the corresponding Italian text reads as follows "1beni dei cittadini e delle persone giuridiche ed associazioni di ciascuna Alta Parte Contraente non saranno espropriati entro i territori dellaltra Alta Parte Contrae~lte,senza una debita procedura legale e senza il pronto pagamento di giusto ed effettivo indennizzo. " There was considerable argument before the Chamber over the difference between the English version of the provision, which uses the word "taken", and the Italian, which uses the word "espropriati".Both versions are authentic. Obviously there is some difference between the two versions. The word "taking" is wider and looser than "espropriazione". 114. The United States argued that, however the provision is read, the result is the same in this case; which is not the same as arguing that the two versions mean the same thing; and if one looks at the acts and conduct which the Applicant claims to constitute a violation of Article V, paragraph 2, one finds this claim expressed in the following terms. In the contention of the United States, both the Respondent's act of requisitioning the ELSI plant and its subsequent acts in acquiring the plant, assets, and work in progress, singly and in combination, constitute takings of property without due process of law and just compensation. The requisition in itself is, in the view of the United States, such a taking, because Italy physically seized ELSI's property with the object and effect of ending Raytheon and Machlett's control and management, in order to prevent them from conducting the planned liquidation; and according to the United States, in international law a "taking" is generally recognized as including not merely outright expropriation of property, but also unreasonable interference with its use, enjoyment or disposal. Secondly, the United States claims that the Respondent, after the requisition and before the Prefect ruled on the administrative appeal, proceeded through ELTEL to acquire the ELSI plant and assets for less than fair market value. The matter was summed up by counsel at the hearings as follows : "The requisition and the delay in overturning the requisition not only interfered with Raytheon and Machlett's management and control of ELSI, not only impaired Raytheon and Machlett's legally acquired interests in ELSI, but also resulted in what can only be described as the taking of the property." 115. The specific United States allegations of interference by the Italian Government with the ELSI bankruptcy proceedings may be summarized as follows. The object in view is said to have been to secure ELSI's facilities for IRI, on the terms and at the below-market price which IR1 desired, while responding to the political pressure brought by ELSI's former workers. Having requisitioned the plant and caused ELSI's bank-