From 1991 to 2002, a civil war raged between pro-government forces and rebel groups in Sierra Leone. Conflict-related sexual violence (CSVR) was pervasive during the war. Sierra Leonean women and girls were subjected to widespread and systematic sexual violence perpetrated by rebel groups and, to a lesser extent, pro-government and peacekeeping forces (HRW, 2003).

As mandated by the peace agreement, the government established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in 2002 to investigate human rights violations committed during the armed conflict. The commission made clear efforts to investigate and report on sexual violence during the conflict and made recommendations for specific reparation measures for victims/survivors, with a particular focus on sexual and gender-based violence experienced by women in Sierra Leone.

The TRC dealt with sexual violence on the basis of “internationally recognisable crimes” and took its definitions of crimes of sexual violence from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (TRC, 2004c, p. 129). The related crimes it investigated included rape, sexual abuse, sexual slavery, sexual violence, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilisation and other sexual violence.

Conflict and Prevalence of Sexual Violence

During the civil war in Sierra Leone, rape by armed groups was rampant across the country. Groups responsible for widespread sexual violence included the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), the Civil Defence Forces (CDF), the Westside Boys and the Sierra Leone Army (SLA) (TRC, 2004c, pp. 171-181). The RUF was the main rebel movement, which entered the country with the aim to overthrow the government of President Joseph Momoh. The RUF were supported by Liberian special forces allied with Charles Taylor. From the beginning of the civil war, the RUF’s campaign of terror included sexual violence and sexual slavery, committed on a widespread and systematic basis (Koos, 2018).

Sexual violence was disproportionately perpetrated against women and girls and was part of brutal strategies authorised by the leadership of fighting factions to inflict terror (TRC, 2004b, p. 97). Physicians for Human Rights (2002, p. 59) reported that as many as 215,000 to 257,000 Sierra Leonean women and girls may have been subjected to sexual violence. Rape as a violation was largely under-reported. The TRC final report noted that cultural taboos and societal stigma associated with rape meant that many women did not feel they could openly share their testimonies with the commission (TRC, 2004c, p. 159). Very few sexual violations against male victims/survivors were reported. Stigma attached to homosexuality in Sierra Leone meant that few men were willing to report these crimes (HRW, 2003, p. 42).

Contributing Factors around Sexual Violence

Sexual violence is symptomatic of patriarchal hegemony in Sierra Leone (TRC, 2004c). Societal attitudes towards sexual violence and victims/survivors are indicative of patriarchal norms, gender inequality and particularly the low status of women and girls (HRW, 2003). The notion of sexual violence as a crime was a new concept in Sierra Leonean society at the time of the TRC’s operations. Under common law at the time, rape was an offence defined as “having sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, by force, fear or fraud” (TRC, 2004c, p. 118). This narrow definition may have been another factor that inhibited reporting of sexual violence against men and gender non-conforming victims/survivors.

Underreporting led to a culture of impunity for CRSV committed by armed groups during the civil war (TRC, 2004b; TRC, 2004c). Moreover, conditions of conflict and loss of control of the military meant that there was no reliable state institution to protect victims/survivors (TRC, 2004c, p. 170). Submissions made by women’s groups to the TRC point to the failure of successive governments to protect women and girls during the conflict and the reluctance of police and judicial officers to investigate and prosecute cases of sexual violence (TRC, 2004b, pp. 168-170).

Transition and Establishment of the Truth Commission

The 1999 Lomé Peace Agreement (LPA), together with the Abuja Ceasefire Agreement (ACA) (2000 and 2001), brought about the end of the war and mandated the establishment of the TRC. The TRC Act (2000) was enacted by then President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah and parliament, in line with Article XXVI of the LPA.

The Sierra Leonean government did not have the capacity to financially support the commission, so the TRC largely depended on international donations. Both international and regional actors, as well as local civil society organisations, were involved in the peace process and negotiating Sierra Leone’s transitional justice architecture. The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) played a key role in raising funds for the TRC and provided technical assistance and consultants for certain projects in preparation for the TRC (ICG, 2002).

