RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/C/M/55
22 November 2001
(01-5935)
Council for Trade in Services
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 4 OCTOBER 2001
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 4 October 2001.  The agenda for the
meeting is contained in document WTO/AIR/1635.
2. The Chairman proposed that the Council adopt the agenda as circulated.
3. The Council so agreed.
A. NOTIFICATIONS MADE TO THE COUNCIL PURSUANT TO GATS
ARTICLES III:3, V:7, AND VII:4
4. The Chairman drew Members' attention to the notifications made pursuant to Article III:3 of
the GATS from Brazil (S/C/N/143-154); Albania (S/C/N/155-165); Sri Lank a (S/C/N/167-168); and
Switzerland (S/C/N/170-172).
5. The representative of Brazil stated that the notifications made by his delegation were made
for transparency reasons only, and were made although the Fifth Protocol had not been ratified by
Brazil.
6. The Chairman then drew Members’ attention to a notification from Mexico, contained in
document S/C/N/166, pursuant to Article V (Economic Integration), and the notifications from
Switzerland, contained in documents S/C/N/173-178, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article VII
(Recognition).  He informed Members that some doc ument references in the Airgram for notifications
from Switzerland were erroneous.
7. The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of the notifications and the statement
made and proposed that the Council refer the economic integration agreement between EFTA and
Mexico to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA).
8. It was so agreed.
B. ARTICLE II (MFN) EXEMPTIONS
9. The Chairman recalled that under this agenda item both matters of substance and procedure
had been raised by Members.  He suggested first to address the procedural issues that had arisen under
the discussion of Article II exemptions, and subs equently to address any substantive issues that
delegations wished to discuss.  On procedural issues, he recalled that the Council had discussed the
question of procedures for the termination, reduction, and rectification of MFN exemptions at
previous meetings.  The issue had initially been raised in a communication from Hong Kong, China;S/C/M/55
Page 2
Japan and Korea (S/C/W/173) and had been further elaborated by a paper from Chile (JOB(01)/34).
Upon request by the Council, the Secretariat had produced a note examining legal aspects of
procedures for the termination, reduction, and rectification of MFN exemptions (JOB(01)/106).  The
Secretariat had concluded that Members had to make a policy decision as to whether they wanted to
fill the existing procedural vacuum.  If Members did agree to the development of procedures, therewould be no impediment to applying the same certification procedure for the three cases of
termination, reduction, and rectification.
10. The representative of Turkey stated that her delegation considered that procedures for
rectification or changes of a purely technical character, as well as for reductions of the scope and level
of MFN exemptions, should be developed drawing upon the procedures contained in document
S/L/84.  The existing provisions in the Annex itself provided the necessary procedures for the
termination of MFN exemptions.
11. The representative of Chile, supported by the representatives of New Zealand,  Australia ,
Korea, and Indonesia  endorsed the analysis of the Secretariat and requested that the Secretariat
prepare draft procedures on for the termination, reduction, and rectification of MFN exemptions.
12. The representative of Japan supported the proposal by Chile, and stated that the focus should
first lie on procedures for termination and rectification of MFN exemptions.
13. The representative of Hong Kong, China supported the proposal by Chile, and was looking
forward to examining a concrete draft that should look similar to the procedures contained in
document S/L/84.
14. The representative of Mexico reiterated his delegation's interest in the question of termination
of MFN exemptions.  Any procedures established woul d be a useful tool to facilitate the elimination
of any unnecessary MFN exemptions.
15. The representative of Morocco supported the proposal by Chile and recalled that during the
review of MFN exemptions Morocco had announced that it considered eliminating MFN exemptions
on road transport.  In order to make good on this announcement, the appropriate procedures needed to
be put in place by Members.
16. The representative of Switzerland stated that the matter of rectification should be dealt with
through procedures similar to those contained in document S/L/84.  As for the other issues, in
particular concerning the question of termination, he considered that the existing vacuum should be
dealt with in the context of the services negotiations.
17. The representative of Hong Kong, China stated  that the termination of MFN exemptions was
envisaged in the Annex on Article II Exemptions as a result of the review which examined whether
the conditions which created the need for the exemptions still prevailed. Furthermore, paragraph 6 ofthe Annex stated that "in principle, such exemp tions should not exceed a period of 10 years." He
concluded that the Annex foresaw termination of MFN exemptions outside the negotiation context.
