 2001."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 6,
+        "text": "There were four other minority shareholders."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 7,
+        "text": "Located at 42–44, Bucharest-Ploiesti Road."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.2.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 9 February 2005 and 7 July 2005, another high-profile businessman, George Becali, filed a complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice against the author and Ioan Alecu, rector of the University and board member of Baneasa Investments. On 14 February 2008, the Prosecutor’s Office refused to prosecute the author and Mr. Alecu because Mr. Becali’s claims were not supported by substantive evidence and did not have legal ground, amounting to mere speculation."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.3.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 20 March 2009, despite the General Prosecutor’s refusal to prosecute the author, the National Anti-Corruption Directorate initiated a prosecution against the author and others for complicity in abuse of power. The author indicates that the Directorate operates as an autonomous organization under the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The Directorate investigates and prosecutes corruption-related offence that cause damage to the State and its institutions. According to the author, many experts believe that it uses abusive prosecutorial tactics to obtain convictions at any price, in particular in high-profile cases, including the instigation of criminal investigations against judges, charging individuals with abuse of office or bribery and manipulating the media.[[fn:8]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 8,
+        "text": "In his reports concerning the case of the author, Louis Freeh, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, details examples of Romanian courts ignoring or ruling out evidence presented in the author’s defence and failing to apply the law correctly in their rulings against him. This is common in high-profile cases, particularly those brought by the National Anti-Corruption Directorate."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.4.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 24 March 2009, the author was arrested and detained by the National Anti-Corruption Directorate for 24 hours. The European Court of Human Rights later found that this amounted to a violation of article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) and awarded the author reparation of non-pecuniary damages.[[fn:9]] On the same date, the Ministry of Finance wrote to one of the co-accused, confirming that Baneasa Farm was not in the public domain.[[fn:10]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 9,
+        "text": "See Popoviciu v. Romania, Application No. 52942/09, Judgment, 1 March 2016."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 10,
+        "text": "The evidence is attached to the communication."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.5.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 4 June 2009, Mr. Becali refused to testify further in the National Anti-Corruption Directorate investigation following the complaint he had filed against the author. On 25 March 2009, a travel ban was issued against the author by the Bucharest Court of Appeal. On 9 June 2009, the High Court of Cassation and Justice refused to lift the travel ban on the author, finding that there were strong indications that the author had committed the offences in question.[[fn:11]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 11,
+        "text": "On the basis of the supporting court documents, it seems that the travel ban was lifted on 18 June 2009."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.6.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 17 December 2012, the National Anti-Corruption Directorate indicted the author and 10 others, alleging that he had served as an accomplice in the abuse of power and active bribery."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.7.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 20 May 2014, KPMG published a report that criticized the valuation methods employed by the experts of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate and their results. On 18 July 2014, the author applied to the Court of Appeal to rely on expert evidence relating to: (a) valuation of the land (the KPMG report); (b) legal title to the land; and (c) assumptions that covert surveillance evidence gathered by the Directorate against him had been tampered with.[[fn:12]] On 22 September 2015, Catalin Grigoras provided an expert report demonstrating that the covert surveillance recordings had been tampered with.[[fn:13]] On 15 February 2016, Mr. Becali admitted that his complaint was based on gossip and that there was no evidence to support his allegation of impropriety relating to Baneasa Farm. On 18 February 2016, the National Anti-Corruption Directorate initiated a criminal prosecution against Mr. Becali for perjury. On 31 March 2016, before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, Mr. Becali withdrew his retraction under a threat of perjury charges. The perjury charges were subsequently dropped.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 12,
+        "text": "The author’s requests were dismissed by the Court of Appeal in its final decision of 23 June 2016."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 13,
+        "text": "The report suggested that the audio and audiovisual recordings that the Directorate was using against the author contained traces of technical interventions, including discrepancies in the time stamps of audio and visual material, traces of deliberate human intervention in duplicates of the evidence and duplicates which did not match the originals."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.8.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author argues that, under Constitutional Court decision No. 51/2016, dated 16 February 2016, it was unconstitutional to rely on covert surveillance evidence secured with the assistance of the Romanian Intelligence Service. The most sensitive and controversial aspect of the work of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate is its close operational relationship with the Intelligence Service. The author asserted that a “parallel State” had been formed by the intelligence services, prosecutors and some politicians. A specific example of such abuse was the targeting of the author. A political journalist, Nicholas Kochan, stated that there was evidence of “specific political manipulation” in the present case, as business rivals had used their political connections, including close relationships with former President Basescu, to target the author.[[fn:14]] On 1 April 2016, the Court of Appeal dismissed a defence application by the author to exclude the covert surveillance, based on the ruling of the Constitutional Court.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 14,
+        "text": "The expert witness report is attached to the communication."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.9.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [
+      "Persons deprived of their liberty"
+    ],
+    "Text": "On 23 June 2016, the Bucharest Court of Appeal convicted the author of complicity in the abuse of power and active bribery[[fn:15]] and the author was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The Court held that the author had acted with intent and knowledge to acquire Baneasa Farm through non-legitimate means, causing a significant loss of potential monetary gain to the State, as well as for active bribery and complicity in the abuse of power. The Court of Appeal dismissed the author’s motion to use the expert reports by Mr. Grigoras and former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Louis Freeh. The Court of Appeal held that the recordings were submitted pursuant to article 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that using covert surveillance evidence was not prohibited under the Constitutional Court decision. That decision was widely criticized.[[fn:16]] In its judgment, the Court of Appeal did not determine the alleged “prejudice” or whether the loss was “qualified” or “aggravated”, pursuant to article 309 of the Criminal Code, or the quantum of loss. The assessment of the alleged quantum of loss was determined only later, under decision No. 267 of 28 December 2018 of the Court of Appeal. The author appealed that decision to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, arguing that there had been several procedural errors which would require a new trial.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 15,
+        "text": "Decision No. 115/F of 23 June 2016."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 16,
+        "text": "An independent review by Mr. Freeh of the author’s conviction is annexed to the communication."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.10.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [
+      "Persons deprived of their liberty"
+    ],
+    "Text": "On 6 June 2017, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the author’s applications to use expert evidence and witnesses in his defence and to exclude prosecution evidence and witnesses, holding that it was unfounded under article 100 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that some of the evidence that the author wished to introduce was irrelevant. The Court also dismissed the author’s request to exclude certain evidence and witnesses put forward by the prosecution, stating that the author had not shown a change in circumstances from the court of first instance, where the witnesses and evidence had been used. The evidence used previously should therefore not be excluded. On 2 August 2017, the Court dismissed the author’s appeal, but reduced his sentence to seven years’ imprisonment by applying the provisions of article 5 of the Criminal Code. On 17 November 2017, the Court dismissed an application to reopen its proceedings due to the perceived lack of impartiality of one of the appeal judges."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.11.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 20 November 2017, the author submitted an extraordinary application to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, arguing that his conviction in relation to the offence of abuse of office was unconstitutional as based on a breach of the University’s Charter rather than primary law; however, the Court dismissed the author’s application."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.12.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author was facing extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the time of submission of his communication to the Committee. In August 2017, after his conviction became final, a European arrest warrant was issued by the Romanian authorities.[[fn:17]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 17,
+        "text": "On 21 February 2020, the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) certified that the author was not subject to a notice or to diffusion."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.13.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 2 February 2018, an application was submitted on behalf of the author to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the trial and conviction in the author’s case violated his right to a fair trial and the principle of no punishment without the law, due to arbitrariness and a fluid interpretation of domestic criminal law (articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights).[[fn:18]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 18,
+        "text": "The author’s complaint remained pending before the European Court of Human Rights at the time of the Committee’s consideration of the present communication."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.14.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author also submits that on 29 March 2018, a secret protocol between the Intelligence Service, the General Prosecutor’s Office, and the High Court of Cassation and Justice, signed in 2009, was declassified and published. The protocol mandated cooperation between the Intelligence Service and the judiciary and prosecution (including the National Anti-Corruption Directorate) regarding the investigation and prosecution of crimes related to national security and other serious crimes, including by forming common operative teams. The cooperation included assistance from the Intelligence Service through its devices and software to the National Anti-Corruption Directorate in the form of intercepted telephone conversations, text messages and audiovisual files, obtained through surveillance of politicians, businessmen, journalists, judges and prosecutors, containing private and sensitive information about them. Representatives of 16 courts of appeal in Romania expressed their concern regarding the secret protocols as they might constitute an infringement of the Constitution and a violation of criminal procedural rules and of fundamental human rights. The two bodies concerned, integral to the fight against corruption, have developed a relationship which, instead of protecting democracy, results in abuse of the justice system through arbitrary and mass surveillance."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.15.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Lastly, the author submits that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies and that the same matter has not been and is not being examined by another instance of international investigation or settlement."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "3.1.",
+    "Section": "Complaint",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author claims that his right to privacy and the private nature of correspondence under article 17 of the Covenant has been violated through the use of covert surveillance evidence against him, which was obtained and stored by the Intelligence Service and later used by the Anti-Corruption Directorate, in line with a secret protocol."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "3.2.",
+    "Section": "Complaint",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In particular, the author is alleging that similar security protocols are not compatible with the rule of law and they do not meet the criteria of accessibility, clarity, precision and predictability. For instance, the protocols do not define the kind of information that may be recorded, the categories of people who can be the subjects of surveillance, the procedure to be followed and the length of time for which the information may be kept. The national system for gathering and archiving information does not provide any safeguards, such as effective supervision, and does not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant powers.[[fn:19]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 19,
+        "text": "See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, Big Brother Watch and others v. the United Kingdom, Applications Nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15, Judgment, 13 September 2018; Rotaru v. Romania, Application No. 28341/95, Judgment, 4 May 2000; and Roman Zakharov v. Russia, Application No. 47143/06, Judgment, 4 December 2015."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "3.3.",
+    "Section": "Complaint",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author submits that the violation of his rights under article 17 of the Covenant manifested in: (a) the non-existent and unlawful basis on which the Anti-Corruption Directorate decided to reopen the case against him, despite the General Prosecutor’s rejection of the prosecution of the author; (b) the refusal by the courts (the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Cassation and Justice) of the author’s requests to use expert evidence to prove the unlawfulness of covert surveillance; and (c) the mass covert surveillance of the author and other high-profile individuals by the Intelligence Service and the Anti-Corruption Directorate, in breach of the jurisprudence of both the European Court of Human Rights[[fn:20]] and the Committee.[[fn:21]] Both the storing of the information and its controversial use amount to interference, which is unlawful, arbitrary and disproportionate. Although intelligence services may legitimately exist in a democratic society, the secret surveillance of citizens is tolerable under the Covenant only when strictly necessary for safeguarding the democratic order and institutions.[[fn:22]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 20,
+        "text": "European Court of Human Rights, Nakhmanovich v. Russia, Application No. 55669/00, Judgment, 2 March 2006, para. 89; Lehtinen v. Finland, Application No. 34147/96, Judgment, 13 September 2005, para. 28; and Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, Applications Nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, Judgment, 4 August 2005, para. 23."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 21,
+        "text": "General comment No. 16 (1988), paras. 3, 4 and 8; and general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 18."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 22,
+        "text": "European Court of Human Rights, Klass and others v. Germany, Application No. 5029/71, Judgment, 6 September 1978, para. 42."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "3.4.",
+    "Section": "Complaint",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "As to the general background, the author submits that: (a) politicians, judges, prosecutors and businessmen are maliciously monitored, targeted and investigated by the Anti-Corruption Directorate and the Intelligence Service, infringing their right to privacy; and (b) the judiciary in Romania remains under the negative influence of the Anti-Corruption Directorate, the Intelligence Service and politicians by infiltrating the privacy of judges. An abusive cooperation between the two agencies is based on anti-constitutional protocols that empower them to conclude unsupervised and unlawful contracts with a large number of law enforcement, judicial and administrative agencies. These contracts give the two bodies excessive control over the judiciary and the lives of people in Romania. Many individuals have been targeted by secret agents, who have intercepted their telephone conversations and text messages, wiretapped their conversations and created audio and audiovisual files that have been used to provide anti-constitutional and controversial assistance to prosecutors in their investigations. That abuse under the cloak of justice can also be demonstrated by an unsupervised database of private information, which also violates the individuals’ right to privacy."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.1.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 10 February 2020, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility, and reiterated its request that the Committee examine the admissibility of the communication separately from its merits."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.2.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State party submits that the author has not established victim status and that his communication appears to be an actio popularis, that he has abused the right of submission, that some translations of the facts are missing and that he has not exhausted all available domestic remedies. The State party also questions whether the author’s counsel has been duly authorized to submit the present communication. The State party argues that the same matter is being examined by another instance of international investigation or settlement, namely the European Court of Human Rights."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.3.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Furthermore, the State party submits that the records of the author’s communications should not be considered as absolutely void because they were made between 2008 and 2009, prior to the amendments of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came into force in 2014, and were declared unconstitutional through Constitutional Court decision No. 51/2016.[[fn:23]] The State party suggested that the decision by the Court of Appeal to dismiss the application based on the nullity of the records, a decision which was upheld by the High Court of Cassation and Justice upon appeal, was legal and did not therefore cause any damage to (have any negative consequence for) the author.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 23,
+        "text": "The concerned Constitutional Court decision, No. 51/2016, dealt with the amendments of criminal procedure adopted in 2014, so could not apply to the author’s situation in 2008 or 2009."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.4.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In the light of the above, the State party requested the Committee to consider the author’s communication inadmissible, pursuant to articles 2, 3 and 5 (2) (a) and (b) of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "5.1.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 29 May 2020, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "5.2.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "First, the author objects to the State party’s argument about the missing translations of some of the facts and its assertion that the Intelligence Service was not at all involved in the author’s interception, as attested by further evidence. Second, the author has duly authorized his representative to submit the communication to the Committee. Third, the author argues he has substantiated his victim status and explains that the State party has violated his right to privacy and the private nature of correspondence, as set forth in the Covenant, since he was personally and directly affected. Fourth, the observations referring to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies should be considered as void, since the decision rendered on 2 August 2017 was final and cannot be appealed. The above-mentioned comments are supported by the relevant jurisprudence of the Committee. Moreover, the initial communication was compatible with the right of submission."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "5.3.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Lastly, the same matter is not being examined before another international body of investigation or settlement. In effect, the matter differs as regards the facts and substantive rights that are the subject of the claims. The author contends that his claims before the European Court of Human Rights related to his right to a fair trial, whereas his claims before the Committee relate exclusively to his right to privacy."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.1.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 28 September 2021, the State party submitted its observations on the merits, reiterating its earlier objections to the admissibility of the communication."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.2.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State party submits that the author has not exhausted available domestic remedies since he initiated extraordinary appeal proceedings, which were pending at the time of submission of the present communication. In that regard, the State party submits that on 27 February 2020, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the appeal against criminal sentence No. 236/F of 10 December 2019 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. The High Court of Cassation and Justice found that the circumstances relied on by the author, supported by three extrajudicial statements, were not unknown at the time of delivery of the initial criminal sentence, No. 2266 of 2 August 2017. On 3 November 2020, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the author’s application for appeal against criminal sentence No. 180/F of 15 September 2020 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. This request also concerned the revision of a judgment rendered in the criminal proceedings that had been completed with the conviction of the author of the communication, namely criminal sentence No. 116/F of 23 June 2016 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. In parallel proceedings, on 11 June 2021 the High Court of the United Kingdom issued its decision in the appeal proceedings against the judgment of 12 July 2019 of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which had ordered the extradition of the author. The High Court held that the author’s arguments were vague and unsubstantiated.[[fn:24]] Even if the appeal led to a rejection of the request for extradition, it did so for the reasons related to the equity of criminal procedure, without any relation to the subject of the present communication.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 24,
+        "text": "Based on publicly available information, the High Court of England and Wales has, however, accepted the author’s appeal and reversed the decision of 12 July 2019 by Westminster Magistrates’ Court to order the extradition of the author from the United Kingdom to Romania."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.3.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State party also argues that the present case constitutes an actio popularis since the author has not established how his rights have been violated individually and specifically. It points to the vagueness of the author’s claims and the absence of additional substantive arguments. The author has instead referred to the widespread use of interception by the National Anti-Corruption Directorate and the Intelligence Service of the communications of public officials, members of parliament and others, and has not substantiated the violation of his rights."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.4.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "While the author asserts in his communication that his communications were wiretapped in the context of criminal investigations between 2008 and 2009, the State party objects, noting that the Constitutional Court judgment referred to (No. 405/2016), issued during the criminal investigation concerning the author, refers to criminal procedure since its amendment in 2014 and therefore does not apply to the circumstances of the author’s case."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.5.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author has raised the claims of a violation of article 17 of the Covenant before the Committee, disregarding the legal qualification of the facts in the present case. However, similar claims have not been raised in domestic appeal proceedings. The author has therefore not exhausted domestic remedies, pursuant to article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.[[fn:25]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 25,
+        "text": "The State party refers to the case of V. H. v. Czech Republic (CCPR/C/102/D/1546/2007), which was declared inadmissible: “The Committee notes the State party’s contention that the author did not exhaust domestic remedies pursuant to article 5, paragraph 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol, as he never raised the issue of discrimination based on political opinion and social background or any other status as provided by article 26 before national authorities” (para. 7.3)."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.6.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State party responds further to the author’s substantive claims, requesting that the Committee dismiss them as unfounded, since no violations occurred in the administrative or criminal proceedings. The author’s claims related to the use of the secret protocols and their indirect impact on the author is vague, not supported by evidence and appears to be an actio popularis. The arguments presented, including in regard to the list of telephone calls under surveillance, which did not include the author’s telephone number, actually refer to the establishment of facts or assessment of evidence that are outside of the scope of the Committee’s consideration. They are issues that fall within the competence of regular national courts, not that of international protection mechanisms."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.7.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State party explains the reasons why the courts refused to use expert evidence to prove the unlawfulness of covert surveillance. In particular, it argues that judicially authorized interception is legally permissible, authorized by courts and therefore legitimate, and that the surveillance of the author was proportionate, necessary and time-bound. It adds that the author was aware of who authorized the surveillance in the context of the criminal procedure and that he had not been subject to excessive or arbitrary surveillance by the Intelligence Service.[[fn:26]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 26,
+        "text": "In that regard, the State party refers to the three judgments of the Constitutional Court of 16 February 2016, 17 July 2017 and 16 January 2019, addressing the issues of the presumed material competence of the criminal authorities."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.8.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State party reiterates that the author’s claims under article 17 should be limited to possible interference in the right to respect for privacy and the private nature of correspondence, and justification of such interference. Those claims cannot extend to the role of interception as evidence in criminal proceedings and the fairness of those proceedings, in the absence of any grievance relating to the right to a fair trial."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.9.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 24 June 2016, the author appealed against criminal judgment No. 115/F of 23 June 2016. In his appeal of 110 pages, no mention was made of the possible illegality or nullity of the recordings of his communications. He referred to the content of the recordings only in his pleadings on the non-existence of the criminal acts complained of. During the public hearing on 23 May 2017, the author’s lawyer supported his request for supplementary evidence, requesting that the witnesses be heard again before the appeal body. The author did not make any claims as to the alleged illegality or nullity of the recordings of his communications during the criminal investigation, but did so in his appeal. The fact that a co-accused individual, S.I.C., has requested the exclusion of recordings from evidentiary material is not decisive; it does not automatically exempt the author from his obligation to invoke the alleged infringement of his right. Thus, S.I.C. was the only one to invoke before the High Court of Cassation and Justice criticism in relation to the recordings, as his lawyer requested the exclusion of the recordings from the evidentiary material. S.I.C. had alleged, both before the court of first instance and before the appeal body, that there had been alterations and modifications of the recordings (and their transcripts) of the conversations in question but not of all the conversations. In those circumstances, the State party considers that the author of the communication should have raised the claims he has submitted to the Committee before the domestic courts first."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.10.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In its criminal judgment of 2 August 2017, the High Court of Cassation and Justice indicated, among other things, that digital recordings retained their quality during multiplication and that the arguments made by the defence regarding their alteration, following or during transfer or multiplication, lacked relevance."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.11.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State party requests the Committee to note the absence of any evidence to support the author’s allegations of extensive and excessive surveillance. In addition to the recordings of his communications, authorized by the authorities and made between December 2008 and March 2009, he does not indicate any other element which could justify the allegation of excessive surveillance. The State party recalls that the preliminary judgments containing the authorizations of interception had been included in the criminal file; the author’s lawyer had had the opportunity to examine them; he had obtained copies of the optical media containing the recordings; and he had been able to consult the criminal file in order to read and verify the transcripts of the recordings. However, he chose to declare before the appeal court that he was not challenging the evidence adduced at the court of first instance (including the recordings). The State party requests the Committee to take into account the specific offence of active corruption. In the present case, the corruption refers to offers of gifts, through a third party, to the police officer involved in the criminal investigation into the transfer of the land, so that this investigation could be closed by a dismissal, prompting the need to intercept the author’s telephone and record his communications. In addition, the period authorized for the interception of his communications was a few months only."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.12.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee should also note that, during the criminal proceedings and subsequently, the author received several clarifications regarding the alleged involvement of the Intelligence Service in the interception of his communications. Initially, at the public hearing on 31 March 2016, the National Anti-Corruption Directorate indicated that it was its technical service that had executed the interception warrants. More recently, in the proceedings before the British courts concerning the execution of the European arrest warrant for the author of the present communication, the judge reiterated that the evidence adduced by the author was either not very credible or contrary to the author’s arguments."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.13.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Lastly, the State party underscores the elements of legality that characterized the interception of the author’s communications for a strictly fixed period. That assertion is corroborated by the attitude of the author who, in his request for evidence before the High Court of Cassation and Justice, expressly affirmed his choice not to challenge the evidence administered at the court of first instance, including the recordings. The State party therefore requests the Committee to conclude that adequate legal and procedural guarantees exist, and had characterized the issue of the interception of the author’s conversations in the proceedings before the Romanian authorities."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.14.",
+    "Section": "State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In view of the above, the State party requests the Committee to find the author’s claims unfounded and to state that his rights under article 17 have been guaranteed."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "7.1.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 1 April 2022, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations on the merits, recalling also the arguments concerning admissibility. He asserts that he has exhausted domestic remedies and has established his victim status."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "7.2.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "He reiterates that he has been a victim of an unlawful collaboration between the National Anti-Corruption Agency and the Intelligence Service. He explains that covert surveillance evidence was used against him during his criminal trial for bribery in Romania and that said evidence had been obtained with the assistance of the Intelligence Service (apparently mandated by one or more “secret protocols” detailing how the Intelligence Service assists Romanian prosecutors with criminal investigations, including by intercepting communications). The author states that his attempts to exclude the covert surveillance evidence against him were rejected by the trial judge, despite the fact that the Constitutional Court had made it clear that any evidence secured with the involvement of the Intelligence Service was null and void. That means that his conviction for bribery was based on unlawful and unconstitutional material, in breach of his privacy rights."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "7.3.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [
+      "Persons deprived of their liberty"
+    ],
+    "Text": "As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the decision of 2 August 2017 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which is the Supreme Court in Romania (reducing the total sentence to seven years’ imprisonment), was final, irrevocable and not subject to any further judicial remedies. The author further analyses the unlawful, arbitrary and disproportionate interference with his private life and explains the legal status of the victim. He submits that his right to privacy and the private nature of correspondence has been violated by the State party in a way that has personally and directly affected him. He also substantiates the nullity of the recordings of his communications during the criminal investigation and the fact that these recordings were challenged as evidence before the High Court of Cassation and Justice."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "7.4.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author further states that in June 2019, he submitted a complaint to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s files, challenging an INTERPOL red notice that had been issued against him on 9 August 2017 (following his conviction in Romania) and seeking the deletion of data concerning him. On 21 February 2020, the Commission concluded that the data he was challenging were not compliant with INTERPOL rules. The Commission acknowledged that the author’s communications had been intercepted and recorded, considering that there were “strong doubts” about the proportionality of the breach of his right to privacy involved in the use of covert surveillance evidence against him. Based on the author’s complaint against Judge T., with respect to an allegation that the judge had committed the offence of abuse of office in his handling of the civil proceedings, on 12 June 2020 the High Court of Cassation and Justice annulled Judge T’s decision in the civil proceedings and remitted the case to the Bucharest Court of Appeal for rehearing. The author made another application to the Bucharest Court of Appeal for judicial review of his conviction, this time based on issues relating to the ownership of Baneasa Farm and on medical evidence concerning Judge T.’s fitness to practice. That application was rejected by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 15 September 2020, a decision confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 3 November 2020. On 11 June 2021, the High Court of England and Wales accepted the author’s appeal against the judgment of 12 July 2019 of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which had ordered the extradition of the author. The High Court held, inter alia, that there was a “real risk” for the author’s personal security, if extradited, since the author had suffered an “extreme example of judicial partiality” in Romania and that there could be “no question” as to the fairness of his criminal trial and the consequences."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "7.5.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State party’s arguments are not substantiated regarding the lack of the author’s victim status in the matter of interceptions. His procedural expressions, namely his application for finding absolute nullity before the Court of Appeal, and the submission of his appeal to the High Court of Cassation and Justice have activated the obligation ignored by the national authorities. Any argument relating to the author not being affected negatively or not invoking the nullity of aggressive and unlawful interceptions is void. The author directly challenged the nullity of the interceptions, an argument that should have been seriously considered in the final stage by the High Court of Cassation and Justice as a matter of law and should have been accepted."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "7.6.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author invites the Committee to reject the State party’s objections to admissibility and to conclude that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 17 of the Covenant."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "8.1.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "8.2.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication should be considered inadmissible, pursuant to article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, since the same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.[[fn:27]] The Committee notes the author’s argument that he has invoked different substantive rights, namely the right to a fair trial and the principle of no punishment without the law (articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights), in his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, which remains pending. Taking into account that the author’s claim submitted to the Committee concerns the right to privacy and the private nature of correspondence due to covert surveillance of his communications, which differs in substance from those presented to the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the author’s claim under article 17 by the requirements of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol.[[fn:28]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 27,
+        "text": "The State party has entered a reservation to article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 28,
+        "text": "See B.H. v. Austria (CCPR/C/119/D/2088/2011), para. 8.5."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "8.3.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author.[[fn:29]] The Committee notes the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have been exhausted in relation to the criminal conviction of the author by the judgment of 2 August 2017, but that he continued to resort to other available domestic remedies or appeals before the foreign courts and that the claims before the Committee have not been raised in substance before the Romanian domestic courts. In that regard, the Committee notes the author’s objection that his criminal conviction by the judgment of 2 August 2017, based on the evidence, including his intercepted communications, was final and was not subject to further appeals, and that the other remedies resorted to also invoked a violation of his right to privacy. In the present circumstances, the Committee considers that the author has exhausted available domestic remedies in the context of his criminal conviction, with the reservation that when contesting the evidence used before the Court of Appeal, the author did not invoke the use of intercepted communications against him as a primary ground of appeal; nonetheless, he has requested that expert opinions be heard at various stages of the proceedings, in order to prove that the use of covert surveillance against him was unlawful. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded from examining the author’s claim under article 17 by the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 29,
+        "text": "See, for example, Gilberg v. Germany (CCPR/C/87/D/1403/2005), para. 6.5; Warsame v. Canada (CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010), para. 7.4; S.Y. v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/123/D/2392/2014), para. 8.3; and H.S. et al. v. Canada (CCPR/C/125/D/2948/2017), para. 6.4. See also B.P. and P.B. v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/128/D/2974/2017), para. 9.3."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "8.4.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [
+      "Persons deprived of their liberty"
+    ],
+    "Text": "As regards the State party’s argument that the author has not established his status as a victim, the Committee considers that the author was directly and personally affected by the interception of his communication by the National Anti-Corruption Agency, in cooperation with the Intelligence Service, between December 2008 and March 2009, which served in part as evidence, on the basis of which he was convicted to seven years’ imprisonment. The Committee therefore considers that the requirements of article 1 of the Optional Protocol have been met."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "8.5.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee takes note of the author’s claims that the State party violated his rights under article 17 of the Covenant through the use of covert surveillance as evidence against him, which was gathered by the Intelligence Service and later used by the Anti-Corruption Agency, as required under a secret protocol. The author has alleged that these protocols are not compatible with the rule of law and that they do not meet the criteria of accessibility, clarity, precision and predictability. The Committee, in particular, notes the author’s claim that the violation of his rights under article 17 manifested in: (a) the non-existent and unlawful basis on which the Anti-Corruption Agency decided to reopen the case, despite the General Prosecutor’s refusal to prosecute the author; (b) the refusal by the courts to use expert evidence to prove the unlawfulness of covert surveillance; and (c) the mass covert surveillance of the author by the Intelligence Service and the Anti-Corruption Agency. The Committee notes that most of the author’s claims relate essentially to the application of security protocols on gathering evidence, evaluation of the facts and the evidence and application of domestic law by the law enforcement organs and courts of the State party, with implications for the author’s rights under article 17 of the Covenant. The Committee, however, recalls that it is not a final instance entity competent to re-evaluate findings of fact or the application of domestic legislation. It is generally for the courts of States parties to review facts and evidence, or the application of domestic legislation, in a particular case, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice, or that the court otherwise violated its obligation of independence and impartiality.[[fn:30]] On the basis of the information before it, the Committee cannot conclude that the author sufficiently substantiated his assertion that the application of security protocols entailing his surveillance, which the State party submits was judicially authorized, legally permissible and proportionate, necessary and time-bound (see para. 6.7 above), deprived him of his right to privacy and the private nature of correspondence under article 17 of the Covenant. The Committee therefore cannot conclude, on the basis of the materials at its disposal, that in deciding the author’s case the domestic courts acted in a clearly arbitrary or manifestly erroneous manner or that their decisions amounted to a denial of justice.[[fn:31]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 30,
+        "text": "Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 26; Riedl-Riedenstein et al. v. Germany (CCPR/C/82/D/1188/2003), para. 7.3; and M.S. v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/127/D/2739/2016), para. 6.6. See also H.K. v. Norway (CCPR/C/112/D/2004/2010), para. 8.6; V.S. v. Lithuania (CCPR/C/114/D/2437/2014), para. 6.3; Lin v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 9.3; and K.J. v. Lithuania (CCPR/C/130/D/2674/2015), para. 6.8."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 31,
+        "text": "R.E.I. v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/136/D/3015/2017), para. 6.7."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "9.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author’s claims are insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "10.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol;"
+  }
+]
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ccpr-c-143-d-3054-2017.paragraphs.json b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ccpr-c-143-d-3054-2017.paragraphs.json
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..f46827b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ccpr-c-143-d-3054-2017.paragraphs.json
@@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
+[
+  {
+    "ID": "1.",
+    "Section": "",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author of the communication is Pavel Tolmachev, a national of the Russian Federation born in 1988. He claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 17 (1) and 19 (2) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 1 January 1992. The author is represented by counsel."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.1.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Between 2011 and 2013, the author was actively engaged in social activism in Mari El and also organized public meetings at which he criticized the work of the local government. On 8 September 2012, in a speech at a public meeting (with fewer than 30 participants) in the city of Ioshkar-Ola, the author called L.M., the head of the government of Mari El, a “bandit” and stated that he had committed several criminal offences but could not be prosecuted because of his functional immunity. On 2 October 2012, a criminal investigation against the author was opened under article 128.1 (2) of the Russian Criminal Code (slander in a public speech, in a publicly displayed piece of work or in the mass media). On 24 July 2013, the author was found guilty of slander by the Justice of the Peace of Ioshkar-Ola judicial district No. 2 and sentenced to 80 hours of compulsory work."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.2.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 2 August 2013, the author lodged an appeal with Ioshkar-Ola City Court. He claimed that he had criticized the actions of L.M. as head of the government of Mari El and not L.M. personally, that his criticisms were based on the information he had read in the mass media and had heard from third persons, and that he had not intended to damage the reputation or dignity of L.M. He noted that he had publicly apologized to L.M. for his remarks and notified the latter’s press service. On 17 September 2013, Ioshkar-Ola City Court rejected the author’s appeal."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.3.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 27 September 2013, the author submitted a cassation appeal to Ioshkar-Ola City Court. On 3 October 2013, Ioshkar-Ola City Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction. In its ruling, the Court explained that the cassation appeal needed to be submitted to the Supreme Court of Mari El."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.4.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On an unspecified date after his conviction, during the review of the evidentiary materials in his criminal case, the author and his counsel discovered that, on 6 April 2012, a judge of the Supreme Court of Mari El had authorized his personal telephone to be wiretapped. Later, on 12 September 2012, the Supreme Court issued another authorization to the Counter-Terrorism Centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Mari El to wiretap the author’s telephone. The author notes that he did not know that his telephone had been wiretapped until after the trial. He also notes that, under domestic law, judicial decisions authorizing wiretapping, along with any related documents, are considered confidential and can be kept only by those law enforcement authorities that conduct the wiretapping. The author submits that, on 10 November 2012, he petitioned the Supreme Court of Mari El to provide information about any authorizations given by domestic courts to conduct operative and surveillance activities against him. On 23 November 2012, the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of Mari El informed the author that the Supreme Court of Mari El did not have such information and that any decision by the court authorizing surveillance is considered confidential and issued in a single copy, which is provided only to the authority requesting authorization."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "2.5.",
+    "Section": "Facts as submitted by the author",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author submits that there are no effective remedies available to him to appeal the Supreme Court’s decision authorizing the wiretapping, owing to the secret nature of the decision. Therefore, he claims to have exhausted all domestic remedies."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "3.1.",
+    "Section": "Complaint",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author claims that his rights under article 17 (1) of the Covenant were violated by the State Party, as the illegal wiretapping was an arbitrary interference with his private life."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "3.2.",
+    "Section": "Complaint",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "He claims that his rights under article 19 (2) of the Covenant were violated because he was subjected to criminal prosecution and sanctioned solely on the basis of L.M.’s position as the head of the government of Mari El and not as an ordinary citizen. The author submits that, as the head of the government of Mari El, L.M. was legitimately subject to heightened criticism and that, by charging him with slander, the domestic courts took his public remarks completely out of context."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.1.",
+    "Section": "State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "On 21 June 2018, the State Party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. The State Party notes that the federal act on operative and investigative activities permits a telephone to be tapped upon the basis of a court order, if information has been received about: (a) a crime that is being or has been committed that requires a preliminary investigation; (b) persons who are preparing to commit or have committed a crime; or (c) events or actions that pose a threat to the state, military, economic, information or environmental security of the Russian Federation. It further notes that a person who believes that the wiretapping against them has violated their rights and freedoms has the right to lodge an appeal against such actions with a higher investigative authority, a prosecutor or a court, in accordance with article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State Party submits that, based on the documents submitted, it does not appear that the author filed a complaint against unlawful or unjustified wiretapping upon learning about the wiretapping during the review of the evidentiary materials in his criminal case. Therefore, the author’s claim under article 17 (1) of the Covenant is inadmissible, as the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.2.",
+    "Section": "State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The State Party notes that, in accordance with article 401.2 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appeals against court decisions that have entered into force can be lodged with the courts of cassation. It further notes that the author did not lodge a cassation appeal against the decision of the Justice of the Peace of Ioshkar-Ola judicial district No. 2 or against the appellate decision of Ioshkar-Ola City Court. According to the State Party, on 3 October 2013, Ioshkar-Ola City Court dismissed the author’s cassation appeal because article 401.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires such appeals to be submitted to the presidium of the Supreme Court of Mari El instead of Ioshkar-Ola City Court. However, despite the dismissal, the author did not lodge another cassation appeal with the correct court. Therefore, the State Party argues that the author’s claim under article 19 (2) of the Covenant is also inadmissible, as the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.3.",
+    "Section": "State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "With regard to the merits of the communication, the State Party submits that the author was found guilty of wilfully and knowingly disseminating, during a speech at a public meeting, false information about the alleged affiliation of the head of the government of Mari El with organized crime groups. During the author’s trial, the court heard the testimony given by the head of the government of Mari El, L.M., during the pretrial investigation, in which he testified that the author’s public speech had defamed his honour and dignity and undermined his business reputation. The State Party submits that other witnesses testified at the trial that they had heard the author calling L.M. a “bandit”. The event was recorded on video, and the author did not challenge the content of the recording at the trial. The State Party notes that a linguistic examination concluded that the author’s speech had contained allegations of L.M.’s contacts with organized crime and of criminal cases initiated against him. The State Party also notes that, during the pretrial investigation, the author testified that he had used the word “bandit” as a general statement about the characteristics of L.M.’s personality and his behaviour in society. According to the author, he formed this opinion from his exchanges with a large number of acquaintances who had spoken negatively about L.M. The State Party notes that the law enforcement authorities are not aware of information that would implicate L.M.’s involvement with organized crime groups. The State Party concludes that the author’s rights under article 19 of the Covenant were not violated because his criminal conviction was not due to the critical assessment of L.M.’s work as the head of the government of Mari El but rather because the author knowingly disseminated false information that L.M. was connected with organized crime groups. The State Party argues that the exercise of the rights provided for in article 19 (2) may be subject to restrictions, including to protect the rights or reputations of others."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "4.4.",
+    "Section": "State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "As to the author’s allegations concerning unlawful interference in his private life owing to the wiretapping, the State Party submits that, in 2012 and 2013, the CounterTerrorism Centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Mari El conducted an inquiry into information about the author’s possible involvement in several crimes. On 4 April and 11 September 2012, the Supreme Court of Mari El authorized the wiretapping of the author’s telephone. The State Party notes that domestic law permits the wiretapping of individuals suspected of committing crimes of medium gravity, as well as grave and especially grave crimes, when such wiretapping has been authorized by the courts. In the case of the author, he was suspected of making public calls to commit terrorist activities and of publicly justifying terrorism or its propaganda, which constitute crimes of medium gravity under article 205.2 (2) of the Criminal Code."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "5.1.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In a letter dated 22 October 2018, the author rejected the State Party’s arguments that he could have submitted a complaint against the unlawful wiretapping upon learning about the wiretapping during the review of the evidentiary materials in his criminal case. He argues that he did not learn about the wiretapping until after the trial court had already handed down a verdict in his case. He notes that, in accordance with article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, once the pretrial investigation is completed, a decision authorizing wiretapping can be appealed only during the trial or as part of the regular or cassation appeal. The author also notes that the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of Mari El informed him that the Supreme Court did not have any information about the wiretapping (see para. 2.4), and since he did not have any evidence that his telephone was tapped, he could not lodge an appeal against it."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "5.2.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "With regard to the State Party’s submission that an appeal can be lodged with the courts of cassation against court decisions that have entered into force, the author argues that the cassation appeal cannot be considered an effective domestic remedy. The author notes that the cassation review procedure does not provide for a direct examination of the merits of the case and concerns the review, on points of law only, of court decisions that have entered into force. Moreover, in order for the cassation court, in its full composition, to review the case, one of the judges of the cassation court must first agree with the arguments submitted in the cassation appeal and allow for it to be examined by the full court. Therefore, cassation appeals are, in practice, subject to the discretionary power of a single judge. The author notes that, on 27 September 2013, he submitted a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of Mari El; however, on 3 October 2013, his appeal was returned without examination by IoshkarOla City Court."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "5.3.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The author further notes that, in Kashlan v. Russia, the European Court of Human Rights came to the conclusion that the new cassation review procedure under the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended in 2014, did not constitute an ordinary remedy within the meaning of article 35, paragraph 1, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) and therefore did not have to be exhausted by the applicants before lodging a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights.[[fn:3]]",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 3,
+        "text": "The author refers to European Court of Human Rights, Kashlan v. Russia, Application No. 60189/15, Decision, 19 April 2016, para. 29."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "5.4.",
+    "Section": "Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Lastly, the author rejects the State Party’s argument that the law enforcement authorities acted lawfully when wiretapping his telephone and notes that he was never suspected of, charged with or accused of making public calls to commit terrorist activities or publicly justifying terrorism or its propaganda under article 205.2 (2) of the Criminal Code, as submitted by the State Party. He suggests that the State Party is intentionally trying to mislead the Committee to justify the length of the wiretapping authorized by the domestic courts."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.1.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.2.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.3.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In accordance with article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes the State Party’s submission that, with regard to his claim under article 17 of the Covenant, the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, as he did not lodge an appeal against the decision authorizing the wiretapping of his telephone with a higher investigative authority, prosecutor or court in accordance with article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Committee also notes the author’s submission that the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of Mari El informed the author that the Supreme Court did not have any information about the wiretapping and that a decision by the court authorizing surveillance is considered confidential and is issued in a single copy, which is provided only to the authority requesting the wiretapping. According to the author, since he learned about the wiretapping only after the trial court had already handed down a verdict in his case, he was not able to submit a complaint about its illegality to the prosecutor’s office or the trial court, as suggested by the State Party. In this regard, the Committee has consistently held that the State Party must describe in detail which legal remedies would have been available to an author in the specific case and provide evidence that there would be a reasonable prospect that such remedies would be effective.[[fn:4]] The Committee notes that, in respect of the author’s claim in the present case, the State Party has failed to explain which judicial and administrative avenues could have provided redress when the author was refused access to the court decision that he wanted to appeal, owing to the decision’s alleged confidentiality. In view of the above, the Committee concludes that there were no effective remedies that the author could have pursued concerning his claim under article 17 of the Covenant.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 4,
+        "text": "For example, Bratsylo v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/140/D/3022/2017), para. 7.6."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.4.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "At the same time, the Committee notes the State Party’s submission that, on 4 April and 11 September 2012, owing to the Counter-Terrorism Centre’s inquiry into the author’s possible involvement in several crimes, the Supreme Court of Mari El authorized the wiretapping of the author’s telephone. According to the State Party, domestic law permits the wiretapping of individuals suspected of committing crimes of medium gravity, as well as grave and especially grave crimes, when such wiretapping has been authorized by the courts. In the case of the author, he was suspected of making public calls to commit terrorist activities and of publicly justifying terrorism or its propaganda, which constitute crimes of medium gravity under article 205.2 (2) of the Criminal Code. Since the author has not provided any other information that would lead the Committee to conclude that the interference with his privacy, family and home was arbitrary, the Committee considers that the author has insufficiently substantiated his claim under article 17 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility and therefore considers it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.5.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "As to the claim raised by the author under article 19 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the State Party’s submission that the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, as he did not lodge an appeal against the decision of the Justice of the Peace of Ioshkar-Ola judicial district No. 2 dated 24 July 2013 or against the appellate decision of Ioshkar-Ola City Court dated 17 September 2013 with the presidium of the Supreme Court of Mari El in accordance with the cassation appeal procedure. The Committee also notes the author’s argument that the cassation appeal procedure is not an effective legal remedy because it does not provide for a direct examination of the merits of the case and concerns the review, on points of law only, of court decisions that have entered into force. Moreover, for the cassation court to review the case, a judge of the cassation court must first agree with the arguments in the cassation appeal and allow for it to be examined by the full court; thus, the entire procedure is subject to the discretionary power of a single judge. These characteristics lead the Committee to believe that the cassation review contains elements of an extraordinary remedy. The State Party must therefore show that there is a reasonable prospect that such a procedure would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case.[[fn:5]] However, the Committee notes that, in the present case, the State Party has not provided any information on the effectiveness of the cassation review procedure in cases similar to the present one. In these circumstances and in the absence of any further relevant information, the Committee finds that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the claim under article 19 of the Covenant.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 5,
+        "text": "Voronkov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/136/D/2951/2017), para. 9.3."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "6.6.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of admissibility",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claim under article 19 of the Covenant for purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares the claim admissible and proceeds with its examination on the merits."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "7.1.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "7.2.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee notes that the decision of the domestic courts to sentence the author to 80 hours of compulsory work for slander constituted a restriction on the author’s right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 19 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee must therefore examine whether the imposed restriction was justified under the criteria provided by article 19 (3) of the Covenant."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "7.3.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee refers to its general comment No. 34 (2011), according to which freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are essential for any society and constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society.[[fn:6]] According to article 19 (3) of the Covenant, the right to freedom of expression can be subject to certain restrictions, but only such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) for respect for the rights or reputations of others; or (b) for the protection of national security or public order, or of public health or morals.[[fn:7]] All restrictions imposed on freedom of expression must be provided by law. They may only be imposed on the grounds set out in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of article 19 (3) and they must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 6,
+        "text": "General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 2."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 7,
+        "text": "Ibid., para. 21."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "7.4.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "In the present case, the Committee notes the State Party’s argument that the judgments of the domestic courts were based on the relevant provisions of Russian legislation, and that their application pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of the reputation or rights of others, namely L.M. Therefore, the restriction imposed on the author was provided for by law. The Committee must therefore decide whether the limitation of the author’s right to freedom of expression, as provided by the Russian Criminal Code, was necessary and proportionate."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "7.5.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee notes the author’s argument that he was subjected to criminal prosecution and sanctioned solely on the basis of L.M.’s position as the head of the government of Mari El and not as an ordinary citizen. The Committee recalls that in circumstances of public and political debate concerning public figures and public institutions, the value placed by the Covenant upon uninhibited expression is particularly high.[[fn:8]] The mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties, albeit public figures may also benefit from the provisions of the Covenant.[[fn:9]] The Committee considers that defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply with article 19 (3) of the Covenant and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of expression.[[fn:10]] With regard to comments about public figures, States Parties should give consideration to avoiding penalizing or otherwise rendering unlawful untrue statements that have been published in error but without malice.[[fn:11]] In this regard, the Committee notes the author’s submission that his remarks were based on the information he had read in the mass media and had heard from third persons, and that he publicly apologized to L.M. for his remarks and notified the latter’s press service.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 8,
+        "text": "Ibid., para. 38."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 9,
+        "text": "Ibid. See also Akhmedyarov v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/129/D/2535/2015), para. 9.8."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 10,
+        "text": "General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 47."