Local civil society organisations advocated especially for including reparations for victims/survivors in the commission’s mandate. In 2002, during the initial stages of formulating the commission’s operations, the TRC established a collaborative partnership with the Women’s Task Force on the Commission, a network of women’s organisations that included the Forum for African Women Educationalists (FAWE) and the Women’s Forum (TRC, 2004a, p. 49). The United Nations Fund for Women (UNIFEM) provided support and organised consultations to facilitate the participation of women’s organisations in the TRC process (Menzel, 2020).

The TRC was established alongside the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). The two mechanisms operated simultaneously and both made specific efforts to address gendered crimes and the particular forms of suffering experienced by women. The SCSL operated from 2002 to 2013 and has a mixed legacy in terms of addressing sexual and gender-based violence (Teale, 2009, p. 71).

The SCSL adopted the International Criminal Court definition of crimes against humanity, including gender-based persecution (HRW, 2003, p. 56). It set an international precedent in declaring that forced marriage constitutes a separate crime against humanity, distinct from sexual slavery. This was an important acknowledgement of many Sierra Leonean women’s unique gendered experience and suffering as ‘bush wives’ during the war. As the Office of the Prosecutor prioritised investigating and prosecuting sexual and gender-based violence cases, many of the court’s indictments contained charges of rape and sexual violence as war crimes and crimes against humanity (Oosterveld, 2015). For example, 10 out of 13 of the original indictments included charges of rape (Nelaeva, 2013).

The TRC’s approach was more victim-focused and forward-looking than that of the SCSL. The commission sought to provide a different form of justice through truth telling, establishing a historical record and promoting healing and reconciliation (ibid).

Both the SCSL and the TRC were instrumental in sexual violence being recognised as one of the most serious crimes perpetrated during the Sierra Leone conflict. However, there is a gap between the example set by these mechanisms and the way that national courts dealt with sexual violence cases. During and after the TRC and the SCSL, sexual violence and impunity for perpetrators persisted, as did the stigmatisation of victims/survivors (Teale, 2009).

Mandate and Scope in Respect of CRSV

According to the TRC Act, the core objective of the TRC was to “create an impartial historical record of violations and abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law related to the armed conflict in Sierra Leone,” in order to address impunity, respond to the needs of the victims, promote healing and reconciliation, and prevent future violations. The mandate referred to sexual violence in relation to hearings and statement-taking processes.

The commission’s function was to help restore the dignity of victims and promote reconciliation by providing a platform for them to relate their experiences, with “special attention to the subject of sexual abuses.” In terms of the interests of victims/survivors and witnesses in statement-taking processes, the mandate allowed the commission to “implement special procedures to address the needs of such particular victims as children or those who have suffered sexual abuses.” The mandate did not reference sexual violence as a specifically gendered crime, nor did it gender victims of sexual abuses (TRC Act, 2000).

Sexual violence was pervasive during the conflict and therefore a major violation that needed to be addressed by the commission. The TRC’s establishment also coincided with a general increase in political and professional attention to CRSV against women in the field of transitional justice (Menzel, 2020). In 2000, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1325, which called upon states and parties to armed conflict to “take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse … in situations of armed conflict,” as well as to prosecute those responsible. The term ‘CRSV’ was also introduced into Women, Peace and Security (WPS) programmes. Considering the role of the United Nations in the mediation of the LPA and the technical support provided by OHCHR in the establishment of TRC, it can be inferred that international norms informed the TRC’s mandate in respect of CRSV.

Truth Commission Operations

Over the course of its operations, the TRC prioritised gender-based and sexual violence and adopted a number of gender-sensitive approaches in dealing with them (Nowrojee, 2005). In relation to statement taking and hearings, the commission took testimonies from women and girls with attention to the gender-specific nature of the violations and abuses they experienced during the conflict (TRC, 2004a). The commission also organised special public hearings on children and sexual violence to bring their experiences into public discourse, ensuring that all children participating in the hearings did so in closed or confidential sessions (TRC, 2004a, p. 142).

