In this task, you're expected to write answers to questions involving multiple references to the same entity. The answer to the question should be unambiguous and a phrase in the paragraph. Most questions can have only one correct answer.

Passage: In Sweden, juries are uncommon; the public is represented in the courts by means of lay judges (nämndemän). However, the defendant has the right to a jury trial in the lower court (tingsrätt) when accused of an offense against the fundamental laws on freedom of expression and freedom of the press. If a person is accused of e.g. libel or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred, in a medium covered by the fundamental laws (e.g. a printed paper or a radio programme), she has the right to have the accusation tried by a jury of nine jurors. This applies also in civil (tort) cases under the fundamental laws. A majority of at least six jurors must find that the defendant has committed the alleged crime. If it does not, the defendant is acquitted or, in a civil case, held not liable. If such a majority of the jurors hold that said crime has in fact been committed, this finding is not legally binding for the court; thus, the court (three judges) can still acquit the defendant or find him/her not liable. A jury acquittal may not be overruled after appeal. In Swedish civil process, the "English rule" applies to court costs. Earlier, a court disagreeing with a jury acquittal could, when deciding on the matter of such costs, set aside the English rule, and instead use the American rule, that each party bears its own expense of litigation. This practice was declared to violate the rule of presumption of innocence according to article 6.2. of the European Convention on Human Rights, by the Supreme Court of Sweden, in 2012. 
Question: Who has the right to have the accusation tried by a jury of nine jurors?
the defendant.

Passage: The previous convention's lack of Tejano representation fostered a perception that only newcomers to Texas were dissatisfied. The president of the Convention of 1832, Stephen F. Austin, traveled to San Antonio de Béxar to garner support for the changes the convention had requested. Austin found that the Tejano leaders largely agreed with the result of the convention but opposed the methods by which the resolutions had been proposed.  They urged patience; Bustamante was still president and would not look favorably on a petition from settlers who had recently sided with his rival, Santa Anna.As a compromise, the ayuntamiento of San Antonio de Béxar drafted a petition containing similar language to the convention's resolutions.  Following legal norms, they submitted this to Músquiz, who forwarded it to the Mexican Congress in early 1833.  At this time, the federal and state governments were in flux.  Bustamante had resigned the presidency in late December 1832 as part of a treaty to end the civil war.  There was no effective state government.  The governor of Coahuila y Tejas had died in September 1832, and his replacement, federalist Juan Martín de Veramendi, immediately dissolved the state legislature, which had centralist leanings.  Veramendi called elections to seat a new government in early 1833.  Due to the political uncertainty, Austin urged that the federal government be given several months to address the petition.  If no action was eventually taken, he advised that Texas residents would form their own state government, essentially declaring independence from Coahuila, if not from Mexico.Austin's timeframe was endorsed by Tejano leaders, but it did not pacify the Texian settlers.  Towards the end of December, the central committee called for a new convention to meet in San Felipe de Austin in April 1833.  Elections were scheduled for March.  This action disturbed the Tejano leaders, who saw it as a violation of their agreement with Austin.Communities in Texas elected 56 delegates for the new convention.  In a departure from the previous election, San Antonio de Béxar also sent delegates, including James Bowie, the son-in-law of Governor Veramendi.  Bowie, like many of his fellow delegates, was known as an agitator who wanted immediate change.  The majority of the delegates to the previous convention had been more cautious. 
Question: What is the first name of the person who advised that Texas residents would form their own state government?
Stephen.

Passage: The architectural writer Geoffrey Tyack has written that Nuffield College was Oxford's "most important architectural project of the immediate post-war years". Opinions about the architecture merits of the college have varied, although most have been unfavourable. The authors of a 1961 booklet on the architecture of modern Oxford said that it was "Oxford's biggest monument to barren reaction". The Cotswold style was "taken absurdly out of context and mercilessly stretched", and did not "harmonise with the clumsy tower", whilst the spire "[perched] uneasily ... despite its elaborate base". An unnamed journalist wrote in The Times in 1959 that the main buildings of the quadrangles were "somewhat oddly wedded to small basins which irresistibly suggest a Lilliputian Versailles". The same writer said that the tower rose "Manhattan-wise for 10 storeys through the twentieth century, only to have a diminutive spire, escaped from the fifteenth, push through its top to steal the last laugh". Peter Sager, too, thought that the "high-rise library" could "easily stand on the Hudson". Sir Howard Colvin said that the "utilitarian function" of the tower "accorded ill with its original ornamental purpose", and that the architects had "failed to find a satisfactory solution" to the "repetitive uniformity of fenestration".  Of the flèche, Colvin said that it "makes its contribution to the Oxford skyline without any overt reference to historical precedent". Geoffrey Tyack also disliked the tower, describing it as "an ungainly structure" that was "lit by a monotonous array of windows punched out of the wall surface"; however, he thought the hall was "an effective reinterpretation of the traditional collegiate pattern".The architectural historian Sir Nikolaus Pevsner compared the college unfavourably to the designs of the Danish architect Arne Jacobsen  for St Catherine's College, Oxford, construction of which began in 1960 (the year that Nuffield College was completed): St Catherine's, in his view, was "the most perfect piece of architecture of 20th-century Oxford" and made Nuffield "look even more absurd". Nevertheless, he "proposed forgiveness" for the "mighty tower", which "positively helps the famous skyline of Oxford", adding that it has "enough identity to be sure that one day it will find affection". He said that the tower had something of the architect Edwin Lutyens' "felicitous manipulation of period details into a non-period whole and will, I prophesy, one day be loved", although he was less sure that this fate awaited the rest of the buildings. Simon Jenkins said of Pevsner's prophecy about the tower, "I doubt it"; he described it as "at best ungainly", with a "weak spire", and said that "vegetation was its best hope, as for the rest of Nuffield". The college, in his view "required a sense of humour". 
Question: What is the full name of the person who said that it "makes its contribution to the Oxford skyline without any overt reference to historical precedent?

Howard Colvin.