ILO REPORT ON FL IN BURMA: SLICE 4

[darnott@xxxxxxxxxxx]

[ILO COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON FORCED LABOUR IN BURMA, SLICE 4]
 
                             Part III
 
                  ALLEGATIONS BY THE PARTIES 
             AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
    
 
7.  SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT AND THE GOVERNMENT'S OBSERVATIONS
 
100. In their complaint and supplementary evidence, the
complainants referred to earlier findings by ILO supervisory
bodies concerning non-compliance with the forced labour
Convention by Myanmar. The complainants alleged that, far from
acting to end the practice of forced labour, the Government of
Myanmar was still engaged actively in its promotion, so that
it was today an endemic abuse affecting hundreds of thousands
of workers who were subjected to the most extreme forms of
exploitation. The complainants submitted detailed factual
allegations concerning both the systematic use of forced
labour in practice and the existence of national legislation
authorizing or condoning the imposition of forced labour; the
complainants also presented detailed legal conclusions
concerning the alleged incompatibility of national law and
practice with the Convention. The allegations of fact and
legal conclusions of the complainants are summarized(78)  as
follows.
 
 
(1) FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE COMPLAINANTS
 
101. According to the complainants, Myanmar is, and has been,
conducting a widespread practice of exacting forced labour in
the country. The practice, which affects hundreds of thousands
of residents of Myanmar, involves the use of forced labour for
public purposes as well as for private benefit. The labour is
exacted from men, women and children of villages and towns in
various parts of the country, as well as from prisoners. Along
with the forced labour, the military Government is
perpetrating severe physical and sexual abuses on many forced
labourers, including beatings, rape, executions, and
deliberate deprivation of necessary food, water, rest,
shelter, and access to medical care. 
 
102. The complainants specify that forced labour practices for
public purposes include the following: (1) portering, combat,
mine-sweeping, and sexual services for military troops; (2)
construction and other heavy labour on development and
infrastructure projects that do not benefit and, most often,
harm the population from which forced labour is exacted; and
(3) heavy work on military construction projects. The practice
of forced labour for private benefit is to: (1) promote joint
venture developments, including the country's oil and natural
gas reserves; (2) encourage private investment in
infrastructure development, public works, and tourism
projects; and (3) benefit the private commercial interests of
members of the Myanmar military. 
 
103. The complainants also state that the Government has
represented that it will use only armed forces henceforth on,
in its words, "major community development projects"; in the
view of the complainants, that representation provides no
assurances that the Government will stop the use of forced
labour on other projects, including support and portering
services for the military, or that forced labour on "major
projects" could not resume at any time.
 
104. The complainants refer to two laws currently in force in
Myanmar which authorize forced or compulsory labour to be
exacted from the people and provide for fines and imprisonment
of those who fail to comply. According to the complainants,
those laws, the Village Act, 1908 and the Towns Act, 1907,
fall outside the scope of a law apparently in effect that
makes "unlawful" exaction of labour a criminal offence. Other
recently uncovered secret military directives implicitly
legitimize forced labour practices on development projects by
urging that payment be made to forced labourers and that the
"misery and sufferings" associated with "undesirable
incidents" during forced labour be curbed.
 
 
(2) LEGAL CONCLUSIONS SUBMITTED BY THE COMPLAINANTS
 
105. The complainants allege that the Government of Myanmar
has failed entirely to secure the effective observance of
Convention No. 29. It deliberately engages in the practice of
forced labour within the meaning of the Convention and commits
gross human rights abuses in the context of that practice. It
has refused to repeal laws that authorize the practice or to
properly make the exaction of forced labour a penal offence.
It further has refused to ensure that penalties imposed by law
are really adequate and strictly enforced as required by the
Convention.
 
106. According to the complainants, the Government has sought
to characterize the practice of forced labour under menace of
threats, abusive practices, fines, and imprisonment as the
voluntary contribution of the people of Myanmar pursuant to
Buddhist cultural tradition. The evidence demonstrates not
only that non-Buddhist minorities are at times subjected
disproportionately to forced labour requirements, but also
that the practice is conducted under threat of legal penalties
and use of physical force.
 
