The United States deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour Erica Barks-Ruggles said Washington should press the African Union to exert more influence over Zimbabwe and press for international monitors to observe the March 2008 elections.
Zimbabwe was due to hold elections in a month and President Robert Mugabe had said he would not invite observers from countries that had imposed sanctions on his country because they had already made their minds up.
The United States and the European Union imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe in 2002.
Barks-Ruggles also expressed deep US disappointment over the invitation of Robert Mugabe to the EU – Africa Summit in Lisbon in December 2007.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown boycotted the summit because Mugabe had been invited to the summit.
Portugal was forced to invite Mugabe because African countries said they would not attend if he was excluded.
Full cable:
Viewing cable 08LJUBLJANA116, DRL DAS BARKS-RUGGLES HOLDS HUMAN RIGHTS
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
|
Reference ID |
Created |
Classification |
Origin |
VZCZCXRO8067
RR RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHLJ #0116/01 0670720
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 070720Z MAR 08
FM AMEMBASSY LJUBLJANA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6520
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0003
RUEHGB/AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD 0046
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0039
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO 0018
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 0005
RUEHDK/AMEMBASSY DAKAR 0005
RUEHSB/AMEMBASSY HARARE 0009
RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL 0029
RUEHKH/AMEMBASSY KHARTOUM 0024
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 0019
RUEHGO/AMEMBASSY RANGOON 0027
RUEHNT/AMEMBASSY TASHKENT 0026
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA 0014
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0175
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 08 LJUBLJANA 000116
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/06/2018
SUBJECT: DRL DAS BARKS-RUGGLES HOLDS HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSULTATIONS WITH SLOVENIAN EU PRESIDENCY
Classified By: CDA Maryruth Coleman for reasons 1.4 (b,d)
¶1. (U) SUMMARY: On February 15, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Erica
Barks-Ruggles and Director of Office of Human Rights,
Humanitarian and Social Affairs, Bureau of International
Organizations, Doug Rohn held bilateral and U.S.-EU
consultations with Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
officials. Barks-Ruggles and Rohn met with State
Secretary/Political Director Matjaz Sinkovec, MFA Director
SIPDIS
General Anita Pipan, COTRA Chair Roman Kirn, COLAT Chair
Stefan Bogdan Salej, COHOM Chair Smiljana Knez, MFA OSCE
Office Director Damjan Bergant, and EUROMED Chair Veronika
Stabej to discuss U.S. and EU priorities for international
human rights policy, United Nations Human Rights Council
7th Session priorities, human rights dialogues and
consultations, and other issues. END SUMMARY
——————————————— ——–
U.S. Priorities for International Human Rights Policy
——————————————— ——–
Prisoners of Conscience Declaration
———————————–
¶2. (C) Barks-Ruggles and Rohn discussed the proposal for a
joint U.S.-EU declaration and public affairs event at the
UN in New York relating to prisoners of conscience.
Barks-Ruggles emphasized the importance of having the event
focus on countries that have atrocious human rights
records, but have not been scrutinized in recent years by
the UN, such as Cuba, Burma, and Zimbabwe. COHOM Chair
Smiljana Knez stated that due to recent COHOM meetings
there had been little time to review the U.S. draft
declaration and the side event non-paper, but that she
expected full comments from EU colleagues soon. Knez noted
that initial comments from colleagues had raised two
concerns: 1) that this effort not be interpreted as
infringing on the independence of special rapporteurs); and
2) that the declaration and event should not focus on any
one country, but should have a global focus. Knez also
asked why the declaration and event should not be carried
out in the HRC in Geneva rather than in the UN Third
Committee in New York.
¶3. (C) Barks-Ruggles and Rohn agreed that special
rapporteurs must maintain their independence, but also
cited U.S. concerns that special rapporteurs are not giving
equal attention to all countries. They agreed that the
declaration and event should have a broad focus, but
stressed the importance of highlighting the most egregious
cases including Cuba and Burma. On the location,
Barks-Ruggles pointed out that when this project was first
conceived the Portuguese EU presidency advised that with a
focus on Cuba and other gross violators, this effort would
not succeed in Geneva due to the make-up of the HRC.
