FEMALE_1: >> Hey, Eric.
Have you taken these cases

to the committee against

torture or the Human
Rights Committee?

Have you gotten any statements

that this is a form of torture?

Eric Rosenthal: >>Yes,
in fact, in Turkey,

we documented the practice of

something called unmodified ECT,

which is electroshock
without anesthesia,

and it is a horrible
experience where

you feel the electricity
coursing through your body.

We found 15,000 people a

year being subjected
to unmodified ECT.

As a result of our work, we got

the European Committee for the

Prevention of Torture to go in,

and they declared it a violation

of the torture convention.

We were able to
get that threshold

met just by inviting
them in to visit.

When we were in
Serbia last year,

we found many orphanages

where children were
tied down to beds.

We were invited by the UN
Special Rapporteur on Torture.

As a result of this convention,

the UN Special
Rapporteur on Torture,

a guy by the name
of Manfred Nowak,

whose job worldwide is to
document torture and speak

out against it under something

called the Convention
Against Torture.

Invited us in to a panel on
human rights and disability.

We presented this case of
children tied down to beds,

and we said, "This is torture."

Under the definition of torture,

you have to show intent to

cause pain for some
particular purpose.

Many human rights organizations
have been hesitant to use

the term torture
because if you have

a medical context in
which theoretically,

they're there to
help the patients,

can you say that you're
intentionally causing pain for

some bad reason when

you're saying, you're
going to help them out?

We went through the definition

of torture and we said, "Look,

any person who ties a kid
down to a bed and leaves

them there has to know that

they're going to
cause enormous pain.

Whether it's their intent to do

it for the purpose of
causing pain or not,

it is clear you tie
someone down, it hurts.

You can claim you're doing it
there for medical reasons,

but the fact is it's dangerous

to leave a kid tied
down to a bed.

You can't say that that's

some lawful purpose
or medical necessity.

There's a whole doctrine of

something called
medical necessity.

If the doctors have to do
it to protect your life,

then it's not
considered torture."

But what we argued was that
it was not medical necessity.

It was actually dangerous
and medically harmful.

The UN Special
Rapporteur told us,

"You're trying too hard.

Look at this, it's
obviously torture."

In the report to the UN
General Assembly last year,

the Special
Rapporteur on Torture

called these practices torture,

and there's a very
extensive report on it now.

We've made it over
that threshold.

There has been this
big problem that

medical care couldn't
be considered torture,

and it is now
recognized torture is

the most extreme human
rights violation.

When I made this video
eight years ago,

I referred to it as inhuman
integrating treatment.

We weren't ready to
go over that limit.

It just so happens, inhuman
integrating treatment

is also a human
rights violation.

It's never permitted
under any circumstances.

But torture carries with
it one more level of

international approbation
and it carries with it

the obligation to prosecute,
criminal prosecution.

The question is, are

those well meaning
staff people in

the institution subject
to criminal prosecution?

We argue that if you're
going to submit a person to

the most extreme pain that

any human being can experience,

and you're going to leave
them there for a lifetime,

that there has to be the
most strict prohibition,

and that it's no
longer enough to say,

"It's a human rights violation,

but we can't do
anything about it.

It's only going to come to

an end when there
are consequences."

Now, there has never been
prosecution for this,

but we argue that
it has to reach

the highest level
of prohibition and

that it constitutes torture
and should be prosecuted.

MALE_1: >> To what degree?

I'm not talking about
dissidence here,

but to what degree is
institutionalization

applied politically against,

say, minorities, the poor
working class people?

Eric Rosenthal: >>
That word politically

is one of those
subjective terms.

What's political?

The fact of the matter is,

you go to an institution,

and the people in
that institution are

the people rejected by society
for one reason or another.

There are poor people who
had no other place to go.

There are people
who were born there

because their parents
were in the institution.

There are deaf people.

There are physically
disabled people.

There are mentally
disabled people.

There are little kids who

became disabled a
result of being there.

We've seen gays and
lesbians in institutions.

Who knows exactly what

their personal story was
that got them there.

I am certain that in

any society in which there
are no legal protections,

and there's this
convenient place where you

can dump people
that you're going

to have political
institutionalization

in the same way that
I've talked to many.

