EUGENE M. IVEY & another vs. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION & others.
Suffolk. May 4, 2015. – August 13, 2015.
Present: Grainger, Hanlon, & Carhart, JJ.
Imprisonment, Department disciplinary unit, Enforcement of discipline. Administrative Law, Regulations. Due Process of Law, Prison disciplinary proceedings. Practice, Civil, Declaratory proceeding.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 9, 2012.
The case was heard by Bonnie H. MacLeod, J., on motions for summary judgment.
Bonita Tenneriello for the plaintiffs.
C. Raye Poole for the defendants.
CARHART, J. Plaintiffs Eugene M. Ivey and Francis Lang appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs’ complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The defendants are officials of the Department of Correction (hereinafter, collectively, the DOC). The plaintiffs, who are prisoners at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Cedar Junction (MCI-Cedar Junction), sought a declaration that an informal DOC policy regarding segregation in the departmental disciplinary unit (DDU) violates the DOC inmate discipline regulations (103 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 430.00, hereinafter, regulations), and an order enjoining the DOC from enforcing the policy. Because we conclude that the informal policy was canceled as a matter of law by amendments to the regulations, we vacate the judgment.
Lang received a six-year DDU sentence after a hearing before a special hearing officer. While serving this sentence, Lang had fourteen review periods in which he was found or pleaded guilty to category two, three, and four disciplinary reports. Lang had notice of, and an opportunity to participate in, the hearings on each of these disciplinary reports, and he was able to appeal the findings of guilt. Lang was sanctioned with restitution for two of his disciplinary violations; he received no sanction for the others. Instead, Lang was denied fourteen months of credit toward his DDU sentence, pursuant to the policy. Lang did not file a grievance or appeal the denial of credit.
Discussion. 1. Statutory framework. “The department has promulgated detailed regulations governing disciplinary actions in State correctional institutions.” Kenney v. Commissioner of Correction, 393 Mass. 28, 31 (1984). These regulations identify four categories of disciplinary offenses for which inmates may be sanctioned; category one and category two offenses are considered the most serious, while category three and category four offenses are considered minor. 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.24 (2006). “Sanctions for each Category 1 offense” include “[r]eferral to [the DDU] for a period not to exceed ten years for all violations arising out of one incident or substantially related incidents,” while sanctions for each category two offense include referral to the DDU for a period not to exceed five years. 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.25(1)(f) and (2)(f) (2006). Inmates convicted of a category three or category four offense may not be sentenced to DDU. 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.25(3) and (4) (2006).
The regulations contain a specific procedure for initial referrals to DDU, see 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.08 (2006), and provide that, except for initial referrals to DDU, “disciplinary matters which may result in the inmate receiving a sentence to a [DDU] shall comply with the provisions of 103 CMR 430.00.” Ibid. Under those provisions, an inmate who has incurred a disciplinary report is entitled to a copy of the report, a notice of hearing, and automatic discovery regarding the alleged violation(s). 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.11(1) (2006). A hearing must be scheduled “within a reasonable time” after the inmate has received notice of the charges. Ibid. A hearing officer conducts the hearing, and “shall make findings of fact, determine guilt or innocence, and make sanction recommendations.” 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.13(1) and (6) (2006). The hearing officer “may recommend one or more of the sanctions listed in 103 CMR 430.25,” 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.16(2) (2006), but “[n]o more than one sanction shall be imposed per offense and no more than five sanctions (in addition to restitution) may be imposed for all offenses arising out of [any one] or substantially related incidents in which the highest offense(s) alleged is from Category 1.” 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.25(1) (2006). “All inmates may appeal the finding or sanction(s) of the Hearing Officer to the Superintendent” within fifteen days of receipt of a written decision, and the deputy superintendent must review the disposition “within ten business days of the conclusion of the appeal process, to ensure that all procedural guidelines established in accordance with 103 CMR 430.00, have been complied with.” 103 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 430.18(1), 430.19 (2006).
2. Standards of review. Because they allege that the policy violates DOC regulations, the plaintiffs properly brought this action under the declaratory judgment act. See G. L. c. 231A, § 2; Mass.R.Civ.P. 57, 365 Mass. 826 (1974); Nelson v. Commissioner of Correction, 390 Mass. 379, 387-388 (1983); Royce v. Commissioner of Correction, 390 Mass. 425, 426 (1983). To be entitled to summary judgment on their challenge to the DOC’s policy, the plaintiffs bore the burden of demonstrating the absence of a triable issue regarding whether “the [policy] is ‘illegal, arbitrary, or capricious.’” Ciampi v. Commissioner of Correction, 452 Mass. 162, 166 (2008), quoting from Borden, Inc. v. Commissioner of Pub. Health, 388 Mass. 707, 722, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 936 (1983). The plaintiffs rely on the 1995 regulations, the amended 2006 regulations, their statement of undisputed facts with the DOC’s response thereto, and their affidavits to support their argument that enforcement of the policy is (1) arbitrary and capricious in light of its removal from the regulations; (2) illegal with respect to Ivey because it has caused him to be held beyond the ten-year maximum allowable time under the regulations for a single offense, and has resulted in new DDU sentences in the form of denial of credit without a DDU hearing; and (3) illegal with respect to Lang because it has resulted in Lang receiving new DDU sentences in the form of denial of credit for offenses that are not sanctionable by the DDU, and without the special DDU hearing required by the regulations.
As the party who would not bear the burden of proof at trial, the DOC was required to “demonstrate, by reference to material described in Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c), unmet by countervailing materials, that the [plaintiffs had] no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of [their] case.” Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 716 (1991). The DOC relied on the pleadings, its responses to the plaintiffs’ statement of undisputed facts, the DDU manual, and an affidavit from a correctional officer assigned to the DDU to show that prison administrators are not precluded by the regulations from enforcing the policy.
The judge allowed the DOC’s motion for summary judgment, and we review her decision de novo. Miller v. Cotter, 448 Mass. 671, 676 (2007). We look to the summary judgment record to determine “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120 (1991).