Pursuing this effort in New York would allow for positive
involvement by all countries – not just HRC member states –
and could lead to a resolution at the next UN General
Assembly. Knez promised to be in touch and to relay
additional EU comments as soon as she received them.
¶4. (C) COTRA Chair and Head of the MFA Division for the
Americas, Ambassador Roman Kirn stressed that Slovenia
would like to see the U.S. in the HRC. He noted that
Slovenia decided to run last year because of its upcoming
turn as EU president and because of a desire to see change
in the HRC. He said that Slovenia has high expectations
for progress and needs like-minded partners such as the
U.S. to help fix the Council. Barks-Ruggles assured Kirn
that the U.S. has not thrown in the towel on the HRC and
works with others to improve the HRC, but stressed
continuing skepticism from the U.S. She underlined the need
for the universal peer review process starting in April to
be meaningful.
LJUBLJANA 00000116 002 OF 008
¶5. (C) Barks-Ruggles stressed the EU needs to join in
pressing for the renewal of the mandate for the Independent
Expert on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
¶6. (C) Regarding a possible resolution on Sri Lanka, Knez
stated that the HRC will probably keep it in reserve as a
threat against further deterioration of human rights. Knez
noted that EU political directors will travel to Sri Lanka
in mid-March. She also stated that Slovenia and the EU
strongly support the effort to open an office of UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour in Sri Lanka,
despite the government’s poor treatment of her during her
visit. Knez pointed out that Sri Lanka will soon be
subjected to the new Universal Periodic Review (UPR) (Note:
at the May UPR session, end note) process in the HRC and
that she hoped that it would bring new focus and pressure
to the issue. Barks-Ruggles stated that the U.S. shares
these concerns and has sent a firm message to the
government of Sri Lanka on the need to improve its human
rights record.
¶7. (C) Knez noted the need to press for human rights
improvements in Kenya and would not rule out the
possibility of calling a special session of the HRC, nor
would she exclude the possibility of sanctions. She voiced
strong support for the efforts currently being made on the
ground in Kenya. Barks-Ruggles noted that Secretary Rice
would travel to Kenya to support the efforts of former UN
Secretary General Kofi Annan to broker peace. Knez also
SIPDIS
noted that the mandate for Somalia must be extended. She
added that the HRC may issue a declaration soon.
HRC Thematic Initiatives
————————
¶8. (C) Barks-Ruggles and Rohn stressed that although the
U.S. shares the EU’s concerns on religious intolerance, the
U.S. could not support an EU resolution on religious
intolerance that contained problematic references to hate
speech that cross U.S. Constitutional lines and impinge on
freedom of speech. Barks-Ruggles and Rohn urged the EU to
revert to the traditional, previously agreed language on
hate speech, a move that would allow the U.S. to support
the next resolution on eliminating religious intolerance.
Knez stated that she would relay these concerns to EU
partners, but again stressed that the EU always works at
the level of the lowest common denominator and tends to
balance between active and cautious positions.
¶9. (C) Knez raised the Mexican initiative of promoting
human rights in the fight against terrorism and noted that
they intend to raise this at the HRC as well.
Barks-Ruggles stated that the U.S. is concerned about
duplication on this issue in the UNGA Third Committee where
Mexico has run this resolution for years and the HRC, and
is urging Mexico to refrain from introducing the resolution
at the HRC. Knez said that she thought it was too late to
avoid its introduction in Geneva and expressed concern that
the consequence could be worse than mere duplication – it
could lead to deteriorating language. She also noted that
the Mexicans have expressed great enthusiasm for moving
items from the Third Committee to the HRC.
HRC Institutions – Universal Periodic Review
——————————————— —————
¶10. (C) Barks-Ruggles and Rohn made clear to all MFA
officials that the U.S. is skeptical but hopeful that the
new Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process of the HRC will
be a real innovation that will lead to more robust reviews
of serious human rights abusers. The U.S. is particularly
concerned that certain nations are attempting to dumb down
the process in order to avoid close scrutiny.
