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

ILO REPORT ON FL IN BURMA: SLICE 3



[ILO COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON FORCED LABOUR IN BURMA, SLICE 3]
 
 
4.  SECOND SESSION OF THE COMMISSION
 
(1) HEARING OF WITNESSES 
 
55. The Commission held its Second Session, which was
principally devoted to the hearing of witnesses, in Geneva
from 17 to 20 and 25 to 26 November 1997. This session
consisted of 13 closed sittings, with the participation of the
representatives of the complainants, Mr. Janek Kuczkiewicz and
Mr. Colin Fenwick, assisted by Mr. Maung Maung and Mr. David
Arnott, as well as Mr. Guy Ryder and Mr. Dan Cunniah, Director
and Deputy Director respectively of the ICFTU Geneva office.
 
56. The Government of Myanmar was not represented and did not
therefore occupy the seats reserved for it. Noting the
absence of the Government, the Chairperson of the Commission
recalled the communications addressed to the Government of
Myanmar following the First Session of the Commission to
transmit the information received from the complainants and a
number of organizations, inform it of the dates on which the
Second Session would be held and invite it to designate its
representative.(55) 
 
57. The Commission requested the secretariat in limine litis
to contact the Permanent Mission of Myanmar in Geneva by
telephone. It was then informed that the Government of Myanmar
did not intend to be represented at the Second Session of
the Commission.
 
58. In the light of the foregoing, the Commission considered
that the Government of Myanmar had been duly informed of the
dates on which the Second Session would be held and that it
had been given adequate opportunity to participate in the
proceedings. The Commission therefore concluded that the
Government of Myanmar had abstained in full knowledge that it
was not availing itself of its right to be present at the
hearings. In the circumstances and considering the time that
had elapsed since the filing of the complaint, the Commission
considered that it should proceed in order to ensure that the
complaint was examined expeditiously, avoiding undue delay and
thereby ensuring a fair procedure.(56) 
 
59. Before giving the floor to the representatives of the
complainants, the Chairperson of the Commission recalled that,
in accordance with the "Rules for the hearing of witnesses"
which had been adopted at its First Session and transmitted to
the parties, all witnesses would be heard in closed session
unless the Commission decided otherwise in consultation with
the party concerned. All information presented to the
Commission in closed session would be treated as confidential
by all persons permitted by the Commission to be present. In
particular, no public statement about such information should
be pronounced unless expressly authorized by the Commission.
With regard to the presentation of evidence and in the absence
of the representatives of the Government concerned, the
representatives of the complainants and the witnesses would be
allowed to make statements to provide the Commission with
factual information on the case before it. Each witness would
be questioned by the representatives of the complainants and
by the Commission, although the Commission would retain its
right to intervene at any stage and all questioning of
witnesses would be subject to its control.(57) 
 
60. The Commission then heard the opening statements by a
complainant and by the representatives of the complainants.
(58)  It then requested them to present their evidence. The
complainants presented 14 witnesses.
 
61. Before they gave their testimonies, the Chairperson of the
Commission informed each of the witnesses of the conditions
under which they would be giving their testimonies and
indicated that the Commission had been established to examine
the facts concerning the application by Myanmar of the Forced
Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). The Chairperson also
emphasized that reasonable latitude would be given to
witnesses to furnish such information, but that statements of
a political character or in any other way irrelevant to the
issues referred to it would not be accepted. All information
presented to the Commission in closed session would be treated
as confidential by all persons authorized by the Commission to
be present at the hearings. The Chairperson then invited each
witness to make a solemn declaration identical to that
provided for in the rules of the International Court of
Justice by which they solemnly declared upon their honour and
conscience that they would speak the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth. In cases in which interpretation
was necessary, the Commission also required the interpreters
to make a statement by which they undertook to faithfully
translate the statements of the witnesses.
 
