COMMITTEE ON THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF ALL MIGRANT

WORKERS AND MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES

Seventh session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 60th MEETING

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva,

on Monday, 26 November 2007, at 3 p.m.

Chairperson: Mr. KARIYAWASAM

CONTENTS

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 73 OF THE CONVENTION (continued)

Initial report of Ecuador

The meeting was called to order at 3.10 p.m.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 73 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 3) (continued)

Initial report of Ecuador (CMW/C/ECU/1; CMW/C/ECU/Q/1 and Add.1)

At the invitation of the Chairperson, the members of the delegation of Ecuador took places at the Committee table.

The CHAIRPERSON said that Ecuador occupied a special position as a sending, receiving and transit country in which all aspects of the migratory process were reflected. The delegation’s dialogue with the Committee would therefore be a learning experience not only for Ecuador but also for the Committee. He complimented the State party on the quality of its initial report (CMW/C/ECU/1) and of its replies to the list of issues raised by the Committee (CMW/C/ECU/Q/Add.1).

Mr. LÓPEZ (Ecuador), introducing the initial report, said that the Government’s policy on the protection of migrant workers and members of their families formed part of its “citizens’ revolution”. Under the proposed new constitution that was being drafted by a National Constituent Assembly, foreigners resident in Ecuador would enjoy certain rights of political participation and the distinction between citizenship and nationality would be clearly defined. The right to work would not only encompass traditional trade union rights but would also be formulated in such a way as to proscribe all forms of job insecurity. To that end, action would be taken to restructure the system of employment agencies and outsourcing of services, which had undermined employment rights and State control. Workers would enjoy the right to stability of employment, a fair wage and gender equality.

The role of the Office of the Ombudsman as a guarantor of human rights would be strengthened and its rulings on cases in which it had jurisdiction would be made binding.

The National Constituent Assembly was expected to amend existing legislation such as the Labour Code and to adopt new legislation, in which a broad and integrated rights-based approach would be adopted to the question of migration. At the institutional level, a process aimed at pooling information among institutions dealing with foreigners had been set in motion.

The Under-Secretariat for Citizen Security was coordinating efforts to institutionalize protection of all citizens from violence, criminal activity and organized crime. The Ministry of Internal Affairs was developing programmes to assist Ecuadorian citizens and foreigners who were detained without trial. Tangible progress had been made in modernizing the police force.

President Correa had spoken out at the sixty-second session of the United Nations General Assembly against the practice of designating any human being as “illegal”. He had described as an immoral paradox the fact that the free movement of goods and capital was promoted in order to maximize profits, while the free movement of persons seeking decent employment was penalized. Ecuador was actively seeking to change such shameful international migration policies, while building a country in which guarantees of a decent livelihood would prevent forced migration due to poverty and social exclusion.

Both the National Foreign Policy Plan 2006-2020 (PLANEX) and the National Development Plan, Foreign Policy, 2007-2010, were the product of wide-ranging consultations with public-sector institutions, civil society and the academic community. The National Development Plan set out an integrated policy on behalf of emigrants and their families in countries of origin, transit and destination based on the principle of free movement of persons. It provided for diplomatic, administrative and judicial action to enforce emigrants’ rights in countries of destination; for contacts with NGOs and civil society in countries of destination in order to support Ecuadorians abroad; for the updating of legislation on migration, aliens and naturalization; and for voluntary return programmes for Ecuadorians abroad based on integration into the Ecuadorian labour market and society.

The round table on labour migration established in September 2005 played an important policy-making role, adopting a rights-based approach and collaborating with civil-society and international organizations specializing in migration issues.

Migration and the employment of migrant workers were not liable to prosecution in Ecuador. The National Migration Directorate, the Ministry of Labour and the Ecuadorian Social Security Institute focused on promoting respect for the employment and social security rights of migrant workers.

The Government had taken action to promote the human rights of persons detained in social rehabilitation centres. In 2007 a state of emergency had been declared in all the country’s detention centres and substantial resources had been appropriated for the construction of new centres, the improvement of existing facilities and the training of staff and detainees. The new Ministry of Justice planned to take far-reaching action to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the justice system.