3. Analysis. The dispositive issue is whether the regulations promulgated in 2006 canceled the policy as a matter of law. “The interpretation of a regulation is a question of law which we review de novo,” Commonwealth v. Hourican, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 408, 410 (2014), applying “the traditional rules of statutory construction,” Young v. Patukonis, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 907, 908 (1987). “This is so because a properly promulgated regulation has the force of law . . . and must be accorded all the deference due to a statute.” Borden, Inc., 388 Mass. at 723.
As with statutes, regulations “must be interpreted as promulgated.” Morin v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 20, 24 (1983). “Words are to be accorded their ordinary meaning and approved usage,” Boston Hous. Authy. v. National Conference of Firemen & Oilers, Local 3, 458 Mass. 155, 162 (2010), when “the language used constitutes the principal source of insight into regulatory purpose.” Morin, supra. While “[o]rdinarily the interpretation of an administrative body gives to its own regulation is entitled to deference and may be controlling,” ibid., the “duty of statutory interpretation rests ultimately with the courts,” Town Fair Tire Centers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Rev., 454 Mass. 601, 605 (2009).
The regulations establish a system “governing disciplinary proceedings involving inmates of state correctional institutions.” 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.01 (2006). The regulations apply “to inmates housed at all correctional institutions within the [DOC],” including those housed in the DDU. 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.04 (2006). Initial referrals to the DDU are governed by the procedures set forth at 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.08(1)-(6) (2006), and except for violations that would result in an initial referral to the DDU, “disciplinary matters which may result in the inmate receiving a sentence to a [DDU] shall comply with the provisions of 103 CMR 430.00.” 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.08 (2006). Thus, under the plain language of the regulations, all disciplinary matters not involving initial referral to the DDU, including those involving DDU inmates, must comply with the regulations.
Under the regulations, sanctions for each category of offense “are as follows” (emphasis supplied). 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.25 (2006). Denial of credit is not listed as a sanction, yet it is undisputed that none of the sanctions set forth in the regulations “is recommended when a DDU inmate is found guilty of a disciplinary report/s as set forth in the DDU Manual; rather, the sanction in the DDU Manual [of mandatory denial of credit] is applied.” Thus, DDU inmates like Lang who have been convicted of category three and four offenses are not sanctioned pursuant to 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.25(3) and (4) (2006), as required by the regulations, but are denied credit toward their DDU sentence pursuant to the policy and must stay in the DDU for one extra month, notwithstanding the fact that DDU is not a permissible sanction for category three and four offenses.
Inmates like Ivey who have received the maximum DDU sanction allowable under the regulations for a single category one offense are not sanctioned under the regulations for committing subsequent disciplinary violations; instead they are denied credit toward their maximum sentence. This effects a sanction longer than that permitted under the regulations because “[p]enalties for violation of the terms of [confinement in the DDU], including the penalty of additional [time in the DDU for subsequent violations], are attributed to the original [DDU sentence] rather than to the violation.” Commonwealth v. Cory, 454 Mass. 559, 564 (2009). Because these undisputed facts demonstrate that the policy conflicts with the plain language of the regulations, the policy was canceled as a matter of law by the regulations. 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.03 (2006) (regulations effective January 30, 2006, “cancel all previous departmental or institutional policy statement [and] rules or regulations . . . regarding the conduct of disciplinary proceedings, to the extent they are inconsistent with 103 CMR 430.00″).
The DOC argues that it is not precluded by the regulations from enforcing the policy because the “provision regarding losing credit/not being credited was in the DDU Manual and/or the DDU Handbook for many years prior to promulgation of the 2006 version of the regulation.” The DOC further points to the policy’s inclusion in the 2008 through 2012 versions of the DDU manual as evidence that enforcement of the policy is not precluded. The motion judge agreed that the DOC could continue to enforce the policy because it “merely fills in certain details concerning the handling of disciplinary matters that occur in the DDU.” See Massachusetts Gen. Hosp. v. Rate Setting Commn., 371 Mass. 705, 707 (1977) (agencies may issue advisory or informational guidelines intended “to fill in the details or clear up an ambiguity of an established policy”).
We recognize that “courts permit prison administrators considerable discretion in the adoption and implementation of prison policies.” Royce, 390 Mass. at 427. “However, the limits of such discretion are established by the rules and regulations promulgated by the Department of Correction.” Ibid. DOC regulations carry the force of law and are binding, Dougan v. Commissioner of Correction, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 147, 148 (1993), “and the defendants are required to comply with their terms,” Stokes v. Commissioner of Correction, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 585, 588 (1988). Agency guidelines are not entitled to deference if they misapply the law, Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., 451 Mass. 389, 397 (2008), and the law in this case creates a detailed system for handling disciplinary violations by inmates, including DDU inmates, that does not include denying them credit toward their DDU sentences. “Once an agency has seen fit to promulgate regulations, it must comply with those regulations.” Royce, supra. The DOC “exercised its discretion and changed its policy” to remove denial of credit as a permissible sanction for disciplinary violations by DDU inmates, John Donnelly & Sons, Inc. v. Outdoor Advertising Bd., 369 Mass. 206, 213 (1975), and it then was “bound by the mandate of its own regulations,” Good v. Commissioner of Correction, 417 Mass. 329, 332 (1994). The DOC must comply with its regulations “not only to make the process of imposing discipline on prison inmates more fair, but to assure the inmates and the public of the integrity of the process.” Stokes, supra at 591. Only “[w]ith these procedural safeguards in place [does] DDU’s disciplinary process comport with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Torres v. Commissioner of Correction, 427 Mass. 611, 618, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1017 (1998). The DOC’s prior approval of the policy “is of no consequence” in light of the amendments to the regulations, John Donnelly & Sons, Inc., supra; the regulations promulgated in 2006, “as the last expression of the [DOC], control.” Doe v. Attorney Gen. (No. 1), 425 Mass. 210, 215 (1997). “[I]ndividuals within the agency may not arbitrarily disregard agency regulations to the prejudice of a party’s rights,” Kenney, 393 Mass. at 33, and the DOC’s continued enforcement of the policy notwithstanding its removal from the regulations “lead[s] to results which are both arbitrary and inequitable.” Kszepka’s Case, 408 Mass. 843, 847 (1996). Accordingly, the policy cannot stand.