18. The representative of Switzerland stated that th e Annex on Article II Exemptions - through its
reference to 10 years in principle - allowed for the possibility of MFN exemptions lasting longer than
10 years; also, paragraph 6 of the Annex stated that MFN exemptions were subject to negotiation insubsequent trade-liberalizing rounds.
19. The representative of the European Communities agreed with previous speakers that a
procedural vacuum existed.  Elimination of MF N exemptions would most likely be the result of
negotiations, since to date no delegation had voluntarily eliminated any of their exemptions.  While heS/C/M/55
Page 3
welcomed the proposal for a draft, he stressed that the establishment of procedures should not be
understood to put into question the right of Members to maintain MFN exemptions and was without
prejudice to the time period of the exemptions.  Further, his delegation was still considering legal
questions raised in the Secretariat note concerning the nature of the lists of MFN exemptions.  His
agreement to a draft by the Secretariat should not be understood as an agreement on the nature of theMFN exemption lists.
20. The Chairman proposed that the Secretariat be asked to prepare draft procedures for the
termination, reduction, and rectification of MFN ex emptions for consideration of Members at the next
meeting.
21. The Council so agreed.
22. Moving to the substantive issues raised in the context of the review of MFN exemptions, the
Chairman recalled that a number of issues had been highlighted in the communication from Hong
Kong, China; Japan and Korea (S/C/W/173); and a separate paper from Hong Kong, China
(Job No. 7775).  In addition, a new communication had been received from Mexico (S/C/W/196).
23. The representative of Mexico stated that during the negotiations on the GATS, Members had
been clear about a time-limit which exemptions should not exceed.  Many Members had entered the
word "indefinite" or "indeterminate" in the column referring to the intended period of the exemption,as they wanted to protect themselves from a rigid deadline.  However, the Annex made clear that
exemptions should last, in principle, no longer than  10 years.  Therefore, if a Member had wanted to
maintain an exemption for a period longer than 10 years, it should have clarified this in its list.  Where
no date longer than 10 years was specified, an exemption could not be presumed to last longer than
10 years.  This was Mexico's basic understanding. MFN exemptions were to be eliminated in threeways: following a review that concluded that the conditions which created the need for the exemption
did no longer prevail, through the expiry of the period indicated in the exemption list, or through
negotiation.  He noted that MFN-inconsistent measures taken in the framework of economic
integration agreements were protected by Article V and did not require an MFN exemption.
24. The representative of Norway stated the MFN principle was a cornerstone of the GATS; his
delegation was presently examining its own MFN exemptions and explored ways to strengthen the
MFN principle in the course of the negotiations.
25. The representative of Switzerland believed that, contrary to what Mexico's communication
stated in paragraphs 11 and 14, there was no implicit condition of establishing a termination date in
the Annex. Referring to paragraph 16 of Mexico' communication, an exemption without a clear
termination date could continue until it was negotiated away.  Unlike paragraph 18 of the Mexican
paper suggested, the Annex did not require any extraordinary conditions for a Member to maintainMFN exemptions beyond the period of 10 years.  On paragraph 20 and 21 of the Mexican paper,
Switzerland disagreed that an undetermined exemption period deviated from the letter and spirit of the
Annex.
26. The representative of New Zealand supported the general thrust of the Mexican paper. As set
out in paragraph 13 of the paper, all MFN exemp tions were to be based on certain conditions. The
points made in paragraph 18 were also pertinent.  Any exemptions longer than the foreseen 10 year
period must owe this length to extraordinary condi tions.  While there were obvious linkages between
the future elimination of MFN exemptions and the services negotiations, this was not an exclusive
linkage; paragraph 7 of the Annex was not limited to termination of MFN exemptions as the result of
negotiations. During the review of MFN exemptions, numerous Members had expressed that theywere actively exploring ways of reducing or eliminating their MFN exemptions unilaterally.S/C/M/55
Page 4
27. The representative of the United Sates requested factual clarification from Mexico on two
questions.  First, he sought clarification as to whether Mexico believed that the six different
provisions of the GATS highlighted in paragraph 4 were temporary in nature.  Secondly, in paragraph
17, Mexico stated that "the absence of the expiry date provided for in the Annex would signify the
continued existence of measures inconsistent with one of the main GATS principle on a permanentbasis." He requested whether the word "inconsistent" was used in a legal sense.  For the United States
MFN exemptions had the same legal status as the provisions of the GATS: the Annex on Article II
Exemptions provided that "the agreed lists of exemptions under paragraph 2 of Article II appeared as
part of this annex in the treaty copy of the WTO Agreement";  at the same time, Article XXIX of the
GATS provided that the annexes to the GATS were an integral part of the Agreement.