I was in an institution
in Armenia,

and there was an
American woman from

Los Angeles, and she says,

"I went to visit my
husband in Armenia,

and he talked to the doctor

and had me
institutionalized," and

this American woman
from Los Angeles is

locked up in institution
with no due process.

Is that political? She has

a psychiatric diagnosis
that's legitimate.

Maybe legitimate, maybe not.

But as long as the doctor could

say she's mentally
ill, she's locked up.

I would consider that political.

But it's certainly a form of

abuse that is open
to a broad range of.

MALE_1: >> Say, for
instance, in Turkey,

is that something
that's applied more

extensively against
the Kurdish minority?

Eric Rosenthal: >> I don't believe
that it's a specific policy in

Turkey to take
political dissidents

and put them in institutions,

although, as I'm saying,

it obviously could
if they wanted to.

MALE_2: >> Thank
you. In the video,

it mentioned that some of

the institutions
had been closed.

My question is, what happens to

the people being held in an
institution once it's closed?

Where do they go?
Where do they end up?

Eric Rosenthal: >> That is a
very interesting question.

I'll tell you about the
situation in Mexico.

After we brought down the
ABC News cameras in 2020,

did an expose, we also

had our Mexico coverage in
the New York Times Magazine.

ABC News brought its camera in,

interviewed the Minister
of Health in Mexico,

and he pounded his hand
on his fist and said,

"I am outraged by these abuses,

we will not let it continue.

This institution will be
closed in six months."

Well, as you may know,

from experience in
the United States,

it took us 10,

20 years to close
our institutions and

create meaningful
community-based alternatives.

We, very often in
the United States,

pushed reform too quickly and

closed institutions when
we hadn't created humane,

dignified, safe places
for people to go.

We have an embarrassing
and tragic history

of patient dumping.

As many of you know,

from the early 1980s
and the late 70s,

we had a very serious
social problem

of many homeless people who had

been dumped from
psychiatric facilities

without the creation
of community care.

When we published our report,

there are some copies of
our Mexico report around,

we actually said in our
report, "Be very careful.

Don't close these
institutions before you

create some safe
alternative for them."

The Mexican Minister of Health,

after the television
lights were turned off,

came back to us and said,
"I've made this promise.

What can you do for me?
I got to do something.

I got to show some change."

I was with a guy named
Dr. Robert Okin.

He and I are both
getting an award from

the American Psychiatric
Association this year,

the Human Rights Award.

He's an amazingly
committed guy who ran

the San Francisco Psychiatric
Hospital and closed down.

He deinstitutionalized
Massachusetts.

He deinstitutionalized
New Hampshire,

created some very good
programs in San Francisco.

He offered to help the
Mexican government.

We as a human rights
organization,

need to be able to preserve

our independence to
monitor human rights,

and so we can't get directly

involved in service delivery.

We stepped back, he
stepped forward,

volunteered and
brought 10 members

of his staff from San Francisco,

moved into the
psychiatric facility,

right outside of
Mexico facility,

a place called Carranza
in the state of Hidalgo.

I remember, he described how
coming in from the airport,

he stopped and got a car
load full of toilet paper,

thinking that at least
they can start with that.

Arrived at the facility
and found that

the pipes were
100-years-old and clogged,

and the cost of fixing
the pipes would be so

great that it was just not

worth fixing up this
institution at all.

That's a really key point.

People with disabilities have

a right to be part of society,

and that is one of the
key developments that

is included in this
new UN convention.

It's not just the negative right

against improper detention.

It's not just the negative right

about society locking you up.

The new UN disability convention

is a radical and
valuable step forward

in that it recognizes

the positive right to
be part of society.

Too many times, mental
health reformers

have spent so much
time and effort,

and money fixing up
institutions so you get

a slightly cleaner way of
being segregated from society.

In Mexico, with intense
government support in six months,

they were able to close

this highly abusive
psychiatric hospital

in the six-month window that

this Minister of
Health had promised

and they were able

to create group homes
in the community.

It was about 600, 800.

It's in the back of
the Mexico report.

There's a afterward that
describes this process.

About maybe 200 or 300 people,

a third of the institution,

they got into
community-based services

with care going into the homes.

They got emergency
services at hospitals.

They were able to create a
community-based service system

for a third of the
patients in six months.

One third of the
patients, sad to say,

with more serious
medical problems,

they just institutionalized
in other facilities.

They closed down this
highly abusive one.