+      },
+      {
+        "n": 11,
+        "text": "Ibid. See also Akhmedyarov v. Kazakhstan, para. 9.8."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "7.6.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee further observes that, as the author made his contested speech during a public event attended by fewer than 30 people, any damage to L.M.’s reputation was of only a limited nature. The Committee further observes that the State Party has advanced no justification that, under those circumstances, bringing criminal charges against the author for slander and sentencing him to perform compulsory work was necessary. In addition, the State Party has not explained why no other means were available to protect L.M.’s reputation. Taking into account the nature of the penalty imposed on the author in the present case and considering the impact and the context of the remarks made by the author, the restriction of his right to freedom of expression has not been shown to be a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the honour and the reputation of others.[[fn:12]] Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 19 (2) of the Covenant.",
+    "Footnotes": [
+      {
+        "n": 12,
+        "text": "Kozlov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/111/D/1986/2010), para. 7.6."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "8.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State Party of the author’s rights under article 19 (2) of the Covenant."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "9.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State Party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. In the present case, the State Party is obligated to provide the author with adequate compensation. The State Party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future."
+  },
+  {
+    "ID": "10.",
+    "Section": "Consideration of the merits",
+    "Labels": [],
+    "Text": "Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State Party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State Party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State Party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State Party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official language of the State Party."
+  }
+]
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-001.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-001.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a7270a65
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-001.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+UNITED CCPR
+NATIONS
+( \, International Covenant bist
+Xt yy on Civil and Political Rights RESTRICTED +/
+CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991
+9 December 1994
+Original : ENGLISH
+HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
+Fifty-second session
+: VIEWS
+Communication No. 453/1991
+Submitted by: A.R. Coeriel and M.A.R. Aurik
+[represented by counsel]
+Victims: The author's
+State party: The Netherlands
+Date of communication: 14 January 1991 (initial submission)
+Documentation references: Prior decisions - CCPR/C/WG/44/D/453/1991
+(Working Group’s rule 91
+decision, dated 25 March 1992)
+- CCPR/C/48/D/453/1991
+(Decision on admissibility,
+dated 8 July 1993)
+Date of adoption of Views: 31 October 1994
+On 31 October 1994, the Human Rights Committee adopted its Views under
+article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
+on Civil and Political Rights, in respect of communication No. 453/1991. The
+text of the Views is appended to the present document.
+[ANNEX]
+x/ Made public by decision of the Human Rights Committee.
+VWS453.52e cb
+GE.95-15187
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-002.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-002.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a3e7e084
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-002.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991
+Annex
+English
+Page l
+ANNEX */
+VIEWS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 4,
+OF THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT
+ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
+- FIFTY-SECOND SESSION -
+concerning
+Communication No. 453/1991
+Submitted by: A.R. Coeriel and M.A.R. Aurik
+[represented by counsel}
+Victims: The author's
+State party: The Netherlands
+Date of communication: 14 January 1991 (initial submission)
+Date of decision on admissibility: 8 July 1993
+The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the
+International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
+Meeting on 31 October 1994,
+Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 453/1991
+submitted to the Human Rights Committee by A.R. Coerieland M.A.R. Aurik under
+the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
+Rights,
+Havina taken into account all written information made available to it
+by the author's of the communication, their counsel and the State party,
+Adopts its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol.
+¥/ The text of individual opinions from Messrs. N. Ando and K. Herndl
+is appended to the Views.
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-003.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-003.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7a6edd6b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-003.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991
+Annex
+English
+Page 2
+1. The author's of the communication are A.R. Coeriel and M.A.R. Aurik, two
+Dutch citizens residing in Roermond, the Netherlands. They claim to be victims
+of a violation by the Netherlands of articles 17 and 18 of the International
+Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
+The background:
+2.1 The author's have adopted the Hindu religion and state that they want to
+study for Hindu priests ('pandits') in India. They requested the Roermond
+District Court (Arrondissements Rechtbank) to change their first names into
+Hindu names, in accordance with the requirements of their religion. This
+request was granted by the Court on 6 November 1986.
+2.2 Subsequently, the author's requested the Minister of Justice to have
+their surnames changed into Hindu names. They claimed that for individuals
+wishing to study and practice the Hindu religion and to become Hindu priests,
+it is mandatory to adopt Hindu names. By decisions of 2 August and 14 December
+1988 respectively, the Minister of Justice rejected the author's' request, on
+the ground that their cases did not meet the requirements set out in the
+Guidelines5	1	1	1	21	2	942	1663	92	37	96.241707	for5	1	1	1	21	3	1166	1663	92	37	96.660408	the5	1	1	1	21	4	1392	1662	191	48	95.825394	change5	1	1	1	21	5	1715	1660	61	39	96.717979	of5	1	1	1	21	6	1909	1659	248	39	0.000000	surname’5	1	1	1	21	7	2309	1654	384	57	91.082169	(Richtlijnen5	1	1	1	21	8	2822	1664	131	29	89.580490	voor4	1	1	1	22	0	476	1712	2475	50	-1	5	1	1	1	22	1	476	1716	667	40	81.734505	eslachtsnaamwijziging5	1	1	1	22	2	1211	1718	181	44	96.506271	1976).5	1	1	1	22	3	1434	1718	94	37	95.808357	The5	1	1	1	22	4	1561	1714	260	40	96.625481	decision5	1	1	1	22	5	1855	1715	225	39	95.748756	further5	1	1	1	22	6	2115	1712	325	50	96.299324	stipulated5	1	1	1	22	7	2472	1712	125	38	95.980400	that5	1	1	1	22	8	2631	1723	26	27	96.843819	a5	1	1	1	22	9	2687	1715	264	44	96.319893	positive4	1	1	1	23	0	441	1728	2512	94	-1	5	1	1	1	23	1	441	1730	265	81	79.904724	decision5	1	1	1	23	2	746	1767	164	44	96.254341	would5	1	1	1	23	3	949	1728	129	83	93.096252	have5	1	1	1	23	4	1116	1767	130	43	96.336990	been5	1	1	1	23	5	1288	1770	294	52	96.290710	justified5	1	1	1	23	6	1621	1771	128	48	96.868027	only5	1	1	1	23	7	1785	1771	64	48	96.990662	by5	1	1	1	23	8	1888	1767	359	51	96.240662	exceptional5	1	1	1	23	9	2290	1766	450	45	96.680412	circumstances,5	1	1	1	23	10	2787	1762	166	41	96.713493	which4	1	1	1	24	0	440	1820	2511	59	-1	5	1	1	1	24	1	440	1839	130	28	96.491501	were5	1	1	1	24	2	618	1834	96	33	96.772072	not5	1	1	1	24	3	763	1832	231	47	96.437386	present5	1	1	1	24	4	1045	1827	61	40	96.368958	in5	1	1	1	24	5	1155	1828	93	39	93.297836	the5	1	1	1	24	6	1299	1827	251	39	90.637276	author's'5	1	1	1	24	7	1609	1838	183	26	96.406532	cases.5	1	1	1	24	8	1849	1826	95	38	96.788345	The5	1	1	1	24	9	1990	1823	265	40	96.392548	Minister5	1	1	1	24	10	2304	1820	326	42	96.455231	considered5	1	1	1	24	11	2681	1822	126	38	96.684700	that5	1	1	1	24	12	2858	1820	93	38	96.658211	the4	1	1	1	25	0	442	1875	2507	49	-1	5	1	1	1	25	1	442	1886	253	38	91.888191	author's'5	1	1	1	25	2	741	1888	225	36	96.667915	current5	1	1	1	25	3	1006	1895	256	28	96.607178	surnames5	1	1	1	25	4	1298	1882	96	41	96.272026	did5	1	1	1	25	5	1426	1888	93	34	96.272026	not5	1	1	1	25	6	1553	1880	324	42	96.128166	constitute5	1	1	1	25	7	1915	1892	59	28	95.707024	an5	1	1	1	25	8	2008	1880	259	39	96.262260	obstacle5	1	1	1	25	9	2301	1884	60	34	95.938240	to5	1	1	1	25	10	2393	1879	296	39	96.571068	undertake5	1	1	1	25	11	2725	1875	224	41	96.197922	studies4	1	1	1	26	0	444	1934	2507	57	-1	5	1	1	1	26	1	444	1942	93	38	95.495415	for5	1	1	1	26	2	591	1943	95	37	96.507172	the5	1	1	1	26	3	741	1940	162	40	96.445793	Hindu5	1	1	1	26	4	957	1940	353	51	96.299057	priesthood,5	1	1	1	26	5	1378	1939	156	40	96.477943	since5	1	1	1	26	6	1589	1940	93	38	96.804703	the5	1	1	1	26	7	1737	1939	223	39	96.264473	authors5	1	1	1	26	8	2016	1938	163	38	95.954460	would5	1	1	1	26	9	2229	1936	63	39	95.783722	be5	1	1	1	26	10	2348	1936	125	38	95.783722	able5	1	1	1	26	11	2529	1939	59	35	96.768242	to5	1	1	1	26	12	2642	1935	159	48	96.353294	adopt5	1	1	1	26	13	2857	1934	94	38	96.644402	the4	1	1	1	27	0	442	1987	2499	59	-1	5	1	1	1	27	1	442	1995	295	51	96.140984	religious5	1	1	1	27	2	774	2008	160	27	96.679352	names5	1	1	1	27	3	974	1995	160	51	96.119492	given5	1	1	1	27	4	1169	1999	59	35	96.119492	to5	1	1	1	27	5	1263	1996	132	38	95.794655	them5	1	1	1	27	6	1424	1996	64	48	95.794655	by5	1	1	1	27	7	1522	1994	160	38	96.465446	their5	1	1	1	27	8	1716	1996	125	36	96.537979	Guru5	1	1	1	27	9	1875	2003	129	39	96.651176	upon5	1	1	1	27	10	2041	1990	324	50	96.369347	completion5	1	1	1	27	11	2401	1991	60	37	96.678154	of5	1	1	1	27	12	2496	1988	160	39	96.664070	their5	1	1	1	27	13	2691	1987	250	45	96.417839	studies,4	1	1	1	28	0	442	2050	591	52	-1	5	1	1	1	28	1	442	2050	60	41	96.680916	if5	1	1	1	28	2	542	2052	132	50	95.790916	they5	1	1	1	28	3	714	2063	59	28	96.069237	so5	1	1	1	28	4	810	2051	223	40	95.344620	wished.4	1	1	1	29	0	442	2155	2509	57	-1	5	1	1	1	29	1	442	2164	92	38	95.251678	2.35	1	1	1	29	2	643	2164	96	39	96.768494	The5	1	1	1	29	3	785	2164	225	38	96.620094	authors5	1	1	1	29	4	1058	2163	261	49	96.369804	appealed5	1	1	1	29	5	1363	2163	92	37	96.152992	the5	1	1	1	29	6	1496	2160	327	40	96.159882	Minister's5	1	1	1	29	7	1869	2158	260	40	96.344933	decision5	1	1	1	29	8	2174	2163	59	33	96.773788	to5	1	1	1	29	9	2278	2159	92	37	96.411972	the5	1	1	1	29	10	2416	2155	225	40	96.283569	Council5	1	1	1	29	11	2686	2156	62	38	96.512589	of5	1	1	1	29	12	2793	2158	158	34	96.211945	State4	1	1	1	30	0	454	2208	2500	58	-1	5	1	1	1	30	1	454	2219	152	44	90.870125	(Raad5	1	1	1	30	2	642	2229	96	27	96.155678	van5	1	1	1	30	3	777	2219	217	44	96.449211	State),5	1	1	1	30	4	1042	2217	93	39	96.680450	the5	1	1	1	30	5	1172	2216	227	50	96.151955	highest5	1	1	1	30	6	1438	2213	459	42	96.151955	administrative5	1	1	1	30	7	1935	2212	258	40	96.934280	tribunal5	1	1	1	30	8	2232	2211	61	40	96.827583	in5	1	1	1	30	9	2329	2212	93	38	96.731560	the5	1	1	1	30	10	2457	2209	361	41	96.769691	Netherlands5	1	1	1	30	11	2858	2208	96	39	96.859573	and4	1	1	1	31	0	442	2264	2507	51	-1	5	1	1	1	31	1	442	2273	231	39	90.105118	claimed5	1	1	1	31	2	726	2277	161	35	95.416374	inter5	1	1	1	31	3	939	2272	127	39	96.456436	alia5	1	1	1	31	4	1119	2273	127	38	96.126083	that5	1	1	1	31	5	1298	2272	92	39	96.655495	the5	1	1	1	31	6	1446	2271	221	39	95.944153	refusal5	1	1	1	31	7	1721	2275	60	33	95.944153	to5	1	1	1	31	8	1833	2271	163	37	96.467239	allow5	1	1	1	31	9	2044	2269	129	38	96.696358	them5	1	1	1	31	10	2222	2272	60	34	96.671280	to5	1	1	1	31	11	2336	2268	190	47	96.586914	change5	1	1	1	31	12	2580	2264	161	40	96.692886	their5	1	1	1	31	13	2789	2275	160	28	96.249756	names4	1	1	1	32	0	441	2319	2512	57	-1	5	1	1	1	32	1	441	2327	266	41	95.972694	violated5	1	1	1	32	2	741	2329	161	38	96.826805	their5	1	1	1	32	3	941	2329	229	38	96.594276	freedom5	1	1	1	32	4	1200	2328	60	39	96.674805	of5	1	1	1	32	5	1298	2325	281	51	96.416794	religion.5	1	1	1	32	6	1621	2329	62	36	96.660210	On5	1	1	1	32	7	1720	2325	53	39	96.624870	175	1	1	1	32	8	1811	2325	228	39	96.720634	October5	1	1	1	32	9	2076	2324	146	46	96.630943	1990,5	1	1	1	32	10	2269	2324	92	38	96.795113	the5	1	1	1	32	11	2396	2320	225	40	95.768944	Council5	1	1	1	32	12	2657	2319	296	40	96.305588	dismissed4	1	1	1	33	0	442	2373	2511	61	-1	5	1	1	1	33	1	442	2385	95	38	91.701920	the5	1	1	1	33	2	573	2385	253	38	91.701920	author's'5	1	1	1	33	3	871	2384	251	50	96.268364	appeals.5	1	1	1	33	4	1170	2387	58	35	96.039223	It5	1	1	1	33	5	1266	2381	325	41	96.691917	considered5	1	1	1	33	6	1625	2383	127	37	95.965271	that5	1	1	1	33	7	1787	2383	92	37	96.312233	the5	1	1	1	33	8	1916	2381	224	38	96.312233	authors5	1	1	1	33	9	2176	2380	96	38	96.616226	had5	1	1	1	33	10	2305	2383	93	33	96.537926	not5	1	1	1	33	11	2434	2379	159	37	96.668213	shown5	1	1	1	33	12	2629	2377	127	38	96.717583	that5	1	1	1	33	13	2791	2373	162	42	96.248764	their4	1	1	1	34	0	442	2431	2513	56	-1	5	1	1	1	34	1	442	2437	296	41	95.782181	interests5	1	1	1	34	2	777	2449	129	29	96.734535	were5	1	1	1	34	3	946	2439	126	37	96.177826	such5	1	1	1	34	4	1110	2439	125	37	96.013428	that5	1	1	1	34	5	1275	2436	59	40	96.937584	it5	1	1	1	34	6	1375	2436	293	51	96.177773	justified5	1	1	1	34	7	1705	2437	92	38	96.555466	the5	1	1	1	34	8	1837	2433	258	51	96.221405	changing5	1	1	1	34	9	2133	2435	59	37	95.881721	of5	1	1	1	34	10	2232	2443	254	29	96.641388	surnames5	1	1	1	34	11	2526	2432	163	38	96.732155	where5	1	1	1	34	12	2727	2432	92	38	96.423882	the5	1	1	1	34	13	2859	2431	96	37	96.937340	law4	1	1	1	35	0	441	2487	2512	56	-1	5	1	1	1	35	1	441	2493	97	40	95.193680	did5	1	1	1	35	2	575	2499	96	34	95.593590	not5	1	1	1	35	3	706	2493	232	50	96.676933	provide5	1	1	1	35	4	982	2495	91	37	95.290276	for5	1	1	1	35	5	1110	2492	84	40	96.454132	it.5	1	1	1	35	6	1243	2497	59	35	96.001282	In5	1	1	1	35	7	1340	2494	94	37	96.411011	the5	1	1	1	35	8	1474	2492	226	49	95.489182	opinion5	1	1	1	35	9	1737	2492	60	37	95.489182	of5	1	1	1	35	10	1836	2492	92	37	96.365395	the5	1	1	1	35	11	1967	2489	249	46	96.129112	Council,5	1	1	1	35	12	2265	2488	59	40	96.554749	it5	1	1	1	35	13	2360	2500	93	27	95.789818	was5	1	1	1	35	14	2494	2492	94	33	95.702812	not5	1	1	1	35	15	2627	2488	161	37	96.960960	shown5	1	1	1	35	16	2825	2487	128	37	96.193451	that4	1	1	1	36	0	442	2543	2511	53	-1	5	1	1	1	36	1	442	2551	95	37	93.023499	the5	1	1	1	36	2	574	2551	253	37	92.280914	author's'5	1	1	1	36	3	874	2560	259	28	96.295662	surnames5	1	1	1	36	4	1170	2549	196	38	96.122025	needed5	1	1	1	36	5	1401	2552	59	35	96.863190	to5	1	1	1	36	6	1494	2549	61	38	95.694939	be5	1	1	1	36	7	1589	2548	228	48	96.493309	legally5	1	1	1	36	8	1853	2547	228	48	95.446083	changed5	1	1	1	36	9	2113	2549	60	35	96.663620	to5	1	1	1	36	10	2209	2543	127	50	96.306877	give5	1	1	1	36	11	2370	2545	131	36	96.383301	them5	1	1	1	36	12	2533	2544	93	37	96.383301	the5	1	1	1	36	13	2663	2544	194	37	96.753174	chance5	1	1	1	36	14	2893	2545	60	35	96.753174	to4	1	1	1	37	0	440	2598	2509	55	-1	5	1	1	1	37	1	440	2605	198	39	96.364326	become5	1	1	1	37	2	677	2604	162	40	96.679909	Hindu5	1	1	1	37	3	875	2603	255	50	95.614403	priests;5	1	1	1	37	4	1178	2603	60	40	96.712433	in5	1	1	1	37	5	1277	2603	122	40	96.444145	this5	1	1	1	37	6	1442	2602	347	46	95.639572	connection,5	1	1	1	37	7	1836	2603	93	38	96.508888	the5	1	1	1	37	8	1967	2599	224	41	96.653725	Council5	1	1	1	37	9	2232	2600	161	39	96.304764	noted5	1	1	1	37	10	2429	2600	127	37	95.633751	that5	1	1	1	37	11	2593	2599	93	37	96.540733	the5	1	1	1	37	12	2725	2598	224	38	96.923050	authors4	1	1	1	38	0	441	2653	1992	54	-1	5	1	1	1	38	1	441	2671	130	28	96.638390	were5	1	1	1	38	2	615	2660	126	39	96.441986	free5	1	1	1	38	3	782	2664	60	33	96.575134	to5	1	1	1	38	4	882	2671	93	26	96.060455	use5	1	1	1	38	5	1017	2657	161	40	96.020447	their5	1	1	1	38	6	1216	2657	162	40	96.020447	Hindu5	1	1	1	38	7	1419	2669	256	28	96.337013	surnames5	1	1	1	38	8	1717	2656	60	40	96.337013	in5	1	1	1	38	9	1815	2655	197	52	96.639488	public5	1	1	1	38	10	2052	2653	189	42	96.068207	social5	1	1	1	38	11	2285	2653	148	40	96.814857	life.4	1	1	1	39	0	442	2765	2512	55	-1	5	1	1	1	39	1	442	2772	92	39	96.331383	2.45	1	1	1	39	2	646	2776	61	35	94.790047	On5	1	1	1	39	3	750	2772	24	37	94.790047	65	1	1	1	39	4	818	2772	263	48	96.137390	February5	1	1	1	39	5	1122	2772	146	44	96.015053	1991,5	1	1	1	39	6	1322	2772	90	37	96.398224	the5	1	1	1	39	7	1455	2771	223	38	96.033134	authors5	1	1	1	39	8	1724	2767	292	41	95.998726	submitted5	1	1	1	39	9	2057	2780	24	27	95.060417	a5	1	1	1	39	10	2125	2765	289	51	95.060417	complaint5	1	1	1	39	11	2457	2771	59	33	95.878716	to5	1	1	1	39	12	2558	2765	92	38	95.973404	the5	1	1	1	39	13	2693	2768	261	45	95.998947	European4	1	1	1	40	0	444	2819	2511	57	-1	5	1	1	1	40	1	444	2825	331	42	96.361069	Commission5	1	1	1	40	2	814	2828	60	38	96.338913	of5	1	1	1	40	3	910	2831	164	34	96.576035	Human5	1	1	1	40	4	1110	2825	217	51	96.080254	Rights.5	1	1	1	40	5	1374	2829	60	36	96.777962	On5	1	1	1	40	6	1474	2827	24	38	96.532402	25	1	1	1	40	7	1537	2825	129	50	95.697762	July5	1	1	1	40	8	1703	2825	146	46	96.429237	1992,5	1	1	1	40	9	1897	2825	94	38	96.474426	the5	1	1	1	40	10	2029	2827	260	45	95.919464	European5	1	1	1	40	11	2326	2819	328	42	96.105965	Commission5	1	1	1	40	12	2690	2820	265	39	96.441162	declared4	1	1	1	41	0	444	2873	2510	58	-1	5	1	1	1	41	1	444	2883	94	37	93.293915	the5	1	1	1	41	2	574	2883	253	38	90.642250	author's'5	1	1	1	41	3	874	2880	292	51	96.422478	complaint5	1	1	1	41	4	1202	2883	161	37	96.716583	under5	1	1	1	41	5	1398	2880	256	40	96.711143	articles5	1	1	1	41	6	1693	2881	25	38	96.255722	95	1	1	1	41	7	1753	2880	95	39	96.039474	and5	1	1	1	41	8	1883	2880	54	39	96.039474	145	1	1	1	41	9	1976	2880	60	37	96.503113	of5	1	1	1	41	10	2069	2879	94	38	96.779648	the5	1	1	1	41	11	2197	2875	327	41	96.248283	Convention5	1	1	1	41	12	2558	2873	396	46	96.083961	inadmissible4	1	1	1	42	0	444	2929	2507	58	-1	5	1	1	1	42	1	444	2948	58	28	96.172905	as5	1	1	1	42	2	541	2936	337	51	96.014381	manifestly5	1	1	1	42	3	918	2936	386	47	96.020187	ill-founded,5	1	1	1	42	4	1354	2948	57	27	95.962555	as5	1	1	1	42	5	1455	2937	128	48	95.962555	they5	1	1	1	42	6	1620	2936	96	39	96.513382	had5	1	1	1	42	7	1755	2939	93	34	96.270142	not5	1	1	1	42	8	1889	2932	360	41	96.270142	established5	1	1	1	42	9	2289	2933	128	38	96.884514	that5	1	1	1	42	10	2457	2931	160	40	96.630913	their5	1	1	1	42	11	2661	2929	290	51	96.506470	religious4	1	1	1	43	0	445	2986	2157	55	-1	5	1	1	1	43	1	445	2990	226	41	96.075127	studies5	1	1	1	43	2	713	2993	165	38	96.096558	would5	1	1	1	43	3	914	2993	63	38	95.970627	be5	1	1	1	43	4	1018	2990	228	51	96.303543	impeded5	1	1	1	43	5	1282	2993	65	48	96.504456	by5	1	1	1	43	6	1386	2993	92	38	95.722893	the5	1	1	1	43	7	1520	2991	224	40	95.828865	refusal5	1	1	1	43	8	1785	2994	60	35	96.560310	to5	1	1	1	43	9	1881	2988	199	51	96.314148	modify5	1	1	1	43	10	2117	2986	161	41	96.232635	their5	1	1	1	43	11	2318	2998	284	29	95.713745	surnames.4	1	1	1	44	0	444	3154	457	56	-1	5	1	1	1	44	1	444	3156	97	39	95.623688	The5	1	1	1	44	2	582	3154	319	56	95.640190	complaint:4	1	1	1	45	0	447	3260	2508	46	-1	5	1	1	1	45	1	447	3266	51	39	96.707848	3.5	1	1	1	45	2	646	3268	96	38	96.672104	The5	1	1	1	45	3	790	3268	225	38	96.409546	authors5	1	1	1	45	4	1066	3266	165	40	96.709671	claim5	1	1	1	45	5	1274	3268	125	38	96.388763	that5	1	1	1	45	6	1446	3268	93	38	96.547058	the5	1	1	1	45	7	1587	3266	224	40	95.539879	refusal5	1	1	1	45	8	1859	3266	61	39	96.329536	of5	1	1	1	45	9	1965	3265	92	39	96.174553	the5	1	1	1	45	10	2105	3264	160	40	96.295341	Dutch5	1	1	1	45	11	2312	3260	358	42	95.043381	authorities5	1	1	1	45	12	2721	3266	60	35	96.888000	to5	1	1	1	45	13	2826	3262	129	39	96.543991	have4	1	1	1	46	0	446	3315	2511	57	-1	5	1	1	1	46	1	446	3320	163	41	96.102341	their5	1	1	1	46	2	642	3326	226	35	96.320305	current5	1	1	1	46	3	901	3333	257	28	96.739510	surnames5	1	1	1	46	4	1192	3322	228	50	96.782608	changed5	1	1	1	46	5	1446	3325	260	47	96.377907	prevents5	1	1	1	46	6	1739	3322	132	38	96.815842	them5	1	1	1	46	7	1900	3321	128	39	96.420349	from5	1	1	1	46	8	2057	3317	324	49	95.188232	furthering5	1	1	1	46	9	2412	3316	160	40	96.570663	their5	1	1	1	46	10	2604	3315	225	41	96.173203	studies5	1	1	1	46	11	2865	3317	92	39	96.692093	for4	1	1	1	47	0	446	3373	2512	55	-1	5	1	1	1	47	1	446	3377	95	40	96.567574	the5	1	1	1	47	2	578	3376	164	41	95.294044	Hindu5	1	1	1	47	3	775	3376	335	52	96.120155	priesthood5	1	1	1	47	4	1146	3378	96	39	96.409431	and5	1	1	1	47	5	1278	3378	293	39	95.793221	therefore5	1	1	1	47	6	1607	3376	258	41	96.265953	violates5	1	1	1	47	7	1905	3373	226	43	96.093887	article5	1	1	1	47	8	2170	3376	55	38	96.731079	185	1	1	1	47	9	2265	3374	61	39	96.054504	of5	1	1	1	47	10	2365	3374	92	39	96.652161	the5	1	1	1	47	11	2496	3377	285	35	96.033867	Covenant.5	1	1	1	47	12	2826	3373	132	49	96.891090	They4	1	1	1	48	0	446	3428	2511	50	-1	5	1	1	1	48	1	446	3434	128	39	96.686569	also5	1	1	1	48	2	615	3433	167	40	96.520027	claim5	1	1	1	48	3	818	3436	128	37	96.452400	that5	1	1	1	48	4	987	3433	128	40	96.108749	said5	1	1	1	48	5	1157	3434	224	39	96.374817	refusal5	1	1	1	48	6	1426	3432	355	41	96.102783	constitutes5	1	1	1	48	7	1823	3432	260	40	95.171844	unlawful5	1	1	1	48	8	2125	3442	60	28	96.650047	or5	1	1	1	48	9	2225	3429	296	49	96.203163	arbitrary5	1	1	1	48	10	2561	3428	396	41	96.617393	interference4	1	1	1	49	0	442	3488	628	52	-1	5	1	1	1	49	1	442	3488	133	41	96.513908	with5	1	1	1	49	2	614	3489	164	40	95.800667	their5	1	1	1	49	3	814	3489	256	51	96.243469	privacy.4	1	1	1	50	0	444	3653	2161	59	-1	5	1	1	1	50	1	444	3656	97	40	95.684708	The5	1	1	1	50	2	582	3658	160	38	96.472977	State5	1	1	1	50	3	781	3657	228	55	96.581383	party's5	1	1	1	50	4	1052	3654	392	40	95.714104	observations5	1	1	1	50	5	1487	3656	95	38	95.714104	and5	1	1	1	50	6	1621	3656	93	38	93.225609	the5	1	1	1	50	7	1753	3654	251	40	91.704643	author's'5	1	1	1	50	8	2055	3657	255	36	96.595291	comments5	1	1	1	50	9	2353	3653	252	39	96.342384	thereon:4	1	1	1	51	0	447	3759	2508	58	-1	5	1	1	1	51	1	447	3766	91	39	94.998199	4.15	1	1	1	51	2	649	3769	62	48	96.744484	By5	1	1	1	51	3	742	3765	331	41	96.434013	submission5	1	1	1	51	4	1106	3766	60	39	95.634834	of5	1	1	1	51	5	1199	3766	23	38	96.610733	75	1	1	1	51	6	1258	3766	128	50	95.013672	July5	1	1	1	51	7	1419	3766	147	47	95.013672	1991,5	1	1	1	51	8	1607	3766	93	39	96.791931	the5	1	1	1	51	9	1733	3769	159	35	95.829491	State5	1	1	1	51	10	1923	3768	165	46	96.071594	party5	1	1	1	51	11	2120	3761	222	52	96.455811	replies5	1	1	1	51	12	2377	3766	60	35	96.612877	to5	1	1	1	51	13	2470	3762	94	39	96.290276	the5	1	1	1	51	14	2596	3759	359	41	95.751625	Committee's4	1	1	1	52	0	447	3815	2510	55	-1	5	1	1	1	52	1	447	3826	228	44	96.438133	request5	1	1	1	52	2	729	3823	162	38	96.297028	under5	1	1	1	52	3	946	3822	125	39	96.486610	rule5	1	1	1	52	4	1128	3822	55	38	96.390022	915	1	1	1	52	5	1238	3822	61	39	95.797722	of5	1	1	1	52	6	1352	3822	94	39	95.797722	the5	1	1	1	52	7	1500	3822	156	39	95.868088	rules5	1	1	1	52	8	1711	3822	60	38	96.468575	of5	1	1	1	52	9	1821	3821	296	48	96.488785	procedure5	1	1	1	52	10	2169	3823	60	34	96.754456	to5	1	1	1	52	11	2281	3817	228	51	96.342308	provide5	1	1	1	52	12	2562	3815	395	41	96.298462	observations4	1	1	1	53	0	446	3870	2513	56	-1	5	1	1	1	53	1	446	3877	263	39	96.319321	relevant5	1	1	1	53	2	749	3882	61	35	96.634705	to5	1	1	1	53	3	846	3878	95	39	96.402802	the5	1	1	1	53	4	978	3875	264	51	96.240028	question5	1	1	1	53	5	1279	3878	61	38	96.240028	of5	1	1	1	53	6	1378	3878	92	38	96.411331	the5	1	1	1	53	7	1508	3874	429	50	96.447174	admissibility5	1	1	1	53	8	1973	3875	60	38	96.609421	of5	1	1	1	53	9	2071	3875	93	38	96.646866	the5	1	1	1	53	10	2202	3870	427	43	96.021172	communication5	1	1	1	53	11	2669	3870	60	40	95.504135	in5	1	1	1	53	12	2767	3882	59	28	96.089149	so5	1	1	1	53	13	2867	3873	92	37	94.818504	far4	1	1	1	54	0	446	3930	2194	52	-1	5	1	1	1	54	1	446	3942	59	28	95.875237	as5	1	1	1	54	2	547	3930	62	40	95.360741	it5	1	1	1	54	3	645	3931	165	51	96.038116	might5	1	1	1	54	4	853	3931	159	41	96.118492	raise5	1	1	1	54	5	1054	3930	190	42	96.550301	issues5	1	1	1	54	6	1286	3933	163	39	96.207756	under5	1	1	1	54	7	1488	3930	257	42	96.152351	articles5	1	1	1	54	8	1791	3931	54	39	96.012810	175	1	1	1	54	9	1888	3930	93	39	95.988670	and5	1	1	1	54	10	2024	3930	55	39	95.988670	185	1	1	1	54	11	2121	3930	60	38	96.284767	of5	1	1	1	54	12	2221	3930	95	38	96.609039	the5	1	1	1	54	13	2356	3931	284	37	96.536545	Covenant.
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-004.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-004.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..32f79b85
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-004.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991
+Annex
+English
+Page 3
+4.2 The State party submits that Dutch law allows the change of surnames for
+adults in special circumstances, namely when the current surname is indecent
+or ridiculous, so common that it has lost its distinctive character or, in
+cases of Dutch citizens who have acquired Dutch nationality by naturalization,
+not Dutch-sounding. The State party submits that outside these categories,
+change of surname is only allowed in exceptional cases, where the refusal
+would threaten the applicant's mental or physical well-being.
+4.3 With regard to Dutch citizens belonging to cultural or religious
+minority groups, principles have been formulated for the change of surname.
+One of these principles states that a surname may not be changed if the
+requested new name would carry with it cultural, religious or social
+connotations.
+4.4 The State party submits that the author's in the present case have been
+Dutch citizens since birth and grew up in a Dutch cultural environment. Since
+the author's' request to change their surnames had certain aspects comparable
+to those of religious minorities, the Minister of Justice formally sought an
+opinion from the Minister of Internal Affairs. This opinion was unfavourable
+to the author's, as the new names requested by them were perceived as having
+religious connotations.
+4.5 The State party states that the author's are free to carry any name they
+wish in public social life, as long as they do not carry a name that belongs
+to someone else without the latter's permission. The State party submits that
+it respects the author's' religious convictions and that they are free to
+manifest their religion. The State party further contends that the fact that
+the author's allegedly are prevented from following further religious studies
+in India because of their Dutch names, cannot be attributed to the Dutch
+government, but is the consequence of requirements imposed by Indian Hindu
+leaders.
+4.6 As regards the author's' claim under article 17 of the Covenant, the
+State party contends that the author's have not exhausted domestic remedies in
+this respect, since they did not argue before the Dutch authorities that the
+refusal to have their surnames changed constituted an unlawful or arbitrary
+interference with their privacy.
+4.7 In conclusion, the State party argues that the communication is
+inadmissible as being incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. It
+further argues that the author's have failed to advance a claim within the
+meaning of article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
+5.1 In their reply to the State party's submission, the author's emphasize
+that it is mandatory to have a Hindu surname when one wants to study for the
+Hindu priesthood and that no exceptions to this rule are made. In this
+connection, they submit that if the surname is not legally changed and appears
+on official identification documents, they cannot become legally ordained
+priests. In.support of their argument, the author's submit declarations made
+by two pandits in England and by the Swami in New Delhi.
+5.2 One of the author's, Mr. Coeriel, further submits that, although a Dutch
+citizen by birth, he grew up in Curacao, the United States of America and
+India, and is of Hindu origin, which should have been taken into account by
+the State party when deciding on his request to have his surname changed.
+5.3 The author's maintain that their right to freedom of religion has been
+violated, because as a consequence of the State party's refusal to have their
+surnames changed, they are now prevented from continuing their study for the
+Hindu priesthood. In this context, they also claim that the State party's
+rejection of their request constitutes an arbitrary and unlawful interference
+with their privacy.
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-005.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-005.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..748f1086
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-005.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991
+Annex
+English
+Page 4
+The Committee's admissibility decision:
+6.1 During its 48th session, the Committee considered the admissibility of
+the communication. With regard to the author's' claim under article 18 of the
+Covenant, the Committee considered that the regulation of surnames and the
+change thereof was eminently a matter of public order and restrictions were
+therefore permissible under paragraph 3 of article 18. The Committee,
+moreover, considered that the State party could not be held accountable for
+restrictions placed upon the exercise of religious offices by religious
+leaders in another country. This aspect of the communication was therefore
+declared inadmissible.
+6.2 The Committee considered that the question whether article 17 of the
+Covenant protects the right to choose and change one's own name and, if so,
+whether the State party's refusal to have the author's' surnames changed was
+arbitrary should be dealt with on the merits. It considered that the author's
+had fulfilled the requirement under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional
+Protocol, noting that they had appealed the matter to the highest
+administrative tribunal and that no other remedies remained. On 8 July 1993,
+the Committee therefore declared the communication admissible in so far as it
+might raise issues under article 17 of the Covenant.
+The State party's submission on the merits and the author's' comments thereon:
+7.1 The State party, by submission of 24 February 1994, argues that article
+17 of the Covenant does not protect the right to choose and change one's
+surname. It refers to the travaux préparatoires, in which no indication can
+be found that article 17 should be given such a broad interpretation, but on
+the basis of which it appears that States should be given considerable freedom
+to determine how the principles of article 17 should be applied. The State
+party also refers to the Committee's General Comment on article 17, in which
+it is stated that the protection of privacy is necessarily relative. Finally,
+the State party refers to the Committee's prior jurisprudence’ and submits
+that, whenever the intervention of authorities was legitimate according to
+domestic legislation, the Committee has only found a violation of article 17
+when the intervention was also in violation of another provision of the
+Covenant.
+7.2 Subsidiarily, the State party argues that the refusal to grant the
+author's a formal change of surname was neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The
+State party refers to its submission on admissibility and submits that the
+decision was taken in accordance with the relevant Guidelines, which were
+published in the Government Gazette of 9 May 1990 and based on the provisions
+of the Civil Code. The decision not to grant the author's a change of surname
+was thus pursuant to domestic legislation and regulations.
+7.3 As to a possible arbitrariness of the decision, the State party observes
+that the regulations referred to in the previous paragraph were issued
+precisely to prevent arbitrariness and to maintain the necessary stability in
+this field. The State party contends that it would create unnecessary
+uncertainty and confusion, in both a social and administrative sense, if a
+formal change of name could be effected too easily. In this connection, the
+State party invokes an obligation to protect the interests of others. The
+State party submits that in the present case, the author's failed to meet the
+criteria that would allow a change in their surname and that they wished to
+adopt names which have a special significance in Indian society. Granting5	1	8	1	10	12	2941	3669	25	28	96.855026	a2	1	9	0	0	0	454	3845	2517	172	-1	3	1	9	1	0	0	454	3845	2517	172	-1	4	1	9	1	1	0	625	3845	2334	53	-1	5	1	9	1	1	1	625	3849	12	21	25.377798	,5	1	9	1	1	2	861	3855	93	35	96.504784	See5	1	9	1	1	3	1011	3853	95	37	96.333527	the5	1	9	1	1	4	1163	3850	359	40	96.245605	Committee's5	1	9	1	1	5	1577	3849	162	40	96.203018	Views5	1	9	1	1	6	1797	3847	130	41	96.446724	with5	1	9	1	1	7	1987	3849	193	49	96.173805	regard5	1	9	1	1	8	2236	3851	60	35	96.418579	to5	1	9	1	1	9	2354	3845	459	41	95.985832	communications5	1	9	1	1	10	2870	3849	89	35	96.804092	No.4	1	9	1	2	0	458	3899	2513	63	-1	5	1	9	1	2	1	458	3905	224	44	91.866165	35/19785	1	9	1	2	2	734	3905	620	57	88.570801	(Aumeeruddy-Cziffra5	1	9	1	2	3	1390	3917	52	28	88.570801	v.5	1	9	1	2	4	1486	3903	319	49	96.585770	Mauritius,5	1	9	1	2	5	1849	3903	163	41	96.559303	Views5	1	9	1	2	6	2051	3903	230	50	96.670662	adopted5	1	9	1	2	7	2316	3914	61	28	95.413696	on5	1	9	1	2	8	2416	3903	22	38	96.684288	95	1	9	1	2	9	2473	3899	164	53	96.570724	April5	1	9	1	2	10	2678	3901	148	45	96.670639	1981)5	1	9	1	2	11	2875	3902	96	38	96.898834	and4	1	9	1	3	0	454	3958	2195	59	-1	5	1	9	1	3	1	454	3965	87	36	96.284286	No.5	1	9	1	3	2	590	3962	228	44	95.533310	74/19805	1	9	1	3	3	871	3963	283	46	93.109116	(Estrella5	1	9	1	3	4	1194	3974	52	27	90.253105	v.5	1	9	1	3	5	1294	3966	253	51	96.753159	Uruguay,5	1	9	1	3	6	1593	3965	160	36	95.970436	Views5	1	9	1	3	7	1797	3961	228	49	96.436302	adopted5	1	9	1	3	8	2064	3970	61	28	95.207573	on5	1	9	1	3	9	2164	3959	59	39	95.207573	295	1	9	1	3	10	2261	3959	164	39	96.474487	March5	1	9	1	3	11	2468	3958	181	44	96.542046	1983).
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-006.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-006.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7522ca15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-006.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991
+Annex
+English
+Page 5
+request of this kind would therefore be at odds with the policy of the
+Netherlands Government of refraining from any action that could be construed
+as interference with the internal affairs of other cultures". The State party
+concludes that, taking into account all interests involved, it cannot be said
+that the decision not to grant the change of name was arbitrary.
+8. In their comments on the State party's submission, the author's contest
+the State party's view that article 17 does not protect their right to choose
+and change their own surnames. They argue that the rejection of their request
+to have their surnames changed, deeply affects their private life, since it
+prevents them from practising as Hindu-priests. They claim that the State
+party should have provided in its legislation for the change of name in
+situations similar to that of the author's, and that the State party should
+have taken into account the consequences of the rejection of their request.
+9.1 During its 5lst session, the Committee began its examination of the
+merits of the communication and decided to request clarifications from the
+State party with respect to the regulations governing the change of names. The
+State party, by submission of 3 October 1994, explains that the Dutch Civil
+Code provides that anyone desiring a change of surname can file a request with
+the Minister of Justice. The Code does not specify in what cases such a
+request should be granted. The ministerial policy has been that a change of
+surname can only be allowed in exceptional cases. In principle, a person
+should keep the name which (s)he acquires at birth, in order to maintain legal
+and social stability.
+9.2 To prevent arbitrariness, the policy with respect to the change of
+surname has been made public by issuing ‘Guidelines for the change of
+surname'. The State party recalls that the guidelines indicate that a change
+of surname will be granted when the current surname is indecent or ridiculous,
+so common that it has lost its distinctive character, or not Dutch-sounding.
+In exceptional cases, the change of surname can be authorized outside these
+categories, for instance in cases where the denial of the change of surname
+would threaten the applicant's mental or physical well-being. A change of
+surname could also be allowed if it would be unreasonabie to refuse the
+request, taking into account the interests of both the applicant and the
+State. The State party emphasizes that a restrictive policy with regard to the
+change of surname is necessary in order to maintain stability in society.
+9.3 The Guidelines also contain rules for the new name which an applicant
+will carry after a change of surname has been allowed. In principle, a new
+name should resemble the old name as much as possible. If a completely new
+name is chosen, it should be a name which is not yet in use, which sounds
+Dutch and which does not give rise to undesirable associations (for instance,
+a person would not be allowed to choose a surname which would falsely give the
+impression that he belongs to the nobility). As regards foreign surnames, the
+Government's policy is that it does not wish to interfere with the law of
+names in other countries, nor does it wish to appear to interfere with
+cultural affairs of another country. This means that the new name must not
+give the false impression that the person carrying the name belongs to a
+certain cultural, religious or social group. In this sense, the policy with
+regard to foreign names is similar to the policy with regard to Dutch names.
+9.4 The State party submits that the applicant's request is heard by the
+Minister of Justice, who then adopts his decision in the matter. If the
+decision is negative, the applicant can appeal to the independent judiciary.
+All decisions are being taken in accordance to the policy as laid down in the
+Guidelines. This policy is departed from in rare cases only, in order to
+prevent arbitrariness.
+9.5 As regards the present case, the State party explains that the author's'
+request for a change of surname was refused, because it was found that no
+reasons existed to allow an exceptional change of surname outside the criteria
+laid down in the Guidelines. In this context, the State party argues that it
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-007.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-007.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..e679220d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-007.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991
+Annex
+English
+Page 6
+has not been established that the author's cannot follow the desired religious
+education without a change of surname. Moreover, the State party argues that,
+even if a change of surname would be required, this condition is primarily a
+consequence of rules established by the Hindu-religion, and not a consequence
+of the application of the Dutch law of names. The State party also indicates
+that the desired names would identify the author's as members of a specific
+group in Indian society, and are therefore contrary to the policy that a new
+name should not give rise to cultural, religious or social associations.
+According to the State party, the names also conflict with the policy that new
+names should be Dutch-sounding.
+Issues and proceedings before the Committee:
+10.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in
+the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as
+provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.
