Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2001, Publication : 89ème session CIT (2001)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Ethiopie (Ratification: 1963)

A Government representative of Ethiopia enumerated his Government's views on the status of issues pending before this Committee relating to Ethiopia. With regard to the trial and conviction of Dr. Taye Woldesmiate, he was charged and convicted under sections 32(1) and 252(1)(a) of the Penal Code of Ethiopia for conspiracy to commit a criminal act with the view to overthrowing the Ethiopian Government by force. This Committee and the Committee on Freedom of Association were informed by his Government regarding the developments in the case starting from its inception. The decision of the Federal High Court on this case was also forwarded to the Office. Moreover, in its previous submissions, his Government had clearly established that the previous membership of Dr. Taye in the Executive Committee of the Ethiopian Teachers' Association and activities he undertook in that capacity had no bearing on the case.

As to the concerns that had been expressed by the Committee of Experts with respect to the fairness of the judicial procedures, he wished to assure this Committee that Dr. Taye and the other defendants in the case were represented by lawyers of their own choice and all guarantees of due process of law were observed throughout the trial. The latest development with regard to this case was that the appeal lodged by Dr. Taye against his conviction was received by the Federal Supreme Court and his case was currently being reviewed by the highest court of appeal in the country. Moreover, he was serving his prison term in satisfactory and humane conditions that were accorded to any convicted person in the country with full respect for his person and his well-being. On more than one occasion he had been visited by persons from outside the country to whom he expressed his views freely.

With regard to the outstanding issues before the Committee of Experts, such as the question of defining essential services in a stricter sense for the exercise of the right to strike, ensuring trade union diversity at the enterprise level, ending administrative dissolution of trade unions, and the rights of civil service personnel to form trade unions, due attention had been given to incorporate these issues into law reform proposals of the country. Some of these law reforms were already before the Council of Ministers.

As indicated in previous government reports, two consecutive tripartite workshops had been conducted, which thoroughly discussed independent position papers presented by the social partners in order to arrive at agreed recommendations with a view to amending the labour proclamation. However, at the workshop that was held in November 2000, the participants were unable to reach consensus on all draft provisions presented to them. Agreement was reached only on around ten of the draft provisions. Hence, the draft amendments were placed before the Tripartite Labour Advisory Board with the different positions of the participants. Presently, the Board was going through the proposals in detail. After the Board completed its work, the final draft would be submitted to the Government for consideration and approval. In this regard, the speaker thanked the ILO Office in Addis Ababa for providing financial support for the holding of the tripartite workshops.

In connection with the issue of civil service reform, the draft law, including the proposal for the rights of civil servants to form unions, was already prepared and brought to the attention of different stakeholders with a view to incorporating their suggestions and recommendations for further enrichment of the instrument. After passing through this process the draft law would be submitted to the relevant body for consideration and approval. In this regard, his Government had committed itself the previous year to finalize the law reform process in the shortest time possible. However, despite good faith efforts, it could not complete the task due to the need for completing the tripartite discussions of the law reform process and the heavy legislative agenda of Parliament. The speaker wished to assure this Committee that his Government would intensify its efforts to finalize the law reform as quickly as possible. Moreover, his Government would endeavour to ascertain the consistency of the draft laws with the relevant ILO standards. In this connection, his Government would solicit comments on the draft text from the ILO.

In conclusion, the Ethiopian Government was firmly supporting the vital institutions of democracy and market economy. In this endeavour it was attempting to instil the principle of tripartite consultations and social dialogue in order to enable people who were directly affected by decisions taken by the public authorities to have a say in the shaping of these decisions. Bearing this in mind, the long process being undertaken in the country to amend the existing legislation or promulgate a new law was, in the final analysis, about respecting this underlying principle. Hence, the Government member sought the understanding of this Committee that his country be allowed to develop and enrich its laws in accordance with the practice and the pace of its legislative process as it continued with its national endeavour to consolidate peace and democracy following years of dictatorship.

