UN documents on Ukraine.

---

In the conditions of legal chaos, information turbulence and mass distrust in the institutions of power, dialogues of people who are not afraid to ask uncomfortable questions are becoming more and more valuable. This broadcast is just such a case. It is not just a conversation between two people, it is an attempt to get to the bottom of events that concern millions. There is no pathos here, no "official version" - only documents, facts, analytics and simple human logic.

Today we will unvarnished examine the legal and administrative conflicts surrounding martial law, the UN pact, the structure of the TCC, the powers of the president and the Verkhovna Rada. Question by question, paragraph by paragraph, they reveal systemic contradictions that can affect the lives of thousands of people: from those who are now at the front to those who tomorrow will demand compensation and legal protection. This text is not about politics. It is about reality. About how rights can be violated under the cover of laws. About how one signature can cancel an entire system. And how it is important to understand what is happening before it is too late.

Hello, my good ones. Hello. Good day. Good evening. Hello to you, to you. In general, in different ways. Whatever you want, whatever you don't want. Take it any way you want.

So, what do we have today? You asked for a live stream. Live on the topic of those publications that Oleg and I had. He asked me to publish on his channel to reach out to you. They were about the TCC. They were about martial law. They were about the UN pact. As Oleg and I realized after studying all the comments, people just said, guys, we need to air it. Because we don't [__] understand anything.

With Oleg, we agreed on how to do it now. We are doing only the first part of the broadcast. So that you can start to understand a little bit. Oleg speaks his own language. His language is the Surzhik of the Bila Tserkva district. So take it the way you want. The most important thing is that he has brains. And how he speaks, what language he speaks, is secondary. I will suspend him somewhere, clarify him. If you don't understand, don't listen.

To those who do not know Ukrainian at all - well, what can you do. You will lose a lot of interesting things. Because all our countries, which somehow miraculously broke up, allegedly broke up, into 15 republics - they are still in one interesting union. And we all know very well what kind of union it is. It's just that we have been wildly deceived. We've been screwed. We've been flipped. And we've been lumped together so that we hate each other. So they'd take resources.

I'll tell you in a nutshell. There was a conference in Munich yesterday. There was a conference. Our great men came. Who negotiated some sort of defense treaties and everything else. I am not going into details about what kind of protection agreements we had with you before that, which were concluded last year. But I'm basing myself on those treaties now. Why this broadcast? Because that's exactly what it's going to show. We're going to reveal a little bit about all these resources, all these territories. And why it's so important for them to do it now.

You all know Oleg. Oleg, hi.

Hello, friends. Yeah.

So, Oleg, what's up? Let's start from the very beginning with all our publications. There were 10 of them, not two. The ones you dug up there, starting with the UN pact and ending with the Cekashniks. Which, as it turns out, conclude contracts as a legal entity for the lease of premises. Let's start with the UN pact. What did you mean when you wrote about this pact? And what is the reason for all this? Why were we abandoned with this UN pact?

Greetings, friends. Hello, Anton. For those who don't understand Ukrainian, as Anton said, translate it, turn on the subtitles, and you'll be able to watch it perfectly. For those who do, hello, everyone. The situation is as follows. This has more to do with how the entire civilized world sees us, conditionally, if we can call it civilized or uncivilized.

UN documents. Why did they do it? Do you understand it? I understand it more or less. In order to at least confuse everyone. They confused absolutely everyone. But why did they do exactly that with the UN documents? Why did they submit the documents in this particular format, in this particular designation?

Here, well, first of all, so that we do not understand anything. That's one. Secondly, so that they don't really understand anything either. Thirdly, they indicate in those documents that say: you, well, attach this text there. Everything seems to be fine, everything is fine, everything is fine. Only the situation is changing. We are giving you this new text. Please put it under this paper at the bottom. And let this text be inside now.

Because there is a document called the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is an international document. Just like the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This is a document that was signed by the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. That is, this is the document to which Ukraine has obligations. Since they say that they are the successors, they are also the successors in terms of obligations related to internationally signed treaties.