+10.2 The first issue to be determined by the Committee is whether article 17
+of the Covenant protects the right to choose and change one’s own name. The
+Committee observes that article 17 provides, inter alia, that no one shall be
+subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home
+or correspondence. The Committee considers that the notion of privacy refers
+to the sphere of a person's life in which he or she can freely express his or
+her identity, be it by entering into relationships with others or alone. The
+Committee is of the view that a person’s surname constitutes an important
+component of one’s identity and that the protection against arbitrary or
+unlawful interference with one’s privacy includes the protection against
+arbitrary or unlawful interference with the right to choose and change one’s
+own name. For instance, if a State were to compel all foreigners to change
+their surnames, this would constitute interference in contravention of article
+17. The question arises whether the refusal of the authorities to recognize
+a change of surname is also beyond the threshold of permissible interference
+within the meaning of article 17.
+10.3 The Committee now proceeds to examine whether in the circumstances of
+the present case the State party’s dismissal of the author's’ request to have
+their surnames changed amounted to arbitrary or unlawful interference with
+their privacy. It notes that the State party’s decision was based on the law
+and regulations in force in the Netherlands, and that the interference can
+therefore not be regarded as unlawful. It remains to be considered whether it
+is arbitrary.
+10.4 The Committee notes that the circumstances in which a change of surname
+will be recognised are defined narrowly in the Guidelines and that the
+exercise of discretion in other cases is restricted to exceptional cases. The
+Committee recalls its General Comment on article 17, in which it observed that
+the notion of arbitrariness is5	1	1	10	5	6	1518	3172	261	39	96.631882	intended5	1	1	10	5	7	1813	3176	62	33	96.385353	to5	1	1	10	5	8	1908	3176	296	44	96.514221	guarantee5	1	1	10	5	9	2241	3172	125	37	96.686790	that5	1	1	10	5	10	2404	3181	130	28	96.837555	even5	1	1	10	5	11	2572	3172	394	39	96.107491	interference4	1	1	10	6	0	446	3224	2610	56	-1	5	1	1	10	6	1	446	3224	271	46	96.273445	provided5	1	1	10	6	2	762	3225	99	37	95.841225	for5	1	1	10	6	3	902	3226	68	48	95.945297	by5	1	1	10	6	4	1014	3226	99	38	96.256386	law5	1	1	10	6	5	1155	3228	197	37	96.527946	should5	1	1	10	6	6	1391	3228	63	37	96.773712	be5	1	1	10	6	7	1502	3228	62	37	96.230347	in5	1	1	10	6	8	1605	3228	328	38	96.354485	accordance5	1	1	10	6	9	1977	3226	132	39	96.354485	with5	1	1	10	6	10	2152	3228	93	37	96.643059	the5	1	1	10	6	11	2288	3226	354	50	96.155701	provisions,5	1	1	10	6	12	2698	3226	129	40	96.217133	aims5	1	1	10	6	13	2873	3228	98	38	95.016449	and5	1	1	10	6	14	3054	3278	2	2	79.973442	|4	1	1	10	7	0	449	3278	2520	52	-1	5	1	1	10	7	1	449	3278	330	48	95.610077	objectives5	1	1	10	7	2	826	3282	65	36	96.755669	of5	1	1	10	7	3	938	3282	96	38	96.464157	the5	1	1	10	7	4	1080	3286	262	35	96.076920	Covenant5	1	1	10	7	5	1386	3284	98	37	96.652832	and5	1	1	10	7	6	1528	3284	196	37	95.474197	should5	1	1	10	7	7	1764	3284	85	43	95.474197	be,5	1	1	10	7	8	1908	3282	61	39	96.468048	in5	1	1	10	7	9	2011	3294	98	36	96.241135	any5	1	1	10	7	10	2150	3288	184	38	95.788765	event,5	1	1	10	7	11	2392	3284	329	37	95.999954	reasonable5	1	1	10	7	12	2767	3283	62	38	96.618500	in5	1	1	10	7	13	2873	3285	96	36	96.538025	the4	1	1	10	8	0	446	3334	2523	52	-1	5	1	1	10	8	1	446	3334	336	47	95.902702	particular5	1	1	10	8	2	826	3336	492	40	95.733170	circumstances.
+Thus, the request to have one’s change of name
+recognised can only be refused on grounds that are reasonable in the specific
+circumstances of the case.
+10.5 In the present case, the author's’ request for recognition of the change
+of their first names to Hindu names in order to pursue their religious studies
+had been granted in 1986. The State party based its refusal of the request
+also to change their surnames on the grounds that the author's had not shown
+that the changes sought were essential to pursue their studies, that the names
+had religious connotations and that they were not ‘Dutch sounding’. The
+Committee finds the grounds for so limiting the author's’ rights under article
+17 not to be reasonable. In the circumstances of the instant case the refusal
+of the author's’ request was therefore arbitrary within the meaning of article
+17, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-008.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-008.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2a9a798e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-008.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991
+Annex
+English
+Page 7
+11. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the
+Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
+is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 17 of
+the Covenant.
+12. Pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party is under an
+obligation to provide Mr. Aurik and Mr. Coeriel with an appropriate remedy and
+to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure that similar violations
+do not occur in the future.
+13. The Committee would wish to receive information, within 90 days, on any
+relevant measures taken by the State party in respect of the Committee's
+Views.
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-009.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-009.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c2726c1f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-009.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991
+Annex
+English
+Page 8
+APPENDIX
+INDIVIDUAL OPINIONS CONCERNING THE COMMITTEE’S VIEWS
+1. Individual opinion by Mr. Nisuke Ando (dissenting)
+I do not share the State party’s contention that, in examining a request
+to change one’s family name, elements such as the name’s religious4	1	5	1	3	0	462	1009	2508	50	-1	5	1	5	1	3	1	462	1013	425	37	94.428169	connotations
+or non-Dutch5	1	5	1	3	4	1480	1011	288	48	95.604073	sounding intonation should be taken into
+consideration. However, I am unable to concur with the Committee’s Views on
+this case for the following three reasons:
+(1) Despite the author's’ allegation that the requested change of the
+author's’ family name is an essential condition for them to practice as Hindu
+priest, the State party argues that it has not been established that the
+author's cannot follow the desired religious education without the change of
+surname (see paragraph 9.5), and apparently, on the basis of that argument,
+the author's’ claim has been rejected by the European Commission of Human
+Rights. Since the Committee is not in the possession of any information other
+than the author's’ allegation for the purpose of ascertaining the relevant
+facts, I cannot conclude that the change of their family names is an essential
+condition for them to practice as Hindu priests.
+(2) Article 18 of the Covenant protects the right to freedom of
+religion and article 17 guarantees everyone's right to the protection of the
+law against arbitrary5	1	7	1	3	4	1232	1963	62	27	96.658806	or5	1	7	1	3	5	1332	1952	262	38	95.541412	unlawful5	1	7	1	3	6	1637	1952	391	38	95.907135	interference5	1	7	1	3	7	2067	1951	132	37	96.206680	with5	1	7	1	3	8	2234	1950	94	38	96.195709	his5	1	7	1	3	9	2366	1950	288	48	96.122856	privacy. However,
+in my opinion, it may be doubted whether the right to the protection of one’s
+privacy combined with the freedom of religion automatically entails the5	1	7	1	5	11	2805	2059	160	48	96.193840	right4	1	7	1	6	0	458	2115	2507	52	-1	5	1	7	1	6	1	458	2123	63	33	96.884422	to5	1	7	1	6	2	574	2120	195	47	95.963303	change5	1	7	1	6	3	822	2124	161	34	96.421814	one’s5	1	7	1	6	4	1040	2119	196	48	96.240829	family5	1	7	1	6	5	1286	2123	186	33	96.227638	name.
+Surnames carry important social and legal
+functions to ascertain one’s identity for various purposes such as social
+security, insurance, license, marriage, inheritance, election and voting,
+passport, tax, police and public records, and so on. In fact, the Committee
+recognizes that the5	1	7	1	10	4	1215	2341	331	49	96.060623	regulation5	1	7	1	10	5	1599	2341	60	38	96.365440	of5	1	7	1	10	6	1717	2351	259	28	95.666756	surnames5	1	7	1	10	7	2033	2341	98	37	95.666756	and5	1	7	1	10	8	2185	2340	92	38	96.580284	the5	1	7	1	10	9	2336	2340	193	47	95.924850	change5	1	7	1	10	10	2586	2339	227	37	96.578850	thereof5	1	7	1	10	11	2870	2348	96	27	96.937439	was4	1	7	1	11	0	458	2395	2509	52	-1	5	1	7	1	11	1	458	2397	367	50	95.621391	essentially5	1	7	1	11	2	887	2408	28	28	93.332909	a5	1	7	1	11	3	978	2403	200	33	95.793419	matter5	1	7	1	11	4	1242	2399	60	37	95.793419	of5	1	7	1	11	5	1367	2397	197	50	96.037407	public5	1	7	1	11	6	1629	2397	163	38	96.222145	order5	1	7	1	11	7	1856	2397	97	38	96.217140	and5	1	7	1	11	8	2019	2395	391	40	95.903214	restrictions5	1	7	1	11	9	2476	2405	129	27	96.179115	were5	1	7	1	11	10	2673	2395	294	37	96.179115	therefore4	1	7	1	12	0	454	2452	2503	51	-1	5	1	7	1	12	1	454	2455	367	46	96.266647	permissible5	1	7	1	12	2	858	2455	165	37	96.457703	under5	1	7	1	12	3	1060	2456	302	47	96.074211	paragraph5	1	7	1	12	4	1402	2459	22	33	96.511452	35	1	7	1	12	5	1467	2456	59	36	96.205307	of5	1	7	1	12	6	1567	2454	228	38	96.539642	article5	1	7	1	12	7	1837	2457	87	34	96.552986	18
+(see paragraph 6.1). Moreover,
+it is not impossible to argue that the request to change one’s family name is
+a form of manifestation of one’s religion, which is subject to the
+restrictions enumerated in paragraph 3 of article 18.
+(3) I do not consider that a family name belongs to an individual
+person alone, whose privacy is protected under article’ 17. In the Western
+society a family name may be regarded only as an element to ascertain one’s
+identity, thus replaceable with other means of identification such as a number
+or a cipher. However, in other parts of the world, names have a variety of
+social, historical and cultural implications, and people do attach certain
+values to their names. This is particularly true with family names. Thus, if
+a member of a family changes his or her family name, it is likely to affect
+other members of the family as well as values attached thereto. Therefore, it
+is difficult for me to conclude that the family name of a person belongs to
+the exclusive sphere of privacy which is protected under article 17.
+Nisuke Ando
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-010.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-010.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2de0a213
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-010.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991
+Annex
+English
+Page 9
+2. Individual opinion by Mr. Kurt Herndl (dissentin
+I regret that I am unable to concur in the Committee’s finding that by
+refusing to grant the author's a change of surname, the Dutch authorities
+breached article 17 of the Covenant.
+(a) The States party’s action seen from the general content and scope
+of article 17
+Article 17 is one of the more enigmatic provisions of the Covenant. In
+particular, the term privacy would seem to be open to interpretation. What
+does privacy really mean?
+In his essay on Global5	1	8	1	1	6	1360	1294	332	52	96.524719	protection5	1	8	1	1	7	1737	1291	60	39	95.910469	of5	1	8	1	1	8	1845	1293	164	34	96.185051	Human5	1	8	1	1	9	2056	1285	195	48	93.048141	Rights5	1	8	1	1	10	2305	1301	19	6	93.071465	-5	1	8	1	1	11	2377	1278	159	40	96.411308	Civil5	1	8	1	1	12	2586	1274	227	48	85.348595	Rights
+Lillich calls privacy a5	1	8	1	2	5	1185	1358	225	44	96.195038	concept5	1	8	1	2	6	1460	1355	62	34	96.348427	to5	1	8	1	2	7	1568	1350	128	37	96.033997	date5	1	8	1	2	8	1744	1357	61	28	96.033997	so5	1	8	1	2	9	1851	1343	294	47	96.844688	amorphous5	1	8	1	2	10	2193	1349	60	28	96.821915	as5	1	8	1	2	11	2305	1342	60	32	96.249641	to5	1	8	1	2	12	2409	1331	265	52	96.242233	preclude5	1	8	1	2	13	2725	1329	92	37	96.483116	its4	1	8	1	3	0	310	1381	2511	89	-1	5	1	8	1	3	1	310	1426	329	44	96.497742	acceptance5	1	8	1	3	2	694	1418	128	37	96.694847	into5	1	8	1	3	3	875	1418	297	41	96.107025	customary5	1	8	1	3	4	1224	1403	423	44	92.939911	international5	1	8	1	3	5	1703	1395	178	44	90.843292	law.?
+He adds, however, that in
+determining the meaning of privacy stricto sensu limited help can be obtained
+from European Convention practice. And there he mentions that i.a. the5	1	8	1	5	12	2723	1503	98	30	96.902176	use4	1	8	1	6	0	312	1550	2513	81	-1	5	1	8	1	6	1	312	1590	61	39	95.287460	of5	1	8	1	6	2	410	1591	159	36	96.126701	name
+was suggested as being part of the concept of privacy. This is, by
+the way, a quote taken from Jacobs, who with reference to the similar
+provision of the European Convention (article 8) asserts that “the organs of
+the Convention have not developed the concept of privacy".’
+What is true for the European Convention is equally true for the
+Covenant. In his commentary on the Covenant Nowak states that article 17 was
+the subject of virtually no debate during its drafting and that the case law
+on individual communications is of no assistance in ascertaining the exact
+meaning of the word.‘
+It is therefore not without reason that the State party argues that
+article 17 would not necessarily cover the right to change one’s surname (see
+para. 7.1 of the Views).
+The Committee itself has not really clarified the notion of privacy
+either in its General Comment on article 17 where it actually refrains from
+defining that notion. In its General Comment the Committee attempts to define
+all the other terms used in article 17 such as family, home, unlawful
+and arbitrary. It further refers to the protection of personal honour and
+reputation also mentioned in article 17, but it leaves open the definition
+of the main right enshrined in that article, i.e. the right to privacy.
+While it is true that the Committee, in its General Comment, refers in various
+instances to private5	1	13	1	9	4	1062	2857	153	38	96.262810	life and gives examples of cases in which States must
+refrain from interfering with specific aspects of private life, the question
+whether the name of a person is indeed protected by article 1’ and, in
+particular, whether in addition there is a right to change one’s name, is not
+brought up at all in the General Comment.
+I raise the above issues to demonstrate that the Committee is not really
+on safe legal ground in interpretating article 17 as it does in the present
+decision. I do, however, concur with the view that one’s name is an important
+part of one’s identity, the protection of which is central to article 17.
+Nowak is therefore correct in saying that privacy protects the special,
+2 Richard B. Lillich, Civil Rights, in: Human Rights in
+International Law, Legal and Policy Issues, ed. Th. Meron (1984), p. 148.
+3 Francis G. Jacobs, The European Convention on Human Rights (1975),
+p. 126.
+‘ Nowak, CCPR Commentary (1993), p.294, section 15.
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-011.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-011.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..1a6c8ed3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-011.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991
+Annex
+English
+Page 10
+individual qualities of human existence and a person's identity. Identity
+obviously includes one’s name.°
+What is, therefore, protected by article 17, is an individual’s name and
+not necessarily the individual's desire to change his/her name at whim. The
+Committee recognizes this, albeit indirectly, in its own decision. The example
+it refers to in order to illustrate a possible case of State interference with
+individuals’ rights under article 17 in contravention of that article is
+5	1	3	1	6	2	506	1049	76	9	0.000000	>.5	1	3	1	6	3	630	1019	60	39	76.437668	af5	1	3	1	6	4	727	1030	31	28	95.999992	a5	1	3	1	6	5	793	1022	161	35	95.673691	State5	1	3	1	6	6	989	1027	130	27	95.831009	were5	1	3	1	6	7	1158	1021	61	33	96.690216	to5	1	3	1	6	8	1255	1014	193	48	95.998390	compel5	1	3	1	6	9	1487	1013	93	38	95.771896	all5	1	3	1	6	10	1620	1011	324	47	96.324402	foreigners5	1	3	1	6	11	1983	1014	62	33	96.069183	to5	1	3	1	6	12	2080	1009	193	46	96.321655	change5	1	3	1	6	13	2312	1006	161	39	93.178345	their5	1	3	1	6	14	2509	1013	386	30	90.783524	surnames....4	1	3	1	7	0	475	1057	2495	66	-1	5	1	3	1	7	1	475	1075	117	43	95.163528	(see5	1	3	1	7	2	619	1086	158	37	95.438736	para.5	1	3	1	7	3	821	1077	122	34	95.844521	10.25	1	3	1	7	4	977	1073	61	37	95.844521	of5	1	3	1	7	5	1071	1073	95	37	96.903168	the5	1	3	1	7	6	1195	1069	223	42	95.779724	Views).5	1	3	1	7	7	1458	1069	128	37	95.586861	This5	1	3	1	7	8	1616	1067	133	38	95.718544	view5	1	3	1	7	9	1780	1066	57	37	95.718544	is5	1	3	1	7	10	1869	1069	250	38	96.437401	correct,5	1	3	1	7	11	2160	1065	96	36	96.800346	but5	1	3	1	7	12	2288	1061	297	46	96.229042	obviously5	1	3	1	7	13	2614	1062	195	35	96.086021	cannot5	1	3	1	7	14	2841	1057	129	37	96.582153	have4	1	3	1	8	0	462	1110	2511	68	-1	5	1	3	1	8	1	462	1141	30	26	95.808746	a5	1	3	1	8	2	528	1130	234	48	95.808746	bearing5	1	3	1	8	3	801	1141	62	26	95.578438	on5	1	3	1	8	4	902	1139	28	27	95.279083	a5	1	3	1	8	5	970	1138	128	28	96.279755	case5	1	3	1	8	6	1135	1127	163	36	96.719261	where5	1	3	1	8	7	1338	1135	29	27	95.829109	a5	1	3	1	8	8	1408	1129	159	33	91.630676	State5	1	3	1	8	9	1611	1142	19	5	91.630676	-5	1	3	1	8	10	1677	1123	92	36	96.479980	for5	1	3	1	8	11	1808	1130	225	29	95.465752	reasons5	1	3	1	8	12	2073	1119	60	38	95.465752	of5	1	3	1	8	13	2173	1117	299	49	95.904839	generally5	1	3	1	8	14	2506	1114	231	48	96.314392	applied5	1	3	1	8	15	2773	1110	200	49	96.813316	public4	1	3	1	9	0	460	1167	2513	66	-1	5	1	3	1	9	1	460	1183	202	50	96.469093	policy5	1	3	1	9	2	697	1185	98	37	96.783257	and5	1	3	1	9	3	830	1183	63	39	96.681602	in5	1	3	1	9	4	927	1182	164	39	96.506439	order5	1	3	1	9	5	1127	1186	63	33	96.764366	to5	1	3	1	9	6	1223	1183	231	46	95.899353	protect5	1	3	1	9	7	1491	1178	95	39	96.926781	the5	1	3	1	9	8	1622	1175	263	48	96.318008	existing5	1	3	1	9	9	1917	1183	130	30	96.062241	name5	1	3	1	9	10	2084	1173	60	38	96.062241	of5	1	3	1	9	11	2182	1170	359	40	93.272240	individuals5	1	3	1	9	12	2582	1189	19	5	92.793205	-5	1	3	1	9	13	2645	1167	226	39	96.355553	refuses5	1	3	1	9	14	2910	1169	63	33	95.815636	to4	1	3	1	10	0	462	1230	1658	56	-1	5	1	3	1	10	1	462	1241	167	37	96.409973	allow5	1	3	1	10	2	665	1251	29	27	32.444603	a5	1	3	1	10	3	734	1241	193	45	32.444603	change5	1	3	1	10	4	967	1238	60	37	96.222862	of5	1	3	1	10	5	1066	1247	129	27	96.746727	name5	1	3	1	10	6	1236	1234	298	49	96.217369	requested5	1	3	1	10	7	1568	1234	66	47	95.868683	by5	1	3	1	10	8	1669	1243	63	27	96.123314	an5	1	3	1	10	9	1772	1230	348	39	96.395676	individual.2	1	4	0	0	0	461	1336	2518	672	-1	3	1	4	1	0	0	461	1336	2518	672	-1	4	1	4	1	1	0	662	1336	2311	57	-1	5	1	4	1	1	1	662	1350	423	43	96.396881	Nevertheless,5	1	4	1	1	2	1138	1347	57	39	96.625954	it5	1	4	1	1	3	1238	1358	96	27	96.198265	can5	1	4	1	1	4	1370	1347	64	36	96.069145	be5	1	4	1	1	5	1472	1345	198	48	96.069145	argued5	1	4	1	1	6	1708	1345	125	36	96.752205	that5	1	4	1	1	7	1876	1342	57	37	96.314774	it5	1	4	1	1	8	1973	1341	166	37	96.088554	would5	1	4	1	1	9	2172	1341	64	36	96.414719	be5	1	4	1	1	10	2274	1336	363	50	95.826378	appropriate5	1	4	1	1	11	2677	1339	61	34	96.691513	to5	1	4	1	1	12	2777	1342	196	29	96.843117	assume4	1	4	1	2	0	463	1386	2510	65	-1	5	1	4	1	2	1	463	1407	128	38	96.759254	that5	1	4	1	2	2	629	1407	93	38	96.367561	the5	1	4	1	2	3	758	1410	131	33	96.243279	term5	1	4	1	2	4	926	1403	284	48	96.080307	privacy"
+inasmuch as it covers, for the purpose of appropriate
+protection, an individual's name as part of his/her identity, also covers the
+right to change that name. In that regard one must have a closer look at the
+Guidelines5	1	4	1	5	2	861	1572	93	37	96.313698	for5	1	4	1	5	3	983	1571	95	38	96.562737	the5	1	4	1	5	4	1108	1570	195	47	96.788887	change5	1	4	1	5	5	1334	1568	60	38	96.341934	of5	1	4	1	5	6	1426	1568	254	37	95.506424	surname published in the Netherlands Government
+Gazette in 1990 and applied in the Netherlands as common policy. The Dutch
+policy is, as a matter of principle, based on the premise that a person should
+keep the name which he/she acquires at birth in order to Maintain legal and
+social stability (see para. 9.1, last sentence, of the Views). As such, this
+policy can hardly be seen as violating article 17. On the contrary, it is
+protective of acquired rights, such as the right toa certain name, and would
+seem to be very much in line with the precepts of article 17.
+A change of name, according to the Guidelines, will be granted when the
+current name is a) indecent, b) ridiculous, c) so common that it has lost its
+distinctive character and d) not Dutch sounding. None of these grounds was
+invoked by the author's when they asked for authorization to change their
+surnames.
+In accordance with the Guidelines a change of name can also be granted
+in5	1	6	1	2	2	598	2461	363	47	95.629112	exceptional5	1	6	1	2	3	998	2463	216	40	95.629112	cases, for instance in5	1	6	1	2	7	1813	2463	160	28	96.537186	cases5	1	6	1	2	8	2005	2452	163	36	96.597542	where5	1	6	1	2	9	2202	2451	94	37	96.778618	the5	1	6	1	2	10	2329	2448	193	39	95.823059	denial5	1	6	1	2	11	2558	2447	59	37	96.552879	of5	1	6	1	2	12	2655	2447	94	36	96.726509	the5	1	6	1	2	13	2785	2445	194	46	96.607719	change4	1	6	1	3	0	470	2499	2512	60	-1	5	1	6	1	3	1	470	2516	60	39	95.729912	of5	1	6	1	3	2	574	2525	227	28	96.340538	surname5	1	6	1	3	3	838	2515	167	37	96.075890	would5	1	6	1	3	4	1043	2515	264	37	96.075890	threaten5	1	6	1	3	5	1346	2512	93	37	93.218536	the5	1	6	1	3	6	1480	2509	360	50	91.094978	applicant’s5	1	6	1	3	7	1877	2506	195	39	96.532677	mental5	1	6	1	3	8	2113	2515	64	28	96.681076	or5	1	6	1	3	9	2212	2503	261	49	96.512787	physical5	1	6	1	3	10	2513	2499	360	48	95.761604	well-being
+or
+in5	1	6	1	4	2	613	2581	160	28	96.013626	cases5	1	6	1	4	3	818	2572	164	36	96.428429	where5	1	6	1	4	4	1030	2571	93	37	96.671913	the5	1	6	1	4	5	1170	2568	193	39	96.333801	denial5	1	6	1	4	6	1410	2567	165	37	95.791779	would5	1	6	1	4	7	1616	2567	63	36	96.576149	be5	1	6	1	4	8	1723	2563	418	42	96.166451	unreasonable,5	1	6	1	4	9	2197	2560	196	47	96.246422	taking5	1	6	1	4	10	2440	2557	126	39	96.128708	into5	1	6	1	4	11	2610	2560	229	35	96.128708	account5	1	6	1	4	12	2886	2555	95	37	96.926010	the4	1	6	1	5	0	473	2609	2498	63	-1	5	1	6	1	5	1	473	2627	293	38	96.454460	interests5	1	6	1	5	2	805	2627	60	38	96.454460	of5	1	6	1	5	3	902	2627	132	37	95.382309	both5	1	6	1	5	4	1072	2625	92	39	96.481270	the5	1	6	1	5	5	1178	2623	318	49	96.358704	applicant5	1	6	1	5	6	1534	2621	97	39	95.926498	and5	1	6	1	5	7	1665	2621	94	38	96.269226	the5	1	6	1	5	8	1797	2623	188	34	95.835876	State
+(see para. 9.2 of the Views).
+As the author's apparently could not show such exceptional5	1	6	1	6	10	2421	2669	456	39	96.001595	circumstances in
+the course of the proceedings before the national authorities, their request
+was denied. Their assertion that they needed the name-change to become Hindu
+priests was apparently not substantiated (see the reasoning given by the
+Council of State in its decision of 17 October 1990, para. 2.3, last sentence,
+of the Views; see also the inadmissibility decision of the European Commission
+of Human Rights of 2 July 1992, where the European Commission held that the
+author's had not established that their religious studies would be impeded by
+the refusal to modify their surnames; para. 2.4, last sentence, of the Views) .
+Nor can requirements imposed by Indian Hindu leaders be attributed to the
+Dutch authorities, as confirmed by the Committee in the present case in the
+framework of its decision on admissibility. There it examined the present
+communication under the angle of article 18 of the Covenant and came to the
+conclusion that a5	1	6	1	19	4	1099	3402	162	35	96.481369	State5	1	6	1	19	5	1292	3401	168	45	96.393929	party5	1	6	1	19	6	1491	3401	63	33	96.680962	to5	1	6	1	19	7	1587	3397	95	37	96.531548	the5	1	6	1	19	8	1715	3397	260	36	96.475891	Covenant5	1	6	1	19	9	2009	3396	194	34	96.485863	cannot5	1	6	1	19	10	2234	3392	63	37	96.680984	be5	1	6	1	19	11	2332	3389	132	39	96.367470	held5	1	6	1	19	12	2494	3388	364	38	96.367470	accountable5	1	6	1	19	13	2894	3386	95	38	96.873146	for4	1	6	1	20	0	477	3442	2512	63	-1	5	1	6	1	20	1	477	3456	396	40	95.970322	restrictions5	1	6	1	20	2	926	3456	203	49	96.301689	placed5	1	6	1	20	3	1178	3465	132	38	96.620888	upon5	1	6	1	20	4	1364	3454	94	38	96.360413	the5	1	6	1	20	5	1514	3450	261	40	96.360413	exercise5	1	6	1	20	6	1827	3450	61	38	96.299438	of5	1	6	1	20	7	1945	3448	292	48	96.389427	religious5	1	6	1	20	8	2293	3445	228	39	96.864395	offices5	1	6	1	20	9	2575	3444	66	48	96.677742	by5	1	6	1	20	10	2693	3442	296	48	95.399490	religious4	1	6	1	21	0	478	3501	1891	57	-1	5	1	6	1	21	1	478	3513	228	39	96.173599	leaders5	1	6	1	21	2	747	3512	63	38	96.910858	in5	1	6	1	21	3	846	3513	232	37	96.414803	another5	1	6	1	21	4	1115	3513	257	45	96.198601	country
+(see para. 6.1 of the Views).
+The request for a change of name was, therefore, legitimately turned
+down as the author's could not show the Dutch authorities exceptional4	1	7	1	3	0	478	3720	2515	60	-1	5	1	7	1	3	1	478	3733	460	39	96.441864	circumstances
+as required by law. The refusal cannot be seen as a violation
+of article 17. To hold otherwise would be tantamount to recognizing that an
+5 Nowak, loc. cit., p. 294, section 17.
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-012.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-012.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..69e460e1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/coeriel_ocr/page-012.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991
+Annex
+English
+Page il
+individual has an almost absolute right to have his/her name changed on
+request and at whim. For such a view, in my opinion, one can find no basis in
+the Covenant.
+(b) The State party’s action seen from the viewpoint of the criteria
+for permissible (State) interference in rights protected by
+article 17.
+On the assumption that there exists a right of the individual to change
+his/her name, the question of the extent to which interference with that
+right is still permissible, has to be examined (and is, indeed, addressed by
+the Committee in the present Views).
+What then are the criteria laid down for (State) interference? They are
+two and only two. Article 17 prohibits arbitrary or unlawful interference with
+one's privacy.
+It is obvious that the decision of the Dutch authorities not to grant
+a change of name cannot per se be regarded as constituting “arbitrary or
+hts under article 17. The decision
+unlawful" interference with the author's’ rig
+is based on the law applicable in the Netherlands. Hence it is not unlawful.
+The Committee itself says so (see para. 10.3 of the Views). The conditions
+under which a change of name will be authorized in the Netherlands are laid
+down in generally applicable and published Guidelines5	1	11	2	4	8	2244	1818	93	37	96.261093	for5	1	11	2	4	9	2386	1815	94	37	96.590553	the5	1	11	2	4	10	2532	1812	194	46	96.370659	change5	1	11	2	4	11	2777	1807	60	37	96.629272	of4	1	11	2	5	0	330	1864	2507	79	-1	5	1	11	2	5	1	330	1906	256	37	96.259087	surname
+which, in themselves, are not manifestly arbitrary. These Guidelines
+have been applied in the present case, and there is no indication that they
+were applied in a discriminatory fashion. Hence it is equally difficult to
+call the decision arbitrary. The Committee @oes so, however, in5	1	11	2	8	11	2746	2030	96	38	94.519753	the4	1	11	2	9	0	333	2086	2509	77	-1	5	1	11	2	9	1	333	2124	429	39	95.827507	circumstances5	1	11	2	9	2	802	2119	61	37	96.269066	of5	1	11	2	9	3	905	2117	93	38	96.851501	the5	1	11	2	9	4	1036	2116	230	47	95.999969	present5	1	11	2	9	5	1307	2112	155	36	95.552078	case
+(see para. 10.5 of the Views). To arrive
+at that finding the Committee introduces a new notion - that of
+reasonableness. It finds the5	1	11	2	11	5	1366	2219	228	51	96.449379	grounds5	1	11	2	11	6	1627	2217	93	38	96.903214	for5	1	11	2	11	7	1749	2212	260	47	94.860802	limiting5	1	11	2	11	8	2040	2211	93	37	96.457199	the5	1	11	2	11	9	2161	2207	252	39	96.679840	author's’5	1	11	2	11	10	2454	2201	195	49	96.375313	rights5	1	11	2	11	11	2677	2197	167	39	96.216995	under4	1	11	2	12	0	334	2259	2090	71	-1	5	1	11	2	12	1	334	2289	228	41	96.232590	article5	1	11	2	12	2	605	2292	57	34	96.145210	175	1	11	2	12	3	701	2291	97	33	54.883240	not5	1	11	2	12	4	838	2289	61	34	54.883240	to5	1	11	2	12	5	936	2284	63	36	89.952789	be5	1	11	2	12	6	1039	2277	355	42	96.308647	reasonable
+(see para. 10.5 of the Views).
+The Committee thus attempts to expand the scope of article 17 by adding
+an element which is not part of that article. The only argument the Committee
+can adduce in this context is a simple reference (renvoi) to its own General
+Comment on article 17 where it stated that even5	1	11	3	4	10	1933	2541	392	41	95.466286	interference5	1	11	3	4	11	2357	2533	268	53	95.916885	provided5	1	11	3	4	12	2654	2532	67	48	95.842278	by5	1	11	3	4	13	2753	2531	97	37	95.842278	law3	1	11	4	0	0	340	2589	2513	194	-1	4	1	11	4	1	0	382	2589	2466	75	-1	5	1	11	4	1	1	382	2652	43	9	59.664528	_.5	1	11	4	1	2	471	2621	198	39	20.103025	should5	1	11	4	1	3	701	2620	85	43	96.670250	be,5	1	11	4	1	4	837	2617	61	39	96.767242	in5	1	11	4	1	5	932	2627	98	37	96.767242	any5	1	11	4	1	6	1064	2617	183	39	96.751877	event,5	1	11	4	1	7	1295	2607	327	41	96.543678	reasonable5	1	11	4	1	8	1661	2605	61	38	95.945641	in5	1	11	4	1	9	1757	2603	94	38	95.945641	the5	1	11	4	1	10	1885	2597	331	52	96.072327	particular5	1	11	4	1	11	2253	2592	487	40	76.687279	circumstances”.5	1	11	4	1	12	2789	2589	59	35	96.374077	It4	1	11	4	2	0	341	2643	2512	76	-1	5	1	11	4	2	1	341	2680	59	39	95.948738	is5	1	11	4	2	2	440	2677	295	40	95.020325	difficult5	1	11	4	2	3	779	2676	95	37	96.613281	for5	1	11	4	2	4	910	2684	63	27	96.613281	me5	1	11	4	2	5	1014	2676	61	33	96.158752	to5	1	11	4	2	6	1112	2680	65	39	96.662720	go5	1	11	4	2	7	1214	2668	162	47	96.046654	along5	1	11	4	2	8	1414	2664	132	39	96.398247	with5	1	11	4	2	9	1581	2661	127	40	96.424278	this5	1	11	4	2	10	1749	2653	430	54	96.033981	argumentation5	1	11	4	2	11	2216	2651	97	38	96.162102	and5	1	11	4	2	12	2350	2655	62	32	96.422447	to5	1	11	4	2	13	2449	2648	131	37	96.859138	base5	1	11	4	2	14	2618	2655	64	28	96.519440	on5	1	11	4	2	15	2722	2643	131	38	96.223709	such4	1	11	4	3	0	340	2697	2513	86	-1	5	1	11	4	3	1	340	2732	433	51	96.109779	argumentation5	1	11	4	3	2	811	2740	30	28	95.447540	a5	1	11	4	3	3	881	2727	229	46	95.447540	finding5	1	11	4	3	4	1150	2725	125	38	96.228790	that5	1	11	4	3	5	1314	2733	29	27	96.393005	a5	1	11	4	3	6	1383	2724	161	35	96.393005	State5	1	11	4	3	7	1580	2721	167	44	95.975792	party5	1	11	4	3	8	1781	2712	266	39	96.124092	violated5	1	11	4	3	9	2085	2708	126	39	96.636673	this5	1	11	4	3	10	2253	2703	260	50	95.337936	specific5	1	11	4	3	11	2550	2697	303	52	96.152740	provision2	1	12	0	0	0	341	2791	521	38	-1	3	1	12	1	0	0	341	2791	521	38	-1	4	1	12	1	1	0	341	2791	521	38	-1	5	1	12	1	1	1	341	2792	60	37	95.600983	of5	1	12	1	1	2	442	2791	95	37	96.274315	the5	1	12	1	1	3	577	2791	285	36	95.836563	Covenant.2	1	13	0	0	0	1291	2647	335	12	-1	3	1	13	1	0	0	1291	2647	335	12	-1	4	1	13	1	1	0	1291	2647	335	12	-1	5	1	13	1	1	1	1291	2647	335	12	95.000000	 2	1	14	0	0	0	2489	2866	364	42	-1	3	1	14	1	0	0	2489	2866	364	42	-1	4	1	14	1	1	0	2489	2866	364	42	-1	5	1	14	1	1	1	2489	2875	128	33	92.650719	Kurt5	1	14	1	1	2	2655	2866	198	39	90.887566	Herndl2	1	15	0	0	0	343	3088	2514	185	-1	3	1	15	1	0	0	343	3088	2514	185	-1	4	1	15	1	1	0	358	3088	2499	80	-1	5	1	15	1	1	1	358	3124	151	44	89.281410	[Done5	1	15	1	1	2	557	3121	61	39	95.931404	in5	1	15	1	1	3	662	3118	252	49	95.875381	English,5	1	15	1	1	4	971	3114	199	41	96.546143	French5	1	15	1	1	5	1211	3113	99	39	96.546143	and5	1	15	1	1	6	1352	3109	250	51	96.483116	Spanish,5	1	15	1	1	7	1657	3106	95	38	96.435104	the5	1	15	1	1	8	1796	3100	232	51	95.806938	English5	1	15	1	1	9	2070	3102	127	35	96.679268	text5	1	15	1	1	10	2241	3094	165	47	96.022057	being5	1	15	1	1	11	2453	3093	93	38	96.245102	the5	1	15	1	1	12	2593	3088	264	49	96.111465	original4	1	15	1	2	0	343	3146	2514	75	-1	5	1	15	1	2	1	343	3176	259	40	95.921539	version.5	1	15	1	2	2	642	3172	400	49	96.058495	Subsequently5	1	15	1	2	3	1070	3174	63	34	96.274834	to5	1	15	1	2	4	1159	3169	64	38	96.274834	be5	1	15	1	2	5	1258	3165	194	40	96.316734	issued5	1	15	1	2	6	1480	3164	130	37	96.211967	also5	1	15	1	2	7	1641	3161	61	38	96.264854	in5	1	15	1	2	8	1728	3157	220	43	96.385124	Arabic,5	1	15	1	2	9	1989	3153	228	39	96.541489	Chinese5	1	15	1	2	10	2248	3149	97	38	96.030426	and5	1	15	1	2	11	2372	3146	233	39	95.433121	Russian5	1	15	1	2	12	2634	3154	63	29	96.474663	as5	1	15	1	2	13	2725	3146	132	46	96.863472	part4	1	15	1	3	0	346	3201	1923	72	-1	5	1	15	1	3	1	346	3234	62	39	95.589951	of5	1	15	1	3	2	449	3233	96	39	96.292091	the5	1	15	1	3	3	582	3229	364	40	45.730213	Committee's5	1	15	1	3	4	986	3225	194	40	96.324554	annual5	1	15	1	3	5	1220	3226	194	45	96.835472	report5	1	15	1	3	6	1454	3225	61	34	96.819702	to5	1	15	1	3	7	1553	3218	95	39	96.879128	the5	1	15	1	3	8	1685	3213	227	42	96.269127	General5	1	15	1	3	9	1949	3201	268	61	37.416668	Assembly.5	1	15	1	3	10	2244	3205	25	44	37.416668	]
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-37-d-369-1989/page-001.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-37-d-369-1989/page-001.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..f2e06bf2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-37-d-369-1989/page-001.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+S. Communication No. 3269/1989. G. S. v. Jamaica
+{Decision of § November 1999. adopted at the
+thirty-seventh seasion)
+Submitted ay: G. 8S. (name deleted]
+Alleged victim: The author
+State party concerned: Jamaica
+Date of communication: 25 May 1989 (date of initial letter)
+The Human Rights Committea, established under article 28 of the International
+Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
+Meeting on 8 November 1989,
+Adopts the following:
+Reciaion on admissibility*
+1. The author of the communication (initial submission dated 25 May 1989 and
+subsequent submission) is G. S., a Jamaican citisen currently awaiting execution at
+St. Catherine District Prison, Jamaica. He claims to be the victim of a violation
+by Jamaica of articles 6, 7 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and
+Political Rights. He is represented by counsel.
+2.1 The author states that he was arrested on 14 June 1983 and charged, together
+with Mr. A. W. a/, with murder, on 13 June 1983, of one R. H. He was tried in the
+Westmorevland Circuit Court, convicted and sentenced to death on 7 June 1984. The
+Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 7 April 1986. A subsequent petition for
+special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was
+dismissed on 4 May 1989.
+2.2 The author states that on 13 June 1983 he was working in his cane field, when
+Mr. H. approached him and attacked him with a knife. in the course of the ensuing
+struggle, the assailant sustained head injuries. Afterwards, he stopped a passing
+police car and informed the police officer of the incident. This officer
+reportedly asked the author and his co-defendant to carry the wounded man to the
+back of the police car and then drove to the hospital. Later that day, the same
+officer informed the author that Mr. H. had died and proceeded to arrest him. The
+following day he was charged with murder.
+2.3 According to the author, his trial in the Circuit Court was unfair. Thus, the
+judge is said to have solicited evidence which would not be admissible in law.
+Furthermore, the judge allegedly misdirected the jury on the issue of self-defence,
+thue depriving the author of the poasibility of a conviction of manslaughter or of
+an acquittal.
+wi The text of an individual opinion by Ms. Christine Chanet is reproduced
+in the appendix.
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-37-d-369-1989/page-002.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-37-d-369-1989/page-002.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..43e80e0b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-37-d-369-1989/page-002.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+2.4 It is stated that the case has not been submitted to any other instance of
+international investigation or settlement.
+3.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication the Human Rights
+Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide
+whether ov not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
+3.2 The Committee has considered the material cubmitted by the author's counsel,
+including the author's petition for special leave to appet] to the Judicial
+Comnittee of the Privy Council. From this information, it appears that the author
+claims bias of the court, in particular in respect of the adequacy or otherwise of
+the judge's instructions to the jury, in the light of the evidence that was put
+before the jury and which it was for the jury to accept or reject. While
+article 14 of the Covenant guarantees the right to a fair trial, it is for the
+appellate courts of the States parties of the Covenant to evaluate facts and
+evidence in a particular case. bh/ Thus the review, by the Committee, of specific
+inatructions to the jury by the judge in a trial by jury or of generalised claims
+of bias is beyond the scope of application of article 14. In the circumstances,
+the Committee concludes that the communication is inadmissible ac incompatible with
+the provisions of the Covenant, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
+4. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
+(a) The communication is inadmiasible;
+(b) This decision shall be transmitted to the author, to his counsel and, for
+information, to the State party.
+Notes
+B/ = Mr. W's communication No. 290/1988 was declared inadmissible by the
+Committee on 8 November 1989.
+b/ = For an application of this principle, see communication No. 201/1985
+(Hendriks v. Netherlands), final views adopted on 27 July 1988, para. 10.4.
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-37-d-369-1989/page-003.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-37-d-369-1989/page-003.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..0b6f8842
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-37-d-369-1989/page-003.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+As emphasised by the Committee in the case of communication No. 369/1989, it
+ie within the competence of national courts, particularly appeal courts, to assess
+the fairness of the conditions in which a trial takes place.
+However, this competence cannot exclude that of the Committee in
+implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When a
+communication ia submitted to it, the Committee assesses whether the trial was
+conducted in accordance with the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant.
+At the admissibility stage, the Committee proceeds to a prima facie review of
+the applicant's grievances. The author of this communication challenges the
+regularity of the judge's conduct of the hearing.
+It is therefore my view that, while the facts adduced by the applicant could
+be regarded as insufficently substantiated, they could not be declared incompatible
+with the provisions of the Covenant on the basis of article 3 of the Optional
+Protocol.
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-001.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-001.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..cf6f9089
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-001.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+J. Communication No. 2765/1088, S. BE. v. Argentina a/
+(Decision of 26 March 1990. adopted at the
+Ahirty-eighth session)
+Submitted by: 8. E. [name deleted]
+Alleged victims: The author and her disappeared children
+State party concerned: Argentina
+Covenant and Optional Protocol
+for Argentina: 8 November 1986
+Date of communication: 10 February 1988 (date of initial letter)
+The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the Iaternational
+Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
+Meeting on 26 March 1990,
+Adopts the following:
+Decision on admicsibility
+1. The author of the communication is an Argentine citisen residing in
+Argentina. She writes on her own behalf and on behalf of her three disappeared
+children, born in 1951, 1953 and 1956, respectively, alleging violations of the
+Covenant by the Government of Argentina. She is represented by counsel.
+Tha background
+2.1 The author states that her eldest son, L. hi. E., was abducted in Argentina on
+10 Augu~t 1976 by persons belonging to or associated with the police, security
+forces or armed forces, epparently on account of his political opinions. Another
+son, C. E., and her daughter, L. E., were detained on 4 November 1976 in Uruguay
+and were allegedly seen in November/December 1976 at a detention camp in Argentina
+known as The5	1	9	1	6	4	616	2870	171	43	94.515358	Bank and at a police station, Brigada Guenes, in Buenos Aires.
+Their whereabouts have been unknown ever since, in spite of all the steps
+undertaken by the author to discover what happened to them.
+2.2 On 24 December 1986 the Argentine legislature proclaimed Law No. 23,492, the
+so-called “Finalit’ Act" (Ley de Punto Final), which established a deadline of
+60 days for commencing new criminal investigations with regard to the events of the
+so-called “dirty war" (guerra gucia). This deadline expired on 22 February 1987.
+On 8 June 1987, Law No. 23,521, the Due Obedience Act (Ley de Obsdiencia Debida),
+was promulgated, introducing an irrebuttable presumption that members of the
+security, police and prison services cannot be punished for such crimes if
+committed in due obedience to orders. The Act further extends protection to senior
+~159-
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-002.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-002.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..0a6fa024
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-002.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+officers who did not have a decision-making role with regard to the violations.