The Worker members indicated that this case was on the list of individual cases because it met at least six of the criteria set out by the Workers' group. These criteria related to the content of the case, the replies given by the Government in earlier debates, the discussion and conclusions of the previous year, the observations by workers/employers, the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association as well as recent developments. They recalled that Convention No. 87 was one of the key ILO Conventions. Moreover, this case had been discussed by this Committee for the ten years that the present regime had been in power. Last year this Committee had heard repeated promises by the Government to bring the first three legislative issues mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts in line with the Convention. The Government had also promised that a comparative study of law and practice in neighbouring countries which would form the basis for the draft civil service law would be completed by the end of last year. In addition to these legal shortcomings, there was an appalling practice in respect of freedom of association. There was, for example, the case of Dr. Taye, mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts. Other cases concerning more recent developments included interference in the internal affairs of trade unions, the murder, arrest, imprisonment without trial of unionists, as well as mistreatment in jail allegedly leading to the death of unionists. The Worker members noted that one of the arguments raised by the Government was that tripartite consultations were needed in order to adopt the legislation in question. In their view, whether or not the social partners agreed on the shortcomings in current legislation was completely irrelevant; what was required was that the legislation be brought in line with the requirements of the Convention. In addition to the continued serious concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts, there was the deep concern expressed by the Committee on Freedom of Association whose appeals had been completely disregarded by the Government. There was no progress in respect of moves to amend legislation concerning the issues raised by the Committee of Experts in respect of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 10 of the Convention. These issues included the right of workers without distinction whatsoever to establish organizations of their own choosing, the right of unions to organize their own administration, the administrative dissolution of trade unions and the right of workers' organizations to organize their programme of action without interference by the public authorities. The Worker members considered that if draft legislation had been sent to Parliament, then it should have also been sent to the ILO. There was no new information provided by the Government in this regard. The Government had, however, promised that it would provide a follow-up report on measures taken by the end of 2000 as required by the Committee of Experts as well as this Committee. The Government had also promised detailed answers to all of the comments raised by the Committee of Experts. With regard to the application in practice, the Worker members pointed out that an ICFTU mission visited Ethiopia in November 2000. According to the trade union leaders it met with, this mission noted that the interference by the Government in internal trade union affairs was ongoing. The mission concluded that, since labour legislation had not been amended, the environment was not conducive for the functioning of an independent and democratic trade union movement. The same mission concluded that the Government would not fulfil its commitments made during the International Labour Conference the previous year. The mission also talked to former leaders of the Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions (CETU) affiliates who had been dismissed and who were facing trials. In early 2001, the secretary-general of the Awassa branch office of CETU, who had been jailed without any charges or trial, died in jail allegedly due to harsh treatment. Two Ethiopian Teachers' Association (ETA) leaders, Mr. Kebede Desta and Mr. Shimelis, faced the same fate in 1999. During the end of 2000, the Government arbitrarily detained and jailed the President of the Akaki Textile Factory Union, Mr. Legesse Bejeba, who was allegedly participating in "Red Terror". Mr. Bejeba was a well-known trade union leader for some 20 years and he was one of the founding fathers of the Ethiopian trade union movement. In early 2001, the authorities interfered in the election of the enterprise union of the National Bank of Ethiopia. Registration was refused and elections had to be held three times. Last year, this Committee had indicated that if no progress had been made in this case, then a special paragraph would be unavoidable. Since no progress had been made at all, the Worker members wished for the main conclusions and recommendations contained in the reports of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association to be reflected in a special paragraph. They also wished for an urgent appeal to the Government to be reflected in such a paragraph in order to put an end to the violations in law and in practice. The special paragraph should also contain an offer of technical assistance from the Office to solve the legislative problems. Finally, the ILO Office in Addis Ababa should keep a close watch on the situation of Dr. Taye, Mr. Bejeba and other trade union leaders.