Conclusion. The declaratory judgment in favor of the DOC is vacated. A new judgment shall enter stating that the policy conflicts with the regulations and was canceled as a matter of law in 2006. Furthermore, the judgment shall enjoin the DOC from violating the regulations by denying a DDU inmate credit toward his DDU sentence upon conviction of disciplinary violations. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 The deputy commissioner of the Department of Correction and the superintendent of the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Cedar Junction.
 Every DDU inmate is given a new DDU manual when it is updated.
 Two of these resulted in the additional DDU sentences.
 Section 430.24 of 103 Code Mass. Regs. was amended, effective November 14, 2014, but in a manner not relevant here.
 “[N]o more than four sanctions (in addition to restitution) may be imposed for all offenses arising out of [any one] or substantially related incidents in which the highest offense(s) alleged is from Category 2″; “no more than three sanctions (in addition to restitution) may be imposed for all offenses arising out of [any one] or substantially related incidents in which the highest offense(s) alleged is from Category 3″; and “no more than two sanctions (in addition to restitution) may be imposed for all offenses arising out of [any one] or substantially related incidents in which the highest offense(s) alleged is from Category 4.” 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.25(2)-(4) (2006).
 The parties dispute whether denial of credit pursuant to the policy constitutes a new DDU sentence. The plaintiffs argue that it does, because “[a]n additional month in the DDU . . . feels exactly the same to the prisoner, whether it is called a ‘sanction,’ an ‘extension’ or the ‘denial of credit.’” The DOC argues that it does not, because “[i]t is a condition of receiving credit toward an existing DDU sentence that an inmate refrains from disciplinary violations.” Resolution of this disputed fact is not required, as it is not material to the question whether the policy was canceled when the DOC amended its regulations.
 Gaskins does not require a different result, as the issue presented in that case was not whether the policy is arbitrary or illegal in light of the 2006 amendments to the regulations, but whether 103 Code Mass. Regs. § 430.25(3)(d) (1995), effected a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.


After a register has determined that an instrument should be received and accepted for recording, the register must note on the instrument the time (date, hour and minute) the register actually received the instrument. T.C.A. § 8-13-108(a)(2). The time of reception of the instrument, that is the time of delivery to the register, and not the time when the register entered the instrument in the notebook, is the proper time to be entered on the notebook and the instrument. Lee Chatten v. Knoxville Trust Company, 154 Tenn. 345, 289 S.W.2d 536, 50 A.L.R. 537 (1926). The register's office should mark all documents as "received" when they are physically delivered, regardless of the method of delivery, and documents arriving in the same mail delivery should be marked with the same date and time. Op. Tenn. Atty. Gen. 94-37 (March 21, 1994). The proper notation of time is of vital importance to all interested parties as the time of reception can affect priority of title.
The register also enters certain information in a book known as the notebook. The duties of the register in regard to the notebook are specified in T.C.A. § 8-13-108. The register enters into the notebook the names of the grantor(s) and grantee(s), the time the instrument was received (date, hour and minute), and the amount of fees received. The notebook must be maintained in a well bound book or in computer storage media in accordance with T.C.A. § 10-7-121, which describes the procedures required to maintain safe copies of the information. The notebook must be maintained as a permanent record.
The register is to note and record the instruments in order of time of reception as nearly as can practically be done, but entries are to be made without undue delay even if due to the volume of instruments received the exact order of time of reception cannot be maintained. Nevertheless, no instrument received on a given day can be entered into the notebook after instruments received on a later day. T.C.A. § 8-13-108(a)(4).
The register is required to certify the fact of registration upon every document registered and the time when it was received. The register is also required to enter on the document the book and page or other reference where it is recorded or filed, the amount of fees received, if any, and the amount of taxes received, if any. This certification is accomplished with the signature of the register. If the register determines that insufficient space exists on the instrument to enter the certification without overlaying writing on the instrument, then the register may add a page to contain the certification and attach the page to the instrument, whereupon it becomes a part of the original instrument being registered, and the register may charge a fee for this additional page. T.C.A. § 8-13-108.
UCC Records. Although the statutes do not require a separate notebook, registers may note the reception of UCC instruments in a separate notebook for Uniform Commercial Code instruments, naming the secured party and the debtor, entering the date and time of reception, and the fees received. T.C.A. § 8-13-108(a)(3).
Each UCC record must be assigned a unique number. The register must create a record that bears the number assigned to the filed record and the date and time of filing. T.C.A. § 47‑9‑519(a).
Under UCC law, a termination statement is treated as an amendment and recorded as any other amendment. The entire UCC record series from initial financing statement through termination must remain of record for at least one year after the termination is filed or the financing statement has lapsed. T.C.A. § 47-9-522.


text:
1.	The Committee against Torture considered the consolidated fourth to sixth periodic reports of France (CAT/C/FRA/4-6) at its 928th and 931st meetings, held on 27 and 28 April 2010 (CAT/C/SR.928 and 931), and adopted the following concluding observations at its 946th meeting, held on 10 May 2010 (CAT/C/SR.946).
2.	The Committee welcomes the consolidated fourth to sixth periodic reports of France, which broadly comply with the guidelines on the form and content of periodic reports.
3.	The Committee appreciated the quality of France’s well documented written replies to the list of issues (CAT/C/FRA/Q/4-6 and Add.1) and the additional information provided orally during the consideration of the report. The Committee also appreciated the constructive dialogue that took place with the delegation representing the State party and thanks it for its clear and straightforward answers to the questions raised by Committee members.
(d)	The State party’s ratification, on 18 February 2010, of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol.