In preparation for the hearings, the commissioners and other staff underwent a two-day training – facilitated by UNIFEM and the Urgent Action Fund – focusing on international law pertaining to sexual violence, methodologies for interviewing victims/survivors of sexual violence, and issues relating to the support and protection of women witnesses (Nowrojee, 2005, p. 93). The TRC consulted experts in gender-based violence in drawing up its guidelines for statement taking, ensured that female statement-takers were hired in all districts, and offered the option of closed sessions for testimony on sexual violence (TRC, 2004a).

Emphasising its partnership with UNIFEM, the TRC sought to ensure that gender-based violence was properly accounted for, and that women’s groups participated in the commission’s processes (TRC, 2004a). It is unclear, however, to what extent victims/survivors were consulted or participated in actually shaping the operations of the commission. Anne Menzel (2020) argues that victims/survivors’ voices did not define the TRC’s priorities.

Acknowledgement and inclusion of men, gender diverse and LGBTQIA+ victims/survivors of sexual violence are not evident in the commission’s operations. The fact that ‘gender crimes,’ and particularly sexual violence, were made largely synonymous with violence against women and girls is a signifier of the limitations of national legal frameworks at the time, as well as underreporting of cases of sexual violence against men. For example, under common law in Sierra Leone, rape was defined only as “having sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, by force, fear or fraud” (TRC, 2004c, p. 118).

The TRC’s approach was in line with international law and policy instruments addressing CRSV at the time. While premised on a ‘sex-neutral’ approach, they were geared towards the protection of women and girls. Scholarship on CRSV at the time was also largely focused on women and girls’ victimisation (Gorris, 2015).

Truth Commission Final Report

Although its mandate was gender-neutral, the TRC’s final report pays special attention to the experiences of women and girls in respect of sexual violence, stating that “it is undeniable that women were subjected to all forms of sexual violence and are in need of assistance to address many of the consequences that resulted from the violations committed against them” (TRC, 2004b, p. 243).

The TRC’s definitions of different sexual violations and bulk of its findings on this subject are documented in Volume 3B, in a chapter on “Women and the Armed Conflict in Sierra Leone.” In this chapter, the commission documents and analyses sexual violence as well as women’s “complete gendered experiences” in the conflict at the political, legal, health and social welfare levels (TRC, 2004c).

This chapter was shaped by African women professionals with experience in transitional justice work focusing on women and sexual violence, namely Commissioner Yasmin Sooka and consultants Betty Murungi, Binaifer Nowrojee and Jamesina King. The report therefore contains sophisticated legal, social, political and historical analyses of the causes and conditions perpetuating sexual violence and enabling impunity for perpetrators in Sierra Leone. While testimonies from victims/survivors and witness accounts are included, they are not given primacy in the report and did not shape the commission’s findings (Menzel, 2020, pp. 311-312).

Except for ‘forced pregnancy,’ which refers explicitly to women as being confined and forcibly made pregnant by the perpetrator, the definitions do not delimit the gender of victims/survivors or perpetrators. However, the commission’s findings on CRSV are predominantly on sexual violence against women. The commission published some findings on sexual violations of boy and girl children, but it did not report any cases of sexual violence against men. In fact, in its documentation of the count and percentage of violations, it stated that “within the context of the violations reported in statements to the Commission, rape and sexual slavery were committed exclusively against females” (TRC, 2004b, p. 35). In its list of victims of sexual violence and forced conscription, in which the gender of victims is given, the TRC states that some male victims were reported to have been “assaulted” and “stripped,” but it did not specify whether these violations were of a sexual nature (TRC, 2004b, pp. 273-293).

Throughout the final report, with the exception of the section on reparations, victims of sexual violence are identified as “women,” “women and girls,” “girls” or “children.” It indicates that the majority of victims of CRSV and other human rights violations were civilians. Data on the investigation and identification of perpetrators shows that perpetrators of sexual violence were predominantly combatants from the rebel groups and pro-government forces engaged in conflict.