The ministerial-level National Secretariat for Migrants (SENAMI) had been established in March 2007 to formulate and implement migration policies. The Under-Secretariat for Migration and Consular Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been converted into an Under-Secretariat for Consular Services. An important innovation was that responsibility for running consulates in cities with large numbers of Ecuadorian emigrants had been transferred to the emigrants themselves.

The Migration Police had taken advantage of new technology to reduce processing time at international airports and border posts, to enhance the reliability of documents and to minimize the risk of corruption. There were 33 well-equipped centres catering for migrants throughout the country, the aim being to create a highly efficient and reliable service that respected the rights of both Ecuadorian nationals and foreigners.

Between 2003 and 2006 over 3 million foreigners had entered Ecuador and over 2.5 million had left, leaving a balance of almost half a million foreigners who had remained in the country. Over 2.3 million Ecuadorians had left the country and over 2.2 million had returned. A total of 341,422 had remained abroad, including 146,426 women.

The National Statistics and Census Institute (INEC) had recently set up three committees, one of which was responsible for compiling data on the characteristics of migration. There were also plans to establish a migration research unit with the cooperation of Spain and the involvement of an inter-university consortium.

The Government had gone to considerable lengths to accommodate the inflow of displaced Colombians into Ecuador. A Contingency Plan was being implemented with the assistance of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and other United Nations bodies and with the participation of the Ministry for the Coordination of Internal and External Security, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Police, the Ministry of Defence and the Executive Secretariat of the Ecuador Plan. Since 2000 a department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been running a legal protection system under which 52,000 applications for refugee status had been processed. Social integration projects on behalf of Colombian refugees were also being implemented in accordance with the principles laid down in the Mexico Declaration and Plan of Action of October 2004.

Ecuador was continuing to bring its legislation into line with the provisions of the Convention. Article 148 of the Citizen Promotion, Investment and Participation Act of August 2000 abolished the certificate that foreigners with resident status were required to produce in order to work freely in areas of activity permitted by law. Article 560 of the Labour Code, which referred to the authorization required by foreign citizens for dependent employment, was applicable only to persons without resident status. In June 2007 the Constitutional Court had declared unconstitutional articles 88 and 108 of the Compulsory Military Service Act, which had prevented certain persons from exercising their right to leave Ecuador. The Constitutional Court was currently considering an application by the Executive aimed at abolishing the regulation whereby a migration permit was required to leave the country.

The “Return Plan” was a voluntary process designed to strengthen family bonds and links with the community and country. Priority was given to family reunification, especially for persons whose situation had not been regularized in the country of destination, whose expectations had not been fulfilled or who found it difficult to integrate into the local society. The Plan consisted of two components: cross-cutting policies on behalf of any Ecuadorian wishing to return, and programmes designed to match Ecuadorian migrants’ qualifications with the country’s development needs.

Ecuador had left its doors wide open to immigrants from Peru and Colombia and there was no trace whatsoever of xenophobia or racism in the Government’s policies. Although the immigration control agencies gave priority to human rights, they were confronted with organized human trafficking rings that engaged in the falsification of documents and identity theft. A number of bilateral agreements on regularization of the status of foreigners had been concluded with Colombia since the 1970s and agreements had also been concluded with Bolivia, Chile and Peru. Ecuador had been complying with the provisions of the Convention in that regard through a programme implemented jointly by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the National Migration Directorate and the Consultative Council on Migration Policy.

Ecuador and Peru had signed an Agreement to regularize the employment and migration situation of nationals of Ecuador and Peru in the extended border integration zone in December 2006. The situation of more than 500 Peruvian citizens had been regularized, but at the same time more than 800 asylum applications had been received from Peruvians. A non‑reimbursable grant had been obtained from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to deal with that problem. In an effort to overcome operational constraints, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had reached an agreement on inter-agency cooperation with the Office of the Director-General for Aliens.

Experience with Peru would provide guidelines for regularizing the situation of Colombians in Ecuador, whose number had been estimated at more than 200,000. Plans for regularization had already been announced by the President, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior.