62. The witnesses who appeared before the Commission at its
hearings may be divided into two groups. In the first place,
11 witnesses were invited to give testimony in view of the
knowledge that they had acquired through research,
investigations and interviews on the situation in Myanmar in
general and on the allegations contained in the complaint in
particular. Two of these witnesses also gave evidence of
having personally witnessed events related to the complaint.
As part of their evidence, all of these witnesses provided
prepared written statements and also answered questions put to
them. Of these witnesses, Ms. Donna Guest, representing the
non-governmental organization Amnesty International, and Ms.
Edith Mirante, representing the non-governmental organization
Project Maje, described various forms of forced labour that
they had identified in the course of their research on
Myanmar. The following witnesses were then heard: Mr. Kevin
Heppner, representing the non-governmental organization Karen
Human Rights Group, who gave a systematic description of
forced labour, particularly in the eastern part of Myanmar,
Mr. Tom Kramer, representing the non-governmental organization
Burma Centrum Nederland, who gave evidence on the delicate
question of the situation of Rohingyas in Rakhine State, and
Ms. Zunetta Liddell, representing the non-governmental
organization Human Rights Watch/Asia, who addressed in
particular issues relating to cultural tradition and
prison labour. A representative of the non-governmental
organization Images Asia, who requested that her name and
other identifying data should not be divulged, gave evidence
on the situation in various States and Divisions of Myanmar.
Mr. Terry Collingsworth, representing the non-governmental
organization International Labor Rights Fund, and Mr. Douglas
Steele described, inter alia, the current situation in the
case before the United States District Court, Central District
of California involving the Federation of Trade Unions of
Burma and the Yadana Natural Gas Project as well as the
American company UNOCAL concerning the gas pipeline which
crosses the Tanintharyi Division in the south of Myanmar; Ms.
Christine Habbard of the International Federation of Human
Rights also referred to the gas pipeline. Finally, two other
persons submitted testimony that they had collected during
investigations in the field. 
 
63. Three other witnesses provided evidence of personal
experience concerning the case. The Commission decided that
these latter witnesses should benefit from measures of
protection and that neither their real names nor identifying
data would therefore be divulged. Nevertheless, once such data
had been removed, their statements would be made public.
 
64. Furthermore, because of the young age of one of the
witnesses, the complainants made a request for her to be heard
in a private place and for the person who normally accompanies
her to be present during her testimony. After consideration,
the Commission decided to grant the measures of protection
requested in order to create in so far as possible a
favourable environment for her testimony. The Commission
therefore decided that it would sit in a private place which
would not be disclosed and that it would be accompanied by a
representative of the complainants and two members of the
secretariat. The person normally accompanying the witness
could be present provided that the person did not try to
communicate with the witness or otherwise interfere with the
procedure. The Commission nevertheless reserved the right to
decide at any time to ask that person to leave the room if it
considered that the person's presence adversely affected the
testimony.(59) 
 
65. Furthermore, the Commission authorized another witness who
was unable to travel to Geneva for the session to give
evidence by video conference.(60) 
 
66. Preparatory meetings between the Commission and the
representatives of the complainants were held from time to
time with regard to the procedure to ensure its proper
functioning. The members of the Commission withdrew on several
occasions to deliberate in private and ex parte to determine
procedural issues raised during the hearings.
 
67. Various documents were submitted by the witnesses and the
representatives of the complainants during the Second
Session.(61)  Finally, following the presentation of the
evidence, the representatives of the complainants made their
concluding statements.
 
                              * * * 
 
68. The information furnished during the hearings is examined
in the analysis contained in Part IV of the report. The
stenographic records of the hearings have been transmitted by
the secretariat of the Commission to the Government of
Myanmar. Furthermore, two copies of the records of the
hearings have been placed in the library of the International
Labour Office.
 
69. Following its Second Session, the Commission considered
that it would be desirable to visit Myanmar in order to
supplement the information in its possession. The Commission
therefore requested the Government, in a letter dated 28
November 1997, to consent to a visit to Myanmar for a period
of seven to ten days; it expressed the hope that the
Government would offer its cooperation and assistance in this
respect. In particular, the Commission emphasized the
importance of its having full and free access to all persons
whose knowledge and experience it considered relevant,
including high-level governmental officials and any person or
organization that the Commission might deem it necessary to
meet. It added that the meetings should be held in
circumstances providing full confidentiality to the persons
interviewed and recalled that, pursuant to Rule 8 of the
"Rules for the hearing of witnesses", it expected the
Government to give the assurance that no sanction or prejudice
would occur to persons or their families as a consequence of
their being associated with the work of the Commission.
 
