Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2015, Publication: 104th ILC session (2015)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (Ratification: 1982)



A Government representative recalled that in 1936 the ILO had played a key role in the drafting of the provisions of the first Labour Act relating to freedom of association and the right to organize and collective bargaining. For almost 80 years those standards had remained unchanged and had been incorporated with virtually no modifications into the Basic Labour Act of 1991, the 1997 reform on the Basic Act on labour and men and women workers (LOTTT) of 2012. However, the Committee of Experts was now indicating that those standards were contrary to freedom of association and was recommending the technical assistance of the Office. The Government had been obliged to appear before the Conference Committee over a 15-year period, more for political reasons related to the arrival in power of a worker-led revolutionary government than in relation to technical or legal issues. He observed that the Bolivarian Revolution had been zealous in its protection of freedom of association, that the country’s Constitution has incorporated the content of Convention No. 87 and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and that in the last 15 years no persons had been detained for the exercise of trade union activities, a fact unprecedented in the last century. The chief accusation against the Government involved an assault of which an ex-president of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) had been a victim in 2010. It had been a criminal act that had been dealt with immediately by the police, but attempts had been made to present it as a government-backed attack. The 2014 ILO high-level mission, which had been conducted four years after the Government had agreed to it, had been provided with abundant written documentation and testimonies on the assault and the other seven specific accusations covered by Case No. 2254 of the Committee on Freedom of Association. Even though none of the elements supplied by the Government had been refuted, the mission had not made any pronouncement on any of the eight cases. Furthermore, even though the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had moved on from a “dialogue of the elite” to a comprehensive and inclusive social dialogue, attempts were being made to return to the past with an exclusive business round table for FEDECAMARAS, an organization which was continuing to conspire against the Government. The attempted coups d’état by FEDECAMARAS in 2002 and 2003 had not resulted in any pronouncement by the ILO. On the contrary, on both occasions, the need for dialogue with that organization had been highlighted, despite the hundreds of deaths resulting from the actions of FEDECAMARAS. He underlined the illegal nature of the compensation that it was being attempted to impose FEDECAMARAS leaders for the recovery of seven estates. Those recoveries were part of a campaign to recover 8,000 estates whose lands had been stolen from farmers. In that context, over 180 farmer leaders had been killed by assassins hired by parties closely connected to the business sector.

The report of the high-level mission pointed to the need for confidence to engage in dialogue, but FEDECAMARAS was conspiring in funding and directing economic warfare against the Government, as demonstrated by the recent identification of criminal acts organized by enterprises in the medical and pharmaceutical sectors. Those acts, backed by FEDECAMARAS, generated mistrust on the part of the Government, the people and their organizations. In the consultations held with the most representative workers’ organizations on the report of the high-level mission, all had refused to participate in a dialogue round table with FEDECAMARAS. To make any rapprochement possible, the ILO needed first to urge FEDECAMARAS to desist from any conspiratorial actions against the Government. In the meantime, dialogue was continuing in the country with the workers’ and employers’ social organizations that wished to find a solution to the problems. Since 2014 there had been a Federal Government Council for the Working Class composed of 1,056 trade union leaders, who, in periodic meetings with the President, made proposals and took decisions concerning various topics of national policy. In addition, the President of FEDEINDUSTRIA, an employers’ organization that grouped together the country’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which represented 90 per cent of the country’s economy, had been appointed to establish, in conjunction with the employers, a council for developing the production plan for the nation. In 2014, a working meeting had been held in the presence of the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (TUCA–CSA), in which over seven organizations had participated. In this meeting, various points mentioned in the observation of the Committee of Experts had been reviewed, some of which had been discarded for being baseless while others had been solved. He hoped that their inclusion in the observation of the Committee of Experts was merely due to problems of timing. Lastly, he declared that his Government was open to dialogue with the workers, regardless of their political views or position, on condition that the debate was constructive and aimed at finding solutions. With respect to FEDECAMARAS, there would be a comprehensive dialogue when there were guarantees that the organization had abandoned any conspiratorial attitude or action against the Government.

The Employer members emphasized that the case was being discussed by the Conference Committee not because of a whim on the part of the Employers’ group, but because it had been given a double footnote by the Committee of Experts, which was an independent body. The case was not new for the Conference Committee and had also given rise to a high-level tripartite mission in 2014. Since the last meeting of the Committee of Experts, the ILO Director-General had sent a letter to the Government in February 2015 expressing his concern at the new events reported by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and FEDECAMARAS, and in March 2015 the Committee on Freedom of Association had re-examined Case No. 2254 and decided that it would be dealt with again at its May 2015 meeting. The case under examination by the Committee addressed a number of matters, including serious violence and intimidation against FEDECAMARAS, the criminalization of trade union activity, restrictions on the registration of trade union organizations, on the election of their leaders and the formulation of their programmes in full freedom. The Committee had hoped to receive substantive replies from the Government with regard to the numerous issues. However, the Government persisted in providing the same information as in the past. The Employer members recalled the importance of the resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1970, which emphasized that respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international Covenants on human rights constituted a prerequisite for the free exercise of freedom of association. In that regard, there was first of all a need for authentic democratic institutions and not just window dressing, which could be questioned in the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In addition, by virtue of those principles, the Government had the obligation to ensure observance of the right to life, to ensure that nobody was arrested or detained for the exercise of freedom of association, and to avoid using false accusations to harass the representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations. Moreover, it was necessary to avoid any delay in the application of justice, which should be delivered by independent authorities. With regard to acts of violence and intimidation against the leaders and members of FEDECAMARAS, new developments had been denounced by the IOE and FEDECAMARAS. New attacks had occurred in a context in which the Government had stepped up its accusations against the private sector, which was allegedly engaging in economic warfare to destabilize the country. He emphasized that the argument of economic warfare against the Government had been dismissed the previous day by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). He cordially invited the Government to comply with the recommendations of the high-level mission of 2014, as the plan of action had not been implemented and the offer of technical assistance had not been accepted. Furthermore, the conclusions of the mission report called for the development of bipartite and tripartite social dialogue, and in particular for a representative tripartite dialogue round table to be established, with an independent chairperson and ILO participation. He recalled that the ILO had said that FEDECAMARAS was highly representative of Venezuelan employers. The invitation to appear before the Committee on the Application of Standards was not a punishment, but a constructive action. The difficulties experienced by the country needed to be overcome in consultation with all the social partners.

