UN Human Rights Council
Introduction
On March 15, 2006, 170 members states at the United Nations agreed to establish a new Human Rights Council to replace the discredited High Commissioner on Human Rights. According to the Secretary General Kofi Annan, “This gives the United Nations the chance – a much-needed chance – to make a new beginning in its work for human rights around the world.[1]”
Although we now celebrate the coming of a Human Rights Council, looking into the past, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has been accused of its incompetence to carry out its work of protecting human rights. The discussion about the criticisms on the High Commissioner on Human Rights will then be provided firstly in this paper.
The newly established Human Rights Council is meant to rectify the ineffectiveness and the political influence in the previous function of the Commission. Therefore, the improved features of the new Council are also key factors to member states’ decision to replace the Commission. The new mechanism invented in the Human Rights Council will also be introduced.
Undoubtedly, the new Human Rights Council is out of the question to be a perfect organization. There are still certain legal and political problems existing in the new human rights body, such as USA’s boycott of the Council’s creation, the exceeding proportion of developing countries in the Council, etc. The further explanation of these problems will be provided in the last section of this paper.
1. Accounts for the Creation of a New Human Rights Organ
In discussing the reasons behind the General Assembly’s decision to establish the Human Rights Council, the paper will firstly scrutinize the criticisms on the former UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, which account mostly for the creation of the new Human Rights Council. Subsequently, the advantages of the newly established Council will be introduced so as to justify the “creation” of a new upgraded organ in charge of the human rights affairs, rather than a moderate reform within the original regime.
(1) The Criticisms on the High Commissioner on Human Rights
The UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has been accused of its malfunction in promoting and protecting international human rights. In general, the causes of this malfunction can be summarized as the following three major points.
a. Member States as Both Judges and Defendants
The member states in the UN High Commissioner on Human rights are often criticized as being judges and defendants at the same time. Several of its member countries themselves have dubious human rights records, including states whose representatives have been elected to chair the commission. The commission has in recent years included countries accused of gross human rights violations such as Sudan, China, Cuba and Zimbabwe[2]. Therefore, activist groups have long expressed a concern for the memberships of the People's Republic of China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and the past memberships of Algeria, Syria, Libya, and Vietnam on the commission. These countries have variously been accused of human rights violations, and the concern is that they will work against resolutions on the commission condemning human rights, thus indirectly promoting despotism and domestic repression. Even worse, the desire of states with problematic human rights records to be elected to the Commission is largely to defend themselves from attacks on their human rights records[3]. Consequently, the dubious human rights records of the member states made the commission suffer from the criticism on its disability to carry out the tasks of promoting global human rights standards.
b. Commission as a Frantic Political Struggle Platform
Aside from some members’ dishonored human rights records, member states have always indulged in their diplomatic games for big political stakes[4]. For instance, countries without support in the commission such as Burma and Burundi often received severe condemnations, whereas Belarus, North Korea and others could manage to escape from condemnations because their allies’ support. If we take a look at another case in May 2001, the United States, which had been a member since the establishment of the body in 1947, was not elected to the Commission. The reason of that may attribute to its lack of sufficient support from European States which were critical of Washington's opposition to the creation of the International Criminal Court. Thus, the political influences over the commission’s decision-making process also severely undermined the credibility of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights.
c. “Non-action” – A Procedure Used to Maintain Impunity
The existence of a “non-action” motion constitutes most for the Human Rights Commission’s inability to achieve its goal of promoting and protecting human rights. A “non-action” motion is a procedural device designed to avoid a vote on a resolution and to cut short any debate on an embarrassing issue. In other words, any delegation wanting to prevent discussion on a particular matter just has to present a procedural “non-action” motion which must be put to an immediate vote and, if approved, blocks any other proposal. This device has been used systematically by China since the Tienanmen square massacre in 1989 to put a stop to any criticism of its practices. Since then, others have made excessive use of this mechanism to prevent them from being listed on the human rights violator’s agenda[5].
