My Critical Response to J. Mark Ramseyer’s Article, “Contracting for Sex in the
Pacific War”

Pyong Gap Min
Distinguished Professor of Sociology
at Queens College and the Graduate Center of theCity University of New York & Director of the Research Center for Korean
Community

To be published in International Review of Law and Economics in March 2021.

February 10, 2021

1

John Mark Ramseyer, a Harvard Law School professor, will publish an article, entitled“Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War,” in International Review of Law and Economics inMarch 2021. The online version of his article has been available since December 2020. In thearticle, he claimed that Japanese and Korean “comfort women” (KCW) were commercial
prostitutes with labor contracts, rather than sexual slaves. Not surprisingly, Sankei Shimbun, anationalist and conservative Japanese daily newspaper that has strongly supported historicalrevisionism, has widely publicized it, as if it had provided important new findings that contradict
the sexual slavery interpretation.
I am curious how such an article, which is not that different from previous work by
Japanese historical revisionists, has been reviewed positively and accepted for publication in a
major international journal focusing on law and economics. My critical comments are divided
into two sections. In the first section, I will indicate the author’s failure to review and respond to
the literature that had persuasively demonstrated that the “comfort women” system (CWS) was
sexual slavery. In the second section, I will critically evaluate his arguments, citing historical
documents and testimonies by 103 KCW survivors.

Failure to Review Major Studies that Have Demonstrated CWS as Sexual
Slavery
It has been more than thirty years since the redress movement for the victims of Japanesemilitary sexual slavery started in South Korea. In January 1992, Yoshiaki Yoshimi, a renowned
Japanese historian, discovered a set of Japanese military government’s documents that
demonstrated the Japanese military government’s establishment and management of Japanesemilitary brothels (JMB) and the forced mobilization of Asian women to these brothels. His
discovery of key historical documents forced the Japanese government to interview over 20
KCW. Based on historical and testimonial data, in 1993, the Japanese government issued the
Kōno Statement, which acknowledged the forcible mobilization of Asian “comfort women.”
However, the emergence of historical revisionism in Japan from 1995 on has led the Japanese
government to deny CWS as a well-coordinated and institutionalized system of sexual slavery. In
response, many scholars have conducted research and found other documents and evidence that
support Yoshimi’s findings (Chung 2017; Hayashi 2015; Nishino, Kim and Akane 2018; Oiu etal. 2014; Yoshimi 2000). Moreover, renowned legal scholars, representing international human2rights organizations, have investigated CWS and concluded that it was indeed a perfect form of
sexual slavery. Based on their investigations, international human rights organizations have sent
over 25 resolutions to the Japanese government. Included in these resolutions arerecommendations that the Japanese government investigate CWS, acknowledge it as sexual
slavery, make a sincere apology and compensation to the victims, punish those responsible forthe sexual slavery system, and take educational measures for Japan not to repeat it by including
information in history textbooks and building “comfort women” memorials. The internationalorganizations include the UN Commission on Human Rights (which has sent several
resolutions), Amnesty International, the International Labor Organization, and the International
Committee of Jurists (Coomaraswamy 1996; Dolgopal and Paranjape 1994; McDougall 1997).
In addition, Japanese, Korean, and other Asian women’s redress organizations organized
the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japanese Military Sexual Slavery, a global
citizens’ court, in Tokyo in December 2000 to locate the perpetrators of the crime of sexual
slavery and file criminal charges against them. The six judges selected from internationallyknown legal scholars, several prosecutors from each of the seven victim countries, and about 70“comfort women” survivors participated in the three-day court to render legal judgments. They
asked the Japanese government to send lawyers to defend its position. However, the Governmentof Japan did not send representatives, most likely because they knew that their position was
indefensible. Christine Chinkin, one of the judges wrote:“The judges had found Emperor Hirohito guilty of the charges on the basis ofcompound responsibility, which means he knew or should have known of theoffenses. The evidence showed that the comfort stations had been systematicallyinstituted and operated as a matter of military policy, and that they committed
crimes against humanity under the law then applicable. The judges also indicatedthat they had determined Japan to be responsible under international law
applicable at the time of the events for violations of its treaty obligations andprinciples of customary international laws relating to slavery, trafficking, forcedlabor, and rape, amounting to crimes against humanity. The judges also convicted
nine other Japanese civilian and military leaders of having institutionalized rapeand sexual slavery (Chinkin 2002, 338).
3

