Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 351, November 2008

Case No 2622 (Cabo Verde) - Complaint date: 14-DEC-07 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organization objects to certain provisions of the new Labour Code, as well as the process of drafting and adopting that Code

1. 255. The present complaint is contained in a communication of the Cape Verde Confederation of Free Trade Unions (CCSL) dated 14 December 2007. Previously, the CCSL sent additional information relating to the complaint in communications dated 7 February 2008 and 14 April 2008.
2. 256. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 26 March 2008.
3. 257. Cape Verde has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 258. In its communication dated 14 December 2007, the CCSL states that the Government submitted a draft Cape Verdean Labour Code for public discussion in July 2003. Right from the start, the CCSL made clear its reservations regarding this draft in the light of the negative consequences of its adoption (both for the workers and for labour relations in Cape Verde) in its initial form.
2. 259. In the meantime, the draft Labour Code was submitted to the Council for Social Cooperation for discussion. The Council decided to set up a technical committee responsible for the harmonization and integration of the proposals put forward by the various social partners, as well as for reaching a consensus in order to produce a draft Labour Code that would at least satisfy all the parties concerned.
3. 260. The complainant organization states that, following three years of arduous work and extensive and difficult negotiations, through a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the members of the technical committee, the technical advisers of the trade union and employers’ organizations and the Government submitted what was to be the new Labour Code to their respective organizations for study and discussion within the framework of the Council for Social Cooperation. The CCSL, although broadly in favour of the proposal submitted by the technical committee (which was a considerable improvement on the draft Labour Code initially submitted by the Government) was, and is still opposed to certain provisions it feels are prejudicial to the interests of the workers and labour relations in Cape Verde, as well as being contrary to Conventions Nos 87 and 98.
4. 261. In the first place, the CCSL objects to section 70, indent (3) of the Labour Code, which states that trade unions shall meet the costs of publication of their statutes in the Official Journal. The CCSL believes that this provision violates Convention No. 87. For example, the complainant organization states that the statutes of the Trade Union Association of Registry, Notary and Civil and Criminal Identification Workers (ASTRANIC) were not published in the Official Journal owing to the fact that this organization was asked to pay the equivalent of €1,800 in publishing fees.
5. 262. Furthermore, the complainant organization states that section 70, indent (4) of the Labour Code states that trade union organizations can only undertake activities once their statutes have been published in the Official Journal. The CCSL states that trade union organizations are by nature not-for-profit organizations and requiring them to pay a vastly inflated rate for the publication of their statutes (in order that they might undertake activities) is tantamount to restricting freedom of association.
6. 263. Secondly, the CCSL objects to section 110, indent (1) of the new Labour Code which transfers responsibility for the publication of collective labour agreements in the Official Journal to the organizations of the workers and the employers. The complainant organization states that this is counterproductive and contrary to the principle of the promotion of collective bargaining in Cape Verde. According to the Government, this measure was adopted because on a prior occasion the Ministry of Labour had to pay the equivalent of €7,000 for the publication of the collective labour agreement signed between the trade unions and the enterprises of the private security sector.
7. 264. Thirdly, the CCSL objects to section 353, indent (1) of the new Labour Code, which drastically cuts the holidays of maritime workers from ten days per month of employment to 2.5 days per month of employment. The complainant organization believes that maritime labour is particular in nature and the holiday periods existing for other professions cannot be applied to the maritime sector. In the light of this, the CCSL believes that the previously existing holiday regime should continue to be applied.
8. 265. Fourthly and most seriously of all, the CCSL alleges that the Government, outside of the framework of the technical committee set up to harmonize, integrate and build a consensus on the proposals put forward by the various social partners, decided to introduce the provision contained in section 15 of the preamble to Legislative Decree No. 5/2007, which was neither discussed nor agreed on within the technical committee. The CCSL states that this provision is an attempt by the Government to discount the periods of service completed by workers on fixed-term contracts in Cape Verde from 1994 to the present day in order to avoid the conversion of fixed-term contracts into open-term contracts, this being a clear violation of the pre-existing rights of the workers under these circumstances and of Convention No. 98.