+The Argentine Supreme Court haa upheld the constitutionality of this Act.
+2.3 On the basis of an application filed on 19 June 1984, the National Comnission
+on the Disappearance of Persona (CONADEP) opened investigation files on the
+@isappearances of L. M. E. (CONADEP file No. 5448), L. E. (No. 5449) and C. 5.
+(No. 5450). The whereabouts of the disappeared persons, however, could not be
+established.
+2.4 Article 6 of the Finality Act specifically provides that The5	1	3	1	1	12	2588	789	349	48	96.132851	extinction5	1	3	1	1	13	2973	793	67	44	96.632637	of4	1	3	1	2	0	232	856	2449	61	-1	5	1	3	1	2	1	232	857	170	59	96.002182	penal5	1	3	1	2	2	444	856	208	48	95.861176	action5	1	3	1	2	3	686	861	280	53	95.410583	pursuant5	1	3	1	2	4	1009	862	62	42	95.336746	to5	1	3	1	2	5	1111	856	241	48	95.336746	article5	1	3	1	2	6	1394	858	29	43	95.589912	15	1	3	1	2	7	1462	860	136	43	95.589912	does5	1	3	1	2	8	1639	861	103	41	95.188599	not5	1	3	1	2	9	1779	858	206	46	95.188599	affect5	1	3	1	2	10	2025	857	168	47	95.620842	civil5	1	3	1	2	11	2233	857	448	60	94.663734	proceedings.
+2.5 The author has not instituted civil proceedings to obtain compensation.
+2.6 By operation of article 4037 of the Argentinian Civil Code, the period of
+limitations for instituting civil proceedings is two years. This period runs from
+the date of the alleged violation.
+The_complaint
+3.1 The author claims that the enactment of the Finality Act and the Due Obedience
+Act constitute violations by Argentina of its obligations under article 2 of the
+Covenant, in particular to5	1	7	1	3	5	1215	1693	172	57	95.314377	adopt5	1	7	1	3	6	1428	1694	136	45	95.990013	such5	1	7	1	3	7	1606	1691	378	59	96.058403	legislative5	1	7	1	3	8	2024	1703	65	36	95.894470	or5	1	7	1	3	9	2128	1694	173	47	96.544975	other5	1	7	1	3	10	2336	1705	281	36	95.814415	measures5	1	7	1	3	11	2660	1705	62	34	96.825958	as5	1	7	1	3	12	2758	1706	108	45	96.440079	may5	1	7	1	3	13	2902	1697	68	44	96.244614	be4	1	7	1	4	0	230	1759	2906	62	-1	5	1	7	1	4	1	230	1774	314	45	82.510612	necessary5	1	7	1	4	2	581	1767	65	42	95.901787	to5	1	7	1	4	3	682	1761	139	60	96.835991	give5	1	7	1	4	4	861	1763	208	47	96.543045	effect5	1	7	1	4	5	1110	1766	67	43	95.848610	to5	1	7	1	4	6	1215	1763	100	46	96.215492	the5	1	7	1	4	7	1358	1759	201	59	96.019852	rights5	1	7	1	4	8	1604	1761	346	58	90.081039	recognized5	1	7	1	4	9	1992	1761	64	46	96.317558	in5	1	7	1	4	10	2096	1765	99	45	96.223259	the5	1	7	1	4	11	2233	1769	243	52	95.570328	present5	1	7	1	4	12	2516	1766	310	44	95.507431	Covenant
+(art. 2,
+para. 2), to5	1	7	1	5	4	721	1842	209	36	95.870071	ensure5	1	7	1	5	5	970	1835	135	43	95.811455	that5	1	7	1	5	6	1146	1845	101	45	95.820030	any5	1	7	1	5	7	1283	1843	212	46	96.190620	person5	1	7	1	5	8	1527	1834	176	44	96.646408	whose5	1	7	1	5	9	1747	1833	200	57	96.298561	rights5	1	7	1	5	10	1988	1845	65	34	96.219872	or5	1	7	1	5	11	2097	1835	272	45	96.067482	freedoms5	1	7	1	5	12	2415	1846	58	33	95.514671	as5	1	7	1	5	13	2516	1833	210	48	95.514671	herein5	1	7	1	5	14	2766	1834	347	57	94.289780	recognised4	1	7	1	6	0	230	1901	2739	58	-1	5	1	7	1	6	1	230	1914	99	33	95.831749	are5	1	7	1	6	2	369	1902	279	47	96.037857	violated5	1	7	1	6	3	686	1903	169	44	89.594734	shall5	1	7	1	6	4	895	1903	139	44	96.413513	have5	1	7	1	6	5	1074	1913	68	34	95.182884	an5	1	7	1	6	6	1179	1901	312	46	93.238846	effective5	1	7	1	6	7	1534	1903	208	54	90.599220	romedy5	1	7	1	6	8	1784	1903	128	44	85.270462	...
+(art. 2, para. 3 (a)) and to4	1	7	1	7	0	229	1970	2601	60	-1	5	1	7	1	7	1	229	1983	207	36	91.094727	ensure5	1	7	1	7	2	476	1973	136	45	96.107750	that5	1	7	1	7	3	650	1972	104	57	95.965385	any5	1	7	1	7	4	790	1982	212	47	94.481331	person5	1	7	1	7	5	1041	1970	277	59	95.680954	claiming5	1	7	1	7	6	1356	1974	138	44	84.010124	euch5	1	7	1	7	7	1531	1983	32	34	95.822281	a5	1	7	1	7	8	1606	1973	204	56	93.208916	remedy5	1	7	1	7	9	1850	1973	167	45	90.184517	sha:15	1	7	1	7	10	2057	1971	138	47	96.589172	have5	1	7	1	7	11	2233	1970	100	48	96.496834	his5	1	7	1	7	12	2380	1971	169	59	95.253143	right5	1	7	1	7	13	2589	1974	241	44	96.883720	thereto4	1	7	1	8	0	229	2041	2917	57	-1	5	1	7	1	8	1	229	2041	348	46	93.545792	determined5	1	7	1	8	2	613	2043	71	55	96.257057	by5	1	7	1	8	3	721	2046	314	52	95.570908	competent5	1	7	1	8	4	1075	2041	301	56	96.077507	judicial,5	1	7	1	8	5	1426	2041	488	46	96.184219	administrative5	1	7	1	8	6	1951	2053	68	34	95.354614	or5	1	7	1	8	7	2060	2041	382	57	96.256027	legislative5	1	7	1	8	8	2480	2041	382	49	92.958496	authorities5	1	7	1	8	9	2912	2071	84	18	92.338478	...5	1	7	1	8	10	3044	2043	102	46	95.886765	and4	1	7	1	9	0	230	2110	2486	60	-1	5	1	7	1	9	1	230	2119	64	39	95.452522	to5	1	7	1	9	2	333	2113	244	57	92.678947	develop5	1	7	1	9	3	615	2111	100	47	95.946877	the5	1	7	1	9	4	755	2110	452	59	96.168877	possibilities5	1	7	1	9	5	1247	2112	68	45	95.545372	of5	1	7	1	9	6	1356	2110	275	57	95.808838	judicial5	1	7	1	9	7	1674	2111	237	58	89.673698	remedy
+(art. 2, para. 3 (b)).
+3.2 In particular, the author claims that the disappearance of her children was
+never fully investigated. She requests that the inquiries } -eopened.
+tha_fitate yacty'sa observations
+4.1 The State party points out that the disappearances took place in 1976 during
+the period of military government, 10 years prior to the entry into force of the
+Covenant and of the Optional Protocol for Argentina.
+4.2 With reszect to the temporal application of the Covenant and of the Optional
+Protocol, the State party submits that the general rule for all juridical norms is
+non-retrosctivity. In the specific area of treaty law, a firmly-established
+international practice leads to the same conclusion. Both the Permanent Court of
+International Justice (Series A/B, No. 4, 24) and the International Court of
+Justice (I,Ci.J. Paports 1952. 40) have maintained that a treaty has to be
+considered as having a retroactive effect only when this intention is explicitly
+stated in the treaty or may be clearly inferred from its provisions. The validity
+of the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties was enshrined in the 1969 Vienna
+Convention on the Law of Treaties (in force on 27 January 1980), article 28 of
+which codifies this rule of customary international laws
+~160-
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-003.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-003.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..81d98ee8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-003.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+“Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise
+established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact
+which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the
+entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party".
+The communication should therefore be declared inadmissible ratione temporia.
+4.3 As to the inquiries into the disappearance of the author's three children, the
+State party refers to the CONADEF investigations, which, unfortunately did not
+yield positive results. In this connection, the State party citee the CONADEP
+final report, which concerns over 8,900 disappearances.
+4.4 The case of the author's children was also submitted to the United Nations
+Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on 13 Auguet 1990. The
+State party's investigations in this respect failed to establish the whereabouts of
+the author's children, or when and where they were deprived of their lives.
+4.5 With regard to the possibility of instituting civil proceedings for
+compensation, the State party points cut that although the author could have
+presented a claim, she did not do sc. The period of limitations for lodging civil
+actions for compensation has now clapsed.
+Issues and proceedings bafora the Committee
+5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights
+Conmittee must, in accordaace with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide
+whether or not it is admissible under tbe Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
+5.2 With regard to the applicetion ratione temporia of the International Covenant
+on Civil and Political Rights and of the Optional Protocol for Argentina, the
+| Committee recalls that both instrumeats entered into force on 8 November 1986. It
+observes that the Covenant cannot be applied retroactively and that the Committee
+is precludec ratione temporis from examining alleged violations that occurred prior
+to the entry into force of the Covenant for the State party concerned.
+5.3 It remains for the Committee to determine whether there have been any
+| violations of the Covenant subsequent to its entry into force. The author has
+invoked article 2 of the Covenant and claimed a violation of the right to a
+remedy. In this context tho Committee recalls its prior jurisprudence that
+article 2 of the Covenant constitutes a general undertaking by States and cannot be
+invoked, in isolation, by individuals under the Optional Protocol (M. G, B. and
+S&S. P. v. Trinidad and Tobago, communication No. 268/1987, para. 6.2, declared inadmissible on 3 November 1989). Bearing in mind that article 2 can only be
+invoked by individuals in conjunction with other articiss of the Covenant, the
+Committee observes that article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant stipulates that
+each State party undertakes “to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms ag
+herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy ..." (emphasis
+added). Thus, under article 2 the right to a remedy arises only after a violation
+of a Covenant right has been established. However, the events which could have
+constituted violatione of several articles of the Covenant and in respect of which
+remedies could have been invoked, occurred prior to the entry into force of the
+Covenant and of the Optional Protocol for Argeatina. Therefore, the matter cannot
+be considered by the Committee, as this aspect of the communication is inadmissible
+ration: temporia.
+~161-
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-004.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-004.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..4c029f81
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-004.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+5.4 The Committee finds it necessary to remind the State party that it is under an
+obligation, in respect of violations occurring or continuing after the entry into
+force of the Covenant, thoroughly to investigate alleged violations and to provide
+remedies where applicable, for victims or their dependants.
+§.5 To the extent that the author claims that the enactment of Law Ne. 23,521
+frustrated a right to see certain government officials prosecuted, the Committee
+refers to its prior jurisprudence that the Covenant does not provide a right for an
+individual to require that the State party criminally prosecute another person
+(H.C, Ms As vs. The Netherlanda, communication No. 213/1986, para. 11.6, declared inadmissible on 30 March 1989). Accordingly, this part of the communication is
+inadmiseible ratione materiag as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant.
+6. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
+(a) The communication is inadmissible;
+(b) This decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author
+through her counsel.
+Notes
+a/ The text of an individual opinion submitted by Mr. Bertil Wennergren
+pursuant to rule 92, paragraph 3, of the Committee's rules of procedure is appended
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-005.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-005.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..24b74033
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-005.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+APPENDIX
+I concur in the views expressed in the Committee's decision. However, in my
+opinion, the arguments in paragraph 5.4 of the decision need to be clarified and
+expanded. In this paragraph, the Committee reminds the State party that it is
+under an obligation, in reapect of violations occurring or continuing after the
+entry into force of the Covenant, thoroughly to investigate alleged violations and
+to provide remedies, where applicable, for victimes or their dependants.
+According to article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
+(cited under paragraph 4.2 in the Committee's decision) a treaty's provisions do
+not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation
+which ceased to exist before the date of entry into force of the treaty in respect
+of that party; the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ Series A/B,
+No. 74 (1938), p. 10-48 ~ Phosphates in Morocco case) has held in this context that
+both the terms concerning the limitation ratione temporia and the underlying
+intention are clear: This clause was inserted in order to deprive the acceptance
+of the compulaory jurisdiction of any retroactive effects. In this case the Court
+had to decide whether or not issues arose from factors subsequent to the acceptance
+of its jvrisdiction (which the Court refers to as the crucial5	1	4	2	6	12	2457	1847	235	52	93.291023	date), firat
+because certain acts, which, if considered separately, were in themselves unlawful
+international acts, were actually accompliehed after the “crucial date"; secondly,
+because these acts, if taken in conjunction with earlier acts to which they were
+closely linked, constituted as a whole a single, continuing and progressive illegal
+act which was not fully accomplished until after the crucial5	1	4	2	11	11	2421	2197	201	48	92.924034	date; and lastly,
+because certain acts which were carried out prior to the crucial5	1	4	2	12	12	2561	2267	172	44	95.945602	date
+nevertheless gave rise to a permanent situation which was inconsistent with
+international law and which existed after the said date. The question of whether a
+given esituation or fact occurs prior to or subsequent to a particular date is, the
+Court explains, one to be decided in respect of each specific case, juct as the
+question of the situations or facts with regard to which the issues arose must be
+decided in regard of each spesific case. I note that the crucial5	1	4	2	18	13	2597	2685	171	45	69.919426	date in this
+case is 8 November 1986.
+The Committee hes repeatedly indicated in prior decisions thet it can4	1	5	1	2	0	245	2952	2874	66	-1	5	1	5	1	2	1	245	2952	274	49	95.673973	consider5	1	5	1	2	2	558	2955	137	57	96.679916	only5	1	5	1	2	3	735	2966	67	33	96.427048	an5	1	5	1	2	4	839	2956	244	55	95.846268	alleged5	1	5	1	2	5	1119	2954	314	48	96.199516	violation5	1	5	1	2	6	1469	2959	67	43	96.161201	of5	1	5	1	2	7	1575	2959	174	44	96.130692	human5	1	5	1	2	8	1786	2958	206	57	96.120323	rights5	1	5	1	2	9	2031	2960	318	58	95.919876	occurring5	1	5	1	2	10	2385	2972	70	34	96.803963	on5	1	5	1	2	11	2490	2974	67	33	96.307304	or5	1	5	1	2	12	2598	2964	171	44	96.473679	after5	1	5	1	2	13	2814	2963	131	52	96.247353	(the5	1	5	1	2	14	2983	2964	136	47	95.832268	date4	1	5	1	3	0	242	3022	2913	66	-1	5	1	5	1	3	1	242	3026	66	41	96.346436	of5	1	5	1	3	2	347	3030	175	50	96.823059	entry5	1	5	1	3	3	561	3022	131	46	96.733673	into5	1	5	1	3	4	736	3027	168	41	96.799591	force5	1	5	1	3	5	943	3026	66	42	96.019211	of5	1	5	1	3	6	1051	3027	98	43	94.880402	the5	1	5	1	3	7	1188	3028	277	43	95.745781	Covenant5	1	5	1	3	8	1505	3028	102	43	96.304382	and5	1	5	1	3	9	1645	3030	101	42	96.610069	the5	1	5	1	3	10	1783	3031	277	41	96.426689	Protocol5	1	5	1	3	11	2106	3032	97	42	96.901642	for5	1	5	1	3	12	2245	3032	102	43	96.497345	the5	1	5	1	3	13	2387	3034	170	42	96.383545	State5	1	5	1	3	14	2596	3030	201	58	95.949898	party)5	1	5	1	3	15	2843	3035	205	44	95.863930	unless5	1	5	1	3	16	3090	3034	65	45	95.863930	it4	1	5	1	4	0	246	3091	2803	61	-1	5	1	5	1	4	1	246	3091	60	48	96.679359	is5	1	5	1	4	2	349	3104	65	35	96.628845	an5	1	5	1	4	3	453	3094	241	54	96.488045	alleged5	1	5	1	4	4	731	3092	316	47	96.737541	violation5	1	5	1	4	5	1080	3094	201	50	95.845963	which,5	1	5	1	4	6	1330	3096	277	55	96.544441	although5	1	5	1	4	7	1642	3095	318	57	95.950027	occurring5	1	5	1	4	8	1995	3099	209	45	95.950027	before5	1	5	1	4	9	2245	3100	138	46	95.679581	that5	1	5	1	4	10	2419	3102	165	49	93.165062	date,5	1	5	1	4	11	2632	3100	311	48	33.474869	c:ntinues5	1	5	1	4	12	2983	3112	66	36	96.842789	or4	1	5	1	5	0	241	3162	2413	54	-1	5	1	5	1	5	1	241	3163	101	45	95.216751	has5	1	5	1	5	2	382	3164	240	44	95.216751	effects5	1	5	1	5	3	658	3162	177	45	96.438454	which5	1	5	1	5	4	876	3164	340	46	96.124252	themselves5	1	5	1	5	5	1260	3164	345	46	95.871788	constitute5	1	5	1	5	6	1645	3179	33	32	95.471542	a5	1	5	1	5	7	1715	3166	313	46	95.008636	violation5	1	5	1	5	8	2068	3170	171	44	95.486984	after5	1	5	1	5	9	2279	3171	137	43	96.472801	that5	1	5	1	5	10	2454	3170	200	46	87.996811	date”.3	1	5	2	0	0	237	3232	2921	692	-1	4	1	5	2	1	0	241	3232	2625	60	-1	5	1	5	2	1	1	241	3232	450	58	71.990341	Disappearance5	1	5	2	1	2	732	3243	171	36	96.315239	cases5	1	5	2	1	3	945	3236	135	43	96.315239	that5	1	5	2	1	4	1119	3239	206	40	96.130371	cannot5	1	5	2	1	5	1362	3236	67	44	96.820763	be5	1	5	2	1	6	1469	3235	349	47	95.546623	attributed5	1	5	2	1	7	1858	3240	61	43	96.964439	to5	1	5	2	1	8	1962	3240	241	43	95.481018	natural5	1	5	2	1	9	2244	3250	205	36	95.821190	causes5	1	5	2	1	10	2497	3239	369	53	96.008560	(accidents,4	1	5	2	2	0	241	3302	2917	66	-1	5	1	5	2	2	1	241	3303	316	56	95.801506	voluntary5	1	5	2	2	2	591	3314	268	45	95.801506	escapes,5	1	5	2	2	3	909	3302	299	53	96.329651	suicides,5	1	5	2	2	4	1257	3303	167	52	93.873413	etc.)5	1	5	2	2	5	1466	3306	105	45	96.419083	but5	1	5	2	2	6	1610	3307	135	45	96.708633	that5	1	5	2	2	7	1779	3306	141	58	95.832741	give5	1	5	2	2	8	1964	3306	134	48	95.929955	rise5	1	5	2	2	9	2137	3312	67	43	96.583015	to5	1	5	2	2	10	2245	3312	347	46	95.988213	reasonable5	1	5	2	2	11	2633	3312	381	56	96.304565	assumptions5	1	5	2	2	12	3054	3315	104	45	96.247719	and4	1	5	2	3	0	242	3371	2776	68	-1	5	1	5	2	3	1	242	3371	344	59	96.252586	suspicions5	1	5	2	3	2	626	3376	65	42	94.766945	of5	1	5	2	3	3	735	3372	236	58	95.299538	illegal5	1	5	2	3	4	1013	3379	162	44	96.584877	acts,5	1	5	2	3	5	1224	3376	136	44	96.747940	such5	1	5	2	3	6	1400	3386	62	34	96.252449	as5	1	5	2	3	7	1504	3375	265	59	96.094635	killing,5	1	5	2	3	8	1819	3378	386	56	96.370934	deprivation5	1	5	2	3	9	2242	3382	65	42	96.370934	of5	1	5	2	3	10	2353	3379	241	60	96.635925	liberty5	1	5	2	3	11	2633	3384	103	44	94.808624	and5	1	5	2	3	12	2775	3380	243	50	96.337631	inhuman4	1	5	2	4	0	244	3444	2807	59	-1	5	1	5	2	4	1	244	3447	335	45	95.677338	treatment,5	1	5	2	4	2	622	3455	108	45	96.643730	may5	1	5	2	4	3	771	3446	136	44	95.272850	lead5	1	5	2	4	4	944	3448	64	42	95.635483	to5	1	5	2	4	5	1049	3444	203	46	95.635483	claims5	1	5	2	4	6	1293	3451	103	40	95.975105	not5	1	5	2	4	7	1433	3448	140	54	95.873398	only5	1	5	2	4	8	1609	3448	168	44	96.167297	under5	1	5	2	4	9	1822	3448	98	44	95.948448	the5	1	5	2	4	10	1964	3448	344	55	96.480606	respective5	1	5	2	4	11	2345	3450	280	46	94.846107	material5	1	5	2	4	12	2668	3451	275	48	95.512558	articles5	1	5	2	4	13	2987	3452	64	47	96.725723	in4	1	5	2	5	0	244	3512	2700	55	-1	5	1	5	2	5	1	244	3515	98	43	95.947021	the5	1	5	2	5	2	379	3515	279	44	95.623055	Covenant5	1	5	2	5	3	702	3512	305	51	95.767769	(articles5	1	5	2	5	4	1051	3515	54	47	96.666443	6,5	1	5	2	5	5	1155	3515	53	48	95.163757	7,5	1	5	2	5	6	1260	3516	28	43	95.640335	95	1	5	2	5	7	1330	3516	102	43	94.358917	and5	1	5	2	5	8	1472	3514	93	45	96.236565	10)5	1	5	2	5	9	1607	3518	106	44	96.313858	but5	1	5	2	5	10	1753	3516	66	44	96.600067	in5	1	5	2	5	11	1856	3519	351	44	95.698677	connection5	1	5	2	5	12	2247	3519	313	47	96.169556	therewith5	1	5	2	5	13	2600	3523	134	44	87.003693	also5	1	5	2	5	14	2774	3523	170	44	96.070503	under4	1	5	2	6	0	242	3582	2741	65	-1	5	1	5	2	6	1	242	3582	240	45	95.941841	article5	1	5	2	6	2	525	3584	25	42	95.941841	25	1	5	2	6	3	590	3584	66	43	96.461670	of5	1	5	2	6	4	697	3586	99	41	96.111626	the5	1	5	2	6	5	835	3584	304	47	92.474251	Covenant,5	1	5	2	6	6	1188	3584	349	56	27.965733	concernius5	1	5	2	6	7	1577	3598	29	32	96.018631	a5	1	5	2	6	8	1643	3588	172	43	96.715843	State5	1	5	2	6	9	1854	3590	242	53	94.362907	party's5	1	5	2	6	10	2136	3587	353	57	96.053085	obligation5	1	5	2	6	11	2526	3595	67	40	95.686462	to5	1	5	2	6	12	2633	3592	172	55	95.686462	adopt5	1	5	2	6	13	2846	3595	137	41	95.830872	such4	1	5	2	7	0	237	3652	2637	63	-1	5	1	5	2	7	1	237	3663	278	35	95.771500	measures5	1	5	2	7	2	557	3663	64	35	86.356873	as5	1	5	2	7	3	656	3664	108	46	93.100525	ray5	1	5	2	7	4	800	3654	68	44	83.629448	he5	1	5	2	7	5	907	3664	312	46	96.176735	necessary5	1	5	2	7	6	1260	3658	64	40	96.912102	to5	1	5	2	7	7	1361	3652	136	58	96.661629	give5	1	5	2	7	8	1538	3656	207	44	96.921448	effect5	1	5	2	7	9	1785	3660	66	42	96.845345	to5	1	5	2	7	10	1890	3658	101	44	96.817162	the5	1	5	2	7	11	2034	3655	203	59	93.185097	rights5	1	5	2	7	12	2279	3659	351	56	96.350792	recognised5	1	5	2	7	13	2672	3659	65	47	96.967453	in5	1	5	2	7	14	2774	3663	100	45	96.488068	the4	1	5	2	8	0	239	3726	2880	57	-1	5	1	5	2	8	1	239	3726	279	42	95.861710	Covenant5	1	5	2	8	2	557	3726	101	41	96.164017	and5	1	5	2	8	3	696	3728	67	39	96.471252	to5	1	5	2	8	4	800	3735	207	33	96.060257	ensure5	1	5	2	8	5	1049	3726	134	42	95.621681	that5	1	5	2	8	6	1222	3735	103	44	96.565125	any5	1	5	2	8	7	1361	3735	212	44	95.700157	person5	1	5	2	8	8	1603	3728	174	43	95.915924	whose5	1	5	2	8	9	1823	3726	200	57	95.920403	rights5	1	5	2	8	10	2067	3739	63	33	96.372063	or5	1	5	2	8	11	2175	3731	274	43	95.820541	freedoms5	1	5	2	8	12	2490	3743	102	32	89.303757	are5	1	5	2	8	13	2630	3731	281	47	96.432404	violated5	1	5	2	8	14	2951	3735	168	43	95.874428	shall4	1	5	2	9	0	238	3792	2881	64	-1	5	1	5	2	9	1	238	3794	137	44	96.664894	have5	1	5	2	9	2	415	3804	70	34	96.573425	an5	1	5	2	9	3	521	3792	310	46	95.939224	effective5	1	5	2	9	4	875	3794	228	56	96.035179	remedy.5	1	5	2	9	5	1189	3796	65	40	94.724510	In5	1	5	2	9	6	1293	3806	67	32	96.549385	an5	1	5	2	9	7	1397	3796	174	54	96.388138	early5	1	5	2	9	8	1606	3795	280	45	95.697662	decision5	1	5	2	9	9	1928	3795	311	59	95.950218	involving5	1	5	2	9	10	2277	3810	32	33	96.379166	a5	1	5	2	9	11	2349	3798	454	58	96.191544	disappearance5	1	5	2	9	12	2850	3800	269	52	96.841011	(30/19784	1	5	2	10	0	240	3862	2602	62	-1	5	1	5	2	10	1	240	3863	203	44	92.000877	Bleier5	1	5	2	10	2	485	3875	57	33	90.161415	v.5	1	5	2	10	3	586	3862	274	58	96.384834	Uruguay)5	1	5	2	10	4	908	3864	99	44	96.913452	the5	1	5	2	10	5	1045	3863	339	49	95.487122	Committee,5	1	5	2	10	6	1434	3866	167	44	95.487122	after5	1	5	2	10	7	1642	3866	211	57	96.723129	noting5	1	5	2	10	8	1890	3870	136	42	96.369194	that5	1	5	2	10	9	2068	3868	313	56	84.381744	according5	1	5	2	10	10	2420	3874	65	40	92.979195	to5	1	5	2	10	11	2525	3872	317	44	22.182283	uncefuted2	1	6	0	0	0	1609	4147	167	45	-1	3	1	6	1	0	0	1609	4147	167	45	-1	4	1	6	1	1	0	1609	4147	167	45	-1	5	1	6	1	1	1	1609	4147	167	45	35.905922	-~163-2	1	7	0	0	0	0	4288	3291	61	-1	3	1	7	1	0	0	0	4288	3291	61	-1	4	1	7	1	1	0	0	4288	3291	61	-1	5	1	7	1	1	1	0	4288	3291	61	95.000000
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-006.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-006.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..68a74eb3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-006.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Qllegations “Eduardo Bleier’s name was on a list of prisoners read out once a week
+at an army unit in Montevideo where his family delivered clothing for him and
+received his dirty clothing until the summer of 1976" (i.e. after the “crucial
+date"), urged the Uruguayan Government to5	1	1	1	4	7	1740	360	136	45	96.114067	take5	1	1	1	4	8	1916	358	311	48	96.059235	effective5	1	1	1	4	9	2268	365	172	53	89.491562	steps5	1	1	1	4	10	2486	390	86	19	89.491562	...5	1	1	1	4	11	2620	366	66	43	96.358627	to5	1	1	1	4	12	2724	362	314	48	96.358627	establish4	1	1	1	5	0	225	424	2773	58	-1	5	1	1	1	5	1	225	424	140	45	95.411606	what5	1	1	1	5	2	401	425	101	43	95.411606	has5	1	1	1	5	3	542	425	283	56	96.111610	happened5	1	1	1	5	4	863	429	66	43	95.787895	to5	1	1	1	5	5	967	425	242	48	93.286156	Eduardo5	1	1	1	5	6	1248	426	205	46	89.845413	Bleier5	1	1	1	5	7	1496	426	170	47	62.898560	since5	1	1	1	5	8	1700	429	246	47	95.962822	October5	1	1	1	5	9	1987	430	134	47	95.912384	19755	1	1	1	5	10	2168	429	159	53	89.338135	(i.e.5	1	1	1	5	11	2371	433	209	47	96.870453	before5	1	1	1	5	12	2621	434	100	44	97.000046	the5	1	1	1	5	13	2760	433	238	47	96.434746	crucial4	1	1	1	6	0	226	492	2847	66	-1	5	1	1	1	6	1	226	493	138	45	96.436417	date5	1	1	1	6	2	401	493	104	45	96.488007	but5	1	1	1	6	3	538	492	144	46	95.975090	with5	1	1	1	6	4	721	493	420	48	95.886780	continuation5	1	1	1	6	5	1177	497	172	45	95.886131	after5	1	1	1	6	6	1390	498	136	44	96.552299	that5	1	1	1	6	7	1562	496	201	52	93.833664	date),5	1	1	1	6	8	1811	502	65	42	96.701828	to5	1	1	1	6	9	1915	497	173	57	96.437462	bring5	1	1	1	6	10	2127	504	66	41	95.624130	to5	1	1	1	6	11	2232	498	241	59	96.132835	justice5	1	1	1	6	12	2513	512	104	46	96.502693	any5	1	1	1	6	13	2652	513	210	45	96.502693	person5	1	1	1	6	14	2902	505	171	46	96.277145	found4	1	1	1	7	0	229	561	2632	67	-1	5	1	1	1	7	1	229	565	65	41	95.718628	to5	1	1	1	7	2	332	562	65	44	95.718628	be5	1	1	1	7	3	441	561	381	57	96.601089	responsible5	1	1	1	7	4	862	565	99	43	96.127930	for5	1	1	1	7	5	998	564	103	44	96.482941	his5	1	1	1	7	6	1141	565	200	48	95.833252	death,5	1	1	1	7	7	1386	565	453	59	96.130302	disappearance5	1	1	1	7	8	1879	578	67	34	96.263763	or5	1	1	1	7	9	1987	566	478	52	93.711708	ill-treatment,5	1	1	1	7	10	2512	572	105	44	95.171219	and5	1	1	1	7	11	2654	576	67	40	95.719765	to5	1	1	1	7	12	2757	582	104	46	95.719765	pay4	1	1	1	8	0	228	630	2669	63	-1	5	1	1	1	8	1	228	630	417	58	95.878937	compensation5	1	1	1	8	2	685	636	64	41	96.706169	to5	1	1	1	8	3	786	630	104	47	95.775742	him5	1	1	1	8	4	930	642	65	35	95.771950	or5	1	1	1	8	5	1034	632	101	46	96.516281	his5	1	1	1	8	6	1178	633	208	57	95.905609	family5	1	1	1	8	7	1424	637	100	44	96.670189	for5	1	1	1	8	8	1563	646	104	47	96.784531	any5	1	1	1	8	9	1704	634	211	59	96.862129	injury5	1	1	1	8	10	1945	637	178	47	96.146767	which5	1	1	1	8	11	2159	640	66	44	96.877571	he5	1	1	1	8	12	2263	641	102	44	96.888611	has5	1	1	1	8	13	2408	641	338	47	81.497269	suffered.
+In
+another case (107/1981 Quinteros v. Uruguay) the Committee was of the view that the
+information before it revealed breaches of articles 7, 9 and 10, paragraph 1, of
+the Covenant and concluded that the responsibility for the disappearance of Elena
+Quinteros fell on the authorities of Uruguay and that the State party should take
+immediate and effective steps (i) to establish what has happened to Elena Quinteros
+Since 26 June 1976, and secure her release, (ii) to bring to justice any persons
+found to be responsible for her disappearance and ill-treatment, (iii) to pay
+compensation for the wrongs suffered, and (iv) to ensure that similar violations do
+not occur in the future. In the latter case, the author of the communication was
+the mother of the disappeared victim who had alleged that she, too, was a victim of
+a violation of article 7, (psychological torture because she did not know about the
+whereabouts of her daughter) and who had given ample description of her
+sufferings. The Committee expressed its understanding with the anguish and stress
+caused to the mother both by the disappearance of her daughter and by the
+continuing uncertainty concerning her fate and whereabouts. She had the right to
+know what had happened to her daughter. The Committee therefore found that in
+these respects she was also a victim of a violation of the Covenant.
+I draw the following conclusions. A disappearance per se does not raise any
+issue under the Covenant. For it to do so, a link to some of the material articles
+of the Covenant is required. And it is solely with such a link that article 2 of
+the Covenant may become applicable and an issue may arise under that article too.
+Should it become clear that the cause of the disappecrance is attributable to a
+killing for which the State party must be held responsible, but that the killing
+took place before the crucial5	1	2	1	7	6	1307	2375	199	47	65.839104	date, then this killing cannot be deemed to
+constitute a violation of article 6 of the Covenant, notwithstanding that it was a
+crime against the right to life under domestic penal law. Consequently, a claim
+regarding the non-fulfillment of a State party's obligations under article 2 of the
+Covenant also cannot arise. But, on the other hand, if a killing before the
+“crucial date" is merely one hypothesis among several others, the case law of the
+Committee clearly indicates that under article 2 of the Covenant the State party is
+under a duty to carry out a meaningful investigation. Only when it is unimaginable
+that any act, fact or situation which would constitute a violation of the Covenant
+may have continued to exist or have occurred subsequent to the crucial5	1	2	1	16	13	2746	3008	199	50	87.583107	date”,5	1	2	1	16	14	2994	3011	138	44	96.329918	such4	1	2	1	17	0	209	3070	2920	59	-1	5	1	2	1	17	1	209	3083	69	34	95.928970	an5	1	2	1	17	2	314	3070	350	59	93.049530	obligation5	1	2	1	17	3	701	3082	134	36	87.847168	aoes5	1	2	1	17	4	878	3076	101	42	93.262260	not5	1	2	1	17	5	1019	3071	199	47	95.071533	arise.5	1	2	1	17	6	1304	3076	63	43	92.926636	It5	1	2	1	17	7	1408	3075	210	44	96.450539	should5	1	2	1	17	8	1651	3076	71	43	96.265205	be5	1	2	1	17	9	1760	3076	172	45	95.583855	added5	1	2	1	17	10	1975	3078	134	43	95.583855	that5	1	2	1	17	11	2148	3087	32	32	96.091003	a5	1	2	1	17	12	2216	3076	388	46	96.091003	declaration5	1	2	1	17	13	2644	3080	169	43	92.697121	under5	1	2	1	17	14	2853	3078	276	47	82.275406	domertic4	1	2	1	18	0	209	3140	2779	61	-1	5	1	2	1	18	1	209	3140	168	47	95.903397	civil5	1	2	1	18	2	422	3143	102	44	95.650223	law5	1	2	1	18	3	562	3140	66	46	95.439522	in5	1	2	1	18	4	669	3147	241	51	95.893005	respect5	1	2	1	18	5	947	3144	67	44	95.647156	of5	1	2	1	18	6	1055	3154	32	33	96.399582	a5	1	2	1	18	7	1123	3142	387	57	95.524254	disappeared5	1	2	1	18	8	1544	3147	280	54	96.135773	person's5	1	2	1	18	9	1867	3147	172	44	96.533463	death5	1	2	1	18	10	2076	3147	135	46	96.099564	does5	1	2	1	18	11	2255	3151	100	42	94.932007	not5	1	2	1	18	12	2397	3151	99	42	95.688583	set5	1	2	1	18	13	2537	3146	171	48	95.940140	aside5	1	2	1	18	14	2748	3159	32	34	96.961853	a5	1	2	1	18	15	2817	3150	171	45	96.328262	State4	1	2	1	19	0	205	3211	2783	62	-1	5	1	2	1	19	1	205	3212	243	55	96.605865	party's5	1	2	1	19	2	488	3211	350	56	95.601524	obligation5	1	2	1	19	3	878	3215	171	43	96.982246	under5	1	2	1	19	4	1091	3215	100	42	96.508171	the5	1	2	1	19	5	1228	3215	306	43	96.011543	Covenant.5	1	2	1	19	6	1618	3214	278	45	95.648613	Domestic5	1	2	1	19	7	1936	3214	171	45	95.860031	civil5	1	2	1	19	8	2149	3216	103	44	95.481430	law5	1	2	1	19	9	2287	3215	349	58	95.481430	provisions5	1	2	1	19	10	2678	3222	207	41	96.141647	cannot5	1	2	1	19	11	2921	3219	67	44	96.633408	be4	1	2	1	20	0	205	3279	2785	63	-1	5	1	2	1	20	1	205	3279	177	57	96.302193	given5	1	2	1	20	2	418	3283	348	53	96.594208	precedence5	1	2	1	20	3	806	3292	136	34	96.383568	over5	1	2	1	20	4	986	3282	449	45	96.283096	international5	1	2	1	20	5	1480	3284	166	55	95.847504	legal5	1	2	1	20	6	1687	3283	412	56	95.873817	obligations.5	1	2	1	20	7	2177	3287	283	44	96.074776	Whatever5	1	2	1	20	8	2501	3287	100	44	96.757278	the5	1	2	1	20	9	2645	3288	207	54	96.820419	length5	1	2	1	20	10	2889	3290	101	42	96.847855	and4	1	2	1	21	0	209	3351	2848	61	-1	5	1	2	1	21	1	209	3351	415	55	95.884941	thoroughness5	1	2	1	21	2	663	3352	66	43	96.468193	be5	1	2	1	21	3	770	3351	209	47	96.288795	deemed5	1	2	1	21	4	1018	3362	315	46	96.443504	necessary5	1	2	1	21	5	1372	3354	99	44	96.475433	for5	1	2	1	21	6	1511	3364	69	35	96.051834	an5	1	2	1	21	7	1620	3352	454	58	96.134483	investigation5	1	2	1	21	8	2113	3359	64	40	95.945961	to5	1	2	1	21	9	2217	3354	244	58	96.090088	satisfy5	1	2	1	21	10	2501	3356	100	46	96.323769	the5	1	2	1	21	11	2645	3354	412	58	96.356804	requirements4	1	2	1	22	0	206	3419	2747	63	-1	5	1	2	1	22	1	206	3422	171	44	96.569649	under5	1	2	1	22	2	420	3422	100	42	96.981346	the5	1	2	1	22	3	557	3422	278	44	96.267067	Covenant5	1	2	1	22	4	879	3419	62	45	96.421593	is5	1	2	1	22	5	983	3426	66	40	96.951950	to5	1	2	1	22	6	1086	3422	67	45	96.931450	be5	1	2	1	22	7	1195	3422	348	46	96.193153	considered5	1	2	1	22	8	1583	3434	136	35	96.337341	case5	1	2	1	22	9	1758	3426	68	54	96.772812	by5	1	2	1	22	10	1867	3435	160	37	96.699303	case,5	1	2	1	22	11	2073	3426	103	44	96.376717	but5	1	2	1	22	12	2216	3435	71	33	96.573784	an5	1	2	1	22	13	2325	3423	455	59	95.030945	investigation5	1	2	1	22	14	2812	3431	141	40	96.195427	must4	1	2	1	23	0	205	3490	2749	62	-1	5	1	2	1	23	1	205	3491	172	44	95.830513	under5	1	2	1	23	2	420	3491	97	44	96.537010	all5	1	2	1	23	3	557	3490	454	46	96.341927	circumstances5	1	2	1	23	4	1051	3494	66	42	95.295723	be5	1	2	1	23	5	1159	3494	315	44	95.643677	conducted5	1	2	1	23	6	1512	3492	232	56	95.643677	fairly,5	1	2	1	23	7	1789	3492	388	58	95.599907	objectively5	1	2	1	23	8	2217	3495	103	44	95.689796	and5	1	2	1	23	9	2361	3492	407	60	96.122971	impartially.5	1	2	1	23	10	2850	3499	104	53	95.721382	Any4	1	2	1	24	0	205	3560	2887	63	-1	5	1	2	1	24	1	205	3560	373	58	96.630356	negligence,5	1	2	1	24	2	629	3560	385	59	96.404541	suppression5	1	2	1	24	3	1051	3564	64	43	95.882431	of5	1	2	1	24	4	1156	3562	279	48	96.087906	evidence5	1	2	1	24	5	1475	3574	64	34	96.981079	or5	1	2	1	24	6	1582	3567	170	41	93.302101	other5	1	2	1	24	7	1795	3564	418	59	69.190437	irreqularity5	1	2	1	24	8	2256	3564	417	59	72.626480	jeopardizing5	1	2	1	24	9	2712	3568	98	46	96.942368	the5	1	2	1	24	10	2850	3571	242	43	96.556992	outcome4	1	2	1	25	0	200	3631	2918	60	-1	5	1	2	1	25	1	200	3636	140	40	94.693596	must5	1	2	1	25	2	381	3634	64	44	95.999916	be5	1	2	1	25	3	489	3634	279	54	96.268806	regarded5	1	2	1	25	4	805	3644	64	35	95.515106	as5	1	2	1	25	5	911	3644	31	34	95.515106	a5	1	2	1	25	6	979	3631	318	48	95.465561	violation5	1	2	1	25	7	1332	3636	67	42	95.573479	of5	1	2	1	25	8	1441	3635	98	45	96.366211	the5	1	2	1	25	9	1580	3634	383	57	95.666046	obligations5	1	2	1	25	10	2005	3636	168	44	96.079292	under5	1	2	1	25	11	2216	3635	241	47	95.143715	article5	1	2	1	25	12	2500	3639	27	41	96.806816	25	1	2	1	25	13	2568	3639	67	43	96.942261	of5	1	2	1	25	14	2677	3638	99	44	96.659767	the5	1	2	1	25	15	2814	3640	304	48	96.159393	Covenant,2	1	3	0	0	0	1582	4128	168	43	-1	3	1	3	1	0	0	1582	4128	168	43	-1	4	1	3	1	1	0	1582	4128	168	43	-1	5	1	3	1	1	1	1582	4128	168	43	79.165695	~164-2	1	4	0	0	0	0	4291	3141	57	-1	3	1	4	1	0	0	0	4291	3141	57	-1	4	1	4	1	1	0	0	4291	3141	57	-1	5	1	4	1	1	1	0	4291	3141	57	95.000000
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-007.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-007.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..d41c31d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988/page-007.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+in conjunction with a relevant material article. And once an investigation has
+been closed due to lack of adequate results, it must be reopened if new and
+pertinent information comes to light.
+Bertil WENNERGREN
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-001.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-001.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..811a46b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-001.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+J. Communication No. 250/1987. Carlton Reid v. Jamaica ‘views
+adopted on 20 July 1990, at the thirty-ninth session)
+Submitted by: Carlton Reid (represented by counse:)
+Alleged victim: The author
+State party concerned: Jamaica
+Date of communication: 7 August 1987 (initial submission)
+Date of decision on admissibility: 30 March 1989
+The Human Rightea Committee, established under article 28 of the International
+Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
+hating on 20 July 1990,
+Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 250/1987, submitted to
+the Committee by Mr. Carlton Reid under the Optional Protocol to the International
+Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
+Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the
+author of the communication and by the State party,
+Adopts the followirg:
+Views under article 5. paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol*
+1. The author of the communication (initial submission dated 7 August 1987 and
+subsequent correspondence) is Carlton Reid, a Jamaican citizen awaiting execution
+at St. Catherine District Prison, Jamaica. He claims to be the victim of a
+violation by the Government of Jamaica of articles 6, 7 and 14 of the International
+Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel.
+2.1 The author was arrested on 2 December 1983 and charged with the murder, on
+10 June 1983, of one Miriam Henry, at the site of the Water Commission at Langley,
+Mount James. His trial took place in the Home Circuit of Kingston on 25 and
+26 March 1985; he was found guilty and sentenced to death. On 6 October 1986, the
+Jamaican Court. of Appeal dismissed his appeal.
+2.2 The prosecution accused the author of being one of three armed robbers who
+raided the payroll of the Water Commission Pumping Station on 10 June 1983. It is
+reported that the perpetrators first proceeded to the kitchen, where the author
+purportedly wounded a woman by shooting her in the arm. The shot was not fatal and
+she, together with others, escaped to another building where they locked themselves
+in a room on the first floor. Witnesses identified the author as being one of the
+* Au individual opinion submitted by Mr. Bertil Wennergren is appended.
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-002.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-002.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..e20738b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-002.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+robbers in the kitchen, but the murder allegedly took place in the upstairs room to
+where the group had fled. During the trial the prosecution argued that the author
+had gone upstairs. Of the persons ir the upstairs room, the only witness who was
+called, Mr. F. Josephs, testified that after the door had been opened, the author
+entered the room with a gun and that the wounded woman was shot in the head.