The Worker members said that only policies based on social dialogue would allow a balanced solution to the country’s problems identified in the observations of the Committee of Experts and to prevent them from getting worse. Following the ILO’s high-level mission in January 2014, a trade union mission from the ITUC and the TUCA–CSA, subsequently joined by Public Services International (PSI), had taken place in August 2014. The mission had been able to discuss pressing issues facing Venezuelan trade unions, which corresponded to issues given particular attention by the ILO’s supervisory bodies. Regarding the election of trade union representatives in full freedom, a number of electoral procedures and the renewal of trade union bodies had been blocked for some 20 years, without the National Electoral Council (CNE) certifying the results. The formalities imposed by the CNE were exceptionally burdensome, and the condition imposed by the Ministry of Labour that trade unions should be in possession of a document issued by the CNE certifying the outcome of the electoral process in order to be able to conclude collective agreements was a violation of Conventions Nos 87 and 98. In this regard, the Government had indicated to the trade union mission that it would look into the possibility, under the LOTTT, of unblocking the applications for electoral recognition that were currently in abeyance. Another problem related to the requirement that the list of members of trade unions be transmitted to the public authorities, when the country had no reliable means of guaranteeing the confidentiality of the contents of such lists. Although the Government’s willingness to take action was appreciated, there had still been no significant progress in bringing the labour legislation into line with the ILO’s Conventions, and the Government was urged to revise the provisions of the LOTTT, in consultation with the trade unions, in accordance with the recommendations of the ILO’s supervisory bodies.

Regarding trade union rights and civil liberties, the persistence of repeated assassinations of workers, especially in the construction sector, was a source of profound and very serious concern. At the heart of the problem was the existence of fictitious unions intended to serve as intermediaries between workers and employers on work sites, but which in practice operated as criminal organizations. Impunity, the lack of any transparent system for hiring workers, the small number of investigations conducted and the fact that no official reports were published on violence had aggravated the situation described by the Committee of Experts. Nevertheless, it was encouraging that the Government had recognized the existence of criminal groups in the sector, and the Workers’ group reiterated the hope that the Government would take action to follow up the tripartite round table that had been established to find a lasting solution to the prevailing violence and impunity, based on the active involvement of the social partners. Regarding the criminalization of trade union action, representatives of the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE), the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Venezuela (CODESA), the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the Independent Trade Union Alliance (ASI) had, in the course of mutually respectful dialogue that had also been attended by representatives of the ITUC and the TUCA–CSA, drawn the attention of the Ministry of Labour to several instances of violations of the right to freedom of association. The union mission had taken particular note of several instances, as noted by the Committee of Experts, of repression of the exercise of the right to strike, even though it was recognized in Venezuelan law, as well as several cases of trade unionists being placed on parole for lengthy periods before their cases were examined by the courts. The Ministry of Labour and the Office of the Public Prosecutor had undertaken to identify the cases and resolve them. The Worker members would continue to pay great attention to those cases. Finally, they urged the Government to pursue its dialogue with trade unions with a view to developing a stable political and civil climate in which fundamental rights were guaranteed, including freedom of association, collective bargaining and other vital labour issues on the agenda in the country.

The Employer member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that there had been repeated and increasingly serious violations of the Convention by the Government. The Government had so far failed to comply with any of the recommendations made in the report of the ILO high-level mission, especially the establishment of a round table with FEDECAMARAS to examine the complaints made, the call on the Government to desist from using intimidation and excessive language against FEDECAMARAS, and the restoration of dialogue with that organization. The Conference Committee had examined violations of the Convention on 13 previous occasions and the observation by the Committee of Experts this year was a double-footnoted case. The economic scenario was very critical, with rampant inflation, a price index that did not take account of the real costs of production, and an exchange control system that provided no regularity in currency flows so that enterprises could purchase the imported inputs needed for production. There were high levels of shortage and scarcity for certain foodstuffs and other essential products, such as medicines. Faced with this reality, the Government was conducting a media campaign of harassment and stigmatization aimed at holding FEDECAMARAS responsible for the ills afflicting the population. In recent months, the campaign had been accompanied by a series of repressive measures depriving various union and business leaders of their freedom based on accusations of conspiracy, boycotting and hoarding. Recently the Government had adopted a harsher tone in its public messages against FEDECAMARAS, accusing it not only of waging economic warfare against the Government, but also of acting against the people, inciting the latter to commit aggression against the employers’ organization and its representatives, jeopardizing their exercise of freedom of association, affecting their freedom of expression and endangering their physical integrity. Minimum wage increases and legislation were also frequently imposed without consultation. The Government’s failure to comply with the provisions of the present Convention, the Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery Convention, 1928 (No. 26), and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), was extremely serious and constituted an absolute lack of respect for the recommendations of the high-level mission, undermining the existence of FEDECAMARAS, the most representative employers’ organization in the country. With a view to contributing to the search for solutions, FEDECAMARAS had sent the Government a document entitled “Committed with Venezuela”, which contained proposals made by each of the major economic sectors represented in the organization. However, the Government had not replied to that communication so far. FEDECAMARAS hoped for progress for all Venezuelans, and that necessitated the preservation of the role of private enterprises as the creators of jobs, facilitating conditions that were conducive to production, investment and sustainability. She called for the ILO to act as an intermediary to enable dialogue with the Government since dialogue was essential, now more than ever, in order to solve the country’s economic crisis and ensure the well-being and progress of the Venezuelan people.

The Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicated that, since the Bolivarian Revolution in 1999, the Government had confronted and defeated, together with the workers, attempts to establish labour flexibility and to privatize public services, and to disregard the rights to strike, to organize and to collective bargaining. In this way, the neoliberal transformations which had caused so much harm to workers around the world had been avoided. Participatory and proactive democracy had been approved through 19 electoral processes over the past 15 years. Over that period, the workers had succeeded in the adoption of the Basic Labour Act, which was the outcome of a 24-month consultation process during which 19,000 proposals had been received from participating assemblies. As a result of that process, the country enjoyed full employment stability, the unions had been strengthened and protected and the right to strike had been protected, even in those cases where essential services were affected. In 2013 alone, over 500 collective agreements had been concluded in the private sector and 100 in the public sector, benefiting over 3 million workers. Furthermore, since the election of President Maduro, the highest level of participation of trade unions had been achieved in the conduct of the country’s economic and political affairs, through the presidential councils for the working class, rural inhabitants, young persons, artists, women and indigenous persons. The President of FEDEINDUSTRIA had recently been requested to call on the most representative organizations to form a presidential employers’ council.

Over 1,050 union leaders organized by productive sector were participating in the presidential council for the working class. The situation presented was in dramatic contrast with the attitude of FEDECAMARAS which had, from the outset, opposed all the progress made by workers, participated in coups d’état, in sabotage action against the oil industry and in employer stoppages. Moreover, it was currently maintaining a complicit silence when its members took over consumer products to trigger shortages and foster popular mistrust in the Government. The acts reported by FEDECAMARAS did not therefore amount to persecution of its employer members, but were rather a result of its involvement in criminal acts. FEDECAMARAS unashamedly demanded the repeal of the labour rights that had been won through the Basic Labour Act and over 80 laws which allowed the full enjoyment and fair distribution of wealth across all categories of the population. Moreover, these laws were in conformity with the fundamental Conventions. In addition, some employers of FEDECAMARAS had ordered the assassination of over 300 rural leaders who had been participating in the recovery of over 2 million hectares of agricultural land that had been seized from them. The Government had repeatedly invited the employers of FEDECAMARAS to join in round table dialogue and participate in the presidential employers’ council. Nevertheless, FEDECAMARAS declined to take part in dialogue and supported the conspiracy against the Government. The high-level tripartite mission that had visited the country in January 2014 had been able to verify the dialogue and democratic consultation machinery operating in the country. In the face of escalating street violence and sabotage stirred up by outsiders, the Government had renewed its invitation to take part in social dialogue, directed particularly at FEDECAMARAS. As part of that dialogue, FEDECAMARAS had visited the presidential palace, and in February 2015 nine meetings had been held at its headquarters. The Bolivarian Socialist Workers’ Confederation was opposed to setting up tripartite dialogue, as the country had gone beyond that system and set up a more in-depth form of social dialogue that took place within presidential councils. The workers supported inclusive social dialogue, provided that FEDECAMARAS changed its long-standing attitude of sabotaging and opposing the workers’ achievements. In conclusion, he expressed full support for the efforts being made by the President to maintain dialogue, including with FEDECAMARAS.

The Government member of Cuba, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), noted the information provided by the Government on the effect given to the Convention through the national Constitution, law and practice. The observation of the Committee of Experts noted the Government’s arguments, such as the fact that the events reported were unconnected with trade union activities and the exercise of freedom of association; the completion of the legal action, police investigations and follow-up to judicial rulings in the specific cases referred to in the observation; the fact that the right to strike was enshrined in the Constitution, and was not prohibited in national legislation; and the existence of broad and inclusive social dialogue. GRULAC recalled the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Convention and was confident that the Government would continue complying with the provisions of the Convention.

The Employer member of Brazil said that any improvement in a country’s social conditions presupposed the existence of effective tripartite social dialogue, along with respect for private initiative and employers who, together with workers, produced the country’s wealth. In the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela there was false dialogue, and the threats against employers and the detention of employers leaders was contributing to the deterioration in the economic situation of the country. He regretted that responsibility for the chaotic economic situation in the country was being blamed on enterprises and employers by the government-backed press, when in fact it due to very bad management by the country’s autocratic governing regime.

The Government member of Saint Kitts and Nevis recalled that all member States, regardless of size, bore the solemn duty of ensuring compliance with ILO Conventions. The Government’s presence before the Committee demonstrated its commitment to ILO values. He urged all parties to the dispute to hold negotiations in the hope of finding a mutually beneficial solution.

The Worker member of Cuba welcomed the Government’s reply, which had been endorsed by the country’s most representative trade union organization. The Government had the political will to maintain inclusive social dialogue in line with the county’s constitutional and legal framework. This was demonstrated by the fact that, since April 2013, significant technical round tables on social dialogue had been held with the employer sector in which hundreds of enterprise representatives had taken part. In order to avoid the credibility and impartiality of the ILO’s supervisory mechanisms being undermined, recommendations to promote social dialogue in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela should not be directed exclusively towards the Government. While the Government had certainly demonstrated its openness, another party had instead created a hostile environment and had excluded itself from the social dialogue process. Moreover, as the Government had indicated, the observation of the Committee of Experts covered issues that did not fall within the scope of tripartite dialogue in the country, but were a matter for other constitutional bodies. After 15 years of listening to comments that were largely rhetorical, the moment needed to come when the case would be dealt with constructively, evaluating in an objective rather than political manner the will of the Government and the country’s most representative workers’ organization to build a just society.

The Government member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia supported the statement made by GRULAC and welcomed the information provided by the delegation of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela concerning compliance with Convention No. 87. He noted with satisfaction all of the inclusive dialogue initiatives promoted by the Government, as acknowledged by the high-level tripartite mission. He emphasized the relevance of holding technical round tables with the various trade union organizations, chambers, federations, land committees, farming committees and communal councils, among others, in conformity with the constitutional and regulatory framework. He emphasized that those activities demonstrated that Venezuelan workers’ and employers’ organizations had the opportunity to participate constantly in broad social dialogue. The ILO and the Conference Committee were not the place to examine issues raised for political reasons, and such cases should not be accepted in future. Finally, he commended the willingness of the Government to continue complying with the Convention.