                  ***************************
           
 
(2) COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION FOLLOWING ITS    
    SECOND SESSION (62) 
 
 
(a) Communication from the 
    Government of Myanmar 
 
70. In a communication dated 12 December 1997, the Director-
General of the Department of Labour of Myanmar informed the
Director-General of the ILO that his Government was not able
to authorize the visit by the Commission of Inquiry to
Myanmar, since "such a visit would not contribute much towards
resolving the case" and "would interfere in the internal
affairs of [the] country".
 
71. In a communication dated 16 June 1998, the Permanent
Mission of the Union of Myanmar to the United Nations Office
and other International Organizations in Geneva transmitted a
number of articles, news reports, reports, memoranda,
correspondences and video tapes concerning labour-related
activities and projects in Myanmar.(63)  The information
highlighted in particular the use of members of the "Tatmadaw"
for the construction of regional development projects and for
the development of "border areas and national races", as well
as documents on the situation of women and children and the
participation of private companies in the transport and
tourism sectors. 
 
 
(b) Communications from non-governmental 
    organizations 
 
72. In a communication dated 10 March 1998, the Friends World
Committee for Consultation (Quakers) requested information
from the secretariat concerning the work of the Commission. 
 
73. In a communication dated 27 March 1998, Images Asia
transmitted a copy of a report on the situation in Chin State
and Sagaing Division entitled "All quiet on the western
front?".(64) 
 
74. In the course of the months of April to June 1998, the
following documents were also transmitted to the Commission:
an Amnesty International report entitled "Atrocities in the
Shan State",(65)  transmitted by the Burma Peace Foundation;
several reports by the Karen Human Rights Group,(66) 
transmitted by that organization; and an EarthRights
International report entitled "School for Rape",(67) 
transmitted by that organization.
 
 
(c) Communications from a company named in the complaint 
 
75. In a letter dated 11 December 1997, the Commission gave
the opportunity to TOTAL to provide additional information
on a series of allegations naming the company that were made
in the documents received by the Commission and the
testimonies that it heard. In a communication dated 23
December, TOTAL replied to each of the points raised
emphasizing that they contained few new elements to which the
company had not already responded and that the allegations
bore no relation to the real situation known on site.(68)  In
particular, TOTAL stated that: 
 
*     it was wrong to claim that the preparatory clearing work
could have been undertaken by forced labourers for the purpose
of facilitating the access of the project teams. During the
years 1993 and 1994, clearing work had been carried out under
the supervision of TOTAL by the Compagnie gnrale de
gophysique (CGG); 
 
*     TOTAL had no knowledge of work to level the ground in
Phaungdaw, either in 1994 or since, with the exception of the
work related to the right of way of the pipeline, which had
been carried out under the supervision of the company; 
 
*     the security of the facilities and the staff working on
the pipeline was the responsibility of the national
authorities of Myanmar and the organization of the public
forces in that region was absolutely not the responsibility of
TOTAL; 
 
*     with regard to the Heinze islands, none of the persons
working for TOTAL had set foot on the islands nor flown over
them: there was no relation between these islands and the
pipeline laid by TOTAL; 
 
*     TOTAL had not been associated in any way or form, even
indirectly, with civil works or a military base that the army
was alleged to have constructed at Kadaik (situated in the
estuary of the Heinze river); 
 
*     it was wrong to claim that TOTAL had entrusted any work
at all to the army or the national company MOGE, either in
February 1996 or before or after that date; 
 
*     TOTAL had never paid money to the army of Myanmar or to
any of its units; 
 
*     TOTAL could make a categorical assurance that the army
had never carried out clearing work at the eastern end of the
pipeline route; 
 
*     most of the helipads situated on the pipeline route had
been constructed by TOTAL or by companies working for TOTAL
and applying its code of conduct, although TOTAL did not know
under what conditions other helipads in the  region had been
constructed; 
 
*    contrary to what had been indicated to the Commission,
there was no specific pipeline road network in the western
part of the area in which it had been constructed. In 1995-96,
for the needs of the project, improvements had been made to
the existing road network in this coastal area and had been
carried out by the public works company BEC-Fr
res based in
Montpellier), working under the supervision of TOTAL and
respecting its code of conduct. This work Involved the use of
modern civil works machinery and not in any event recourse to
forced labourers; 
 