+2.3 According to the author, Mr. Josephs’ evidence was unreliable. First, he had
+Gescribed him as wearing no mask, which was in complete contradiction to the
+evidence of all the other witnesser who had identified him as wearing a mask.
+Secondly, Mr. Josephs testified that the author had dragged him down the stairs,
+although none of those downstairs had seen this and no one had identified the
+author as either walking vr or down the stairs at any time. Another witness who
+had been in the downstairs room, Ms. Hermione Henry, testified during the
+preliminary inquiry that two men had run upstairs and that one of them was carrying
+a shotgun. It was agreed that the author was not the man with the shotgun, and
+Miss Henry never identified either man as the author. During the trial, Miss Henry
+retracted her testimony given during the preliminary inquiry and claimed that the
+man with the shotgun had remained downstairs with her all the time.
+2.4 At the conclusion of the trial, the author claims, the judge failed to comply
+with his duty to direct the jury on the rolevant points of law and to sum up for
+the jurors the evidence relevant. to the charge. It is alleged that he failed to
+mention any of the evidence as to what had happened in the upstairs room, where the
+murder had taken place, and even forgot to tell the jury that the murder had
+occurred in that room. In short, according to the author, he did not refer to any
+of the evidence concerning the murder charge on which the jury had to return a
+verdict. This, in his opinion, was tantamount to summing up a different case
+altogether, since the judge only focused on the robbery-related evidence, where the
+identification evidence was strong, although none of that evidence related to the
+murder.
+2.5 Following his conviction, the author appealed to the Jamaican Court of
+Appeal. He claims that, on appeal, few lawyers are willing to accept legal aid
+assignments. ‘fhe lawyer who had been assigned to argue his appeal informed him
+that an appeal would be futile. The author requested that a different lawyer be
+assigned to his case. This notwithstanding and against his wishes, the lawyer who
+had first been assigned to argue the appeal appeared before the Court of Appeal and
+informed it that there were no grounds of appeal. This, apparently, relieved the
+Court of Appeal from having to examine the case ex officio, as it would have been
+required to do if no lawyer had appeared for the author. Faced with the lawyer's
+concession, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 6 October 1986.
+3. By decision of 12 November 1987, the Human Rights Committee transmitted the
+communication, under rule 91 of its rules of procedure, to the State party,
+requesting information and observations relevant to the question of the
+admissibility of the communication. The Committee further requested the State
+party, under rule 86 of its rules of procedure, not to carry out the death sentence
+against the author before the Committee had had the opportunity to decide on the
+question of admissibility. In addition, the Committee requested clarifications
+concerning the case from both the State party and the author.
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-003.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-003.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ebf48968
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-003.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+4. By letter dated 29 December 1987, the author provided a number of
+clarifications. He indicated that the first time he was able to communicate with
+the legal-aid attorney assigned to his case was on the opening day of the trial.
+The lawyer requested a pontponement because he had not been able to discuse the
+case with the accuged, but the judge refused to grant it. Apparentiy, the lawyer
+was wholly unprepared and reportedly told the author that re did not know which
+questions to pose to the witnesses. With respect to the appeal, the author stated
+in a further letter dated 11 March 1988 that, prior to the hearing of his appeal,
+he had received a letter dated 1 September 1986 from the lawyer assigned to argue
+the appeal, reading as follows: I5	1	1	1	10	7	1458	877	66	35	95.199387	am5	1	1	1	10	8	1564	876	171	45	96.221649	sorry5	1	1	1	10	9	1776	872	61	41	96.790550	to5	1	1	1	10	10	1876	865	349	60	95.942329	disappoint5	1	1	1	10	11	2263	878	128	46	95.452499	you,5	1	1	1	10	12	2438	870	104	46	96.668816	but5	1	1	1	10	13	2580	868	208	57	96.764519	having5	1	1	1	10	14	2830	870	134	46	91.660614	read5	1	1	1	10	15	3004	872	96	44	96.318810	the4	1	1	1	11	0	205	932	2756	62	-1	5	1	1	1	11	1	205	932	342	57	0.000000	transcript5	1	1	1	11	2	583	934	64	44	96.987968	of5	1	1	1	11	3	690	944	133	46	96.581017	your5	1	1	1	11	4	864	945	160	37	95.695847	case,5	1	1	1	11	5	1077	937	24	41	95.392059	I5	1	1	1	11	6	1144	940	205	41	95.392059	cannot5	1	1	1	11	7	1390	934	136	47	95.734604	find5	1	1	1	11	8	1564	946	100	46	89.469666	any5	1	1	1	11	9	1699	936	176	46	60.010792	marit5	1	1	1	11	10	1913	937	68	44	95.194191	in5	1	1	1	11	11	2020	940	98	42	95.820541	the5	1	1	1	11	12	2159	940	234	54	93.850372	appeal.5	1	1	1	11	13	2475	941	136	43	95.801453	Four5	1	1	1	11	14	2647	938	314	47	95.829765	witnesses4	1	1	1	12	0	205	1001	2644	64	-1	5	1	1	1	12	1	205	1001	342	48	95.734627	identified5	1	1	1	12	2	582	1014	105	46	96.709862	you5	1	1	1	12	3	724	1013	63	35	95.589981	as5	1	1	1	12	4	829	1005	99	43	96.201035	the5	1	1	1	12	5	969	1002	231	48	95.912384	killer.5	1	1	1	12	6	1279	1006	138	43	93.842819	That5	1	1	1	12	7	1456	1004	276	46	96.540054	evidence5	1	1	1	12	8	1772	1010	208	42	96.622330	cannot5	1	1	1	12	9	2016	1008	66	45	96.654236	be5	1	1	1	12	10	2121	1009	350	45	95.461632	overturned5	1	1	1	12	11	2510	1020	68	34	95.461632	on5	1	1	1	12	12	2616	1010	233	55	93.733002	appeal.4	1	1	1	13	0	198	1072	2798	62	-1	5	1	1	1	13	1	198	1073	478	55	96.072334	Unfortunately,5	1	1	1	13	2	725	1073	23	44	96.327988	I5	1	1	1	13	3	789	1072	138	45	95.100441	will5	1	1	1	13	4	968	1074	65	44	96.150986	be5	1	1	1	13	5	1074	1074	204	44	96.327835	unable5	1	1	1	13	6	1319	1078	63	40	96.863312	to5	1	1	1	13	7	1423	1073	204	47	95.979202	assist5	1	1	1	13	8	1665	1086	104	46	95.979202	you5	1	1	1	13	9	1808	1086	100	46	96.676208	any5	1	1	1	13	10	1949	1077	308	45	90.908958	further.
+Although the author
+did request the services of a different attorney, this lawyer represented him in
+the Court of Appeal. In fact, he argued that “having carefully read the record and
+considered the learned trial judge's summation, he could find no arguable ground to
+support the application."
+5. In its submission under rule 91, dated 26 May 1908, the State party arqued
+that the communication was inadmissible on the grounds of the author's failure to
+exhaust all available domestic remedies, as required by article 5, paragraph 2 (b),
+of the Optional Protocol. It asserted that the author could still apply, purevant
+to section 110 of the Jamaican Constitution, for special leave to appeal to the
+Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that legal aid would be available to
+him for that purpose. The State party also confirmed that the Court of Appeal
+dismissed the author's appeal on the grounds outlined in paragraph 4 above.
+6.1 Commenting on the State party's submissior, author's counsel, by letter dated
+10 February 1989, iIndicatos that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
+dismissed the author's petition for special leave tu appeal on 29 November 1988.
+This, it is submitted, means that all available domestic remedies in the case have
+been exhausted. Counsel explains, in this context, that the only way for the
+author to file an application for special leave to appeal was to seek the
+assistance of English solicitors and counsel willing to act pro bong, as legal aid
+available for defendants to submit their case to the Privy Council is inadequate.
+6.2 Counsel further states that the grounds on which the Privy Council will
+entertain appeals from Commonwealth countries in criminal matters are limited. The
+Privy Council has established the rule that it will not act as a court of criminal
+appeal and has restricted appeals in criminal matters to such cases where, in its
+opinion, some issues of constitutional importance arise or where a substantial4	1	1	1	39	0	197	3084	2725	70	-1	5	1	1	1	39	1	197	3084	339	56	53.578789	injustice”5	1	1	1	39	2	575	3088	100	43	92.522652	has5	1	1	1	39	3	715	3090	302	42	85.959030	ocourred.5	1	1	1	39	4	1098	3091	103	43	96.118958	The5	1	1	1	39	5	1241	3088	172	56	95.666771	Privy5	1	1	1	39	6	1450	3091	309	47	95.666771	Council's5	1	1	1	39	7	1803	3091	416	57	96.177055	jurisdiction5	1	1	1	39	8	2262	3094	88	48	96.744370	is,5	1	1	1	39	9	2400	3098	336	48	96.473755	therefore,5	1	1	1	39	10	2784	3110	138	44	96.824318	very4	1	1	1	40	0	193	3155	2543	67	-1	5	1	1	1	40	1	193	3166	230	33	91.353806	narrow.5	1	1	1	40	2	508	3159	64	40	83.868187	In5	1	1	1	40	3	610	3155	277	57	95.597656	applying5	1	1	1	40	4	929	3155	95	47	95.466934	its5	1	1	1	40	5	1066	3168	205	35	96.247849	narrow5	1	1	1	40	6	1311	3164	159	44	96.538612	test,5	1	1	1	40	7	1523	3159	61	48	96.902496	it5	1	1	1	40	8	1623	3160	315	48	96.314499	dismissed5	1	1	1	40	9	1978	3164	98	44	96.324150	the5	1	1	1	40	10	2118	3166	275	44	96.057579	author's5	1	1	1	40	11	2431	3164	305	58	95.052849	petition.4	1	1	1	41	0	194	3292	2830	62	-1	5	1	1	1	41	1	194	3295	95	43	94.213837	6.35	1	1	1	41	2	362	3292	140	44	94.213837	With5	1	1	1	41	3	543	3299	237	51	95.640381	respect5	1	1	1	41	4	821	3300	63	40	95.795349	to5	1	1	1	41	5	929	3298	95	42	96.723267	the5	1	1	1	41	6	1066	3298	239	54	96.455956	alleged5	1	1	1	41	7	1342	3298	313	46	96.363251	violation5	1	1	1	41	8	1693	3303	66	41	96.790710	of5	1	1	1	41	9	1800	3300	240	47	96.558998	article5	1	1	1	41	10	2084	3304	61	42	96.334747	145	1	1	1	41	11	2185	3306	66	42	94.993149	of5	1	1	1	41	12	2294	3306	99	42	96.038490	the5	1	1	1	41	13	2431	3307	304	47	96.304543	Covenant,5	1	1	1	41	14	2785	3310	239	42	94.261116	counsel4	1	1	1	42	0	194	3362	2657	69	-1	5	1	1	1	42	1	194	3362	304	57	95.985855	specifies5	1	1	1	42	2	543	3364	133	44	96.843513	that5	1	1	1	42	3	716	3366	97	42	96.797119	the5	1	1	1	42	4	855	3367	205	43	96.198776	author5	1	1	1	42	5	1096	3378	102	33	96.259697	was5	1	1	1	42	6	1238	3367	278	57	95.941994	deprived5	1	1	1	42	7	1554	3371	64	43	96.147285	of5	1	1	1	42	8	1660	3381	32	33	96.608849	a5	1	1	1	42	9	1733	3370	131	45	96.275330	fair5	1	1	1	42	10	1905	3369	169	47	96.275330	trial5	1	1	1	42	11	2113	3371	210	47	96.624161	within5	1	1	1	42	12	2365	3375	98	43	96.906509	the5	1	1	1	42	13	2500	3375	247	56	96.378754	meaning5	1	1	1	42	14	2785	3378	66	44	96.703392	of4	1	1	1	43	0	193	3431	2623	69	-1	5	1	1	1	43	1	193	3431	237	47	94.510887	article5	1	1	1	43	2	471	3434	89	49	94.510887	14,5	1	1	1	43	3	607	3436	316	55	96.201439	paragraph5	1	1	1	43	4	961	3439	53	45	96.508789	1,5	1	1	1	43	5	1064	3438	239	44	96.127136	because5	1	1	1	43	6	1345	3440	98	43	96.388550	the5	1	1	1	43	7	1487	3438	167	57	96.252121	judge5	1	1	1	43	8	1695	3451	168	35	96.148209	never5	1	1	1	43	9	1902	3447	103	51	96.628922	put5	1	1	1	43	10	2046	3447	66	40	96.324615	to5	1	1	1	43	11	2153	3446	98	41	96.028290	the5	1	1	1	43	12	2294	3442	134	58	95.941048	jury5	1	1	1	43	13	2468	3455	102	45	96.285721	any5	1	1	1	43	14	2607	3448	66	42	96.269104	of5	1	1	1	43	15	2716	3448	100	44	96.776253	the4	1	1	1	44	0	191	3502	2763	70	-1	5	1	1	1	44	1	191	3502	272	46	95.706726	evidence5	1	1	1	44	2	508	3504	272	56	88.395660	relating5	1	1	1	44	3	821	3510	63	41	96.373703	to5	1	1	1	44	4	927	3507	97	44	95.932480	the5	1	1	1	44	5	1061	3508	206	43	95.932480	murder5	1	1	1	44	6	1307	3510	102	42	95.974876	but5	1	1	1	44	7	1448	3511	138	53	96.286926	only5	1	1	1	44	8	1623	3508	276	50	95.642593	evidence5	1	1	1	44	9	1944	3511	274	59	96.305061	relating5	1	1	1	44	10	2259	3518	63	40	95.738289	to5	1	1	1	44	11	2366	3516	97	43	95.738289	the5	1	1	1	44	12	2507	3516	265	56	94.995583	robbery.5	1	1	1	44	13	2854	3516	100	46	49.832249	His4	1	1	1	45	0	193	3575	2865	63	-1	5	1	1	1	45	1	193	3575	342	53	95.787704	subsequent5	1	1	1	45	2	574	3576	202	54	96.311653	appeal5	1	1	1	45	3	821	3580	63	40	96.658524	to5	1	1	1	45	4	928	3578	97	42	96.352081	the5	1	1	1	45	5	1064	3576	275	46	96.619438	Jamaican5	1	1	1	45	6	1377	3580	171	43	95.728508	Court5	1	1	1	45	7	1587	3582	67	42	95.405823	of5	1	1	1	45	8	1693	3583	232	53	95.860329	Appeal,5	1	1	1	45	9	1976	3583	313	55	96.173660	according5	1	1	1	45	10	2327	3588	66	40	95.966110	to5	1	1	1	45	11	2432	3588	268	46	96.409782	counsel,5	1	1	1	45	12	2744	3598	104	34	96.380493	was5	1	1	1	45	13	2889	3599	169	35	96.538986	never4	1	1	1	46	0	190	3640	2659	71	-1	5	1	1	1	46	1	190	3640	348	47	96.156158	determined5	1	1	1	46	2	574	3654	67	32	95.317352	on5	1	1	1	46	3	682	3646	97	41	96.398224	the5	1	1	1	46	4	815	3643	207	46	96.111198	merits5	1	1	1	46	5	1064	3647	238	44	96.537773	because5	1	1	1	46	6	1342	3648	65	43	95.958015	of5	1	1	1	46	7	1451	3650	97	42	96.198219	the5	1	1	1	46	8	1588	3648	349	47	96.473228	concession5	1	1	1	46	9	1973	3654	137	42	96.717743	made5	1	1	1	46	10	2150	3654	68	54	96.760193	by5	1	1	1	46	11	2259	3655	99	43	96.501907	the5	1	1	1	46	12	2400	3655	230	56	95.777077	lawyer.5	1	1	1	46	13	2712	3655	137	45	96.250893	This4	1	1	1	47	0	193	3710	2727	68	-1	5	1	1	1	47	1	193	3710	334	49	95.680649	situation,5	1	1	1	47	2	578	3712	62	43	96.921783	it5	1	1	1	47	3	683	3714	58	42	96.273529	is5	1	1	1	47	4	787	3712	331	51	96.273529	submitted,5	1	1	1	47	5	1170	3718	133	44	96.471733	also5	1	1	1	47	6	1343	3716	380	47	96.454201	constitutes5	1	1	1	47	7	1764	3731	32	32	95.561302	a5	1	1	1	47	8	1835	3720	313	46	87.968285	violation5	1	1	1	47	9	2185	3724	66	43	96.714378	of5	1	1	1	47	10	2293	3726	311	52	95.712822	safeguard5	1	1	1	47	11	2640	3727	95	43	94.763321	No.5	1	1	1	47	12	2785	3730	29	40	94.037971	45	1	1	1	47	13	2854	3730	66	41	94.911728	of4	1	1	1	48	0	192	3779	2657	72	-1	5	1	1	1	48	1	192	3779	270	45	96.004280	Economic5	1	1	1	48	2	504	3783	100	43	96.004280	and5	1	1	1	48	3	644	3782	201	45	95.481064	Social5	1	1	1	48	4	888	3783	237	44	96.680237	Council5	1	1	1	48	5	1172	3786	343	45	96.185783	resolution5	1	1	1	48	6	1556	3788	237	46	96.334419	1984/505	1	1	1	48	7	1835	3792	62	42	96.276649	of5	1	1	1	48	8	1944	3792	61	41	96.011200	255	1	1	1	48	9	2041	3794	107	53	96.011200	May5	1	1	1	48	10	2189	3794	130	41	96.740715	19845	1	1	1	48	11	2362	3804	66	32	96.740715	on5	1	1	1	48	12	2471	3794	378	57	96.372063	Safeguards
+guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty", which
+states: Capital5	1	1	1	50	3	817	3920	345	59	95.918793	punishment5	1	1	1	50	4	1198	3936	105	44	96.531418	may5	1	1	1	50	5	1341	3927	65	43	96.298882	be5	1	1	1	50	6	1451	3926	238	56	96.360268	imposed5	1	1	1	50	7	1728	3931	136	53	96.815491	only5	1	1	1	50	8	1898	3931	143	43	96.746216	when5	1	1	1	50	9	2081	3931	98	44	96.644989	the5	1	1	1	50	10	2218	3930	175	56	95.235168	guilt5	1	1	1	50	11	2431	3934	67	42	95.235168	of5	1	1	1	50	12	2540	3935	97	43	96.884010	the5	1	1	1	50	13	2679	3947	206	43	96.702782	person4	1	1	1	51	0	1572	4210	132	42	-1	5	1	1	1	51	1	1572	4210	132	42	63.768661	-~§7-4	1	1	1	52	0	0	4320	3296	30	-1	5	1	1	1	52	1	0	4320	3296	30	59.197792	eee
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-004.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-004.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..6f6424f1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-004.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+charged in based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an
+alternative explanation of the facts."
+6.4 Counsel submits that the State party further violated article 14,
+paragraph 3 (ad), of the Covenant, because the author was net present during the
+hearing of his appeal and did not have legal assistance of his own choosing. The
+lawyer who appeared for the author before the Court of Appeal had no retainer to
+act, nor 41d he seek to obtain the author's express consent to appear before the
+Court of Appeal and state that there were no grounds of appeal. In these
+ciroumetances, the author should have been provided with an opportunity to obtain
+the services of a different attorney. It is submitted that an individual's right
+to legal representation of his own choosing does not only comprise the trial but
+Q@lso subsequent appellate procedures. Moreover, given that the author's lawyer
+failed to represent him, the author should have been allowed to be present during
+the hearing of the appeal and allowed to argue his own case, if the legal aid
+lawyer was not prepared to do so. Because the author was denied representation of
+his choosing and was not present at the appeal, he was also deprived of his right
+to an effective review of his conviction and sentence by the Jamaican Court of
+Appeal, in violation of article 14, paragraph 5.
+6.8 With respect to the alleged violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant,
+counsel recalls that the author has been confined to death row since his conviction
+om 26 March 1985. It is claimed that the decision as to whether inmates on death
+row are to be executed does not depend on legal grounds, but is a function of
+political considerations, and thus that the author's continued uncertainty as to
+whether or not a warrant for his execution will be issued, and the concomitant
+mental anguish, amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of
+article 7. It is submitted that the resumption of executions after a long delay
+unconnected with legal arguments or procedures would amount t° a violation of
+article 6.
+7.1 The Committee ascertained, as it is required to do under article 5,
+paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter was not being
+examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
+With regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (b), the Committee concluded, on the basis of
+the information provided by the parties, that available domestic remedies had been
+exhausted.
+7.2 On 30 March 1989, the Human Rights Committee therefore declared the
+communication admissible.
+8.1 In its submission under article 4, paragraph 2, dated 15 June 1989, the State
+party contends that the fact that the author's petition for special leave to appeal
+to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was dismissed does not necessarily
+imply that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. It points out that
+the rights under the Covenant which the author alleges have been violated are
+guaranteed to every Jamaican citisen under Chapter III of the Jamaican
+Constitution. Thus, section 20, paragrap, 1, provides:
+“Whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence he shall, unless the
+charge is withdrawn, be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an
+independent and impartial court establisaed by law."
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-005.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-005.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..f48ff9df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-005.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+Section 20, paragraph 6, provides:
+Every5	1	1	1	2	2	587	362	210	47	56.791302	pereon5	1	1	1	2	3	831	353	103	45	96.923149	who5	1	1	1	2	4	976	349	63	49	79.298599	ie5	1	1	1	2	5	1079	352	243	57	95.986603	charged5	1	1	1	2	6	1356	352	140	48	96.097504	with5	1	1	1	2	7	1535	365	32	35	94.901764	a5	1	1	1	2	8	1604	353	272	49	95.521500	criminal5	1	1	1	2	9	1917	357	269	45	96.457680	offence:2	1	2	0	0	0	351	489	2691	133	-1	3	1	2	1	0	0	351	489	2691	133	-1	4	1	2	1	1	0	351	489	2691	65	-1	5	1	2	1	1	1	351	489	87	55	94.771820	(a)5	1	2	1	1	2	517	490	169	47	95.461403	Shall5	1	2	1	1	3	726	493	69	44	95.223869	be5	1	2	1	1	4	835	489	275	49	95.108780	informed5	1	2	1	1	5	1150	502	64	36	95.108780	as5	1	2	1	1	6	1255	502	136	38	95.124512	soon5	1	2	1	1	7	1429	502	65	36	96.607964	as5	1	2	1	1	8	1536	494	344	58	96.494751	reasonably5	1	2	1	1	9	1916	494	409	58	96.633835	practicable,5	1	2	1	1	10	2378	494	64	47	95.164291	in5	1	2	1	1	11	2481	507	32	35	95.164291	a5	1	2	1	1	12	2553	499	277	55	96.351707	language5	1	2	1	1	13	2864	495	178	47	96.454399	which4	1	2	1	2	0	515	561	1849	61	-1	5	1	2	1	2	1	515	561	67	45	96.454689	he5	1	2	1	2	2	623	561	408	51	63.082664	understands,5	1	2	1	2	3	1078	562	66	46	96.887413	of5	1	2	1	2	4	1186	563	98	46	96.916245	the5	1	2	1	2	5	1324	566	204	43	96.005547	nature5	1	2	1	2	6	1568	565	64	44	95.966904	of5	1	2	1	2	7	1675	566	98	43	96.675148	the5	1	2	1	2	8	1812	565	244	45	94.692802	offence5	1	2	1	2	9	2094	566	270	56	93.923103	charged;2	1	3	0	0	0	349	696	2618	122	-1	3	1	3	1	0	0	349	696	2618	122	-1	4	1	3	1	1	0	349	696	2618	66	-1	5	1	3	1	1	1	349	696	88	54	89.811691	(b)5	1	3	1	1	2	517	698	169	47	95.547333	Shall5	1	3	1	1	3	726	701	67	44	96.813423	be5	1	3	1	1	4	830	699	176	57	96.168701	given5	1	3	1	1	5	1044	701	275	56	96.564499	adequate5	1	3	1	1	6	1360	699	134	47	96.745956	time5	1	3	1	1	7	1533	702	102	45	95.658073	and5	1	3	1	1	8	1676	701	340	47	95.658073	facilities5	1	3	1	1	9	2062	703	96	46	96.634285	for5	1	3	1	1	10	2200	703	98	47	96.605881	the5	1	3	1	1	11	2338	704	387	58	96.025444	preparation5	1	3	1	1	12	2760	707	67	45	96.326599	of5	1	3	1	1	13	2864	706	103	45	96.400139	his4	1	3	1	2	0	515	769	271	49	-1	5	1	3	1	2	1	515	769	271	49	84.289268	defence)2	1	4	0	0	0	349	905	2265	130	-1	3	1	4	1	0	0	349	905	2265	130	-1	4	1	4	1	1	0	349	905	2265	65	-1	5	1	4	1	1	1	349	905	87	56	90.684319	(c)5	1	4	1	1	2	515	909	170	45	95.069115	Shall5	1	4	1	1	3	725	911	68	43	95.611145	be5	1	4	1	1	4	831	907	315	58	96.017738	permitted5	1	4	1	1	5	1184	914	64	41	96.477646	to5	1	4	1	1	6	1287	910	208	47	95.785728	defend5	1	4	1	1	7	1531	909	240	48	95.160606	himself5	1	4	1	1	8	1814	910	65	47	95.160606	in5	1	4	1	1	9	1914	923	211	44	96.565559	person5	1	4	1	1	10	2162	923	67	34	96.236603	or5	1	4	1	1	11	2267	915	70	55	95.908615	by5	1	4	1	1	12	2377	923	31	35	95.402840	a5	1	4	1	1	13	2447	915	167	55	96.337074	legal4	1	4	1	2	0	517	977	1142	58	-1	5	1	4	1	2	1	517	977	485	58	93.949501	representative5	1	4	1	2	2	1040	981	66	44	96.759071	of5	1	4	1	2	3	1146	978	100	48	95.904236	his5	1	4	1	2	4	1286	990	104	35	96.408134	own5	1	4	1	2	5	1427	978	232	53	92.437439	choice;2	1	5	0	0	0	346	1114	2729	409	-1	3	1	5	1	0	0	346	1114	2729	409	-1	4	1	5	1	1	0	346	1114	2444	67	-1	5	1	5	1	1	1	346	1114	88	55	89.356461	(d)5	1	5	1	1	2	514	1118	168	45	95.394394	Shall5	1	5	1	1	3	723	1119	67	44	95.785461	be5	1	5	1	1	4	830	1119	277	46	96.381889	afforded5	1	5	1	1	5	1148	1116	342	49	96.411209	facilities5	1	5	1	1	6	1532	1125	64	40	96.302338	to5	1	5	1	1	7	1633	1119	242	48	96.302338	examine5	1	5	1	1	8	1917	1119	65	47	96.849876	in5	1	5	1	1	9	2018	1132	212	46	96.273781	person5	1	5	1	1	10	2266	1134	67	35	96.273781	or5	1	5	1	1	11	2371	1123	70	58	96.760696	by5	1	5	1	1	12	2478	1121	100	49	96.598381	his5	1	5	1	1	13	2623	1124	167	57	95.254517	legal4	1	5	1	2	0	517	1187	2558	63	-1	5	1	5	1	2	1	517	1187	485	58	58.677406	representative5	1	5	1	2	2	1042	1190	98	43	96.177475	the5	1	5	1	2	3	1178	1188	242	47	95.805664	witness5	1	5	1	2	4	1463	1191	205	44	95.942886	called5	1	5	1	2	5	1704	1192	68	54	95.942886	by5	1	5	1	2	6	1812	1192	99	43	96.630203	the5	1	5	1	2	7	1949	1191	387	56	95.152306	prosecution5	1	5	1	2	8	2373	1192	206	47	96.983681	before5	1	5	1	2	9	2621	1203	102	47	96.770805	any5	1	5	1	2	10	2760	1198	174	41	96.673973	court5	1	5	1	2	11	2972	1196	103	43	96.544609	and4	1	5	1	3	0	513	1255	2348	62	-1	5	1	5	1	3	1	513	1255	209	47	96.044296	obtain5	1	5	1	3	2	763	1258	99	44	95.905472	the5	1	5	1	3	3	900	1259	346	44	95.432999	attendance5	1	5	1	3	4	1286	1260	65	42	95.432999	of5	1	5	1	3	5	1388	1256	339	51	96.481888	witnesses,5	1	5	1	3	6	1776	1258	240	57	96.291954	subject5	1	5	1	3	7	2058	1264	64	42	95.875153	to5	1	5	1	3	8	2164	1264	98	42	95.682228	the5	1	5	1	3	9	2299	1266	244	51	95.947685	payment5	1	5	1	3	10	2583	1263	68	44	96.094429	of5	1	5	1	3	11	2692	1260	169	47	96.514030	their4	1	5	1	4	0	515	1327	2487	56	-1	5	1	5	1	4	1	515	1327	346	44	95.775055	reasonable5	1	5	1	4	2	899	1336	303	46	96.298798	expenses,5	1	5	1	4	3	1251	1328	102	45	96.416046	and5	1	5	1	4	4	1391	1338	172	45	96.258003	carry5	1	5	1	4	5	1599	1332	101	41	96.460289	out5	1	5	1	4	6	1741	1328	99	46	96.073784	the5	1	5	1	4	7	1877	1327	388	50	90.428513	examination5	1	5	1	4	8	2299	1330	70	45	96.070030	of5	1	5	1	4	9	2409	1331	137	46	96.605080	such5	1	5	1	4	10	2579	1330	316	48	95.527443	witnesses5	1	5	1	4	11	2939	1335	63	43	95.527443	to4	1	5	1	5	0	515	1394	2452	57	-1	5	1	5	1	5	1	515	1394	243	57	95.020813	testify5	1	5	1	5	2	794	1406	69	33	95.675491	on5	1	5	1	5	3	898	1394	103	45	95.259003	his5	1	5	1	5	4	1039	1398	205	43	95.708679	behalf5	1	5	1	5	5	1284	1396	207	46	95.528046	before5	1	5	1	5	6	1532	1398	97	44	96.921234	the5	1	5	1	5	7	1671	1403	170	40	96.120743	court5	1	5	1	5	8	1878	1410	71	33	96.097069	on5	1	5	1	5	9	1986	1400	99	43	96.649658	the5	1	5	1	5	10	2128	1410	134	34	87.383591	same5	1	5	1	5	11	2302	1399	348	47	96.005371	conditions5	1	5	1	5	12	2691	1411	63	36	88.079941	as5	1	5	1	5	13	2798	1402	169	45	96.933464	those4	1	5	1	6	0	513	1462	1821	61	-1	5	1	5	1	6	1	513	1462	277	60	95.723488	applying5	1	5	1	6	2	830	1468	65	42	96.713142	to5	1	5	1	6	3	928	1463	315	48	95.718361	witnesses5	1	5	1	6	4	1284	1466	208	45	96.028008	called5	1	5	1	6	5	1528	1468	68	55	96.674896	by5	1	5	1	6	6	1636	1468	99	43	96.859673	the5	1	5	1	6	7	1772	1467	410	56	89.325691	prosecution;5	1	5	1	6	8	2233	1470	101	44	95.932747	and2	1	6	0	0	0	345	1599	2726	136	-1	3	1	6	1	0	0	345	1599	2726	136	-1	4	1	6	1	1	0	345	1599	2726	64	-1	5	1	6	1	1	1	345	1599	87	55	90.433411	(e)5	1	6	1	1	2	511	1602	170	45	95.681183	Shall5	1	6	1	1	3	722	1604	65	44	96.234108	be5	1	6	1	1	4	826	1600	316	59	96.456512	permitted5	1	6	1	1	5	1182	1608	61	40	96.386940	to5	1	6	1	1	6	1281	1604	138	44	96.249992	have5	1	6	1	1	7	1460	1603	276	57	96.110474	assigned5	1	6	1	1	8	1776	1608	63	42	96.250542	to5	1	6	1	1	9	1876	1604	104	47	96.250542	him5	1	6	1	1	10	2014	1604	247	48	96.250717	without5	1	6	1	1	11	2298	1612	244	51	96.343559	payment5	1	6	1	1	12	2583	1610	100	44	96.847214	the5	1	6	1	1	13	2724	1607	347	49	92.552483	assistance4	1	6	1	2	0	510	1671	2241	64	-1	5	1	6	1	2	1	510	1672	67	44	96.397858	of5	1	6	1	2	2	619	1682	66	36	96.453094	an5	1	6	1	2	3	726	1671	376	59	96.380020	interpreter5	1	6	1	2	4	1147	1672	60	46	96.914421	if5	1	6	1	2	5	1247	1675	67	43	96.348763	he5	1	6	1	2	6	1355	1679	206	40	96.294983	cannot5	1	6	1	2	7	1599	1676	348	44	96.282143	understand5	1	6	1	2	8	1985	1678	99	44	95.853203	the5	1	6	1	2	9	2125	1676	245	58	95.908211	English5	1	6	1	2	10	2410	1679	341	56	88.710709	language.
+6.2 The State party adds that the right to life is protected by section 14 of the
+Constitution, while protection from inhuman or degrading punishment or other
+treatment is afforded by section 17. Under section 25, anyone who alleges that any
+of the rights protected by Chapter III have been, or are likely to be contravened
+in relation to him, may apply to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court for redress.
+An appeal lies from the decision of the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal and
+from the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
+Council.
+8.3 The State party concludes that the right to constitutional redress is a
+distinct action from an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in a
+criminal case. Since the author has failed to take steps to pursue his
+conatitutional remedies, the State party argues that his communication is
+inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
+9.1 In her comments, dated 19 December 1989, counsel contends that the State party
+has failed to comply with the Committee's request of 30 March 1989 to provide
+explanations or statements on the merits of Mr. Reid's case, pursuant to article 4,
+paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol. Instead, it tried to revisit the
+Committee's admissibility decision by arguing that Mr. Reid had failed to exhaust
+domestic remedies. According to counsel, the State party could have put forward
+its arguments in its submission under rule 91; at this stage, it is no longer open
+to the State party to introduce new arguments on admissibility, or at least to do
+so before providing the information requested by the Committee in its admissibility
+decision. In her opinion, a different view would be contrary to rule 93,
+paragraph 4, of the Committee's rules of procedure.
+9.2 Counsel adde that the State party's new argunents on admissibility miss the
+point since article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol does not require
+individuals to prove that they have exhausted every possible domestic course of
+action which potentially might constitute a remedy. Only such remedies as are both
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-006.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-006.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ab03c8b2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-006.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+available and effective must be pursued. Accordingly, it should be reasonably
+asaumed that the remedy which the Jamaican Government claims remains open to the
+author would redress the alleged violations. But this would not be the case if
+established case law ran counter to the conclusion sought by the author, as is the
+situation in the instant case. She notes that the State party should provides, in
+support of its argument, clarifications on whether or not there is any case law
+which would assist her with her case, given that Mr. Reid is now being aeksd to
+argue certain points before a court of lesser jurisdiction in Jamaica, which he had
+already argued before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Counsel
+contends that the Judicial Committee, if seized of the constitutional case, would
+moat likely confirm its earlier decision in the case. Moreover, a court of lesser
+Jurisdiction in Jamaica would be bound by the Judicial Committee's earlier
+Gecision. Finally, counsel argues that the constitutional remedy is not only an
+ineffective but also an unavailable remedy, since it is virtually impossible to
+secure legal representation in Jamaica to argue constitutional cases on a pro bono
+basis.
+10.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the
+light of the information made available to it by the parties, as provided in
+article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.
+10.2 The Committee has taken due note of the State party's contention that with
+respect to the alleged violations of articles 6, 7 and 14 cf the Covenant, domestic
+remedies have not been exhausted by Mr. Reid. It takes this opportunity to expand
+upon its admissibility findings.
+10.3 The Committee has taken note of the State party's contention that the
+communication is inadmissible because of the author's failure to pursue
+constitutional remedies available to him under the Jamaican Constitution. In this
+connection, the Committee observes that Section 20, paragraph 1, of the Jamaican
+Constitution guarantees the right to a fnir trial, while Section 25 provides for
+the implementation of the provisions guaranteeing the rights of the individual.
+Section 25, paragraph 2, stipulates that the Supreme (Constitutional) Court may
+“hear and determine" applications with regard to the alleged non-observance of
+constitutional guarantees, but limits its jurisdiction to such cases where the
+applicants have not already been afforded “adequate means of redress for the
+contraventions alleged” (Sect. 25, para. 2, in fine). The Committee notes that the
+State party was requested tc: clarify, in a number of interlocutory decisions,
+whether the Supreme (Constitutional) Court has had the opportunity to determine the
+question pursuant to Section 25, paragraph 2, of the Jamaican Constitution, whether
+an appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of he Privy Council
+constitute “adequate means of redress" within the meaning of Section 25,
+paragraph 2, of the Jamaican Constitution. The State party has replied that the
+Supreme Court has so far not had said opportunity. Taking into account the State
+party's clarification, together with the absence of legal aid for filing a motion
+in the Constitutional Court and the unwillingness of Jamaican counsel to act in
+this regard without remuneration, the Committee finds that recourse to the
+Constitutional Court under Section 25 of the Jamaican Constitution is not a remedy
+available to the author within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the
+Optional Protocol.
+10.4 Finally, the author's claim that no legal aid is provided to those who
+envisage filing a constitutional motion and who cannot afford legal representation
+has remained uncontested. As Mr. Reid is unable to afford legal representation, it
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-007.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-007.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..22acc0d6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-007.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+follows that even if a constitutional motion were considered an effective ramedy,
+it would not be available to the author, in fact if not in law.
+10.5 The Committee hae also taken note of the State party's contention that the
+Committee's established jurisprudence on article 5, parajraph 2 (b), of the |
+Protocol, namely that domestic remedies must be both available and effective, is
+merely the Committee's own interpretation of this provision. a/ It reiterates, in
+this context, that the local remedies rule 4oes not require the resort to appeals
+which objectively have no prospect of success, which is an established principle of
+international law and of the Committee's jurisprudence.
+10.6 For the reasons set out above, the Committee finds that a constitutional
+motion is not «a remedy that the author would have to exhaust for purposes of the
+Optional Protocol. It therefore concludes that there is no reason to revise its
+decision on admissibility of 30 March 1989.
+11.1 With respect to the alleged violation of article 14, three principal issues
+are before the Committee: (a) whether the alleged inadequacy of the judge's
+summing-up to the jury in the trial before the Home Circuit Court amounted to a
+denial of a fair trial; (b) whether the author had adequate time and facilities for
+the preparation of his defence and (c) whether the author's representation before
+the Court of Appeal by an attorney not of his choosing constituted a violation of
+article 14, paragraph 3 (d).
+11.2 Concerning the first issue under article 14, the Committee reaffirms that it
+is generally for the appellate courts of States parties to evaluate the facts and
+the evidence in a particular case. It is ~~, in principle, for the Committee to
+review specific instructions to the jury by the judge in a trial by jury, unless it
+can be ascertained that the instructions to the jury were clearly arbitrary or
+amounted to a denial of justice. The Committee does not have sufficient evidence
+that the trial judge's instructions suffered from such defects.
+11.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not denied the author's claim
+that the court failed to grant counsel sufficient minimum time to prepare his
+examination of witnesses. This amounts to a violation of article 14, paragraph
+3 (b), of the Covenant.
+11.4 Concerning the issue of the author's representation before the Court of
+Appeal, the Committee reaffirms that it is axiomatic that legal assistance must be
+made available to a convicted prisoner under sentence of death. b/ This applies to
+the trial in the court of first instance as well as to appellate proceedings. In
+the author's case, it is uncontested that legal counsel was assigned to him for the
+appeal. What is at issue is whether the author had a right to contest the choice
+of his court-appointed attorney, und whether he should have been afforded an
+opportunity to be present during the hearing of the appeal. The author's
+application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, dated 6 April 1985,
+indicates that he wished to be present for the hearing of his appeal. However, the
+State party did not offer this opportunity, since legal aid counsel] had been
+assigned to him. Subsequently, his counsel considered that there was no merit in
+the author's appeal and was not prepared to advance arguments in favour of it being
+grantee thus effectively leaving him without legal representation. In the
+circumstances, and bearing in mind that this is a case involving the death penalty,
+the Committee considers that the State party should have appointed another lawyer
+for his defence or allowed him to rupresent himself at the appeal proceedings. To
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-008.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-008.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2f9a802c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-008.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+the extent that the author was denied effective representa*ion at the appeal
+prorteeding d, the requirenants of article 14, paragraph 3 (da), have not been met.
+11.5 The Committee is of the opinion that the impoaition of a sentence of death
+upon the conclusion of a trial in which the provisions of the Covenant have not
+beou respected constitutes, if no further appeal against ‘:he sentence is available,
+a violation of article 6 of the Covenant. Ac the Cowmnitiee noted in its general
+comment 6 (19), the provision that a sentence of death may be imposed only in
+accordance with the law and not contrary to the provisions of the Covenant implies
+that the5	1	2	1	7	3	466	853	343	56	96.184830	procedural5	1	2	1	7	4	852	858	347	49	95.726242	guarantees5	1	2	1	7	5	1239	853	240	45	96.084297	therein5	1	2	1	7	6	1517	853	349	57	96.343407	prescribed5	1	2	1	7	7	1899	859	142	42	96.343407	must5	1	2	1	7	8	2078	858	68	44	96.421181	be5	1	2	1	7	9	2183	858	305	49	96.551880	observed,5	1	2	1	7	10	2540	855	308	60	95.559174	including5	1	2	1	7	11	2890	861	97	44	96.333786	the4	1	2	1	8	0	125	918	2818	64	-1	5	1	2	1	8	1	125	918	165	57	96.637466	right5	1	2	1	8	2	330	923	66	43	95.688835	to5	1	2	1	8	3	433	931	33	35	95.259705	a5	1	2	1	8	4	505	920	131	46	96.289307	fair5	1	2	1	8	5	676	920	242	58	58.972172	hearing5	1	2	1	8	6	958	923	64	55	95.352798	by5	1	2	1	8	7	1066	932	54	35	87.006950	a.5	1	2	1	8	8	1181	923	369	55	94.842201	independent5	1	2	1	8	9	1590	923	299	51	96.806320	tribunal,5	1	2	1	8	10	1942	926	99	45	96.828445	the5	1	2	1	8	11	2078	926	385	56	95.686256	presumption5	1	2	1	8	12	2502	928	64	44	96.563042	of5	1	2	1	8	13	2610	927	333	51	96.133110	innocence,4	1	2	1	9	0	124	987	2616	65	-1	5	1	2	1	9	1	124	990	96	44	96.939560	the5	1	2	1	9	2	256	987	244	48	96.841904	minimum5	1	2	1	9	3	534	994	344	53	96.261887	guarantees5	1	2	1	9	4	924	992	94	44	96.320549	for5	1	2	1	9	5	1066	992	97	44	96.814636	the5	1	2	1	9	6	1203	992	266	50	96.254059	defence,5	1	2	1	9	7	1518	994	101	44	95.354019	and5	1	2	1	9	8	1661	995	97	44	96.546547	the5	1	2	1	9	9	1801	992	169	58	96.181892	right5	1	2	1	9	10	2013	998	62	42	96.417007	to5	1	2	1	9	11	2118	994	205	46	96.682365	review5	1	2	1	9	12	2359	998	69	54	95.797127	by5	1	2	1	9	13	2466	1008	33	34	92.804016	a5	1	2	1	9	14	2536	995	204	57	74.583130	highec4	1	2	1	10	0	122	1058	2693	65	-1	5	1	2	1	10	1	122	1058	332	45	80.934608	tribunal.
+In the present case, since the final sentence of death was passed
+without having met the requirements for a fair trial set forth in article 14, it
+must. be concluded that the right protected by article 6 of the Covenant has been
+violated.
+11.6 As to the allegation tha. the delays in the execution of the sentence passed
+on the author amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, and that the
+author's execution after the delays encuuntered would amount to an arbitrary
+deprivation of life, the Committee reaffirms its earlier jurieprudence pursuant to
+which prolonged judicial proceedings do not per se constitute cruel, inhuman or
+degrading treatment even if they can be a source of mental strain fos convicted
+prisoners. However, che situation may be different in cases involving capital
+punishment, although an assessment of the circumstances of each case would be
+necessary. c/ In the present case the Committee does not find that the author has
+sufficiextiy substantiated his claim that. delay in judicial procvedings constituted
+for him cruel, inhuman and degrading treatmont under article 7.
+12.1 The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the
+Optional Protoccl] to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is
+of che view that the facts, as found by the Committee, disclose a violation of
+articles 6 and 14, paragraph 3 (b) and (d), of the Covenant.
+12.2 It 4a the view of the Committees that, in capital punishment cases, the duty
+of Ste*<es parties to observe rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out
+in article 14 of the Covenant is even more imperative. The Committee is of the
+view chat Mr. Carlton Ruid, a victim of a violation of articles 6 and 14,
+paragraph 3 (b) aad (dad), is entitls! to a remedy entailing his release.
