TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Feb12/06)
18 February 2012
Third World Network

WTO upholds ruling against China in raw materials dispute
Published in SUNS #7299 dated 1 February 2012

Geneva, 31 Jan (Kanaga Raja) -- The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has upheld a previous panel ruling that had found that export restraints imposed by China on certain raw materials were inconsistent with its WTO obligations.

In a ruling issued on 30 January, the Appellate Body recommended that the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) request China to bring its measures found - in this report and in the panel reports, as modified by this report - to be inconsistent with China's Accession Protocol and the GATT 1994, into conformity with China's obligations thereunder, such that the "series of measures" do not operate to bring about a WTO-inconsistent result.

In one of its main findings, the Appellate Body said that the panel did not err in finding that there is no basis in China's Accession Protocol to allow the application of Article XX of the GATT 1994 to China's obligations in Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol.

In a ruling issued on 5 July 2011, a dispute panel had found that China's invocation of the General Exception provisions of GATT 1994 is limited by the terms of Paragraph 11.3 of its Accession Protocol.

The panel had acknowledged that by this ruling, China is in a position unlike that of most other WTO Members who are not prohibited from using export duties, either via the terms of their respective accession protocols or their membership of the WTO at the time of its inception.

However, based on the text of the protocol, the panel had said that it can only assume that this was the intention of China and the WTO Members when negotiating China's Accession Protocol. The situation created by this provision taken in isolation may be perceived as imbalanced, but the panel had said that it can find no legal basis in the Protocol or otherwise to interpret Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol as permitting resort to Article XX of the GATT 1994. (See SUNS #7185 dated 7 July 2011 for details of the panel ruling.)

In a statement issued here by the Chinese Mission to the WTO, China said that it welcomes that the Appellate Body supports China on several important issues, and corrects part of the prior rulings of the panel, including that the complainants' panel requests violated the relevant provision of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).

According to the Chinese statement, the Appellate Body declares moot and of no legal effect the panel findings in respect of claims concerning export quota administration and allocation, export licensing requirements, minimum export price requirement, and quota bidding. The Appellate Body also found that the panel erred in interpreting Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994.

However, said China, it deeply regrets that the Appellate Body upholds some of the panel's conclusions, including the non-applicability of Article XX of the GATT 1994 to a certain paragraph of China's Accession Protocol.

"For the purpose of protecting the environment and exhaustible natural resources, the Chinese government in the recent years reinforced its administration on certain resource products, especially the ‘high-pollution, high-energy-consuming and resource-dependent' products.

"China takes the view that the WTO rules, at the time of liberalizing trade, allows a Member to take necessary means to realize its policy objectives such as protection of the exhaustible resources and the environment. A solution should be found by balancing different policy objectives. China respects the rulings of the WTO, and will apply reasonable policies to administer resource products in accordance with the WTO rules, so as to realize sustainable development," said the statement.

In a press release issued on 30 January, US Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk said: "Today's report is a tremendous victory for the United States - particularly its manufacturers and workers. The Obama Administration will continue to ensure that China and every other country play by the rules so that US workers and companies can compete and succeed on a level playing field. During his State of the Union Address last week, the President laid out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last - an economy built with the renewed strength of American manufacturing. Today's decision ensures that core manufacturing industries in this country can get the materials they need to produce and compete on a level playing field."

In a separate press release, also issued on 30 January, European Union Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said: "This final ruling is a great success in our efforts to ensure fair access to the much needed raw materials for EU industry. Today's decision has confirmed that China's export restrictions on these raw materials are incompatible with the WTO rules. It sends a clear signal that such measures cannot be used as a protectionist tool to boost domestic industry at the expense of foreign competition."

"China now must comply by removing these export restrictions swiftly and furthermore, I expect China to bring its overall export regime - including for rare earths - in line with WTO rules," he added.

The dispute was brought against China separately by the United States, the European Communities and Mexico with respect to China's restraints on the export from China of various forms of bauxite, coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon carbide, silicon metal, yellow phosphorus, and zinc.