In sum, certain member states’ terrible human rights records, the outrageous political struggle within the Commission, as well as the existence of “non-action” motion in the commission altogether result in the inefficiency of the commission to carry out its original goal. On the other hand, it was also because of the severe criticism on the Human Rights Commission that encouraged the creation of a new human rights body in the United Nations---the Human Rights Council.
(2) The Advantages of the Newly Established Human Rights Council
Compared to the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Council works more efficiently by adopting a more comprehensive election mechanism to incorporate more countries into the Council, and also by inventing a universal periodic review mechanism so as to monitor the nations in regard to their human rights records. The following section will give a brief introduction to these two superior mechanisms of the Council to the Human Rights Commission.
a. Improved Election Mechanism
The new election mechanism of the Council showed a major improvement over the Commission. Election to the Council would require an absolute majority of UN member States, with at least 96 out of 191 members supporting a state's membership. This threshold was much higher than the 28 or fewer votes that could get a country membership in the Commission, and would allow countries to block the election of rights violators[6].
Besides, States wishing to be elected to the new Council need to be committed to the protection and promotion human rights. The General Assembly can suspend any of the Council's members that commit gross and systematic violations of human rights.
Owing to the improved election mechanism, countries having records of violating human rights will no longer be admitted to the council as they often did in the Commission.
b. A Universal Periodic Review Mechanism[7]
Besides the improvement of election mechanism, the members are also required to commit themselves to uphold the highest standards of human rights, cooperate fully with the Council, and have their own human rights' records reviewed during their term of membership. The universal review mechanism will allow the Council to hold all member states to their human rights obligations fairly and equally, without selectivity or double standards.
Also, the Council will meet regularly throughout the year, and can hold special sessions when needed. This enables the Human Rights Council to deal with human rights crises immediately as one arises. The review system in the Human Rights Council hence will serve better as a watchdog to ensure countries not violating the standard human rights and not having double standards as they breach any UN human rights resolution.
Together with the improved election system, which incorporates more countries into the Council than the Commission, the universal periodic review system is believed to strengthen the UN’s work on the protection of human rights.
2. Political and Legal Problems of Human Rights Council
(1) The Fundamental Attitude of Nations Has Not Changed
The countries that make up the international community have not changed because of the Human Rights Council invention. In particular, the attitude that human rights is “something that goes wrong somewhere else”, and conversely, that human rights are proscribed by historical, traditional religious values – the old “cultural relativism” argument, still characterize the membership[8]. Therefore, the change from the commission to the Council does not guarantee a fundamental change in countries’ attitudes toward human rights. The effectiveness of the Council, to some extent, still depends on the countries’ willingness to abide by the rules regulated in the Human Rights Council.
(2) The United States’ Boycott
The United States was one of only four countries[9] to vote against the creation of Human Rights Council, arguing that the reform did not go far enough. G.W. Bush also declared that the United States would not seek a seat on the Council, saying it would be more effective from the outside. United States State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We will work closely with partners in the international community to encourage the council to address serious cases of human rights abuse in countries such as Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, and North Korea.[10]"
A notorious human rights violator both internationally and domestically in the past decades, the United States can be seen as the most uncertain factor in the Council’s function of protecting human rights. Determined not to be included in the Human Rights Council, its behavior of breaching standards of human rights cannot be fully supervised by the Council. Therefore, despite the claim by the United States to support the Council financially, the international community will not enjoy a inclusive human rights protection system unless the USA is integrated into the Council in the future.
(3) Easier to Get on the Council than to Be Expelled?
The candidates of the Council require a single majority to get elected, but two thirds majority to be suspended. Therefore, if a country in fact violates human rights and is ought to be expelled from the Human Rights Council, as long as it receives a one-third support from its alliances (as human rights violators usually do), it will not be expelled by the Council. This two-thirds votes for expel procedure would still make the determination of punishing human rights violators doubtful in the Council.[11]
(4) The Exceeding Proportion of African & Asian Representation
Despite the fact that the geographic distribution of the new council reflects the geographic distribution of the world and is a fact of international life[12], Asian and African states could form a majority with 26 votes, whereas the rest of the countries have cumulative 21 votes. In other words, in the Asian and African region the Council will need to elect 26 representatives out of a huge number of countries that had bad human rights records. On top of that, the efforts committed by those Asian and African developing countries to enforce the protection of human rights is not clearly seen and guaranteed. Consequently, with too many representatives from regions that are noted for its bad human rights records in the past, the challenge now is to elect Asian and African states which are truly leaders on human rights in their respective regions.