The Employer members recalled that this case had been the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts for the past 20 years, and that the Conference Committee had discussed the case for some time. They noted that the Government representative of Ethiopia had already indicated in 1994 and again in 1999 that they would prepare new legislation to remedy the situation. With regard to the 15-year prison sentence imposed on the President of the Ethiopian Teachers' Association, the Employer members stated that the authorities should respect the rights of detained or accused persons, including guarantees of due process, the right to be informed of charges, the right to have adequate time for the preparation of a defence and to communicate freely with counsel of their own choosing. The Government should also provide to the Committee the text of the judgement regarding this case. With regard to the call of the Committee of Experts to amend the minimum number of workers needed in an enterprise in order to establish a trade union, the Government should provide draft legislation which it had announced regarding this matter. The Government should also submit draft legislation which it had announced to redress the fact that teachers were restricted from unionizing under Labour Proclamation No. 42-93. Similarly, the Government's announcement of draft legislation which would vest the power to cancel registration of trade unions solely with Ethiopian courts instead of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs was only a vague indication, and the lack of any solid evidence of such legislation could be viewed as a delay tactic.

Concerning the right to strike and the definition of essential services, the Employer members stressed that their view was completely different from the position of the Committee of Experts on this issue. In that respect, they wished to clarify their general position on the right to strike which, according to the observations of the Committee of Experts, was implied in Convention No. 87. Although the Employer members did not deny the right to strike as such, they maintained that the right to strike was not provided for by the Convention, as the text of the instrument did not contain any reference to "strike" or "right to strike". The preparatory work to the Convention excluded such references as well. Report VII, 31st Session of the ILC, 1948, Conclusions, page 87, read as follows: "Several Governments, while giving their approval to the formula, have nevertheless emphasized, justifiably it would appear, that the proposed Convention relates only to the freedom of association and not to the right to strike, a question which will be considered in connection with Item VIII (conciliation and arbitration) on the agenda of the Conference. In these circumstances, it has appeared to the Office to be preferable not to include a provision on this point in the proposed Convention concerning freedom of association." A similar conclusion had been reached in the discussions at the Conference leading up to Convention No. 98. At that time, two proposals to address the right to strike in the Convention were rejected. Convention No. 87 was not intended to be a code of regulations on the right to organize, but rather a concise statement of fundamental principles. It was worth noting in this regard that the term "strike" was only mentioned in Paragraph 4 of the Voluntary Conciliation and Arbitration Recommendation, 1951 (No. 92), which also mentioned "lockouts". This Recommendation, however, did not regulate the conditions of a strike or lockout, but established rules on the legal consequences which could arise from them. Finally, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in article 8, paragraph 1(d), provided for a right to strike in the framework of national law. It was therefore the State's competence to determine the framework within which the right to strike could be exercised.

With regard to the Committee of Experts' call for a stricter definition of essential services, the Employer members believed that the definition of essential services was a device to limit as much as possible the number of workers who did not enjoy the right to strike. The definition of essential services should not be restricted to only those whose interruption would endanger human life, but should include other important services, including teaching. The Employer members pointed out that both issues were important to them and the disagreement of the Employer members with other members of the Committee on this issue, especially with Worker members, should not be covered up in the conclusions through elegant formulations.

As concerned the case of Ethiopia, they pointed out that the Government had provided no new information in this case, and that they therefore supported the Worker members' proposal to present the conclusions of the case in a special paragraph.