On 23 June 2009, the United States and the European Communities, and on 21 August 2009, Mexico, had each requested consultations with China with respect to China's restraints on the export from China of various forms of bauxite, coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon carbide, silicon metal, yellow phosphorus, and zinc.

At its meeting of 21 December 2009, the DSB had established a single panel pursuant to the requests of the United States in document WT/DS394/7, the European Communities in document WT/DS395/7 and Mexico in document WT/DS398/6.

According to the Appellate Body report, China, as well as the United States, the European Union and Mexico each appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the panel report.

The panel was established to consider complaints by the United States, the European Union, and Mexico (the complainants) regarding the consistency of certain measures imposed by China on the exportation of certain forms of bauxite, coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon carbide, silicon metal, yellow phosphorous, and zinc (the raw materials) with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China, and the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China.

Before the panel, said the Appellate Body report, the complainants challenged four types of restraints imposed by China on the exportation of the raw materials: (i) export duties; (ii) export quotas; (iii) export licensing; and (iv) minimum export price requirements. The complainants also challenged certain aspects of China's allocation and administration of export quotas, export licences, and minimum export prices, as well as the alleged non-publication of certain export measures. The complainants alleged that these export restraints were inconsistent with China's commitments under China's Accession Protocol and China's Accession Working Party Report, and with Articles VIII: 1(a), VIII: 4, X: 1, X: 3(a), and XI: 1 of the GATT 1994.

According to the Appellate Body report, the following issues were raised on appeal by China:

(a) whether the panel erred in finding that Section III of the complainants' panel requests complies with the requirement in Article 6.2 of the DSU to "provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly";

(b) whether the panel acted inconsistently with Articles 7.1, 11, and 19.1 of the DSU by recommending that China bring its export duty and export quota measures into conformity with its WTO obligations such that the "series of measures" in force at the date of the panel's establishment do not operate to bring about a WTO-inconsistent result;

(c) whether the panel erred in finding that China may not have recourse to the exceptions contained in Article XX of the GATT 1994 in order to justify a violation of China's export duty commitments contained in Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol;

(d) whether the panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article XI: 2(a) of the GATT 1994, and in its assessment of the matter under Article 11 of the DSU, when it found that China's export quota on refractory-grade bauxite is not "temporarily applied" to prevent or relieve a "critical shortage";

(e) whether the panel erred by interpreting the phrase "made effective in conjunction with" in Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994 to require that the purpose of the export restriction be to ensure the effectiveness of restrictions on domestic production and consumption;

(f) whether the panel erred in finding that China acts inconsistently with Paragraphs 1.2 and 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol, read in combination with Paragraphs 83 and 84 of China's Accession Working Party Report, by requiring exporters to comply with prior export performance and minimum registered capital requirements in order to obtain a quota allocation of certain raw materials;

(g) whether the panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article X: 3(a) of the GATT 1994, and acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 11 of the DSU, in finding that the administration of the "operation capacity" criterion in Article 19 of China's Export Quota Administration Measures is non-uniform and unreasonable; and

(h) whether the panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article XI: 1 of the GATT 1994, and acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU, in finding that China's export licensing system is inconsistent with China's WTO obligations, because it constitutes a restriction on exportation.

The following issues were raised on appeal by the United States: (a) if the Appellate Body reverses the panel's recommendations as requested by China on appeal, then whether the panel erred, under Articles 6.2, 7.1, 11, and 19.1 of the DSU, in not making recommendations on the 2009 export quota and export duty measures that were annually recurring and in effect at that time; and (b) whether the panel erred in finding that China's imposition of a bid-winning price on the allocation of export quotas on bauxite, fluorspar, and silicon carbide is not inconsistent with Article VIII: 1(a) of the GATT 1994 or Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol.

