ILO REPORT ON FL IN BURMA: SLICE 6

[darnott@xxxxxxxxxxx]

[ILO COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON FORCED LABOUR IN BURMA, SLICE 6]
 
165. At the Committee on the Application of Standards of the
ILC in June 1996, a representative of the Government of
Myanmar indicated that during the first half of 1996, a board
that had been formed to monitor the progress made in reviewing
the Village Act of 1908 and Towns Act of 1907 held three
meetings as a result of which the draft of a new unified law
had been submitted to the Laws Scrutiny Central Body for
approval. With regard to the practical application of the
Convention, he recalled that the use of porters was the
consequence of a decades-long armed conflict between the
Government and insurgent groups. However, today 15 out of 16
insurgent groups had abandoned armed struggle to join hands
with the Government in national development. This encouraging
situation had led to greatly diminished military operations
and correspondingly the use of porters would come to an end.
Indeed, concrete measures had been taken by his Government to
this end. Specific instructions had been issued since 1995 to
the local authorities, regional commanders and ministries
concerned, prohibiting the recruitment of the local populace
in carrying out national development projects such as the
construction of roads, bridges and railways as well as the
building of dams and embankments without proper and fair
remuneration or compensation. Henceforth, members of the
Myanmar armed forces would take part in these development
projects to serve the interests of the people, in addition to
their primary responsibility of defending the country. Thus he
sincerely believed that substantial progress had been made in
the observance of the provisions of Convention No. 29.(104)
 
166. In the ensuing discussion, the Workers' and Employers'
members of the Conference Committee through their
spokespersons, as well as a number of individual members of
the Committee, alleged that forced labour was being exacted in
Myanmar under the cruellest of conditions and on a massive
scale, including in tourism-related and other construction
projects to build railroads and roads and to serve as porters
for the military, and that the Government had supplied no
indication whatsoever that concrete measures had been taken to
bring law and practice into conformity with the 
Convention.(105)  Rather, it was becoming more and more
evident, in the words of the Government member of the United
States, that the Government of Myanmar "was just trying to
create a smokescreen to mask the fact that, step by step, the
situation in Myanmar was being reduced to a state of total
lawlessness".(106)
 
167. The Conference Committee noted the information provided
by the representative of the Government of Myanmar and the
subsequent discussion. The Committee was deeply concerned by
the serious situation prevailing in Myanmar over many years
where systematically recourse was had to forced labour. The
Committee once again firmly required the Government formally
to abolish and urgently to cancel the legal provisions and to
abandon all practices that were contrary to the Convention.
The Committee urged the Government to prescribe truly
dissuasive sanctions against all those having recourse to
forced labour. The Committee hoped that the Government would,
without further delay, take all necessary measures to abolish
recourse to forced labour and that it would provide next year
all necessary detailed information on concrete measures taken
or envisaged to abolish in law and in practice the possibility
of imposing compulsory labour. The Committee decided to
mention this case in its report as one of persistent failure
to implement Convention No. 29 since over a period of several
years there had been serious and continued discrepancies in
law and in fact.(107)
 
168. By letter dated 20 June 1996, 25 Workers' delegates to
the International Labour Conference filed a complaint under
article 26 of the Constitution against the Government of
Myanmar, which has led to the establishment of the Commission
of Inquiry.(108)
 
 
 
B. EXAMINATION BY UNITED NATIONS BODIES OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS 
   SITUATION IN MYANMAR (PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO FORCED 
   LABOUR)
 
169. Several United Nations bodies have addressed the human
rights situation in Myanmar. On various occasions, they have
invited the Government of Myanmar to take the necessary
measures to bring an end to the violations that come under
their purview and to ensure that the rights and guarantees of
a democratic system prevail in the country.
 
170. The human rights situation in Myanmar was first examined
by a United Nations body when the Commission on Human Rights
considered the question in 1990 under the procedure
established by Economic and Social Council resolution
1503.(109) At the present time, the General Assembly, the
Commission on Human Rights and certain of its subsidiary
bodies, the Secretary-General and the Committee on the Rights
of the Child are following closely the question of forced
labour in the country. This section of the report describes
their work in this respect.
 