Let me say that we did
not solve the problem for

these one third who are still

languishing away in
other facilities.

Interestingly enough, the
last third were moved.

What we talked about then,

they leveled the institution

and they needed new
homes for these people.

We argued to get them
immediately into the community.

They said, it's too
complicated to do that,

and they created
these pretty little

bungalows out on the
grounds of the facility.

Unfortunately, this
was in a remote field,

not in a city, and they
created these nice,

pretty little houses with
a little kitchenette,

and they planted flowers
in front of them,

and they promised this
would be temporary

until they created
community-based

homes for these people.

They said, "We promise."

We said, "We're going
to be watching.

We're going to be monitoring.
Don't stop there."

Shortly thereafter, there
was a big political change.

This is around 2000

when President Fox was
elected in Mexico,

and the old PRI government
of Mexico was kicked out.

The activists who had

been so strong and
fighting with us,

many of them got jobs
in the government

and no longer wanted

outsiders looking at
what was going on.

We stopped scrutinizing
and a few years later,

we were at a meeting of

the Pan American
Health Organization,

and there up on the screen was

the Hidalgo model of
community mental health,

and these temporary
facilities that were

supposed to be only there until

they could create community
facilities were now

being touted by Mexico as

their model for reform
because look how

humane it was that

these people were
living in these nice,

pretty bungalows with
some flowers out front.

That is not the solution
that we're looking for.

Clearly, life and death abuses
have to be ended first.

You've got to stop people
from living in filth and

freezing to death and do

immediately what you can
do to save their lives.

But ultimately,
this form of nice,

clean segregation is not
what we're looking for,

and that's very much what
the convention is all about,

providing opportunities for
full community integration.

They went halfway,
not all the way.

MALE_1: >> We have
about 10 more minutes.

Other questions?

Eric Rosenthal: >> I'm going to
just take a few minutes to talk

about some of the ways

that this convention is
really revolutionary.

It's revolutionary in part,

just by putting disability on
the agenda. It was ignored.

I myself was a bit of

a skeptic when this
whole thing started.

I thought, "Another convention.

What's the difference
it's going to make?

We've got the covenant on
civil and political rights.

We've got all these
other conventions.

Is it worth it to put another
convention out there?"

In theory, the protections are

already there under
other conventions.

But what I have found,

it has been amazing.

Just the very fact of having

a specialized convention on

the rights of people
with disabilities,

all the UN agencies that
never thought about

disabilities have to go through

their checklists and say,
"What are we going to do?"

I have to say, at
the meeting space

at the United Nations as we

were negotiating
this convention,

there was one
basement level room

where we had to do
all the negotiations

on the convention because it was

the only accessible room
in the whole building.

When we had to have a vote

at the very end on
the convention,

there was no voting facilities,

and they had to move to
an inaccessible room

to vote on the
disability convention.

The UN is not accessible.

I've gone to field offices of

the United Nations and

International Development
organizations.

I remember in Kosovo, when I got

there at the Ministry
of Social Welfare,

the disability office
was a six floor walk up.

The United Nations International

Development Organizations

need to change the
way they do business,

and the convention has put
the issue on the table.

Article 32 also specifically

refers to international
cooperation.

It is embarrassing to say

that much international
foreign assistance money,

including your tax
dollars are being used

in manners that are

discriminatory against
people with disability.

We work with Senator Harkin

and to get some
legislation through

Congress that requires
US foreign assistance

to be done in a way
that's accessible,

but we have not yet accepted
the idea that this is

binding law and that
there is a civil right

or a human right to accessible

international development
money and there are

many programs around the world,

not only that are inaccessible,

but very often
perpetuate the problems.

Time and time again,
foreign assistance agencies

see crumbling
institutions and instead

of acting in a way
that's consistent with

social policy and human rights

of working to provide
community integration,

what do they do?

They rebuild the institution.

Orphanages, well meaning people

who want to help the orphans?

The orphans need families.

They need to get out
of the institutions.

But people send teddy bears.

They fix up the facilities.

They make nice clean institutions
with good medical care,

and those kids languish
without someone to love them,

and many of them become self

abusive, like what you've seen.

Our foreign assistance agencies

need to be made accessible
to people with disability,

and that obligation now
exists under this convention.

Whether the United States
ratifies this or not,

we are now operating in

countries that recognize
these principles,

and we've got to
learn to comply.