The major findings from previous studies, judgments by various human rights
organizations, judgments by the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal, and hundreds of
personal testimonies make it impossible to deny that CWS was anything other than sexual
slavery. However, the Japanese government led by Shinzō Abe and other conservative Liberal
Democratic Party members have continued to ignore these internationally accepted facts in thesame way that former President Trump has disavowed President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020
presidential election. The redress movement, taken to remedy it, has greatly contributed toraising our consciousness of sexual violence against women during the war and occupied regions
as an important women’s human rights issue.
As a professor specializing in Japanese legal studies at a major law school in the UnitedStates, Ramseyer surely must have been aware of all these studies, resolutions, testimonies, andjudgments. However, like other Japanese neo-nationalist scholars, he not only ignored them but
also failed to even mention them and wrote an article which interpreted CWS as a commercial
prostitution system based on labor contracts. This shows callousness on his part towards the“comfort women” who were brutalized during the Asia-Pacific War and stigmatized,
traumatized, and marginalized after the war ended due to living in patriarchal cultures that shame
victims of sexual violence. However, more pertinent to his article and this rebuttal, it shows
negligent, one-sided, and even biased scholarship. Due to the prevalence of ultra-nationalism andhistorical revisionism in Japan during the last three decades, there are many Japanese-language
journal articles and books that have interpreted CWS as commercial prostitution. However,Ramseyer’s article may be the only study with this type of historical revisionist theme regarding
this particular issue to be published in an English-language journal outside of Japan.

Critical Evaluation of Ramseyer’s Argument based on Testimonies of 103
KCW
To try to argue that Japanese and Korean “comfort women” were prostitutes with labor
contracts rather than sexual slaves, Ramseyer should have written at least a long serious article.
However, he devoted only 5.5 pages to the main body of his article. He made assertions without
using data as evidence to prove his arguments. This is a typical revisionist scholars’ method of
writing articles and books. He devoted more space to discussions of commercial prostitution
houses that were established in Japan and Korea and claimed that commercial brothels became4the main sources of “comfort women” for Japanese soldiers. He seems to be more familiar withthe commercial prostitution system in Japan, but he seems to have little knowledge of themilitary sexual slavery system.
The first major problem of Ramseyer’s article is that he failed to differentiate between
Japanese and Korean “comfort women,” as if they had been mobilized via the same mechanism
and treated at JMB in the same ways. According to my research, there were significant
differences between Japanese and Korean “comfort women” in how they were mobilized, theirages, fees that they were paid, and treatment that they received at JMB. By lumping the two very
different groups together, he greatly distorted and misrepresented KCW’s mobilization to JMB
and the brutal treatment they endured at the hands of Japanese soldiers. First of all, whereas mostJCW originated from commercial prostitution houses in Japan (Hayashi 2015: 110), the vast
majority of KCW were mobilized through forcible methods or employment fraud, helped by
Japanese policemen, soldiers, and military police officers who were stationed in Korea. Thus, hisarguments emphasizing commercial prostitution in the home country as the main sources of“comfort women” may be more applicable to JCW, although most of them were also mobilized
involuntarily (Hayashi 2015: 110).
Ramseyer selectively used one or two “comfort women’s” testimonies when heconsidered them to be useful to his arguments. But, like other historical revisionist scholars, heseems to consider victims’ testimonies not as credible evidence for the “comfort women” issue.
This is problematic because victims’ testimonies are accepted as the most important type ofevidence in criminal judgments. A more important issue in making judgments about a large
group, like “comfort women,” is whether the sample of testimonies is large enough or not. To
understand at what ages and how “comfort women” were mobilized, their testimonies are more
important than historical documents. In my book (Min 2021), I cited and closely analyzed
testimonies of 103 KCW, the largest sample of “comfort women’s” testimonies available in
Asian countries. They are included in eight volumes of testimonies, published between 1993 and2004 by the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance for the Issues of Military Sexual
Slavery. In this response, I would like to share with the readers some of data analyses of their
testimonies and two major arguments in his article.