The following issue was raised on appeal by the European Union: (a) if the Appellate Body reverses the panel's recommendations as requested by China on appeal, and rejects the relevant other appeals submitted by the United States and Mexico, then whether the panel erred in finding that the European Union requested the panel not to make any findings and recommendations on the 2010 "replacement measures" and thereby narrowed the panel's terms of reference.

The following issues were raised on appeal by Mexico: (a) if the Appellate Body reverses the panel's recommendations as requested by China on appeal, then whether the panel erred, under Articles 6.2, 7.1, 11, and 19.1 of the DSU, in not making recommendations on the 2009 export quota and export duty measures that were annually recurring and in effect at that time; and (b) whether the panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article X: 3(a) of the GATT 1994, and acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU, in finding that the participation of China's Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers and Exporters (the CCCMC) in China's export quota allocation process is not partial or unreasonable.

The Appellate Body began by examining China's appeal of the panel's finding that Section III of the complainants' panel requests, entitled "Additional Restraints Imposed on Exportation", identifies the measures and claims at issue in a manner sufficient to present the problem clearly, as required under Article 6.2 of the DSU.

(Article 6.2 of the DSU provides, in relevant part: The request for the establishment of a panel shall be made in writing. It shall indicate whether consultations were held, identify the specific measures at issue and provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly.)

The Appellate Body said it has explained that Article 6.2 of the DSU serves a pivotal function in WTO dispute settlement and sets out two key requirements that a complainant must satisfy in its panel request, namely, the "identification of the specific measures at issue, and the provision of a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint (or the claims)". Together, these two elements constitute the "matter referred to the DSB", so that, if either of them is not properly identified, the matter would not be within the panel's terms of reference. Fulfilment of these requirements, therefore, is "not a mere formality".

The identification of the specific measures at issue and the provision of "a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly" are therefore central to defining the scope of the dispute to be addressed by the panel, it added.

Noting that China does not contest that Section III of the panel requests identifies the challenged measures with sufficient specificity to comply with Article 6.2 of the DSU, the Appellate Body said that rather, at issue here is whether Section III provides "a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly".

"Based on our reading of the complainants' panel requests in the present case, it is not clear which allegations of error pertain to which particular measure or set of measures identified in the panel requests. Furthermore, it is unclear whether each of the listed measures relates to one specific allegation described in the narrative paragraphs, or to several or even all of these allegations, and whether each of the listed measures allegedly violates one specific provision of the covered agreements, or several of them."

As the Appellate Body has explained, a claim must be presented in a manner that presents the problem clearly within the meaning of Article 6.2. "We do not consider this to have been the case here, where Section III of the complainants' panel requests refers generically to ‘Additional Restraints Imposed on Exportation' and raises multiple problems stemming from several different obligations arising under various provisions of the GATT 1994, China's Accession Protocol, and China's Accession Working Party Report. Neither the titles of the measures nor the narrative paragraphs reveal the different groups of measures that are alleged to act collectively to cause each of the various violations, or whether certain of the measures is considered to act alone in causing a violation of one or more of the obligations."

In the light of the failure to provide sufficiently clear linkages between the broad range of obligations contained in Articles VIII: 1(a), VIII: 4, X: 1, X: 3(a), and XI: 1 of the GATT 1994, Paragraphs 2(A)2, 5.1, 5.2, and 8.2 of Part I of China's Accession Protocol, and Paragraphs 83, 84, 162, and 165 of China's Accession Working Party Report, and the challenged measures, the Appellate Body said that it does not consider that Section III of the complainants' panel requests satisfies the requirement in Article 6.2 of the DSU to provide "a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly".