*     although it had not always been the case, no one now
contested the fact that TOTAL and its contractors paid all the
persons working in the framework of the Yadana project; 
 
*     to state that the use of the railway had been seriously
envisaged for the needs of the project and then abandoned due
to allegations of forced labour was quite simply absurd. In
this regard, TOTAL stated that: 
 
-      the wharf through which materials were brought to the
region formed part of the project from the beginning; 
 
-     a train (particularly with the technical specifications
of the future Ye-Tavoy railway) would not in any case have
been able to transport the sections of the pipeline, which
were 12 metres long and weighed nearly 5 tonnes each,
 
-    or the more than 700 pieces of machinery and public works
equipment, some of which were of gigantic proportions, used
for the project; 
 
-    that the mere chronology of the facts spoke for itself
since, unlike the pipeline, the train was far from being       
operational and had still not reached the pipeline zone; and 
 
-   finally, a pipeline was laid on a soft bedding and did not
therefore need stones to be crushed. 
 
76. In a communication dated 4 March 1998, TOTAL transmitted a
copy of a report drawn up by two members of the non-
governmental organization Commission for Justice and
Peace.(69)  The report was prepared at the request of UNOCAL
Corporation and was intended to review labour conditions and
socio-economic programmes at the Yadana gas pipeline project
in Myanmar. Although the report stated that the question of
how and whether foreign investment affected the viability
of the current regime of the country was beyond the scope of
the review, it concluded that each village had a better life
because of the project. It added that the approach adopted
should be a model for other international companies.
 
 
                  ****************************
                  
 
5. VISIT BY THE COMMISSION TO THE REGION
 
(1) PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE COMMISSION 
 
77. The members of the Commission also considered it
appropriate to supplement the information in their possession
by visiting the region so as to meet the largest possible
number of persons and organizations which could provide it
with information on the practices referred to in the
complaint.
 
78. This visit was particularly important after the refusal of
the Government of Myanmar to receive the members of the 
Commission; it enabled the members of the Commission to form a
direct impression of the situation described in the complaint,
acquire personal knowledge of the circumstances described in
the mass of documents submitted to them and assess the
veracity of the allegations in the complaint. In doing so, the
Commission exercised its fact-finding and inquiry functions.
 
79. With a view to making the optimum use of its time and
determining the places that it wished to visit, the Commission
established in advance a detailed plan of the journeys it
intended to make and informed the competent authorities of its
need to visit India, Bangladesh and Thailand during the period
from 18 January to 20 February 1998.
 
80. During the inquiry that it carried out in the region, the
Commission obtained personal testimonies from close to 250
persons. These testimonies were obtained with the assistance
of persons and non-governmental organizations working in the
areas concerned. At the request of the Commission, these
people and organizations were asked to identify a pool of
potential interviewees in relation to which the Commission
gave explicit instructions that the witnesses be selected at
random and not have been questioned previously on the matters
that it was investigating, save preliminary identifying data.
This request was made in order to avoid potential duplication
with other statements already provided to the Commission as
well as to minimize risk of any tainting of evidence together
with ensuring currency of information. The Commission
expressed the desire to cover as much of the territory of
Myanmar as possible and in this spirit to interview people
from the largest possible number of regions and belonging to a
range of ethnic groups without distinction. Given the large
number of interviews, priority was given to witnesses with the
most recent experiences. The Commission also considered it
important to include as witnesses persons who had served in
the armed forces of Myanmar.
 
81. In view of the considerable number of persons that it
could interview and in order to conduct as many interviews as
possible, the Commission often split into three groups, with
one member of the Commission and one member of the secretariat
comprising a team. Each team then obtained testimony from
witnesses. This procedure varied on one occasion in Thailand
when the Commission was unable to obtain access to available
witnesses. In that circumstance the Commission authorized a
person who was able to obtain access to potential witnesses
and who took the testimony of eight such witnesses. This
person had previously given evidence before the Commission in
Geneva(70)  concerning his professional experience and his
taking of earlier statements from persons who had experienced
or witnessed matters relevant to the inquiry. The Commission
gave instructions to the person as to the scope of the
interviews and the manner in which they should be carried out.
The Commission, on the basis of this person's previous
evidence and experience, as well as on the debriefing which
followed the interviews, satisfied itself that the testimonies
obtained were voluntary and reliable.
 