Conclusion
The creation of Human Rights Council is meant to solve the problems which pervaded in the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights. In the Commission, the member states are often criticized as being judges and defendants at the same time. Even countries having worst human rights records can be elected to chair in the Commission. Besides, the Commission is also criticized as a frantic forum for political struggle, rather than a genuine mechanism to protect human rights. Moreover, the existence of “non-action” motion prevents countries with bad human rights conducts from being listed on the sanction agenda.
Because of the above disadvantages of the Commission, an improved system of the Human Rights Council is created. The Council provides a better election mechanism by requiring an absolute majority when it comes to membership. Besides, states wishing to be elected to the new Council need to be committed to the protection and promotion human rights. As to the invention of international periodic review system, it will allow the Council to hold all member states to their human rights obligations fairly and equally, without selectivity or double standards. In sum, I conclude that it was because of both the discredit of the Commission and the improved mechanism of the Council that the General Assembly decided to create the Council.
On the other hand, no human device can be perfect. The Human Rights Council may still encounter some problems in carrying out its goals of protecting human rights. Firstly, the fundamental attitudes of states have not changed because of the creation of the Council. Countries still believe that the case of human rights violation is no huge business. Therefore, the effectiveness of the Council still largely depends on the countries’ willingness to abide by the rules. Secondly, the USA’s boycott of the creation of Human Rights Council symbolized its unwillingness to abide by the international human rights standards (despite its promises to work “outside” with the Council.) Furthermore, on the legal aspects, the almost impossibility (two-thirds votes) to be expelled by the Council made the human rights violator invulnerable to the international pressure. Lastly, the exceeding numbers of African and Asian developing countries, often noted for their dishonorable human rights records, make their commitment to abide by the human rights rules less credible.
In conclusion, the creation of the Human Rights Council is a historic improvement for the human rights protection in the UN framework. The good intention of the states should, of course, be acclaimed. However, we cannot be too naive when we believe that this new body of human rights supervision will solve every problem in relations to human rights violation. After all, the willingness of the states to respect human rights is still the key point to the new design of Human Rights Council.
[1] Secretary-General Office of the Spokesman, “Secretary-General's statement on the Human Rights Council”, 15 March 2006
[2] BBC News, “UN Creates New Human Rights Body”, 15 March 2006
[3] Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Criticism)
[4] “UN Commission On Human Rights Loses All Credibility—Wheeling and Dealing, Incompetence and Non-Action”, Reporters Without Borders Jean-Claude Buhrer, July 2003, pg. 2
[5]“UN Commission On Human Rights Loses All Credibility—Wheeling and Dealing, Incompetence and Non-Action”, Reporters Without Borders Jean-Claude Buhrer, July 2003, pg. 11
[6] UN Press Release, “HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS SALUTES CREATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL”, 15 March 2006
[7] UN General Assembly Agenda items 46 and 120 5(e) states that: Undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States; the review shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs; such a mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies; the Council shall develop the modalities and necessary time allocation of the universal periodic review mechanism within one year after the holding of its first session;
[8] John Pace, “The UN Human Rights Council: Opportunities and Challenges”, 3 April
[9] Only the United States, the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Israel voted against the Council's creation
[10] Human Rights Watch, “New Rights Council Needs U.S. Support”, April 6 2006
[11] www.epochtw.com
[12] The 47 seats in the new Council will be distributed among the UN's regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, 6 for Eastern Europe, 8 for Latin America and the Caribbean, and 7 for the Western European and Others Group.