Since 2002 the Technical Unit for the Selection of Migrant Workers, working in cooperation with the Trade Union Institute for Development Cooperation, the IOM and the Ecuadorian Vocational Training Service, had pre-selected more than 4,000 Ecuadorian citizens for employment in Spain under the quota system and with the same employment and social benefits as Spanish workers. The agreement had proved to be an effective means of reducing irregular migration and had eliminated the need for intervention by intermediaries.

Executive Decree No. 1981 of August 2004 had given priority to the fight against human trafficking and provided for the establishment of an inter-agency commission to develop a national strategy of action. The Criminal Code had been amended in June 2005 to include a definition of human trafficking and related offences, which were punishable with prison sentences of up to 35 years.

The National Plan to Combat Trafficking in Persons had entered into force in October 2006. The Plan focused on: prevention through awareness-raising among vulnerable sectors of the population; investigation, punishment and protection through the creation of anti‑trafficking units in the police force, expansion of the Sexual Offences Unit and the Victim and Witness Protection Programme by the Office of the Attorney General and cooperation agreements on the use of shelters for victims; and compensation of victims and restitution of their rights by ensuring that the perpetrators of offences were liable for damages and by reintegrating the victims into employment and society.

International cooperation for implementation of the Plan had been received in the form of funds from the Inter-American Development Bank. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was also funding a pilot project for assistance to victims.

The Criminal Code had been amended to criminalize the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons. Police activities and border controls had been stepped up as a result, and substantial progress had been made in dismantling criminal gangs. The Department of the Merchant Marine and Coastal Affairs had intercepted 11 vessels carrying illegal migrants in 2002, 19 in 2004, 13 in 2005 and 11 in 2006. The Office of the Public Prosecutor had created task forces on tourism, migration and trafficking in persons in 2004 in order to address growing levels of crime linked to the tourism industry and trafficking in migrants (coyoterismo). The task forces were composed of special units of the national police, including the Special Police Department for Children and Young Persons.

In order to raise awareness of migrants’ rights, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had sponsored the publication of a basic guide for foreign workers developed by the Spanish Trade Union Institute for Development Cooperation (ISCOD) and had distributed a guide for living and working in Spain and Italy in cooperation with an Italian NGO, the Association for International Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid (ALISEI). The Ministry had also organized workshops on the provisions of the Convention in various Ecuadorian cities.

Specific measures taken to promote the rights of migrants included the implementation of co-development projects; the regularization of the status of Ecuadorian and Peruvian migrants; the recruitment and transport to Spain of Ecuadorian migrant workers, and the coordination of assisted return programmes. Those activities had been carried out in cooperation with migrant associations, international agencies and central and local government officials, following consultations with provincial governments and diplomatic missions abroad. The objectives, strategic guidelines and cross-cutting issues identified would be reflected in the National Foreign Policy Plan 2006-2020 (PLANEX).

The National Secretariat for Migrants cooperated with civil society, social organizations and other stakeholders that organized information workshops on the human rights of migrants and awareness-raising campaigns on the disadvantages and dangers of irregular migration. The inter-institutional Public Coordinating Commission for Human Rights worked closely with civil society organizations in the preparation of reports for the different human rights treaty bodies. The Commission was also responsible for communicating treaty bodies’ recommendations to public institutions and civil society. It further coordinated follow-up activities and held training courses on the implementation of international human rights instruments.

The National Plan for Human Rights had been approved in 1998 by executive decree; article 27 of the Plan referred to the rights of foreigners and migrants. Following a broad process of consultation involving public institutions and civil society organizations, the operational plan on employment, migrants, foreigners, refugees and stateless or displaced persons had been adopted. The two instruments specified the legal, administrative and economic measures required for ensuring respect for the rights of those categories of persons. The implementation of the National Plan was monitored by a committee composed of public officials and civil society representatives.

Although migration to Ecuador was a new phenomenon, the Government had done its utmost to guarantee migrants’ rights. Further progress depended nevertheless on greater international cooperation. The Committee should step up efforts to promote ratification of the Convention in developed countries in order to ensure its universal application.

The CHAIRPERSON said that, while the Committee agreed that greater adherence to the Convention by receiving States was crucial to safeguarding migrants’ rights worldwide, the unfortunate fact that many of those States were not yet signatories did not diminish Ecuador’s obligations under the Convention.