(b)	The adoption of the Act of 4 April 2006, which strengthens the prevention and punishment of conjugal violence and violence against children and increases the penalties for violence against women.
6.	The Committee also welcomes the construction project now under way aimed at a substantial increase in prison capacity.
7.	The Committee also notes the proactive measures taken by the State party to increase the number of convicted persons eligible for alternative sentencing, in part as a result of the introduction, under the Prisons Act of 24 November 2009, of house arrest with electronic surveillance as an alternative to pretrial detention.
8.	The Committee notes with satisfaction the Ministry of Justice action plan of 2009 to prevent suicide in prison, and would welcome regular updates on its implementation, including in the overseas territories.
9.	The Committee notes with interest the establishment of a procedure to allow the newly created Office of the Inspector-General of the National Gendarmerie to make unannounced visits to police custody facilities and to monitor the reception facilities for complainants in neighbourhood police units.
10.	The Committee welcomes the abolition, on 16 August 2007, of the “security rotation” system in prisons, whereby prisoners were subjected to repeated transfers. The Committee also notes that the matter of Khider v. France (European Court of Human Rights judgement of 9 July 2009) was placed on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers in March.
11.	The Committee notes with satisfaction the creation of two telephone hotlines for reporting conjugal ill-treatment and violence and abuse against children (3977 and 3919, respectively). The Committee also commends the bill to introduce a reference to psychological violence in the Criminal Code.
12.	The Committee further notes with satisfaction the State party’s announcement that it was considering legislative reform aimed eventually at divesting a person of an honour awarded if the person is suspected of having committed a violation of the Convention or any other serious violation of international law.
13.	While the Committee recognizes that the State party’s criminal law punishes acts of torture and acts of barbarity and violence, and while it takes note of the judgements brought to its attention in which acts of torture have been penalized, the Committee remains concerned at the absence in the French Criminal Code of a definition of torture strictly in line with article 1 of the Convention (art. 1).
The Committee reiterates its earlier recommendation (CAT/C/FRA/CO/3, para. 5) that the State party incorporate in its criminal law a definition of torture that is in strict conformity with article 1 of the Convention. Such a definition would meet on the one hand the need for clarity and predictability in criminal law, and on the other the need under the Convention to draw a distinction between acts of torture committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person acting in an official capacity, and acts of violence committed by non-State actors. The Committee reiterates its recommendation that torture be made an imprescriptible offence.
14.	While taking note of the information provided to the Committee by the State party to the effect that the relevant numbers have fallen since 2008, the Committee remains concerned at reports that 22 per cent of asylum applications submitted in 2009 were dealt with under the so-called priority procedure, which does not allow for an appeal with suspensive effect against an initial rejection by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA). An applicant may therefore be returned to a country where he is at risk of torture before the National Court on the Right of Asylum can hear his request for protection. In the absence of statistics concerning petitions lodged against removal orders on grounds of risk of torture, or for annulments of removal orders by the administrative court under article 3, the Committee is not convinced that the priority procedure offers adequate safeguards against removal where there is a risk of torture (art. 3).
The Committee recommends that the State party introduce an appeal with suspensive effect for asylum applications conducted under the priority procedure. It also recommends that situations covered by article 3 of the Convention be submitted to a thorough risk assessment, notably by ensuring appropriate training for judges regarding the risks of torture in receiving countries and by automatically holding individual interviews in order to assess the personal risk to applicants.
15.	The Committee notes with satisfaction that, following the entry into force of the Act of 20 November 2007, asylum-seekers at the border now have the right of appeal with suspensive effect against a decision refusing entry for the purposes of asylum, but is concerned at the very short time limit for submitting such an appeal (48 hours), at the fact that the language used for the appeal must be French and at the fact that the administrative judge may reject the appeal by court order, thereby depriving the applicant of a hearing at which he may defend his case, and of procedural guarantees such as the right to an interpreter and a lawyer (art. 3).
The Committee recommends that any appeal relating to an asylum application submitted at the border be subject to a hearing at which the applicant threatened with removal can present his case effectively, and that the appeal be subject to all basic procedural guarantees, including the right to an interpreter and counsel.
16.	The Committee is also concerned at the particular difficulties encountered by asylum-seekers in places of deprivation of liberty such as holding centres, who are required to submit their application within five days of being notified of their right to do so, under the Code on the Entry and Residence of Aliens and the Right of Asylum. Such a time limit is not compatible with applicants’ need to submit a credible case establishing a risk in the event of return, which requires, among other things, the gathering of evidence and testimony, as well as other documentation from their country of origin (art. 3).
Like the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) following its visit to France, from 27 September to 9 October 2006, the Committee recommends that the State party allow sufficient time and provide all essential procedural guarantees for asylum applicants held in an administrative holding centre, without, however, unduly extending the holding period on that account.
17.	Since issuing its previous observations and recommendations, the Committee remains concerned at the provisions of the Act of 10 December 2003 that introduce the concepts of “internal asylum” and “safe countries of origin”, which do not guarantee absolute protection against the risk of persons being returned to a State where they might be tortured. This is borne out by the absence of precise information regarding the documentary sources used in drawing up the list of “safe countries of origin” or how often the list is updated. Moreover, it is interesting to note that, according to OFPRA, refugee status or subsidiary protection was granted to around 35 per cent of persons from so-called “safe countries of origin” in 2008 (art. 3).
The Committee reiterates its recommendation that the State party take appropriate measures to ensure that applications for asylum by persons from States to which the concepts of “internal asylum” or “safe country of origin” apply are examined with due consideration for the applicant’s personal situation and in full conformity with the provisions of article 3 of the Convention.
18.	The Committee deplores the fact that it has received several documented allegations regarding the return of persons to countries where they risked being subjected to acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from persons sent back to their country of origin who reported being arrested and subjected to ill-treatment on arrival, in some cases despite interim protection measures ordered by the Committee or the European Court of Human Rights (art. 3).