28. The representative of Japan supported Mexico's analysis about the temporary nature of MFN
exemptions.  The paper provided a good basis for further deepening the understanding of the nature of
MFN exemptions.
29. The representative of Korea stated that MFN exemptions were an exception to a general
principle, and should therefore be interpreted narrowly.  As pointed out in earlier discussions as well
as a recent OECD paper, only two per cent of MF N exemptions clearly specified the duration of the
exemptions.  How could one argue that exemptions should in principle not exceed 10 years if 98 percent of measures had a indefinite or indeterminate duration.
30. The representative of Chile concurred with the Mexican view that many of the exemptions
listed related to economic integration or mutual recognition agreements and should not have been
contained in the MFN exemption lists. A useful start could be made by cleaning up the lists of those
unnecessary entries.
31. The representatives of Jordan, the European Communities , and the Czech Republic  stated that
in cases were MFN exemptions were listed without termination date, the most pragmatic way of
addressing such existing exemptions was through negotiations.
32. The representative of Hong Kong, China supported Mexico's assessment of the temporary
nature of MFN exemptions.  The existence of MFN exemptions itself was an outright departure from
the MFN principle.  The temporary nature was evident from the timeframe of 10 years, in principle, in
the Annex; the fact that various avenues that exis ted for the elimination of MFN exemptions;  as well
as the fact that no additional extension of MFN exemptions was envisaged under the GATS, whereas
there was a possibility to modify or withdraw specific commitments in accordance with Article XXI
of the GATS.  It was hence a major deviation from the GATS if Members purported to perpetuate
their MFN exemptions permanently.  The absence of  a date for termination of an exemption was a
deviation from the spirit of the GATS.  Likewise, he concurred with Mexico's view that paragraph 6of the Annex required Members to specify explicit ly any exemption intended for a period exceeding
10 years.  The term "in principle" could be seen to qualify the expiry date but did not obviate the need
for an expiry date.  MFN exemptions without a date of termination should be eliminated as soon as
possible, preferably before the end of the 10 year time-period.
33. The representative of Canada stated that Me mbers who believed that MFN exemptions should
terminate after 10 years unless otherwise specified had, once the ten years had passed, recourse to
other means.  For those who had a longer view of wh at constituted the temporary nature, he stated that
in any case the exemptions could be negotiated away or be unilaterally removed.  The current
negotiations offered an avenue to tackle this issue in a pragmatic way.
34. The representative of Mexico stated that the principle of MFN was of general nature and
applied horizontally, whereas the provisions on market access and national treatment related to the
negotiation of specific commitments.  As a deviation from a general obligation, MFN exemptionsS/C/M/55
Page 5
were not exclusively a matter of negotiation, but shou ld be eliminated to the extent possible to give
full weight to the general MFN obligation.  A first step could be the removal of unnecessary MFN
exemptions, as elaborated in the earlier statement.
35. The Chairman proposed that the Council take note of the statements made and revert to the
item at the next meeting.
36. The Council so agreed.
C. REVIEW OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON ACCOUNTING RATES IN
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
37. The Chairman recalled that the Council had discussed at its July meeting a proposal by
Australia on Terms of Reference for a Teleco mmunications Accounting Review (JOB(01)/73),
together with a related communication Questions and Answers (JOB(01)/111).
38. The representative of Australia stated that her delegation considered that all trade in
telecommunication services should be covered by the GATS.  In the modern telecommunications
environment, there were many methods of settling accounts, other than accounting rates.  All
countries could regulate termination charges (i.e. the charges for delivery of incoming international
telecommunications traffic) in a manner consistent with both ITU recommendations and the GATS.