The Employer member of Panama agreed with the Employer’ spokesperson that the call to appear before the Committee was not a whim on the part of the Employers, but a response to observations made by one of the ILO’s supervisory bodies. The cornerstone of democratic government was respect for human rights, particularly the fundamental rights promoted by the ILO. He had repeatedly been involved in discussing this case, in which the Government was accused of violating the Convention though acts of harassment, persecution, repression and detention of members of the employer sector. The situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was extremely serious, not only because the Government had disregarded the recommendations of the high-level mission, but also because cases of violations and the persecution of the social partners had intensified. The moment had come for the Committee to do more than express its profound concern at the serious and varied forms of stigmatization and intimidation faced by the social partners and to adopt a recommendation urging the Government to accept ILO technical assistance so that an effective forum for open and sincere tripartite dialogue could be established to smooth the path towards social peace.

The Government member of Myanmar commended the Venezuelan Government for its efforts to address the dispute by holding a broad dialogue that included many employers’ organizations. The holding of this dialogue, as well as the efforts made to ensure respect for freedom of association more generally, should be duly recognized. Indeed, this case should not have been brought before the Committee.

The Worker member of Brazil stated that the repeated examination of cases involving the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela bothered all those members of the Committee who were committed to the advancement of workers’ rights throughout the world. She praised the Government, which had assumed the presidency in 1999 and had escaped from the external influence of the United States and the administration of FEDECAMARAS. She regretted that FEDECAMARAS and the IOE continued to make defamatory actions in the Conference Committee against a Government which enjoyed the support of the majority of Latin American countries in opposition to the sanctions imposed by the United States. It was also to be regretted that the instigators of a coup d’état and the economic sabotage of the country came to the Committee to express concerns regarding the situation of workers and the lack of consultation. She called for any allegations proven to be false no longer to be discussed in the Committee.

The Government member of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic said that the Venezuelan Government had made significant efforts to protect the right to freedom of association of workers and employers, including through the adoption and enforcement of its labour legislation. He hoped that this dispute would be resolved in a timely and peaceful manner.

The Employer member of Honduras noted that free enterprise was necessary in all countries for their development. However, that could only be achieved when employers’ organizations were free from harassment and intimidation. The Government was in flagrant violation of the Convention and it had systematically and consistently hindered the freedom of action of entrepreneurial organizations (FEDECAMARAS, the National Commerce and Services Council (CONSECOMERCIO) and the Venezuelan–American Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VENANCHAM)) and workers, such as by levelling criminal charges against and arresting trade union leaders, launching a media campaign to generate and encourage hatred towards employers and workers, and promoting parallel organizations. Those violations had been reported by the ILO high-level tripartite mission. He called on the Conference Committee to take concrete action to prevent the continued violation of the Convention by the Government such as the cessation of the attacks on employers’ organizations, and particularly on FEDECAMARAS, and the establishment of an immediate time frame for the creation of the tripartite dialogue round table.

The Government member of Namibia said that it was clear from the information submitted by FEDECAMARAS that the latter’s dispute with the Government did not genuinely concern freedom of association, but rather was of a political nature. He commended the Government’s efforts to hold inclusive dialogue, and maintained that this initiative deserved to be encouraged and facilitated by the ILO.

The Worker member of Colombia condemned double standards by defending the report of the Committee of Experts in relation to the right to strike, but criticizing it on other matters. The main concern of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) of Colombia was that freedom of association should be fully respected in all ILO member States, whatever their system of government. The violations of freedom of association described in the observation of the Committee of Experts were unacceptable and were at odds with the revolutionary process proclaimed by the Government. Violations of the principle of the free election of trade union officials had worsened because of interference and arbitrary practices by the CNE, which could choose whether or not to grant registration and allow publication in the “electoral gazette”, as required by the Government as a prerequisite for trade union organizations to exercise their activities, such as in the case of the Telephone Workers’ Union of Caracas and the Union of Employees of the National Assembly. Many trade unions were defenceless, and particularly those workers of Vargas laboratories, the plastics industries in Carabobo, cement enterprises of the State of Lara, SIDETUR and the National Federation of Electrical Workers. Under these conditions, the Committee needed to request the Government to respect the right of all trade union organizations, without any distinction, to pursue their activities freely.

The Government member of Malaysia welcomed the ongoing initiatives and efforts made by the Government to resolve disputes, and called for these initiatives be undertaken in a manner consistent with international human rights principles and ILO standards. There was a broad inclusive dialogue mechanism that allowed employers to participate, and this should be utilized as a platform for engagement with the tripartite partners with a view to bridging gaps and planning for the future. He encouraged the Government to continue its efforts to engage with the parties concerned and the ILO to achieve a common understanding which would ensure harmonious conditions for both workers and employers.

The Employer member of Mexico said it was surprising to have heard a conditional offer of dialogue from the Government, which confirmed what was stated in the report of the Committee of Experts that there was no social dialogue in the country. The ILO had taken multiple measures to help the country apply the Convention. When this fundamental Convention had been ratified, the Government had made comprehensive efforts for its application, but since then it had lost the will to do so. Despite persuasive efforts and the double footnote, no progress had been observed. The situation posed an enormous challenge to all countries within the ILO that were committed to protecting the fundamental principles for harmonious human development, which included the principles of freedom of association. A climate free from fear and violence was essential to achieving universal peace. Despite many efforts, there had been no progress in the application of the Convention. On the contrary, there were cases of unjustified detentions, harassment, and verbal and physical attacks which resulted in loss of life and impunity. The legislation restricted rights and had been drafted without tripartite consultation. The recommendations of the high-level tripartite mission included the creation of a round table for tripartite dialogue that respected and recognized the representativeness of workers’ and employers’ organizations. This round table would not be established if the conditions stipulated by the Government were not accepted. In these circumstances, the conclusions should not simply describe the situation, but should draw attention to the lack of willingness by the Government to make changes.