Barks-Ruggles also stressed that UPR should not swamp the
High Commissioner for Human Rights nor intrude upon her
independence. Kirn expressed strong support for the UPR
LJUBLJANA 00000116 003 OF 008
process, stating that it is a real opportunity to examine
human rights in all countries. Knez noted that there is an
on-going discussion in the EU on the UPR process, but that
efforts are being made to ensure that the EU avoids acting
as a block. Although EU nations want to work in “light
coordination” in order to burden share, they do not wish to
be seen as a block. Knez affirmed that the independence of
the High Commissioner is an important priority for the EU,
but that this must be a joint effort that also involves
coordination with Latin America, Asia, and others. MFA
Director General Anita Pipan expressed appreciation for
U.S. support for UPR and noted that the EU has invested a
great deal in UPR to ensure that it is an effective
mechanism, including outreach to countries that lack
resources to effectively fight human rights abuses. Knez
stated that the first UPR session in April will be
important as it will set a precedent.
HRC Elections
————-
¶11. (C) Barks-Ruggles stated that although we have not yet
received the list of candidates for the next round of HRC
elections, the U.S. is concerned that Zambia and Ghana are
rotating off the HRC. She also noted that there are
indications that both Egypt and Senegal are interested in
running for the HRC presidency. Knez agreed with her that
an Egyptian presidency could be disastrous for the HRC.
Barks-Ruggles suggested that the Egyptians need to
understand the unwanted scrutiny that the HRC presidency
will bring to their domestic human rights situation. Pipan
agreed with this assessment and suggested close
coordination between the EU and the U.S. to ensure a
positive composition of the HRC. When asked for updates on
HRC candidacies, Knez revealed that the Czech Republic had
just announced its intention to withdraw its candidacy due
to pressure from other EU states. She also stated that
Africa has yet to announce its candidates but opined that
either Botswana or Mozambique would be good candidates.
¶12. (C) Barks-Ruggles and Rohn urged Slovenia to support
the U.S. candidate for the HRC Advisory Committee, Andre
Surena. Sinkovec indicated that he would have Slovenia’s
support. (Note: it was unclear that Sinkovec knew anything
about the election and his statement of support could be in
spirit rather than in fact. End note.)
¶13. (C) Rohn urged Slovenia to give close scrutiny to the
recently announced list of candidates for the 14 HRC
Special Rapporteur terms that will soon expire. He
expressed U.S. concern that none of seven U.S. nominees
had made the short list. While some of the final
candidates are very qualified, Rohn noted that others
threaten to bring a very unbalanced perspective to what
should be an objective office. Knez promised to study the
list closely and to keep U.S. concerns in mind.
OSCE/ODIHR – Russia
——————-
¶14. (C) Regarding the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Barks-Ruggles said the U.S.
supported the independent decision made by the Office for
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to decline
Russia’s invitation to observe the March presidential
election due to overly restrictive conditions demanded by
the GoR. Although MFA officials agreed with Barks-Ruggles’
assessment that Russia has played a very negative role in
the OSCE, they said it would be necessary to discuss
Russia’s objections to ODIHR missions in order to avoid a
complete stagnation of the organization. Damjan Bergant,
Director of the OSCE Office at the MFA and former DCM to
the Slovenian OSCE mission, argued that the current
conflict with Russia over ODIHR missions arises out of two
factors: personality conflicts between ODIHR Director
Christian Strohal and the Russian delegation and the
LJUBLJANA 00000116 004 OF 008
Russian perception of unequal focus by ODIHR observation
missions. He also expressed concern regarding the
difficulty of arguing with some of Russia’s legal
arguments, noting that the Russians are correct in certain
aspects of their legal analysis. Bergant suggested that
the West needs to be flexible in order to find a solution
that will both protect current missions, but also allow for
a review of observation rules. He offered that Slovenia
could play a positive role by facilitating a discussion
that could allow for change without sacrificing principals.