 
(1) General Assembly
 
171. The General Assembly considered the human rights
situation in Myanmar for the first time in 1991.(110) On that
occasion, it expressed its concern at the "information on the
grave human rights situation" and stressed the need "for an
early improvement of this situation".(111) Since then, the
General Assembly has examined the situation in Myanmar at each
of its annual sessions. Since 1994, the General Assembly has
been urging the Government of Myanmar "to ensure full respect
for human rights and fundamental freedoms",(112) "to put an
end to violations of the right to life and integrity of the
human being, to the practices of torture, abuse of women and
forced labour and to enforced disappearances and summary
executions",(113) and to "fulfil its obligations as a State
Party to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
 ...".(114)
 
 
(2) Commission on Human Rights and Special Rapporteurs on the
    situation of human rights in Myanmar(115)
 
172. Noting with concern the seriousness of the human rights
situation in Myanmar, the Commission on Human Rights decided
in 1992 to nominate Professor Yozo Yokota as Special
Rapporteur "to establish direct contacts with the Government
and with the people of Myanmar [...] with a view to examining
the situation of human rights in Myanmar and following any
progress made towards the transfer of power to a civilian
government and the drafting of a new Constitution, the lifting
of restrictions on personal freedoms and the restoration of
human rights in Myanmar".(116) Judge Rajsoomer Lallah
succeeded Professor Yokota in 1996. The two Special
Rapporteurs have submitted a total of 11 reports on the
situation of human rights in Myanmar to the General Assembly
and the Commission on Human Rights, in which they have
specifically addressed the issue of forced labour and forced
portering.
 
173. In his first preliminary report dated 13 November 1992,
Professor Yokota noted that the Centre for Human Rights had
been provided with more than 100 well-documented cases of
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment alleged to
have been committed by the armed forces in the context
primarily of forced recruitment and forced labour.(117) The
cases of torture mentioned concerned porters being forced to
carry loads they could not bear and when they were too sick or
weak to continue, they were allegedly beaten with rifle butts,
kicked and left by the wayside.(118)
 
174. In February 1993, after a visit to the country, the
Special Rapporteur provided further information supporting his
observations concerning the human rights situation in
Myanmar.(119) He addressed the issue of forced labour and
forced portering in his examination of allegations relating to
the right to life(120) and protection against torture, cruel,
inhuman or degrading punishment.(121) With regard to
portering, the testimony received by the Special Rapporteur
revealed that thousands of persons had been killed since 1988
by the military "throughout Myanmar while providing forced
portering for the military". The most affected groups were the
Muslims of Rakhine State (Rohingyas), the Karen, Shan and the
Mon. According to the testimony that he received, the Special
Rapporteur described the circumstances in which portering was
allegedly carried out. Men, including children, were
periodically taken forcibly from their villages to work as
porters, and some of them were used to detect mines. From the
information provided by more than 30 persons, the Special
Rapporteur noted that portering was allegedly accompanied by
systematic torture and ill-treatment.(122) Furthermore,
hundreds of persons taken away by force to work as porters had
allegedly disappeared.(123) The harsh climatic conditions
exacerbated the effects of the ill treatment received by the
porters, a large number of whom reportedly suffered from
malaria, tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases,
dysentery, parasitic infestations and infections of their open
wounds.(124) The Special Rapporteur noted that there was no
medical care for those who were ill, many of whom were
continually cursed and insulted with racial or ethnic slurs.
 