The Government member of Ecuador supported the statement made by GRULAC. He welcomed the information supplied by the Government, which had demonstrated its willingness to resolve its domestic political problems using peaceful and democratic channels and through dialogue. The provisions of international Conventions did not authorize or legitimize actions that ran counter to national legislation. On the contrary, they required the social partners to observe the rules of democratic relations. Article 8(1) of the Convention established that, in exercising the rights provided for in the Convention, the social partners were requested to respect national legislation. In the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, broad inclusive dialogue existed, which was an improvement compared with the situation that had prevailed previously, and ILO Conventions were not contested in the country. The social partners participated on a permanent basis in broad social dialogue organized by the Government. Within the framework of the Union of South American Nations (USAN), Ecuador had supported the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela regarding dialogue and had participated in several meetings with all social partners. The Government of Ecuador therefore recognized the efforts that the Venezuelan Government was making to develop inclusive, democratic and constructive dialogue with a view to finding an appropriate solution.

An observer representing the World Organization of Workers (WOW) indicated that the Committee should not be used as a political instrument. The Government had intensified its policy of criminalizing work-related protests. Workers were repressed, detained and imprisoned for exercising their right to freedom of association. Leaders and workers affiliated to the WOW had been murdered and many had lost hope for a different management model. The fight against anti-union discrimination had led to criminal charges, persecution, intimidation, dismissals, prison sentences and deterioration in the working conditions of hundreds of workers and union leaders. The recommendations formulated by the high-level tripartite mission on the need for social dialogue, and all the considerations of the various ILO supervisory bodies, had been rejected by the Government despite the efforts of the ITUC, TUCA–CSA and PSI. In the light of the critical labour situation, and the repeated violation of the Convention, she called for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry.

The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic said that the case under consideration was a political one and that it had been presented repeatedly against the Government. Article 8 of the Convention required, in exercising the rights provided for in the Convention, respect for the law of the land. The Government had invited FEDECAMARAS to participate in dialogue, but the organization had refused to do so. ILO Conventions concerning freedom of association, collective bargaining and social dialogue were respected in the country and workers’ and employers’ organizations were participating in broad social dialogue. In this regard, the Government was carrying out a consultation process for the purpose of establishing round tables. Concerning the allegations of acts of violence and threats against FEDECAMARAS and its leaders, he indicated that the freedom to elect trade union representatives was preserved. The CNE was independent from the executive authorities and its constitutional role was to guarantee the electoral rights of workers and of all citizens. The right to strike was enshrined in the Constitution and in national legislation. There were no penalties imposed on workers who had carried out a peaceful strike pursuant to the procedures laid down in the national labour legislation. Since the case was political, it should not be discussed by the Committee.

An observer representing Public Services International (PSI) voiced her concern at the persecution of public sector workers by means of the selective dismissal of trade union leaders, compulsory retirement, the sponsoring of parallel trade unions, the improper intervention of the CNE and the laborious and costly formalities involved in the registration of trade unions. These practices constituted a violation of the independence of trade unions provided for in the Convention. Moreover, they continued to occur despite the appeals made by the ILO supervisory bodies. Since there were two laws applying to public employees that ran counter to the exercise of freedom of association, the country’s labour legislation should be unified and she called for the ratification of the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154). Those Conventions provided an international normative framework for the application and respect of freedom of association and collective bargaining rights of public sector workers. A process of inclusive bipartite dialogue was needed for purposes of negotiation, to strengthen public employment and to ensure that the rights set out in the Convention were respected. A plan was also needed to follow up and implement the promises that the Ministry of Labour had made to the ILO high-level tripartite mission. Social dialogue was important for democracy and for guaranteeing decent working and living conditions. The Government’s commitments should be clear and precise.

The Government member of India noted that the Venezuelan Government was promoting social dialogue by holding technical round tables with employers. Workers and the employers were also participating in broad social dialogue in the country. The Government had held, in February 2015, the first meeting between the representatives of FEDECAMARAS and the presidential commission on economic affairs. The Government had succeeded in determining those responsible for acts of violence towards the leaders of FEDECAMARAS. The Government had suggested, as indicated by the Committee of Experts, that the trade union organizations should submit information concerning the names of trade union victims and, in addition, full particulars, to the extent possible, on the circumstances of the murders, including any indication of their anti-union nature. The Government had explained that the participation of the CNE in the elections of trade union representatives was optional and occurred only if a union sought either the support or the technical assistance of that body. The CNE was independent from the executive authorities and its constitutional role was to guarantee the electoral rights of workers and of all citizens. He called on the Committee to take note of the efforts of the Government to promote social dialogue and to address the concerns of the social partners. He hoped that the Government would continue to expand this process.

The Government member of the Dominican Republic rejected the accusations made against the Venezuelan Government with regard to compliance with the Convention, as it had shown a willingness to resolve its domestic political problems in an exemplary manner through peaceful and democratic means and through elections. Furthermore, there was broad dialogue in the country, which had been recognized by the high-level tripartite mission, which undoubtedly represented important progress in relation to the dialogue between social partners that had prevailed previously. The application of, and compliance with, ILO Conventions on freedom of association, collective bargaining and social dialogue were uncontested in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The Government’s readiness to continue engaging in dialogue should be noted with satisfaction and it should be encouraged to pursue this process further.

The Worker member of Nicaragua said that he rejected the way in which the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was being treated as an alleged violation of the Convention, given that the Government had repeatedly shown that it was faithfully complying with ILO Conventions and national labour legislation. The Government had even accepted ILO missions to the country and had supplied them with all the necessary information. The labour policy developed and introduced by the Government had led to the negotiation of collective agreements. The minimum wage had been raised, access to free public education and health care was guaranteed, social housing construction programmes were being implemented and round tables for bilateral and tripartite dialogue were being promoted to seek solutions to the most serious problems faced by workers and the population in general. The Government supported the cause of the people of Latin America and the Caribbean and difficulties were being resolved through dialogue, the essential foundation of tripartism. It was important to ensure that the ILO was a credible, strong, authoritative and prestigious organization so as to ensure the well-being of workers and the proper functioning of industrial relations. Claims should not be used for political purposes.

