Bhutan Women’s Rights Watch Facebook ad: “𝗣𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗨𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿…”

About this ad

Meta Ad Library ID

1616640409560517

Platforms

Facebook and Instagram

Relaunches

0

How we count

Ad text

𝗣𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗨𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲𝘀: Bhutan Women’s Rights Watch provides this public update regarding an ongoing case involving serious allegations formally submitted to the relevant authorities. The petition calling for an independent review and accountability was initiated on February 13, 2026. 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗨𝗟𝗟 𝗣𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: https://c.org/fyLNrwVcK7 🇧🇹𝗧𝗼 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲, 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝟵𝟵𝟬 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝟲,𝟬𝟬𝟬 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁. 𝗬𝗲𝘁, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆? 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗠𝗢 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁? 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗣𝗗𝗣 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁? 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗕𝗵𝘂𝘁𝗮𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁? 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁? 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀? These events raise serious questions about accountability and public trust. Until the petition was initiated, the complainant remained silent, while individuals connected to the accused, including the spouse of the Home Minister, discussed the matter publicly online. During this time, the complainant experienced repeated harassment, monitoring, and defamatory statements. 𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 Office of the Attorney General 𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀? The complaint alleges that the Home Minister misrepresented the status of his marriage over an extended period, including confirming that divorce proceedings had been initiated. 𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗱. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗔𝗚 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲? When questioned, the Home Minister continued to give verbal assurances and told the complainant he was being blackmailed at home by his spouse due to his secret, including allegations that he had forged signatures on government land. The complainant confronted the minister on these statements and submitted evidence to the Office of the Attorney General. Audio evidence is also reported to exist in which the minister apologizes when confronted. When harassment and threats began from the spouse of the Home Minister, the complainant states she was discouraged from reporting to the police. Incidents include the spouse appearing outside the complainant’s residence and issuing threats. Video evidence has been submitted. After continued threats, including threats to her family, 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁.A second threat call was reported in March 2026, after which another undertaking was signed at the police station. 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲: 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀, 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹? The complainant also reports that individuals connected to the accused, including family members, engaged in repeated online stalking, defamatory messaging, and intimidation over several months. 𝗙𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀: - the absence of written reasons for dismissal - the apparent lack of consideration of evidence relating to alleged deception - the inability of the complainant to meet the Attorney General despite multiple attempts Under the Penal Code of Bhutan: - Section 177 defines rape as sexual intercourse without consent - Section 84 states that consent is not valid if obtained through fraud, duress, compulsion, or coercion 𝗜𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗱, 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 how allegations of deception regarding marital status were examined under these provisions. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗻𝗼 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱. Further, it was disturbing for the complainant to hear that, 𝗔𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝘆𝗮𝗹 𝗕𝗵𝘂𝘁𝗮𝗻 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿. 𝗪𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲? When the complainant asked what evidence from the Home Minister was relied upon, she was informed that no evidence was required and that his statement was sufficient. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁? 𝗜𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗕𝗵𝘂𝘁𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗕𝗵𝘂𝘁𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆? A report by Bhutan Broadcasting Service presented a one-sided narrative. It was subsequently used by accused associates to further defame the complainant. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀. Recent statements by an associate of the accused suggest that women’s rights organizations are silent because this matter is intended to damage his career. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: Why is the focus being shifted to the victim instead of accountability? Why are the appropriate questions not being asked? 𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲, 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴? 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱? 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗳 𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁? 𝗧𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗳 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘃𝘂𝗹𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗳, 𝗮𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀. Once the matter was reported on September 27, 2025, and again on October 29, 2025, what actions were taken? Why do serious concerns remain that alleged criminal conduct was not adequately addressed? 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻’𝘀 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱? 𝗪𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸. 𝗪𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱. 𝗪𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗹 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗱. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝘀𝘂𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲𝘀.

Where the ad sends people