175. In the case of forced labour other than portering,
witnesses told the Special Rapporteur that persons had been
forced to work on the construction of railroads, roads or
clearing jungle areas in the context of railroad construction
projects,(125) development projects along the Thai border and
the construction of military installations, particularly in
the areas of conflict in the Karen, Karenni, Shan and Mon
areas. Hundreds of persons were reportedly killed when they
were unable "to carry loads and to continue the hard
labour".(126)
 
176. The Special Rapporteur also devoted a full chapter to the
situation of the Muslims of Rakhine State (Rohingyas).
According to the information received and reviewed by the
Special Rapporteur, this group suffered non-respect for the
family unit and the decrease of land resources due to
arbitrary resettlement policies. He noted that the systematic
repression of the Rohingyas was based upon ethnic and racial
intolerance and that they were at high risk of being taken for
use as forced porters or forced labourers.(127) Finally, large
volumes of direct testimony received by the Special
Rapporteur, as well as other well-documented evidence,
indicated the use of a systematic pattern of torture
(including rape), cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,
forced disappearance and arbitrary execution of Muslim and
other Rakhine ethnic minorities in Rakhine State by the
Myanmar authorities.(128)
 
177. In view of the evidence compiled by the Special
Rapporteur, he concluded that physical integrity violations in
Myanmar affected three categories of persons, one of which
included porters requisitioned by force and persons compelled
to carry out forced labour.(129)
 
178. Among the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur,
one was directed specifically at forced labour and forced
portering and invited the Government to take "measures to
comply with its obligations under ILO Convention No. 29 by
eradicating the practice of forced portering and other forced
labour which has provoked systematic torture, cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment, disappearances and mass
arbitrary executions."(130) The Special Rapporteur added that
"given the magnitude of the abuses, official condemnation
should be made by the Government of all acts by authorities
involving human rights violations. Such acts, including all
acts of intimidation, threat or reprisal, should not benefit
from the present system of complete denial and impunity of the
Government."(131) 
 
179. Since then, the Special Rapporteurs have had to note with
regret that violations of human rights were committed
consistently and on a wide scale by the authorities of Myanmar
against innocent civilians under forms which included forced
labour and forced portering.(132) Indeed, since October 1994,
the Special Rapporteurs have devoted complete sections of
their reports to this practice and have included examples to
support their conclusions and recommendations in this respect.
 
180. In his interim report submitted to the General Assembly
in October 1994,(133) the Special Rapporteur indicated that
allegations had also been made that elderly persons, women and
children had been taken as army porters and were often
reportedly used as human shields in military operations.(134)
In addition to portering, civilian labour was allegedly forced
to carry out other work for the army. Inhabitants of villages
near army camps were reportedly obliged to supply daily
workforces to assist with the construction of army barracks,
fences, land clearance, wood-cutting operations, agricultural
projects and other activities in direct support of army
camps.(135)
 
181. The Special Rapporteur also referred to certain large
development projects initiated by the Government of Myanmar,
for which civilians had reportedly been forced to contribute
uncompensated labour. These projects included the building of
hospitals, roads, railways, gas pipelines, bridges and
fisheries. Inhabitants of villages in these areas were
reportedly obliged to frequently contribute their labour and
other resources.(136) The Special Rapporteur received many
reports of considerable detail alleging violations of human
rights on a massive scale in connection with the construction
of a railway commenced in 1993 between the city of Ye (Mon
State) and Tavoy (Tanintharyi Division).(137) Furthermore, the
Special Rapporteur was informed of the use of other forms of
forced labour in connection with the construction of a road
between Bokpyin and Lenya in Tanintharyi Division, an
international airport at Pathein and a new military airfield
in Labutta Township in Ayeyarwady Division and the restoration
of tourist sites in Mandalay.(138) Finally, civilians
reportedly had to serve 24-hour guard duties without
compensation along roads and railways in regions where
insurgencies were taking place. They also allegedly had to
sweep roads for mines by walking or riding carts in front of
military columns.(139)
 
182. In his interim report of October 1995,(140) preceded by
the report submitted to the Commission in January 1995,(141)
the Special Rapporteur requested the Government to respond to
the following allegations that: the Government made extensive
use of various forms of forced, unpaid labour for a variety of
development projects aimed at building the infrastructure of
the country;(142) that with a view to preparing "Visit Myanmar
Year (1996)", the Government made use of forced labour to
restore tourist sites and to upgrade the infrastructure; and
that an increase in forced portering for the military had
occurred in connection with the conflicts between the Myanmar
army and insurgent groups in Kayin State.
 