The Committee reiterates its recommendation that the State party take the necessary steps to guarantee at all times that no person is expelled who is in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to a third State.
19.	While acknowledging that any person present in French territory who is suspected of having committed acts of torture may be prosecuted and tried in the State party under the French Code of Criminal Procedure, the Committee nevertheless remains concerned about the limitations that the bill imposes on the scope of universal jurisdiction, in particular by introducing a requirement for suspects to be normally resident in France. The Committee is also concerned that the bill to bring French law into line with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is still not on the National Assembly’s agenda for adoption, despite having been adopted by the Senate in June 2008 (arts. 5, 6, 7 and 13).
The Committee reiterates its recommendation that the State party guarantee the right of victims to effective remedy against violation of the Convention, in particular by establishing its jurisdiction over any offence committed by a suspect present in its territory, in accordance with article 5 of the Convention. The Committee further recommends that the normal residence requirement for alleged perpetrators be replaced by a requirement that they be simply present in the territory, in accordance with article 6.
20.	The Committee takes note of the information provided by the State party regarding the new initial training curricula for officers and constables, and of the fact that the Prisons Act of 24 November 2009 has introduced a Code of Ethics for the prison service, but it remains concerned at the lack of information received about the content of initial and in-service training on the human rights instruments. The Committee would particularly appreciate details of training protocols and of any subsequent evaluation of the training performed (art. 10).
The Committee would like more information concerning the State party’s evaluation of the training given to police, prison and medical officers, with reference to specific indicators. The Committee also recommends that the Istanbul Protocol (Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) be made part of staff training.
The Committee would also like to receive details from the State party of any training given to the private security firms used by the State party, both in its home territory and abroad.
21.	The Committee remains particularly concerned about the persistent allegations that it has received regarding ill-treatment by law enforcement officers of detainees and other persons in their charge (art. 16).
The State party should take steps to ensure that all allegations of ill-treatment at the hands of law enforcement officers are promptly investigated in the course of transparent and independent inquiries, and that the perpetrators receive appropriate punishment.
The Committee would also appreciate information about the Note apparently circulated by the Office of the Inspector-General of the National Police in October 2008 concerning the methods used by law enforcement agencies to restrain suspects or persons against whom removal orders have been issued, which have already resulted in cases of death by asphyxiation (Mohamed Saoud in 1998 and Abdelhakim Ajimi in 2007).
22.	The Committee remains concerned about the amendments to the Act of 9 March 2004, which, under the special procedure applicable in cases of terrorism and organized crime, delay access to a lawyer until the 72nd hour of police custody. These provisions are likely to give rise to violations of the terms of article 11 of the Convention, since it is during the first few hours after an arrest that the risk of torture is greatest, particularly when a person is being held incommunicado. The Committee also remains concerned about the frequent use of pretrial detention and the duration of such detention (arts. 2 and 11).
The Committee reiterates its previous recommendation that the State party take appropriate legislative measures to guarantee immediate access to a lawyer during police custody, in accordance with article 11 of the Convention. The Committee further recommends that steps be taken to reduce the use of pretrial detention and the duration of such detention.
23.	While noting with satisfaction that the Act of 5 March 2007 makes video recording of questioning by the police or a judge compulsory, except in cases involving minor offences, the Committee notes that the Act does not apply to persons accused of terrorism or organized crime, failing special authorization by the Public Prosecutor or investigating judge. In addition, the law does not provide for the installation of video surveillance cameras in all areas of police stations and gendarmeries where persons may be held in custody, including passageways (arts. 11 and 16).
The Committee recommends that the State party make video recording of interrogations of all persons questioned a standard procedure, and install video surveillance cameras throughout police stations and gendarmeries in order to extend and strengthen the protection afforded to detainees in police custody.
24.	The Committee welcomes the creation of the post of Inspector-General of places of deprivation of liberty by the Act of 30 October 2007, as well as the steps taken by the State party to address the critical problem of prison overcrowding, notably by building new prison facilities, including in its overseas territories. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s research into the possibility of wider use of alternative non-custodial measures. However, the Committee is still seriously concerned about the level of prison overcrowding, which, despite significant improvements in certain establishments, remains alarming, especially in the overseas territories. While acknowledging the information provided by the State party in relation to the Ministry of Justice Action Plan of June 2009, the Committee is also concerned about the reported suicide rate, as well as about the frequency of violent incidents among detainees (arts. 11 and 16).
In addition to the necessary enlargement of the prison infrastructure undertaken by the State party, and in the light of the abundant recent criminal legislation aimed at introducing stricter penalties and reducing recidivism, with as a direct corollary increased use of custodial sentences, the Committee invites the State party to carry out a major review of the effects of its recent criminal policy on prison overcrowding, in the light of articles 11 and 16.
In particular, the Committee recommends that the State party aim for wider use of non-custodial measures as an alternative to the prison sentences handed down at present. The Committee further recommends that the State party provide details about specific action taken regularly to implement the recommendations issued by the Inspector-General of places of deprivation of liberty following visits, including in the case of detainees suffering from psychiatric disorders.
25.	While noting the efforts the State party has made to improve the conditions prevailing in waiting areas, including those at airports, by setting up a ministerial working group to deal with the problems of minors in such waiting areas, the Committee remains deeply concerned about the announcement, in connection with the bill on immigration, integration and nationality of 31 March 2010, that waiting areas will be set up at all the State party’s borders for foreign nationals entering outside a border crossing point, which means that all such waiting persons will fall under a regime devoid of the procedural guarantees applicable outside such areas, notably the right to see a doctor, to speak to a lawyer, and to be assisted by an interpreter (arts. 11 and 16).
The Committee recommends that the State party take steps to ensure that living conditions in waiting areas are in conformity with the requirements of articles 11 and 16 of the Convention, ensuring in particular that minors are shielded from acts of violence by maintaining a strict segregation between minors and adults, and rigorously applying the provisions stipulating that an ad hoc guardian must be assigned to all minors and that any removal proceedings must guarantee their safety, taking account of their vulnerability and with due respect for their person. In addition, the State party is encouraged not to extend the current waiting areas, and to pay particular attention to the implementation and follow-up of the recommendations made by the Inspector-General of places of deprivation of liberty after visits to existing waiting areas.