5One hundred and six cases of mobilization (when including three women who were
mobilized twice) indicate that a vast majority of them (81%) were mobilized through coercive
methods (kidnapping, abduction, being physically taken, or verbal threats) (46%) or employment
fraud (35%), with 15% mobilized through parents’ sales of their daughters to others (mostly notdirectly to “comfort stations”) and 4% volunteered (Min 2021: 90). Ramseyer indicated thatmany Koreans engaged in recruiting KCW using employment fraud. However, the Japanesecolonial government’s officials used Japanese teachers, Korean village heads, and other Korean
recruiters in Korea. The forced mobilization of a huge number of KCW was part of the
manpower exploitation of the Korean colony by Japan. Hundreds of thousands of other Korean
women and men were forcibly mobilized as civilian workers and hundreds of thousands of
Korean men were forced to be soldiers (Kang and Suh 1997).
The age difference between JCW and KCW is as important as the mode of mobilization.
The testimonies reveal that 93% of the 103 KCW were mobilized between the ages of 11 and 20(Min 2021:84), which was under the legal age for prostitution at that time according to Japanese
law and three anti-trafficking international conventions Japan had joined (Yoshimi 200: 156). On
the other hand, a vast majority of JCW were mobilized to “comfort stations” at age 21 or older(Hayashi 2015: 110). Because KCW were under the legal age for being prostitutes, almost all ofthem should be considered as having been forcefully mobilized, regardless of their modes ofmobilization. The fact that nearly all KCW were mobilized before the legal age for commercial
prostitution proves the inadequacy of Ramseyer’s claim that KCW were mobilized fromcommercial prostitution houses, which was the case for most JCW.
The Japanese military could not forcibly mobilize unmarried Japanese virgins to serve
Japanese soldiers because there would have been a strong negative reaction in Japanese society.
According to a historical document cited by Yoshimi, the Home Ministry’s Chief of the Police
Bureau stipulated that “the travel of women intending to engage in the shameful calling should
be limited to the women currently working as prostitutes, at least 21 years of age, and free fromsexually transmitted and other infectious diseases” (Yoshimi 2000, 100). Yoshimi cited anothermeaningful sentence from the same historical document: “If the recruitment of these women andthe regulation of [recruiting] agents is improper, it will not only compromise the authority of theempire and damage the honor of the Imperial Army; it will exert a baleful influence on citizens
6