183. In his report submitted to the Commission on Human Rights
in February 1996,(143) the Special Rapporteur indicated that
during his visit to Myanmar in October 1995 he had received
the texts of two secret directives which gave orders to bring
to an end the use of labour without payment for irrigation and
development projects. However, in view of the complaints
received from reliable sources, it seemed that these
directives were not implemented and that men, women and
children were still being used as forced labour for the
construction of railways, roads and bridges. The workers were
reportedly not paid for their work and were allowed only a
minimum of food and rest.(144) The Special Rapporteur
therefore concluded that the detailed reports, photographs,
video recordings and a variety of physical evidence brought to
his knowledge indicated that the practices of forced labour,
forced portering, torture and arbitrary killings were still
widespread, particularly in the context of development
projects and counter-insurgency operations in ethnic minority
regions. Many of the victims of such acts appeared to belong
to ethnic national populations and were composed of villagers,
women, daily wage-earners and other peaceful civilians who did
not have enough money to avoid mistreatment by paying
bribes.(145) In his recommendations, the Special Rapporteur
emphasized that the Government of Myanmar should comply with
its obligations under Convention No. 29 prohibiting the
practice of forced portering and forced labour. In this
connection, he requested the Government to urgently take the
appropriate measures to repeal the offensive legal provisions
in the laws authorizing the use of this practice so as to
bring it to an end.(146)
 
184. Since October 1996, the Special Rapporteur has regretted
the absence of cooperation by the Government.(147) In his
first interim report dated 8 October 1996, Judge Lallah, like
his predecessor, expressed his concern at the large number of
cases of alleged torture and other ill-treatment attributable
to the Myanmar armed forces. It was reported that these
practices were regularly employed against civilians living in
insurgency areas, against porters serving the army and against
workers in work sites where the authorities make use of forced
labour.(148) 
 
185. With regard to the issue of forced labour itself, the
Special Rapporteur stated that he continued to receive
numerous reports from a wide variety of sources indicating
that the practice of forced labour remained widespread.(149)
Civilians reportedly continued to be forced to work on
development projects, including the building of roads,
railways, bridges and gas pipelines. People living near the
projects were said to be forced to work under threat of
reprisals. Elderly persons and children had reportedly been
seen working on those sites.(150) 
 
186. The Special Rapporteur also noted that the forced
recruitment of civilians for the purpose of portering was
still practised in Myanmar.(151) The treatment of porters was
reported to be brutal.(152) Porters had to cross mountainous
terrain carrying heavy loads and those who attempted to escape
were regularly shot.(153)
 
187. In light of the information brought to his knowledge, the
Special Rapporteur therefore urged the Government of Myanmar
"to comply with its obligations under ILO Convention No. 29,
prohibiting the practice of forced labour and forced
portering."(154) The Government was also requested to "take
the necessary steps to bring the acts of soldiers, including
privates and officers, in line with accepted international
human rights and humanitarian standards so as to prevent
arbitrary killings, rapes, and confiscation of property, or
forcing persons into acts of labour, portering, relocation or
otherwise treating persons without respect to their dignity as
human beings. When local villagers are hired for porterage and
other works, adequate wages should be paid. The nature of the
work should be reasonable and in accordance with established
international labour standards."(155) Finally, "given the
magnitude of the abuses, the Government should subject all
officials committing human rights abuses and violations to
strict disciplinary control and punishment and put an end to
the culture of impunity that prevails at present in the public
and military sectors."(156) The Special Rapporteur also
encouraged the Government to cooperate with the ILO to that
end.(157)
________________
 
 
NOTES
 
104.  ILC, 83rd Session, Geneva, 1986, Provisional Record, p.
14/56. 
 
105.  ibid., pp. 14/56 to 14/58. 
 