26.	The Committee is deeply concerned by the fact that the State party is described as one of the countries of Europe with the highest number of suicides in prisons. Furthermore, according to the figures provided to the Committee, more than 15 per cent of the prisoners who took their own lives in 2009 were being held in disciplinary blocks at the time (art. 16).
The Committee recommends that the State party take all necessary measures to prevent suicide in custody. In addition, it should, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor, take steps to ensure that solitary confinement remains an exceptional measure of limited duration, in line with international standards.
27.	The Committee is concerned to note that the Prison Act of 24 November 2009 appears to give the prison authorities broad discretion, under article 89, to place prisoners under different detention regimes on the basis of a classification according to subjective criteria such as a prisoner’s personality or the danger he might represent. A regime of this kind can by definition lead to arbitrary treatment of prisoners in the course of their sentences. It is possible, for example, to envisage a situation in which a disciplinary punishment or denial of access to certain entitlements while in detention could, if repeated and imposed without due justification or in an arbitrary manner, constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under article 16 (art. 16).
The Committee encourages the State party to take appropriate steps to exercise supervision over the discretionary element of the powers vested in the prison authorities, and the corresponding risk of arbitrary action. Such supervision should be exercised through regular visits by existing independent supervisory mechanisms, which should in turn immediately report to the competent judicial authorities any irregularity or practice that could be considered an arbitrary measure, particularly when the measure in question involves solitary confinement.
28.	The Committee takes note of the information submitted by the State party to the effect that the current search procedure under the Prisons Act of 24 November 2009 is more restrictive than the previous one. In the light of two judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (in Khider v. France and Frérot v. France), the Committee nevertheless remains concerned at the intrusive and humiliating nature of body searches, especially internal. The Committee is further concerned that the procedure regulating the frequency and methods of searches in prisons and detention centres is determined by the prison authorities themselves. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned at the lack of information available regarding the follow-up to Khider v. France and Frérot v. France, particularly at the lack of indicators allowing an assessment to be made of any future risk of a violation of article 16 occurring as a result of body searches (art. 16).
The Committee recommends that the State party exercise strict supervision of body search procedures, especially full and internal searches, by ensuring that the methods used are the least intrusive and the most respectful of the physical integrity of persons, and in all cases in compliance with the terms of the Convention. The Committee further recommends the implementation of the electronic detection methods announced by the State party, and the widespread use of such mechanisms, in order to eliminate the practice of body searches altogether.
29.	The Committee is deeply concerned about so-called secure detention (rétention de sûreté), established by Act No. 2008-174 of 25 February 2008 on secure detention, and the declaration of exemption from criminal responsibility for reason of mental disorder, and supplemented by Act No. 2010-242 of 10 March 2010, which seeks to reduce the risk of criminal recidivism and establishes various provisions of criminal procedure. Besides the obvious challenge to the principle of legality in criminal proceedings that this measure implies, due to the lack of objectively definable and predictable material criteria, the lack of a causal link between the offence and the possible penalty, and the fact that it can be applied retroactively, the measure, which does not appear to set a time limit on detention, is also likely to raise issues under article 16 (art. 16).
The Committee strongly recommends that the State party consider repealing this provision, which clearly violates the fundamental principle of legality in criminal law, and may potentially conflict with article 16.
Reiterating its concern that the use of these weapons may cause severe pain, constituting a form of torture, and in some cases may even lead to death, the Committee would welcome up-to-date information from the State party on the use of this weapon in places of detention.
31.	The Committee remains concerned about the system of discretionary prosecution, which allows the State prosecutor to determine whether or not to prosecute the perpetrators of acts of torture and ill-treatment involving law enforcement officers, or even not to order an investigation, which is clearly contrary to article 12 of the Convention. The Committee further notes with concern the lack of specific, up-to-date information that would make it possible to compare the number of complaints received concerning actions by law enforcement officers that are contrary to the Convention and any ensuing criminal justice or disciplinary responses (art. 12).
The Committee reiterates its previous recommendation (CAT/C/FRA/CO/3, para. 20) whereby compliance with the provisions of article 12 of the Convention requires a derogation from the system of discretionary prosecution, so as to oblige the competent authorities to launch impartial inquiries systematically and on their own initiative wherever there are reasonable grounds for believing that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction, in order to effectively ensure that the perpetrators of such crimes do not remain unpunished.
32.	Apart from the principle of discretionary prosecution vested in the State prosecutor, which limits the possibility of prosecution proprio motu, the Committee is concerned about the consequences of the Léger Report of 1 September 2009, whose findings, if ratified by Parliament, could ultimately lead to the abolition of investigating judges, which would mean that all investigations would be directed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, with direct consequences for the independence of investigations (arts. 2, 12 and 13).
The Committee invites the State party to take all steps to ensure the independence and integrity of judicial proceedings, and of investigations by existing independent supervisory mechanisms, in particular by permitting direct referral and providing them with the means to carry out their supervisory mission independently, impartially and transparently.
33.	The Committee remains concerned about the way cases are referred to the National Commission on Security Ethics (CNDS), which cannot accept complaints directly from a person who has been subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, but only through a member of Parliament, the Prime Minister or the Children’s Ombudsman (art. 13).
The Committee recommends that the State party take steps to allow the National Commission on Security Ethics to accept complaints directly from anyone claiming to have been subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in any territory under its jurisdiction, in accordance with article 13 of the Convention.
34.	The Committee is concerned about the consequences, as part of the constitutional reform of 2008, of establishing a “Defender of Rights” (Défenseur des droits) combining, according to the draft constituting legislation, the mandates of the Ombudsman of the Republic, the Children’s Ombudsman and the National Commission on Security Ethics. The plan also appears to include the eventual disappearance of the Inspector-General of places of deprivation of liberty, whose functions could also be incorporated into the new institution (art. 13).