9. 266. Fifthly, the CCSL states that, independently of the Council for Social Cooperation, the Government, in a clear attempt to avoid its responsibilities, decided not to submit the technical committee’s Memorandum of Understanding for discussion within the Council for Social Cooperation, as had been agreed initially, approving the Labour Code without any discussion having taken place within the Council in this regard, with the Labour Code being submitted to the President for promulgation.
10. 267. In its communication of 7 February 2008, the CCSL states that, with regard to section 15 of the preamble of Legislative Decree No. 5/2007, the legal expert Dr. Germano Almeida (who was responsible for the Labour Code) stated in an interview that the Government had amended provisions of the Code a short time beforehand. This fact strengthens and confirms the complaint presented by the complainant organization. As to the reduced holiday periods for maritime workers, the new Code removes the pre-existing right of maritime workers through section 15 of Decree-Law No. 36/93 of 21 June and no longer takes into account the period reserved for weekly rest and national and municipal public holidays of maritime workers, thus violating Convention No. 98.
11. 268. In its communication of 14 April 2008, the CCSL states that it made a submission to the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic of Cape Verde on 14 April 2008, with the aim of having section 15 of Legislative Decree No. 5/2007 of 16 October (approving the Labour Code) declared unconstitutional.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 269. In its communication of 26 March 2008, the Government states that the Constitution of Cape Verde proclaims the country to be a sovereign republic which guarantees the respect of human dignity, while recognizing the inviolability and inalienability of human rights for all, of peace and of justice and the main aim of which is to create an economic, social and cultural democracy which will allow for the construction of a free and just society based on solidarity. Thus the State of Cape Verde recognizes the primacy of the Constitution and is based on democratic legality, necessarily respecting and ensuring the respect of laws, both national and international.
2. 270. International law, be it general or common in nature, is an integral part of Cape Verde’s domestic law and international treaties and agreements are binding both domestically and internationally from the moment they have been approved or ratified by the country and officially published. Thus, the Government states that it is also committed to respecting the abovementioned undertakings; in particular the principle of legality and it is in this context that the complaint presented by the CCSL must be examined.
3. 271. The Government states that it decided, through the Ministry of Labour, Family and Solidarity, within the field of the reform of the public administration, to promote the review of the existing labour legislation in order to guarantee greater social justice. The social partners participated in the drafting of the Labour Code in a general manner and both the organizations of employers and the trade union organizations took an interest and laid out their positions regarding the text as a whole, as can be seen from the complaint presented by the CCSL.
4. 272. In accordance with the instruments of international law in force in the country, principally ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98, under domestic legislation all workers have the freedom to establish trade union or professional associations for the defence of their interests and collective or individual rights. Thus, freedom of association is fully respected, with trade union pluralism in particular, as well as independence, autonomy and democracy in relation to the employers, State, political parties, church or religious groups, being guaranteed: no one may be forced to join a union, remain a trade unionist, or pay trade union dues to a trade union to which they do not belong. This freedom is recognized as a right, a freedom and a guarantee which, as well as being governed by a specific regime provided for under the Constitution, is also covered by the general regime applied to fundamental rights which are directly applicable and bind all public and private bodies.
5. 273. The regime governing the abovementioned principles was maintained intact within the framework of the labour review and, despite the claim made by the CCSL, the fact that trade unions must meet the costs of publication of their statutes in the Official Journal does not constitute a violation of the ILO Conventions, given that section 73, indent (3) is in accordance with the provisions of Convention No. 87 with regard to relations between trade union organizations and the State, ensuring that there is no possibility of interference with or control of trade union organizations. In general, every effort is made to ensure that the State abstains from intervening in such a manner as to slow down or obstruct the right to freedom of association from the moment of the establishment of any trade union organization. Furthermore, trade union organizations acquire legal personality once they have submitted their statutes to the competent services of the ministry responsible for the field of labour and the fact that activities can be undertaken following the publication of those statutes in the Official Journal is not a restriction on the abovementioned principle. In fact, that principle is strengthened and guaranteed by publication, the very aim of which is to ensure the security of the trade union organization and its members given that, following publication, the statutes, together with their intrinsic benefits, become public knowledge.