106.  ibid., p. 14/58. 
 
107.  ibid., pp. 14/58 and 14/46. 
 
108.  See para. 1 above. 
 
109.  However, the human rights situation in Myanmar had
already been considered by the Sub-Commission on the
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in
1988 and 1989 and gave rise to a resolution by the Commission
on Human Rights in 1989: resolution 1989/112 of 8 Mar. 1989. 
 
110.  UN doc. UNGA A/RES/46/132 of 17 Dec. 1991. 
 
111.  ibid., para. 2. The General Assembly reiterated its
concern in 1992 and 1993: UN doc. UNGA A/RES/47/144 of 18
Dec. 1992 and UN doc. UNGA A/RES/48/150 of 20 Dec. 1993. 
 
112.  UN doc. UNGA A/RES/49/197 of 23 Dec. 1994. 
 
113.  ibid., para. 10. 
 
114.  ibid., para. 12. The resolutions adopted in 1995, 1996
and 1997 are to the same effect: UN doc. UNGA A/RES/50/194 of
22 Dec. 1995; UN doc. UNGA A/RES/51/117 of 12 Dec. 1996; UN
doc. UNGA A/RES/52/137 of 12 Dec. 1997. 
 
115.  Consideration of the question of forced labour by other
subsidiary bodies of the Commission on Human Rights, namely
the Special Rapporteurs on the implementation of the
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and
of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief, on Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and
on Extra-judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions is
described below in section (iv) Other United Nations bodies. 
 
116.  Commission on Human Rights, resolution 1992/58 of 3 Mar.
1992. The decision of the Commission was approved by
the Economic and Social Council on 20 July 1992 in its
resolution 1992/235. The Economic and Social Council renewed
its approval in 1993 (resolution 1993/278 of 28 July 1993),
1994 (resolution 1994/269 of 25 July 1994), 1995 (resolution
1995/283 of 25 July 1995), 1996 (resolution 1996/285 of 24
July 1996) and 1997 (resolution 1997/272 of 22 July 1997). 
 
117.  Preliminary report prepared by Professor Yozo Yokota
(Japan), Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human
Rights on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, in
accordance with paragraph 3 of Commission resolution 1992/58
of 3 Mar. 1992 and Economic and Social Council decision
1992/235 of 20 July 1992, UN doc. UNGA A/47/651 of 13 Nov.
1992. The preponderance of cases concerned members of the
Muslim population of northern Rakhine State, as well as those
belonging to the Karen community: ibid., para. 46 in fine. 
 
118.  ibid., particularly paras. 46 to 52. The Special
Rapporteur has referred to the case of soldiers from a
military unit referred to by name which allegedly went through
a village in Rakhine State recruiting people for forced labour
(para. 48). 
 
119.  Report on the situation of human rights in Myanmar,
prepared by Mr. Yozo Yokota, Special Rapporteur of the
Commission on Human Rights, in accordance with Commission
resolution 1992/58, UN doc. CES E/CN.4/1993/37 of 17
Feb. 1993. The Special Rapporteur subsequently visited the
country on three occasions, namely from 9 to 16 Nov. 1993,
from 7 to 16 Nov. 1994 and from 8 to 16 Nov. 1995. 
 
120.  ibid., paras. 79-85. 
 
121.  ibid., paras. 101-104. 
 
122.  These acts are alleged to have occurred in particular in
the Kayah, Kayin, Mon, Rakhine and Shan States: ibid., paras.
101-103 and 231-234. 
 
123.  ibid., para. 232. 
 
124.  ibid., para. 104. 
 
125.  In this respect, reference was made to the
Aungban-Loikaw railroad. 
 
126.  Report on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, op.
cit., note 119, paras. 85 and 234. 
 
127.  ibid., paras. 135 and 235-236. 
 
128.  ibid., para. 136. 
 