On March 15, 2006, 170 members states at the United Nations agreed to establish a new Human Rights Council to replace the discredited High Commissioner on Human Rights. According to the Secretary General Kofi Annan, “This gives the United Nations the chance – a much-needed chance – to make a new beginning in its work for human rights around the world.[1]”
Although we now celebrate the coming of a Human Rights Council, looking into the past, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has been accused of its incompetence to carry out its work of protecting human rights. The discussion about the criticisms on the High Commissioner on Human Rights will then be provided firstly in this paper.
The newly established Human Rights Council is meant to rectify the ineffectiveness and the political influence in the previous function of the Commission. Therefore, the improved features of the new Council are also key factors to member states’ decision to replace the Commission. The new mechanism invented in the Human Rights Council will also be introduced.
Undoubtedly, the new Human Rights Council is out of the question to be a perfect organization. There are still certain legal and political problems existing in the new human rights body, such as USA’s boycott of the Council’s creation, the exceeding proportion of developing countries in the Council, etc. The further explanation of these problems will be provided in the last section of this paper.
1. Accounts for the Creation of a New Human Rights Organ
In discussing the reasons behind the General Assembly’s decision to establish the Human Rights Council, the paper will firstly scrutinize the criticisms on the former UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, which account mostly for the creation of the new Human Rights Council. Subsequently, the advantages of the newly established Council will be introduced so as to justify the “creation” of a new upgraded organ in charge of the human rights affairs, rather than a moderate reform within the original regime.
(1) The Criticisms on the High Commissioner on Human Rights
The UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has been accused of its malfunction in promoting and protecting international human rights. In general, the causes of this malfunction can be summarized as the following three major points.
a. Member States as Both Judges and Defendants
The member states in the UN High Commissioner on Human rights are often criticized as being judges and defendants at the same time. Several of its member countries themselves have dubious human rights records, including states whose representatives have been elected to chair the commission. The commission has in recent years included countries accused of gross human rights violations such as Sudan, China, Cuba and Zimbabwe[2]. Therefore, activist groups have long expressed a concern for the memberships of the People's Republic of China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and the past memberships of Algeria, Syria, Libya, and Vietnam on the commission. These countries have variously been accused of human rights violations, and the concern is that they will work against resolutions on the commission condemning human rights, thus indirectly promoting despotism and domestic repression. Even worse, the desire of states with problematic human rights records to be elected to the Commission is largely to defend themselves from attacks on their human rights records[3]. Consequently, the dubious human rights records of the member states made the commission suffer from the criticism on its disability to carry out the tasks of promoting global human rights standards.
b. Commission as a Frantic Political Struggle Platform
Aside from some members’ dishonored human rights records, member states have always indulged in their diplomatic games for big political stakes[4]. For instance, countries without support in the commission such as Burma and Burundi often received severe condemnations, whereas Belarus, North Korea and others could manage to escape from condemnations because their allies’ support. If we take a look at another case in May 2001, the United States, which had been a member since the establishment of the body in 1947, was not elected to the Commission. The reason of that may attribute to its lack of sufficient support from European States which were critical of Washington's opposition to the creation of the International Criminal Court. Thus, the political influences over the commission’s decision-making process also severely undermined the credibility of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights.
c. “Non-action” – A Procedure Used to Maintain Impunity
The existence of a “non-action” motion constitutes most for the Human Rights Commission’s inability to achieve its goal of promoting and protecting human rights. A “non-action” motion is a procedural device designed to avoid a vote on a resolution and to cut short any debate on an embarrassing issue. In other words, any delegation wanting to prevent discussion on a particular matter just has to present a procedural “non-action” motion which must be put to an immediate vote and, if approved, blocks any other proposal. This device has been used systematically by China since the Tienanmen square massacre in 1989 to put a stop to any criticism of its practices. Since then, others have made excessive use of this mechanism to prevent them from being listed on the human rights violator’s agenda[5].