on the home front, especially on the families of soldiers who are stationed overseas” (Yoshimi
2000: 154). This indicates the Japanese military government’s concern about losing the trust not
only of the international world, but also of Japanese citizens—especially Japanese soldiers—if it
had mobilized Japanese virgins to JMB. These excerpts from Yoshimi’s research also show that
the Japanese military controlled the recruitment of “comfort women.” Moreover, theseclarifications indicate that Ramseyer was negligent in his efforts to prove that Korean andJapanese “comfort women” were prostitutes with labor contracts, without knowing thesignificant differences between the two groups. How could Korean girls and young women
between the ages of 11 and 20 have voluntarily participated in “comfort stations” to makemoney?
The second major problem with Ramseyer’s article is his claim that most JCW and KCW
received large advances before their mobilization and received substantial wages during theirservices at JMB. Again, my analyses of the 103 testimonies reveal that only some of the 19
KCW who were sold or voluntarily participated seem to have received advance payments, withnone of them having received a labor contract. Since most KCW had debts to the owners of“comfort stations,” Ramseyer seems to have claimed that they received large advances before
their mobilization to “comfort stations.”
However, my close analysis of KCW’s testimonies indicate that the owners of “comfort
stations” charged most KCW with un-owed debts illegally by charging them with expenses fortheir recruitments, transportations, and new dresses. I introduce the following two KCW’s
testimonies to show their illegal practice. A Korean man in military unform took Gun-ja Ha to a
Korean couple in Seoul. The couple took her to a “comfort station” in Manchuria by train.
According to Ha, when they arrived at the “comfort station,” “the female owner told me howmuch money she gave the two Korean men for taking me to her and also how much money theyspent for train fares and the purchase of my dresses. They said that I should sell my body to pay
back my debts. They told me to work for three years at the ‘comfort station’ to pay back mydebt” (Ha 1995: 65). Yeon-I Park’s following testimony indicates that the owner included not
only her recruitment and transportation fees, but also cosmetic expenses in her debts. Moreover,she could not disagree to the owner about her debts because she would beat her:
Although I worked very hard not to make the owner dislike me, I was paid nothing for7three years. Her calculation of my debts included all expenses for my recruitment andtransportation from my home village, and all expenses for my living costs at the comfort
station, including cosmetics. We should have accepted our debts the owner calculated.
Otherwise, she would have beaten us.
If KCW had volunteered to participate in “comfort stations,” the owners could havecharged them with the expenses for their recruitments and transportations. But it was illegal forthe owners to have charged these forcibly mobilized women. The owners seem to have designed
the un-owed debt system to tie the women to “comfort stations” for a long period of time. The
Japanese military should have known of the owners’ illegal practice of charging un-owed debts
to “comfort women.” But it may have liked it because it gave the impression that “comfort
women” were charged with debts because they had been mobilized voluntarily or through thesales by their parents with major advances from the owners of “comfort stations.” This finding
from KCW’s testimonies is important because no scholar seems to have indicated the problem of
the un-owed debts issue. It also indirectly shows the inadequacy of Ramseyer’s claim that KCW
participated in “comfort stations” with advance payments based on contracts.
My analyses of KCW’s testimonies also show the inadequacy of Ramseyer’s argumentthat KCW made a lot of money at “comfort stations.” At JMB, only eight of 103 KCW were
found to have received 40% or more of fees paid by Japanese soldiers to the front desk only inthe last stage of their sexual servitude, mainly because they had been assigned to officers’ clubs(five) or houses of prostitution (three) (Min 2021: 110). However, the Japanese military
established officers’ clubs mainly to prevent high-ranking Japanese officers from using private
prostitution houses (Hayashi 2015, 117). The military seems to have arranged for JCW to work
at officers’ clubs. A predominant majority of “comfort women” working for officers’ clubs arelikely to have been JCW (Kurahashi and Keyser 1994; Ueno 2004, 101; Yoshimi 2000, 101).
Thus, more JCW were paid significant portions of fees than KCW, which is another difference
between the two groups. Although few KCW received regular fees, they received tips from mostJapanese officers and some Japanese regular soldiers (Min 2021: 109). However, receiving tips
has nothing to do with labor contracts.
Third, to support his argument that “comfort women” were well-paid prostitutes withlabor contracts, Ramseyer misrepresented Ok-ju Mun’s testimony. He characterized Mun as a8happy woman who enjoyed her life at a “comfort station” and made a lot of money (Ramseyer
2021: 6). I believe that Ramseyer exaggerated Mun’s earnings and misrepresented herexperiences as a “comfort woman” by neglecting to share some of the brutality that she wassubjected to. For example, she narrowly escaped getting killed by a drunken Japanese officer bytaking his sword and injuring him. Moreover, she also attempted suicide by jumping from thesecond floor at her “comfort station,” sustaining serious shoulder injuries (Mun 1993: 160-161);
these do not seem like the actions of a happy person. She did not work at an officers’ club, but
she was physically close to one. The Japanese military seems to have treated high-ranking
officers very well, giving them high salaries and frequent parties to make them fight loyally for
the Japanese empire. In testimonies, some KCW disclose that officers’ clubs organized frequent
drinking parties. Mun was also fluent in Japanese and had musical talents. Thus, she was made towork as an entertainer at parties at night (Mun 1993: 162). Drunken officers seem to have paidvery generous tips to “comfort women.” But, as pointed out above, these tips had no connection
with labor contracts.
Ramseyer emphasized that Ok-ju Mun had made a great amount of money at her“comfort station.” However, because of the astronomically high inflation in Burma and other
war-torn Asian countries, what was over 25,000 yen at that time was valued at 1,800 yen in
Japan after the war (Hayashi 2015, 57). Moreover, the Japanese government did not allow KCW
to withdraw money deposited in Japanese post office accounts or banks during the war. When
Mun visited Shimonoseki to testify in 1993, a Japanese group tried to assist her in getting her
deposit money back (Kim 2007, 138). The group identified Mun’s Japanese post office accountand found that the balance had increased to 50,108 yen in the early 1990s (Kim 2007:139).
However, the post office refused to give the money to her on the grounds that she was no longer
a Japanese citizen after the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco and that the 1965 Treaty on Basic
Relations covered all of the damages inflicted by Japan’s colonization of Korea. Japanese post
offices and banks refused to give back money to many other Korean civilian workers andsoldiers mobilized by the Japanese military government. It should also be noted that Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries was the defendant in a fairly recent lawsuit filed by Korean laborers seeking
damages for being forced to work during the Asia-Pacific War; it seems like more thancoincidence that Ramseyer is a Mitsubishi-endowed professor.