And our Constitution stipulates, in Article Nine, that international law is generally higher than domestic law. Because if it recognizes... Well, in short, everything that the Constitution defines is okay. But if there are international treaties, then international treaties are already recognized... Well, then international treaties are already working, relatively speaking. And they couldn't really get around this point. And they would have circumvented it, but it is mandatory.

Because here, for example, if we are talking about the Covenant, about the fourth article, it defines: here, it says that the first paragraph, I will read it out just to make it clear: "In time of public emergency in a State in which the life of the nation is threatened and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may derogate from their obligations under the present Covenant only to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such derogation is not incompatible with other obligations under international law and does not entail discrimination solely on the grounds of race, color, sex, language, religion or social origin."

This is point number one. And point number two is that this provision cannot be the basis for any derogations under Articles 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18. And the third point is that any State Party to the present Covenant which exercises the right of derogation shall forthwith inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons for such derogation. It shall also notify, through the same intermediary, the date on which it shall cease to derogate.

Tobto, it should be notified about the date when it stops such an access. And not as they wrote: that it is accepted from then and there and for 30 db. That's not a date. It's like a period. If it is written that it starts on such and such a date, then it must be the end date. It doesn't say when the 30th day ends. No. It must be clearly stated: 5:30 on such and such a day, such and such a month, such and such a year it must end. And not then to say that we are in a prolonged state of war and there is no final date in general. Do you realize what's wrong?

That is, I realize they did it on purpose. To confuse - one. To make it impossible to find the ends that were thrown in the water later - two. And the third option - when all this is over, they will say: "So it was finished a long time ago. The fact that you were doing something here is your own personal problem."

Well, I don't think they'll say that. Zaluzhny or Pritula, for example, will say it. Or whoever we have there is going to become our new manager, who is almost appointed there, they are already preparing him. I understand that then they will just say to us: "Well, guys, you were so stupid. You are degenerates. Why didn't you look into this?" Please, these documents are on weight.

This is done in some of these. And what you said there - inciting national, religious discord - it's all forbidden. It's forbidden during martial law. It's clearly spelled out. Under no circumstances should we do it. Then what's going on?

Well, here, look, they say: for example, we have made changes to the Criminal Procedure Code and a number of other issues with the next letter. And so we are now forced to move away from part three of Article Two of the Covenant.

That is, they are already adopting laws or changes not in relation to international obligations, but simply saying in fact that we are retreating from international obligations because we have adopted a law. That is, our domestic laws are now above our international obligations. And we are simply informing you.

Why is this so? Here, for example, part three of Article Two of the Covenant states the following: Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to provide an effective remedy to any individual whose rights and freedoms are recognized in the present Covenant and who has had a violation thereof. Even when the violation has been committed by persons acting in their official capacity.

That is, it says that they are obliged, in every case where rights have been violated, even by officials, to provide legal protection. There is a point "b" - to ensure that the right to a remedy for any person in need of such a remedy is established by the competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities or any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state.

And to develop the possibilities of judicial protection. That is, the second point is that there must be competent bodies or instances or authorities. Judicial protection must be specifically provided. And the third is to ensure that the competent authorities apply legal remedies when they are provided by the same competent authorities.

I have a question for you. You sent me the same documents back then - about the decree of 24.02 on the introduction of martial law. Decree 65/22 on general mobilization. Decree 269/22 is also about mobilization. Decree 63 - on the introduction of a state of emergency. They put everything together. How does it all work? Or does it not work? I'm just curious.

Well, look, there are some interesting things here: if we are talking about the exercise of their power in relation to a certain subject, which is Ukraine. Our Constitution defines it: Ukraine is a legal, social state. Ukraine is a unitary state. Ukraine is a republic.

The Constitution itself does not define such a construct as the "territory of Ukraine". Articles 120, 132, 133 refer to the territorial structure and the administrative-territorial structure.

That is, if we are talking about the exercise of powers in relation to some territory of Ukraine, the Constitution itself does not define this territory. And any specific entity that... well, it says about the system of administrative and territorial structure. These are territories that are administered.

Although the administrative part is territorial, it can exist without reference to physical control over the territory.

Okay. So I have a question about all these decrees. And the decree 61/2022 - on the abolition of the decree of the President of Ukraine of February 23. It is not clear what he canceled. Did he cancel the state of emergency? Did he cancel martial law? What did he cancel?