82. In making these arrangements it became obvious that
witnesses feared reprisals from the authorities; the
Commission in the interests of obtaining full and accurate
information decided it was appropriate to grant some measures
of protection under which names and other identifying
information would not be divulged. However, the Commission
considered it essential that the summaries of these
testimonies, from which this information had been removed,
should be made public and form part of the report.(71) 
 
83. The Commission took testimonies from witnesses on an
individual basis. Exceptions were made in some cases where
persons were from the same family or locality or interview
conditions were not conducive to such an approach. In these
cases a person's statement was taken and corroborated by
others in a small group. In cases in which interpretation was
necessary, the Commission selected the interpreters in advance
and required them to make a statement in which they undertook
to translate faithfully the statements of the witnesses. In
addition, a member of the secretariat, fluent in Burmese, was
able to ascertain that the translations were true.
 
84. Men, women and children were interviewed. In the latter
case in particular, the Commission assured itself that the
witness understood the mandate of the Commission and the need
to tell the truth. The interviews were conducted under
conditions ensuring full confidentiality to the persons
concerned. Since several persons interviewed now lived in
distant areas which were closed to the members of the
Commission, they were transported and interviewed under
conditions ensuring the safety of all concerned. For each
witness, the Commission commenced by obtaining the identifying
information necessary for the purposes of verifying, comparing
and corroborating the various accounts of the facts. It then
questioned the witnesses on their relevant personal experience
of the practices referred to in the complaint and verified in
particular the year, duration, location, context and
conditions under which such practices were carried out.
Furthermore, it questioned the witnesses on experiences that
others may have recounted to them, including their family,
close friends and any other persons. Each witness was given
the possibility of making a personal statement. Where
appropriate, the Commission also questioned witnesses on their
political affiliations or allegiances.
 
85. The method of recording information was by handwritten
notes taken by the Commission; because of their copious nature
were later summarized. The Commission abandoned the taking of
tape-recordings because of physical difficulties of use,
particularly with interpreters; also interviewees felt less
intimidated, given the environment in which many interviews
took place: in huts, on the ground, out in the open and in a
factory.
 
 
(2) PERSONS AND WITNESSES INTERVIEWED 
 
86. The Commission went to India, Bangladesh and Thailand to
meet with persons able to provide it with relevant information
concerning the complaint. Their ages varied between 12 and 72;
the vast majority of the factual elements presented by these
persons occurred over the last year or two. 
 
 
(a) India 
 
87. The Commission conducted interviews on 19, 20 and 22
January 1998 in Delhi. On that occasion, it held interviews
with 17 people from the Chin and Rakhine States belonging to
the Chin and Rakhine ethnic groups.(72)  Despite its requests,
the Commission was not however able to obtain in due time the
necessary authorizations from the Government of India to visit
the State of Manipur in the north-eastern region of India in
which other persons coming from Myanmar and in possession of
information which could have been of interest to the
Commission were alleged to have found refuge.
 
88. On 22 January 1998, the Chairperson of the Commission paid
a courtesy visit to the Secretary of the Ministry of Labour
of the Government of India outlining in general the importance
of the inquiry and the Commission's work in India.
 
 
(b) Bangladesh 
 
89. The Commission travelled to Bangladesh, where it stayed
from 23 January to 3 February. While in Dhaka from 23 to 27
January the Commission met representatives of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and non-governmental
organizations who could provide it with information
identifying the most appropriate places to meet persons with
personal knowledge of the matters referred to in the
complaint.
 
90. From 27 January to 3 February 1998, the Commission visited
Cox's Bazar, a town located a few kilometres from the
border between Bangladesh and Myanmar. A total of over 71
testimonies were gathered from interviews held in the town and
the neighbouring areas.(73)  Most of the persons interviewed
were of Rohingya origin and came from the northern part of
Rakhine State, which some of them had only left a few days
earlier. Several of them had no fixed accommodation and were
forced to live with no shelter.
 
91. The Chairperson of the Commission visited the Ministry of
Labour and Manpower of Bangladesh on 2 February 1998 in
Dhaka. During his visit, the Chairperson explained the origin
and mandate of the Commission and the reasons for its presence
in the region.
 