The only requirement was that there should be no discrimination between trading partners, i.e. MFNmust be applied.  This did not imply that a Member must charge the same rate to all trading partners,
but rather that the underlying costing methodology be applied consistently and transparently to all
Members. Developing countries were the most negatively affected by the moratorium, which
prevented Members from invoking WTO dispute settlement procedures against discriminatory pricing
measures imposed by foreign regulators.
39. In reply to delegations who had earlier stated that accounting rate issues were adequately
handled in the ITU, she stated that the ITU's recommendations (ITU-T-D.150) provided for GATS-
consistent arrangements for settlement of international telecommunications accounts. This meant that
nothing should prevent Members aligning their ITU and WTO positions.  Further, the ITU's relevant
recommendations concerned the relations between "operating agencies" (i.e. businesses), and did notreflect the trade policy commitments of governments.  Third, there was no reason for a review of the
moratorium on disputes on accounting rates to be dependent upon processes in the ITU:  accounting
rates were not required by the ITU, and the ITU would not discuss trade-related rules.  It created an
undesirable precedent for the Council for Trade in Services to prolong what amounted to a carve-out
from the GATS framework on the pretext that work of a different character was taking place in a
different forum.
40. Australia considered that the conditions justifying the original moratorium on disputes had
changed over the past four years.  In particular , the accounting rates system was no longer the usual
method of terminating international telecommunications traffic.  It was estimated that as much as half
of international traffic passed outside the accounting rate system (e.g. via the Internet). All
international telecommunications services should be recognized as services trade, and international
settlements arising from such services should be subject to GATS principles of MFN andtransparency.
41. The representative of Venezuela stated that since the end of 2000, Venezuela had allowed
operators to determine the conditions for internatio nal traffic and rates with their counterparts.  The
regulating authority required that agreements were notified within 20 days.  Venezuela could agree to
reconsider the issue whether the moratorium could remain in place.S/C/M/55
Page 6
42. The representative of Cuba stated that the conditions that had existed at time of the original
decision still prevailed.  Her delegation considered the ITU to be the appropriate forum for work on a
cost-based methodology and supported the ongoing work in that forum which should not be
duplicated in the WTO.
43. The representatives of Pakistan and India  stated the circumstances that had existed at time of
the original decision still existed today and supported the statement by Cuba.
44. The Chairman proposed that the Council take note of the statements and revert to it at a future
meeting.
45. The Council so agreed.
D. ELECTRONIC COMMERCE – CONTINUATION OF THE WORK PROGRAMME
46. The Chairman stated that several delegations had commented on the issues identified in the
discussion at the last Council meeting.  As no delegation requested the floor on the issue, the
Chairman proposed to move to the next agenda item.
E. PROPOSALS FOR A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF GATS PROVISIONS
47. The Chairman recalled that the Council had continued its discussion on the proposal by
several delegations for a technical review of GATS provisions, an exercise intended to provide greater
legal consistency and clarity to the provisions of the Agreement. He noted that no delegation hadexpressed outright opposition to the proposal, however, there was some discussion as to whether the
technical review should proceed on the basis of a definite list of issues and within a pre-established
time-frame, or whether issues should be addressed as and when they arose on the basis of
submissions.  It was agreed to have a substantive discussion on an item-by-item basis, addressing
those topics that Members had proposed to date, i.e. Article XX:2; Articles XVI and XVII;paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article XVI, and Article XXVIII(g) and paragraph 5(b) of the Annex on
Financial Services.  Communications on this item had been received earlier by Japan (JOB(01)/107),
as well as a note from the Secretariat (JOB(01)/17).
48. On the first two sub-items, Articles XVI and XVII, as well as Article XX:2, the representative
of Japan stated that the commitments under Articles XVI and XVII were independently articulated in
the GATS.  However, in cases where measures were inconsistent with both Article XVI and XVII,
Members were permitted, in line with Article XX:2 to  inscribe those limitations in the column relating
to Article XVI.  For sake of clarity, and with regard to future negotiations, such limitations should be
scheduled under both Articles XVI and XVII, or, alternatively, they should be scheduled under
Article XVI with a specific mention that the measure also limited national treatment.  The latter could
be achieved by making use of paragraph 18 of the scheduling guidelines (S/L/92).