The fact is that through a request, through another type of information extraction, we were not able to extract all this time... well, even approximately. It says that there was a decree, and that's it, it was canceled. It's not there.

What was it about? It is not known what was written in that decree. There was decree 60, I've seen it. There was decree 62 on February 23, 2022. And there is the next decree - 61/22 - about the fact that all decrees of the President are canceled. So, what is being rolled back? What is 62/b 2020? What was it about? There is no such thing. It's just not on the list. Do you understand? I can't figure out what it is.

I tried to look it up - and never [ __ ] understood it. Does anyone, maybe, know? If you subscribers know - what this decree was 62/2022 dated 02/23/22/22, post either in the comments or in the Telegram feed.

Because this is the one I can't figure out yet. That being said, the introduction of the supra-zvichai stanu, which lay on martial law, and all of that intertwined - that's already clear. That's it. You can't impose emergency rule and martial law on each other. We already know that. We've already checked that. That's already kind of the whole thing. We're clear on that.

And someday it's going to come out. Someday all these lawyers, who are lawyers, who on TV and in tiktoks tell that everything is "in accordance with the law" - someday they will tell the truth. But it will be quite a long time. Because it will be hard for them to admit the truth. But it will be someday.

Okay, let me talk to you about you know what else? You threw me an interesting point in post number 7 - about "opened the Law of Ukraine on the regime of military status in the edition as of 19.02". And this paragraph of Article 8 really looks like that. Not only that - the adopted changes in the 21st year were introduced at the beginning of the 22nd year.

That is clear - they were preparing for war. They knew all along that there was going to be war. They did it all. And we were told that there would be no war. And everything will be fine. That's - I already understand that.

You write here: "Yes, they made a new decree in secret and slipped in whatever they wanted." One paragraph. Not an article. Not a part. Not a chapter. Not a section. Just a paragraph. And it was clearly stated that the decree on the 24th refers to the 26th. How can this be possible? That in the decree of the 24th they refer to the 26th, when the 26th was in the future. When they riveted the 24th, how did they do it at all? What is going on?

Well, look, there were some decrees sent. They are decrees, they don't give you the full text. They just give the text. They say that there was such and such a document.

Because if you read everything they adopted, there is a reference to the law on martial law. Well, we don't have such a law. They refer to it later in the text, in subsequent letters.

Okay. How could they do that? Well, look: they sent me some documents. They say: there is part four of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It says: in the event of an emergency... This is a letter that is sent. That is my subjective fantasy, and it may have nothing to do with the real course of events at that time. But it looks like this, give or take, from the documents that were sent.

The documents say: "Here, everything is as you said, comrades. The way we were supposed to - we informed you. The fourth article. It says that the only way to deviate from these obligations is... In short, if there is an emergency."

That's it. We have an emergency situation, in short. We have an emergency situation - this situation, that situation. Despite the fact that we have had an emergency situation, not a state of emergency, since 2020. The emergency situation was when the shmurdikization began - that's when they did it.

It was only in 2023 that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine introduced this state of emergency. So as of the 23rd, we had an emergency situation from the Cabinet of Ministers. We also had different situations there. And then there was the state of emergency. And on top of that, martial law. And everything, everything, everything in a pile.

And it turns out that they seem to be on the one hand, as it is written, we have an emergency situation. This is what they wrote. And this situation was enough, in principle, at that moment, to carry out defense and so on. But on the 24th, it says that martial law is being introduced. On the basis of the fact that there was an emergency situation. And there used to be a decree like that. In general, it was written. I remember.

Let's talk about this point. It is very important that people understand. We do not have a law on martial law. It was a law of the Verkhovna Rada that was not adopted.

And if I'm not mistaken, we have a legislative system, yes, the entire legal component in Ukraine. That is, we have a parliamentary-presidential republic. But the president is the executive branch. And the Verkhovna Rada is the legislative branch.

That is, initially, all laws that come after the Constitution are made by our legislature, that is, the Verkhovna Rada. If the Verkhovna Rada did not initially issue, yes, create, or vote for a law on martial law, I have a question for you right away: on what basis does the Verkhovna Rada extend an incomprehensible martial law?