¶15. (C) Barks-Ruggles responded that we should be wary
about Russian demands for “reform,” and stressed that
OSCE/ODIHR election observation standards are the gold
standard for the world and should not be diluted. Pipan
agreed, but suggested that Russia’s call for change could
be an opportunity to strengthen OSCE/ODIHR standards even
further. Knez suggested that the message to Russia should
also be that it is so strong it has no reason to fear
opening itself to civil society and media.
OSCE/ODIHR – Kazakhstan
———————–
¶16. (C) Barks-Ruggles cited U.S. concerns that Kazakhstan
live up to its promised reforms before taking the OSCE
chairmanship in 2010. Director General Pipan stated that
Kazakhstan’s OSCE chairmanship could have great potential
and that it was important to help Kazakhstan to implement
its promises. She also noted that Kazakhstan had recently
prepared a paper asking for closer relations with the EU
and that the EU is inclined to react positively.
Barks-Ruggles assured Pipan of U.S. support for Kazakh
reform efforts, but stressed it must follow up its promises
with actions.
OSCE/ODIHR – Slovenian Candidate for ODIHR Director
——————————————— ——
¶17. (C) State Secretary Sinkovec and Director General Pipan
put in a plug for the Slovenian candidate for the ODIHR
directorship, Janez Lenarcic. Bergant affirmed that
Lenarcic would not leave his current post as State
Secretary for EU Affairs until after the close of the
SIPDIS
presidency and stressed that in addition to U.S. support,
Slovenia would ask that the U.S. lobby on his behalf.
Barks-Ruggles stated that she would pass the message.
Support Needed for Upcoming Elections – Iraq and
Afghanistan
——————————————— —————
¶18. (C) Barks-Ruggles thanked Slovenia for the EU pledge to
provide $20 million in assistance to the United Nations
Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) and thanked Slovenia
for its debt forgiveness and assistance to Iraq. She noted
that the upcoming Iraqi elections will require substantial
support from the international community and urged Slovenia
as the EU Presidency to work with the GOI, the UN and the
U.S. to ensure the needed resources for elections are
available.
¶19. (C) Noting ongoing debates in Afghanistan on the form
of future elections, Barks-Ruggles stressed that the U.S.
is not taking a position but is working to ensure support
for the elections is sufficient. Knez gave assurances that
Slovenia and the EU support positive elections in both Iraq
and Afghanistan, but stressed the need to look beyond the
elections, noting that they are a critical part of the
process, but not the end goal.
Country Specific Issues
———————–
Iran
—-
LJUBLJANA 00000116 005 OF 008
¶20. (C) Barks-Ruggles and Knez agreed that the human rights
situation in Iran has deteriorated significantly.
Barks-Ruggles outlined U.S. policy, noting that after the
elections the U.S. will issue a strong statement on the
entire process’ failure to meet international norms for
democratic elections, and urged that the EU do the same.
Knez noted that there is some debate within COHOM regarding
whether to reengage in a human rights dialogue with Iran,
with some arguing for reengagement and others insisting on
Iran first taking substantial steps based on past dialogues
before any further engagement occurs. Barks-Ruggles
strongly urged the latter.
Burma
—–
¶21. (C) Barks-Ruggles stated that the U.S. has been
pressing UN Special Envoy to Burma Ibrahim Gambari to give
the Burmese regime a deadline for starting a real dialogue
with the opposition, including ASSK and the NLD, and ethnic
groups. Knez affirmed that the EU is 100 percent on the
same page with the U.S. regarding Burma. She noted COHOM
disappointment with the brief length of the visa Special
Rapporteur Paulo Pinheiro received from the Burmese
regime. She does not expect any change in the message
Pinheiro will present to the HRC upon his return from Burma
in March, if he is allowed to go. Knez stressed that
regional players such as China and India must do more and
noted that China has recently shown positive signs.
Cuba
—-
¶22. (C) Discussions turned to Cuba at many points
throughout the day, with Barks-Ruggles repeatedly stressing
the need to avoid a simple Castro to Castro transition and
to help facilitate real political dialogue on the island.