+i3. The Committee also takes this opportunity to express concecn about the
+practical operation of the system of legal aid undex the Poor Prisoners’ Defence
+Act. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee considers that this
+system, in ite curreut form, does not appear to operate in ways that would enable
+legal csepresentatives working on legal aid assignments to discharge themselves of
+their duties and responsibilities as effectively as the interests of justice would
+warrant. The Committee vonsiders that in cases involving capital punishment, in
+particular, legal aid should enable counsel to prepare his client's defence in
+circumstances that can ensure justice. Th.s does include provision for adequate
+remuneration for legal aid. While the Committee conceder that the Stat> party's
+authorities are in principle competent ~o spell out thu details of the Poor
+Prisoners’ Defence Act, and while it welcomes recent. improvements in the terms
+under which legal aid is made available, it urges the State party to review its
+lagal aid system.
+~92-
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-009.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-009.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ec7469a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-009.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+14. The Committee wouid wish to receive information on any relevant measures
+taken by the State party in respect of the Committee's viers.
+{Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the origina2
+version. }
+Notes
+B/ State party's submission dated 25 May 1989 in comnunication No. 249/1987
+(ZB. ve Jamaica), not yet reported.
+h/ See communication No. 223/1987 (Robinson vy. Jamaica), final views adopted
+on 30 March 1989, para. 10.3.
+a/ See communication Nos. 210/1986 and 2265/1987 (Earl Pratt and ven Morgan
+vy. Jamaica), tinal views adopted on 6 April 1989, para. 13.6.
+
+ee
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-010.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-010.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..5bc54fc1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-010.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+APPENDIX
+The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states, inter alia, that a treaty
+provision shall be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given
+to its terms, placed in their context and in the light of the treaty's object and
+purpose. The object and purpose of article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is
+obvious. It is to circumscribe the imposition of death sentences. The travaux
+QXirag characterize it as a yardstick to which national law authorising the
+imposition of the death sentence must conform. This yardstick consists of a number
+of prerequisites, some of which reflect guarantees also laid down in other articles
+of the Covenant. The prerequisites are: (a) only5	1	3	2	4	9	1951	1346	96	43	96.330704	for5	1	3	2	4	10	2090	1346	100	44	96.486336	the5	1	3	2	4	11	2227	1347	139	41	96.651077	most5	1	3	2	4	12	2407	1342	239	46	92.720802	serious5	1	3	2	4	13	2687	1342	268	48	82.017601	crimes;
+(b) only5	1	3	2	5	3	478	1418	70	45	94.762962	in5	1	3	2	5	4	584	1418	344	45	94.762962	accordance5	1	3	2	5	5	965	1415	140	45	28.236227	wth5	1	3	2	5	6	1145	1416	97	46	96.340469	the5	1	3	2	5	7	1286	1416	99	44	93.938728	law5	1	3	2	5	8	1427	1415	63	44	94.961372	in5	1	3	2	5	9	1531	1416	167	44	94.961372	force5	1	3	2	5	10	1742	1422	60	37	93.555824	st5	1	3	2	5	11	1846	1416	98	43	96.724808	the5	1	3	2	5	12	1987	1412	132	47	96.641624	time5	1	3	2	5	13	2158	1414	67	45	96.641624	of5	1	3	2	5	14	2267	1415	100	44	96.567963	the5	1	3	2	5	15	2407	1411	348	48	65.971413	commission5	1	3	2	5	16	2792	1412	65	46	96.528534	of5	1	3	2	5	17	2899	1412	99	46	96.590050	the4	1	3	2	6	0	130	1480	2623	63	-1	5	1	3	2	6	1	130	1487	229	51	92.572525	crime,
+of. article 15, paragraph 1; (c) only5	1	3	2	6	9	1773	1488	276	52	95.452164	pursuant5	1	3	2	6	10	2091	1487	63	41	95.723099	to5	1	3	2	6	11	2197	1494	32	34	94.527054	a5	1	3	2	6	12	2268	1480	166	47	94.527054	final5	1	3	2	6	13	2479	1483	274	56	95.365929	judgment4	1	3	2	7	0	132	1551	2899	64	-1	5	1	3	2	7	1	132	1558	276	48	95.744957	rendered5	1	3	2	7	2	441	1559	69	56	96.727974	by5	1	3	2	7	3	550	1568	31	35	86.807777	a5	1	3	2	7	4	618	1560	311	52	96.745529	competent5	1	3	2	7	5	970	1556	231	48	76.154701	court,
+cf. article 14, paragraph 1. The same requirements
+are to be found in article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which
+reads: the death penalty may5	1	3	2	9	6	1213	1696	64	44	96.754585	be5	1	3	2	9	7	1322	1692	240	58	95.732933	imposed5	1	3	2	9	8	1597	1695	140	55	95.687546	only5	1	3	2	9	9	1777	1693	97	45	96.394447	for5	1	3	2	9	10	1915	1693	99	43	96.670639	the5	1	3	2	9	11	2050	1696	143	42	95.291405	most5	1	3	2	9	12	2233	1691	237	45	95.833023	serious5	1	3	2	9	13	2513	1690	204	46	96.024101	crimes5	1	3	2	9	14	2758	1691	103	44	96.421593	and4	1	3	2	10	0	129	1757	2906	66	-1	5	1	3	2	10	1	129	1769	276	54	88.640678	pursuant5	1	3	2	10	2	445	1771	63	40	94.589256	to5	1	3	2	10	3	550	1777	30	33	96.323479	a5	1	3	2	10	4	620	1764	165	46	96.703735	final5	1	3	2	10	5	830	1763	272	59	96.487770	judgment5	1	3	2	10	6	1146	1765	275	43	96.081551	rendered5	1	3	2	10	7	1457	1764	69	55	96.353905	by5	1	3	2	10	8	1565	1775	31	33	96.202003	a5	1	3	2	10	9	1635	1765	309	53	95.838379	competent5	1	3	2	10	10	1986	1767	169	40	96.446716	court5	1	3	2	10	11	2197	1763	101	43	96.458389	and5	1	3	2	10	12	2339	1760	64	44	96.218338	in5	1	3	2	10	13	2443	1761	344	45	96.037430	accordance5	1	3	2	10	14	2826	1757	140	47	94.770081	with5	1	3	2	10	15	3003	1771	32	33	94.770081	a4	1	3	2	11	0	132	1827	2794	64	-1	5	1	3	2	11	1	132	1839	99	44	96.523849	law5	1	3	2	11	2	266	1833	419	58	28.273483	establishing5	1	3	2	11	3	722	1835	138	45	95.826836	such5	1	3	2	11	4	896	1832	372	59	95.997169	punishment,5	1	3	2	11	5	1318	1833	243	46	95.715363	enacted5	1	3	2	11	6	1597	1831	172	57	96.120506	prior5	1	3	2	11	7	1809	1836	67	40	96.463455	to5	1	3	2	11	8	1915	1833	99	43	96.893326	the5	1	3	2	11	9	2054	1828	349	48	96.600304	commission5	1	3	2	11	10	2441	1832	66	43	96.988930	of5	1	3	2	11	11	2549	1831	97	45	96.481522	the5	1	3	2	11	12	2687	1827	239	48	92.610535	crime.
+Article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
+Fundamental Freedoms is less complete. It merely states that no5	1	3	2	13	11	2441	1979	101	35	95.968330	one5	1	3	2	13	12	2585	1969	166	44	95.480133	shall5	1	3	2	13	13	2791	1969	67	43	96.512474	be4	1	3	2	14	0	129	2037	2836	66	-1	5	1	3	2	14	1	129	2044	277	59	96.360474	deprived5	1	3	2	14	2	442	2045	64	43	96.197151	of5	1	3	2	14	3	548	2041	98	47	57.428608	bis5	1	3	2	14	4	690	2041	132	46	95.460754	life5	1	3	2	14	5	866	2040	451	56	96.349808	intentionally5	1	3	2	14	6	1354	2051	134	33	96.817863	save5	1	3	2	14	7	1531	2039	65	44	96.723862	in5	1	3	2	14	8	1637	2040	99	44	95.833717	the5	1	3	2	14	9	1774	2037	313	47	94.271416	execution5	1	3	2	14	10	2125	2040	66	43	96.672737	of5	1	3	2	14	11	2233	2048	30	33	95.634018	a5	1	3	2	14	12	2302	2040	276	43	95.634018	sentence5	1	3	2	14	13	2618	2037	64	44	96.305626	of5	1	3	2	14	14	2725	2047	30	33	96.520164	a5	1	3	2	14	15	2794	2040	171	41	96.061554	court4	1	3	2	15	0	132	2105	2830	64	-1	5	1	3	2	15	1	132	2112	308	57	96.268700	following5	1	3	2	15	2	476	2111	348	48	95.832970	conviction5	1	3	2	15	3	862	2112	66	44	96.900101	of5	1	3	2	15	4	969	2121	31	35	95.603363	a5	1	3	2	15	5	1038	2109	171	46	95.603363	crime5	1	3	2	15	6	1249	2111	97	42	96.187042	for5	1	3	2	15	7	1382	2107	179	48	96.732635	which5	1	3	2	15	8	1599	2107	135	46	96.844513	this5	1	3	2	15	9	1773	2108	245	56	96.190277	penalty5	1	3	2	15	10	2057	2105	61	46	96.728317	is5	1	3	2	15	11	2158	2105	281	59	96.159744	provided5	1	3	2	15	12	2475	2108	70	55	93.059120	by5	1	3	2	15	13	2586	2107	165	44	70.844711	iaw.
+Thus
+the Convention provision focuses more than similar provisions on the purpose to
+protect an individual from any intentional deprivation of hie life by State
+organs. Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant adds a prerequi¢ite that is not
+inc)uded in either the European or the American Conventions, namely (d) “not
+contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the
+Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”. The latter Convention
+includes provisions that prohibit any killing - i.e. also execution pursuant to a
+death sentence ~- that can be subsumed under the term genocide. Article 6,
+paragraph 8, of the Covenant prohibits in addition tho imposition of a sentence of
+death for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age. Thus the
+prerequisite (d) evidently in the first plave aims at those provisions in the
+Covenant and the Genocide Convention dealing with the imposition and execution of
+death sentences. It is, however, worded in such general terms that it might be
+understood as applying to other provisions of the Covenant as well, and not merely
+to provisions which would apply to the imposition itself of a death sentence, for
+instance article 26. The Committee has in this case interpreted it that way and
+found that a violation of the provisions in article 14 about a fair trial has to be
+looked upon as a violation also of article 6, paragraph 2, when the trial ended
+with a death sentence. I cannot find grounds for such an interpretation for the
+following reason: in the context where this prerequisite has been placed - i.e in
+paragraph 2 and not in paragraph 1 - and in the light of the object and purpose of
+that paragraph, it is difficult to assume that it should be given an
+significance apart from ite specific purpose (faragraph 5 and article 26
+o»eervance) and that it adds ‘o what already is made clear by article 6,
+paragraph 5. The travaux préparatoirea do not provide any useful guidance;
+moreover, any State power to investigate a crime that may lead to a death sentence,
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-011.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-011.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7711b8b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987/page-011.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+indict a person for such a crime and conduct a trial against. him is outside the
+focal point of article 6, paragraph 2, that deals only with the power to sentence
+an individual to death. The exercise of these related powers will then instead
+fall under paragraph 1, which provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of
+his life, a term which according to the travaux préparatoires was preferred to
+‘without due process of law". In my opinion violations of the safeguards for a
+fair trial in article 14 in e capital punishment cise cannot be deemed to also
+constitute violations of article 6, paragraph 2. However, TI agree with the
+Committee that unfairness in a capital punishment case is of utmost gravity. When
+someone's life is at stake, all possible precautions and safeguards must come into
+full play. A breach of article 14 in such a case therefore conetitutes a
+particularly grave violation. But, it cannot, even for that reason, be deemed to
+constitute a violation of article 6, paragraph 2. It is only ~ and only then - if
+the trial does not display the characteristics of a real trial but rather those of
+a mock trial, lacking the paramount characteristics of due process of law, that a
+violation of article 6 of the Covenant besides a violation of article 14 of the
+Covenant may arise, namely a violation of article 6, paragraph 1. The trial in
+this case undoubtedly was a very unsatisfactory one, but the information available
+does not, in my view, justify the conclusion that the elements of unfairness were
+such that the trial may be looked upon as arbitrary. I note in this connection
+that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council received a petition from the
+author for special leave to appeal because of the trial deficiencies, but that. the
+Judicial Committee did not grant leave. My conclusion therefore is that, juet as
+under the American and European Conventions, violations of the fair trial
+safeguards cannot as such at the same time be deemed to be violations of provisions
+concerning the imposition of death sentences.
+Bertil WENNERGREN
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-001.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-001.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..10226340
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-001.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+adopted on 25 July 1990, at the thirty-ninth session)
+Submitted by: Aapo Jérvinen (represented by counsel)
+Alleged victim: The author
+State party concerned: Finland
+Date of communication: 16 March 1988 (date of initial letter)
+Date of decision on admissibility: 23 March 1989
+The Biman Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International
+Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
+Meeting on 25 July 1990,
+its consideration of communication No. 295/1988 submitted to
+the Committee by Mr. Aapo J&érvinen under the Optional Protocol to the International
+Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
+Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the
+author of the communication and by the State party,
+Adopta the following:
+Views under article 5. paragraph 4. of the Optional Protocol*
+1. The author of the communication, dated 16 March 1988, is Aapo Jarvinen, a
+Finnish citisen born in February 1965, who claims to be the victim of a violation
+of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by
+Finland. He is represented by counsel.
+ahe_ background
+2.1 In Finland, until the end of 1986, applications for exemption from military
+aervice were dealt with under the Act on Unarmed and Civilian Service. Under this
+legislation, conscripts whose religious or ethical convictions did not allow them
+to perform their compulsory military service as armed service in accordance with
+the Conscriptioa Act could be exempted from such service in times of peace and be
+assigned to unarmed or to civilian service. The duration of military service is
+eight months. The duration of unarmed service was 11 months, to be performed in
+the Defence Forces in duties not involving the carrying of arms. Civilian service
+lasted 12 months, to be performed in government civilian service, in the
+municipalities or in hospitals.
+d Individual opinions submitted (a) by Mesers. Francisco Aguilar Urbina and
+Fausto Pocar and (b) by Mr. Bertil Wennergren, respectively, are appended.
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-002.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-002.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c790a0c0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-002.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+2.2 Under the law in force until the end of 1986, a written application as well as
+the genuineness of an applicant's religious or ethical convictions were examined by
+a particular examination board. At the end of 1986 this procedure was abolished by
+Act No. 647/85, the Act on the Temporary Amendment to the Act on Unarmed and
+Civilian Service and applicants are now assigned to civilian service solely on the
+basis of their own declarations. The duration of civilian service was set at
+16 months. The ratio legis for the amendment reads as follows:
+As5	1	2	1	1	2	473	698	100	44	95.564026	the5	1	2	1	1	3	611	694	380	48	96.594696	convictions5	1	2	1	1	4	1035	698	63	43	96.687859	of5	1	2	1	1	5	1139	696	345	58	93.592552	conscripts5	1	2	1	1	6	1524	698	277	58	95.969902	applying5	1	2	1	1	7	1840	702	100	43	96.193565	for5	1	2	1	1	8	1978	700	279	48	96.164162	civilian5	1	2	1	1	9	2295	701	242	48	96.432564	service5	1	2	1	1	10	2570	702	140	46	96.352448	will5	1	2	1	1	11	2751	716	67	33	96.352448	no5	1	2	1	1	12	2859	706	200	55	96.651726	longer4	1	2	1	2	0	330	765	2594	55	-1	5	1	2	1	2	1	330	769	70	44	95.983650	be5	1	2	1	2	2	437	765	301	51	95.912231	examined,5	1	2	1	2	3	791	768	99	45	96.816772	the5	1	2	1	2	4	928	765	312	48	92.327171	existence5	1	2	1	2	5	1279	769	65	44	95.484726	of5	1	2	1	2	6	1385	770	168	44	96.470589	these5	1	2	1	2	7	1593	769	379	48	95.553398	convictions5	1	2	1	2	8	2016	773	206	44	96.572083	should5	1	2	1	2	9	2258	773	67	45	95.969635	be5	1	2	1	2	10	2367	773	383	47	96.066498	ascertained5	1	2	1	2	11	2790	773	64	47	96.702911	in5	1	2	1	2	12	2892	785	32	35	96.686836	a4	1	2	1	3	0	330	834	2625	67	-1	5	1	2	1	3	1	330	834	313	50	92.039200	different5	1	2	1	3	2	678	848	209	34	96.628044	manner5	1	2	1	3	3	930	848	64	34	96.673546	so5	1	2	1	3	4	1036	848	60	36	95.797356	as5	1	2	1	3	5	1136	841	103	41	95.797356	not5	1	2	1	3	6	1280	842	64	42	96.521690	to5	1	2	1	3	7	1385	840	100	44	96.401703	let5	1	2	1	3	8	1524	840	99	45	96.438408	the5	1	2	1	3	9	1663	850	102	36	96.349342	new5	1	2	1	3	10	1801	842	312	54	96.738976	procedure5	1	2	1	3	11	2151	854	312	44	95.873611	encourage5	1	2	1	3	12	2506	842	344	59	96.378746	conscripts5	1	2	1	3	13	2892	848	63	42	71.065544	to4	1	2	1	4	0	333	905	2726	63	-1	5	1	2	1	4	1	333	908	133	45	91.131004	seek5	1	2	1	4	2	507	918	67	34	96.002731	an5	1	2	1	4	3	609	905	318	57	96.386795	exemption5	1	2	1	4	4	966	909	133	43	95.972870	from5	1	2	1	4	5	1139	909	172	44	96.471664	armed5	1	2	1	4	6	1349	908	239	45	96.349922	service5	1	2	1	4	7	1626	910	209	55	96.006447	purely5	1	2	1	4	8	1874	912	98	44	95.885399	for5	1	2	1	4	9	2016	922	238	35	96.513283	reasons5	1	2	1	4	10	2293	916	66	42	96.878494	of5	1	2	1	4	11	2399	916	275	52	96.450554	personal5	1	2	1	4	12	2714	913	242	47	95.971336	benefit5	1	2	1	4	13	2995	926	64	34	96.474594	or4	1	2	1	5	0	330	974	2488	60	-1	5	1	2	1	5	1	330	974	407	48	94.868423	convenience.5	1	2	1	5	2	819	974	409	58	95.227737	Accordingly,5	1	2	1	5	3	1279	988	65	33	96.245758	an5	1	2	1	5	4	1383	978	274	54	96.358017	adequate5	1	2	1	5	5	1693	978	423	56	96.146240	prolongation5	1	2	1	5	6	2152	982	66	44	95.982864	of5	1	2	1	5	7	2259	982	101	44	96.304726	the5	1	2	1	5	8	2401	986	134	40	96.374825	term5	1	2	1	5	9	2573	984	69	42	95.682747	of5	1	2	1	5	10	2680	985	138	43	95.679253	such4	1	2	1	6	0	332	1045	2482	63	-1	5	1	2	1	6	1	332	1045	239	45	94.789444	service5	1	2	1	6	2	607	1046	103	44	95.784851	has5	1	2	1	6	3	750	1046	140	44	96.692574	been5	1	2	1	6	4	927	1047	208	43	95.893211	deemed5	1	2	1	6	5	1174	1046	100	44	96.063232	the5	1	2	1	6	6	1308	1051	142	41	96.408203	most5	1	2	1	6	7	1489	1048	378	56	96.705612	appropriate5	1	2	1	6	8	1912	1048	306	48	96.191162	indicator5	1	2	1	6	9	2257	1053	65	41	96.966278	of5	1	2	1	6	10	2366	1062	32	34	91.674622	a5	1	2	1	6	11	2434	1052	380	56	91.674622	conscript's4	1	2	1	7	0	330	1113	444	48	-1	5	1	2	1	7	1	330	1113	444	48	94.942627	convictions.
+2.3 On 9 June 1986, the author, who had been called upon to report for military
+service, submitted a written statement to the competent authorities stating that
+his ethical convictions did not permit him to parform armed or unarmed service in
+the Finnish Defence Forces. The headquarters of the military district of Tampere
+transmitted the author's statement to the Investigation Board on 8 December 1986.
+The Board failed to take a decision before the expiration of its mandate on
+31 December 1986, and the documents were returned to the headquarters, from where
+the matter was referred to the Commander of the military district for consideration
+under the implementation order of Act No. 647/85.
+2.4 In January 1987, che author submitted a new application for exemption from
+military service; this was accepted in February 1987. On 9 June 1987, the author
+started alternative civilian service. Under the new provisions referred to above,
+the term of civilian service is determined in accordance with the provisions in
+force at the time of the service order. Accordingly, Mr. Jaérvinen's term of
+service was 16 months, because he did not receive the order assigning him to
+alternative civilian service until the amendment became effective. In reply to a
+complaint of discrimination filed by the author, the Parliamentary Ombudsman of
+Finland, on 17 February 1988, concluded that there had been no evidence of any
+intention on the part of the authorities deliberately to prolong the procedure in
+Mr. Jaérvinen's case; had his case been considered in the course of 1986, his
+ethical convictions would have had to have been considered, with the possibility of
+failing to persuade the authorities of their genuineness.
+2.5 Certain categories of individuals are exempt from military or alternative
+service in Finland. An Act on the Exemption of Jehovah's Witnesses from Military
+Service has been in force since the beginning of 1987. Under this Act, the se.vice
+of a conscript who adheres to the religious community of Jehovah': Witnesses may be
+deferred until his twenty-eighth birthday; after that he may be exempted from
+military service in times of peace. This means that, in practice, vchovah’'s
+Witnesses do not have to perform any type of military or alternative service.
+The author's allegations
+3.1 The author considers that he has been the victim of discrimination, since
+individuals who choose alternative service are required to serve for 16 months,
+whereas the term of military service is only eight months. While he concedes that
+the previous term of 12 months for alternative service was not necessarily
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-003.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-003.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..cc22094e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-003.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+discriminatory within the meaning of article 26 of the Covenant, he argues
+that a prolongation from 12 to 16 months is not justified and constitv‘es
+discrimination. A period of 16 months is disproportionately longer than that
+applicable to military conscripts, being twice as long. In the author's
+opinion, the Finnish Government has failed to adduce vaiid arguments to
+establish the proposition that increasing the period of alternative service to
+16 months is a reasonable, non-discriminatury measure, proportionate to the
+stated objectives moreover, the determination of the new term of alternative
+service was not based on any empirical research but was selected arbitrarily.
+To the author, the stated ratio legis of the legislative amendment, Act
+No. 647/85, is indicative of the Government's intention to introduce some
+punitive element in the prolongation of alternative service.
+3.2 It is pointed out that the earlier term of alternative civilian service,
+12 months, was in fact based on an argument of proportionality. The author
+refers in this context to government bill No. 136 on unarmed and civilian
+service, which had been presented to Parliament in 1967. Under the initial
+proposal, civilian service would have lasted six months longer than military
+service, i.e., a total of 14 months. The parliamentary Defence Matters
+Committee shortened the term of civilian service to 12 months, considering
+that the proposed term for alternative service was “unreasonably long", and
+that it was inappropriate to treat conscripts who had opted for unarmed or
+civilian service in a considerably more disadvantageous way than others.
+Accordingly, the Comnittee proposed to set the duration for unarmed service at
+11 months and for civilian service at 12 months.
+3.3 The author adds that if one were to compare the situation of
+conscientious objectors in Finland with that of conscientious objectors in
+other Western European countries, it would be apparent that a term of civilian
+service twice as long as that of armed military service is disproportionate to
+the aim of the measure, as in all those countries except one, civilian service
+usually lasts as long or only somewhat longer (up to 50 per cent longer) than
+military service. This is true not only of Western Europe but also of Poland
+and Hungary, which recently passed legislation governing civilian service.
+3.4 In respect of the State party's argument that the simple abolition of the
+examination procedure for conscientious objectors might encourage conscripts
+to seek exemption from armed service on grounds of personal benefit and
+convenience, the author submits that the criteria for any differentiation in
+the term(s) of service are neither reasonable nor objective, as the
+prolongation of the term of service is applied to all groups of conscientious
+objectors except for one specific group, Jehovah's Witnesses, who are exempt
+from all forms of service. Under the current eystem, serious religious or
+ethical objectors are punished by an excessive prolongation of their service,
+while some seeking personal benefit or convenience opt for the shortest
+possible term of armed service, eight months. In the author's opinion, such
+criteria of differentiation cannot be considered reasonable and objective, as
+the entire burden is placed on those objectors whose genuineness of
+convictions has never been at issue. fFru:ther, for auch objectors the matter
+is uot one of choice but is inherent in their philosophy.
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-004.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-004.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2a095b2b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-004.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+Zhe State party's coments and observations
+4.1 Referring to the Committee's decision in communication No. 185/1984, a/ tha
+State party argues that inasmuch as States parties do not have any vbligation to
+provide for alternative service, they may, whenever they do provide for such
+alternative aervice, determine its conditions ag they see fit, provided that these
+conditions do not par ge constitute a violation of the Covenant.
+4.2 Invoking the ratio jegis of Act No. 647/85, the State party contends that the
+duration of civilian service, although admittedly longer than that of armed
+conscripts, does not indicate any intention of, or actual, discrimination vig-A-vig
+civilian servicemen within the meaning of article 26 of the Covenant. Inasmuch as
+the specific circumstances of the author's case and the examination of his
+application vf June 1986 are concerned, the State party considers that on the basis
+of the facts, and in the light of the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman of
+17 February 1988, the determination of his term of civilian service took place in
+accordance with Finnish law and with article 26 of the Covenant.
+4.3 In respect of the general exemption of Jehovah's Witnesses from any form of
+service, the State party points out that the Act on the Exemption of Jehovah's
+Witnesses from Military Service was passed in accordance with section 67 of the
+Perliament Act, which lays down the procedural requirements for the enactment of
+constitutional legislation, and affirms that the Act cannot be regarded as
+discriminatory within the meaning of article 26 of the Covenant.
+Iagues_and proceedings before the Committes
+5.1 On the basis of the information before it, the Committee concluded that all
+conditions for declaring the communication admissible had been met, and that, in
+particular, it was agreed between the parties that available domestic remedies had
+been exhausted, pursuant to article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.
+§.2 On 23 March 1989, the Human Rights Committee declared the «munication
+admissible.
+6.1 Article 8 of the Covenant makes clear that ‘service of military character" or
+“national service required by law of conscientious objectors" is not to be regarded
+as forced or compulsory labour. The Committee notes that the new arrangements,
+whereby applicants are now assigned to civilian service solely on the basis of
+their own declarations, effectively allows a choice as to service and departs from
+the previous pattern of an alternative civilian service for proven conscientious
+objectors. Accordingly, any issue of alleged discrimination calle under article 26
+rather than unter article 2, paragraph 1, in relation to article 8.
+6.2 Thus, the nain issue before the Committee is whether the specific conditions
+under which alternative service must be porfermed by the author constitute a
+violation of article 26 of the Covenant. That the Covenant itself does not provide
+a right to conscientious objection does not change tis finding. Indeed, the
+prohibition of discrimination under article 26 is not limited to those rights which
+are provided for in the Covenant.
+6.3 Article 26 of the Covenant, while prohibiting discrimination and guaranteeing
+equal protection of the law to everyone, does not prohibit all differences of
+treatment. Any differentiation, as the Committee has had the opportunity to state
+repeatedly, isnt however, be based on reasonable and objective criteria. b/
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-005.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-005.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..b934190d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-005.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+6.4 In determining whether the prolongation of the term for alternative service
+from twelve to sixteen months by Act No. 647/85, which was applied to Mr. Jérvinen,
+was based on reasonable and objective criteria, the Committee has considered in
+particular the ratio legia of the Act (see para. 2.2 above) and has found that the
+new arrangements were designed to facilitate the administration of alternative
+service. The legislation was based on practical considerations and had no
+discriminatory purpose.
+6.5 The Committee is, howevar, aware that the impact of the legislative
+differentiation, works to the detriment of genuine conscientious objectors, whose
+philosophy will necessarily require the. to accept civilian service. At the same
+time, the new arrangements were not merely for the convenience of the State alone.
+They removed from conscientious objectors the often difficulc task of convincing
+the examination board of the genuineness of their beliefs; and they allowed a
+broader range of individuals potentially to opt for the possibility of alternative
+service.
+6.6 In all the circumstances, the extended length of alternative service is
+neither unreasonable nor punitive.
+6.7 Although the author has made certain references to the exemption of Jehovah's
+Witnesses from alternative or military service in Finland, their situation is not
+at issue in the present communication.
+7. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the
+Optional Protocol to the [nternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is
+of the view that the terms of alternative service imposed on Mr. Jarvinen by Act
+No. 647/85 do not disclose a violation of article 26 of the Covenant.
+(Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original
+version. ]
+Notes
+a/ «See communication No. 185/1984 (L, 2, K. v. Finland), inadmissibility
+decision adopted on 9 July 1985; in this decision, the Committee held that the
+Covenant does5	1	8	1	3	3	840	2743	101	42	96.698280	not5	1	8	1	3	4	978	2740	246	55	96.665840	provide5	1	8	1	3	5	1266	2743	98	43	96.253464	for5	1	8	1	3	6	1405	2744	100	43	96.846756	the5	1	8	1	3	7	1546	2742	170	57	96.135651	right5	1	8	1	3	8	1757	2748	63	41	96.849724	to5	1	8	1	3	9	1859	2744	452	46	96.348724	conscientious5	1	8	1	3	10	2353	2746	376	56	94.389580	objection, para. 5.23
+Selected Decisions of the Human Rights Committee, volume 2, p. 62 of the English
+version.
+b/ See communication No. 196/1985 (Gueye et al. vy. France), final views
+adopted on 3 April 1989, para. 9.4; Official Pecords of the General Assembly,
+Forty-fourth Session. Supplement No. 40 (A/44/40, annex X, sect. B).
+~105-
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-006.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-006.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..d4324664
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-006.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+We share the view expressed by the majority of the Committee that the present
+case is to be considered under article 26 of the Covenant, as well as the view that
+the same article does not prohibit all differences of treatment, provided that a
+differentiation be based on reasonable and objective criteria. However, we do not
+share the view that reasonable and objective criteria exiet in the present case.
+A consideration of the ratio legis of the Finnish Act 647/85 discloses that
+the difference of duration between military and civilian service is not based on
+objective criteria, such as a more severe type of service or the need for a special
+training required in order to accomplish the longer service. The ratio of the law
+is rather to replace the earlier method of testing the sincerity of an applicant's
+conscientious objection with a procedure based on administrative convenience,
+whereby the longer duration of the civilian service results in a sanction against
+consicentious objectors. Such longer duration constitutes in our view a difference
+of treatment incompatible with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of
+opinion enshrined in article 26 of the Covenant.
+Francisco AGUILAR URBINA
+Fausto POCAR
+~106-
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-007.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-007.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..cf113953
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988/page-007.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+APPENDIX II
+Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
+Rights recognizes the right of everyone to gain his living by work which he freely
+chooses or accepts. The objective of article 8 of the Covenant on Civil and
+Political Rights is the protection against being forced to carry out work which one
+has not freely chosen. However, exception is made for any service of military
+character and, in conjunction herewith, for any national service required by law of
+conscientious objectors. As the national service in question is meant to replace
+military service, the question of equality before the law arises, as explained in
+paragraphe &.1 to 6.3 of the Committee's views. I concur in the opinions expressed
+in these paragraphs. When considering the question of equality before the law, the
+natural starting-point for me is everyone's right freely to choose his work and the
+time to devote to it and the fact that the object of national service is a
+replacement of military service.
+The ratio Jegiga of Act No. 647/85 (see para. 2.2 of the views) was that by
+choosing to prolong service time by as much as 240 days, the effect would be to
+discourage applicants without sincere and truly genuine convictions. Looked upon
+exclusively from the point of view of deterrence of objectors without genuine
+convictions, this method may seem both objective and reasonable. However, from the
+point of view of those for whom national service had been established in place of
+military service, the method is inadequate and runs counter to its purpose. As the
+Committee observes in paragraph 6.5, the impact of the legislative differentiation
+works to the detriment of genuine conscientious objectors, whose philosophy will
+necessarily require them to accept civilian service, no matter how iong it is in
+comparison to military service. From this finding I draw the conclusion, contrary
+to the Committee, that the method not only is inadequate in relation to its very
+purpose to provide a possibility to those who, for reasons of conscience, are
+unable to perform military service, to instead perform civilian service. The
+effect of this practice is that. they will be compelled to sacrifice twice as much
+of their libe:ty in comparison to those who are able to perform military service on
+the basis of their belief.
+In my view, this is unjust and runs counter to the requirement of equality
+before the law laid down in article 26 of the Covenant. The differentiation in
+question is, in my view, based on grounds that are neither objective no->
+reasonable. Nor does it in my opinion comply with the provisions of article 18,
+paragraph 2, which state that no one shall be subject to coercion which would
+impair his freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice. Obliging
+conscientious objectors to perform 240 extra days of national service on account of
+their beliefs is to impair their freedom of religion or to hold beliefs of their
+choice.
+I am thers.ore of the view that the terms for performance of national service,
+in place of military service, imposed on Mr. Jarvinen by Act No. 647/85 disclose
+violations of articles 18 and 26 in conjunction with article 8 of the Covenant.
+Bertil «ENNERGREN
+
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-001.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-001.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..86f84e7e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-001.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+UNITED CCPR
+NATIONS
+y International Covenant Distr.
+eS on Civil and Political Rights RESTRICTED */
+CCPRI/C/50/D/428/1990
+26 April 1994
+Original: ENGLISH
+HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
+Fiftieth session
+VIEWS
+Communication No. 428/1990
+Submitted by: Yvonne M'Boissona
+Victim: Her brother, Fran¢gois Bozize
+State party: Central African Republic
+Date of communication: 14 November 1990 (initial submission)
+Documentation references: Prior decisions:
+- Special Rapporteur's rule 91 decision, transmitted
+to the State party on 13 February 1991
+(not issued in document form)
+- CCPR/C/45/D/428/1990
+(Decision on admissibility, dated 8 July 1992)
+Date of adoption of Views: 7 April 1994
+On 7 April 1994, the Human Rights Committee adopted its Views under article 5,
+paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, in respect of communication No. 428/1990. The text of
+the Views is appended to the present document.
+[Annex]
+*/ Made public by decision of the Human Rights Committee.
+VWS428.50e cm
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-002.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-002.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..17e7cce5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-002.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+CCPR/C/50/D/428/1990
+Annex
+English
+Page 1
+ANNEX
+Views of the Human Rights Committee under article 5, paragraph 4,
+of the Optional! Protocol to the International Covenant
+on Civil and Political Rights
+- Fiftieth session -
+concerning
+Communication No. 428/1990
+Submitted by: | Yvonne M'Boissona
+Victim: Her brother, Fran¢gois Bozize
+State party: Central African Republic
+Date of communication: 14 November 1990
+Date of decision on admissibility: 8 July 1992
+The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International
+Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
+Meeting on 7 April 1994,
+Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 428/1990, submitted to the
+Human Rights Committee by Mrs. M'Boissona, on behalf of her brother Mr. F. Bozize, under
+the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
+Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author
+of the communication and the State party,
+Adopts its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol.
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-003.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-003.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..fee2629f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-003.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+CCPR/C/50/D/428/1990
+Annex
+English
+Page 2
+1. The author of the communication is Yvonne M’Boissona, a citizen of the Central
+African Republic residing at Stains, France. She submits the communication on behalf of her
+brother, Frangois Bozize, currently detained at a penitentiary at Bangui, Central African
+Republic. She claims that her brother is a victim of violations of his human rights by the
+authorities of the Central African Republic, but does not invoke any provisions of the
+International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
+The facts as submitted by the author:
+2.1 The author states that her brother was a high-level military officer of the armed forces
+of the Central African Republic. On 3 March 1982, he instigated a coup d'état: after its failure,
+he went into exile in Benin. On 24 July 1989, the author's brother was arrested at a hotel in .
+Cotonou, Benin, together with 11 other citizens of the Central African Republic; all were
+presumed members of the political opposition, the Central African Movement of National -
+Liberation (Mouvement centrafricain de libération nationale). On 31 August 1989, Mr. Bozize
+and the other opposition activists were repatriated by force, allegedly with the help of a Central
+African Republic military commando allowed to operate within Benin; this extradition is said
+to have been negotiated between the Governments of Benin and the Central African Republic.
+The forced repatriation occurred without a formal extradition request having been issued by
+the Government of the Central African Republic.
+2.2 Upon his return to Bangui, Mr. Bozize was imprisoned at Camp Roux, where he
+allegedly suffered serious maltreatment and beatings. The author claims that her brother was
+not allowed access to a lawyer of his own choosing, nor to a member of his family. Allegedly,
+not even a doctor was allowed to see him-to provide basic medical care. Furthermore, the
+sanitary conditions of the prison are said to be deplorable and the food allegedly consists of
+rotten meat mixed with sand; as a result, the weight of Mr. Bozize dropped to 40 kilograms
+by the summer of 1990.
+2.3 During the night of 10 to 11 July 1990, the prison authorities of Camp Roux reportedly
+stage-managed a power failure in the sector of town where the prison is located, purportedly
+to incite Mr. Bozize to attempt an escape. As this practice is said to be common and invariably
+results in the death of the would-be escapee, Mr. Bozize did not leave his cell. The author
+contends that, in the course of the night, her brother was brutally beaten for several hours and
+severely injured. This version of the events was confirmed by Mr. Bozize’s lawyer, Maitre
+Thiangaye, who was able to visit his client on 26 October 1990 and who noticed numerous
+_ traces of beatings and ascertained that Mr. Bozize had two broken ribs. The lawyer also
+reported that Mr. Bozize was kept shackled, that his reading material had been confiscated
+and that the prison guards only allowed him out of his cell twice a week. Allegedly, this
+treatment is known to, and condoned by, President Kolingba and-the Ministers of Defence and
+of the Interior. |
+2.4 ~The authorities of the Central African Republic consistently maintain that Mr. Bozize
+indeed attempted to escape from the prison and that he sustained injuries in the process. This
+is denied by the author, who points to her brother's weak physical condition in the summer of
+1990 and argues that he could: not possibly have climbed over the three-metre high prison
+wall.
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-004.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-004.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..fdc333db
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-004.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+CCPR/C/50/D/428/1990
+Annex
+English
+Page 3
+2.5 Mr. Bozize's wife, who currently resides in France, has requested the good offices of .
+the French authorities. By a letter of 29 October 1990, the President of the National Assembly
+informed her that the French foreign service had ascertained that Mr. Bozize was alive and
+that he had been transferred to the Kassai prison at Bangui.