Consequently, the Appellate Body found that the panel erred under Article 6.2 of the DSU in making findings regarding claims allegedly identified in Section III of the complainants' panel requests. "We therefore declare moot and of no legal effect the Panel's findings in paragraphs 8.4(a)-(d), 8.11(a)-(e), and 8.18(a)-(d) in respect of claims concerning export quota administration and allocation; paragraphs 8.5(a)-(b), 8.12(a)-(b), and 8.19(a)-(b) in respect of claims concerning export licensing requirements; paragraphs 8.6(a)-(b), 8.13(a)-(b), and 8.20(a)-(b) in respect of claims concerning a minimum export price requirement; and paragraphs
8.4(e) and 8.18(e) of the Panel Reports in respect of claims concerning fees and formalities in connection with exportation."

On China's appeal regarding the panel's recommendations resting on the proposition that the panel made recommendations on a "series of measures" that extends into the future and includes the 2010 measures, the Appellate Body said it does not consider that the panel erred in recommending that the DSB request China "to bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations such that the 'series of measures' does not operate to bring about a WTO-inconsistent result".

"Nor do we consider the Panel to have made a recommendation on a matter that was not before it. Accordingly, we do not agree with China that the Panel acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 7.1 of the DSU. In sum, therefore, we find that the Panel did not err in recommending, in paragraphs 8.8, 8.15, and 8.22 of the Panel Reports, that China bring its export duty and export quota measures into conformity with its WTO obligations such that the ‘series of measures' do not operate to bring about a WTO-inconsistent result."

The Appellate Body went on to address China's claim that Article XX of the GATT 1994 is available as a defence to China in relation to export duties found to be inconsistent with China's obligations under Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol.

According to the Appellate Body report, for the panel, the language in Paragraph 11.3, together with the "omission of general references to the WTO Agreement or to the GATT 1994", suggest that WTO Members did not intend to incorporate the defences available under Article XX into Paragraph 11.3. The panel also found no support in the provisions of China's Accession Working Party Report for the proposition that China could invoke Article XX of the GATT 1994 to justify violations of Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol.

Regarding the context provided by the provisions of the other WTO agreements, the panel noted that there are no general exceptions in the WTO Agreement, and that each of the covered agreements provides its own "set of exceptions or flexibilities" applicable to the specific commitments in each agreement. Referring to Article XX of the GATT 1994, the panel considered that the reference to "this Agreement" a priori suggests that the exceptions therein relate only to the GATT 1994. Noting that, in several instances, provisions of Article XX have been incorporated into other WTO agreements by cross-reference, the panel observed that, since no such language is found in Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol, Article XX could not be intended to apply to Paragraph 11.3. The panel concluded that the defences of Article XX of the GATT 1994 are not available to justify violations of the obligations contained in Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol.

According to the Appellate Body, China alleges various errors in the panel's analysis and requests the Appellate Body to reverse the panel's finding that China may not seek to justify export duties pursuant to Article XX of the GATT 1994 that were found to be inconsistent with its commitment to eliminate export duties under Paragraph 11.3 of its Accession Protocol. China further requests the Appellate Body to find that Article XX is available to China to justify such measures. China contends, in particular, that the panel erred in determining that there is "no textual basis" in China's Accession Protocol for it to invoke Article XX in defence of a claim under Paragraph 11.3. In China's view, the panel's finding that Paragraph 11.3 excludes recourse to Article XX of the GATT 1994 was based on the panel's erroneous assumption that the absence of language expressly granting the right to regulate trade in a manner consistent with Article XX means that China and other Members intended to deprive China of that right. Moreover, China argues that WTO Members have an "inherent right" to regulate trade, "including using export duties to promote non-trade interests".

(Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol provides that: China shall eliminate all taxes and charges applied to exports unless specifically provided for in Annex 6 of this Protocol or applied in conformity with the provisions of Article VIII of the GATT 1994.)

The Appellate Body noted that except for yellow phosphorus, none of the raw materials at issue in this dispute is listed in Annex 6 of China's Accession Protocol. It said that Paragraph 11.3 requires China to eliminate taxes and charges applied to exports unless such taxes and charges are "specifically provided for in Annex 6" of China's Accession Protocol. Annex 6 in turn "specifically provides for" maximum export duty levels on 84 listed products. The Note to Annex 6 clarifies that the maximum rates set out in Annex 6 "will not be exceeded" and that China will "not increase the presently applied rates, except under exceptional circumstances". The Note therefore indicates that China may increase the "presently applied rates" on the 84 products listed in Annex 6 to levels that remain within the maximum levels listed in the Annex.