The Worker member of Zimbabwe indicated that as far back as 1992 this Committee was advised that the Government of Ethiopia was preparing a draft labour law that would be in conformity with Convention No. 87. The Government was told at that time that "the legislation could not impose a single trade union system. Trade union pluralism must remain". Since then, this Committee had examined the situation facing Ethiopian trade unionists on a number of occasions. This Committee had seen the cancellation of the registration of the CETU when it opposed government policy; the closing of CETU's offices and the freezing of its bank account; the recognition of new leadership by the Government when the elected leadership sought asylum in fear of their lives; continued harassment and intimidation of the Ethiopian Teachers' Association (ETA) leadership; the seizure of ETA offices; the freezing of ETA bank accounts; the arrest, detention, harassment, intimidation and killing of elected union leaders; and the recognition by the Government of new leaders supportive of government policies. The pattern was clear. In 2001, the Committee was still dealing with a situation where the labour laws did not permit freedom of association. One trade union per enterprise was still the rule. The Government had made it clear that it did not intend to change its legislation in this regard. The Government got rid of elected leaders of unions when they contested government policy; then it actively supported groups favouring the Government to reorganize and recognize them. Then it denied others the right to organize if they wished to organize other unions. It was not an original strategy to control unions but it was clear that this was exactly what it was. The Ethiopian Government continued to promise change but failed to deliver. The exclusion of certain groups like teachers from the scope of the legislation allowing them to unionize was not acceptable. This case presented a very serious violation of many aspects of trade union rights guaranteed under Convention No. 87. Clear violations of fundamental rights were continuing; justice was obstructed by the refusal of the Government to order an independent investigation into the killing of Assefa Maru by the police; the rule of law appeared to be set aside when it was convenient to the Government; transfers, dismissals, political interference all continued. Moreover, students were subjected to brutality and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission President had been charged with similar charges that had kept Dr. Taye Woldesmiate in prison. The Government of Ethiopia had had enough time to bring its legislation into line with Convention No. 87. It certainly should stop the persecution of trade unionists that disagreed with their policies. This Committee should adopt a special paragraph this year.

The Worker member of Austria expressed his support for the trade union activists from Ethiopia who were in exile, including those who had sought refuge in Austria. Their efforts had raised awareness about the situation in Ethiopia, including not only the logistical obstacles to freedom of association but also the unacceptable practice of restricting and repressing trade unions. Aside from the serious issue of the persecution of individual trade union leaders, he wished to address two other salient problems in this case. First, it was unacceptable that Proclamation No. 42-93 excluded all public servants from its scope of application, which de facto exempted significant groups of workers, including teachers and medical personnel, from legal protection. He urged the Ethiopian Government to take the necessary steps to include all workers under the scope of the law and thereby to provide for freedom of association. Secondly, it was also unacceptable that numerous industrial sectors had been denied the right to strike. He recalled that the Committee of Experts had noted that practically the entire transportation industry and parts of the public service sector, including postal workers, telecommunications workers and bank workers, had been denied the right to strike. These restrictions affected no less than 60 per cent of all workers. He called on the Government of Ethiopia to take steps to provide freedom of association to all workers in conformity with Convention No. 87 and to end the repression of Ethiopia's civil society.

The Worker member of Swaziland pointed out that since 1994 the Ethiopian Teachers' Association had managed to survive the constant pressures to which it had been subjected to try to silence it and make it impossible for it to represent its members. There was active support by the Government for the establishment of another Ethiopian Teachers' Association loyal to the Government. Moreover, the President of ETA had spent five years in prison and was convicted in 1999 to 15 years in prison on charges that he was subversive. An appeal was lodged after his conviction in 1999. Since then, the Supreme Court adjourned the case 12 times before making a decision on the receivability of the appeal. It was only recently that the Court had accepted that the appeal could be heard. This would take even more time. Amnesty International had declared Dr. Taye Woldesmiate to be a prisoner of conscience after reviewing the transcript of the trial. In addition, no inquiry had been ordered into the shooting by the police of the unarmed Assefa Maru. Other ETA leaders had been forced into exile. Furthermore, court action by the new ETA to strip assets from the original ETA had been obvious and they were now trying to obtain the former ETA office. Moreover, the dismissal of the ETA activists continued. Finally, members of the international organization to which ETA was affiliated were denied visas in 2000. In March of this year, a mission was allowed to enter Ethiopia. Dr. Taye, contrary to the information provided by the Government, was held in very difficult conditions in prison. He was confined in a small room with seven other prisoners. Outside access was to a small area ten metres by four metres which was walled. Dr. Taye was not allowed to work in the prison school or to use the library. He was ordered not to speak to any prisoners other than those in the same room. The mission had also met teachers who had asked that their union dues not be paid to the new ETA and, despite repeated requests to authorities that this should not be done, it continued. Some teachers believed that their transfers were due to such requests being made. Government officials had indicated that ETA should be free to organize provided they did so on the basis of a structure determined by the Government. ETA insisted on the right for its members to determine the union structure they wanted. The speaker insisted that there be an end to this treatment of the Ethiopian Teachers' Association. New labour legislation should be adopted allowing freedom of association and the scope of the legislation should include teachers and other sectors currently excluded. Government interference in trade union affairs should be ended. It was not acceptable that the Government had given its support to unions that had tried to stop other unions from existing. Freedom of association should allow registration of more than one union in a sector enterprise so that union members could freely choose their representatives. No real change had taken place since this Committee had begun to examine the violations of Convention No. 87. The Government was using unions for its own purposes.