49. Some of the options presented in paragraph 6 of the Secretariat's note would not bring about
the required clarity. For example, if Members were to  decide that the limitations listed in the second
paragraph of Article XVI only covered non-discrimi natory measures, a built-in contradiction would
arise for measures such as foreign capital participation or limitation on the legal form of investment.
These measures were by nature discriminatory.
50. The representative of the European Communities asked if Japan had reflected on how to
avoid difficulties between the commitments already there and future commitments.  This was an
important issue to address in the context of this discussion.S/C/M/55
Page 7
51. On the fourth sub-item, the relationship between the definitions contained in
Article XXVIII(g) and paragraph 5(b) of the Annex on Financial Services, the representative of
Switzerland stated that a discrepancy in the definition of the term "supplier" existed between two
definitions.  Paragraph 5(b) of the Annex on Financial Services defined a supplier as "any natural orjuridical person of a Member wishing to supply or supplying financial services."  On the other hand,Article XXVIII(g) stated  that a service supplier was "any person that supplies a service."  Switzerland
believed that Members might want to consider harmonising these discrepancies, perhaps in the
direction of the Annex on Financial Services.  First, it was always good to have clear texts, and
second, the discrepancy could raise problems in interpreting what definition applied under what
circumstances.
52. The representative of Mexico requested the Secretariat to provide clarification concerning the
difference in definitions.  The coverage of definitions in the Annex on Financial Services was much
broader than that of the general definitions of the GATS.  Any change of definition would have
serious implications for other sectors concerned.
53. A representative of the Secretariat stated that the fact that the two definitions were not
identical should not be considered, in itself, a problem.  As a matter of principle, the objective of
annexes on specific sectors was to elaborate further on some of the basic provisions of the Agreement,or, as in the present case, even modify some of the definitions or basic provisions with regard to a
specific sector.  The fact that differences existed was a matter of legal design.  Members were free to
make the definitions identical; however this would defeat the purpose of having different definitions
for certain sectors.
54. The representative of Chile stated that Switzerland had raised a very sensitive issue, with
which Chile had to deal in the context of bilate ral negotiations.  As a preliminary comment, the
representative of Chile felt that there was no real problem in having two different definitions within
the same agreement.
55. The representative of Uruguay, supported by the representative of Cuba,  stated that one had to
be careful when talking about a technical review, because any modification required specific
proposals, be it for interpretations according to Article IX of the WTO Agreement, or amendments, as
set out in Article X of the WTO Agreement.  Second ly, he stressed that the objective of the review
was to work on areas where technical problems persisted, but not to change the rights and obligations
of Members.  Thirdly, the objective of today’s discussion was to identify possible subjects on the
basis of proposals by Members which would warrant technical review.  In addition, the Council would
have to decide whether to get into a technical review exercise.  Such a decision had not yet been
taken.
56. The representative of Japan stated that deepening the understanding on the interpretation of
Article V of the GATS could be of use to all Members.  His delegation was still reflecting whether
that issue was best addressed as part of a technical review, in the Committee on Regional Trade
Agreements (CRTA), or in any other place.
57. The representative of Brazil stated that the discussion on the technical review was at a very
early stage, and Members had not yet decided whether to embark on such a process in a more formal
way.  At present, the Council was discussing items, assessing their relevance, asking questions.  His
delegation was currently examining the issue of the relationship between paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Articles XVI.  He underscored that for Brazil, Article V was not, and never would be, an item for a
technical review.
58. The representative of Indonesia supported the interventions made by Uruguay and Brazil.S/C/M/55
Page 8
59. In reply to a question by the representative of Pakistan, as to the forum in which Japan
intended to address issues related to Article V, the representative of Japan stated that his delegation
considered it not appropriate to take up Article V as a technical review issue in the Council for Trade
in Services at this juncture.  However, it was not his understanding that Article V had already been
completely excluded from the scope of a technical review.
60. The Chairman asked the Council to take note of the statements made and suggested to revert
this item at the next meeting.