According to the decrees of the president, who is in the executive branch. But this is spelled out in the Constitution, I'm not making anything up. Go to the Constitution, read it and study the difference between the Verkhovna Rada and the president, and you will understand it.

We are not specifying lobbying, oligarchic components, behind-the-scenes agreements, some deputies who are from Akhmetov and everyone else. We are talking about specifics. This is the legal component. The Verkhovna Rada is concrete. It is a legislative body of power. It comes right after the Constitutional Court.

That is, we have: international laws, then we have the Constitution, the Constitutional Court, and then we have the Verkhovna Rada. After the Verkhovna Rada we went further - it is already the President, it is already the Cabinet of Ministers and all the others. As I understand it, according to legal terms.

I have a question for you: if there is no law on martial law - we are not even talking about decrees 65/2022 and 69/2022, which are extremely different. One refers to "military aggression", the other to "zbrojna agresia", yes, weapons aggression. It doesn't matter which one - to "zbrojna".

And it's all intertwined. That's understandable, everyone knows that by now. But how is it so? As of today, the documents have been adopted. When there was no law, our international partners adopted them. When there was no law - how is all this happening now? And what will this entail in the future for those guys who are at the front, for those guys who died, for their relatives, and for everyone else?

What will it be fraught with with a new management coming in, a new manager who will just say, "Look, whatever you did there before, that was before. These are your personal problems." What will that be fraught with - let's put it this way - for all of us?

So, that's a lot of nutrition in one. Let's start with the most important one - the legislative and legislative body. What was legally done at the very beginning was wrong.

Why do they rely on it now, when there was no law? Why does the Verkhovna Rada adopt a resolution and vote for the continuation of something that it did not vote for? Well, in general, with all its changes, it was a law about protecting people. It was about protecting rights. When the law "On the Legal Regime of the State of Emergency" was adopted, it became radically different from the law that was in place in 1992.

I mean, if we're talking about this one, they are inherently completely different laws. If one was about protecting people and citizens and their rights, the other is about protecting the state. To protect by taking away people's rights. And to restrict their rights.

That is, they are absolutely not correlated with each other, those laws. So, for example, I was looking very hard for the law that they referred to in their letters from the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the UN.

The reference was to the law "On martial law". Not 'on the legal regime of martial law', but 'on martial law'. And I did not find this law at all - in any version. In any possible interpretation.

Time, that is, 05:30 is not 5 hours and 30 minutes. It's 05:30 - it can be UTC. There is such a thing. Well, there is a certain kind of time when the time is indicated 5 hours and 30 minutes ahead, then it is the time, well, it is midnight. That is, it is 00:00.

And this is not a definition of a number. If only... They must be guided by some standards when writing these documents. For example, a standard for determining time. Because it's like this - we write: "We will pay you back the loan at 5:30." People are like: "Why at 5:30?" Well, at 5:30, simply. В 5:30. That's the structure - 05:30.

I have a question for you. What I've already realized is that they are deceiving us. They've played it all up. It's going to be very difficult to figure it out. What about the UN? What about the UN? Why did they accept all of this? Just tell me - why did they accept these documents? Why didn't they say: "Guys, you're doing the wrong thing now. You should have done this, according to international law, this is wrong"? Why did the UN agree to this?

I wouldn't say whether they agreed or disagreed. I don't want to voice my thoughts. But I generally think... that, well... in short, their bosses are sitting there.

That is, if they allow you to slip some kind of hat, not documents, then they are "in the know". It can't be otherwise. It can't be any other way. Or no one told them that this is what is happening.

It's clear that the most important people are sitting there. In fact, they are the ones who tell us what to do. They just said: "Make such and such documents. You know, so that it's feng shui." Because it's a system. Everything has to be there: piece of paper to piece of paper.

And what they are coming up with there is... well, man... it's like this. They said: "Send this one," and they did. Well, this is conditional. I don't know.

Well, they sent the wrong documents. They falsified everything. And they took it and accepted it. And they accepted it and didn't say anything. Three years have passed, and no one says anything, not a word.

And in fact, we have no idea what's going on. I'm saying that what worries me the most is the situation that will happen in the near future, when these people leave, when these people start dealing with their own life issues, because it seems that they have fulfilled their mission.

