[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

ILO REPORT ON FL IN BURMA: SLICE 5



[ILO COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON FORCED LABOUR IN BURMA, SLICE 5]
 
(2) 1993 representation under article 24 
    of the ILO Constitution 
 
(a) Allegations made by the complainant organization
 
135. By a communication of 25 January 1993, the ICFTU made a
representation under article 24(83)  of the ILO Constitution
alleging that the Government of Myanmar had failed to secure
the observance of the forced labour Convention,
institutionalizing the use of forced labour by military
commanders through the forced recruitment and abuse of
porters. According to the complainant organization, women and
children as well as men were randomly rounded up by local
police or the military from such public places as train
stations and movie theatres or from their homes or places of
work; in many cases, village headmen were responsible for
filling porter quotas or providing large sums of money to the
military instead. Porters were required to carry heavy loads
of ammunition, food, and other supplies between army camps,
generally back and forth over rugged mountains which were
inaccessible to vehicles. They must often construct the camps
for the military upon arrival. They were not paid for their
work and allowed very little food, water, or rest. In many
cases, porters were bound together in groups of 50 to 200 at
night. They were denied medical care. Porters were subject to
hostile fire as well as to abuse by the soldiers they served.
They were routinely beaten by the soldiers and many of the
women were raped repeatedly. Unarmed themselves, they were
placed at the head of columns to detonate mines and booby
traps as well as to spring ambushes. According to credible
sources, many of these porters died as a result of
mistreatment, lack of adequate food and water, and use as
human mine-sweepers. While the majority of porterage cases had
been linked to actions by the Myanmar army, the ICFTU also
mentioned allegations by diplomats, denied by leaders of the
ethnic minorities, that insurgents also forced villagers into
porter service. The ICFTU referred to specific information on
compulsory porterage cases that had been gathered by a variety
of reputable human rights groups which had conducted fact-
finding missions to the Myanmar border regions. A number of
excerpts from interviews conducted with alleged victims were
included in the representation. 
 
136. Moreover, the ICFTU set out proposed conclusions
concerning the inapplicability of exceptions under Article
2(2) of the Convention and of the transitional clause in
Article 1(2), and the violation of Articles 1(1) and 25, as
well as of many of the conditions specified in the Convention
(in particular in Articles 8 to 16, 18, 23 and 24) for the
"transitional period".(84) 
 
137. At its 255th Session (March 1993) the ILO Governing Body
decided that the representation made by the ICFTU was
receivable and set up a committee to examine it. 
 
(b) The Government's observations as to the facts
 
138. The Government, in a written statement presented in May
1993 to the Committee set up by the Governing Body to
consider the representation made by the ICFTU under article 24
of the ILO Constitution, indicated that the allegations made
in certain quarters that the Myanmar authorities were using
forced labour for the construction of railways, roads and
bridges were false and were based on fabrications by people
who wished to denigrate the image of the Myanmar authorities
and by persons who did not understand the tradition and
culture of the Myanmar people. In Myanmar, voluntary
contribution of labour to build shrines and religious temples,
roads, bridges and clearing of obstruction on pathways was a
tradition which went back thousands of years. It was a common
belief that the contribution of labour was a noble deed and
that the merit attained from it contributed to a better
personal well-being and spiritual strength. In the villages
and in the border areas, members of the "Tatmadaw" and the
local people in the region had been contributing voluntary
labour towards building roads and bridges for the past four
years or so. There was no coercion involved. In Myanmar
history, there had never been "slave labour". Since the times
of the Myanmar kings, many dams, irrigation works, lakes, etc.
were built with labour contributed by all the people from the
area. Accordingly, those who accused the Myanmar authorities
of using forced labour patently revealed their ignorance of
the Myanmar tradition and culture.
 