129.  ibid., para. 228. The other categories included citizens
wishing to participate freely in the political process and the
transition to the democratically elected civilian government
as well as ethnic minorities, against whom oppressive measures
were imposed. 
 
130.  ibid., para. 242(f). 
 
131.  ibid., para. 242(k). 
 
132.  See, for example: interim report prepared by Mr. Yozo
Yokota, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human
Rights on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, in
accordance with para. 16 of the Commission on Human Rights
resolution 1993/73 of 10 Mar. 1993 and Economic and Social
Council Decision 1993/278 of 28 July 1993, UN doc. UNGA
A/48/578 of 16 Nov. 1993, para. 35; Report on the situation of
human rights in Myanmar, prepared by Mr. Yozo Yokota,
Special Rapporteur, in accordance with Commission resolution
1993/73, UN doc. CES E/CN.4/1994/57 of 16 Feb. 1994, para. 55. 
 
133.  Interim report prepared by Mr. Yozo Yokota, Special
Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation
of human rights in Myanmar in accordance with paragraph 20 of
Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/85 of 9 Mar. 1994
and Economic and Social Council decision 1994/269 of 25 July
1994, UN doc. UNGA A/49/594 of 28 Oct. 1994 and UN doc. UNGA
A/49/594/Add.1 of 9 Nov. 1994. 
 
134.  ibid., para. 19. 
 
135.  ibid., para. 20. 
 
136.  ibid., para. 21. 
 
137.  According to reports received, "each family from the
villages along the line and also from surrounding areas is
obliged to supply one worker for 15 days at a time in rotating
shifts. Almost all the civilian families in Ye township,
Thanbyuzayat township and Mudon township of Mon State, as well
as Yebyu township, Dawei (Tavoy) township, Launglon township
and Thayetchaung township of Tanintharyi Division, are said to
have been forced to contribute labour for the railway's
construction. The workers are reportedly required to bring
their own food, provide their own shelter, ensure their own
health and medical needs, use their own tools and, in some
cases, also supply materials for the construction of the
railway. Allegations have also been made that the military
supervising the construction of the railway demands money for
the use of bulldozers available at construction sites; the
fuel needed for use of the bulldozers is also said to be sold
by the military. [...] Reports received consistently estimate
that over 100,000 persons have had to contribute their labour
for the railway project without any compensation. Elderly
persons, children and pregnant women are also reported to have
been seen as labourers along the railway. Several persons are
also reported to have died from illness and accidents caused
by poor conditions at construction sites. [...] The land along
the railway's route is said to have been confiscated from its
owners without compensation." ibid., para. 22. 
 
138.  ibid., para. 23. 
 
139.  ibid., para. 24. 
 
140.  Interim report prepared by Mr. Yozo Yokota, Special
Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation
of human rights in Myanmar, in accordance with Commission on
Human Rights resolution 1995/72 of 8 Mar. 1995, and Economic
and Social Council decision 1995/283 of 25 July 1995, UN doc.
UNGA A/50/568 of 16 Oct. 1995. 
 
141.  Report on the situation of human rights in Myanmar,
prepared by the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Yozo Yokota, in
accordance with Commission resolution 1994/85, UN doc. CES
E/CN.4/1995/65 of 12 Jan. 1995. 
 
142.  The railway lines which were under construction in 1995
and for which the authorities reportedly made use of forced
labour include the Pakokku-Gangaw-Kalaymyo-Tamu line and the
Ye-Dawei (Tavoy) line. People were allegedly not only forced
to contribute their labour but also the necessary materials. 
 
143.  Report on the situation of human rights in Myanmar,
prepared by Mr. Yozo Yokota, Special Rapporteur of the
Commission on Human Rights, in accordance with Commission
resolution 1995/72, UN doc. CES E/CN.4/1996/65 of 5 Feb. 1996. 
 