And others will come here. I can't say who yet, because I don't know yet. But I understand that it's for sure...

Well. They, look... first of all, they were pawning documents, for example, about investment passports. Remember, there was a series of posts about investment passports?

They clearly defined the area, the resources, and so on and so forth. And here the question is, for example, if they are in effect... I don't want to understand why they pretended that everything was fine with the documents.

Well, if it suits us, if no one here from Ukraine is angry, no one is triggered, no one is anything, then everyone is satisfied. They are satisfied with being packed. They are satisfied that they have no rights. And no one addresses them directly, no one says: "This is the situation."

And if we are satisfied with that, then everything is satisfactory. And if you are the one who is not satisfied with something, well, that's your problem. I would say so.

That's one thing. Secondly, if we are talking about the same law "On the Legal Regime of Martial Law," there is no clear statement that it has jurisdiction over any territories.

If we're talking, for example, about the system of managing the administrative-territorial structure through legal entities, the situation is as follows: in 2023, they passed an interesting law.

The territory of Crimea is not under their control. It is not under physical control. And in 2023 it was not either. But nevertheless, by adopting laws, they are changing the administrative and territorial structure.

That is, the physical territory and the administrative-territorial structure are completely different legal fields. They may or may not overlap.

In fact, the administrative and territorial structure can be changed anywhere. It can be changed, replayed, and so on.

- The one who used to sign all orders with a cap. Do you remember this trick? He didn't sign with a pen, he signed with a cap. This is Poroshenko's man. So it turns out that he introduced this order, right? So that he could specifically mention their names there. Yes, I see that Poltorak is mentioned here. I know who Poltorak is. I'm here for Poltorak. And then, in short, they make another directive, adopt... it... well, but that's for later. The directive. They refer in the answers to the law of Ukraine 1357, dated March 30, 2021. There is such a law. It is they who say in their responses to inquiries that the TCC was created by law. Like, on the basis of military commissariats.

Although, at the moment, we know clearly that the TCC should have already... all military enlistment offices should have been reorganized into TCCs according to the directive of December 23, 2019. That is, as of November 1, 2020, there should have been no military enlistment offices as such. Therefore, if they are talking about the law in March of 21, the law was more about the fact that everyone should be written off. All of them - their data, all of them should be retired. There is an interesting story there. This is just for your information. We won't go into it now - if it's interesting, we'll make a separate program with the moments. So we have...

- This will be interesting for those who were in the ATO and those who went from the ATO to... to the war. No, it's not officially a war, it's just a conflict. I don't know what... We moved on. In general, it's about saving Ukraine. We have this law 1357 of March 30, 21. We already have the second directive of 07.06.21-three months after this law and almost two years after the first directive. It reads as follows: "On conducting additional organizational measures with the TCC and TSP, military units (in brackets - institutions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine) in 2021". This is directive number DT-321/1/DSC. This is specifically the second directive, which already states that these TCCs should be reorganized. That's it, I've given an overview. And now for the interesting things I found, for example, in court decisions. There was a TCC, one of which had a girl who worked in their legal department, who was fired. At that moment, she was kicked out of the TCC.

- Kicked the girl out, huh? From TCC. You know, like, reforming. And she signed off on everything, and it's all in the decision. Whoever wants it, just search those directive numbers I gave you. A search will bring up court decisions where it's all there. I'll just give you a general picture of what it looks like. That is, in general, we have a certain order with a list of military government bodies approved by the order. Then how are they created, these bodies of military governance? Apart from making changes to this list and adding a new military government body, there is no provision anywhere. That is, in fact, it is possible to create a TCC simply by adding it to the list of bodies without creating it in fact. If you look at it that way. And then already write some powers there. That is, conditionally, just to reform it. If we are talking about - and it was such a story - as a reorganization of a state body, and the first, for example, on one of the TCCs, the first directive was, say, so-and-so, so-and-so united city military commissariat was reformed into a united city territorial center for kitting and social support. Well, so it was reformed.