6. 274. The Government refutes the claim that domestic legislation, and in particular the Labour Code, violates and is applied in such a manner as to restrict the guarantees provided for under ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98. Furthermore, Article 7 of Convention No. 87 states that the acquisition of legal personality by workers’ and employers’ organizations, federations and confederations shall not be made subject to conditions of such a character as to restrict the application of the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 hereof, and as has already been shown, these provisions are fully and absolutely guaranteed.
7. 275. The Government observes that the complainant organization also alleges that section 110, indent (1), which states that collective labour agreements and affiliation agreements must be published at the expense of those concerned in the Official Journal within 30 days of their submission, when this is considered to be definitive, by order of a member of the Government responsible for the field of labour, violates Conventions Nos 87 and 98. Cape Verdean legislation makes ample provision for collective agreements as agreements between private parties. It is up to the workers and the employers to decide when to initiate the bargaining process and to sign agreements. The Constitution states that not only members of trade union organizations but all workers have the right to be titular to collective agreements; furthermore, trade union organizations do not enjoy a monopoly when it comes to concluding such agreements. In this regard, section 100 of the Labour Code, based on the pronouncements of the ILO, ensures that non-unionized workers shall enjoy this right, given that the autonomy and the right to collective bargaining of the workers is derived from the recognition of their freedom of association, which is recognized in the case of all workers, both positively and negatively.
8. 276. This ample recognition is explained in part by the principle of range concerning the content of the collective agreements recognized by Cape Verdean legislation. That is to say, so long as the parties to an agreement do not intend including in that agreement provisions contrary to the constitutional or legal standards in force, or provisions which imply that workers will receive treatment less favourable than that established under law, those parties enjoy a wide margin of manoeuvre when establishing the content of collective agreements (sections 98 and 99 of the Labour Code). Furthermore, as to the principle of primacy of bargaining and the subsidiarity of non-negotiable sources, the legislator has enshrined the principle of the primacy of bargaining (section 108 of the Labour Code) both with regard to the basic rules which must be respected and the review of working and employment conditions. Thus, the competent government department in the field of labour, along with the relevant government department or that responsible for the economic sector, will do everything possible to promote the voluntary resolution of disputes emerging from the bargaining process as and when these occur.
9. 277. If collective agreements are to have full effect then they must be published in the Official Journal, with the costs involved being met by those concerned. The principle of publicity is enshrined precisely in order to promote collective bargaining and its outcomes. Only with publication will the readership, principally the workers, discover the content of collective agreements and therefore respect and ensure respect of those agreements. In conclusion, the domestic legislation reflects, clearly and unequivocally, recognition of the fact that collective agreements are more effective in achieving peaceful labour relations because they have been concluded by the interested parties themselves and that they play a role in promoting the international pronouncements and opinions of ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98.
10. 278. As to maritime workers, section 353, indent (1) of the Labour Code states that maritime workers have the right to at least 2.5 days of leave per month of employment. In cases where compulsory rest days have not been taken, they may be accumulated together with the annual holidays to which the maritime worker is entitled, with the agreement of both parties. This section is fully in accordance with international maritime labour legislation and takes into account the particular needs of workers in this sector; in particular, it is in accordance with the ILO Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, in that a minimum of 2.5 days of leave per month of employment is established.
11. 279. The Government states that it should be remembered that the Labour Code is extremely wide ranging and generous in this regard, given that it allows for more favourable treatment of the worker through instruments of collective regulation, internal regulations and individual employment contracts while encouraging collective bargaining. On the other hand, contrary to the claim made by the CCSL, existing rights will not be affected given that the existing legislation will continue to be implemented in the future.