The Worker member of Senegal emphasized the worrying number of attacks on trade union freedom and the age of those cases. Indeed, those cases were symptomatic. The case of Ethiopia illustrated all aspects of the violation of trade union freedom: arrests, imprisonment, impossibility for workers to belong to the trade union of their choice, dissolution by the Government of trade union organizations, etc. It was a very sad picture, even if the observations of the Committee of Experts were more circumspect. Indeed, how could a trade union official be accused of conspiring against the State? The use of expressions such as "acts or conduct such as to compromise public safety" or "public disturbances", were mendacious pretexts used by the State. It should be underlined in that respect that the judiciary, whose job was to state the law, was subject to considerable political pressure and was still seeking to establish its independence. The sentencing of Dr. Taye Woldesmiate to 15 years' imprisonment was such an example. The case put forward by the Government was not convincing and contradicted its actions in practice. By way of example, he pointed to the trade union monopoly established under section 114 of the Labour Proclamation No. 42-93 or the cancellation of the registration of the former Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions. As soon as a trade union fulfilled its mandate, its legitimacy and means of action were challenged. The Labour Proclamation replaced the law and, indeed, even the Constitution in many areas. They were thus trapped at the heart of a process, the goal of which was to tame workers and their representative organizations. The situation was deadlocked, whether in relation to teachers' organizations, civil servants or the numerous restrictions on the right to strike. The situation should again be denounced, and that was why the case should be given a special paragraph.