The Government member of Belarus acknowledged the complex approach that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had adopted in order to encourage progress in social and labour issues. The ILO had recognized the progress made by the Government in social dialogue following the high-level tripartite mission in January 2014. In February 2015, FEDECAMARAS had noted the progress that the Government had made in renewing tripartite social dialogue. Article 8(1) of the Convention provided: “In exercising the rights provided for in this Convention workers and employers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organised collectivities, shall respect the law of the land”. It was essential for the ILO supervisory mechanisms to interpret this Article in the correct manner. As there was no agreement between the member States that had ratified the Convention on the meaning of this Article, it was not appropriate to interpret it in a broad manner.

An observer representing the Confederation of Workers of Argentina (CTA) drew attention to the report provided by the Government at the request of the Committee of Experts, and to the position of the workers of the Bolivarian trade unions which had highlighted progress made regarding inclusion, social justice and increasing democracy. The statement of GRULAC was very positive, as was the willingness expressed by the Government to give effect to the Convention and to engage in social dialogue. He trusted that the Government would take note of the observations of the Committee of Experts, the ITUC and the TUCA–CSA, and continue tripartite collaboration together with the social partners. It was paradoxical that the organizations which claimed to defend democracy had participated in action to destabilize it in violation of the law. The Government, workers and the people could overcome the difficulties faced and support the process that was unfolding, whose objective was wealth distribution, the attainment of social justice and the inclusion of the population.

The Government member of the Russian Federation expressed his Government’s appreciation to the Government representative for the detailed explanations provided to the Committee concerning the application of the Convention. The willingness of the Government to cooperate with the ILO to implement freedom of association, as set out in the Convention, had been confirmed by the high-level tripartite mission in January 2014. In addition, the Government had regularly provided detailed replies to the comments of the Committee of Experts, and had reported the implementation of measures in consultation with all the social partners, including FEDECAMARAS. Following the meeting that had been held in February 2015, the situation in the country was positive. He noted the isolated cases of tragic crimes against trade unionists. Each crime should be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators sentenced, which was being done by the Government. In numerous cases, such crimes were not linked to trade union activity. It was therefore important to not politicize such issues. In conclusion, he acknowledged the cooperation between the Government and the ILO for the implementation of the Convention, and hoped that such cooperation would continue.

An observer representing the Inter-Union Assembly of Workers – Workers’ National Convention (PIT–CNT) indicated that the trade union movement in Uruguay was aware of, and acknowledged, the existence of inclusive social dialogue in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and that efforts had been made to intensify it. The Government had convened a meeting at FEDECAMARAS’ own headquarters, but the Organization had not taken part. It was a double footnoted case, but it should be recognized that in the country the right to strike, one of the pillars of freedom of association, was recognized by the Constitution. Fundamental rights in the country were therefore not being questioned. There was no problem with discussing politics, but there should be no misuse of the Committee. It was unacceptable that those who were participating in dialogue forums established by the ITUC and the TUCA–CSA subsequently denounced a situation that was contrary to reality. In the country there was also a register of trade union organizations and the representativeness of the federations was not in question. With regard to representativeness, the way in which the representatives of FEDECAMARAS were elected was not transparent. Nobody could tell the workers the manner in which they should defend democracy. Whenever the rule of law was not respected, workers were the first to pay the price, including with their lives. For that reason, the trade union movement of Uruguay, together with that of Latin America as a whole, would always defend democratic systems, such as that of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The Government member of Viet Nam noted the efforts that had been made by the Government, as well as the constructive cooperation and further engagement with the ILO in addressing the issues that had arisen in Case No. 2254 of the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government should continue on this path, as some unresolved challenges remained. There was a need to strengthen ILO technical assistance for the purpose of obtaining further achievements.

The Government member of Uzbekistan congratulated the Venezuelan Government for its commitment to providing explanations within the context of constructive cooperation with the ILO, and for its commitment to resolving the difficulties in the country in a peaceful manner. He noted that the current consultative procedure, which included all the parties concerned, was in conformity with the national legislation. He also underlined that a constructive dialogue was taking place, which had been confirmed by the high-level tripartite mission in January 2014. It was useful to encourage the Government to pursue its efforts, and to provide the necessary support so that it could continue on this path.

The Government member of Switzerland said that the observance of the Convention by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had been discussed repeatedly, and the latest decision on the subject had been taken at the 320th Session (March 2014) of the Governing Body. He emphasized the importance of implementing this decision and encouraged the Government to establish a tripartite social dialogue round table. The Government needed to give effect to the recommendations of the Governing Body of 2014 and to ensure true social dialogue, and particularly to ensure the safety of the social partners. He urged the Government to take the necessary measures to stop the violence against both trade unionists and employers. The current environment and the serious forms of stigmatization and intimidation did not allow social partners to fully contribute to the country’s economic development. He called on the Government, with the assistance of the ILO, to better integrate the social partners in the amendment and establishment of legislation.

The Government member of Nicaragua said that his Government associated itself with the statement made by GRULAC. He expressed support for the Venezuelan Government, which had been called before the Committee on spurious grounds to discuss a case that had become politicized. Dialogue and cooperation were the foundation for moving forward in resolving conflicts. In that regard, the progress made by the Government to solve its internal problems democratically was positive. The high-level tripartite mission that had visited the country had acknowledged the Government’s political will to pursue inclusive dialogue with all social partners and had noted the significant progress that the Government had made in meeting its international labour obligations. In this spirit of dialogue, the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had convened a dialogue with all social partners in February 2015, and FEDECAMARAS had declared publicly that the meeting had been productive. It was time to turn the page and move forward for the benefit of the country.

The Government member of Algeria said that the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was repeatedly brought before the Committee, despite the fact that the high-level tripartite mission had noted significant progress in terms of social dialogue. Steps either had been taken or proposed by the Government which aimed at enabling all leaders to participate in the promotion of social dialogue, as referred to by the high-level tripartite mission. The Government’s positive initiatives and actions should be supported and encouraged, as should the achievement of social dialogue.