12. 280. As to fixed-term contracts, with regard to which greater security was required, section 15 of the preamble to the legislative decree approving the Labour Code states that the regime established in this respect does not apply to situations involving or initiated by an employment contract prior to its entry into force, with regard to deadlines concerning the lapse or expiry of contracts. As to the allegation that this section was introduced without a discussion taking place or a consensus being achieved within the technical committee, the Government states that, under section 65 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cape Verde, in the case of the defence of the rights and interests of the workers, trade unions have the legal right to participate nominally in the drafting of labour legislation. This right to participate is regulated by Act No. 17/B/96 of 30 December, which states that no draft or legal proposal relating to labour legislation may be discussed and voted on by the National Assembly unless the trade union organizations have previously been heard regarding the issue in question. Meanwhile, this participation has taken the form of consultation, with the option to set up a technical committee in this regard, as in the present case.
13. 281. The Government states that, during the process of drafting the Labour Code, a general call was issued to the social partners requesting their participation in the process. Both the associations of employers and the trade union organizations were aware of this and set out their positions regarding the text as a whole, as can be seen from the complaint presented by the CCSL. The participation of the trade union associations in the drafting of the Labour Code can be seen in their acknowledgement of the first draft and the respective reforms that were introduced prior to being definitively approved. Thus, the trade union associations were given the chance to express their views on the text through the submission of criticisms, suggestions, or opinions, or even the submission of alternative proposals, which were taken into account with regard to the definitive draft of the Code which was adopted. There has never been any question of the trade union organizations participating in the work of the legislative bodies, nor of any right to a veto.
14. 282. The Government states that the participation of the trade union organizations in the process of drafting the Labour Code took place in accordance with the Constitution; that is to say, all the social partners concerned were given the chance to take part and, in full knowledge of the facts, to influence the content of the text. Furthermore, in the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Ministry of Labour, Family and Solidarity and the social partners regarding the main lines of the draft Labour Code, the parties agreed that the Government was to be responsible for clarifying the situation regarding fixed-term employment contracts ongoing at the time of entry into force of the new Labour Code while respecting the commitment made when adopting the article in question. Under these circumstances, the provisions of section 15 of the legislative decree approving the Labour Code must be held to be in accordance with the Constitution, international standards and the commitment made.
15. 283. Furthermore, the Government states that contrary to the claims made by the CCSL, this provision is not simply an attempt by the Government to discount the periods of service completed by workers on fixed-term contracts; its aim, rather, is to provide them with a certain amount of security given that previously no regulations existed regarding this issue, with workers spending their entire working careers in a situation of doubt and precariousness. The adoption of these standards is not an arbitrary measure; rather, it reflects the current political, economic, social and cultural reality and was carried out once all the proposed solutions had been considered. Previously existing legislation did not set a limit on the duration or number of successive contracts. Workers found themselves in the abovementioned situation of doubt and precariousness every time their contracts came up for renewal, unless they took legal action, with all of its inherent complications, and managed to prove that their circumstances corresponded to an open-term contract rather than a fixed-term contract.
16. 284. Currently, in the light of the legislation in force and in the absence of any need to have recourse to the courts, after five years’ employment, workers automatically become permanent employees of the enterprise in question, thus obtaining greater security. Thus, argues the Government, the CCSL is incorrect in its assertion regarding the violation of the existing rights of the workers.
17. 285. Finally, the Government states that in all its actions it has constantly upheld the principle of legality and the commitments made, in particular at an international level, and the complaint presented by the CCSL should, therefore, be rejected.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 286. The Committee observes that in the present case the complainant organization objects to various provisions of the new Labour Code and alleges that the Government submitted the Code for promulgation by the President of the Republic without taking into account the Memorandum of Understanding drawn up by a technical committee made up of representatives of the various social actors. More specifically, the complainant organization criticizes section 70, indents (3) and (4) which state that the costs of publication of trade union statutes in the Official Journal must be met by the trade union organization in question (the complainant organization cites a case in which statutes were not published because of the high cost involved: the equivalent of €1,800) and that trade unions can only initiate their activities following publication of their statutes; section 110, indent (1), which transfers responsibility for the publication of collective labour agreements in the Official Journal to the organizations of workers and employers (in the past, the Ministry of Labour had to pay the equivalent of €7,000 for the publication of an agreement reached in the private security sector); section 353, indent (1), which cuts the holidays of maritime workers to 2.5 days per month of employment; section 15 of the preamble of Legislative Decree No. 5/2007 which is an attempt to discount the periods of service completed by workers on fixed-term contracts in Cape Verde from 1994 to the present day when dealing with the issue of the conversion of fixed-term contracts into open-term contracts.