- And in the other phase, all the united municipal centers and so on they were reformed into district TSCs - territorial centers for kitting and social support. What, in short, happened in essence? To get things straight - each military recruitment center had its own premises at least, right? Where they lived, they did something. There were regional military committees. That's all. And then in the decree about the TCC it's very interesting what they adopted in 2022. It says that those are jurosobi, those are not jurosobi. In short, what happened in reality?

- In fact, only regional military commissariats as legal entities remained. All military commissariats in the districts became subdivisions **without the status of a legal entity**. All district commissariats, united city commissariats - all of them are **without status**, but **with an identification code**. And all even smaller ones became branches of these units.

- That is, to put it very simply: the only military enlistment office left is the regional one. Plus, of course, the resolution also includes the military enlistment offices of Sevastopol and the **Autonomous Republic of Crimea**. The resolution on the TCC clearly states: **all heads of the TCC shall cooperate with the TCC of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea**.

- I'm not making this up. Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 154 of February 23, 2022. Read it carefully. Crimea is mentioned there **24 times**. Of these, **6 times** is the **Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea**. It is directly stated: **all TCCs must interact with the Council of Ministers of Crimea**.

- So, according to the documents, it turns out that **the main TCC is the Crimean one**? This is just a roofing.

- And it also says: the head of the TCC of the TCC represents the interests of the Armed Forces before the **Council of Ministers of the ARC**. It does not say which TCC. It is written that any TCC represents the interests of **the Council of Ministers of the ARC**.

- That's why there is a game in Odesa and Transcarpathia. All military commissars from Donetsk region have been transferred there. And it's getting really tough. And why? Because, it turns out, **Crimean Military Commissariat is the main one**, according to the papers. Everything is falling into place.

- And another joke. They previously passed a law on the protection of the rights of citizens **in the temporarily occupied territories**. And that law explicitly states that in the territories of Luhansk and Donetsk regions, as well as the **Autonomous Republic of Crimea**, Ukraine is obliged to ensure maximum rights and freedoms to its citizens.

- So, it turns out that they contradict themselves. On the one hand, they create TCCs that interact with Crimea, and on the other hand, they say that rights and freedoms should be ensured in these territories. But, in fact, people have no rights in these territories.

- And one more situation. There was a girl who worked in the legal department of the united city TCC. She was **not transferred** to the RCC. She filed a lawsuit. And you know what? The court reinstated her in her position.

- I mean, wait. They fired her because of "reorganization". And the court said: **reorganization is not liquidation**, and made them return her?

- Exactly. The court explicitly stated that there is no civil service position in the RCCC corresponding to the one she held. That's why she was **returned back** to the allegedly already **liquidated** OMTCC. That is, formally it is not liquidated - it is only **reorganized**.

- This is just a circus. They don't have a single document docked with another. Everything goes through one place. And people are thrown back and forth. Thank you for sorting all this out. Let's wrap this up.

- Okay, let's do this. We're going to end this broadcast. Let people **think it over**. Let me remind you: **1 hryvnia if you liked the show**, and **10 hryvnia if you didn't**.

- All discussions are either on my Telegram channel or Oleg's. I will definitely upload this publication so that you can re-read it and understand the details.

- If you have any questions about this **theater of the absurd**, I will add more. If not, we'll do the **second part of the broadcast** and move on to the Cabinet of Ministers, UN publications and other topics. Do you agree?

- Absolutely. Friends, if you need a consultation, don't hesitate to contact me. There are both **paid** and **free** formats. Choose the one you like. And **study the documents**. Because in the future, when the guys come back from the front, there will be **a lot of legal incidents**.

- Compensation, benefits, reimbursement - you will need to know what you are entitled to. And our lawyers, unfortunately, often **do not go beyond systemic thinking**. They have been taught: "as the judge said, so it will be".

- Exactly. Thank you, Oleg, for really **entering this fog** of laws, orders, resolutions and courts. It is very important that you speak openly. I am sure that **truth is power**.

- And I thank you, Anton, for the invitation. Friends, we act **exclusively within the law**, exclusively within the framework of **documents** adopted by the state. We are **free people**, and we have the right to **talk**, **analyze** and **discover**. I hug you all. See you soon.

- Good day to everyone. See you on the air. Bye-bye.

---

---

Add a comment

Your name: Commentary: Send

---