Fortunately, President Obama has

said that he's going to
sign the convention.

It was one of his
campaign promises.

It's being fast-tracked.

There is some support
in the Senate.

There is some real chance that
the United States is going

to sign on and hopefully
ratify this convention.

It is an incredible
embarrassment.

We, the United States,

were one of the great innovators
in disability rights.

Many of the core disability
rights principles,

the Americans with
Disabilities Act

is a model that many countries

have used to develop
their own laws.

The advances that people with

disabilities have made
have shattered stereotypes

throughout society
and demonstrated

that people with
disabilities can be

full members of society and have

jobs and go to school
and have an education,

things that we take
for granted are

radical concepts in
much of the world,

and the United States is
really on the cutting edge,

and yet it is a shame
that we didn't support

the drafting process and
we have not yet signed,

and it is absolutely essential

that we build support
for ratification.

I will mention that
there are a few areas of

the convention that are actually

go a few steps

beyond US law and are really
going to shake things up.

Article 12 on the issue
of legal competence.

This gets a little
bit technical,

but the idea that a person with

a mental disability can make

choices about their own lives,

many laws around the world say,

well, you've got a
mental disability.

We're going to
appoint a guardian.

And that guardian is going to

make choices about your lives.

The fact is that that is one of

the most highly
abusive mechanisms

theoretically to
protect a person,

but in fact, leaves a person

stripped without being
able to make choices.

The Convention says, the
idea of legal competence

to make basic choices
about your right

is an inalienable right.

It cannot be taken away.

What you need if you have
a disability is support.

You need support to be able
to make your own decision,

and that decision rests with you

as a fundamental legal right.

That is a very
progressive model.

And I know of no country
around the world that has

actually yet fully integrated

that into their legal systems.

Legal systems around the world

are going to have to change.

In the area of psychiatric
institutionalization,

there are some very
powerful language

that says that a person may

not be institutionalized on
the basis of disability.

Under American law, in
every single state,

a person who is mentally
ill and dangerous to

themselves or others can be

locked up in an institution
against their will.

According to the High
Commissioner and Human Rights,

their interpretation of
the Disability Convention,

that now constitutes a form

of discrimination on the
basis of disability.

It is no longer acceptable.

If you're dangerous to
yourself or others,

but only a person with
a disability who's

dangerous can be institutionalized
and not someone else,

that is now a form of
disability discrimination.

It is going to change
very much the way

people think about
these issues. Yes.

MALE_3: How does
Sharia law affect us?

Eric Rosenthal:
That's one area of

expertise that I do not
have. I couldn't tell you.

I did some work in Turkey,

and Turkey is a secular society,

and yet many of

the more traditional societies

that I've been to ironically,

are ahead of us in a lot
of ways simply because

the family structures are
stronger and there is

more of an acceptance
that we are going to

take care of our
disabled family members.

Ironically, I find in the
more Western countries

the particular problems
that I'm fighting of

segregation from society and

abuse in institutions happens.

As I've gone to the
countries that have

never gone through this process

of creating these institutions,

you have people left in

the community with no
services whatsoever,

but this form of
state-sponsored segregation

is less evident.

I can't tell you about countries

under Sharia law. It's
not my expertise.

As a result of our work,

Hungary has abolished
the use of cages.

That's a very good thing.

We have found as a rule,

that the horrendous graphic
abuse where the state

limits someone's rights are
much easier to bring an end

to than the service system
reform that's necessary.

In Turkey, we stop

15,000 people a year from
getting unmodified ECT.

In Hungary, we stop people
from getting locked in cages.

But the fact of the
matter in Hungary,

people with major disabilities,

mental disabilities,
in particular,

are still put away in

these long-term facilities
and they have not reformed.

Same is true in Turkey.

That reform is going to
require ongoing pressure.

But I must say, Hungary has
now ratified the convention,

and there is a top
Hungarian expert who's on

the new committee created by

the Convention on the Rights

of Persons with Disabilities,

who's got very
progressive politics.

The law of the land in Hungary

says people have a right
to community integration.

The challenge is now on.

We are at unbelievably
exciting period

in the history of people
with disabilities,

where countries are recognizing

the legal right of individuals
with disabilities to be

part of society and to
provide the supports and

services necessary to make

that community
integration possible.

The language could
not be better.