The majority of combatants were men, although the commission found that many women acted as perpetrators and collaborators in the conflict, taking on these roles “out of personal conviction or simply in order to survive” (TRC, 2004b, p. 87). The extent to which women were perpetrators of sexual violations is not reported by the commission. However, a number of secondary sources document and engage with the complex issue of sexual violence committed by women combatants in Sierra Leone (Cohen 2003; HRW, 2003).

Truth Commission Recommendations

In the final report, the TRC’s recommendations are divided into three main categories, in order of priority and urgency. These are “imperative,” “work towards” and “seriously consider.” A fourth sub-category is “calls upon” recommendations, in which the commission calls upon institutions outside of government structures, including non-governmental and international organisations, to engage in certain activities (TRC, 2004b, p. 120). Of the 39 recommendations addressing sexual violence, five are imperative recommendations.

The report includes several recommendations that do not explicitly refer to sexual violence but are necessarily inclusive of sexual violence victims/survivors or that address crimes of sexual violence. For example, given the commission’s extensive findings on sexual violence against women, its recommendations for public apologies for “harm suffered by women and girls during the conflict” implies redress for sexual violence. Also, the TRC’s recommendations for the enactment or review of legislation pertaining to children’s rights and human trafficking include protections against sexual abuse and exploitation.

The TRC’s principles and framework for a national reparations programme were guided by domestic and international law, but it does not refer to any such laws in its recommendations for reparations for sexual violence. According to the final report, the TRC’s reparations recommendations were informed by statements from victims who identified their needs to the commission, consultations with international and local organisations, and meetings with various victims’ organisations for insights into the measures that would address victims/survivors’ real needs. The names of these organisations and the details of the consultation process in respect of sexual violence victims/survivors are not provided in the report.

The commission recognises “particularly vulnerable victims whose needs require prioritisation,” identifying the need of female victims of sexual violence for gynaecological services at the primary health level as well as surgery to repair damage caused by sexual violations (TRC, 2004b, pp. 229-235). Victims of sexual violence are one of four groupings of victims recommended as beneficiaries of the reparations programme. The other groups are amputees, other war wounded and children.

Spelling out the criteria for eligibility, the report defines victims of sexual violence as “those women and girls who were subjected to such acts as rape, sexual slavery, mutilation of genital parts or breasts, and forced marriage.” However, it further states that “to the extent boys and men suffered from sexual violence, they will also be beneficiaries of this programme” (TRC, 2004b, p. 250). The commission provides no explanation for the inclusion of men and boys or whether this was the result of an intervention from commissioners, consultations with victims/survivors or inputs from external experts and representatives of civil society.

Relating to CRSV, the TRC made recommendations for directly addressing harm suffered due to sexual violence through monetary compensation in the form of monthly payments and medical treatment and psychosocial services. Other recommendations seek to address the social and legal factors that enable or perpetuate sexual violence, along with the structural inequality faced by survivors (Opdam & Williams, 2017, p. 1289). These include free education for both child victims of sexual violence and children of sexual violence victims, legal and institutional reforms, and socioeconomic upliftment in the form of micro-finance and skills training schemes. Among these are a number of gender-specific reparations, such as the provision of free vaginal fistula surgery for women (TRC, 2004b).

The commission also recommends reparations for victims/survivors of sexual violence who contracted HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections. It acknowledges the stigma faced by survivors, deciding not to apply the reduction of earning capacity test to victims of sexual violence due to the stigma they face (TRC, 2004b). The Sierra Leone government allocated responsibility for implementing the reparations programme to the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA) and tasked the National Human Rights Commission with the role of Advisory Committee (TRC, 2004b, p. 193).

Implementation of Truth Commission Recommendations

Since the publication of the final report, there have been some advancements in implementation of the TRC’s reparations for victims/survivors of sexual violence. However, obstructing factors have hampered progress and caused implementation to come to a standstill.