9While the above-mentioned points address a number of fallacies in Ramseyer’s argumentthat CWS was a contract-based prostitution system and not sexual slavery, I would like tomention one final problem that makes his position indefensible. In order to reject the sexual
slavery thesis, it is necessary to demonstrate that ACW could leave JMB voluntarily. However,more than enough testimonial data show that “comfort women” were under tight surveillance at
JMB and were not allowed to come and go as they pleased. In fact, many women who attempted
to escape from “comfort stations” were injured or even killed (Min 2021: 138-140). Since many
KCW died, committed suicide, or were killed at JMB while others were trapped in their areas ofservitude and unable to return home to Korea after the war, only about half of them are presumed
to have come back home.

Concluding Remarks
As a social science researcher and a scholar of “comfort women,” I find Ramseyer’s
article shocking for several reasons: (1) That a law professor at an esteemed institution such as
Harvard could engage in such ill-informed and irresponsible scholarship, (2) that a peerreviewed journal would publish this type of historical revisionism and shoddy scholarshipwithout thorough fact-checking or critical assessment, and (3) that the transparency ofRamseyer’s conflict of interest as a Mitsubishi-endowed professor has not raised more red flags,
especially in light of his article’s content.
In 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a tough resolution,
which called on the Japanese government to (1) acknowledge that CWS was sexual slavery, (2)apologize for its predecessors’ actions, and (3) accept responsibility in an unequivocal manner
Min 2021: 238-241). In addition, ten U.S. state and city governments passed similar resolutions
calling for the Japanese government to atone for this historical atrocity (Min 2021: 242). To help
spread awareness in the U.S., fifteen “comfort women” memorials have been installed in
American neighborhoods (twelve of them in public places) (Min 2021: 244). American
politicians, journalists, feminists, college students, and local residents have strongly supported
these redress activities, mainly because they do not want to see similar brutal sexual violence
incidents occur again. These redress actions in the United States prove that this is not just ahistorical ethno-nationalist disagreement between Japan and Korea, but rather a human rights
issue condemning sexual violence against women, particularly during wartime. Given these10

facts, Ramseyer’s article, as well as other historical revisionist scholarship that seeks to defame
people without adequate evidence, has no room in respectable peer-reviewed journals. In postwar Germany, people who denied that the Holocaust happened were prosecuted and imprisoned.
In effect, Ramseyer and Japanese neo-nationalists who seek to revise history despite sufficientevidence to the contrary are denying the Japanese government’s active role in a widespread andinstitutionalized system of sexual slavery which mobilized hundreds of thousand young girls andwomen to what McDougall (1997) called “rape camps.” Furthermore, by defaming the victims inarguing that CWS was contract-based prostitution and not military sexual slavery, it can beargued that Ramseyer has committed libel. Scholars have the right to express opinions, but noright to defame so many victims of brutal military sexual slavery.