139. With regard to the allegations of forced recruitment and
abuse of porters, the Government in the same statement of May
1993 repeated indications given to the ILC in June 1992.(85) 
The Government added that, as a matter of fact, there were
volunteer porters and professional porters who offered to work
as porters on behalf of others to earn their living. So, only
those who did not know the true situation would take seriously
the vicious slander against the armed forces of Myanmar. The
Government concluded that allegations concerning ill-treatment
of porters were totally unfounded. Those allegations were
completely untenable particularly in view of the high standard
of professionalism and discipline of the Myanmar armed
forces.(86) 
 
140. In an additional detailed statement provided to the same
Committee in October 1993, the Government mentioned that
there was not to be any doubt or question on the reputation
and credibility of the persons who led the two ICFTU
fact-finding missions. However, the Government pointed out
that the work of these missions was carried out ex parte in
Myanmar/Thai border areas and that it was done without the
knowledge of the Myanmar Government. The Government added that
these areas were known to have been the hideouts of terrorist
groups living on smuggling and drug trafficking. These
terrorists groups were constantly engaged in atrocious
activities against the Myanmar Government, based on ill
political motives. Therefore, persons interviewed in these
areas would unequivocally provide false and fabricated
information to the fact-finding missions under the influence
and duress of terrorists. The Government had tried to find the
persons mentioned in the ICFTU fact-finding missions'
statements. However, the persons said to have been interviewed
by the missions could not be identified as there had not been
any statement regarding their parents' names, citizenship card
number and permanent residential address. Based on the
significant characteristics of Myanmar's system of
nomenclature, the name of a person did not show his surname.
The Government concluded that since the existence of the said
person had not been established or proved, the allegations
should be regarded as unfounded facts.(87)
 
141. In the same additional statement of October 1993, the
Government indicated that three independent observation teams
had been formed comprising the members of the township
workers' supervisory committees and distinguished local
residents. These teams visited areas mentioned by the
fact-finding missions in Mon State, Kayin State and Bago
Division in August 1993, and met with local administrative
authorities and villagers to find out the true situation. In
the interviews with the local administrative authorities
(Township Law and Order Restoration Councils, Ward and
Village-tract Law and Order Restoration Councils) it was found
that local recruitment of porters was done only in the case of
urgent necessity and was not frequent in nature. Participation
in the porterage service was also voluntary. The selection and
recruitment were made among those who are willing to work as
porters. It was usually done in a systematic manner and the
porters were sent to the end-users along with prescribed forms
and documents. They had to report back to the local
authorities properly after completion of their assignments. It
had never been heard of any woman working as a porter. In
various regions of the country, there was a large number of
workers who earned wages or income for their living on casual
jobs. These workers were available for any type of manual work
which could provide them with reasonable wages/salary or
income. This was the most important reason that they were
inclined or preferred to work as porters, if and when
available.(88) 
 
142. The Government added that since the persons mentioned in
the ICFTU fact-finding missions' statements could not be
traced even with the assistance of the ward and village-tract
authorities, the observation teams resorted to meeting with
some villagers who had been voluntarily looking for work as
porters to earn some income. The information received from
them was found to be contrary to that of the fact-finding
missions of the ICFTU. Based on their version, porters had to
carry food and supplies along the way only to the compatible
limit and were never overburdened with excess loads. It was
also confirmed that they were well-treated and well-provided
with four items of basic needs: rice, cooking oil, beans and
salt. They were allowed to rest and given enough time to
sleep. They always had cordial and intimate relations with
soldiers. The willingness of the porters to work for another
assignment clearly indicated that there did not exist any
incidence of ill treatment by soldiers towards porters.(89) 
 
143. The Government further stated that military offensives
had been suspended since 1 April 1992 and recourse to
porterage was rarely exercised. But, if and when the
terrorists took advantage of the lull, defensive operations
had to be made to ensure the security and well-being of the
community. In such circumstances of imminent urgent necessity,
porterage was to be resorted to inevitably. But the duration
of porterage service rarely exceeded 30 days and porters had
to serve only for a limited distance at which they had to hand
over to another batch of porters who would carry food
provisions and equipment to the specified destination, and
their service was said to be completed at that point of
destination. Here, it was to be mentioned that the loads were
also shared by the armed forces personnel. Schoolteachers,
pupils and officials of the administration in general were
exempted and had never been used as porters in Bago Division.
Translations of statements made by the individuals concerned
were attached together with photographs.(90)  Finally, the
Government stressed that, moreover, porters had to serve only
for a certain period of time for a specific assignment and yet
this would mean a considerable amount of earnings to support
their families. Porters were never exposed to any danger.
They, together with the provisions, had been placed in safe
areas during actions with the enemies. However, there had been
very few cases of accidents caused to the porters not directly
related to armed clashes. In case of injury and sickness,
porters enjoyed first-aid medical care, the same as soldiers.
If ever there were cases of serious illness or injury, the
affected person was transported immediately to the nearest
hospital by any available means. In such cases of injury and
death, porters and their dependants were entitled to realize
compensation in accordance with provisions of the Workmen's
Compensation Act of 1923 which is still in force. Porters
included single and married adult males who were healthy and
strong enough to work for manual/physical labour. Women
were never employed for such work.(91) 
 