The Government member of Cuba said that her Government supported the statement made by GRULAC. The Venezuelan Government had amply demonstrated its willingness to cooperate with the Committee by supplying the pertinent information. It had found inclusive and democratic solutions to the domestic political situation in full exercise of its rights. Moreover, the high-level tripartite mission had recognized the broad and inclusive dialogue that was ongoing in the country. The Government had reported on numerous initiatives with the social partners and had shown its willingness and commitment regarding tripartite social dialogue. It was carrying out a consultation process with trade unions to develop an action plan for the establishment of round table dialogue. The Government had provided a detailed response to the observation made by the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of Egypt recalled that the right of freedom of association also came with responsibility. International labour standards on freedom of association provided a general framework for the exercise of that right. This framework allowed member States to set out the procedures governing its exercise, in accordance with national conditions, provided that such practices were not in conflict with international labour standards. The Government had responded to the requests of the ILO by providing proposals on the issues raised. Fostering social dialogue and cooperation between the Government and the social partners was a positive initiative. He agreed with the view of the Government representative on the right to strike, that this right was guaranteed in international labour standards, provided it was exercised in a lawful and peaceful manner.

The Government member of China expressed support for the statement of GRULAC. The Government was cooperating with the ILO and had made efforts to improve legislation respecting the right to strike and social legislation. The countries that had ratified ILO Conventions should implement the provisions of those Conventions. In that regard, the ILO was available to assist countries in overcoming their difficulties regarding the implementation of Conventions and countries could ask for technical assistance.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran noted that due consideration should be given to the measures taken by the Government, which demonstrated its commitment and willingness to resolve the existing problems. The Government had engaged in inclusive dialogue with employers’ and workers’ organizations in the country, as recognized by the high-level tripartite mission in 2014. It had also promoted the holding of technical round tables with employers to address specific issues. Further technical assistance should be provided to the Government.

The Government member of Pakistan recalled that the ILO supervisory system was geared towards monitoring progress in the implementation of ILO Conventions. It was important for all the social partners to respect the non-political nature of tripartite mechanisms. The politicization of cases was counter-productive. The Convention did not authorize unlawful action, and it was important for the social partners to respect the rule of law. He noted the Government’s commitment to social dialogue and its willingness to enhance this further, and encouraged the social partners to work with the Government for that purpose./p>

The Government member of Jamaica expressed support for the statement of GRULAC. She was encouraged by the approach of the Government to work with the Committee, and recognized its efforts to address the matters raised. She was confident that the Government would continue to foster dialogue and engage with all the stakeholders concerned, in line with the Convention.

An observer representing the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) emphasized the importance that this case held for the business community. For a long time, the IOE had been expressing its deep concern at the harassment and intimidation to which independent and representative business organizations of the country were subjected, particularly FEDECAMARAS and its member organizations. The recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies and the conclusions of the Committee had clearly reflected that concern in detail and with explanations based on fact. It was not a question of politics, but of the application of the Convention and of principles and fundamental rights. It had been hoped that, following the high-level tripartite mission, the Government would open channels for dialogue and would make a special effort to prevent acts of coercion against business leaders. The conclusions of the mission contained proposals and identified action that had been systematically rejected by the Government. FEDECAMARAS had tried to demonstrate a constructive approach in an attempt to avoid confrontation. The Government, however, continued with its action. The climate of criminalization of protests had intensified to the detriment of employers’ organizations, as well as the independent trade union organizations. The lack of consideration and respect for the proposals of the ILO supervisory bodies was evident. The efforts carried out by the ILO to improve the situation, which seriously affected workers and employers, were greatly appreciated. The business community as a whole had demonstrated a high level of solidarity and commitment to this case. The Worker members had also expressed concern, and the clarity and influence of the ILO should not be prejudiced in the present case. The Committee’s conclusions should be coherent with the need for effective and immediate action in a very serious situation for freedom of association and the right to organize.

The Government member of Kuwait, also speaking on behalf of the Government members of Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, noted the efforts that were being made by the Government to improve social dialogue in order to improve compliance with the Convention. It was necessary to give the Government time to meet its obligations under the Convention. He hoped that the ILO would give full support to the Government and that this would be taken into account in the Committee’s conclusions.

The Government representative replied to the allegations made by Worker and Employer members. With regard to the statements made by Worker members, the issue raised was part of the agreements and had been resolved. The list of requirements for trade unions had been drawn up by the ILO and had been applied ever since. Concerning the alleged detentions and attacks, the Government was waiting for a list to be supplied. In the construction sector, while it was true that there had been problems with violence, such situations mainly concerned workers, not trade unionists. With regard to the CNE, it only intervened at the request of the trade union organization. The issue was one of the agreements in force, and it was impossible for trade union elections to have been paralysed for some 20 years because of the CNE, as had been said, given that it had only been in existence for 15 years. Elections could be held if so wished. If elections were not held, it was not the fault of the Government, and in fact there were trade union organizations that did not want to hold elections because their membership numbers had fallen. With regard to the statements made by the Employer members, the Government representative said that the country enjoyed full democracy, as demonstrated by the past 19 electoral processes. While it was true that the country was taking part in the process of examining the application of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it was not true that the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) reached conclusions, as indicated by the Employer members. With regard to the allegations of harassment, it was FEDECAMARAS that had taken part in criminal activity, such as kidnapping the President, sabotaging petrol supplies and blocking the distribution of medicines so as to cause shortages, and yet not a single member of FEDECAMARAS had been punished. FEDECAMARAS was conducting an economic war but, despite reductions in the country’s income, the Government had maintained all its social programmes. That was what exasperated FEDECAMARAS, and that was why it had attempted a coup d’état. If FEDECAMARAS demonstrated its political will and abandoned its conspiratorial stance, it would be possible to sit down and talk. He emphasized that the country was sovereign, but that the Government stood ready to discuss any issue.