61. The Council so agreed.
F. COOPERATION BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION
ORGANIZATION (ICAO) AND THE WTO
62. The Chairman stated that a cooperation agreement between the WTO and ICAO had been
proposed in a letter from the Secretary General of ICAO, JOB(01)/64.  The Council had agreed at its
meeting in May 2001, to invite a representative of  ICAO to clarify the objectives of the proposed
cooperation agreement, and to answer the questions that Members had raised.  ICAO had recently
submitted a paper entitled "Cooperation between the International Civil Aviation Organization and the
World Trade Organization," (S/C/W/199). He inv ited the representative of  ICAO to introduce this
communication.
63. The representative of ICAO indicated that th e proposal of a Memorandum of Understanding
between ICAO and WTO was meant to complement th e existing fruitful cooperation between the two
organizations at working level, by clarifying the respective roles of the two organizations.  Air
transport liberalization was an ongoing process and ICAO was the United Nations special agency foraviation with responsibilities in the closely inter-related areas of economy, safety, and security.  At
the same time the liberalization of trade in air tran sport services was clearly within the WTO mandate.
A MOU would clarify potential overlaps and ensure that there would be no duplication of work.  It
would also ensure that safety  and security elements that had an impact on economic aspects would be
fully taken into account.  Both ICAO and WTO had concluded in the past similar Memoranda ofUnderstanding, such as a WTO-ITU Agreement and an ICAO-Interpol Agreement.  From ICAO's
view, the main elements of the future MOU were set out in its recent communication.  ICAO intended
to continue its active role in the pursuit of safeguarded liberalization of international air transport with
particular emphasis on the growing convergence of economic, safety, security, liability, and
environmental issues.  ICAO believed that a more formalized cooperation between the two
organizations would ensure that the process of liberalization would be pursued in an orderly and safe
manner.
64. The representative of Australia stated that her delegation was working within the ICAO
framework to improve awareness of the work of the WTO in the area of services. She welcomed the
idea of reinforcing the existing cooperation between the two organizations.
65. The representative of Pakistan stated that, for systemic considerations, no Memorandum of
Understanding between the WTO and any organization should be concluded until the General Council
resolved the question of permanent observer status.
66. The representative of India reserved his position on this question.
67. The representative of New Zealand requested more information on some of the parameters
proposed by ICAO.  In particular,  point (b) in the ICAO communication on "cognizance by both
organizations of the legal responsibilities of provision of services under the Chicago Convention" andS/C/M/55
Page 9
paragraph 4.1 on the "growing convergence of economic safety, security, liability and environmental
issues" would require further clarification.
68. The representative of Japan stated that the regime established in the Chicago Convention had
been working well; WTO work in this area should take that point into account.
69. The representative of Canada requested further information on ongoing discussion in ICAO
on trade in services.
70. The representative of Brunei Darussalam reserved her delegation's position and indicated its
general agreement with the positions expressed by new Zealand.
71. The representative of ICAO indicated that discussions on trade in services were still in
progress at the ICAO Assembly;  ICAO would report  to WTO Members as soon as these discussions
concluded.
72. The Chairman suggested to revert to this item at a future meeting.
73. The Council so agreed.
G. REPORTS OF SUBSIDIARY BODIES TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN
SERVICES
74. The Chairman stated that the Working Party on Domestic Regulation had adopted its report at
its meeting on 2 October (S/WPDR/3), and the Working Party on GATS Rules had adopted its report
at its meeting on 3 October (S/WPGR/6).  The other two subsidiary bodies, the Committee on
Specific Commitments and the Committee on Financial Services, had not held formal meetings prior
to the present Council meeting.  Accordingly, t hose two bodies had recourse to written adoption
procedures (JOB(01)/144), whereby delegations were invited to communicate to the Secretariat by
2 October 2001 any views or comments that they  might have on the draft reports of the two
Committees.  As the Secretariat did not receive such views or comments requiring alteration of the
reports, these reports are adopted as of that date. The reports were issued as documents S/CSC/6 and
S/FIN/6, respectively.  He suggested that the Council take note of the formal reports from the
subsidiary bodies.
75. The Council so agreed.
H. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERVICES TO THE
GENERAL COUNCIL – DRAFT REPORT (S/C/W/197)
76. The Chairman drew the attention of the Counci l to the draft of the Annual Report to the
General Council on the activities of this Council in 2001 (S/C/W/197).
77. The Council adopted the annual report after correction of a typographical error (S/C/14).
__________