144.  ibid., paras. 141-142. Various sources reported an
especially intensive use of forced labour in relation to
railway construction projects. More than 50,000 people were
reportedly being forced to work on a new section of the
railway from Ye to Kanbauk. Forced labour was also allegedly
being used to repair the highway in Bago township, with the
work reportedly involving carrying stones from a quarry,
levelling work and the laying of tar, with each family having
to pay 50 kyat every two weeks as their contribution to the
construction of this highway.  
 
145.  ibid., para. 173. 
 
146.  ibid., para. 180. 
 
147.  Interim report on the situation of human rights in
Myanmar, prepared by Judge Rajsoomer Lallah, Special
Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, in accordance
with resolution 1996/80 of 23 Apr. 1996, UN doc. UNGA A/51/466
of 8 Oct. 1996. 
 
148.  ibid., particularly in paras. 45 and 51. 
 
149.  ibid., paras. 126-145. 
 
150.  ibid. The Special Rapporteur cited some illustrations,
namely: the people of Ahphyauk town in Ayeyarwady Division
were reported to have been made to work on an irrigation canal
with a length of about 25 miles. Those who refused were
fined 1,300 kyat or were prosecuted under section 12 of the
Village Act and, if found guilty, sentenced to one month's
imprisonment (para. 133); a man from Hinthada in Ayeyarwady
Division was reportedly beaten because, being too old, he had
refused to contribute labour to build an embankment (para.
134); in May 1995, about 200 villagers were reportedly ordered
by the military authorities to go to Heinze Island for two
weeks, where they had to clear ground, construct a helipad and
build various barracks. The workers received no wages and were
forced to pay for the petrol used in the boat which took them
to the island. Villagers who refused to go were fined or
arrested and sent to conflict areas to serve as porters for
the military (para. 135); in Aug. and Sep. 1995, a Mon farmer
from Yebyu township was allegedly forced to build army
buildings near the pipeline at Ohnbinkwin and in Kadaik
harbour. He was also reportedly forced to cut trees and clear
bushes for the road (para. 136); the authorities reportedly
used forced labour to build a Buddhist museum in the town of
Sittway (para. 137); villagers from Pathein, Ayeyarwady
Division, were allegedly forced to work on the construction of
a new road from Nga Saw to Talakwa (para. 138); in Mar. 1996,
villagers were allegedly forced to cut trees and carry timber
to the sawmill in Kyet Paung (Hlaingbwe township, Kayin
State), and some villagers also had to work at the sawmill
(para. 139). 
 
151.  ibid. The reports received by the Special Rapporteur
showed that porters could be divided into several categories,
i.e. operations porters, taken for the duration of a specific
military operation; permanent or shift porters, provided by
villages on written military orders who work a set length of
time and must be replaced by their village; emergency porters,
demanded from villages for special tasks such as monthly rice
delivery to troops; porters of opportunity -- often farmers
met on the road and kept on in case they are needed. Porters
are also reported to include civilians taken in urban or
semi-urban areas as a sanction by the authorities, convict
porters and paid porters replacing more affluent villagers who
are able to pay for their services (para. 140). 
 
152.  ibid. 
 
153.  ibid. The Special Rapporteur indicated various cases of
forced portering: on 10 Dec. 1995, a group of soldiers
reportedly arrived at Meh Bleh Wah Kee in Myawady township in
Kayin State, arrested ten persons who were forced to carry
very heavy army equipment across the Dawna mountains to Ber
Kho (para. 143); a farmer from Mon State was reportedly caught
by the military, tied up and forced to carry army material for
17 days (para. 144); in Mar. 1996, a fisherman from Taung Kun
in Ye township (Mon State) was allegedly forced to serve as a
porter for the army for 15 days (para. 145). The Special
Rapporteur noted that porters are reportedly civilians forced
to do work which does not fall under any of the exceptions
envisaged in the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). 
 
154.  ibid., para. 153(14). 
 
155.  ibid., para. 153(15). 
 
156.  ibid., para. 153(17). 
 
157.  ibid., para. 153(14). The Special Rapporteur reiterated
his conclusions in subsequent reports. 
 
[END OF SLICE 6]