Mr. ALBA (Country Rapporteur) said that the Committee’s main purpose was to foster constructive engagement with States parties. The implementation of the Convention was a gradual process and the Committee’s recommendations were intended as guidance. In addition, they might assist the State party in attracting greater international cooperation.

The Committee welcomed the efforts made by the State party to address migration-related issues. Those efforts might, as in many other migrant-sending States, be motivated by the desire to protect Ecuadorian nationals abroad. Notwithstanding that legitimate concern, it was equally important to guarantee the rights of foreign migrants in Ecuador. In that connection, he commended the adoption of the National Plan to Combat Kidnapping, Smuggling of Migrants, Sexual Exploitation and Other Forms of Exploitation, the setting up of a round table on labour migration, the establishment of the Consultative Council on Migration Policy, and the Agreement between Ecuador and Spain concerning the Regulation and Planning of Migration Flows. Many Ecuadorians had benefited from Spain’s regularization campaign, and he encouraged the State party to work towards similar arrangements with other countries.

Useful indicators for evaluating the progress made in the implementation of the Convention included institutional and normative developments, the adoption of relevant plans and programmes and the results achieved. The State party’s report, the written replies and the oral presentation, while comprehensive, lacked specific information on the actual adoption and implementation of relevant draft legislation. It would also be useful to receive statistical data that showed the effectiveness of the measures described, as well as detailed information on policies and programmes implemented at the provincial and local levels.

While action taken by the Executive to ensure compliance with the Convention was important, the role of the legislative and judicial branches of Government in the implementation of international instruments should not be underestimated. Systematic integration of the provisions of international treaties into domestic legislation, for example, was crucial to the enforceability of rights and effective compensation for violations. The absence of complaints of violations could be an indication that the remedy mechanisms in place were inadequate. Therefore, he would welcome additional information on the way in which the rights enunciated in the Convention were reflected in domestic legislation and enforced in practice.

He questioned the desirability of including in the written replies (CMW/C/ECU/Q/1/Add.1) to the Committee’s list of issues the names of public officials who had provided the information used. In future, it would be preferable to refer to the institution as a whole to avoid creating the impression that the information had been provided by a single individual.

The written replies repeatedly called into question information contained in the shadow report. In that connection, he reminded the State party that the Committee drew on information from a range of sources in order to gain insight into the situation on the ground; when assessing the reliability of such information, it exercised its own judgement.

He encouraged the reporting State to seize the opportunity provided by the establishment of the Constituent Assembly to discuss issues pertaining to migration; the Committee’s recommendations could serve as valuable input for such a debate.

As the statistics the State party had provided were rather vague, the Committee would welcome further details on the number of Ecuadorian citizens entering and leaving the country, on the different categories of visas that were issued, and whether such categories as cross-border commuters or investors were taken into account. Cross-referencing the relevant statistics with the countries of destination of Ecuadorian migrants would also be useful.

Some of the information the State party had provided seemed philosophically skewed and contradictory. The Government of Ecuador had mentioned in its written replies that it did not discriminate against migrants having serious, chronic or contagious diseases, explaining that it had no system for checking the state of health of citizens entering Ecuador in the first place. While Governments had the legitimate prerogative to decide who could enter their country, the basic human rights of persons requesting entry still needed to be ensured, and he thus wondered whether the State party was considering implementing a health system for migrants. It was not clear from the reply to question 5 in the list of issues (CMW/C/ECU/Q/1) whether undocumented or irregular entry constituted an administrative or criminal offence. Separate treatment appropriate to migrants’ status was another issue of crucial importance under the Convention.

The CHAIRPERSON said that the situation of female migrant workers and children merited further attention. He wished to know whether any special consular or other protection mechanisms were in place to guarantee the safety and well-being of Ecuadorian female migrants engaged in blue collar jobs in receiving countries, such as domestic workers, and if so, whether statistics could be provided in relation to the countries concerned. He also wondered whether the State party envisaged introducing measures to help female migrant workers on their return to Ecuador, given the social vacuum created by their absence from the family unit.