"We find it difficult to see how this language could be read as indicating that China can have recourse to the provisions of Article XX of the GATT 1994 in order to justify imposition of export duties on products that are not listed in Annex 6 or the imposition of export duties on listed products in excess of the maximum levels set forth in Annex 6," said the Appellate Body. It further noted that the third sentence of the Note to Annex 6 refers to the "exceptional circumstances" described in the second sentence of that provision, stating that, "[i]f such circumstances occurred, China would consult with affected members prior to increasing applied tariffs with a view to finding a mutually acceptable solution."

"This language further supports our view that the ‘exceptional circumstances' referred to in the Note to Annex 6 are ones that, if shown to exist would allow China to increase applied tariffs up to the maximum tariff levels set out in Annex 6 for the products listed. We therefore see nothing in the Note to Annex 6 suggesting that China could invoke Article XX of the GATT 1994 to justify the imposition of export duties that China had committed to eliminate under Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol."

China also recalls that, before the panel, the European Union claimed that China violated its obligations under Annex 6 by failing to consult with affected Members prior to the imposition of export duties on particular forms of bauxite, coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon metal, and zinc, none of which are among the 84 products listed in Annex 6.

The Appellate Body saw nothing in the Note to Annex 6 that would allow China to: (i) impose export duties on products not listed in Annex 6; or (ii) increase the applied export duties on the 84 products listed in Annex 6, in a situation where "exceptional circumstances" have not "occurred". It therefore disagreed with the panel to the extent it found that China's failure to consult with other WTO affected Members prior to the imposition of export duties on raw materials not listed in Annex 6 is inconsistent with its obligations under Annex 6. The imposition of these export duties is inconsistent with Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol, and because the raw materials at issue are not listed in Annex 6, the consultation requirements contained in the Note to Annex 6 are not applicable.

The Appellate Body turned next to examine the relevance of the reference to Article VIII of the GATT 1994 in Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol. China asserts that the reference to Article VIII in Paragraph 11.3 confirms the availability of Article XX of the GATT 1994.

Article VIII provides, in relevant part, as follows: All fees and charges of whatever character (other than import and export duties and other than taxes within the purview of Article III) imposed by contracting parties on or in connection with importation or exportation shall be limited in amount to the approximate cost of services rendered and shall not represent an indirect protection to domestic products or a taxation of imports or exports for fiscal purposes.

In the Appellate Body's view, as export duties are outside the scope of Article VIII, the question of conformity or consistency with this Article does not arise. Consequently, the fact that Article XX may be invoked to justify those fees and charges regulated under Article VIII does not mean that it can also be invoked to justify export duties, which are not regulated under Article VIII.

As noted by the panel, "the language in Paragraph 11.3 expressly refers to Article VIII, but leaves out reference to other provisions of the GATT 1994, such as Article XX." Moreover, there is no language in Paragraph 11.3 similar to that found in Paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol - "[w]ithout prejudice to China's right to regulate trade in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement" - which was interpreted by the Appellate Body in China - Publications and Audiovisual Products.

"In our view, this suggests that China may not have recourse to Article XX to justify a breach of its commitment to eliminate export duties under Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol."

Having examined the text of Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol, the Appellate Body turned to examine the context of that provision. It noted that Paragraph 11.1 of China's Accession Protocol provides that "China shall ensure that customs fees or charges applied or administered by national or sub-national authorities, shall be in conformity with the GATT 1994". Paragraph 11.2 further stipulates that "China shall ensure that internal taxes and charges, including value-added taxes, applied or administered by national or sub-national authorities shall be in conformity with the GATT 1994." Both of these provisions contain the obligation to ensure that certain fees, taxes or charges are "in conformity with the GATT 1994".