The Worker member of New Zealand cited information received from Education International (EI) which it had gathered on a mission to Ethiopia in March of this year. He recalled that EI representatives had been refused visas in July and again in December 2000, and an EI representative who was to take part in the EI-ICFTU mission in November 2000 was denied a visa as well. He appreciated, however, the fact that EI was able to visit Ethiopia this year and meet with government representatives, the Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions and Ethiopian Teachers' Association, and to visit with Dr. Taye Woldesmiate in prison. Dr. Taye's condition in prison was very severe and he required urgent dental care. He recalled that Dr. Taye had been declared a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International last year. Furthermore, government officials had indicated that they doubted that the ETA had any members, despite the fact that the ETA held annual meetings and workshops. The ETA had asserted that the Government, through the Minister of Education, had instructed regional authorities not to deal with the ETA or allow them access to schools. Teachers had also alleged that they wished to pay dues to the ETA but that these dues were then sent to other government-supported associations. It was a measure of great urgency that the ETA be recognized, and the fact that it was not, was a clear violation of Convention No. 87. He called for the end of the harassment and intimidation of ETA members and activists, the reinstatement and compensation of teachers who had been arbitrarily transferred, the release of Dr. Taye and an independent inquiry into the death of Assefa Maru as called for by the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Worker member of Ethiopia referred to the comment of the Committee of Experts regarding Article 2 of Convention No. 87 concerning trade union monopoly at the enterprise level. Although he did not object to the principle in the Convention regarding the need for union diversity, he stated that his organization, the Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions, was of the view that more than one union in an enterprise would undermine the unity of workers. He recalled that in discussions with the Labour Advisory Board, both the Government and employers had supported union diversity, but workers' representatives had strongly objected. He therefore did not support the observation of the Committee of Experts regarding this point. However, he agreed with the Committee of Experts that the minimum number set out in law of workers needed in an enterprise for the establishment of a trade union should be reduced from 20 to ten. With regard to the observations on Articles 2 and 10 of the Convention, he recalled that Proclamation No. 42-93 did not cover teachers and other civil servants, while the Federal Constitution of 1994 guaranteed workers the right to form trade unions and bargain collectively. Yet so far, there was no clear law providing these rights for teachers and civil servants. He urged the ILO to continue its support on this matter and called for greater participation by teachers in the preparation of draft legislation concerning teachers and civil servants. Concerning the administrative dissolution of trade unions (Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention), he supported the observation of the Committee of Experts which indicated that the power of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs under Proclamation No. 42-93 to cancel trade unions was in violation of the Convention. He also agreed with the Committee of Experts' observation which pointed out that Proclamation No. 42-93 excluded many important sectors from the right to strike through a definition of essential services which was too broad and ambiguous. This broad restriction should be lifted, although there should be some flexibility with regard to essential services whose interruption might endanger the lives of persons. Labour disputes could also be referred to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs for voluntary conciliation. In conclusion, he recalled that at last year's session of the Committee, the Government member of Ethiopia had announced that Proclamation No. 42-93 would be amended within six months. As this still had not been done, he urged the Government to amend the labour law as soon as possible.

The Government member of the United States recalled that the Committee's discussion in 2000 had laid out very specific terms, based on the observations of the Committee of Experts, regarding what the Ethiopian Government should do to bring law and practice into conformity with Convention No. 87. The Committee had urged the Government to take these steps as a matter of urgency and had reminded the Government that the ILO was at its disposal to provide necessary technical assistance. The Committee had noted the Government's statement that it was committed to bringing law and practice into line with the Convention. It was unfortunate to note that this year's Committee of Experts' observation regarding this case did not indicate any progress or apparent change from last year. Indeed, very little news had been added by the intervention of the representative of the Government of Ethiopia today. She urged the Government to move forward without further delay to implement the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies, with the technical assistance of the Office, if necessary, in order to bring law and practice into full conformity with the freely ratified Convention.

The Government representative of Ethiopia indicated that the allegations raised in this Committee were too many to respond to in detail. Any suggestion that this case could be solved by putting Ethiopia in a special paragraph was a mistake. Moreover, nowhere in the report of the Committee of Experts was it indicated that the Government had refused to comply with Convention No. 87. The speaker acknowledged the need to amend the legislation; however, the new Constitution had been adopted only in 1994 and any changes in the civil service law could not be carried out quickly. Moreover, although the country had been freed from a military dictatorship it had still suffered the consequences of an international conflict, civil war and natural disasters. The Ministry of Labour could do so much by submitting the draft civil service law to Parliament, but it was up to Parliament to decide on its priorities and there was a large body of laws to be adopted. He stressed that it was very erroneous to state that this case had been pending for 20 years since the new Government had come into power only ten years ago. Moreover, the Labour Proclamation of 1993 guaranteed the basic rights enshrined in Convention No. 87. However, in order to amend the legislation there was a need to have the consensus of stakeholders. He was appalled to hear the statement of the Worker member of Ethiopia regarding the lack of consultation since during the last two meetings of the Labour Advisory Board, the workers' representatives were absent. He pointed out that his Government's representative was unduly optimistic in specifying a timeframe of six months for the completion of the legislative process during last year's meeting of this Committee. In effect, there was a process to be followed and the ultimate decision lay with Parliament. With regard to the alleged violations of human rights, the Worker members had mentioned new names of persons allegedly detained that the Government delegation had not even heard of. Also, he had not read the report of the ICFTU mission to Ethiopia last year. In any case the Government representative asserted that the individuals allegedly detained could have challenged their detainment in courts of the country. Regarding the allegation that the Supreme Court had adjourned Dr. Taye's appeal 12 times, the Government representative indicated that this was because Dr. Taye had appealed only after the expiry of the 60 days' deadline to appeal. Finally, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal and it was being actively heard. With regard to the alleged violations of freedom of association of ETA and its leaders and members, the Government had just received the report of Education International (EI) after its recent mission to Ethiopia. Accordingly, the Government would send a reply to the Committee on Freedom of Association. He reiterated that his Government would continue to cooperate with the Committee on the Application of Standards. Therefore, the proposal to include Ethiopia in a special paragraph was unwarranted and would not be conducive to the spirit of cooperation that should exist between the Government and the Committee.