He would welcome information on what measures the Government of Ecuador was taking to ensure that migrant workers’ remittances were used productively for the benefit of those who had earned them, and what action it was taking to counter the widespread perception, referred to in paragraph 101 of the written replies (CMW/C/ECU/Q/1/Add.1), that child prostitution was normal.

Ecuador’s economic performance made it an attractive destination; in that connection, he asked whether the State party operated a system for distinguishing migrant workers from asylum‑seekers and illegal immigrants, and whether it treated all three of those categories of persons in accordance with its international treaty obligations.

He wished to learn more about the level of implementation of the Agreement signed in December 2006 between the State party and the Government of Peru to regularize the situation of their nationals working in the border region between the two countries, as that could serve as an example to other countries.

Ms. DIEGUEZ ARÉVALO stressed the importance of inter-institutional cooperation in addressing the issue of migrant workers, and in that respect, expressed concern about the fact that, according to the written replies, no action had been taken to establish the planned National Council for Labour Migration. It was crucial for one body to coordinate the many inter‑institutional initiatives already being carried out, particularly in relation to efforts to ensure that the police and security forces were able to tackle such problems as that of gangs of traffickers.

The statistics that the State party had provided on the number of Ecuadorian citizens abroad seemed rather low, and she pointed out that keeping track of remittances, especially with the cooperation of the countries concerned, and issuing consular identity cards were two good ways to help identify, and collect statistics on, migrant workers.

She would welcome further information on the migrant sponsoring system, and why it seemed that so few persons were sponsored under that system.

She wondered what had prevented the Inter-Agency Coalition for Migration and Asylum from submitting comments on the initial report to the Government, since it was important for Governments to consult with NGOs.

Ms. CUBIAS MEDINA said that the Government of Ecuador should strive to ensure greater coherence between the internal and external aspects of its migration policy. The treatment accorded to foreign migrants entering Ecuador should be of the same standard as was expected for Ecuadorian migrants in receiving countries. To that end, Ecuador’s domestic legislation should be fully brought into line with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee was deeply concerned about the issue of the detention of migrants, as it was unclear from the report whether migrants entering Ecuador were deprived of their liberty or issued fines, for example. According to the State party’s written replies, the fact of entering Ecuador without passing through migration controls was not considered a serious offence, but stateless persons or persons lacking identity papers who entered Ecuador were brought before a criminal court. That statement did not enable the Committee to determine whether or not such persons were detained. She wished to hear more about the State party’s alternative solutions to detention, with particular reference to Chinese migrants in Ecuador, a particularly vulnerable group. She also wished to know whether the provisional detention centres in Quito, Manabí and Guayas were used exclusively for migrants or for all categories of detainees, and whether the Government of Ecuador planned to set up other facilities in which migrants would be kept separate from persons convicted of crimes.

She asked whether the requirement for Ecuadorian citizens to obtain exit permits in order to leave the country was actually enforced; if so, it might be unconstitutional as it ran counter to the freedom of movement.

While welcoming the measures that had been taken to deal with the trafficking of migrants, she suggested that shelters should be established specifically for the victims of such trafficking. She pointed out that awareness-raising campaigns on trafficking should tackle not only the supply side of the problem, but the demand side as well.

She requested further information about the mechanisms the Government of Ecuador had set up to address the repatriation of Ecuadorian migrants, and how such repatriation, including the repatriation of the bodies of deceased migrant workers, was funded.

She requested information on whether migrants’ rights were included in the human rights curriculum in schools. She pointed out that the Government’s agenda should clearly address the link between women and migration, and also migration and health. It was regrettable, for example, that no disaggregated data had been provided in the report on how many migrants had benefited from health-care services in Ecuador. Although the provision of such data involved an extra effort on the part of the ministries concerned, the availability of such information could contribute to preventing certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, diabetes and respiratory diseases.

Mr. EL JAMRI commended the fact that the Government had adopted a rights-based approach to its migration policy and that it was also conducted in a regional context.

He wondered whether an impact evaluation had been carried out to assess whether the results achieved by the Government’s migration policy matched the efforts undertaken, at the institutional and the operational level, and what measures were envisaged to remedy any deficiencies that might have been noted.

