the Prefect against the requisition, and the affidavits of the Mayor of Palermo and one of his officials (see paragraph 33 above). It is difficult to accept that the occupation seriously harmed the interests of ELSI in view of the evidence produced by Italy that measures taken by the Mayor of Palermo for the temporary management of the plant permitted the continuation and completion of work in progress in the months following the requisition. The United States has asserted that the continued production was very limited, and cannot be equated with resumption of full production in the plant, and continues to contend that the plant and machinery fell into disuse following the requisition and deteriorated rapidly in value. The Court of Palermo however found itself unable to establish that any damage to the plant had been caused by the occupying workers. 108. The reference in Article V to the provision of "constant protection and security" cannot be construed as the giving of a warranty that property shall never in any circumstances be occupied or disturbed. The dismissal of some 800 workers could not reasonably be expected to pass without some protest. Indeed, the management of ELSI seems to have been very much aware that the closure of the plant and dismissal of the workforce could not be expected to pass without disturbance; as is apparent from the removal of the company's books and "quite a lot of inventory" to Milan (paragraph 17 above). In any event, considering that it is not established that any deterioration in the plant and machinery was due to the presence of the workers, and that the authorities were able not merely to protect the plant but even in some measure to continue production, the protection provided by the authorities could not be regarded as falling below "the full protection and security required by international law"; or indeed as less than the national or third-State standards. The mere fact that the occupation was referred to by the Court of Appeal of Palermo as unlawful does not, in the Chamber's view, necessarily mean that the protection afforded fell short of the national standard to which the FCN Treaty refers. The essential question is whether the local law, either in its terms or its application, has treated United States nationals less well than Italian nationals. This, in the opinion of the Chamber, has not been shown. The Chamber must, therefore, reject the charge of any violation of Article V, paragraphs 1 and 3. 109. The Applicant sees a further breach of Article V, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the FCN Treaty, in the time taken - 16 months - before the Prefect ruled on ELSI's administrative appeal against the Mayor's requi-