The Worker members pointed out that in their statement as well as that of the Employer members, there were historical references made with a view to giving a certain context to the case under discussion. However, they emphasized that this case had been pending for ten years since this Government had taken over from the previous dictatorship. They repeated the names of the trade union leaders who were detained since the Government member indicated he had never heard of them before. They pointed out that goodwill was excellent but needed to be demonstrated which had not been the case for this Government for the past ten years. Although this Government had indicated that it wanted to correct the wrongs of the previous Government, it had not done so.

The Employer members stated that the intervention by the Government member of Ethiopia had, in their view, made no difference in this case. They recalled that under international law, member States were bound by ILO Conventions, not individual governments. They noted that in 1994, the present Ethiopian Government had already promised to make the necessary changes to its laws in order to comply with the Convention. Once again, in the year 2001, the Ethiopian Government was promising all sorts of measures yet cautioning that progress should not be made too quickly. In fact, the process of change in this case was all too slow. The inclusion of this case in a special paragraph of the Committee's report was justified.

The Committee noted the statement made by the Government representative and the discussions which took place thereafter. The Committee shared the serious concern of the Committee of Experts with regard to the trade union situation. The Committee was deeply concerned by the fact that no progress had been made in respect of the serious complaint pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning government interference, in particular, with the functioning of the Ethiopian Teachers' Association and that its President had now been convicted, after three years of preventive detention, on charges of conspiracy against the State and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. It recalled that the Committee of Experts had requested the Government to indicate that the precise provisions permitting teachers' associations to promote the occupational interests of their members and to provide information on the progress made in adopting legislation to ensure the right to organize for employees of the state administration. It also recalled the concern raised by the Committee of Experts about the cancellation of the registration of a trade union confederation, as well as broad restrictions placed on the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. The Committee regretted to note that apparently no progress had been made in this respect since the last time this case was before it. The Committee strongly urged the Government to take all the necessary steps as a matter of urgency to ensure that the right of association was recognized for teachers to defend their occupational interests, that workers' organizations were able to elect their representatives and organize their administration and activities free from interference by the public authorities and that workers' organizations were not subject to administrative dissolution, in accordance with the requirements of the Convention. It urged the Government to respect fully the civil liberties essential for the implementation of the Convention. The Committee expressed the hope that the ILO Office in Addis Ababa could visit the detained trade unionists. While noting the statement of the Government representative concerning legislative changes under way, the Committee was obliged to note with concern that no progress had been made. The Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government to put an end to all violations to the Convention both in law and in practice. The Committee also requested the Government to provide any relevant draft legislation, as well as the court judgement concerning the appeal made by the President of the Ethiopian Teachers' Association. The Committee urged the Government to supply detailed and precise information on all the points raised in its report due this year on the concrete measures taken to ensure full conformity with the Convention, both in law and in practice. The Committee expressed the firm hope that it would be able to note concrete progress in this case next year. The Committee decided that its conclusions would be placed in a special paragraph of its report.