(c) The Government's observations concerning the
Convention(92)
 
144. In reply to the alleged violation of Convention No. 29,
the Government indicated, with regard to Articles 1 and 2 of
the Convention, that the term "forced labour" was not
applicable to Myanmar based on the fact that voluntary
contribution of labour for community development efforts
should not necessarily be considered as "forced labour". The
Government had not failed to suppress forced labour as alleged
because there was no such practice whatsoever in Myanmar. In
taking an overview of whether a member country adhered to the
provisions of the Convention, it was vital to take into
account the cultural heritage of its member States. Only then,
the soul of the Convention would be able to withstand the test
of time.
 
145. Referring to the conditions and guarantees of Articles 8
to 16, 18, 23 and 24 of the Convention as well as to Article
25, the Government added that: 
 
*     The use of voluntary labour, alleged compulsory or
forced labour, was made only for the urgent necessity in
accordance with the following provisions: (a) section
8(1)(g)(n) and (o) of the Village Act (1908); (b) section 9(b)
of the Towns Act. According to these provisions only the local
highest civil authorities are vested with power for necessary
recruitment of any form of voluntary labour. Such recruitment
was done only for the betterment of the community itself     
under the supervision of the local authorities concerned.
Therefore, it was not practical at all to remove workers from 
their place of habitual residence. 
 
*     Myanmar's practices of voluntary labour (alleged forced
labour) satisfied the conditions mentioned in Article 9. 
 
*     There was not "forced or compulsory labour" exacted as
tax. Moreover, the allegations made did not apply in any case
     relating to the provisions of Article 10. 
 
*     As for Article 11, only able-bodied adults were
permitted to contribute voluntary labour in community
development programmes. There was no forced labour of any form
in the country. Even in the case of porters, recruitment was
done only for urgent unexpected requirements. But in any way
the recruitment was absolutely voluntary. Porters therefore
were not conscripted. Instead they offered their services on
their own accord for want of subsistence. Furthermore, they
were provided with enough food and medical care during their
service, and they all were covered by the Workmen's
Compensation Act of 1923. 
 
*     The aforesaid voluntary labour contribution never
exceeded 60 days. If the work was not completed within this
period, others who offered their service voluntarily were
given their turn. Porters who served more than once were
accepted strictly on a voluntary basis. 
 
*     In community development projects and public works,
labour contributors were remunerated on a piece-rate basis so
that rest during working time was at their own disposal. 
Voluntary labour contributors and porters were remunerated.
They were being paid at prevailing Government wage-rates. 
 
*     The existing Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923 and
other relevant rules and regulations were applicable both to
voluntary labour and porters. 
 
*    According to the existing practices Article 16 was not
applicable. 
 
*     Forced or compulsory labour for the transport of persons
or goods, such as the labour of porters or boatmen, was not
applicable since they never existed and therefore allegations
made under Article 18 were not valid. 
 
*     As regards Articles 23, 24 and 25, instruments
regulating the use of any form of voluntary labour (alleged
forced or compulsory labour) and the relevant measures to
guarantee compensation in case of accident and death were in
force. These voluntary labour contributors were treated on an
equal footing with other workers under respective laws and
regulations. 
 
 
(d) The Committee's conclusions and recommendations,
approved by the Governing Body of the ILO 
 
146. The Committee noted that the question of forced labour
other than portering in Myanmar, touched upon by the
Government, had been addressed by the Committee of Experts on
the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in
its observation of 1993 on the application of Convention No.
29 in Myanmar; but the representation made by the ICFTU in
January 1993 dealt only with the use of forced labour by
military commanders through the forced recruitment and abuse
of porters. The Committee, set up to consider that
representation, therefore limited its conclusions to this
issue.(93)
 