Kirn affirmed that the issue of political prisoners is
always very high on the list of EU priorities for Cuba. Hestated that both the EU and individual EU member sates –
even those one might not expect – press te Cuban regime on
this issue. But he acknowledge that EU discussions
regarding Cuba take place wthin the EU common foreign
policy framework and herefore it is not always easy to
reach agreement. State Secretary Sinkovec mentioned that
he may visit Cuba in the run-up to the EU – Latin America
and Caribbean Summit in May.
¶23. (C) COLAT Chair and MFA Special Representative to Latin
America Ambassador Stefan Bogdan Salej requested greater
clarification on U.S. human rights policy in Cuba, stating
that there is much misunderstanding in the EU on this
issue. He also noted that all EU missions, even the
Spanish, press Cuba to release political prisoners, and
stressed that this is the basis for EU common policy.
Salej stated that a positive Cuban transition will only
occur if the EU, the U.S., and other important players such
as Brazil, Mexico, and other Latin American countries work
together to show Cuba that relations with the international
community will only improve with human rights
advancements.
¶24. (C) In her meeting with Knez, Barks-Ruggles inquired
about the EU Common Position on Cuba that will come up in
June. Knez stated that the usual problems will apply and
that it is still too early to predict what would be the
result of the discussions. However, she did say that the
EU wants Cuba to demonstrate cooperation with the
international community by inviting special rapporteurs to
the island. Knez stated that although it would be
understandable if Cuba began by inviting less controversial
rapporteurs, such as those who deal with housing or food,
it would take the invitation of more critical rapporteurs
to convince the EU that Cuba is taking human rights more
seriously. Barks-Ruggles stressed that the U.S. hopes to
LJUBLJANA 00000116 006 OF 008
see the EU Common Position preserved.
Belarus
——-
¶25. (C) Barks-Ruggles noted rumors that Germany may press
for a lifting of EU sanctions against Belarus due to the
recent release of several political prisoners. Knez stated
that the EU is very cautious regarding Belarus and wishes
to see the release of all political prisoners. She said
that she had not closely followed the internal discussions
on sanctions, but that she agrees that sanctions should not
be dropped based on the release of three prisoners.
Zimbabwe
——–
¶26. (C) Barks-Ruggles expressed deep U.S. disappointment in
the invitation of Robert Mugabe to the EU – Africa Summit.
She noted that we need to be press the AU to exert more
influence over Zimbabwe and press for international
monitors to observe the March 29 elections. Knez agreed,
noting that the intervention of a key player such as South
Africa is necessary.
Uzbekistan
———-
¶27. (C) At her lunch with Pipan, Barks-Ruggles informed the
Director General that the U.S. is skeptical but hopeful
that the EU can make progress with Uzbekistan, and stressed
the need to push Uzbekistan to take concrete and positive
action to improve human rights. She inquired about reports
that the EU may lift sanctions this spring. Knez stated
that she had not heard about any plans to lift sanctions
and that she agreed that it would not be wise. She stated
that there will be a sanctions discussion in either March
or April before the EU dialogue with Uzbekistan in May.
————-
EU Priorities
————-
EU Guidelines on Human Rights
—————————–
¶28. (C) Knez listed the EU Guidelines on Human Rights as
being: children and armed conflict; promotion of
international humanitarian law; the death penalty; human
rights defenders; and torture and cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. Regarding the guideline
on the death penalty, Knez stated that the EU is currently
working on Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and Iran. She also noted
that the EU is particularly concerned about the present
case of the young Afghani journalism student who has
received a death sentence for alleged blasphemy against
Islam. Knez pointed out that this case clearly falls under
the EU guideline, but that at present the EU has decided to
take a quiet approach through a private demarche to Afghani
President Hamid Karzai urging him to commute the sentence.
However, Knez noted that there are some in the EU who are
pressing the EU to go public with its concerns. She stated
that the EU would discuss the issue at the February 18
GAERC. She also affirmed that the EU will continue to push
for the global abolishment of the death penalty.