In sum, certain member states’ terrible human rights records, the outrageous political struggle within the Commission, as well as the existence of “non-action” motion in the commission altogether result in the inefficiency of the commission to carry out its original goal. On the other hand, it was also because of the severe criticism on the Human Rights Commission that encouraged the creation of a new human rights body in the United Nations---the Human Rights Council.
(2) The Advantages of the Newly Established Human Rights Council
Compared to the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Council works more efficiently by adopting a more comprehensive election mechanism to incorporate more countries into the Council, and also by inventing a universal periodic review mechanism so as to monitor the nations in regard to their human rights records. The following section will give a brief introduction to these two superior mechanisms of the Council to the Human Rights Commission.
a. Improved Election Mechanism
The new election mechanism of the Council showed a major improvement over the Commission. Election to the Council would require an absolute majority of UN member States, with at least 96 out of 191 members supporting a state's membership. This threshold was much higher than the 28 or fewer votes that could get a country membership in the Commission, and would allow countries to block the election of rights violators[6].
Besides, States wishing to be elected to the new Council need to be committed to the protection and promotion human rights. The General Assembly can suspend any of the Council's members that commit gross and systematic violations of human rights.
Owing to the improved election mechanism, countries having records of violating human rights will no longer be admitted to the council as they often did in the Commission.
b. A Universal Periodic Review Mechanism[7]
Besides the improvement of election mechanism, the members are also required to commit themselves to uphold the highest standards of human rights, cooperate fully with the Council, and have their own human rights' records reviewed during their term of membership. The universal review mechanism will allow the Council to hold all member states to their human rights obligations fairly and equally, without selectivity or double standards.
Also, the Council will meet regularly throughout the year, and can hold special sessions when needed. This enables the Human Rights Council to deal with human rights crises immediately as one arises. The review system in the Human Rights Council hence will serve better as a watchdog to ensure countries not violating the standard human rights and not having double standards as they breach any UN human rights resolution.
Together with the improved election system, which incorporates more countries into the Council than the Commission, the universal periodic review system is believed to strengthen the UN’s work on the protection of human rights.
2. Political and Legal Problems of Human Rights Council
(1) The Fundamental Attitude of Nations Has Not Changed
The countries that make up the international community have not changed because of the Human Rights Council invention. In particular, the attitude that human rights is “something that goes wrong somewhere else”, and conversely, that human rights are proscribed by historical, traditional religious values – the old “cultural relativism” argument, still characterize the membership[8]. Therefore, the change from the commission to the Council does not guarantee a fundamental change in countries’ attitudes toward human rights. The effectiveness of the Council, to some extent, still depends on the countries’ willingness to abide by the rules regulated in the Human Rights Council.
(2) The United States’ Boycott
The United States was one of only four countries[9] to vote against the creation of Human Rights Council, arguing that the reform did not go far enough. G.W. Bush also declared that the United States would not seek a seat on the Council, saying it would be more effective from the outside. United States State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We will work closely with partners in the international community to encourage the council to address serious cases of human rights abuse in countries such as Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, and North Korea.[10]"
A notorious human rights violator both internationally and domestically in the past decades, the United States can be seen as the most uncertain factor in the Council’s function of protecting human rights. Determined not to be included in the Human Rights Council, its behavior of breaching standards of human rights cannot be fully supervised by the Council. Therefore, despite the claim by the United States to support the Council financially, the international community will not enjoy a inclusive human rights protection system unless the USA is integrated into the Council in the future.
(3) Easier to Get on the Council than to Be Expelled?
The candidates of the Council require a single majority to get elected, but two thirds majority to be suspended. Therefore, if a country in fact violates human rights and is ought to be expelled from the Human Rights Council, as long as it receives a one-third support from its alliances (as human rights violators usually do), it will not be expelled by the Council. This two-thirds votes for expel procedure would still make the determination of punishing human rights violators doubtful in the Council.[11]
(4) The Exceeding Proportion of African & Asian Representation
Despite the fact that the geographic distribution of the new council reflects the geographic distribution of the world and is a fact of international life[12], Asian and African states could form a majority with 26 votes, whereas the rest of the countries have cumulative 21 votes. In other words, in the Asian and African region the Council will need to elect 26 representatives out of a huge number of countries that had bad human rights records. On top of that, the efforts committed by those Asian and African developing countries to enforce the protection of human rights is not clearly seen and guaranteed. Consequently, with too many representatives from regions that are noted for its bad human rights records in the past, the challenge now is to elect Asian and African states which are truly leaders on human rights in their respective regions.