147. The Committee noted that the testimony on porterage given
by witnesses quoted by the complainant organization conflicted
with other testimony quoted by the Government. The Committee
noted that the Government had sought, with the assistance of
ward and village authorities, to find the witnesses quoted by
the complainant organization. It also noted the Government's
allegation that these witnesses had spoken under pressure from
terrorist groups. The Committee likewise noted the view of the
Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission of Human
Rights, in his report of February 1993 on the situation of
human rights in Myanmar, "that serious oppression and an
atmosphere of pervasive fear exist in Myanmar" (UN doc. UNGA
E/CN.4/1993/37, paragraph 241). The Committee furthermore took
note of the note verbale dated 26 February 1993 from the
Permanent Representative of Myanmar to the United Nations
Office at Geneva addressed to the Secretary-General (UN doc.
UNGA E/CN.4/1993/105) which rebutted a number of statements
made by the Special Rapporteur in his report. The Committee
pointed out that, unlike a Commission of Inquiry, it was not
in a position to organize its own fact-finding on the basis of
a direct hearing of witnesses. In view of the circumstances
mentioned above, the Committee abstained from using the
individual testimonies referred to by the two sides in making
its evaluation of the observance of the Convention by the
Government.(94)
 
148. The Committee noted the Government's indication that the
recruitment of porters was made in accordance with section 8,
subsection 1(g)(n) and (o) of the Village Act (1908) and
section 7, subsection 1(m) and section 9, subsection (b) of
the Towns Act. Referring also to sections 11(d) and 12 of the
Village Act and section 9A of the Towns Act, the Committee
noted that the Village Act and the Towns Act provided for the
exaction of labour and services, in particular porterage
service, under the menace of a penalty from residents who had
not offered themselves voluntarily, that is, the exaction of
forced or compulsory labour as defined in Article 2(1) of the
Convention. Consequently, amendment or repeal of the
provisions referred to had been called for by the Committee of
Experts for the Application of Conventions and Recommendations
in comments regularly addressed to the Government since
1964.(95)
 
149. In the statements submitted by the Government to the
Committee there were no elements which would allow a different
approach. In particular, while stressing the need "to take
into account the cultural heritage of member States" with
regard to Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, the Government
had supplied no indications that would bring compulsory
porterage within the scope of one of the exceptions provided
for in Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention.(96)
 
150. Similarly, the transitional period envisaged in Article
1(2) of the Convention and subsidiarily examined in the
representation by the complainant organization had not been
invoked by the Government. The Committee noted that this was
in line with the position taken by the Government ever since
1967 that the authorities no longer exercised the power vested
in them under the relevant provisions of the Village Act and
the Towns Act; according to the Government these had been
established under colonial rule, did not meet the standard and
the needs of the country's new social order and were obsolete
and soon to be repealed. The Committee considered that this
should now be done.(97)
 
151. Since there was no longer a question of a transitional
period, the Committee abstained from considering compulsory
porterage in Myanmar in the light of the conditions and
guarantees which had been laid down in Articles 8 to 16, 18,
23 and 24 of the Convention for the employment of forced or
compulsory labour during the transitional period.
 
152. Article 25 of the Convention requires that the illegal
exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be punishable as
a penal offence, and the Government is to ensure that the
penalties imposed by law are really adequate and are strictly
enforced. The Committee stressed that the formal repeal of the
powers to impose compulsory labour under the Village Act and
Towns Act thus had to be followed up in actual practice with
penal prosecution of those resorting to coercion. This
appeared all the more important since the blurring of the
borderline between compulsory and voluntary labour, recurrent
throughout the Government's statements to the Committee, was
all the more likely to occur in actual recruitment by local or
military officials.(98) 
 
153. At its 261st Session (November 1994), the Governing Body
of the International Labour Office approved the report of
the Committee set up to consider the representation, and, in
particular, the conclusion that the exaction of labour and
services, in particular porterage service, under the Village
Act and the Towns Act was contrary to the Forced Labour
Convention, 1930 (No. 29), ratified by the Government of
Myanmar in 1955. Following the recommendations of the
Committee, the Governing Body urged the Government of Myanmar
to take the necessary steps to ensure that the relevant
legislative texts, in particular the Village Act and the Towns
Act, were brought into line with the Forced Labour Convention,
1930 (No. 29), as already requested by the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,
and to ensure that the formal repeal of the powers to impose
compulsory labour be followed up in actual practice and that
those resorting to coercion in the recruitment of labour be
punished. The Governing Body requested the Government of
Myanmar to include in the reports it supplies under article 22
of the Constitution on the application of Convention No. 29
full information on the measures taken, in accordance with
these recommendations, to secure observance of the Convention,
so as to enable the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations to follow the matter.(99) 
 
 
(3) Subsequent developments up to the 
    lodging of the complaint under article 26 
    of the ILO Constitution (June 1996)
 