In early 2007, the NaCSA established a taskforce for reparations consisting of a former TRC commissioner, representatives from civil society and victims/survivors themselves (Opdam & Williams, 2017, p. 1291). In the same year, a matrix on the implementation status of the TRC’s recommendations was developed by the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone with the United Nations Integrated Office in Sierra Leone (UNIOSIL). The matrix was prepared through inputs provided by government ministries and civil society. However, women’s rights organisations were notably absent from the taskforce for reparations (Opdam & Williams, 2017).

In 2008, the government of Sierra Leone undertook a one-year project aimed at building the institutional capacity to implement the TRC’s recommendations and offering an interim relief package of Le 300,000 ($100) to beneficiaries (Suma & Correa, 2009, p. 9). During the ‘Year One Project,’ 200 victims/survivors of sexual violence were given medical support for various ailments, including treatment for sexually transmitted diseases (ICTJ, 2010, p. 4).

The following year, the reparations program and Victims’ Trust Fund were established. UNIFEM and the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund were crucial to funding certain interim measures and temporary reparations programmes and the International Centre for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) also assisted in advocacy and helping register victims/survivors for reparations (Suma & Correa, 2009). According to a report by ICTJ, of the total 29,733 people registered for reparations, only 3,181 were victims/survivors of sexual violence (Suma & Correa, 2009, p. 4). Of this number, only 2,918 victims/survivors were compensated (p. 9).

According to the recommendations matrix, referral systems for victims/survivors were created at two hospitals in 2009 and, as of 2010, 235 victims/survivors of sexual violence had benefitted from fistula surgery or treatment for other gynaecological problems. Although the referral system had been put in place, funding limitations thwarted many victims/survivors’ access to free medical care (TRC, 2010).

From 2007 to 2010, sensitisation programmes were ongoing at the local level to encourage community leaders to report rape cases and cooperate in investigation processes. In 2010, the NaCSA reported an increase in reported rape cases, but the numbers of prosecutions were still low. Over this period, a training manual on addressing gender-based violence was produced for the Family Support Unit of the police and a database was established to track gender-based violence-related cases. The NaCSA also secured funds from UNIFEM to provide training packages to 650 victims/survivors of sexual violence for a period of two years from 2010 to 2012. These packages included monthly stipends, toolkits, micro grants and certificates from training Institutions. It is also reported that the Ministry of Social Welfare developed a national service provider directory with support from the National Committee on Gender-Based Violence and the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund (TRC, 2010)

In March 2010, President Ernest Bai Koroma issued a public apology to all women for the brutalities and injustices they suffered during the conflict (Sierra Express Media, 2010). Although implemented under a different administration, Koroma’s statement satisfied the TRC’s recommendation for the government to acknowledge and apologise for the harm suffered by women and girls during the conflict. However, the statement did not include explicit acknowledgement of CRSV experienced by women and girls.

The matrix records the implementation of several TRC recommendations relating to legislation addressing sexual violence. In June 2007, the Sierra Leone parliament approved the Child Rights Bill and, in 2012, the government adopted the Sexual Offences Act which criminalised human trafficking, all non-consensual acts perpetrated against children and adults, especially women under the age of 18, and coercive sex within marriage (TRC, 2010; Opdam & Williams, 2017). This act was one of three ‘Gender Acts’ passed by government as a direct result of the TRC’s recommendations, and in partial implementation of its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Opdam & Williams, 2017, p. 1293).

In September 2019, the Sexual Offences Act was amended by parliament. The new legislation set a 15-year minimum sentence for rape (15 years was previously the maximum sentence for sex crimes). The new law also guaranteed free medical treatment for victims/survivors, which includes counselling, psychosocial support and mental health services (Sexual Offences Amendment Act, 2019). The Act does not delimit any timeframe for the sexual offence to have occurred in order for victims/survivors to report and receive free medical care. However, it is unclear whether these guarantees extend to victims/survivors of CRSV during the civil war.

Sierra Leone’s second National Action Plan (SiL NAP II) on UNSC Resolutions 1325 and 1820 was adopted in 2019 to be implemented over the period of 2019 to 2023. One of its main output objectives is to engage in community dialogue and advocacy outreach to the government to implement the remaining recommendations on women and girls contained in the TRC’s final report (SiL NAP II, 2019). There is limited information available online regarding the SiL NAP’s implementation and any progress made in achieving this objective.