References
Chinkin, Christine M. 2002. “Editorial Comments: Women’s International Tribunal on JapaneseMilitary Sexual Slavery.” American Journal of International Law 95: 335–341.
Coomaraswamy, Radhika. 2015 (1996). “Report on the Mission to the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and Japan on the Issue of Military Sexual
Slavery in Wartime.” In Major International Documents on the Japanese Military Sexual
Slavery (“Comfort Women”) Issue, edited by the Korean Council for the Women Draftedby Japanese Soldiers for Sexual Slavery, 3–44. Seoul: Korean Council.
Chung, Chin-sung. 2016. Ilbongun Sungnoyeje (The Japanese Military Sexual Slavery System).
2nd ed. Seoul: Seoul National University Publishing Company.
Dolgopal, Ustina, and Snehal Paranjape. 1994. Comfort Women: An Unfinished Ordeal. Zűrich:International Commission of Jurists.
Ha, Gun-ja. 1995. “Ddokddokhan Ineun Da Juggo Meongteongguriman Salanamda (All Smart
Women Died and Stupid Women Survived). In Jungguk-euro Ggeulyogan Joseonin
Gunwinanbudeul (Korean Comfort Women Dragged to China), edited by Korean
Research Center for the Chongshindae and the Korean Council, pp.59-82. Seoul: Hanul.
Hayashi, Hirofumi. 2015. Nihongun “Ianfu” Mondai-no Kakushin (The Core of the JapaneseMilitary Comfort Women Issue). Tokyo: Kadensha.
11

Kang, Jeong-Sook, and Hyun Joo Suh. 1996. Iljemalgi Nodongryeok Sutal Jeongchaek (TheLabor Mobilization Policy at the End of Japanese Colonization of Korea). In Hanilgan-ui
Micheongsan Gwaje (Unresolved Issues between Korea and Japan), edited by the
Research Institute for Chongshindae, 110–160. Seoul: Asia Munhwasa.
Kim, He-won. 2007. Ttaldeul-ui Arirang: Iyagiro Sseun “Wianbu” Undongsa (Daughters’“Arirang” [the Korean national fork song]: The History of the “Comfort Women”
Movement based on Stories). Seoul: He-Won Media.
Kōno, Yohei. 1993 “Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kōno on the Result of theStudy on the Issue of ‘Comfort Women.’” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, August
4.
Kurahashi, Masanao, and Donna Keyser. 1994. Jugun Ianfu Mondai no Rekishiteki Kenkyu- ū(A Historical Study of the Military Comfort Women Issue). Tokyo: Kyoei Shobo.
McDougall, Gay J. 2015 (1997). “Final Report of the Special Rapporteur on Systematic Rape,
Sexual Slavery and Slavery-Like Practices during Armed Conflict.” In Major
International Documents on the Japanese Military Sexual Slavery (“Comfort Women”)
Issue, edited by the Korean Council, 45–106. Seoul: Korean Council.
Min, Pyong Gap. 2021. Korean Comfort Women: Military Brothels, Brutality, and the Redress
Movement. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Mun, Ok-ju. 1993. “Nae-ga Ddodasi Irideneunguna” (I have become this way again). In
Gangjero Ggeulyogan Joseonin Gaunwianbudeul ), edited by the Korean Council for the
Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan, 149-165. Seoul: Hanul.
Nishino, Rumiko, Puja Kim and Onozawa Akane. (eds.). 2018. Denying the Comfort Women:
The Japanese State’s Assault on Historical Truth. London: Routledge.
Park, Yeon-1. 1997. “Ilbongun Wianbu-eseo Migun Wianburo” (From Japanese Military
Comfort Women to U.S. Camptown Comfort Women). In Gangero Ggeulyo-gan
Joseonin Wianbudeul (Forcibly Dragged Korean Comfort Women), edited by Korean
Council and Korean Research Institute, pp.121-143. Seoul: Hanul.

12Qiu, Peipei, with Su Zhiliang and Chen Lifei. 2014. Chinese Comfort Women: Testimonies from
Imperial Japan’s Sex Slaves. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ueno, Chizuko. 2004. Nationalism and Gender. Translated from Japanese by Beverley
Yamamoto. Melbourne, Australia: Trans Pacific Press.
Yoshimi, Yoshiaki. 2000. Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military during
World War II. Translated by Suzanne O’Brien. New York: Columbia University Press.
———. 2013. Ilbonguun Wianbu: Geu Yeaksa-wa Jinsil (Japanese military comfort women:
Their history and truth). Translated from Japanese to Korean by Nam Sang Gu. Seoul:
Yeaksa Gonggan.
Yoshimi, Yoshiaki, and Fumiko Kawata, eds. 1997. “Jugun Ianfu” wo Meguru 30 no Uso to
Shinjitsu (Thirty Lies and Truths about the “Military comfort Women”). Tokyo: Otsuki
Shoten.

13