154. At its February 1995 session, the Committee of Experts on
the Application of Conventions and Recommendations noted
that no report had been sent by the Government under article
22 of the Constitution on the application of the Convention.
With regard to compulsory porterage, the Committee noted the
Government's statement at the 261st Session of the Governing
Body, indicating that Myanmar was undergoing a major
transformation in changing from one political and economic
system to another and that a basic step in this process was
the amendment of laws which no longer pertain to current
circumstances and situations. Recalling that in its reports on
the application of the Convention, the Government indicated
ever since 1967 that the authorities no longer exercised the
powers vested in them under the provisions in question of the
Village Act and Towns Act, which were established under
colonial rule, did not meet the standard and the needs of the
country's new social order and were obsolete and soon to be
repealed, the Committee expressed the hope that this would now
be done and that the Government would supply full details on
the steps taken both as regards the formal repeal of the
powers to impose compulsory labour and the necessary follow-up
action, with strict punishment of those resorting to coercion
in the recruitment of labour. As pointed out by the Governing
Body Committee, this follow-up appeared all the more important
since the blurring of the distinction between compulsory and
voluntary labour, recurrent through the Government's
statements to the Committee, was all the more likely to occur
also in actual recruitment by local or military officials.
 
155. In the same observation made in February 1995, the
Committee of Experts, recalling its earlier reference to
detailed testimony concerning the imposition of forced labour
for public works,(100) noted that the Government had addressed
these matters in its written statement presented in May
1993(101) and its additional detailed statement presented in
October 1993 to the Governing Body Committee set up to
consider matters relating to the observance of Convention No.
29.
 
156. In its additional detailed statement of October 1993, the
Government specified that allegations made on the use of
forced labour for the railway projects in southern Shan State
related to the construction of two sections, from Aungban to 
Pinlaung and from Pinlaung to Loikaw. The purpose of this
project was to promote and develop smooth and speedy
transportation in the region for economic and social
development. Labour contributed to this project was purely
voluntary. The "Tatmadaw" personnel numbering 18,637 from
military units stationed in the area and 799,447 working
people from 33 wards and villages of Aungban township and 46
wards and villages of Pinlaung township contributed voluntary
labour. Fifteen heavy machines belonging to the Public Works
and Irrigation Department and Myanmar Timber Enterprises were
utilized. In addition, technicians and labourers from the
Myanmar Railways (state organization) also contributed their
labour. For the purely voluntary labour contributed by the
people of the region, the Government disbursed a lump sum of
10 million kyat (US$1.6 million) for the Aungban-Pinlaung
sector and another 10 million kyat for the Pinlaung-Loikaw
sector.
 
157. The Government added that the entirely voluntary labour
which contributed towards the construction of this railroad
was witnessed by the members of the diplomatic corps in
Yangon, who visited the construction site in January and May
1993. The members of the diplomatic corps met the people who
contributed this labour and there were no instances where
complaints were made to them.
 
158. The Government further considered that, under Article 2,
paragraph 2(e), of the Convention, the building of the
railroad could be regarded as a communal service performed by
the members of the community for the members of the community
in the direct interest of the community. Prior to the
construction of the project, consultation in a free and
spontaneous manner was made with the people of the community
and the project was carried out with spontaneous enthusiasm on
their part to contribute their labour.
 
159. In its observation of February 1995, the Committee of
Experts took due note of these indications. As regards Article
2, paragraph 2(e), of the Convention, which exempts from the
provisions of the Convention minor communal services, the
Committee referred to paragraph 37 of its General Survey of
1979 on the Abolition of Forced Labour, where it recalled the
criteria which determine the limits of this exception: the
services must be minor services, i.e. relate primarily to
maintenance work; and the services must be communal services,
performed in the direct interest of the community and not
relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider
group. The construction of a railroad would not appear to meet
either of these criteria, even where the third condition is
met, namely that the members of the community or their direct
representatives must have the right to be consulted in regard
to the need for such services. 
 