He would be interested to hear how the process of integrating migration services in Ecuador had been undertaken, and how the Government envisaged the future development of the country’s migration policy. In that regard, he noted that some States had abandoned the policy of integrating migration services in favour of highly coordinated decentralization of services. Noting that Ecuador had established a number of institutions to deal with migration issues, he asked whether there was any risk of duplication of efforts and overlapping roles in that regard.

With regard to the “Return Plan”, he asked whether returns were always voluntary, and whether any statistics were available on the results achieved and on the reasons given by Ecuadorian emigrants for returning to their country of origin. Noting that, on return, they must be reintegrated, either by finding employment or setting up their own businesses, he stressed the importance of making the link with employment policy. He would be interested to hear whether there was a specific policy aimed at assisting returning emigrants to find employment, and he drew attention to the risk of creating tension if more was done for returned emigrants than for those who had never left the country.

With regard to the social situation, he noted that the disintegration of families, a result of male emigration, which had been exacerbated by female emigration, had direct consequences on children, who became increasingly vulnerable. He wished to know the scale of the phenomenon and what was being done to remedy the situation. He wondered whether the return of Ecuadorian emigrants was considered a possible solution to the problem.

Information should be provided on the situation regarding remittances, in the light of the problems that existed in other countries, such as the fact that remittances did not always contribute to a country’s development, for a variety of reasons, and the existence of regional disparities, whereby the regions that exported the most emigrants were not those that benefited the most from remittances. Finally, he asked the delegation to comment on the future of migration in Ecuador.

Mr. EL-BORAI commended the quality of the report, particularly the statistics. Noting that, according to the written replies, the Convention had a higher status than domestic law, but was inferior to the Constitution, he drew attention to a number of passages contained in the written replies that appeared to be in contradiction with the provisions of the Convention. For example, contraventions of migration regulations were apparently adjudicated by police commissioners, but it was not clear whether the immigrant had access to a judge in such cases. Failure to allow access to a judge would be in contradiction with the Convention. Noting that persons against whom a deportation order could not be executed because they were stateless or lacked identity papers were brought before the appropriate criminal court in order to replace pretrial detention with an alternative measure, he asked what the alternative measures were. He also noted that the requirement for a certificate of criminal record, imposed by a bilateral agreement between Ecuador and Colombia, ran counter to the provisions of the Convention. He pointed out that any decision to issue an expulsion or deportation order should be subject to review by a judge.

Mr. SEVIM requested additional information on family reunification, particularly whether there were any specific preconditions, such as language or income requirements or age limits, whether residence and work permits were issued immediately after reunification or whether there was a waiting period. He also asked whether new arrivals in Ecuador could set up businesses.

He requested clarification of the reply to question 25 of the list of issues on the right of migrants to form associations and be part of their executive bodies. The reply given was confusing in that, according to the Ministry of Labour, foreigners had the same rights as Ecuadorians with regard to membership of the executive bodies of trade unions, but the President of the Ecuadorian Confederation of Free Union Organizations pointed out that executives must be Ecuadorian by birth.

He requested information on whether the social security regime for migrants covered the export of social security benefits if they returned to their country of origin and, by the same token, whether returning Ecuadorian migrants were entitled to receive social security benefits from the country in which they had worked.

Mr. BRILLANTES commended the quality of the report, particularly the candour with which it had been prepared. Noting that the report contained an admission that Ecuadorian domestic legislation had not yet been brought into line with the Convention, which explained why the current provisions appeared to be obsolete, he asked whether the Government had set a time frame for that task. The Committee would be prepared to provide assistance in that regard.

Mr. ALBA noted that the replies to a number of questions in the list of issues, particularly questions 4, 24 and 26, focused on measures adopted in respect of Ecuadorian emigrants, and overlooked the situation with regard to migrants in Ecuador. He therefore requested additional information to correct that omission. Another matter requiring clarification was whether a residence permit had to be obtained before a work permit could be granted.

The CHAIRPERSON said that the Committee had been impressed by the quality of the report. The delegation would be invited to reply to the Committee’s questions the next day.

The meeting rose at 5.50 p.m.