There's fabulous language
in this convention.

It's our challenge as

activists to hold those
government accountable,

to work with the locals,

to bring about
sustainable reform.

We know from our experience in

the United States it ain't easy.

It's going to take
many years to do.

But there are
incredible need right

now for support for

those activists to learn
from our experiences,

to learn from our mistakes.

Don't do the terrible
things that we did.

We wasted a lot of years
building new bad institutions.

We wasted a lot
of money painting

the walls and leaving people
segregated from society.

When I go abroad,

part of my message is,

don't do what we did.

Watch out for our mistakes,

learn from our mistakes.

Go into the most
integrated environments

you can immediately.

There is a terrible
shortage of money.

International funders
have still not recognized

that the rights of people with

disabilities are a top priority.

I can tell you my
own organization,

I've got a small organization.

We've got five staff
in Washington,

an office in Serbia,

an office in Kosovo,

a person in Turkey,
someone in Paraguay,

it's a worldwide problem,

and we've got eight or
nine people fighting it.

With the economic crisis,

we have a major budget deficit.

We need financial support,

and advocacy groups for
people with disabilities

have been traditionally

overlooked by
international funders,

so it is an enormous challenge

to get the support necessary.

We're at this absolutely
critical stage,

and governments need to be held

accountable for
these violations.

FEMALE_2: I have a comment,

and I'm just curious
of your reaction.

I guess I'm an optimist,

and I think if people knew
what the right thing to

do was, they would do it.

When you go to a country

and they're not doing
the right thing,

how does

the international community
build the infrastructure,

build the social services,

build the intellectual or

the educational
capacity so people do

the right thing
locally versus waiting

for an American to come
to tell them what to do.

Eric Rosenthal: Well, I
can tell you for certain,

we only are able to bring
about change where we're

able to identify local allies

who are going to push for it.

We can come and go.

The local allies have to be

there to fight in the long term.

That alliance is critical.

In terms of people doing the
right thing when they can,

the people with disabilities

certainly know what the
right thing to do is.

The family members usually

know what the right
thing to do is,

but the sad fact is
that there are often

serious vested interests
who don't want to

do the right thing because

their careers are built
upon doing the wrong thing.

When you've got an
institutional system

based upon the segregation
of people with disabilities,

I'll tell you, many times
the countries say, well,

we can't close down
this institution

because there are 500
people with jobs there.

They'll all lose their jobs.

Well-meaning efforts to
do the right thing are

often blocked by the
vested interests of

people who don't want to lose

their job or don't want to lose

their power or have

real prejudices to get over
about what's possible.

In so much of the world,

there is still a belief,

and I have to say it's
here in the United States,

too, that if you have
a serious disability,

major disability, you
cannot be part of society.

Getting over that hump is
a conceptual leap that

is a challenge that

the disability community
needs to face.

People with disabilities are
their own best ambassadors.

I remember, again, in Kosovo,

they banned marriage by

people with a
psychiatric diagnosis.

I brought over an American
woman who was married,

who had a psychiatric diagnosis,

and we found a Kosovo
we put it on and said,

look, here are these
very wholesome people

who they've got

a psychiatric diagnosis and
they've got a great family.

Shattering those stereotypes
is very important.

FEMALE_2: Eric, in building

your alliances
with other groups,

can you talk about who
we're working with?

You mentioned the American
Psychiatric Association.

Are you working with
medical associations?

Are you working with families

of disabled people,
community-based?

Undoubtedly, this has to
be done on a broad basis.

Maybe you could talk a
little bit about that.

Eric Rosenthal:
Sure. First of all,

since the United Nations
drafting process,

the very act of bringing

all the world disability
leaders together at the UN had

a very interesting
international impact that

the fragmented
disability movements of

many parts of the world all
came together under one roof.

As they spent the many years
drafting the Convention,

they got to know each other,

and it has been very
fascinating to see

that a number of worldwide

organizations have been formed.

There's a group called Disabled
Persons International.

Is a group called
Inclusion International.

It focuses specifically
on inclusion

of people with
intellectual disabilities.

There's a world network of

users and survivors
of psychiatry.

There's a group called
Rehabilitation International.

There's the World Blind Union.

There are specific
disability groups,

and they've all
together formed what's

called the International
Disability Alliance,

which the United Nations
specifically recognizes.