107. The complainants submit that none of Myanmar's forced
labour practices qualifies as an exception from the
Convention's general prohibitions on the use of forced or
compulsory labour. The practices fail to satisfy any of the
following five narrow exceptions allowed under the Convention:
compulsory military service; normal civic obligations; labour
as punishment for duly convicted prisoners; work carried out
in circumstances of emergency threatening the population; and
minor communal service. In addition, whether a forced labourer
is paid makes no difference to the determination of whether
the conduct qualifies under any of the five exceptions,
despite the fact that the Government has sought to defend its
practices by alleging that its forced labourers are paid.
 
108. According to the complainants, no transitional period
applies to exempt Myanmar from its obligation under Convention
No. 29 to suppress forced labour in all its forms. The
Committee established by the ILO to review the ICFTU's article
24 representation on forced portering in Myanmar determined
that no transitional period applied.(79)  The period of 40
years since Myanmar ratified the Convention constitutes more
than ample time to make required alterations to law and
practice to conform to the Convention's requirements.
Moreover, the complainants state that the Government itself
has admitted that no transitional period applies: such
admissions were made in the article 24 proceeding and recently
in its observations made to the United Nations relating to
reports of forced labour practices.
 
109. Finally, in the view of the complainants, even if a
transitional period applied in this case, the evidence
demonstrates that none of the conditions and guarantees
required to be met during the transitional period are
satisfied in Myanmar. Forced labour is used for private
benefit; forced labour is used widely and systematically as a
regular part of the Government's budget; and the practice of
forced labour is in no way limited to use as an exceptional
measure. Further breaches of the conditions and guarantees
required under the transitional provisions of the Convention
include: inadequate or non-existent regulation of forced
labour practices; work that is not of important direct
interest for the community from whom the labour is exacted and
that is not of imminent necessity; work that lays too heavy a
burden on the population; forced labour exacted as a tax
without the safeguards required by the Convention, including
allowing the forced labourers to remain at their habitual
residence and respecting religion, social life, and
agriculture; conscripting women, children, and men over 45
into forced labour; failing to limit forced labour duty to 60
days per year; failing to provide cash remuneration in rates
of pay equal to the prevailing wage for voluntary labour and
failing to observe normal working hours and a weekly day of
rest; failing to apply workers' compensation laws and, in any
case, failing to meet the responsibility of maintaining the
subsistence of any person incapacitated as a result of
performing forced labour; failing to ensure that people are
not moved to different parts of the country in which their
health may be affected or, where that is necessary, to ensure
gradual acclimatization; failing for extended periods of
forced labour, to ensure appropriate medical care and
subsistence of the workers' families and providing for the
cost of the workers' journeys to and from the workplace; and
failing to abolish forced portering "within the shortest
possible period" after ratification.
 
 
(3) THE GOVERNMENT'S OBSERVATIONS(80)
 
110. Before responding to the complainants' allegations, the
Government described its initiatives for the emergence of a
peaceful, modern and developed nation, its political, economic
and social objectives, and the benefits which the local
population and the nation as a whole draw from the building of
infrastructures throughout the country, in particular the
building of new railroads, but also motor roads, irrigation
facilities, schools, hospitals, market places, parks and new
towns through the collective efforts of the State, the people
and the members of the Myanmar armed forces ("Tatmadaw").
 
111. In addressing the allegations made by the complainants,
the Government has placed its refutation under three main
headings: (i) public purposes or public sector; (ii) private
benefit or private sector; (iii) the law.
 
 
(a) Public purposes or public sector
 
(i) Portering
 
112. Since 1948, successive Myanmar governments have had to
deal with insurgent groups. Therefore, under certain
circumstances the Myanmar armed forces had to employ porters
for transportation of supplies and equipment over difficult
terrain in remote places and mountains near the frontier areas
where military campaigns against the armed groups were
launched. The Government stated that the porters employed were
not treated harshly and inhumanely by the Myanmar armed
forces. Criteria for the recruitment of these porters required
that they must be unemployed casual labour, that they must be
physically fit to work as porters, and that a reasonable
amount of wages must be fixed and agreed to before
recruitment. Also, these porters were never required to
accompany the troops in the actual scene of the battle, nor
exposed to danger. In the unfortunate event of loss of limb
unconnected with any armed conflict, they or their family were
equitably compensated in accordance with the prevailing law.
The authorities wished to point out that there was no
recruitment of women, children and elderly people as porters
at any time.
 