The Committee invites the State party to take all necessary measures to ensure the effective and uninterrupted functioning of the supervisory mechanism established under the Optional Protocol to the Convention (i.e. the Inspector-General of places of deprivation of liberty) and of other complementary independent bodies, which, in addition to their mediating role, have an essential part to play in monitoring rights, thereby ensuring the implementation of the Convention, each in their particular field of expertise.
35.	The Committee is concerned that the State party considers that it is not required to respond to requests for interim measures made by the Committee (with reference to communications Nos. 195/2002, Brada v. France (17 May 2005) and 300/2006, Tebourski v. France (1 May 2007)).
Recalling that rule 108 of the Committee’s rules of procedure is specifically intended to give meaning and scope to articles 3 and 22 of the Convention, which otherwise would offer asylum-seekers alleging a serious risk of torture only theoretical protection, the Committee urges the State party to review its policy in this respect, by considering requests for interim measures in good faith and in accordance with its obligations under articles 3 and 22 of the Convention.
36.	The Committee is concerned at the lack of information provided by the State party regarding the problems of human trafficking and sexual exploitation. The Committee has not yet been adequately informed regarding the prevalence of these practices, nor regarding the measures taken by the State party to combat the trafficking of women and children on its territory (arts. 2 and 16).
The Committee recommends that the State party adopt a national plan aimed at combating the trafficking of women and children in all its forms, which would include both measures of criminal justice concerning the prosecution of traffickers and measures for the protection and rehabilitation of victims. The Committee recommends to that end that the State party strengthen its international cooperation with the countries of origin, trafficking and transit, and see to the allocation of sufficient resources for policies and programmes in this area. The Committee also recommends that the State party keep it informed of developments in this respect.
(b)	The corresponding number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions for acts of torture or ill-treatment that have occurred since the last report was submitted to the Committee.
38.	While taking note that defendants have the right to lodge a complaint themselves against what they consider to be libellous or defamatory complaints, the Committee would also welcome data on the specific measures taken by the State party to protect persons who report violence by law enforcement officials against acts of intimidation, particularly in the form of complaints for defamation or possible reprisals.
39.	The Committee would further welcome information concerning the implementation of the Convention in territories where its armed forces are deployed.
40.	The Committee recommends that the State party widely disseminate the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations throughout its territory, in all appropriate languages, through official websites, the press and non-governmental organizations.
41.	The Committee invites the State party to update its core document dated 7 October 1996 (HRI/CORE/1/Add.17/Rev.1), following the harmonized reporting guidelines recently approved by the international human rights treaty monitoring bodies (HRI/GEN/2/Rev.6).
42.	The Committee requests the State party to provide, within one year, information on its implementation of the Committee’s recommendations contained in paragraphs 14, 21, 24, 28, 30 and 36 above.
43.	The State party is invited to submit its seventh periodic report by 14 May 2014.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Hodge, Larry and Michael Stevens. Texas Tales. In Words and Music. With CD. Plano. Republic of Texas Press. 2001. Octavo. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated. With CD-ROM. Fine copy.
Hodges, Felice. Period Pastimes. A Practical Guide to Four Centuries of Decorative Crafts. New York. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. 1989. 4to. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Hodges, Terry. Predators. Inscribed by the author. More True Game Warden Adventures. Photo available. Oroville. T&C. 2002. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Inscribed by the author "To Jim, with best wishes. Hope you enjoy my stories. Terry Hodges". Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Hodges, Terry. Tough Customers. Inscribed by the author. The True Adventures of Game Wardens and the Outlaws They Pursue. Oroville. T&C. 1993. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Inscribed by the author. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Hodler, Thomas W. & Howard A. Schretter. The Atlas of Georgia. Photo available. Athens. The University of Georgia. 1986. 273 pps. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Important reference work. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Hoezee, Scott. Flourishing in the Land. A Hundred-Year History of Christian Reformed Missions in North America. Grand Rapids. William B. Eerdmans. 1996. 4to. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Hoffer, Eric. Working and Thinking on the Waterfront. Photo available. New York. Harper & Row. 1969. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Hoffman, J. Peter. The Wink of an Eye. Inscribed by the author. 2 volumes. A True Love Story Lasting Over Six Decades. Photo available. np. Self published. 2011. 4to. Soft covers. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Inscribed by the author "To my good friend Iona: Thanks for proof reading the rough Draft. H. Peter Hoffman". Fine copies.
Hoffman, Jack W. Northville - The First 100 Years (Michigan). Photo available. np. Self published. 1976. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Fine copy in edge chipped dust jacket (in mylar).
Hoffman, Jack W. Northville - The First 100 Years (Michigan). Inscribed by the author. Photo available. np. Self published. 1976. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Inscribed by the author. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Hoffmann, Peter. Hitler's Personal Security. Protecting the Furhrer. 1921-1945. New York. Da Capo. 2000. Octavo. Soft cover. Reprint. Illustrated. Fine copy.
Hoflin, Lyn Snyer. The Borzoi Annual. 1984. Limited edition. Photo available. Wheat Ridge. Self published. 1984. 4to. Decorated hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Limited edition. Number 276 of 612 copies. Fine copy.
Hoge, Cecil C. The First Hundred Years are the Toughest. What We Can Learn from the Century of Competition Between Sears and Wards. Photo available. Berkeley. Ten Speed Press. 1988. 4to. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy.
Hohlmayer, Earl. Looking Back III. Tales of Italian Fishing Pioneers of Pittsburg, Monterey & Alaska. An Illustrated History. Photo available. Antioch. E&N Hohlmayer. 2002. 178 pps. 4to. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Fine copy.
Hohne, Heinz. The General Was a Spy. The Truth about General Gehlen - 20th Century Superspy who Served Hitler, the CIA and West Germany. New York. Coward, McCann & Geoghegan. 1972. 342 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. Reprint. Illustrated. Fine copy in near fine (light shelf wear) dust jacket (in mylar).