Part of what the UN convention

says is there's an obligation

under the Convention
to consult with

organizations of people
with disabilities,

run by people with

disabilities on matters
that affect them.

The United Nations is now

consulting with these
disability groups,

and on a national level,

there's an obligation for
each government to confer

with organizations run by

people with disabilities
in their own society.

A whole network has been

created that wasn't
there before,

and that is one of the
incredibly powerful outcomes

of this convention process.

My organization is much smaller,

tends to target a few different
countries for action,

we will ally with whoever

we can in that
particular country.

The mental health professionals,

when we can get
psychiatrists and

psychologists and the mental

health professionals behind us,

they tend to be by far
the best organized,

the best resourced, and

are as individuals,
wonderful allies.

The truth is more often than
not there are opponents.

When I was referring earlier to

the vested interests
that oppose reform,

very often those
organizations oppose reform.

In the case of the American
Psychiatric Association

recognizing our work,

it's an opportunity
to open dialogue

because change is going to
have to come from within.

My opportunity to go to

the American Psychiatric
Association Annual Convention,

I consider a welcome open door

for a group that really needs to

learn that business as

usual has just changed
in a very big way.

When we work in countries,

particularly for kids with
intellectual disabilities,

the family members
are fabulous allies.

We work with
ex-psychiatric patients,

we set up advocacy
organizations.

Again, these groups have
been so overlooked,

foreign assistance money,
civil societies, all the rage,

supporting independent
civil society,

and yet what foreign
assistance agency

thinks to start organizing
ex-psychiatric patients?

There are fabulous organizations

that we've helped
train and support

who are now their own advocates

who have done investigations,

who are holding their
governments accountable,

who were once locked up in

those very same
psychiatric facilities,

and those are very
powerful allies and

are the cutting edge of the
new international movement.

Mainstream human
rights organizations,

in many ways, were dragged

kicking and screaming into this.

In Latin America, we've had

some very good alliances

with mainstream
human rights groups

who have taken a much
more progressive attitude

towards this than in
other parts of the world.

It's a mixed bag of which of

the mainstream
human rights groups

will or will not
take on this issue.

Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch,

the two biggest in
the United States,

were very hesitant to go into

this area and are

only now for the first
time with the convention,

creating projects in this area.

They're definitely not
at the cutting edge,

but I'm very pleased
to hear that they

are now creating some projects.

It's something
where I'm expecting

another seismic shift in

the established
international community

as a result of this convention.

I think right up front,
there was a question.

In terms of work in
the United States,

we have not done

much work in the United
States in part because as

a seven-person organization or

nine-person we're trying to

deal with much of the world
where there's no advocacy,

and the fact that there is

an established advocacy
community here

has meant that we've pretty
much kept I will tell you,

and since this is webcast,

I won't be too specific,

but we are now doing an
investigation into some abuses in

the United States that
would curl your toes.

Some abuses that are worse

than anything I've seen
anywhere in any other country.

We are planning to file a
complaint, as you said,

with the Committee Against
Torture and possibly with

the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights

of abuses in the United States.

The United States
need to be held

accountable to the same
standards as others.

In a country with
tremendous resources

and a fabulous
disability community,

our legal system has failed

in a number of
very serious ways,

and some terrible abuses
are going on here.

Well, I think we're
winding down here.

I'll just thank you very much.

It's a pleasure to meet
you and talk to you

and look forward to being
in touch with you all.

As hopefully future human
rights activists, all of you,

I hope that you
will work with us,

incorporate this into
the work that you do,

and provide us with
any support you

possibly can. Thank
you very much.

MALE_4: As a final note,

I just want to
encourage you to take

one extra minute and fill
out the evaluations.

Also, there is a
sign-up sheet on

the back for the Disabled
Students Cultural Center

and also for the Program in
Human Rights and Health,

if you'd like to receive
email announcements

and this thing.

Kirk Allison, the director of

the Program in Human
Rights and Health

in the School of Public Health,

and it's been a real pleasure to

be able to have Eric here.

Also, it's been a real pleasure
to be working with Luka

and also with Rachel and the
Disabled Cultural Center,

and invite you to visit
their office sometime on

Coffman Union on the
third floor, I think.

FEMALE_3: Second floor.

MALE_4: Second floor.
Thank you very much.

Eric will be here for
conversation. [APPLAUSE]