113. The Government also stated that the "Tatmadaw" were under
a strict military code of conduct, were highly disciplined,
and did not resort to onerous or oppressive actions against
the people. Any isolated aberration was met with severe
punishment meted out by a military court. Finally, the
Government asserted that the use of porters had significantly
diminished as a result of fewer military operations against
the armed groups, most of which had returned to the "legal
fold" and were taking part in the economic and social
development and the country. In this regard, the Government
also referred to excerpts from the press conference given by
United States Presidential Envoys, Ambassador Mr. William
Brown, and Senior Official of the National Security Council of
the White House, Mr. Stanley Roth, on 15 June 1996 at the
Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand, appended to its
observations as "Annexure I". 
 
 
(ii) Construction of development and 
     infrastructure projects by the Government 
 
114. Among the development and infrastructure projects
undertaken by the Government were the Aungban-Loikaw railroad
construction, the Ye-Dawei (Tavoy) railroad, the Pathein
airstrip extension, the construction of dams and embankments,
etc. For all these projects, and other projects not mentioned,
the Government asserted that there was no forced labour
involved. The use of labour was purely voluntary, and it was
remunerated equitably. No coercion whatsoever was involved in
the recruitment of labour, which was done according to the
local recruitment procedures of employment exchanges
established by the Department of Labour. There were altogether
78 township-level labour offices all over the country
operating under the Employment and Training Act and the
Employment Restriction Act. With a view to substantiating the
above facts, the Government stated it had made field surveys
in the respective areas to verify that the recruitment of
labour was done in accordance with the procedure. Detailed
statements and photographs of some local people interviewed
were annexed to the Government's observations as
(confidential) "Annexures Iia-IIg". 
 
115. The Government stated that it had taken concrete actions
regarding the use of civilian labour in infrastructure
building and development projects. A further and unprecedented
step had been taken in using members of the "Tatmadaw" in
these projects. There was to be no more recruitment and
deployment of local populace in any development projects.
"Tatmadaw" were now taking part in these works to serve the
interests and general well-being of the people in addition to
the primary responsibility of defending the country. One
concrete example was the recent participation of "Tatmadaw" in
railroad construction and other public works in the Mandalay,
Magway and Tanintharyi Divisions. Photographs of "Tatmadaw" at
the respective worksites were annexed to the Government's
observations as "Annexure III". The Government also pointed
out here that some prisoners who were convicted of criminal
offences such as murder, rape, etc. (common criminals) were
sometimes employed in road construction.
 
 
(iii) Hotel industries in Myanmar
 
116. The Government stated that, upon its invitation, foreign
investors had built hotels in Yangon, Mandalay, Bagan, etc.
under a system known as Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT).
These foreign companies with 100 per cent investment had their
own contractors who in turn appointed local subcontractors,
who recruited local skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled
workers. The competition or demand for local workers was very
keen, inducement in the form of high wages was offered by the
foreign companies and the question of forced labour did not
arise. In addition, local labour law and procedures saw to it
that equitable wages and proper conditions of work were
observed by the companies. In most cases these subcontractors
went through the labour exchanges run by the Department of
Labour. Although the Ministry of Hotels and Tourism was
responsible for the promotion of building hotels in Myanmar,
the Ministry played no part in the employment of the
construction workers.
 
117. With regard to allegations that forced labour was used in
the construction of "barracks", the Government stated that
accommodation for border policing units in Rakhine State were
constructed by private building contractors employing
voluntary paid labour. In this regard, the Government referred
to two "Contract Agreements" between responsible officials of
the border policing unit and local building contractors,
appended as "Annexures IVa and IVb" to its observations.
 
 
(b) Private benefit or private sector
 
(i) Construction of the Yadana natural gas pipeline
 
118. With regard to allegations that forced labour was being
used for the construction of projects for the development of
oil and gas reserves, in particular the Yadana gas pipeline
project, a joint venture between a United States oil company
(UNOCAL), a French oil company (TOTAL), and the Myanmar Oil
and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), the Government stated that the
allegations were totally unfounded. The Government quoted
corresponding statements made by Mr. Roger Beach, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of UNOCAL, and Mr. John Imle,
President of UNOCAL, in televised interviews conducted by CNN,
the texts of which were appended as "Annexures V and VI" to
the Government's observations. Moreover, the Myanmar
authorities conducted field observations at some of the areas
described in the supplementary evidence. Statements of some
workers at the Ye-Dawei (Tavoy) railroad construction sites
and some employees of the Yadana natural gas pipeline project
were appended to the Government's observations as
(confidential) "Annexure VIIa and b, and VIIf".
 