Conclusion
The creation of Human Rights Council is meant to solve the problems which pervaded in the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights. In the Commission, the member states are often criticized as being judges and defendants at the same time. Even countries having worst human rights records can be elected to chair in the Commission. Besides, the Commission is also criticized as a frantic forum for political struggle, rather than a genuine mechanism to protect human rights. Moreover, the existence of “non-action” motion prevents countries with bad human rights conducts from being listed on the sanction agenda.
Because of the above disadvantages of the Commission, an improved system of the Human Rights Council is created. The Council provides a better election mechanism by requiring an absolute majority when it comes to membership. Besides, states wishing to be elected to the new Council need to be committed to the protection and promotion human rights. As to the invention of international periodic review system, it will allow the Council to hold all member states to their human rights obligations fairly and equally, without selectivity or double standards. In sum, I conclude that it was because of both the discredit of the Commission and the improved mechanism of the Council that the General Assembly decided to create the Council.
On the other hand, no human device can be perfect. The Human Rights Council may still encounter some problems in carrying out its goals of protecting human rights. Firstly, the fundamental attitudes of states have not changed because of the creation of the Council. Countries still believe that the case of human rights violation is no huge business. Therefore, the effectiveness of the Council still largely depends on the countries’ willingness to abide by the rules. Secondly, the USA’s boycott of the creation of Human Rights Council symbolized its unwillingness to abide by the international human rights standards (despite its promises to work “outside” with the Council.) Furthermore, on the legal aspects, the almost impossibility (two-thirds votes) to be expelled by the Council made the human rights violator invulnerable to the international pressure. Lastly, the exceeding numbers of African and Asian developing countries, often noted for their dishonorable human rights records, make their commitment to abide by the human rights rules less credible.
In conclusion, the creation of the Human Rights Council is a historic improvement for the human rights protection in the UN framework. The good intention of the states should, of course, be acclaimed. However, we cannot be too naive when we believe that this new body of human rights supervision will solve every problem in relations to human rights violation. After all, the willingness of the states to respect human rights is still the key point to the new design of Human Rights Council.
[1] Secretary-General Office of the Spokesman, “Secretary-General's statement on the Human Rights Council”, 15 March 2006
[2] BBC News, “UN Creates New Human Rights Body”, 15 March 2006
[3] Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Criticism)
[4] “UN Commission On Human Rights Loses All Credibility—Wheeling and Dealing, Incompetence and Non-Action”, Reporters Without Borders Jean-Claude Buhrer, July 2003, pg. 2
[5]“UN Commission On Human Rights Loses All Credibility—Wheeling and Dealing, Incompetence and Non-Action”, Reporters Without Borders Jean-Claude Buhrer, July 2003, pg. 11
[6] UN Press Release, “HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS SALUTES CREATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL”, 15 March 2006
[7] UN General Assembly Agenda items 46 and 120 5(e) states that: Undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States; the review shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs; such a mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies; the Council shall develop the modalities and necessary time allocation of the universal periodic review mechanism within one year after the holding of its first session;
[8] John Pace, “The UN Human Rights Council: Opportunities and Challenges”, 3 April
[9] Only the United States, the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Israel voted against the Council's creation
[10] Human Rights Watch, “New Rights Council Needs U.S. Support”, April 6 2006
[11] www.epochtw.com
[12] The 47 seats in the new Council will be distributed among the UN's regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, 6 for Eastern Europe, 8 for Latin America and the Caribbean, and 7 for the Western European and Others Group.
posted by Victor | 1:10 上午
0 Comments:
張貼留言
<< Home