160. The Committee further noted that the provisions of the
Village Act and the Towns Act mentioned in relation with
compulsory porterage conferred sweeping powers on every
headman to requisition residents to assist him in the
execution of his public duties. Where such powers existed it
was difficult to establish that residents performing work at
the request of the authorities were doing so voluntarily. The
Committee accordingly expressed the hope, with regard to
public works projets as well as regarding porterage services,
that the powers vested in the authorities under the Village
Act and the Towns Act would now be repealed, and that the
Government would supply full information on the measures taken
to this effect as well as on the follow-up action mentioned in
relation with compulsory porterage.(102)
 
161. At the Committee on the Application of Standards of the
International Labour Conference (ILC) in June 1995, a
representative of the Government of Myanmar indicated that in
compliance with the request from the Governing Body, "to
ensure that the relevant legislative texts, in particular the
Village Act and the Towns Act, are brought in line with the
Convention" and "to ensure that formal repeal of powers to
impose compulsory labour be followed up in practice and that
those resorting to coercion in the recruitment of labour be
punished", the Government had started the process of amending
these laws.
 
162. In a special paragraph of its report, the Conference
Committee in 1995 called upon the Government to urgently
repeal the offensive legal provisions under the Village Act
and the Towns Act to bring them into line with the letter and
spirit of Convention No. 29, to terminate forced labour
practices on the ground, to provide for and award exemplary
penalties against those exacting forced labour, and to furnish
a detailed report on legislative and practical measures
adopted to fall in line with Convention No. 29.
 
163. In an observation made in November 1995, the Committee of
Experts noted that no such details had been provided by
the Government. In its summary report, received 31 October
1995, the Government, referring to the provisions of Article
2(2)(b) and (d) of the Convention, concerning "normal civic
obligations" and "work or service exacted in cases of
emergencies", once more stated that in Myanmar it was an
accepted concept that voluntary contribution of labour for
community development such as construction of pagodas,
monasteries, schools, bridges, roads, railroads, etc., was a
kind of donation and meritorious which was good not only for
the present life but also for the future life as well. So, in
the Government's view, the term "forced labour" was not
applicable to the provisions of section 11(d) of the Village
Act and section 9 of the Towns Act. Besides, the Village Act
and the Towns Act, administered by the General Administration
Department were "under review to be in accordance with the
present situation in Myanmar".
 
164. The Committee of Experts noted these indications with
concern. Recalling its earlier comments,(103) it concluded
that the Government's latest report persisted in blurring the
distinction between compulsory and voluntary labour and
contained no indication whatsoever that concrete measures had
been taken to abolish the powers to impose compulsory labour
either in law or in practice. The Committee asked the
Government to supply full particulars to the Conference at its
83rd Session in June 1996.
 
____________________________
 
NOTES
 
83.  Art. 24 of the ILO Constitution states that: "In the
event of any representation being made to the International
Labour Office by an industrial association of employers or of
workers that any of the Members has failed to secure in any
respect the effective observance within its jurisdiction of
any Convention to which it is a party, the Governing Body may
communicate this representation to the government against
which it is made, and may invite that government to make such
statement on the subject as it may think fit." 
 
84.  See paras. 15 to 19 of the report of the Committee set up
to consider the representation made by the ICFTU under art.
24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by Myanmar
of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) (doc.
GB.261/13/7, Geneva, Nov. 1994). 
 
85.  See para. 131 above. The substantially identical
indications given by the Government to the Committee set up to
consider the representation made by the ICFTU under art. 24 of
the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by Myanmar of the
Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) are reflected in
paras. 22 to 25 of that Committee's report (doc. GB.261/13/7,
Geneva, Nov. 1994). 
 
86.  See paras. 26 and 27 of the report of the Committee set
up to consider the representation made by the ICFTU under art.
24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by Myanmar
of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) (doc.
GB.261/13/7, Geneva, Nov. 1994). 
 
87.  ibid., paras. 28 and 29. 
 
88.  ibid., paras. 30 to 32. 
 
89.  ibid., para. 33. 
 
90.  ibid., paras. 37 to 39. 
 
91.  ibid. 
 
92.  See, ibid., paras. 40 and 41. 
 
93.  ibid., para. 42. 
 
94.  ibid., para. 43. 
 
95.  ibid., paras. 44 to 48. 
 
96.  ibid., para. 49. 
 
97.  ibid., para. 50. 
 
98.  ibid., para. 52. 
 
99.  ibid., para. 53, and Governing Body, 261st Session,
Geneva, Nov. 1994, Record of decisions (doc. GB.261/205),
para. 61. 
 
100.  See para. 134 above. 
 
101.  See para. 138 above. 
 
102.  See para. 154 above. 
 
103.  ibid. 
 
 
[END OF SLICE 5]