Although some registered victims/survivors of sexual violence received interim relief grants and emergency medical care, the reparations programme came to a standstill due to a lack of funds (Suma & Correa, 2009). The extent to which sexual violence victims/survivors and their families continue to have access to the free medical care, treatment and testing recommended by the TRC is not clear. The recommendations matrix records that the government “mostly implemented” recommendations for public awareness campaigns, educational programmes and community sensitisation around sexual and gender-based violence (TRC, 2010). However, the matrix has not been updated since 2010 and it is difficult to track and assess the longer-term impact these initiatives have had.


Correa, C., & Suma, M. 2009. Report and Proposals for the Implementation of Reparations in Sierra Leone. International Centre for Transitional Justice. https://www.ictj.org/publication/report-and-proposals-implementation-reparations-sierra-leone

Gorris, E.A.P. 2015. “Invisible Victims? Where Are Male Victims of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence in International Law and Policy?” European Journal of Women’s Studies, 22(4): 412–427.

Human Rights Watch (HRW). 2003. “We’ll Kill You If You Cry”: Sexual Violence in the Sierra Leone Conflict. https://www.hrw.org/report/2003/01/16/well-kill-you-if-you-cry/sexual-violence-sierra-leone-conflict

International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ). 2010. Sierra Leone Submission to the Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council 11th Session. https://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-SierraLeone-Periodic-Review-2010-English.pdf

Koos, C. 2018. “Decay or Resilience: The Long-Term Social Consequences of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence in Sierra Leone.” World Politics, 70(2): 194-238.

Menzel, A. 2020. “The Pressures of Getting It Right: Expertise and Victims’ Voices in the Work of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).” International Journal of Transitional Justice, 14: 300-319.

Nelaeva, G.A. 2013. “The Politics of Wartime Rape Prosecutions in Sierra Leone Special Court.” Journal of Siberian Federal University: Humanities & Social Sciences, 1445.

Nowrojee, B. 2005. “Making the Invisible War Crime Visible: Post-Conflict Justice for Sierra Leone’s Rape Victims.” Harvard Human Rights Journal, 18: 85-106.

Oosterveld, V. 2015. “The Special Court for Sierra Leone: Initial Structural and Procedural Decisions on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence.” Cambrian Law Review, 46: 131-150.

Opdam, J., & Williams, S. 2017. “The Unrealised Potential for Transformative Reparations for Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Sierra Leone.” International Journal of Human Rights, 21(9): 1281-1301.

Physicians for Human Rights. 2002. War-Related Sexual Violence in Sierra Leone A Population-Based Assessment. https://phr.org/our-work/resources/war-related-sexual-violence-in-sierra-leone

Sierra Express Media. 2010. “President Koroma Apologizes to Sierra Leonean Women.” https://sierraexpressmedia.com/?p=6911

Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). 2004a. Witness to Truth: Report of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission Volume 1.

Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). 2004b. Witness to Truth: Report of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission Volume 2.

Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). 2004c. Witness to Truth: Report of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission Volume 3B.

Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). 2010. Recommendations Matrix. https://www.sierraleonetrc.org/images/recommendations_matrix/matrix/matrix/matrix/finalmatrix.html

National Action Plan (SiLNAP) II for the Full Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1325 (2000) and 1820 (2008) (2019-2023). 2019. http://1325naps.peacewomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Sierra-Leone-2019-2023.pdf

Sexual Offences Amendment Act. 2019. Government Printing Department, Sierra Leone. Http://Rogee.Sl/Docs/ROGEE-Sierra-Leone-Act-Sexual-Offences-2019.pdf

Teale, L. 2009. “Addressing Gender-Based Violence in the Sierra Leone Conflict: Notes from the Field.” African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 9(2).

United Nations Security Council. 2000. S/RES/1325 Security Council Resolution on Women and Peace and Security. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/720/18/PDF/N0072018.pdf?OpenElement

Translate »