This is not the case for Paragraph 11.3, said the Appellate Body. It also noted that Paragraph 11.1 refers to "customs fees and or charges" in general and Paragraph 11.2 refers in turn to "internal taxes and charges", while Paragraph 11.3 refers specifically to the elimination of "taxes and charges applied to exports".

"Given the references to the GATT 1994 in Paragraphs 11.1 and 11.2, and the differences in the subject matter and nature of the obligations covered by these provisions, we consider that the absence of a reference to the GATT 1994 in Paragraph 11.3 further supports our interpretation that China may not have recourse to Article XX to justify a breach of its commitment to eliminate export duties under Paragraph 11.3. Moreover, as China's obligation to eliminate export duties arises exclusively from China's Accession Protocol, and not from the GATT 1994, we consider it reasonable to assume that, had there been a common intention to provide access to Article XX of the GATT 1994 in this respect, language to that effect would have been included in Paragraph 11.3 or elsewhere in China's Accession Protocol."

Following some further analysis, the Appellate Body concluded that it had, in accordance with Article 3.2 of the DSU, applied the customary rules of interpretation of public international law as codified in the Vienna Convention in a holistic manner to ascertain whether China may have recourse to the provisions of Article XX of the GATT 1994 to justify export duties that are found to be inconsistent with Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol.

"As we have found, a proper interpretation of Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol does not make available to China the exceptions under Article XX of the GATT 1994. Consequently, we find that the Panel did not err, in paragraph 7.159 of the Panel Reports, in finding that ‘there is no basis in China's Accession Protocol to allow the application of Article XX of the GATT 1994 to China's obligations in Paragraph 11.3 of the Accession Protocol.' We therefore uphold the Panel's conclusion, in paragraphs 8.2(b), 8.9(b), and 8.16(b) of the Panel Reports, that China may not seek to justify the application of export duties to certain forms of fluorspar pursuant to Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994 and the Panel's conclusion, in paragraphs 8.2(c), 8.9(c), and 8.16(c) of the Panel Reports, that China may not seek to justify the application of export duties to certain forms of magnesium, manganese and zinc pursuant to Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994."

On China's appeal of the panel's finding that China had not demonstrated that its export quota on refractory-grade bauxite was "temporarily applied", within the meaning of Article XI: 2(a) of the GATT 1994, to either prevent or relieve a "critical shortage", the Appellate Body upheld the panel's conclusion that China did not demonstrate that its export quota on refractory-grade bauxite was "temporarily applied", within the meaning of Article XI: 2(a) of the GATT 1994, to either prevent or relieve a "critical shortage", and it dismissed China's allegation that the panel acted inconsistently with its duty to conduct an objective assessment of the matter as required by Article 11 of the DSU.

The Appellate Body also addressed China's allegation that the panel erred in interpreting the phrase "made effective in conjunction with" in Article XX(g) to mean that restrictions on domestic production or consumption must "be applied jointly with the challenged export restrictions", and that "the purpose of those export restrictions must be to ensure the effectiveness of those domestic restrictions".

The Appellate Body said that it saw nothing in the text of Article XX(g) to suggest that, in addition to being "made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption", a trade restriction must be aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of domestic restrictions, as the panel found.

Instead, it had found above that Article XX(g) permits trade measures relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such trade measures work together with restrictions on domestic production or consumption, which operate so as to conserve an exhaustible natural resource.

"Based on the foregoing, we find that the Panel erred in interpreting the phrase ‘made effective in conjunction with' in Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994 to require a separate showing that the purpose of the challenged measure must be to make effective restrictions on domestic production or consumption. Accordingly, we reverse this interpretation by the Panel in paragraph 7.397 of the Panel Reports."

The Appellate Body went on to issue three separate findings and conclusions, one each for the three complainants. +