(c) The law
 
119. The Government indicated that, with a view to bringing
the Towns Act, 1907 and the Village Act, 1908 into line with
the current positive changes in the country, the authorities
concerned had taken action on the entire national legislation
of Myanmar which encompassed a total of more than 900 laws.
These laws had been reviewed and redrafted, including the
Towns Act and the Village Act which were enacted when Myanmar
was under colonial rule. The Government stated that the new
laws would be in consonance with the new executive legislative
and judicial systems which were to be brought about under a
new state Constitution. The National Convention whose task was
to lay down basic principles to be enshrined in the new state
Constitution had already adopted 104 basic principles. Among
these was the principle that "the State shall enact necessary
laws to protect the rights of workers". The authorities were
keenly aware of the criticisms made by some delegates at the
Conference over the powers available under the Towns and
Village Acts and, therefore, in the redrafted version which
was being prepared the Government said the clauses which
attracted so much attention of the delegates had been deleted.
 
 
(d) Conclusion
 
120. In conclusion, the Government indicated that the Myanmar
authorities were aware of the criticisms made by some
Worker delegates relating to the use of labour in Myanmar for
national development projects. A considerable portion of the
criticisms were unfortunately based on biased and specious
allegations made by expatriates living outside Myanmar who
wished to denigrate the Myanmar authorities for their own
ends. The Myanmar authorities had made an effort to answer, in
all sincerity, the questions addressed to them.
 
                  *****************************
 
 
8.  HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
 
A. EARLIER REPORTS AND STATEMENTS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF     
   BURMA/MYANMAR ON THE APPLICATION OF THE FORCED LABOUR     
   CONVENTION 1930 (29), COMMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS BY     
   INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS, FINDINGS AND     
   REQUESTS BY ILO SUPERVISORY BODIES
 
 
(1) Reports under article 22 of the ILO Constitution
    and statements to the International Labour Conference      
    (ILC) presented by the Government, 1960 to 1992, and       
    corresponding comments
 
 
121. In its first report (received 21 May 1960) on the
measures taken to give effect to the provisions of the Forced
Labour Convention, ratification of which was registered on 4
March 1955, the Government of the Union of Burma indicated,
under Article 1 of the Convention, that: "Since forced labour
is non-existent in this country, no recourse to forced or
compulsory labour in any form is authorised in this
country."(81)  Having indicated, in relation to Articles 6 to
17 of the Convention, that in view of the non-existence in the
country of forced labour (and of chiefs of the kind envisaged
in Articles 7 and 10), the question of compliance with the
requirements under these Articles did not arise, the
Government reported under Article 18 that: "Officials of
administration in this country, when they are on government
tours in the rural areas, use the services of porters,
boatmen, bullock carts, etc. But they are not employed in the
sense of forced or compulsory labour as envisaged in this
Convention." Finally, under Article 25 of the Convention, the
Government referred to section 374 of the Penal Code, under
which: "Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour
against the will of that person, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to one year, with fine, or with both."
 
122. In a request addressed to the Government in 1964 and
repeated in 1966 and 1967, the ILO Committee of Experts on
the Application of Conventions and Recommendations referred to
section 11(d) of the Village Act, under which persons residing
in a village-tract shall be bound, on the requisition of the
headman or of a rural policeman, to assist him in the
execution of his duties prescribed in sections 7 and 8 of the
Act. These duties consist, inter alia, of the obligation "to
collect and furnish ... guides, messengers, porters, supplies
of food, carriage and means of transport for any troops or
police posted in or near or marching through the village-tract
or for any servant of the Government travelling on duty". The
Committee noted that corresponding provisions concerning
persons residing in towns are contained in section 9 of the
Towns Act.(82)  It asked the Government to indicate whether
these provisions of the Village Act and the Towns Act were
still in force, and if so, what measures the Government
proposed to take to bring the legislation into conformity with
the Convention.
 
123. In its reply received 15 June 1967, the Government
indicated that: "Although the provisions in question of the
Village Act and Towns Act, which were established during the
colonial rules, are still in force, the authorities concerned
no longer exercise the power accordingly vested in them. And
 ... those laws and rules which do not meet the standards and
needs of the country's new social order shall have to cease to
exist. Appropriate new laws in place of the old ones will be
made soon." In reply to further requests by the Committee of
Experts for information on the measures taken, the Government
repeated in a report received 7 June 1973 that: "The Village
Act and the Towns Act are framed while Burma was under foreign
domination, there is no recourse to section 11(d) of the
Village Act and section 9 of the Towns Act, though they have
not been repealed officially."
 