2. 287. As to section 70, indents (3) and (4), which state that the costs of publication of trade union statutes in the Official Journal must be met by the trade union organization in question (the complainant organization cites a case in which statutes were not published because of the high cost involved: the equivalent of €1,800) and that trade unions can only initiate their activities following publication of their statutes, the Committee notes that the Government reports that: (1) indent (3) is in accordance with the provisions of Convention No. 87 with regard to relations between trade union organizations and the State, ensuring, as it does, that there is no possibility of interference with or control of trade union organizations; (2) every effort is made to ensure that the State abstains from intervening in such a manner as to slow down or obstruct the right to freedom of association from the moment of the establishment of any trade union organization; (3) trade union organizations acquire legal personality once they have submitted their statutes to the competent services of the ministry responsible for the field of labour and the fact that activities can be undertaken following the publication of those statutes in the Official Journal is not a restriction on the abovementioned principle. In fact, that principle is strengthened and guaranteed by publication, the very aim of which is to ensure the security of the trade union organization and its members given that, following publication, the statutes become public knowledge.
3. 288. In this regard, the Committee recalls that “although the founders of a trade union should comply with the formalities prescribed by legislation, these formalities should not be of such a nature as to impair the free establishment of organizations” [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 2006, fifth edition, para. 276]. In this regard, and in these circumstances, the Committee considers that obliging trade union organizations to meet the costs of publishing their statutes in the Official Journal when this involves large amounts of money (as in the present case) seriously impedes the free exercise of the right of the workers to establish organizations without previous authorization, thus violating Article 2 of Convention No. 87. Under these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary steps to amend or repeal this provision of the Labour Code.
4. 289. As to section 110, indent (1), which transfers responsibility for the publication of collective labour agreements in the Official Journal to the organizations of the workers and the employers (in the past, the Ministry of Labour had to pay the equivalent of €7,000 for the publication of an agreement reached in the private security sector), the Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (1) ample provision is made under Cape Verdean labour legislation for collective agreements as agreements between private parties. It is up to the workers and the employers to decide when to initiate the bargaining process and to sign agreements; (2) the Constitution states that not only members of trade union organizations but all workers have the right to be titular to collective agreements; section 100 of the Labour Code, based on the pronouncements of the ILO, ensures that non-unionized workers shall enjoy this right, given that the autonomy and the right to collective bargaining of the workers is derived from the recognition of their freedom of association, which is recognized in the case of all workers, both positively and negatively; (3) if collective agreements are to have full effect then they must be published in the Official Journal, with the costs involved being met by those concerned. The principle of publicity is enshrined precisely in order to promote collective bargaining and its outcomes; (4) only with publication will the readership, principally the workers, discover the content of collective agreements and therefore respect and ensure respect of those agreements; and (5) in conclusion, the domestic legislation reflects, clearly and unequivocally, recognition of the fact that collective agreements are more effective in achieving peaceful labour relations because they have been concluded by the interested parties themselves and that they play a role in promoting the international pronouncements and opinions of ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98.
5. 290. In this regard, the Committee believes that obliging the parties to a collective agreement to meet the cost (extremely high in the present case) of publication of that agreement in the Official Journal seriously impedes the application of Article 4 of Convention No. 98 which enshrines the principle of promotion of collective bargaining. Under these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary steps to amend or repeal this provision of the Labour Code. Likewise, the Committee recalls that the Committee of Experts has reiterated on various occasions the need for the Government to promote further collective bargaining in the country [see report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 1A), Convention No. 98, observations for 2007, 2005, 2003 and 2002] and encourages the Government to take increased measures, in consultation with the workers’ and employers’ organizations concerned, in accordance with Convention No. 98, to promote collective bargaining in Cape Verde [see 342nd Report, Case No. 2408, Cape Verde, paras 272 and 273].