 
(c) Thailand 
 
92. The Commission visited Thailand from 3 to 20 February
1998. From 5 to 9 February, it went to the locality of Mae
Hong Son, a town situated near the Thai border with Kayah
State in Myanmar. It passed through the cities of Bangkok and
Chiang Mai, where it met representatives of non-governmental
organizations who were able to provide it with recent
information on the situation in Myanmar.
 
93. In Mae Hong Song, the Commission met 53 people from
various States in Myanmar and belonging to the Karenni, Karen,
Burman, Shan and Pa-o ethnic groups.(74)  The interviews were
conducted in three locations near to the town.
 
94. From 10 to 16 February 1998, the Commission then visited
Mae Sot, a Thai town located near to the border with Kayin
State, where it met 56 people from the Muslim, Karen, Burman,
Shan and Pa-o ethnic groups.(75)  From 15 to 17 February,
one of the members of the Commission, accompanied by a member
of the secretariat, visited Kanchanaburi, a Thai province
bordering Karen and Mon States and the Tanintharyi Division.
It held 12 interviews there with people from the Mon and
Karen ethnic groups.(76) 
 
95. After leaving Mae Sot a little earlier to return to
Bangkok, the Chairperson on 15 February met with members of
the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma
(NCGUB).
 
96. The members of the Commission met once again on 18
February in Bangkok. The next day they paid a courtesy visit
to the Ministry of Labour of Thailand and met a representative
of a non-governmental organization concerned with forced
labour in Myanmar.
 
97. Since two members of the Commission had to leave Thailand
on early flights, a single member remained on 20 February to
conduct interviews at a location near to Bangkok with 32
persons from the Karen, Burman, Mon and Rakhine ethnic
groups.(77) 
 
98. At the end of its visit to the region, the Commission
decided to meet once again in Geneva from 29 June to 2 July
1998, to prepare and adopt its final report.
 
                    **************************
 
 
6.  THIRD SESSION OF THE COMMISSION 
 
99. The Commission held its Third Session in Geneva from 29
June to 2 July 1998. At this session, the Commission completed
the preparation of its report. The Commission closed this last
session by signing the report, which it presented to the
Director-General of the International Labour Office.
                                
                  ***************************
                  ***************************
 
_______________
 
NOTES
55.  See in particular para. 26 above. Reminders were sent to
the Government by the secretariat on 15 Oct. and 9 and 12 Nov.
1997. 
 
56.  Stenographic record of the first sitting, 17 Nov. 1997,
pp. 2-3. 
 
57.  ibid., pp. 6-7. 
 
58.   The following persons made opening statements: Mr.
William Brett, complainant, Worker representative of the
United Kingdom and Chairman of the Workers' group of the
Governing Body of the ILO; Messrs. Kuczkiewicz and Fenwick,
designated representatives of the complainants; and Mr. Maung
Maung, advisor to the complainants. 
 
59.  Stenographic record of the fourth sitting, 19 Nov. 1997,
p. 1. 
 
60.  Stenographic record of the tenth sitting, 25 Nov. 1997,
p. 1. 
 
61.  The list of documents submitted during the hearings is
reproduced in Appendix VI to this report. 
 
62.  The list of documents received by the Commission
following its Second Session is reproduced in Appendix V to
this report. 
 
63.  Doc. 176. 
 
64.  Doc. 167. 
 
65.  Doc. 168. 
 
66.  Docs. 169-172, 174 and 175. 
 
67.  Doc. 173. 
 
68.  Doc. 165. 
 
69.  Doc. 166. 
 
70.  Min Lwin appeared before the Commission on 18 and 19 Nov.
1997. See Ch. 4, Second Session of the Commission, paras. 55
to 68. 
 
71.  See Appendix VII. In addition, Appendix VIII to this
report lists the documents submitted to the Commission during
its visit to the region. 
 
72.  Appendix VII, Witnesses 1 to 17. 
 
73.  ibid., Witnesses 18 to 88. 
 
74.  ibid., Witnesses 89 to 141. 
 
75.  It was during this period that the Commission authorized
the taking of testimonies referred to in para. 81. 
 
76.  ibid., Witnesses 142 to 209. 
 
77.  ibid., Witnesses 210 to 241. 
 
 
[END OF SLICE 3]