124. In its report received 19 February 1974, the Government
again stated that the provisions of the Towns Act and the
Village Act were being reviewed along with other acts so as to
fall in line with the new Constitution which guaranteed the
freedom and the right to work.
 
125. In replies to further reminders by the Committee of
Experts the Government indicated in 1978 that: "A new law to
replace the Towns Act and the Village Act is now being drafted
by the authorities concerned. A copy of the new law will be
transmitted to the Committee of Experts when enacted."
 
126. In 1982, the Government stated that a new Law Commission
was constituted and "New draft laws which revised the old
ones (which empowered headmen and rural policemen to impose
compulsory portage on residents of the labouring class ...)
will eventually be reviewed by the Commission and submitted to
the Pyithu Hluttaw [People's Assembly] to bring legislation
into conformity with the Convention."
 
127. In 1983, the Government restated that: "The provisions of
the Towns and the Village Act which empower headmen and
rural policemen to impose compulsory portage on residents of
the labouring class ... being legacies from the British
colonial rule, have become obsolete and are no longer
applied." In the same reply (received 13 October 1983) the
Government added that with the promulgation of the People's
Council Law in 1974, the administrative power formerly
entrusted to a single headman was vested with a group of
people's representatives who collectively managed the affairs
of the village, and that: "Among the duties and functions of
the Ward and Village Tract People's Councillors as prescribed
in the People's Council Law, 1974, and the subsequent law
prescribing the duties and functions of the People's Councils
at different levels and that of Executive Committees at
different levels, 1977, there is no such provision as
compulsory portage on residents or the labouring class."
 
128. In its report received 21 October 1985, the Government
repeated that the People's Council Act, 1974 contained no
provisions that authorized the People's Councils at different
levels to have recourse to forced or compulsory labour, and
that: "Any significant progress towards the repealing of the
provisions incompatible with the Convention will be reported
at once."
 
129. In a "consolidated reply" attached to the Government's
report received 16 November 1989, the Government stated that:
 
     "... the political, social, and economic and
administrative structure in the Union of Myanmar has changed
drastically since 18 September 1988. Myanmar is now on her way
to multiparty democratic system in place of one party
political structure. Consequently, the socialist economic
system has recently been substituted by new open-door economic
policy along with other changes in social and administrative
pattern.
 
     "The present Government has been endeavouring for the
betterment of the quality of life of its people including the
workers from every sector of the economy. The existing labour
laws are once again under review to be in consonant with the
changing situations. The Government has reconstituted the
Labour Laws Reviewing Committee in July, 1989. In doing so,
every salient point raised by the Committee of Experts shall
be taken into serious consideration in the process of
reviewing the existing labour laws." 
 
130. In an observation made in 1991 on the application of the
Convention in Myanmar, the Committee of Experts noted comments
of 17 January 1991 by the International Confederation of Free
Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention and
the information submitted in the annexed documents. In its
comments the ICFTU indicated that the practice of compulsory
portering was widespread in the country and involved many
thousands of workers: the majority of porters used by the army
were forcibly recruited and harshly exploited; rarely, if
ever, paid; inadequately fed and cared for; required to carry
excessive loads; and exposed to acute physical hardship and
danger. According to the documents there was no formal
regulation or supervision of the conditions of work of
porters, which were, in practice, determined at the discretion
of local military commanders. As a result, many of them died
or were killed in the course of forced labour, some were used
as human shields during military actions, others were shot
when trying to escape or were killed or abandoned when as a
result of malnutrition or exhaustion they were no longer able
to carry their load. The comprehensive documentation submitted
by the ICFTU contained detailed and specific indications to
back these allegations. The Committee expressed the hope that
the Government would provide detailed comments on these
allegations as well as full information on any measures
adopted or contemplated to ensure observance of the
Convention.
 