+2.6 As to the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it is submitted that criminal
+proceedings against Mr. Bozize were to have been opened on 28 February 1991, allegedly
+in order to profit from the momentary absence, due to a trip abroad, of his. lawyer. However,
+the trial was postponed for technical5	1	3	1	4	7	1385	1470	246	46	81.863144	reasons”.5	1	3	1	4	8	1664	1469	149	47	96.856918	Since5	1	3	1	4	9	1844	1469	129	54	96.725121	then,5	1	3	1	4	10	2006	1469	83	60	96.870605	the5	1	3	1	4	11	2121	1468	95	47	96.818825	trial5	1	3	1	4	12	2248	1468	95	47	96.509407	has5	1	3	1	4	13	2374	1468	281	57	96.467812	apparently5	1	3	1	4	14	2688	1466	131	47	96.697350	been4	1	3	1	5	0	305	1540	2510	65	-1	5	1	3	1	5	1	305	1546	280	59	95.369217	postponed5	1	3	1	5	2	609	1557	63	36	95.369217	on5	1	3	1	5	3	696	1546	139	51	95.414330	other5	1	3	1	5	4	852	1544	281	46	96.159409	occasions.5	1	3	1	5	5	1160	1544	111	45	95.282692	Mrs.5	1	3	1	5	6	1300	1542	177	47	96.371780	Bozize5	1	3	1	5	7	1498	1541	269	57	96.673447	complains5	1	3	1	5	8	1788	1541	100	45	96.812927	that5	1	3	1	5	9	1909	1541	42	45	96.630722	in5	1	3	1	5	10	1973	1541	82	45	96.559723	the5	1	3	1	5	11	2078	1541	195	45	96.350090	months5	1	3	1	5	12	2294	1540	234	58	96.144363	following5	1	3	1	5	13	2550	1540	75	45	96.978394	his5	1	3	1	5	14	2646	1540	169	53	96.272545	arrest,4	1	3	1	6	0	305	1612	2518	58	-1	5	1	3	1	6	1	305	1620	90	45	96.599792	her5	1	3	1	6	2	413	1618	228	47	96.260498	husband5	1	3	1	6	3	661	1629	108	35	96.431343	was5	1	3	1	6	4	790	1617	177	45	96.960579	denied5	1	3	1	6	5	990	1626	186	35	96.356598	access5	1	3	1	6	6	1196	1617	49	44	96.399910	to5	1	3	1	6	7	1266	1614	219	54	95.011864	counsel;5	1	3	1	6	8	1512	1614	127	54	96.309700	later,5	1	3	1	6	9	1662	1614	82	44	96.695938	the5	1	3	1	6	10	1764	1613	155	57	96.218910	family5	1	3	1	6	11	1942	1613	213	45	96.630424	retained5	1	3	1	6	12	2177	1613	83	45	96.921509	the5	1	3	1	6	13	2282	1613	219	45	96.374161	services5	1	3	1	6	14	2522	1612	53	45	96.360657	of5	1	3	1	6	15	2593	1622	30	35	96.431564	a5	1	3	1	6	16	2645	1612	178	57	96.366455	lawyer4	1	3	1	7	0	302	1683	2521	62	-1	5	1	3	1	7	1	302	1693	51	44	96.845657	to5	1	3	1	7	2	380	1691	183	46	96.113144	defend5	1	3	1	7	3	592	1690	107	46	96.901657	him.5	1	3	1	7	4	729	1690	103	44	96.839485	The5	1	3	1	7	5	860	1689	185	56	95.674255	lawyer,5	1	3	1	7	6	1077	1688	238	53	96.278107	however,5	1	3	1	7	7	1342	1697	107	35	96.412430	was5	1	3	1	7	8	1477	1686	175	46	95.947090	denied5	1	3	1	7	9	1681	1685	339	45	96.698776	authorization5	1	3	1	7	10	2046	1686	50	44	96.869308	to5	1	3	1	7	11	2122	1685	105	45	96.980782	visit5	1	3	1	7	12	2254	1685	73	45	96.980782	his5	1	3	1	7	13	2354	1683	153	54	96.644928	client;5	1	3	1	7	14	2537	1684	83	45	96.125259	the5	1	3	1	7	15	2646	1683	177	57	96.125259	lawyer4	1	3	1	8	0	305	1755	2370	66	-1	5	1	3	1	8	1	305	1763	238	58	96.232681	allegedly5	1	3	1	8	2	565	1762	108	47	93.220352	also5	1	3	1	8	3	698	1761	217	47	96.366203	suffered5	1	3	1	8	4	938	1759	291	47	96.807076	restrictions5	1	3	1	8	5	1250	1758	53	47	97.003784	of5	1	3	1	8	6	1322	1758	74	47	96.300354	his5	1	3	1	8	7	1418	1758	218	46	95.976570	freedom5	1	3	1	8	8	1661	1758	50	46	95.339958	of5	1	3	1	8	9	1732	1759	279	43	95.339958	movement5	1	3	1	8	10	2033	1767	62	35	96.448975	on5	1	3	1	8	11	2120	1759	211	43	95.493637	account5	1	3	1	8	12	2353	1757	51	45	95.493637	of5	1	3	1	8	13	2426	1755	73	47	96.920784	his5	1	3	1	8	14	2522	1755	153	46	95.214134	client.2	1	4	0	0	0	306	1982	434	55	-1	3	1	4	1	0	0	306	1982	434	55	-1	4	1	4	1	1	0	306	1982	434	55	-1	5	1	4	1	1	1	306	1982	105	44	95.809525	The5	1	4	1	1	2	437	1982	303	55	96.057297	complaint:2	1	5	0	0	0	305	2114	2522	281	-1	3	1	5	1	0	0	305	2114	2522	281	-1	4	1	5	1	1	0	306	2114	2515	56	-1	5	1	5	1	1	1	306	2124	45	46	96.426468	3.5	1	5	1	1	2	510	2124	33	45	96.267921	It5	1	5	1	1	3	570	2124	41	45	95.854843	is5	1	5	1	1	4	638	2123	261	46	96.511353	submitted5	1	5	1	1	5	928	2122	100	45	96.091820	that5	1	5	1	1	6	1054	2122	82	44	96.286873	the5	1	5	1	1	7	1165	2123	175	43	96.609871	events5	1	5	1	1	8	1368	2119	256	46	96.351540	described5	1	5	1	1	9	1654	2119	161	46	96.367554	above5	1	5	1	1	10	1844	2114	255	49	96.447487	constitute5	1	5	1	1	11	2129	2118	250	45	96.861809	violations5	1	5	1	1	12	2406	2116	53	46	96.654266	of5	1	5	1	1	13	2482	2116	82	46	91.898125	Mr.5	1	5	1	1	14	2600	2115	221	47	65.427307	Bozize’s4	1	5	1	2	0	308	2187	2519	67	-1	5	1	5	1	2	1	308	2196	144	58	96.483109	rights5	1	5	1	2	2	478	2195	154	47	96.245140	under5	1	5	1	2	3	650	2195	82	46	96.920631	the5	1	5	1	2	4	754	2195	270	46	96.451935	Covenant.5	1	5	1	2	5	1050	2192	237	58	96.411102	Although5	1	5	1	2	6	1308	2192	81	46	96.535194	the5	1	5	1	2	7	1414	2191	170	47	96.960434	author5	1	5	1	2	8	1602	2191	127	46	96.880341	does5	1	5	1	2	9	1753	2192	80	45	96.795654	not5	1	5	1	2	10	1856	2190	289	57	95.964638	specifically5	1	5	1	2	11	2170	2190	169	45	96.067802	invoke5	1	5	1	2	12	2362	2200	94	47	96.116692	any5	1	5	1	2	13	2481	2188	271	58	96.740601	provisions5	1	5	1	2	14	2774	2187	53	46	97.012840	of4	1	5	1	3	0	305	2260	2518	63	-1	5	1	5	1	3	1	305	2270	83	45	96.372116	the5	1	5	1	3	2	409	2270	274	52	95.859604	Covenant,5	1	5	1	3	3	708	2268	27	46	96.294922	it5	1	5	1	3	4	754	2267	265	56	96.206299	transpires5	1	5	1	3	5	1038	2267	118	44	96.559555	from5	1	5	1	3	6	1177	2266	82	45	96.688210	the5	1	5	1	3	7	1278	2267	193	43	96.326096	context5	1	5	1	3	8	1490	2264	53	46	96.618401	of5	1	5	1	3	9	1560	2264	85	46	95.966995	her5	1	5	1	3	10	1664	2263	328	45	96.417549	submissions5	1	5	1	3	11	2012	2263	100	45	96.686707	that5	1	5	1	3	12	2134	2263	86	45	96.897385	her5	1	5	1	3	13	2238	2262	169	45	95.670654	claims5	1	5	1	3	14	2426	2262	149	45	96.780807	relate5	1	5	1	3	15	2596	2260	227	59	96.703300	primarily4	1	5	1	4	0	306	2338	1273	57	-1	5	1	5	1	4	1	306	2344	49	43	96.519852	to5	1	5	1	4	2	378	2342	191	45	95.168777	articles5	1	5	1	4	3	593	2340	44	55	96.680779	7,5	1	5	1	4	4	666	2340	43	54	96.823265	9,5	1	5	1	4	5	741	2340	74	54	96.835991	10,5	1	5	1	4	6	845	2340	59	44	96.330833	145	1	5	1	4	7	929	2339	95	45	95.712456	and5	1	5	1	4	8	1053	2339	59	44	95.712456	195	1	5	1	4	9	1136	2338	51	45	96.696793	of5	1	5	1	4	10	1206	2338	81	45	96.669434	the5	1	5	1	4	11	1310	2338	269	44	96.047699	Covenant.2	1	6	0	0	0	308	2553	1178	58	-1	3	1	6	1	0	0	308	2553	1178	58	-1	4	1	6	1	1	0	308	2553	1178	58	-1	5	1	6	1	1	1	308	2559	105	44	95.999382	The5	1	6	1	1	2	440	2556	364	47	89.204063	Committee's5	1	6	1	1	3	829	2555	374	56	96.000656	admissibility5	1	6	1	1	4	1226	2553	260	46	96.093002	decision:2	1	7	0	0	0	308	2693	2519	424	-1	3	1	7	1	0	0	308	2693	2519	424	-1	4	1	7	1	1	0	308	2693	2516	63	-1	5	1	7	1	1	1	308	2701	75	44	77.116638	4.15	1	7	1	1	2	514	2700	173	56	96.191811	During5	1	7	1	1	3	713	2700	58	44	93.218468	its5	1	7	1	1	4	792	2699	235	57	92.618477	forty-fifth5	1	7	1	1	5	1053	2699	215	52	96.614044	session,5	1	7	1	1	6	1297	2697	40	44	96.790276	in5	1	7	1	1	7	1360	2697	105	56	96.401093	July5	1	7	1	1	8	1493	2697	139	54	96.675858	1992,5	1	7	1	1	9	1658	2696	81	45	96.086823	the5	1	7	1	1	10	1764	2696	288	45	95.141800	Committee5	1	7	1	1	11	2076	2695	292	45	96.297585	considered5	1	7	1	1	12	2392	2695	83	45	96.354073	the5	1	7	1	1	13	2497	2693	327	58	96.354073	admissibility4	1	7	1	2	0	310	2765	2514	59	-1	5	1	7	1	2	1	310	2772	53	45	96.973999	of5	1	7	1	2	2	382	2772	83	45	96.432274	the5	1	7	1	2	3	490	2770	421	47	95.809868	communication.5	1	7	1	2	4	941	2771	30	44	74.893684	It5	1	7	1	2	5	994	2769	146	46	96.796722	noted5	1	7	1	2	6	1162	2769	107	46	96.466888	with5	1	7	1	2	7	1296	2778	209	35	96.189087	concern5	1	7	1	2	8	1529	2768	114	53	96.189087	that,5	1	7	1	2	9	1670	2768	42	44	96.522659	in5	1	7	1	2	10	1738	2768	125	56	95.719048	spite5	1	7	1	2	11	1886	2766	53	46	96.826553	of5	1	7	1	2	12	1956	2769	92	43	96.853149	two5	1	7	1	2	13	2074	2766	265	46	96.026794	reminders5	1	7	1	2	14	2365	2765	279	47	96.368225	addressed5	1	7	1	2	15	2668	2768	51	43	95.744217	to5	1	7	1	2	16	2741	2765	83	46	95.744217	the4	1	7	1	3	0	310	2837	2514	63	-1	5	1	7	1	3	1	310	2844	142	45	96.749832	State5	1	7	1	3	2	477	2845	147	55	96.906837	party,5	1	7	1	3	3	652	2842	41	45	96.300507	in5	1	7	1	3	4	718	2842	106	57	96.390762	July5	1	7	1	3	5	850	2841	97	46	96.354446	and5	1	7	1	3	6	970	2840	298	59	96.677643	September5	1	7	1	3	7	1290	2840	141	53	96.647697	1991,5	1	7	1	3	8	1460	2850	63	34	96.701103	no5	1	7	1	3	9	1548	2838	293	46	96.043861	information5	1	7	1	3	10	1865	2849	54	35	96.738495	or5	1	7	1	3	11	1940	2838	340	46	96.682671	observations5	1	7	1	3	12	2305	2849	62	34	95.921974	on5	1	7	1	3	13	2390	2838	83	45	96.377075	the5	1	7	1	3	14	2498	2837	326	56	96.014648	admissibility4	1	7	1	4	0	310	2906	2514	66	-1	5	1	7	1	4	1	310	2914	53	46	96.387169	of5	1	7	1	4	2	390	2914	83	46	96.293358	the5	1	7	1	4	3	506	2913	407	47	96.427299	communication5	1	7	1	4	4	946	2912	97	46	96.500473	had5	1	7	1	4	5	1078	2912	129	45	95.954338	been5	1	7	1	4	6	1240	2910	221	47	96.321877	received5	1	7	1	4	7	1494	2910	118	46	96.039200	from5	1	7	1	4	8	1645	2910	82	46	96.859230	the5	1	7	1	4	9	1758	2910	141	46	96.474243	State5	1	7	1	4	10	1930	2912	145	55	96.858482	party.5	1	7	1	4	11	2098	2909	61	63	96.789566	In5	1	7	1	4	12	2190	2906	85	49	96.543678	the5	1	7	1	4	13	2305	2909	402	53	96.609673	circumstances,5	1	7	1	4	14	2741	2908	83	45	96.707153	the4	1	7	1	5	0	310	2980	2517	61	-1	5	1	7	1	5	1	310	2986	297	47	96.376205	Committee5	1	7	1	5	2	628	2985	149	45	96.688385	found5	1	7	1	5	3	798	2985	102	45	96.819229	that5	1	7	1	5	4	922	2985	29	45	96.867859	it5	1	7	1	5	5	970	2994	109	36	96.321060	was5	1	7	1	5	6	1102	2985	82	46	96.321060	not5	1	7	1	5	7	1208	2984	257	57	95.805580	precluded5	1	7	1	5	8	1487	2982	120	47	96.213669	from5	1	7	1	5	9	1630	2982	303	58	96.213669	considering5	1	7	1	5	10	1956	2981	81	47	96.818436	the5	1	7	1	5	11	2062	2981	403	47	96.242424	communication5	1	7	1	5	12	2490	2981	155	45	96.262741	under5	1	7	1	5	13	2664	2980	163	46	68.380829	article4	1	7	1	6	0	312	3056	1166	61	-1	5	1	7	1	6	1	312	3058	44	56	96.655479	5,5	1	7	1	6	2	384	3058	272	59	92.919228	paragraph5	1	7	1	6	3	678	3057	121	59	92.536507	2(b),5	1	7	1	6	4	826	3057	51	45	96.600639	of5	1	7	1	6	5	896	3057	83	45	96.600639	the5	1	7	1	6	6	1000	3056	223	58	96.005142	Optional5	1	7	1	6	7	1249	3056	229	45	95.869705	Protocol.2	1	8	0	0	0	310	3197	2517	198	-1	3	1	8	1	0	0	310	3197	2517	198	-1	4	1	8	1	1	0	310	3197	2517	72	-1	5	1	8	1	1	1	310	3202	85	47	95.170021	4.25	1	8	1	1	2	514	3202	81	46	96.309731	On5	1	8	1	1	3	622	3201	31	45	96.676697	85	1	8	1	1	4	677	3201	107	57	96.181435	July5	1	8	1	1	5	814	3201	142	53	96.778076	1992,5	1	8	1	1	6	985	3201	82	45	96.481750	the5	1	8	1	1	7	1094	3199	289	47	96.523438	Committee5	1	8	1	1	8	1410	3199	225	46	95.385254	declared5	1	8	1	1	9	1660	3199	84	70	96.082657	the5	1	8	1	1	10	1770	3198	401	47	96.303024	communication5	1	8	1	1	11	2200	3197	283	47	96.099609	admissible5	1	8	1	1	12	2510	3197	42	45	95.514153	in5	1	8	1	1	13	2580	3207	63	35	96.126160	so5	1	8	1	1	14	2666	3197	77	45	96.126160	far5	1	8	1	1	15	2764	3206	63	36	96.558922	as4	1	8	1	2	0	314	3267	2511	65	-1	5	1	8	1	2	1	314	3274	29	46	96.826874	it5	1	8	1	2	2	377	3273	254	59	96.700089	appeared5	1	8	1	2	3	662	3274	51	44	96.425674	to5	1	8	1	2	4	748	3271	127	47	96.425674	raise5	1	8	1	2	5	910	3273	169	45	96.222870	issues5	1	8	1	2	6	1114	3271	153	46	96.863113	under5	1	8	1	2	7	1298	3271	189	46	96.477791	articles5	1	8	1	2	8	1520	3271	44	54	96.544434	7,5	1	8	1	2	9	1601	3271	44	54	96.475151	9,5	1	8	1	2	10	1686	3271	74	54	96.303062	10,5	1	8	1	2	11	1802	3271	73	53	96.303062	14,5	1	8	1	2	12	1914	3270	301	58	96.143196	paragraphs5	1	8	1	2	13	2252	3270	40	54	96.411064	1,5	1	8	1	2	14	2332	3269	44	53	96.726898	3,5	1	8	1	2	15	2413	3269	96	45	95.476860	and5	1	8	1	2	16	2548	3269	75	53	95.476860	19,5	1	8	1	2	17	2661	3267	52	47	96.382088	of5	1	8	1	2	18	2741	3269	84	45	96.382088	the4	1	8	1	3	0	313	3346	274	49	-1	5	1	8	1	3	1	313	3346	274	49	96.830803	Covenant.2	1	9	0	0	0	316	3560	777	47	-1	3	1	9	1	0	0	316	3560	777	47	-1	4	1	9	1	1	0	316	3560	777	47	-1	5	1	9	1	1	1	316	3562	364	45	96.305260	Examination5	1	9	1	1	2	706	3560	58	45	96.311661	of5	1	9	1	1	3	781	3560	90	45	96.311661	the5	1	9	1	1	4	898	3560	195	45	96.454567	merits:2	1	10	0	0	0	308	3699	2523	633	-1	3	1	10	1	0	0	308	3699	2523	633	-1	4	1	10	1	1	0	308	3699	2520	60	-1	5	1	10	1	1	1	308	3703	83	47	87.749451	5.15	1	10	1	1	2	516	3703	105	45	96.798203	The5	1	10	1	1	3	650	3702	142	47	96.495682	State5	1	10	1	1	4	822	3704	131	55	96.495682	party5	1	10	1	1	5	985	3702	75	45	96.620087	did5	1	10	1	1	6	1092	3704	81	43	96.559982	not5	1	10	1	1	7	1202	3700	194	59	96.088783	provide5	1	10	1	1	8	1426	3711	93	48	96.470108	any5	1	10	1	1	9	1549	3702	294	45	96.269432	information5	1	10	1	1	10	1876	3702	43	45	96.672913	in5	1	10	1	1	11	1949	3703	195	55	96.061501	respect5	1	10	1	1	12	2173	3700	52	46	96.234703	of5	1	10	1	1	13	2249	3700	83	46	96.234703	the5	1	10	1	1	14	2362	3700	277	46	96.747795	substance5	1	10	1	1	15	2666	3699	54	47	96.032806	of5	1	10	1	1	16	2744	3699	84	45	96.032806	the4	1	10	1	2	0	317	3771	2512	68	-1	5	1	10	1	2	1	317	3775	212	47	80.803734	author's5	1	10	1	2	2	562	3774	301	58	96.288132	allegations,5	1	10	1	2	3	896	3774	43	45	96.771255	in5	1	10	1	2	4	970	3774	209	58	96.779640	spite5	1	10	1	2	5	1129	3767	58	76	96.471344	of5	1	10	1	2	6	1202	3776	94	43	96.610115	two5	1	10	1	2	7	1328	3774	263	65	96.221436	reminders5	1	10	1	2	8	1620	3774	277	45	96.248802	addressed5	1	10	1	2	9	1928	3775	38	44	96.225121	to5	1	10	1	2	10	1992	3772	43	60	95.944817	it5	1	10	1	2	11	2065	3774	42	45	95.944817	in5	1	10	1	2	12	2138	3772	129	47	96.348824	June5	1	10	1	2	13	2302	3772	127	46	96.501831	19935	1	10	1	2	14	2458	3772	97	46	96.621834	and5	1	10	1	2	15	2589	3771	240	59	96.526665	February4	1	10	1	3	0	321	3835	2508	68	-1	5	1	10	1	3	1	321	3847	142	47	96.126350	1994.5	1	10	1	3	2	488	3847	104	45	96.710709	The5	1	10	1	3	3	614	3847	293	45	96.204979	Committee5	1	10	1	3	4	929	3848	144	44	96.788033	notes5	1	10	1	3	5	1093	3847	106	45	96.719025	with5	1	10	1	3	6	1222	3848	154	55	96.585175	regret5	1	10	1	3	7	1398	3846	95	45	96.492134	and5	1	10	1	3	8	1516	3848	135	55	96.348679	great5	1	10	1	3	9	1673	3856	210	35	96.346985	concern5	1	10	1	3	10	1902	3845	85	46	96.329407	the5	1	10	1	3	11	2008	3835	225	56	96.933487	absence5	1	10	1	3	12	2256	3844	51	47	96.686394	of5	1	10	1	3	13	2326	3844	313	58	96.332741	cooperation5	1	10	1	3	14	2660	3855	65	35	96.509941	on5	1	10	1	3	15	2745	3844	84	46	96.333679	the4	1	10	1	4	0	318	3905	2511	71	-1	5	1	10	1	4	1	318	3921	105	55	96.991310	part5	1	10	1	4	2	445	3919	54	45	96.924042	of5	1	10	1	4	3	517	3919	83	44	96.522125	the5	1	10	1	4	4	624	3917	141	46	96.747574	State5	1	10	1	4	5	790	3920	145	55	96.379150	party,5	1	10	1	4	6	965	3919	42	44	96.570435	in5	1	10	1	4	7	1033	3920	196	55	96.251564	respect5	1	10	1	4	8	1252	3917	51	46	96.380859	of5	1	10	1	4	9	1324	3917	112	45	97.015411	both5	1	10	1	4	10	1460	3917	81	45	96.367081	the5	1	10	1	4	11	1566	3917	323	58	95.935028	admissibility5	1	10	1	4	12	1914	3917	97	46	96.582451	and5	1	10	1	4	13	2034	3905	82	58	96.747185	the5	1	10	1	4	14	2140	3917	273	46	96.755707	substance5	1	10	1	4	15	2438	3916	51	46	96.586639	of5	1	10	1	4	16	2509	3916	82	46	96.586639	the5	1	10	1	4	17	2617	3916	212	46	71.459953	author's4	1	10	1	5	0	318	3988	2510	59	-1	5	1	10	1	5	1	318	3989	302	58	96.011429	allegations.5	1	10	1	5	2	649	3989	30	45	93.252625	It5	1	10	1	5	3	700	3989	39	45	95.587936	is5	1	10	1	5	4	762	3989	185	58	95.026962	implicit5	1	10	1	5	5	966	3989	42	46	95.026962	in5	1	10	1	5	6	1030	3989	159	46	96.357323	article5	1	10	1	5	7	1208	3988	45	54	96.886116	4,5	1	10	1	5	8	1280	3988	267	58	96.193466	paragraph5	1	10	1	5	9	1566	3988	45	54	96.193466	2,5	1	10	1	5	10	1637	3988	51	46	95.697189	of5	1	10	1	5	11	1704	3989	82	45	96.572716	the5	1	10	1	5	12	1806	3989	222	56	96.572716	Optional5	1	10	1	5	13	2052	3989	217	46	95.970375	Protocol5	1	10	1	5	14	2291	3988	96	46	96.375748	and5	1	10	1	5	15	2410	3988	42	46	96.006729	in5	1	10	1	5	16	2476	3988	96	46	96.138618	rule5	1	10	1	5	17	2593	3988	56	46	72.847237	975	1	10	1	5	18	2678	3988	53	46	95.887672	of5	1	10	1	5	19	2746	3988	82	46	96.706566	the4	1	10	1	6	0	318	4059	2511	58	-1	5	1	10	1	6	1	318	4060	338	47	94.467964	Committee's5	1	10	1	6	2	682	4061	128	44	95.544197	rules5	1	10	1	6	3	834	4061	53	44	96.449203	of5	1	10	1	6	4	909	4060	267	57	96.386772	procedure5	1	10	1	6	5	1201	4060	102	44	95.628059	that5	1	10	1	6	6	1326	4069	29	35	95.628059	a5	1	10	1	6	7	1381	4059	138	45	96.341934	State5	1	10	1	6	8	1545	4063	130	53	96.729065	party5	1	10	1	6	9	1698	4063	50	42	96.335892	to5	1	10	1	6	10	1770	4060	83	45	95.971359	the5	1	10	1	6	11	1880	4060	256	45	95.765915	Covenant5	1	10	1	6	12	2162	4063	129	42	96.613747	must5	1	10	1	6	13	2317	4059	286	57	96.732033	investigate5	1	10	1	6	14	2629	4059	44	45	95.481590	in5	1	10	1	6	15	2697	4059	132	57	95.481590	good4	1	10	1	7	0	318	4130	2511	59	-1	5	1	10	1	7	1	318	4132	114	45	96.665703	faith5	1	10	1	7	2	457	4132	58	45	79.209450	all5	1	10	1	7	3	538	4132	85	45	96.762535	the5	1	10	1	7	4	649	4132	286	57	96.205879	allegations5	1	10	1	7	5	958	4132	53	45	96.708672	of5	1	10	1	7	6	1033	4130	250	47	96.111000	violations5	1	10	1	7	7	1306	4131	53	45	96.480331	of5	1	10	1	7	8	1378	4131	81	45	95.640854	the5	1	10	1	7	9	1482	4131	257	46	95.640854	Covenant5	1	10	1	7	10	1765	4132	146	45	96.194511	made5	1	10	1	7	11	1936	4132	193	57	96.492081	against5	1	10	1	7	12	2154	4132	27	45	95.388039	it5	1	10	1	7	13	2206	4132	97	45	96.968246	and5	1	10	1	7	14	2329	4132	58	45	96.475830	its5	1	10	1	7	15	2410	4131	292	53	95.984573	authorities,5	1	10	1	7	16	2730	4131	99	45	96.468788	and4	1	10	1	8	0	318	4202	2513	58	-1	5	1	10	1	8	1	318	4206	50	43	96.881844	to5	1	10	1	8	2	392	4203	181	46	96.421623	furnish5	1	10	1	8	3	598	4205	51	43	80.174088	tn5	1	10	1	8	4	672	4204	83	44	96.793030	the5	1	10	1	8	5	780	4204	292	45	96.128021	Committee5	1	10	1	8	6	1096	4202	83	46	96.455536	the5	1	10	1	8	7	1204	4202	292	46	96.455536	information5	1	10	1	8	8	1524	4202	234	46	96.612190	available5	1	10	1	8	9	1780	4205	51	43	96.309814	to5	1	10	1	8	10	1854	4204	41	45	96.410782	it.5	1	10	1	8	11	1926	4204	45	45	90.108871	In5	1	10	1	8	12	1997	4204	82	45	95.518417	the5	1	10	1	8	13	2106	4204	399	52	95.252708	circumstances,5	1	10	1	8	14	2533	4202	98	46	96.945976	due5	1	10	1	8	15	2653	4202	178	58	96.702614	weight4	1	10	1	9	0	321	4274	2431	58	-1	5	1	10	1	9	1	321	4277	130	43	95.954903	must5	1	10	1	9	2	474	4274	65	46	95.954903	be5	1	10	1	9	3	561	4274	142	58	96.730682	given5	1	10	1	9	4	726	4277	49	43	96.333305	to5	1	10	1	9	5	797	4276	82	44	96.468018	the5	1	10	1	9	6	902	4274	211	46	58.190529	author's5	1	10	1	9	7	1136	4274	297	57	96.144302	allegations,5	1	10	1	9	8	1458	4277	49	43	96.460312	to5	1	10	1	9	9	1529	4274	83	46	96.701530	the5	1	10	1	9	10	1634	4277	163	43	96.430992	extent5	1	10	1	9	11	1818	4276	101	45	96.656441	that5	1	10	1	9	12	1938	4276	114	56	95.961700	they5	1	10	1	9	13	2074	4276	129	45	96.313225	have5	1	10	1	9	14	2226	4276	129	45	96.220322	been5	1	10	1	9	15	2381	4274	371	46	95.913361	substantiated.2	1	11	0	0	0	0	4661	2240	12	-1	3	1	11	1	0	0	0	4661	2240	12	-1	4	1	11	1	1	0	0	4661	2240	12	-1	5	1	11	1	1	1	0	4661	2240	12	95.000000	 2	1	12	0	0	0	2965	4666	470	6	-1	3	1	12	1	0	0	2965	4666	470	6	-1	4	1	12	1	1	0	2965	4666	470	6	-1	5	1	12	1	1	1	2965	4666	470	6	95.000000	 2	1	13	0	0	0	2965	4666	470	6	-1	3	1	13	1	0	0	2965	4666	470	6	-1	4	1	13	1	1	0	2965	4666	470	6	-1	5	1	13	1	1	1	2965	4666	470	6	95.000000	 2	1	14	0	0	0	2943	4665	492	8	-1	3	1	14	1	0	0	2943	4665	492	8	-1	4	1	14	1	1	0	2943	4665	492	8	-1	5	1	14	1	1	1	2943	4665	492	8	95.000000
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-005.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-005.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..b627a13b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990/page-005.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+CCPR/C/50/D/428/1990
+Annex
+English
+Page 4
+§.2 The Committee decides to base its Views on the following facts, which have not been
+contested by the State party. Mr. Francois Bozize was arrested on 24 July 1989 and was
+taken to the military camp at Roux, Bangui, on 31 August 1989. There, he was subjected to
+maltreatment and was held incommunicado until 26 October 1990, when his lawyer was able
+to visit him. During the night of 10 to 11 July 1990, he was beaten, and sustained serious
+injuries, which was confirmed by his lawyer. Moreover, while detained in Camp Roux, he was
+held under conditions which did not respect the inherent dignity of the human person. After
+his arrest, Mr. Bozize was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by
+law to exercise judicial power, was denied access to counsel, and was not, in due time,
+afforded the opportunity to obtain a decision by a court on the lawfulness of his arrest and
+detention. The Committee finds that the above amounts to violations by the State party of
+articles 7, 9, and 10 in the case.
+5.3 The Committee notes that although Mr. Bozize has not yet been tried, his right to a fair
+trial has been violated; in particular, his right to be tried within a reasonable5	1	4	1	2	15	2668	1873	135	45	92.879646	time under
+article 14, paragraph 3(c), has not been respected, as he does not appear to have been tried
+at first instance after over four years of detention.
+5.4 In respect of a possible violation of article 19 of the Covenant, the Committee notes
+that this claim has remained unsubstantiated. The Committee therefore makes no finding of
+a violation in this respect.
+6. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional
+Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts
+before it disclose violations of articles 7, 9, 10 and 14, paragraph 3(c), of the Covenant.
+7. The Committee is of the view that Mr. Frangois Bozize is entitled, under article 2,
+' paragraph 3(a), of the Covenant, to an effective remedy, including his release and appropriate
+compensation for the treatment suffered. The State party should investigate the events
+complained of and bring to justice those held responsible for the author's treatment; it further
+is under an obligation to take effective measures to ensure that similar violations do not occur
+in the future.
+8. The Committee would wish to receive prompt information on any relevant measures
+taken by the State party in respect of the Committee's Views.
+[Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version.
+Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee's
+annual report to the General Assembly.]}
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-001.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-001.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..354ec484
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-001.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+UNITED CCPR
+NATIONS
+¢/ ») International Covenant Distr.
+N y on Civil RESTRICTED */
+Wee |
+«40 = CCPR/C/55/D/519/1992
+and Political Rights 3 November 1995
+Original: ENGLISH
+HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
+Fifty-fifth session
+VIEWS
+Communication No. 519/1992
+Submitted by: Lyndon Marriott [represented by counsel]
+Victim: The author
+State party: Jamaica
+Date of communication:: 14 July 1992 (initial submission)
+Documentation references: Priox decisions
+~ CCPR/C/47/D/519/1992 (Decision under
+rule 91, dated 31 March 1993)
+- CCPR/C/50/D/519/1992 (Decision on
+admissibility, dated 30 June 1994)
+Date of adoption of Views: 27 October 1995
+On 27 October 1995, the Human Rights Committee adopted its Views under
+article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol in respect of communication
+No. 519/1992. The text of the Views is appended to the present document.
+[ANNEX]
+*/ Made public by decision of the Human Rights Committee.
+VWS519.55e cb
+GE.85- 19419
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-002.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-002.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..e445e9eb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-002.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+CCPR/C/55/D/519/1992
+Annex
+English
+Page 1
+ANNEX
+Views of the Human Rights Committee under article 5, paragraph 4,
+of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
+on Civil and Political Rights
+- Fifty-fifth session -
+concerning
+Communication No. 519/1992
+Submitted by: Lyndon Marriott [represented by counsel]
+Victim: The author
+State party: ° Jamaica
+Date of communication: . 14 July 1992 (initial submission)
+ry
+Date of decision on admissibility: 30 June 1994
+The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the
+International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
+Meeting on 27 October 1995,
+Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 519/1992,
+submitted to the Human Rights Committee by Mr. Lyndon Marriott under the
+Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
+Having taken into account all written information made available to it
+by the author of the communication, his counsel and the State party,
+Adopts its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol.
+t
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-003.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-003.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..fa1c372a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-003.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+CCPR/C/55/D/519/1992
+Annex
+English
+Page 2
+1. The author of the communication is Lyndon Marriott, a Jamaican citizen
+currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment at St. Catherine District
+Prison. He claims to be a victim of violations by Jamaica of articles 7 and
+14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is
+represented by counsel.
+The facts as submitted by the author:
+2.1 The author was arrested on 12 March 1987 and charged with the murder on
+the same day of one Aston Nugent. He was tried in the Home Circuit Court,
+Kingston, found guilty as charged and sentenced to death on 16 December 1987.
+The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 3 October 1988. A further
+petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed by the Judicial Committee
+of the Privy Council on 4 October 1990. According to counsel, the author’s
+case has been reviewed pursuant to the Offences against the Person (Amendment)
+Act, 1992. The murder for which the author was convicted has been classified
+as a non-capital murder, consequently, the author's death sentence was
+commuted to life imprisonment in December 1992; he will be entitled to parole
+after 15 years.
+2.2 During the trial, Rosetta Brown, a former girlfriend of the author and,
+at the time of the incident, the girlfriend of the deceased, testified that
+on 12 March 1987, the author arrived at the deceased’s house, at which she was
+staying, and told her to go home. She walked over to a neighbour’s yard,
+followed by the author and the deceased. The two men started a dispute about
+her. Nugent apparently tried to disengage the author, who had taken hold of
+Brown’s blouse, upon which the author stabbed Nugent with a knife. Rosetta
+Brown testified that she saw the author take out the knife from his waist, but
+that she could not see him stab Nugent, since she was standing behind the
+deceased. Dorette Williams, a neighbour, testified that she saw the author
+stab the deceased in the chest.
+2.3 The third prosecution witness, Rosemarie Barnett, was another friend of
+both the deceased and the author. She testified that the author had come to
+her house in the morning of 12 March 1987, threatening to kill Nugent. dHe
+returned to her home an hour later, holding a knife with blood on the handle,
+and telling her that he had stabbed him.
+2.4 In an unsworn statement from the dock, the author contended that Nugent
+had pushed and kicked him; that Nugent had then pulled out a knife from his
+pocket and raised it in order to stab the author; and that, in the ensuing
+struggle, Nugent was stabbed.
+The complaint:
+3.1 The author contends that he was denied a fair hearing by an impartial
+tribunal, in violation of Section 20(1) of the Jamaican Constitution and
+article 14 of the Covenant. He claims that the judge failed to direct the
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-004.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-004.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..3be0234a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-004.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+CCPR/C/55/D/519/1992
+Annex
+English
+Page 3
+jury properly on the issue of provocation and that he withdrew the issue of
+self-defence from it. Moreover, the trial judge was allegedly biased against
+the author and made ironical and provocative comments on the sentence, which
+were later criticized by the Court of Appeal, and which according to the
+author provide further evidence of the court’s bias.
+3.2 The author further contends that the foreman of the jury was an
+acquaintance of the deceased, and that the court was therefore not impartial.
+It is further submitted that the defence was not informed at the preliminary
+hearing that the prosecution would call a third witness at the trial, so that
+no counter-arguments could be prepared.
+3.3 Furthermore, the author submits that before the Court of Appeal, his
+counsel, who had not represented him at first instance, made no submissions:
+in support of the appeal. Counsel, who was assigned to the case by the
+Jamaica Council for Human Rights, explains that there were issues which could
+have been raised at first instance, but, since the5	1	1	4	16	10	2118	1620	391	47	96.384811	incompetence5	1	1	4	16	11	2549	1618	60	36	96.189995	of5	1	1	4	16	12	2651	1615	226	38	96.532089	counsel4	1	1	4	17	0	373	1682	2506	68	-1	5	1	1	4	17	1	373	1703	57	38	96.084854	is5	1	1	4	17	2	474	1707	96	34	95.964005	not5	1	1	4	17	3	617	1712	28	27	95.720062	a5	1	1	4	17	4	687	1700	200	50	95.720062	ground5	1	1	4	17	5	932	1700	94	38	96.604988	for5	1	1	4	17	6	1070	1698	250	48	95.881332	appeal,
+he claimed that it would have been futile to
+canvass this aspect. ,
+3.4 The author finally asserts that the time spent on death row, during
+5	1	1	5	1	2	369	1982	165	37	96.093132	which5	1	1	5	1	3	574	1982	64	37	96.815483	he5	1	1	5	1	4	682	1980	164	38	96.323318	could5	1	1	5	1	5	887	1983	95	33	96.082359	not5	1	1	5	1	6	1028	1976	158	39	96.252731	avail5	1	1	5	1	7	1232	1975	227	37	96.353561	himself5	1	1	5	1	8	1504	1975	59	36	95.902321	of5	1	1	5	1	9	1608	1972	293	48	95.851562	appellate5	1	1	5	1	10	1945	1968	280	43	96.204201	remedies,5	1	1	5	1	11	2282	1966	359	38	96.204201	constitutes5	1	1	5	1	12	2687	1963	182	40	89.037682	cruel,3	1	1	6	0	0	370	2032	2511	400	-1	4	1	1	6	1	0	373	2032	2508	64	-1	5	1	1	6	1	1	373	2050	229	38	95.956322	inhuman5	1	1	6	1	2	646	2060	64	27	96.801598	or5	1	1	6	1	3	754	2047	299	49	96.582207	degrading5	1	1	6	1	4	1099	2050	292	33	96.277222	treatment5	1	1	6	1	5	1438	2043	196	37	96.461128	within5	1	1	6	1	6	1680	2042	92	37	96.772911	the5	1	1	6	1	7	1816	2039	229	47	96.930481	meaning5	1	1	6	1	8	2092	2038	60	37	96.523010	of5	1	1	6	1	9	2198	2035	230	39	91.241737	Section5	1	1	6	1	10	2476	2034	145	41	90.895828	17(1)5	1	1	6	1	11	2679	2032	59	38	96.162529	of5	1	1	6	1	12	2787	2032	94	36	96.162529	the4	1	1	6	2	0	370	2111	1725	47	-1	5	1	1	6	2	1	370	2119	267	39	96.337517	Jamaican5	1	1	6	2	2	674	2116	400	40	95.991516	Constitution5	1	1	6	2	3	1111	2116	97	36	95.017372	and5	1	1	6	2	4	1246	2113	226	38	95.017372	article5	1	1	6	2	5	1515	2116	23	32	96.716446	75	1	1	6	2	6	1579	2112	59	36	95.974564	of5	1	1	6	2	7	1680	2111	92	37	96.635406	the5	1	1	6	2	8	1813	2112	282	35	95.781807	Covenant.4	1	1	6	3	0	371	2312	2510	60	-1	5	1	1	6	3	1	371	2328	97	38	96.057732	The5	1	1	6	3	2	515	2329	163	35	92.945389	State5	1	1	6	3	3	722	2313	232	59	86.288315	party’s5	1	1	6	3	4	1004	2321	394	39	95.835556	observations5	1	1	6	3	5	1445	2331	63	27	92.555794	on5	1	1	6	3	6	1555	2316	430	47	92.555794	admissibility5	1	1	6	3	7	2029	2315	96	37	96.538162	and5	1	1	6	3	8	2172	2313	93	38	96.502396	the5	1	1	6	3	9	2312	2312	260	38	10.642881	author's5	1	1	6	3	10	2622	2312	259	35	96.272491	comments4	1	1	6	4	0	374	2396	1697	36	-1	5	1	1	6	4	1	374	2396	254	36	95.404373	thereon:5	1	1	6	4	2	2065	2409	6	5	51.463684	.3	1	1	7	0	0	130	2515	2753	204	-1	4	1	1	7	1	0	130	2515	2753	65	-1	5	1	1	7	1	1	130	2575	7	5	28.067268	.5	1	1	7	1	2	374	2537	92	33	96.388168	4.15	1	1	7	1	3	574	2536	67	43	96.288292	By5	1	1	7	1	4	699	2529	331	39	96.288818	submission5	1	1	7	1	5	1090	2529	60	37	95.997673	of5	1	1	7	1	6	1214	2531	56	33	96.725822	225	1	1	7	1	7	1335	2531	127	33	95.868401	June5	1	1	7	1	8	1525	2528	149	40	96.676788	1993,5	1	1	7	1	9	1745	2524	92	37	96.600693	the5	1	1	7	1	10	1901	2525	160	34	96.195953	State5	1	1	7	1	11	2118	2524	167	43	96.739403	party5	1	1	7	1	12	2345	2528	192	36	95.972977	argues5	1	1	7	1	13	2601	2516	124	36	89.402260	that5	1	1	7	1	14	2789	2515	94	36	96.744514	the4	1	1	7	2	0	374	2583	2497	57	-1	5	1	1	7	2	1	374	2600	433	40	95.949982	communication5	1	1	7	2	2	845	2599	57	38	96.331802	is5	1	1	7	2	3	942	2597	418	39	95.298111	inadmissible.5	1	1	7	2	4	1442	2599	56	33	95.699791	It5	1	1	7	2	5	1537	2595	191	37	96.178757	refers5	1	1	7	2	6	1767	2597	61	34	96.797913	to5	1	1	7	2	7	1865	2591	228	38	96.402290	Section5	1	1	7	2	8	2129	2592	59	35	96.531769	255	1	1	7	2	9	2225	2588	60	37	96.714226	of5	1	1	7	2	10	2325	2587	91	37	96.227943	its5	1	1	7	2	11	2454	2583	417	42	96.440948	Constitution,4	1	1	7	3	0	373	2653	2508	66	-1	5	1	1	7	3	1	373	2671	167	38	96.617004	which5	1	1	7	3	2	573	2669	264	50	96.575523	provides5	1	1	7	3	3	877	2669	125	38	96.705780	that5	1	1	7	3	4	1040	2677	194	38	96.745102	anyone5	1	1	7	3	5	1271	2667	96	36	96.603050	who5	1	1	7	3	6	1404	2665	226	47	95.862709	alleges5	1	1	7	3	7	1669	2664	125	36	96.839966	that5	1	1	7	3	8	1832	2672	97	37	96.533371	any5	1	1	7	3	9	1963	2661	58	36	95.879829	of5	1	1	7	3	10	2058	2659	94	37	96.064331	his5	1	1	7	3	11	2191	2655	458	41	53.352974	constitutional5	1	1	7	3	12	2689	2653	192	47	95.721107	rights3	1	1	8	0	0	262	2724	2628	1168	-1	4	1	1	8	1	0	374	2724	2509	61	-1	5	1	1	8	1	1	374	2743	128	36	96.468788	have5	1	1	8	1	2	538	2741	134	38	96.468788	been5	1	1	8	1	3	706	2739	267	38	95.796631	violated5	1	1	8	1	4	1006	2749	99	36	95.796631	may5	1	1	8	1	5	1140	2737	164	47	96.453323	apply5	1	1	8	1	6	1339	2741	60	32	96.664116	to5	1	1	8	1	7	1438	2736	92	36	96.879784	the5	1	1	8	1	8	1569	2737	226	44	96.757355	Supreme5	1	1	8	1	9	1833	2735	158	34	95.764900	Court5	1	1	8	1	10	2033	2731	92	36	95.764900	for5	1	1	8	1	11	2161	2728	252	37	96.298355	redress.5	1	1	8	1	12	2492	2725	93	38	95.339035	The5	1	1	8	1	13	2625	2724	157	47	95.547539	right5	1	1	8	1	14	2823	2727	60	32	96.487396	to4	1	1	8	2	0	377	2793	2506	63	-1	5	1	1	8	2	1	377	2811	128	37	95.727036	fair5	1	1	8	2	2	542	2809	160	38	95.727036	trial5	1	1	8	2	3	746	2808	56	37	96.872353	is5	1	1	8	2	4	833	2797	306	59	96.516541	protected5	1	1	8	2	5	1172	2807	66	46	96.871071	by5	1	1	8	2	6	1274	2804	228	37	96.656517	Section5	1	1	8	2	7	1537	2807	59	33	96.345543	205	1	1	8	2	8	1633	2803	61	36	96.345543	of5	1	1	8	2	9	1733	2803	92	36	96.705521	the5	1	1	8	2	10	1863	2797	417	40	96.167480	Constitution.5	1	1	8	2	11	2360	2796	158	37	96.065285	Since5	1	1	8	2	12	2560	2795	92	36	96.694038	the5	1	1	8	2	13	2689	2793	194	36	96.380768	author4	1	1	8	3	0	374	2861	2511	55	-1	5	1	1	8	3	1	374	2880	96	36	93.955254	has5	1	1	8	3	2	523	2882	98	34	93.955254	not5	1	1	8	3	3	679	2877	163	38	95.787415	filed5	1	1	8	3	4	895	2888	28	25	95.787415	a5	1	1	8	3	5	979	2874	459	39	95.735893	constitutional5	1	1	8	3	6	1493	2872	218	41	96.179176	motion,5	1	1	8	3	7	1779	2871	92	36	96.428764	the5	1	1	8	3	8	1928	2872	159	33	96.372124	State5	1	1	8	3	9	2141	2871	166	42	96.411621	party5	1	1	8	3	10	2358	2873	194	38	96.313148	argues5	1	1	8	3	11	2609	2863	124	36	95.917389	that5	1	1	8	3	12	2793	2861	92	36	96.665855	the4	1	1	8	4	0	378	2930	2355	55	-1	5	1	1	8	4	1	378	2945	432	40	95.867294	communication5	1	1	8	4	2	850	2945	57	38	95.934181	is5	1	1	8	4	3	950	2942	393	39	95.902222	inadmissible5	1	1	8	4	4	1386	2942	92	35	95.902222	for5	1	1	8	4	5	1518	2940	224	37	96.845825	failure5	1	1	8	4	6	1783	2942	60	33	96.134735	to5	1	1	8	4	7	1881	2937	227	36	95.864929	exhaust5	1	1	8	4	8	2149	2932	260	39	95.792801	domestic5	1	1	8	4	9	2449	2930	284	38	95.913719	remedies.4	1	1	8	5	0	378	3065	2506	64	-1	5	1	1	8	5	1	378	3088	92	33	96.113991	4.25	1	1	8	5	2	578	3084	96	36	95.869263	The5	1	1	8	5	3	713	3085	161	35	96.319000	State5	1	1	8	5	4	907	3085	168	44	96.773056	party5	1	1	8	5	5	1111	3080	227	37	95.958870	further5	1	1	8	5	6	1374	3086	192	38	96.380493	argues5	1	1	8	5	7	1604	3076	126	37	96.836578	that5	1	1	8	5	8	1768	3074	93	37	96.847046	the5	1	1	8	5	9	1899	3069	426	41	96.637634	communication5	1	1	8	5	10	2361	3068	192	36	95.585548	raises5	1	1	8	5	11	2594	3066	191	37	95.635490	issues5	1	1	8	5	12	2823	3065	61	38	96.503853	of4	1	1	8	6	0	381	3134	2504	57	-1	5	1	1	8	6	1	381	3154	159	37	95.342583	facts5	1	1	8	6	2	586	3152	98	37	96.459732	and5	1	1	8	6	3	727	3150	263	38	96.460312	evidence5	1	1	8	6	4	1034	3148	167	37	96.424850	which5	1	1	8	6	5	1244	3148	94	36	96.795265	the5	1	1	8	6	6	1382	3145	293	38	95.749077	Committee5	1	1	8	6	7	1723	3142	59	38	96.333710	is5	1	1	8	6	8	1825	3145	95	34	96.244492	not5	1	1	8	6	9	1967	3142	290	45	95.783531	competent5	1	1	8	6	10	2305	3141	62	32	96.866302	to5	1	1	8	6	11	2410	3134	319	39	96.308350	determine.5	1	1	8	6	12	2829	3137	56	34	96.333801	It4	1	1	8	7	0	378	3205	2190	64	-1	5	1	1	8	7	1	378	3230	196	39	96.472984	argues5	1	1	8	7	2	615	3220	127	37	96.253578	that5	1	1	8	7	3	783	3220	95	37	96.345230	the5	1	1	8	7	4	918	3216	430	40	96.277237	communication5	1	1	8	7	5	1388	3214	56	38	96.875381	is5	1	1	8	7	6	1487	3212	390	39	96.153847	inadmissible5	1	1	8	7	7	1917	3209	128	38	96.890274	also5	1	1	8	7	8	2083	3218	62	27	96.303215	on5	1	1	8	7	9	2184	3206	125	38	96.358017	this5	1	1	8	7	10	2349	3205	219	47	96.264023	ground.4	1	1	8	8	0	382	3341	2505	57	-1	5	1	1	8	8	1	382	3364	92	34	94.190948	5.15	1	1	8	8	2	585	3362	61	34	95.672989	In5	1	1	8	8	3	678	3357	96	39	96.148560	his5	1	1	8	8	4	813	3361	260	35	96.274132	comments5	1	1	8	8	5	1112	3365	63	28	96.923416	on5	1	1	8	8	6	1211	3354	93	38	96.754456	the5	1	1	8	8	7	1342	3357	160	33	91.947067	State5	1	1	8	8	8	1535	3354	228	44	91.501884	party’s5	1	1	8	8	9	1804	3346	348	43	96.687202	submission,5	1	1	8	8	10	2201	3344	224	38	95.604164	counsel5	1	1	8	8	11	2464	3346	61	34	96.014175	to5	1	1	8	8	12	2561	3342	93	36	96.225365	the5	1	1	8	8	13	2691	3341	196	36	96.328613	author4	1	1	8	9	0	381	3409	2504	64	-1	5	1	1	8	9	1	381	3433	261	33	96.887520	contests5	1	1	8	9	2	679	3428	127	38	96.720238	that5	1	1	8	9	3	841	3437	64	28	96.743301	an5	1	1	8	9	4	937	3424	365	49	96.675972	application5	1	1	8	9	5	1335	3428	61	32	96.841034	to5	1	1	8	9	6	1430	3422	93	38	96.082787	the5	1	1	8	9	7	1557	3424	227	44	95.991135	Supreme5	1	1	8	9	8	1817	3421	160	35	95.991135	Court5	1	1	8	9	9	2012	3416	58	38	96.850143	of5	1	1	8	9	10	2106	3413	230	39	96.588425	Jamaica5	1	1	8	9	11	2368	3413	162	36	96.145927	under5	1	1	8	9	12	2565	3409	228	39	96.136719	Section5	1	1	8	9	13	2826	3413	59	33	96.961769	254	1	1	8	10	0	380	3478	2509	59	-1	5	1	1	8	10	1	380	3498	61	39	94.437050	of5	1	1	8	10	2	490	3498	96	39	96.486679	the5	1	1	8	10	3	635	3496	267	40	96.726501	Jamaican5	1	1	8	10	4	948	3493	398	40	95.997673	Constitution5	1	1	8	10	5	1395	3492	57	37	96.616844	is5	1	1	8	10	6	1503	3501	63	27	96.445045	an5	1	1	8	10	7	1612	3488	293	38	96.114929	available5	1	1	8	10	8	1953	3485	98	39	96.521210	and5	1	1	8	10	9	2097	3482	293	41	95.976891	effective5	1	1	8	10	10	2441	3480	196	46	96.511238	remedy5	1	1	8	10	11	2686	3478	62	38	96.578423	in5	1	1	8	10	12	2795	3478	94	38	96.753868	the4	1	1	8	11	0	382	3549	2508	57	-1	5	1	1	8	11	1	382	3569	428	37	96.703796	circumstances5	1	1	8	11	2	854	3566	60	38	95.794914	of5	1	1	8	11	3	961	3565	93	37	91.713173	the5	1	1	8	11	4	1098	3564	260	37	91.713173	author’s5	1	1	8	11	5	1403	3571	151	27	96.498734	case.5	1	1	8	11	6	1645	3562	61	34	95.365402	In5	1	1	8	11	7	1745	3557	124	39	96.294563	this5	1	1	8	11	8	1916	3554	348	42	95.773552	connection,5	1	1	8	11	9	2317	3553	60	36	96.479218	he5	1	1	8	11	10	2422	3554	191	34	96.022530	states5	1	1	8	11	11	2657	3549	127	36	96.470909	that5	1	1	8	11	12	2826	3558	64	27	96.751015	no4	1	1	8	12	0	382	3618	2505	67	-1	5	1	1	8	12	1	382	3637	160	48	96.422676	legal5	1	1	8	12	2	575	3636	99	38	95.962082	aid5	1	1	8	12	3	706	3636	59	37	95.340759	is5	1	1	8	12	4	798	3634	296	39	95.340759	available5	1	1	8	12	5	1130	3637	60	33	96.245216	to5	1	1	8	12	6	1223	3632	93	37	96.104279	the5	1	1	8	12	7	1348	3630	195	38	96.243233	author5	1	1	8	12	8	1576	3633	62	33	96.244675	to5	1	1	8	12	9	1665	3637	196	39	95.234016	pursue5	1	1	8	12	10	1896	3625	124	37	95.234016	this5	1	1	8	12	11	2056	3624	216	46	96.030533	remedy.5	1	1	8	12	12	2340	3625	61	33	96.755730	He5	1	1	8	12	13	2437	3618	224	39	96.373245	further5	1	1	8	12	14	2693	3627	194	37	96.566383	argues4	1	1	8	13	0	382	3686	2505	64	-1	5	1	1	8	13	1	382	3708	151	42	96.265831	that,5	1	1	8	13	2	582	3705	160	39	97.007278	since5	1	1	8	13	3	782	3705	95	37	96.487366	the5	1	1	8	13	4	914	3703	196	38	96.231400	author5	1	1	8	13	5	1146	3701	98	37	95.601372	had5	1	1	8	13	6	1278	3699	294	38	95.607277	available5	1	1	8	13	7	1611	3702	63	32	96.602386	to5	1	1	8	13	8	1708	3695	98	38	94.743256	him5	1	1	8	13	9	1837	3706	64	27	94.743256	an5	1	1	8	13	10	1937	3694	192	47	96.292709	appeal5	1	1	8	13	11	2169	3697	60	32	96.676262	to5	1	1	8	13	12	2268	3691	93	37	96.461906	the5	1	1	8	13	13	2398	3693	159	33	96.692627	Court5	1	1	8	13	14	2595	3687	59	37	95.835030	of5	1	1	8	13	15	2691	3686	196	47	96.170967	Appeal4	1	1	8	14	0	378	3754	2511	66	-1	5	1	1	8	14	1	378	3777	100	36	96.386459	and5	1	1	8	14	2	522	3779	67	34	95.556709	to5	1	1	8	14	3	637	3775	94	37	95.822197	the5	1	1	8	14	4	781	3773	165	47	95.822197	Privy5	1	1	8	14	5	990	3770	248	43	96.332092	Council,5	1	1	8	14	6	1300	3770	94	36	96.308762	the5	1	1	8	14	7	1442	3771	228	43	96.276543	Supreme5	1	1	8	14	8	1720	3769	160	33	95.683075	Court5	1	1	8	14	9	1926	3763	167	38	95.683075	would5	1	1	8	14	10	2136	3766	93	32	96.602341	not5	1	1	8	14	11	2278	3761	127	36	96.420647	have5	1	1	8	14	12	2456	3755	294	39	96.334869	exercised5	1	1	8	14	13	2799	3754	90	36	95.363708	its4	1	1	8	15	0	374	3827	2199	65	-1	5	1	1	8	15	1	374	3854	226	38	95.463020	powers,5	1	1	8	15	2	645	3846	266	44	88.844841	pursuant5	1	1	8	15	3	954	3846	60	31	96.009781	to5	1	1	8	15	4	1048	3838	303	50	96.009781	paragraph5	1	1	8	15	5	1390	3841	24	32	95.585236	25	1	1	8	15	6	1455	3837	59	36	95.585236	of5	1	1	8	15	7	1556	3834	229	39	96.892151	Section5	1	1	8	15	8	1824	3837	57	33	96.965515	255	1	1	8	15	9	1923	3833	60	36	94.537010	of5	1	1	8	15	10	2024	3833	93	36	96.621460	the5	1	1	8	15	11	2157	3827	416	41	95.679451	Constitution.3	1	1	9	0	0	3178	4406	3	60	-1	4	1	1	9	1	0	3178	4406	3	60	-1	5	1	1	9	1	1	3178	4406	3	60	95.732002	|
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-005.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-005.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7e742692
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-005.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+CCPR/C/55/D/519/1992
+Annex
+English
+Page 4
+5.2 With regard to his claim under article 7 of the Covenant, counsel claims
+that a constitutional motion would have been ineffective, since the Supreme
+Court would have considered itself bound by the decision of the Judicial
+Committee of the Privy Council in 1981 (Riley v. Attorney General) where it
+was held that whatever the reasons for delay the Privy Council would not allow
+a ground that an execution contravened Section 17 of the Jamaican
+Constitution.