The Worker members said that they would confine themselves to addressing the factual elements of the case, that is the issues that had been raised by the Committee of Experts relating to the non-conformity of the legislation with the Convention, and the information reported by employers’ and workers’ organizations. This had been supplemented by the elements mentioned by the Government in reply and the invitations made by the members of the Committee to pursue cooperation. It should be remembered, however, that cooperation with the ILO could only be fruitful if it was based on, or led to, real and sincere tripartite social dialogue based on respect for freedom of association and the commitment of all the parties concerned. The conformity of the national legislation with the Convention had been a matter of concern to the Worker members for several years. Overcoming the challenges involved would necessarily require political will and assurances of commitment to social dialogue with the objective of seeking solutions, rather than making an already very conflictual situation worse. The Government needed to adopt the legislative amendments deemed necessary by the Committee of Experts, especially to end the interference by the CNE in trade union elections and to review the procedure for transmitting lists of trade union members to the public authorities. Measures also needed to be taken to bring an end to impunity for crimes committed against workers in the construction industry and to establish an effective recruitment system for construction workers without delay. The Worker members welcomed the Government’s offer to strengthen the ITUC’s social dialogue initiative, with the participation of all Venezuelan trade unions, as well as the positive developments on the matters raised by the Committee of Experts and Venezuelan trade unions. They called on the Government to submit a full report, before the next session, on the issues raised by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on the Application of Standards and requested the ILO to support tripartite activities in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, with the participation of regional employers’ and workers’ organizations.

The Employer members noted the many interventions on the present double-footnoted case. They observed that, while some interventions had been political in nature, others had been based on factual evidence, and not on speculation. The report of the Committee of Experts was clear and the report of the high-level tripartite mission had recommended an action plan, which included bipartite and tripartite dialogue. Although the Government claimed that broad dialogue existed, none of the action points of the mission had been implemented almost a year and a half after it had visited the country. The matter had been examined by the Governing Body of the ILO and the Committee on Freedom of Association. At its recent meeting in March 2015, the Committee on Freedom of Association had reaffirmed many of the issues raised, such as those relating to acts of intimidation, prosecutions, the occupation of ranches and bipartite and tripartite dialogue, while also noting new allegations that had been made today by the representative of FEDECAMARAS, including the detention of a leader of CONINDUSTRIA, the harassment of the President of FEDECAMARAS, the resurgence of verbal attacks on the organization and the adoption of over 50 legislative decrees without any type of consultation. The IOE and FEDECAMARAS were also making new observations and even the Government representative had confirmed that action had been taken against enterprises the previous week. Government action was continuing to undermine the most representative employers’ organization, by removing the support of its membership and limiting the activities of private enterprises. Free enterprise and the possibility to operate sustainable enterprises were increasingly at risk and specific action was required. The terms used by the Government representative were intimidatory and reference should be made to article 40 of the Constitution of the ILO, which established the immunities necessary so that all opinions could be expressed and freedom of expression protected, including for the employers and workers of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The Employer members were not afraid and were acting in accordance with the values of freedom of expression and free enterprise as the highest values in a full democracy. With reference to consultation, they added that dialogue needed to be undertaken, as well as consultations on matters of common interest, including legislative issues. It was not a complete democracy when major powers were delegated by the legislature to the President without the requirement of consultations, and the fact that new extraordinary powers had been granted to the President to issue laws should be examined by the ILO. All of the aspects raised led to the belief by the Employer members that not only should the points raised be noted in the conclusions, but the case should be included in a special paragraph of the report.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee observed that the issues raised in the report of the Committee of Experts related to the murder, detention and criminal prosecution of trade unionists, acts of violence and intimidation against FEDECAMARAS and its leaders, refusal to register trade union organizations, legislative provisions that were incompatible with the Convention, including provisions on the intervention of the National Electoral Council in trade union elections, and serious shortcomings in social dialogue with representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, despite the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission (January 2014) and the plan of action approved by the Governing Body.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative to the effect that discussion of the case was clearly politically motivated and lacked any technical or legal footing to support the Committee of Experts’ observations, as Venezuelan legislation had been the subject of a range of technical assistance from the ILO over several decades. He had added that the Constitution recognized trade union rights, including the right to strike; that there was no imprisonment for engaging in trade union activities; and that the last 15 years had seen greater trade union activity and freedom than any other period in the country’s history. Allegations of trade union leaders being harassed were based on press reports, set-ups and lies. He had said that in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela there was comprehensive and inclusive social dialogue, but that FEDECAMARAS was pursuing a criminal economic war and conspiring against the legitimately constituted Government; the most representative trade union organizations refused to participate in round table dialogue with FEDECAMARAS as a result. He had said that a Federal Government Council for the Working Class currently existed, made up of 1,056 union officials; moreover, the President of the employers’ organization FEDEINDUSTRIA had been appointed to form an employers’ council to prepare a national production plan and had held meetings with employers’ organizations representing 90 per cent of the country’s enterprises. He had also underlined that dialogue had also taken place with organizations such as the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (TUCA–CSA), the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) and the Independent Trade Union Alliance (ASI) to seek solutions to the problems that had arisen. He had added that the Government had tackled the issue of violence in the construction sector and still hoped that the four confederations would confirm the meeting to which the Government had invited them in order to draw up codes of conduct. Finally, he had denied that CTV elections had been obstructed and that the National Electoral Council was interfering in trade union elections.

Taking into account the discussion in this case, the Committee urged the Government to:

• comply without further delay with the conclusions of the tripartite high-level mission which had visited the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in January 2014 and the proposed plan of action;
• immediately cease acts of interference, aggression and stigmatization against FEDECAMARAS, its affiliated organizations and their leaders perpetrated by the Government;
• end impunity for crimes committed, especially against workers in the construction sector, including by adopting a clear and efficient recruitment system;
• review the practice of providing lists of trade union members to the public authorities;
• end the intervention of the National Electoral Council (CNE) in trade union elections;
• establish social dialogue without further delay through the establishment of a tripartite dialogue round table, under the auspices of the ILO, that is presided over by an independent chairperson who has the trust of all sectors, that duly respects the representativeness of employers’ and workers’ organizations in its composition, that meets periodically to deal with all matters relating to industrial relations decided upon by the parties, and that includes the holding of consultations on new legislation to be adopted concerning labour, social or economic matters (including within the framework of the Enabling Act) among its main objectives; and
• report in detail to the Committee of Experts at its next session in November–December 2015.

The Government representative did not agree with the conclusions which had not taken into account the information provided by the Government or the discussions that had taken place in the Conference Committee, including in particular the favourable interventions by over three-quarters of participants.