131. In the absence of a report from the Government, the
Committee repeated its observation in 1992. At the ILC in June
1992, the Government submitted the following information:
 
     "With reference to the comments made by the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) concerning the
practice of compulsory portering, the Government wishes to
indicate that it is true that armed forces have to employ     
porters for transportation of equipment and things over
difficult terrain in remote jungles and mountains near the
frontiers where military campaigns against the armed
insurgents are launched. Where the terrain is inaccessible by
car or other motorised vehicles, the Myanmar army has to
employ porters for transport of supplies and equipment.
However, it is not true that porters are treated harshly and
inhumanely by the Myanmar armed forces. All these allegations
about the treatment of porters by the armed forces are untrue.
They mainly emanate from outside sources with ulterior
political motives.
 
     "As a matter of fact, there are volunteer porters and
professional porters who offer to work as porters on behalf of
others to earn their living. Porters are recruited and
employed by the armed forces after consultation with local
authorities. This has been in practice in Myanmar since she
regained her independence in 1948. Recruitment and employment
are in accordance with section 8, subsection 1(n), of the
Village Act of 1908 and section 7, subsection 1(m), of the
Towns Act of 1907. Recruitment is based on the following three
criteria:
 
     (a) they must be unemployed;
 
     (b) they must be physically fit to work as porters;
 
     (c) a reasonable amount of wages must be fixed and agreed
         to beforehand.
 
     "Porters thus recruited are never required to accompany
the troops to the actual scene of battles; neither are they
exposed to danger. They are sent back as soon as their
assignment is completed. They are paid equitably and in the
unlikely event of a loss of life or limb unconnected with any
armed conflict they or their families are compensated in
accordance with the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1925. They
are entitled to medical treatment like soldiers in     
accordance with the Armed Forces Act. They are placed in safe
places during operations." 
 
132. In addition, a Government representative of Myanmar at
the ILC in June 1992, referring to the written information
provided by his Government, stressed that in his country there
was no coercion with regard to the employment of workers.
Comprehensive and elaborate laws effectively prevented the use
of forced labour. In response to the allegations made against
his Government that equated the use of porters by the armed
forces of Myanmar with forced labour, he stressed that the use
of porters was not the same as the use of forced labour. He
stated that even if the employment of porters by the armed
forces was considered to be forced labour, such porters had
ceased to be employed by the military, because the Government
was no longer conducting military campaigns. The Government
wished to establish national unity and peace, and to remove
all differences by amicable discussion rather than fighting
among the different races in the country.
 
133. Referring to the issue of compulsory portering, the
Committee of Experts, in an observation made in 1993, noted
that a representation made by the ICFTU under article 24 of
the ILO Constitution was declared receivable by the Governing
Body and submitted to a committee set up to examine it.
Consequently, the Committee of Experts suspended examination
of this matter.
 
134. In relation to forced labour other than portering, the
Committee of Experts noted in its observation made in 1993
that in his report submitted to the United Nations Commission
on Human Rights at its 49th Session, February-March 1993 (UN
doc. UNGA E/CN.4/1993/37 (17 February 1993)), the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar
referred to the testimony of persons taken to provide labour
in the construction of railroads (Aungban-Loikaw railroad) and
of roads or the clearing of jungle areas for the military,
that hundreds of persons were killed by the military when, as
with porters, they were unable to carry loads and to continue
the hard labour. The labour projects reportedly included two
major railway projects, other border-development projects of
the Government, particularly along the Thai-Myanmar border,
and labour for the military, particularly in the areas of
conflict in the Karen, Karenni, Shan and Mon areas. It was
reported that the labourers died frequently as a result of
constant beatings, unsanitary conditions, lack of food and
lack of medical treatment, once they became sick or wounded
and unable to continue work. Witnesses also provided
information that some friends or relatives who returned from
the work in the border development projects died afterwards as
a result of the wounds and diseases contracted during their
labour. The Committee requested the Government to comment on
the detailed testimony reported by the UN Special Rapporteur.
 
________________________                                       
    
NOTES                                                 
 
 
78.  The full text of the supplementary evidence submitted is
reproduced as Appendix I to this report. 
 
79.  See paras. 150 and 151 below. 
 
80.  The text of the Government's observations on the initial
complaint and supplementary evidence submitted is reproduced
as Appendix II to the present report, unabridged except for
two confidential annexes ("Annexures" II and VII) which have
been omitted. 
 
81.  Moreover, the Government stated under Art. 2 that: "So
far there had been no necessity to take advantage of the
exemptions provided under para. 2 of this Article. However, it
will be duly reported when necessity arises." 
 
82.  The full wording of the relevant provisions of the
Village Act and the Towns Act is given in paras. 238-240
below. 
 
[END OF SLICE 4]