Hohnson, Sune. Cumulative Index to Japanese Philately. Vols. 1 - 45 (1946-1990). Photo available. Schaumburg. International Society for Japanese Philately. 1991. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Important reference work. Fine copy.
Hokanson, Drake. Reflecting a Prairie Town. A Year in Peterson. Photo available. Iowa City. University of Iowa Press. 1994. 260 pps. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Full number line. Illustrated. Important reference work. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Holden, Edith. The Country Diary of an Edwardian Lady. 1906. A Facsimile Reproduction of A Naturalist's Diary. Photo available. New York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 180 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. Facsimile edition. Illustrated in color and black & white. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Holden, Edith. The Country Diary of an Edwardian Lady. 1906. A Facsimile Reproduction of A Naturalist's Diary. Photo available. New York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1977. 180 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. Facsimile edition. Illustrated in color and black & white. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Holden, Edith. The Edwardian Lady. New York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1980. 207 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated in color and black & white. Fine copy in near fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Holden, Edith. The Edwardian Lady. The Story of Edith Holden. London. Michael Joseph. 1980. 207 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated in color and black & white. Fine copy (owner inscription) in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Hole, Frank and Robert F. Heizer. An Introduction to Prehistoric Archeology. Photo available. New York. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1965. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in near fine (very light shelf wear) dust jacket (in mylar).
Holiner, Richard. Antique Purses. A History, Identification and Value Guide. Paducah. Collector Books. 1982. 142 pps. Octavo. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated in color and black & white. Fine copy.
Holisher, Desider. The Synagogue and Its People. New York. Abelard-Schuman. 1955. 190 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in very good (edge chipped) dust jacket (in mylar).

matches:
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine


text:
Computational economics is a research discipline at the interface of computer science, economics, and management science. This subject encompasses computational modelingof economic systems, whether agent-based, general-equilibrium, macroeconomic, or rational-expectations, computational econometrics and statistics, computational finance, computational tools for the design of automated internet markets, programming tools specifically designed for computational economics, and pedagogical tools for the teaching of computational economics. Some of these areas are unique to computational economics, while others extend traditional areas of economics by solving problems that are difficult to study without the use of computers and associated numerical methods.
The following journals specialize in computational economics: ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, Computational Economics, Journal of Applied Econometrics,Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, and the Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination.
^ Jump up to:a b Scott E. Page, 2008. “agent-based models,” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
• “computation of general equilibria” by Herbert E. Scarf. Abstract.
• “computation of general equilibria (new developments)” by Felix Kubler. Abstract.
Jump up^ • Hans M. Amman, David A. Kendrick, and John Rust, ed., 1996. Handbook of Computational Economics, v. 1, ch. 1-6, preview links.
Jump up^ Ray C. Fair “Computational Methods for Macroeconometric Models,” Hans M. Amman, David A. Kendrick, and John Rust, ed., 1996. Handbook of Computational Economics, v. 1, ch. , pp. 143-169. Outline.
Jump up^ • Vassilis A. Hajivassiliou, 2008. “computational methods in econometrics,” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
• Keisuke Hirano, 2008. “decision theory in econometrics,” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
• James O. Berger, 2008. “statistical decision theory,” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
Jump up^ • Hans M. Amman, David A. Kendrick, and John Rust, ed., 1996. Handbook of Computational Economics, v. 1, Elsevier. Description & chapter-preview links.
Jump up^ • Scott E. Page, 2008. “agent-based models,” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
• Leigh Tesfatsion, 2006. “Agent-Based Computational Economics: A Constructive Approach to Economic Theory,” ch. 16, Handbook of Computational Economics, v. 2, [pp. 831-880]. Abstract and pre-pub PDF.
• Kenneth L. Judd, 2006. “Computationally Intensive Analyses in Economics,” Handbook of Computational Economics, v. 2, ch. 17, pp. 881- 893. Pre-pub PDF.
Jump up^ • W. Brian Arthur, 1994. “Inductive Reasoning and Bounded Rationality,” American Economic Review, 84(2), pp. 406-411.
• Leigh Tesfatsion, 2003. “Agent-based Computational Economics: Modeling Economies as Complex Adaptive Systems,” Information Sciences, 149(4), pp. 262-268 ArchivedApril 26, 2012, at the Wayback Machine..
• _____, 2002. “Agent-Based Computational Economics: Growing Economies from the Bottom Up,” Artificial Life, 8(1), pp.55-82. Abstract and pre-pub PDF Archived2013-05-14 at the Wayback Machine..
• John H. Holland and John H. Miller (1991). “Artificial Adaptive Agents in Economic Theory,” American Economic Review, 81(2), pp. 365-370.
Jump up^ • Joseph Y. Halpern, 2008. “computer science and game theory,” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
• Yoav Shoham, 2008. “Computer Science and Game Theory,” Communications of the ACM, 51(8), pp. 75-79.
• Alvin E. Roth, 2002. “The Economist as Engineer: Game Theory, Experimentation, and Computation as Tools for Design Economics,” Econometrica, 70(4), pp. 1341–1378Archived 2004-04-14 at the Wayback Machine..
Jump up^ Leigh Tesfatsion, 2006. “Agent-Based Computational Economics: A Constructive Approach to Economic Theory,” ch. 16, Handbook of Computational Economics, v. 2, sect. 5, p. 865 [pp. 831-880]. Abstract and pre-pub PDF.
Jump up^ “Journal of Applied Econometrics – Wiley Online Library”. onlinelibrary.wiley.com. 2011. Retrieved October 31, 2011.
Jump up^ Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, including Aims & scope link.
• Leigh Tesfatsion, 2001. “Introduction to the Special Issue on Agent-based Computational Economics,” Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, pp. 281-293.
Jump up^ “Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination”. springer.com. 2011. Retrieved October 31, 2011.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v.