+5.3 Finally, counsel argues that the author does not request the Human
+Rights Committee to evaluate the facts of the case and that he does not raise
+issues of facts and evidence. Counsel emphasizes that the author requests the
+Committee to determine whether he has received a fair hearing within the
+meaning of article 14 of the Covenant, and that the facts and issues of the
+case are relevant bearing in mind that a defendant should not be convicted of
+a capital offence except upon clear and incontrovertible evidence.
+The Committee’s admissibility decision:
+6.1 During its S5lst session, the Committee considered the admissibility of
+the communication.
+6.2 The Committee recalled its constant jurisprudence that for purposes of
+article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol, domestic remedies must
+be both effective and available. The Committee noted that the Supreme Court
+of damaica had, in recent cases, allowed applications for constitutional
+redress in respect of breaches of fundamental rights, after the criminal
+appeals. in these cases had been dismissed. . However, the Committee also
+recalled that the State party had indicated on several occasions* that no
+legal aid was made available for constitutional motions. The Committee
+considered that, in the absence of legal aid, a constitutional motion did not,
+in the circumstances of the instant case, constitute an available remedy which
+had to be exhausted for purposes of the Optional Protocol. In this respect,
+the Committee therefore found that it was not precluded by article 5,
+paragraph 2(b), from considering the communication.
+6.3 As regards the author’s allegations relating to the conduct of the trial
+by the judge, the evaluation of evidence by the court, and the judge’s
+instructions to the jury, the Committee recalled that it was generally for the
+appellate courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate the facts and
+evidence in a particular case; similarly, it was for the appellate courts and
+not for the Committee to review specific instructions to the jury by the
+judge, unless it was clear that the instructions to the jury were arbitrary
+or amounted to a denial of justice, or that the judge manifestly had violated
+his obligation of impartiality. The author’s allegations did not show that
++ See, for example, communications No. 283/1988 (Aston Little v.
+Jamaica), Views adopted on 1 November 1991, No. 321/1988 (Maurice Thomas v.
+Jamaica), Views adopted on 19 October 1993, and No. 352/1989 (Douglas, Gentles
+and Kerr v. Jamaica), Views adopted on 19 October 1993.
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-006.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-006.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..87b612a4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-006.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+CCPR/C/55/D/519/1992
+Annex
+English
+Page 5
+the judge’s instructions or the conduct of the trial suffered from such
+defects. In this respect, therefore, the author's claims did not come within
+the competence of the Committee. Accordingly, this part of the communication
+was inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, under
+article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
+6.4 As regards the author’s allegation that the foreman of the jury was a
+friend of the deceased, the Committee noted that this matter was not raised
+by the author or his counsel during the trial or at appeal. This part of the
+communication was therefore inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic
+remedies.
+6.5 The Committee noted that the author also claimed that his defence
+counsel had not been informed that the prosecution would call a third witness,
+that the matter was brought to the attention of the judge, but that the judge
+failed to adjourn the hearing to give counsel time'to prepare for the cross-
+examination. The Committee considered that this claim might raise issues
+under article 14, paragraph 3(b) and. (e), of the Covenant, that needed to be
+examined on the merits.
+?
+6.6 As regards the author’s claim concerning his legal representation at the
+appeal proceedings, the Committee noted that the author's lawyer was provided
+by the Jamaica Council for Human Rights, a non-governmental organization. The
+Committee considered therefore that the alleged failure to properly represent
+the author could not be attributed to the State party. This part of the
+communication was therefore inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional
+Protocol.
+6.7 -With regard to the author’s claim under article 7, the Committee
+considered that the author had failed to show what steps he had taken to bring
+this complaint to the attention of the authorities in Jamaica. In this
+respect, the author had failed to fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of
+domestic remedies, set out in article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional
+Protocol.
+7. Accordingly, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided that the
+communication was admissible in so far as it appeared to raise issues under
+article 14, paragraph 3(b) and (e) of the Covenant.
+State party’s submission on the merits and counsel’s comments:
+8. By submission of 27 January 1995, the State party points out that the
+allegations relating to article 14, paragraph 3(b) and (e), declared
+admissible by the Committee, relate to an issue which should have been raised
+as a ground for appeal. The State party cannot be held responsible for
+counsel’s failure to do so. Since the author thus failed to avail himself of
+a remedy which was available to him, the State party denies that a violation
+has taken place.
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-007.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-007.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..26d33bde
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-007.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+ccpR/C/55/D/519/1992
+Annex
+English
+Page 6
+9.1 In his comments on the State party’s submission, counsel contends that
+the issue arising under article 14, paragraph 3(b) and (e), involves the
+responsibility of the State party in that article 14 of the Covenant is
+embodied in the Jamaican Constitution, whereas constitutional redress is not
+available to the author because of the lack of legal aid.
+9.2 Counsel further claims that the issues were in fact raised on appeal,
+since the appeal filed by the author was based on inter alia the ground of
+unfair trial. Even though counsel for the author did not argue the grounds
+for appeal, the Court should have considered the grounds ex officio. In this
+connection, counsel notes that the Court did review the evidence against the
+author proprio motu.
+9.3 Counsel states that, had the author had time to consider his position
+in the light of the additional witness giving evidence for the prosecution,
+he might have decided to give sworn evidence to strengthen his position;
+alternatively, he might have amended his statement from the dock, addressing
+the third witness’ evidence, or have abandoned the defence of self defence and
+accident and relied solely on provocation. As it was, the combination of the
+new evidence together with the author's failure to give evidence enabled the
+judge effectively to withdraw provocation and self defence from the jury.
+9.4 Counsel further notes that the application for leave to appeal to the
+Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was based on the grounds of failure
+by the trial judge to give correct directions in respect of self defence and
+provocation and argues that these issues are not to be Givorced from the
+effect of the failure by the trial judge to allow time to consider the further
+evidence.
+Consideration of the merits:
+10.% The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in
+the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as
+provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.
+10.2: The Human Rights Committee notes that the trial transcript shows that
+counsel informed the judge that he had been unaware that the prosecution was
+going to calla third witness until the morning of the hearing, when a summary
+of the evidence was given to the defence; he did not request an adjournment.
+The record further shows that, immediately after the third witness was sworn,
+the judge adjourned the trial, at 3:38 pm., for other reasons. The trial
+resumed the next day at 10:00 a.m. with the examination of the third witness
+and then counsel proceeded to cross-examine her, without requesting a further
+adjournment. The author himself gave his statement from the dock later that
+day. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that the facts before it do
+not show that the author’s right to adequate time and facilities for the
+preparation of his defence and his right to have examined the witnesses
+against him have been violated.
diff --git a/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-008.txt b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-008.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..9b513d40
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/fixtures/jur_errata/ocr_ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992/page-008.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+CCPR/C/55/D/519/1992
+Annex
+English
+Page 7
+11. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the
+Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
+is of the view that the facts before it do not reveal a breach of any of the
+provisions of the Covenant.
+[Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original
+version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as
+part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly. ]
diff --git a/tests/python/test_jur_errata.py b/tests/python/test_jur_errata.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..dc80104f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/test_jur_errata.py
@@ -0,0 +1,367 @@
+"""Regression tests for the UNHRDB jurisprudence errata (vclt-interpreter
+docs/UNHRDB_ERRATA.md, 6 October 2026).
+
+Fixtures are the official texts of the documents named in the errata (UN
+ODS / OHCHR) and, for CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991, the page text our Tesseract run
+produced, with the TSV leak in it.
+
+    python3 -m pytest tests/python
+"""
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import csv
+import json
+import re
+import sys
+from pathlib import Path
+
+import fitz
+import pytest
+
+ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[2]
+sys.path.insert(0, str(ROOT))
+
+import build_jurisprudence_shards as shards  # noqa: E402
+import clean_extract  # noqa: E402
+import ingest_jurisprudence as ij  # noqa: E402
+import ocr_jurisprudence as ocr  # noqa: E402
+
+FIX = Path(__file__).resolve().parent / 'fixtures' / 'jur_errata'
+TSV_RESIDUE = re.compile(r'(?:\b\d+[\t ]+){8,}-?\d+\.\d{3,6}\b')
+
+
+def ids(paragraphs):
+    return [p['ID'] for p in paragraphs]
+
+
+def main_ids(paragraphs):
+    return [p['ID'].rstrip('.') for p in paragraphs if not p.get('Namespace')]
+
+
+def text(paragraphs, pid):
+    hits = [p['Text'] for p in paragraphs if p['ID'] == pid]
+    assert hits, f'no paragraph {pid}'
+    return hits[0]
+
+
+def assert_continuous(labels):
+    """Main-body labels run 1 / 1.1 ... without gaps, repeats or strays."""
+    major, minor = 0, 0
+    for lab in labels:
+        a, _, b = lab.partition('.')
+        a = int(a)
+        if not b:
+            assert a == major + 1, f'{lab} after {major}.{minor}'
+            major, minor = a, 0
+        else:
+            b = int(b)
+            assert (a == major and b == minor + 1) or (a == major + 1 and b == 1), f'{lab} after {major}.{minor}'
+            major, minor = a, b
+
+
+@pytest.fixture(scope='module')
+def toonen():
+    return ij.extract_pdf_paragraphs(FIX / 'CCPR_C_50_D_488_1992_E.pdf')
+
+
+@pytest.fixture(scope='module')
+def estrella():
+    return ij.extract_pdf_paragraphs(FIX / 'CCPR_C_18_D_74_1980_E.pdf')
+
+
+@pytest.fixture(scope='module')
+def coeriel():
+    pages = [p.read_text() for p in sorted((FIX / 'coeriel_ocr').glob('page-*.txt'))]
+    return ij._parse_pdf_text_pages(pages)
+
+
+# --- A: missing and truncated text ----------------------------------------
+
+def test_toonen_has_every_paragraph(toonen):  # A1, C1
+    labels = main_ids(toonen)
+    assert labels[0] == '1'
+    assert_continuous(labels)
+    assert labels[-1] == '12'
+    for lab in ('5.1', '6.4', '6.8', '6.12', '7.2', '7.7', '8.2'):
+        assert lab in labels
+
+
+def test_toonen_finding_on_article_17_is_complete(toonen):  # A1, A2
+    assert text(toonen, '8.2.').startswith('Inasmuch as article 17 is concerned, it is undisputed')
+    p86 = text(toonen, '8.6.')
+    assert 'these provisions are not currently enforced' in p86
+    assert p86.endswith("arbitrarily interfere with Mr. Toonen's right under article 17, paragraph 1.")
+
+
+def test_toonen_truncated_paragraphs_are_whole(toonen):  # A3
+    assert 'his private life and his liberty are threatened' in text(toonen, '2.3.')
+    assert 'privacy' in text(toonen, '3.1.')
+
+
+def test_estrella_has_every_paragraph(estrella):  # A6
+    labels = main_ids(estrella)
+    assert_continuous(labels)
+    for lab in ('1.3', '1.6', '1.8', '1.14', '4.4', '8.5'):
+        assert lab in labels
+    assert 'subjected to continued ill-treatment' not in text(estrella, '8.4.')
+    assert text(estrella, '8.5.').startswith('At Libertad prison')
+
+
+def test_estrella_9_2_runs_over_the_page_break(estrella):  # A6
+    p92 = text(estrella, '9.2.')
+    assert '-158-' not in p92
+    assert p92.endswith('compatible with article 17 read in conjunction with article 10 (1) of the Covenant.')
+
+
+def test_coeriel_paragraphs_are_not_merged(coeriel):  # A4
+    labels = main_ids(coeriel)
+    assert_continuous(labels)
+    for lab in ('2.3', '2.4', '3', '4.1'):
+        assert lab in labels
+    assert len(text(coeriel, '2.2.')) < 1500
+    assert text(coeriel, '3.').startswith('The authors claim that the refusal')
+
+
+def test_coeriel_article_number_is_not_a_paragraph(coeriel):  # A5
+    assert '17' not in main_ids(coeriel)
+    p102 = text(coeriel, '10.2.')
+    assert 'in contravention of article 17. The question arises' in p102
+
+
+def test_cat_891_docx_keeps_2_6():  # merged DOCX paragraphs (corpus scan)
+    ps = ij.extract_docx_paragraphs(FIX / 'CAT_C_74_D_891_2018_E.docx')
+    assert '2.6.' in ids(ps)
+    assert not text(ps, '2.5.').endswith('2.6.')
+
+
+# --- B: garbage in text -----------------------------------------------------
+
+def test_coeriel_has_no_tsv_residue(coeriel):  # B1
+    for p in coeriel:
+        assert not TSV_RESIDUE.search(p['Text']), (p['ID'], p['Text'][:120])
+
+
+def test_tsv_repair_restores_line_breaks():  # B1, A4 (unit)
+    leaked = ('the Guidelines5\t1\t1\t1\t21\t2\t942\t1663\t92\t37\t96.24\tfor'
+              '4\t1\t1\t1\t22\t0\t10\t50\t500\t30\t-1\t'
+              '5\t1\t1\t1\t22\t1\t10\t50\t50\t30\t96.2\t2.3'
+              '5\t1\t1\t1\t22\t2\t70\t50\t50\t30\t96.2\tThe authors')
+    assert ij._strip_tesseract_tsv_leaks(leaked) == 'the Guidelines for\n2.3 The authors'
+
+
+def test_tesseract_tsv_parser_ignores_quotes(monkeypatch):  # B1 root cause
+    rows = [
+        'level\tpage_num\tblock_num\tpar_num\tline_num\tword_num\tleft\ttop\twidth\theight\tconf\ttext',
+        '5\t1\t1\t1\t1\t1\t10\t10\t50\t30\t96.1\tthe',
+        '5\t1\t1\t1\t1\t2\t70\t10\t50\t30\t96.1\t"Guidelines',
+        '5\t1\t1\t1\t1\t3\t130\t10\t50\t30\t96.1\tfor',
+        '5\t1\t1\t1\t2\t1\t10\t50\t50\t30\t96.2\t2.3',
+        '5\t1\t1\t1\t2\t2\t70\t50\t50\t30\t96.2\tsurnames"',
+    ]
+
+    class Proc:
+        stdout = '\n'.join(rows) + '\n'
+
+    monkeypatch.setattr(ocr, 'require_tool', lambda name: name)
+    monkeypatch.setattr(ocr.subprocess, 'run', lambda *a, **k: Proc())
+    cand = ocr.tesseract_tsv(Path('page.png'), psm=6, profile='t', preprocess='none')
+    assert cand.text == 'the "Guidelines for\n2.3 surnames"'
+    assert cand.word_count == 5
+
+
+def test_ocr_corrections_keep_plural_authors():  # B3
+    fixed, _ = ocr.apply_safe_corrections("The authors of the communication; the authors' request")
+    assert fixed == "The authors of the communication; the authors' request"
+
+
+def test_old_author_s_rewrite_is_undone_where_unambiguous(coeriel):  # B3
+    assert text(coeriel, '1.').startswith('The authors of the communication are A.R. Coeriel')
+    assert not any(re.search(r"author's['’]", p['Text']) for p in coeriel)
+
+
+def test_headings_are_not_glued_to_paragraphs(toonen):  # B4
+    assert text(toonen, '1.').endswith('International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.')
+    assert text(toonen, '5.2.').endswith('articles 17 and 26 of the Covenant.')
+    assert not text(toonen, '7.11.').endswith('Examination of the merits:')
+
+
+def test_endnotes_are_not_glued_to_the_last_paragraph(toonen, estrella):  # B5
+    assert 'APPENDIX' not in text(toonen, '12.')
+    assert 'Notes' not in text(estrella, '11.')
+    assert not any('Dudgeon v. United Kingdom' in p['Text'] for p in toonen)
+
+
+# --- C: labels and structure ------------------------------------------------
+
+def test_article_list_in_front_matter_is_not_a_paragraph():  # C1 (PDF)
+    # "Articles of the Convention: 2, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14" read as para. "2,".
+    ps = ij.extract_pdf_paragraphs(FIX / 'CAT_C_68_D_852_2017_E.pdf')
+    assert ids(ps)[0] == '1.'
+    assert text(ps, '1.').startswith('The complainant is Paul Zentveld')
+    assert_continuous(main_ids(ps))
+
+
+def test_session_date_is_not_a_paragraph():  # C1 (DOCX)
+    ps = ij.extract_docx_paragraphs(FIX / 'CCPR_C_82_D_903_1999_E.docx')
+    assert ids(ps)[0] == '1.1.'
+    assert '18.' not in ids(ps)
+    assert_continuous(main_ids(ps))
+
+
+def test_coeriel_opinions_are_namespaced(coeriel):  # C2
+    assert main_ids(coeriel).count('1') == 1
+    namespaces = {p.get('Namespace') for p in coeriel if p.get('Namespace')}
+    assert namespaces == {'OP1', 'OP2'}
+    ando = [p for p in coeriel if p.get('Namespace') == 'OP1']
+    assert 'Ando' in ando[0]['Section']
+
+
+def test_toonen_opinion_is_unnumbered(toonen):  # C3
+    opinion = [p['ID'] for p in toonen if p.get('Namespace') == 'OP1']
+    assert opinion == [f'OP1-U{i}.' for i in range(1, 9)]
+
+
+def test_lula_opinions_get_separate_namespaces():  # C2 (DOCX, joint opinion)
+    ps = ij.extract_docx_paragraphs(FIX / 'CCPR_C_134_D_2841_2016_E.docx')
+    by_ns = {}
+    for p in ps:
+        if p.get('Namespace'):
+            by_ns.setdefault(p['Namespace'], []).append(p['ID'])
+    assert sorted(by_ns) == ['OP1', 'OP2']
+    for ns, labels in by_ns.items():
+        assert len(labels) == len(set(labels)), ns
+
+
+# --- D: metadata --------------------------------------------------------------
+
+def load_paragraphs(name):
+    return json.loads((FIX / f'{name}.paragraphs.json').read_text())
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize('name, expected', [
+    ('ccpr-c-130-d-2674-2015', 'inadmissible'),       # D1, K.J. v. Lithuania
+    ('ccpr-c-137-d-3662-2019', 'inadmissible'),       # D2, G.A.P. v. Romania
+    ('ccpr-c-143-d-3054-2017', 'violation_found'),    # D4, Tolmachev
+])
+def test_outcome_from_operative_paragraph(name, expected):
+    result = ij.classify_outcome(load_paragraphs(name), 'COMMUNICATION NO. 0/0: DECISION/VIEWS')
+    assert result['outcome'] == expected
+
+
+def test_outcome_van_hulst_is_no_violation():  # D3
+    ps = ij.extract_docx_paragraphs(FIX / 'CCPR_C_82_D_903_1999_E.docx')
+    result = ij.classify_outcome(ps, 'Communication No 903/1999')
+    assert result['outcome'] == 'merits_no_violation'
+    assert '7.11.' in result['operative_ids']
+
+
+def test_outcome_estrella_is_violation(estrella):  # D5
+    assert ij.classify_outcome(estrella, '')['outcome'] == 'violation_found'
+
+
+def test_tolmachev_flags_partial_inadmissibility():  # D4
+    result = ij.classify_outcome(load_paragraphs('ccpr-c-143-d-3054-2017'), '')
+    assert 'partial_inadmissibility' in result['flags']
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize('raw, iso', [
+    ('06 Apr 2018', '2018-04-06'),
+    ('17 March 2025', '2025-03-17'),
+    ('1 November 2004', '2004-11-01'),
+    ('2004-11-01', '2004-11-01'),
+    ('~5 JUly', None),
+    ('under article 5,', None),
+])
+def test_iso_dates(raw, iso):  # D7
+    assert shards.iso_date(raw) == iso
+
+
+def test_iso_dates_prefer_the_juris_decision_date():  # D7
+    doc = {'jurisDecisionDate': '19 Oct 2020', 'adoptionDate': '19 October 2020', 'submittedDate': '06 Apr 2018'}
+    assert shards.iso_dates(doc) == {'adoptionDateIso': '2020-10-19', 'submittedDateIso': '2018-04-06'}
+
+
+# --- E: footnotes ---------------------------------------------------------------
+
+def footnotes(paragraphs):
+    return {f['n']: f['text'] for p in paragraphs for f in p.get('Footnotes', [])}
+
+
+def markers(paragraphs):
+    return [m for p in paragraphs for m in re.findall(r'\[\[fn:([^\]]+)\]\]', p['Text'])]
+
+
+def test_sudalenko_footnotes_use_printed_numbers():  # E1
+    ps = ij.extract_docx_paragraphs(FIX / 'CCPR_C_139_D_2929_2017_E.docx')
+    assert markers(ps) == [str(i) for i in range(1, 13)]
+    fns = footnotes(ps)
+    assert sorted(fns) == list(range(1, 13))
+    # Printed footnote 8 cites general comment No. 16 (official PDF).
+    assert fns[8].startswith('See the Committee’s general comment No. 16')
+
+
+def test_lula_footnotes_use_printed_numbers():  # E1
+    ps = ij.extract_docx_paragraphs(FIX / 'CCPR_C_134_D_2841_2016_E.docx')
+    fns = footnotes(ps)
+    assert fns[1] == 'Then rule 97.'
+    assert max(fns) == 120
+    assert '*' not in markers(ps)
+
+
+def test_footnote_labels_skip_title_page_marks():  # E1 (unit)
+    labels = ij._docx_footnote_labels(FIX / 'CCPR_C_139_D_2929_2017_E.docx')
+    assert [labels[i] for i in (1, 2, 3)] == [None, None, None]
+    assert [labels[i] for i in range(11, 16)] == ['8', '9', '10', '11', '12']
+
+
+# --- No regressions -------------------------------------------------------------
+
+def test_modern_pdf_is_unchanged_apart_from_headings():
+    ps = ij.extract_pdf_paragraphs(FIX / 'CCPR_C_131_D_3163_2018_E.pdf')
+    assert_continuous(main_ids(ps))
+    assert main_ids(ps)[-1] == '10'
+    assert not text(ps, '3.5.').endswith('admissibility and the merits')
+
+
+def test_gc_sp_page_cleaning_is_unchanged():
+    """GC/SP callers do not pass keep_body_in_margins and keep the old cut."""
+    with fitz.open(FIX / 'CCPR_C_50_D_488_1992_E.pdf') as doc:
+        page = doc[4]
+        assert '5.1 During its forty-sixth session' not in clean_extract._clean_page_text(page)
+        assert '5.1 During its forty-sixth session' in clean_extract._clean_page_text(page, keep_body_in_margins=True)
+
+
+# --- Found while testing the redirect map on the local sources -------------------
+
+def ocr_pages(doc_id):
+    return [p.read_text() for p in sorted((FIX / f'ocr_{doc_id}').glob('page-*.txt'))]
+
+
+def test_running_header_does_not_close_a_paragraph():
+    # "CCPR/C/50/D/428/1990 / Annex / English / Page 4" at the top of a page.
+    ps = ij._parse_pdf_text_pages(ocr_pages('ccpr-c-50-d-428-1990'))
+    assert_continuous(main_ids(ps))
+    assert text(ps, '5.2.').startswith('The Committee decides to base its Views on the following facts')
+
+
+def test_appendix_opinion_is_kept():
+    ps = ij._parse_pdf_text_pages(ocr_pages('ccpr-c-38-d-275-1988'))
+    assert text(ps, '6.').endswith('to the author through her counsel.')
+    appendix = [p for p in ps if p.get('Namespace')]
+    assert appendix and appendix[0]['Text'].startswith("I concur in the views expressed in the Committee's decision")
+
+
+def test_garbled_marker_after_heading_is_kept_and_named():
+    # "10.% The Human Rights Committee has considered ..."
+    ps = ij._parse_pdf_text_pages(ocr_pages('ccpr-c-55-d-519-1992'))
+    assert_continuous(main_ids(ps))
+    p10 = [p for p in ps if p['ID'] == '10.'][0]
+    assert p10['Text'].startswith('The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication')
+    assert p10['IdCorrection'] == 'sequence_garbled_marker'
+
+
+def test_ocr_page_number_does_not_hide_the_next_paragraph():
+    # Page 8 ends "... legal aid system." then "~92-"; para. 14 opens page 9.
+    ps = ij._parse_pdf_text_pages(ocr_pages('ccpr-c-39-d-250-1987'))
+    assert text(ps, '14.').startswith('The Committee wouid wish to receive information')
+    assert '~92-' not in text(ps, '12.2.')
diff --git a/tests/python/test_jur_paragraph_ids.py b/tests/python/test_jur_paragraph_ids.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..72b1aacc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/test_jur_paragraph_ids.py
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+"""Label-based paragraph ids and the old -> new redirect map."""
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import sys
+from pathlib import Path
+
+ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[2]
+sys.path.insert(0, str(ROOT))
+
+import jur_paragraph_ids as pids  # noqa: E402
+
+DOC = 'ccpr-c-50-d-488-1992'
+
+
+def paras(*pairs):
+    return [{'id': i, 'text': t} for i, t in pairs]
+
+
+def test_label_ids():
+    ids = pids.label_ids(DOC, ['1', '2.1', None, '2.1', 'OP1-U1', '8.2.', None])
+    assert ids == [f'{DOC}:1', f'{DOC}:2.1', f'{DOC}:u1', f'{DOC}:2.1~2', f'{DOC}:OP1-U1', f'{DOC}:8.2', f'{DOC}:u2']
+    assert pids.doc_id_of(f'{DOC}:2.1~2') == DOC
+    assert pids.doc_id_of(f'{DOC}-0005') is None
+
+
+def test_renamed_only_maps_by_position():
+    old = paras((f'{DOC}-0001', 'The author is Mr. Toonen.'), (f'{DOC}-0002', 'He claims a violation.'))
+    new = paras((f'{DOC}:1', 'The author is Mr. Toonen.'), (f'{DOC}:2.1', 'He claims a violation.'))
+    assert pids.align(old, new) == ({f'{DOC}-0001': f'{DOC}:1', f'{DOC}-0002': f'{DOC}:2.1'}, [])
+
+
+SESSION = 'December 1991 Date of decision on admissibility 5 November 1992 The Human Rights Committee meeting on 31 March 1994'
+P81 = 'The Committee is called upon to determine whether Mr. Toonen has been the victim of an unlawful or arbitrary interference with his privacy contrary to article 17'
+P82 = 'Inasmuch as article 17 is concerned it is undisputed that adult consensual sexual activity in private is covered by the concept of privacy'
+P83 = 'The prohibition against private homosexual behaviour is provided for by law namely Sections 122 and 123 of the Tasmanian Criminal Code'
+
+
+def test_recovered_paragraph_and_dropped_header_record():
+    # Toonen: a session date published as "para. 25", and para. 8.2 missing.
+    old = paras((f'{DOC}:25', SESSION), (f'{DOC}:8.1', P81), (f'{DOC}:8.3', P83))
+    new = paras((f'{DOC}:8.1', P81), (f'{DOC}:8.2', P82), (f'{DOC}:8.3', P83))
+    redirects, review = pids.align(old, new)
+    assert redirects == {f'{DOC}:25': None}   # 8.1 and 8.3 keep their ids
+    assert [r['reason'] for r in review] == ['removed']   # someone confirms the removal
+
+
+def test_split_record_points_at_its_first_paragraph():
+    # Coeriel: published 2.2 held 2.2-4.1.
+    old = paras((f'{DOC}:2.2', ' '.join([P81, P82, P83])))
+    new = paras((f'{DOC}:2.1', 'Something else entirely about the facts of the case and the author.'),
+                (f'{DOC}:2.2', P81), (f'{DOC}:2.3', P82), (f'{DOC}:3', P83))
+    redirects, review = pids.align(old, new)
+    assert redirects == {}  # 2.2 still names the passage it starts with
+    old = paras((f'{DOC}:G1', ' '.join([P81, P82, P83])))
+    redirects, review = pids.align(old, new)
+    assert redirects == {f'{DOC}:G1': f'{DOC}:2.2'} and review == []
+
+
+def test_relabelled_paragraph_is_redirected():
+    old = paras((f'{DOC}:OP1-26', P82))
+    new = paras((f'{DOC}:OP1-U4', P81 + ' ' + P82))
+    assert pids.align(old, new) == ({f'{DOC}:OP1-26': f'{DOC}:OP1-U4'}, [])
+
+
+def test_lost_substantive_paragraph_goes_to_review():
+    old = paras((f'{DOC}:8.1', P81), (f'{DOC}:8.2', P82), (f'{DOC}:8.3', P83))
+    new = paras((f'{DOC}:8.1', P81), (f'{DOC}:8.3', P83))
+    redirects, review = pids.align(old, new)
+    assert redirects == {f'{DOC}:8.2': None}
+    assert [r['oldId'] for r in review] == [f'{DOC}:8.2']
+
+
+def test_extraction_failure_redirects_nothing():
+    old = paras((f'{DOC}:8.1', P81), (f'{DOC}:8.2', P82), (f'{DOC}:8.3', P83))
+    redirects, review = pids.align(old, paras((f'{DOC}:1', 'Annex English Page 1')))
+    assert redirects == {}
+    assert review[0]['reason'] == 'document_regression'
+
+
+def test_merge_chains_and_revives():
+    existing = {f'{DOC}-0001': f'{DOC}:G1', f'{DOC}-0002': f'{DOC}:25'}
+    update = {f'{DOC}:G1': f'{DOC}:2.2', f'{DOC}:25': None}
+    live = {f'{DOC}:2.2', f'{DOC}:8.2'}
+    merged, dangling = pids.merge_redirects(existing, update, live, {DOC})
+    assert merged == {f'{DOC}-0001': f'{DOC}:2.2', f'{DOC}-0002': None, f'{DOC}:G1': f'{DOC}:2.2', f'{DOC}:25': None}
+    assert dangling == []
+    # An id that becomes live again is no longer redirected.
+    merged, _ = pids.merge_redirects(merged, {}, live | {f'{DOC}:25'}, {DOC})
+    assert f'{DOC}:25' not in merged
+    assert pids.legacy_index(merged)[f'{DOC}:2.2'] == [f'{DOC}-0001', f'{DOC}:G1']
+
+
+def test_reviewed_decisions_override():
+    assert pids.apply_decisions({'a': 'b', 'c': None}, {'c': 'd', 'x': 'y'}) == {'a': 'b', 'c': 'd'}
+
+
+def test_merged_record_keeps_its_alternative_ids():
+    # A rebuild dropped them (whitelisted fields), breaking links to the
+    # retired Narymbaev stub ccpr-c-133-d-2904-2016-2907-2016.
+    import build_jurisprudence_shards as shards
+    doc = {'docId': 'ccpr-c-133-d-2904-2907-2016', 'type': 'jur', 'title': 'Narymbaev v. Kazakhstan',
+           'alternativeIds': ['ccpr-c-133-d-2904-2016-2907-2016']}
+    assert shards.compact_document(doc)['alternativeIds'] == ['ccpr-c-133-d-2904-2016-2907-2016']
+    assert shards.lite_document(doc)['alternativeIds'] == ['ccpr-c-133-d-2904-2016-2907-2016']
diff --git a/tests/python/test_jur_pdf_footnotes.py b/tests/python/test_jur_pdf_footnotes.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ab41cc3e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/python/test_jur_pdf_footnotes.py
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+"""PDF footnotes and endnotes become paragraph footnotes, as on the DOCX route."""
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import re
+import sys
+from pathlib import Path
+
+import pytest
+
+ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[2]
+sys.path.insert(0, str(ROOT))
+
+import ingest_jurisprudence as ij  # noqa: E402
+
+FIX = Path(__file__).resolve().parent / 'fixtures' / 'jur_errata'
+
+
+def notes(paragraphs):
+    """{(paragraph, n): normalised text} for every footnote."""
+    return {(p['ID'], f['n']): re.sub(r'[^a-z0-9]', '', f['text'].lower())
+            for p in paragraphs for f in p.get('Footnotes', [])}
+
+
+def assert_markers_have_notes(paragraphs):
+    for p in paragraphs:
+        own = {f['n'] for f in p.get('Footnotes', [])}
+        for m in re.findall(r'\[\[fn:(\d+)\]\]', p['Text']):
+            assert int(m) in own, (p['ID'], m)
+        assert '[[ref:' not in p['Text']
+
+
+def ocr(doc_id):
+    return ij._parse_pdf_text_pages([p.read_text() for p in sorted((FIX / f'ocr_{doc_id}').glob('page-*.txt'))])
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize('stem', [
+    'CCPR_C_139_D_2929_2017_E',   # footnote rule drawn as a graphic, title-page */**/*** notes
+    'CCPR_C_131_D_3163_2018_E',   # numbering restarts in each annexed opinion
+    'CCPR_C_82_D_903_1999_E',     # older Word export: body-size notes, small number
+])
+def test_pdf_footnotes_match_the_docx(stem):
+    pdf = ij.extract_pdf_paragraphs(FIX / f'{stem}.pdf')
+    docx = ij.extract_docx_paragraphs(FIX / f'{stem}.docx')
+    assert notes(pdf) == notes(docx)
+    assert notes(pdf)
+    assert_markers_have_notes(pdf)
+
+
+def test_numbered_endnotes_with_parenthesised_references():
+    ps = ij.extract_pdf_paragraphs(FIX / 'CCPR_C_50_D_488_1992_E.pdf')   # Toonen, notes after "-*-"
+    fn = {f['n']: (p['ID'], f['text']) for p in ps for f in p.get('Footnotes', [])}
+    assert fn[1] == ('7.5.', fn[1][1]) and fn[1][1].startswith('Dudgeon v. United Kingdom')
+    assert fn[4][0] == '8.3.' and fn[4][1].startswith('Document CCPR/C/21/Rev.1')
+    assert 'Rights.[[fn:1]]' in [p for p in ps if p['ID'] == '7.5.'][0]['Text']
+    # The title-page "*/ Made public by decision ..." note belongs to no paragraph.
+    assert not any('Made public' in f['text'] for p in ps for f in p.get('Footnotes', []))
+    assert_markers_have_notes(ps)
+
+
+def test_endnotes_over_a_page_break_and_spaced_references():
+    ps = ij.extract_pdf_paragraphs(FIX / 'CAT_C_27_D_162_2000_E.pdf')
+    assert [p['ID'] for p in ps][-1] == '7.4.'          # notes 4-11 are not paragraphs
+    fns = [f for p in ps for f in p.get('Footnotes', [])]
+    assert sorted(f['n'] for f in fns) == list(range(1, 12))
+    assert sum(f.get('anchored', True) for f in fns) >= 9
+    assert 'abuses.[[fn:1]]' in [p for p in ps if p['ID'] == '2.9.'][0]['Text']
+    assert_markers_have_notes(ps)
+
+
+def test_garbled_ocr_marks():
+    ps = ij.extract_pdf_paragraphs(FIX / 'CCPR_C_18_D_74_1980_E.pdf')    # Estrella: "!I", "BI", "£/"
+    fns = [f for p in ps for f in p.get('Footnotes', [])]
+    assert [f['mark'] for f in sorted(fns, key=lambda f: f['n'])] == ['a/', 'b/', 'c/']
+    c = [(p['ID'], f) for p in ps for f in p.get('Footnotes', []) if f['mark'] == 'c/'][0]
+    assert c[0] == '1.6.' and c[1]['text'].startswith('A well-known Chilean singer')
+    assert_markers_have_notes(ps)
+
+
+def test_lettered_endnotes_and_the_opinion_after_them():
+    ps = ocr('ccpr-c-39-d-295-1988')
+    linked = {f['mark']: p['ID'] for p in ps for f in p.get('Footnotes', [])}
+    assert linked == {'a/': '4.1.', 'b/': '6.3.'}
+    opinion = [p for p in ps if p.get('Namespace')]
+    assert opinion and opinion[0]['Text'].startswith('We share the view expressed by the majority')
+    assert_markers_have_notes(ps)
+
+
+def test_page_foot_notes_and_the_page_after_them():
+    ps = ocr('ccpr-c-37-d-369-1989')
+    placed = {f['n']: (p['ID'], f.get('anchored', True)) for p in ps for f in p.get('Footnotes', [])}
+    # Note b/ is cited nowhere legible: it stays with the decision, not the opinion.
+    assert placed == {1: ('3.2.', True), 2: ('4.', False)}
+    assert any(p['Text'].startswith('As emphasised by the Committee') for p in ps)
+
+
+def test_translated_opinion_is_kept_with_its_notes():
+    # "Annex I [Original: Spanish]" heads an English translation.
+    ps = ij.extract_pdf_paragraphs(FIX / 'CCPR_C_144_D_2982_2017_E.pdf')
+    assert {p.get('Namespace') for p in ps} >= {'OP1', 'OP2'}
+    fns = [f for p in ps for f in p.get('Footnotes', [])]
+    assert len(fns) == 16 and all(f.get('anchored', True) for f in fns)
+    docx = ij.extract_docx_paragraphs(FIX / 'CAT_C_66_D_776_2016_E.docx')
+    assert any(p['ID'].startswith('OP1-') for p in docx)
+
+
+def test_provision_numbers_are_not_note_references():
+    paras = [{'ID': '1.', 'Text': 'Under article 14, paragraph (1) and the author.(1) It was so.'}]
+    out = ij._attach_notes(paras, [{'mark': '1', 'text': 'A note.', 'style': 'number', 'kind': 'end'}])
+    assert out[0]['Text'] == 'Under article 14, paragraph (1) and the author.[[fn:1]] It was so.'
+
+
+def test_marks_that_restart_pair_up_in_order():
+    paras = [{'ID': '1.', 'Text': 'First claim, a/ second claim b/'}, {'ID': '2.', 'Text': 'Later claim, a/ end.'}]
+    page_notes = [{'mark': 'a', 'text': 'Note one.', 'style': 'letter'}, {'mark': 'b', 'text': 'Note two.', 'style': 'letter'},
+                  {'mark': 'a', 'text': 'Note three.', 'style': 'letter'}]
+    out = ij._attach_notes(paras, page_notes)
+    assert out[0]['Footnotes'] == [{'n': 1, 'text': 'Note one.', 'mark': 'a/'}, {'n': 2, 'text': 'Note two.', 'mark': 'b/'}]
+    assert out[1]['Footnotes'] == [{'n': 3, 'text': 'Note three.', 'mark': 'a/'}]
+    assert out[1]['Text'] == 'Later claim,[[fn:3]] end.'