6. 291. As to the allegations that section 353, indent (1), reduces the holiday time of maritime workers to 2.5 days per month of employment and that section 15 of the preamble of Legislative Decree No. 5/2007 is an attempt to discount the periods of service completed by workers on fixed-term contracts in Cape Verde from 1994 to the present day when dealing with the issue of the conversion of fixed-term contracts into open-term contracts, the Committee believes that the content of these sections is not specifically linked to issues of freedom of association and will not pursue the examination of these allegations. Recalling that labour matters in general should be subject to discussion and consultation with the social partners in the framework of social dialogue, the Committee requests the Government to take measures in this respect. Moreover, with regard to the reference by the Government to the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, the Committee recalls that according to article 19(8) of the ILO Constitution, “In no case shall the adoption of any Convention or Recommendation by the Conference, or the ratification of any Convention by any Member, be deemed to affect any law, award, custom or agreement which ensures more favourable conditions to the workers concerned than those provided for in the Convention and Recommendation.”
7. 292. The Committee further notes that the complainant organization states that it made a submission to the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic of Cape Verde on 14 April 2008, with the aim of having section 15 of Legislative Decree No. 5/2007 of 16 October (approving the Labour Code) declared unconstitutional and requests the Government and the complainant organization to keep it informed of the outcome of this action.
8. 293. Finally, as to the allegation that the Government submitted the Code for promulgation by the President of the Republic without taking into account the Memorandum of Understanding drawn up by a technical committee made up of representatives of the various social actors, the Committee notes that the Government states that: (1) during the process of drafting the Labour Code, a general call was issued to the social partners requesting their participation in the process. Both the associations of employers and the trade union organizations were aware of this and set out their positions regarding the text as a whole, as can be seen from the complaint presented by the CCSL; (2) the participation of the trade union associations in the process of drafting the Labour Code can be seen in their acknowledgement of the first draft and the respective reforms that were introduced prior to being definitively approved; (3) thus, the trade union associations were given the chance to express their views on the text through the submission of criticisms, suggestions, or opinions, or even the submission of alternative proposals, which were taken into account with regard to the definitive draft of the Code which was adopted. There has never been any question of the trade union organizations participating in the work of the legislative bodies, nor of any right to a veto; (4) the participation of the trade union organizations in the process of drafting the Labour Code took place in accordance with the terms set out by the Constitution, that is to say, all the social partners concerned were given the chance to take part and, in full knowledge of the facts, to influence the content of the text; and (5) in the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Ministry of Labour, Family and Solidarity and the social partners regarding the main lines of the draft Labour Code, the parties agreed that the Government was to be responsible for clarifying the situation regarding fixed-term employment contracts ongoing at the time of entry into force of the new Labour Code while respecting the commitment made when adopting the article in question. Under these circumstances, the provisions of section 15 of the Legislative Decree approving the Labour Code must be held to be in accordance with the Constitution, international standards and the commitment made. Taking this information into account and noting their contradictory nature vis-à-vis the allegations, the Committee recalls in general that on numerous occasions it has emphasized the value of consulting organizations of employers and workers during the preparation and application of legislation which affects their interests [see Digest, op. cit., para. 1072].

The Committee's recommendations

1. 294. In the light of the foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) In the circumstance set out above, the Committee considers that obliging trade union organizations to meet the costs of publishing their statutes in the Official Journal when this involves large amounts of money (as in the present case) seriously impedes the free exercise of the right of the workers to establish organizations without previous authorization, thus violating Article 2 of Convention No. 87, and requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary steps to amend or repeal this provision of the Labour Code.
   • (b) The Committee considers that obliging the parties to a collective agreement to meet the cost (extremely high in the present case) of publication of that agreement in the Official Journal seriously impedes the application of Article 4 of Convention No. 98 which enshrines the principle of promotion of collective bargaining, and requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary steps to amend or repeal this provision of the Labour Code.
   • (c) The Committee notes that the complainant organization states that it made a submission to the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic of Cape Verde on 14 April 2008, with the aim of having section 15 of Legislative Decree No. 5/2007 of 16 October (approving the Labour Code) declared unconstitutional and requests the Government and the complainant organization to keep it informed of the outcome of this action.