¶29. (C) Regarding human rights defenders, Knez revealed
that the EU is building on the German initiative to
facilitate visas for human rights defenders, with a key
goal being harmonization of visa processes for fast
admission of human rights defenders who are under threat to
all EU countries. She noted that the EU is interested in
coordinating with the U.S. to assist human rights defenders
on the ground. Barks-Ruggles noted that the U.S. had
initiated a global human rights defenders fund that is now
successfully providing small grants to human rights
LJUBLJANA 00000116 007 OF 008
defenders to cover medical care, travel, and other forms of
assistance. She offered a briefing at upcoming troika
COHOM meetings in Washington.
UNHRC 7th Session Priorities
—————————-
Human Rights Dialogues and Consultations
—————————————-
China
—–
¶30. (C) Knez stated that the EU – China dialogue will take
place in Ljubljana in mid-May and will again feature a
seminar. The dialogue will focus on freedom of expression,
human rights defenders, and the right to health, while
seminar topics will be protection of children’s rights and
the right to health. Barks-Ruggles raised the Human Rights
Exchange (HRE) scheduled for late March and offered to have
DRL’s China expert Susan O’Sullivan attend the upcoming
COHOM troika meeting in order to discuss the HRE.
Russia
——
¶31. (C) Knez addressed the upcoming EU – Russia dialogue in
April by revealing that these dialogues are far more
frustrating than those carried out with China. She
expressed bewilderment with Russia’s extreme paranoia
towards civil society.
African Union
————-
¶32. (C) Knez stated that exploratory talks between the EU
and the African Union (AU) had revealed good will and good
structures within the AU, but that there is a huge gap
between AU aspirations and its capabilities and therefore
the AU will need a great deal of support. She noted that
when the EU – AU dialogue begins, there will be a heavy
focus on capacity building. She requested close
coordination between the EU and the U.S. to avoid
duplication and to create synergy. Barks-Ruggles agreed.
EUROMED
——-
¶33. (C) Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EUROMED) Chair
Veronika Stabej noted that the group has not yet carried
out the expected restructuring, but is under new pressure
to do so due to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s EU for
the Mediterranean initiative. She stated that,
nonetheless, the Barcelona Process continues and that
EUROMED has been able to maintain a positive dialogue on
human rights. Stabej asserted that Slovenia can be a
positive player in this forum (the only body besides the UN
in which both Israel and the Palestinian Territories
participate) because Slovenia does not carry any historical
baggage in the Mediterranean.
¶34. (C) Barks-Ruggles emphasized the importance of
supporting civil society in many of the EUROMED member
states, especially by helping civil society to strengthen
its networks. Stabej fully agreed. She stated that the
Anna Lind Euro-Mediterranean Foundation is serving well as
a network of networks in the region and noted that the
Slovenian Peace Institute currently heads the foundation.
Comment
——-
¶35. (C) Throughout the human rights consultations,
Slovenian officials demonstrated a strong interest and
dedication to human rights and a willingness to cooperate
with the U.S. on a host of issues. They will likely
LJUBLJANA 00000116 008 OF 008
continue to be a positive influence in the HRC and in their
role as EU President. However, the seemingly innocent
questions put forth by State Secretary Sinkovec in his
introductory meeting with Barks-Ruggles and Rohn may reveal
the few areas where the U.S. – EU relationship on human
rights will continue to hit small bumps in the road.
Sinkovec questioned whether progress in Africa was
possible; he noted that he is more optimistic about Cuba
and Burma than countries such as Kenya and Zimbabwe. He
mentioned that he will likely travel to Cuba and Venezuela
in advance of the EU – Latin America and Caribbean Summit
in May. He also inquired how we can balance human rights,
civil liberties, and the need for security. Lastly, he
asked whether the use of the death penalty has been an
effective tool against crime in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Although Slovenian officials appear distrustful of Russian
intentions in ODIHR, they seem more willing to engage in a
debate that could end in results that neither one of us
wants. End Comment.
¶36. (U) DRL DAS Erica Barks-Ruggles has cleared on this
cable.
COLEMAN
(16 VIEWS)
0 Comments