Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1997, Publication: 85th ILC session (1997)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Eswatini (Ratification: 1978)

The Government supplied the following information:

With regard to Article 2 of the Convention, the status of the Prison Staff is comparable to that of the Royal Swaziland Police and the Swaziland Defence Force: all three are considered as part of the armed forces.

The obligation for workers to organize along industry lines is not known to pose any functional problems and no complaints have been submitted by organizations so far. There is a very small labour force in Swaziland and the multiplicity of unions within the same industry may interfere with the strength of labour unions. The risk facing unions in Swaziland as regards multiplicity is that some unions may exist on paper only, with no real power. Similarly, the power of the Commissioner of Labour to refuse to register a union is due to the small size of the labour force.

There has been a change since the entry into force of the Industrial Relations Act, 1966. Section 41(1) of the Act only provides for consultation of the Minister as opposed to seeking his authorization, which was the case under the 1980 legislation.

With regard to Article 3 of the Convention, the limitation on the activities of federations is necesarry to avoid jurisdictional conflicts between federations and unions. Limits on carrying out political activities are a question of degree. According to the terms of Section 42(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1996, federations are entitled to express views on any matter of public administration and public policy. Beyond this point, however, federations risk violating state security-oriented legislation.

Concerning the prohibition of strike action in the postal and public services, this is due to the importance of these services. The teaching service, however, has been removed from the list of essential services (Section 73(6)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1996).

As in any country, the national interest is of paramount importance. The Minister, however, is not the final authority in determining the national interest: his perception of national interest has to undergo the test of the court (Section 70 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1996).

With regard to Section 12 of the 1973 Decree on Meetings and Demonstrations, it is not the intention of this Decree to restrict labour organizations which operate as labour organizations (see also Section 40(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1996).

The Industrial Relations Bill of 1995 has now been enacted. The Employment Amendment Bill is still before Parliament.

In addition, a Government representative, the Minister of Labour and Public Service, reaffirmed his Government's commitment to upholding the principles of the ILO as enshrined in its Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia. He supported the sentiments expressed by various delegations that had reiterated the need for strengthening the supervisory machinery for the sake of realizing the goal of social justice. There was an equal need to strengthen the ILO's advisory services in order for the constituents to reap the maximum benefit of their membership in the Organization. Ratification of standards in itself was not enough since, after ratification, countries needed to implement them. Of the 31 Conventions ratified by Swaziland, his country had implemented them all, although some discrepancies had been observed. He referred to the written information provided to the Committee. Referring to the observation of the Committee of Experts on the extent to which the Industrial Relations Act, 1996, was found wanting in relation to the Convention, he had noted, with great interest, that it acknowledged that his Government had tried to some extent to bring the law and practice into line with the Committee's previous comments on the legislation, by removing the teaching service from the essential services list. At the same time, some discrepancies had been observed which needed to be rectified. In a document prepared for a meeting of the Labour Advisory Board due to take place on 27 June 1997, his Government would bring these points to the attention of that Board in an effort to bring the recommendations already proposed by the Labour Advisory Board into conformity with ILO standards as much as practice allowed. This arrangement was in keeping with the assurances he had given during the 268th Session of the Governing Body during which he had stated that his Government had no aversion to any proposal to amend the current legislation. His Government was committed to social dialogue and believed that all doors to social dialogue should be open for all concerned. The Prime Minister had indicated that the Industrial Relations Act would be amended if it threatened the nation's peace. This policy statement was later drafted into the Government's Economic and Social Reform Agenda, which was a reform programme with specific deadlines. If all went well and representatives of both capital and labour cooperated with the legislative reform programme, a Bill would be ready by the end of August 1997. The speaker encouraged the Office to consider focusing technical cooperation in his country as a matter of urgency. In this regard, a tripartite meeting of the Swaziland delegation was scheduled in Geneva on 16 June 1997, to be chaired by a senior official of the ILO, and to form part of an ongoing process of consultation and assistance which had begun earlier in the year when his Government's attention had been drawn to the discrepancies in the Industrial Relations Act. It was to be hoped that such interaction would go a long way towards addressing the situation through constructive dialogue.

The Workers' members pointed out that the previous year they had noted that this was one of the most serious cases before the Committee. It was therefore of grave concern that a further deterioration rather than an improvement had occurred. The climate of fear, intimidation and harassment of trade unionists continued. In its observation, the Committee of Experts had noted that the 1996 Industrial Relations Act not only perpetuated most of the previous discrepancies between the legislation and the Convention, but contained new provisions which contravened even further some of the core requirements of the principles of freedom of association enshrined in Convention No. 87. The Act imposed penal sanctions for legitimate trade union activities. Section 30 of the Act granted the Labour Commissioner the power to refuse registration of a trade union if a union already existed in that sector. Moreover, the Act prohibited federations from calling rallies or mass meetings, all of which was in violation of the principles of freedom of association. The Committee of Experts made explicit mention of section 40(3) of the Act which prohibited a federation or any of its officers from causing or inciting the cessation or slowdown of work or economic activity upon punishment of imprisonment. Equally severe penalties applied to organizations or office holders calling for, organizing, or giving financial support to strikes in essential services. However, the Act gave a broad definition of essential services and the Minister of Labour had unilateral powers to amend this definition. The Attorney-General could apply for an order to stop a strike and the Minister of Labour could apply to ban a strike on the basis of national interest which was not defined. The Act severely violated the right to organize and to strike which was clearly contrary to the decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association which had established that no one should be deprived of their freedom or be subject to penal sanctions for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike. The Government had introduced this Act without any direct consultation with the social partners. Furthermore, when a tripartite forum rapidly approved a protocol containing 62 unanimously agreed amendments to the Bill, the Government took no heed and had its own original version of the legislation adopted. The Workers' members noted that, according to the direct contacts mission, the Government had been unable to give any convincing explanation for the refusal to amend the legislation so as to take account of the subsequent proposals of the Labour Advisory Board submitted during March 1996. These proposals were substantially similar to those contained in the tripartite protocol. In addition to this new Act, there were other legislative provisions which violated the requirements of Convention No. 87. The 1973 Decree on meetings and demonstrations restricted the right of organizations to hold meetings and demonstrations. Under the Public Order Act, 1963, police permission was needed for certain meetings and public gatherings. Moreover, the police could attend union meetings. Recent events gave cause for great concern. In January 1997, the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) called a stay-away in an attempt to put pressure on the Government to negotiate 27 demands which related, inter alia, to economic, labour, social and affirmative action issues and called for the lifting of the state of emergency, imposed since 1973, which remained in force. Tripartite discussions had agreed that immediate action could be taken on 16 of these 27 demands if the political will to do so was there. The Committee on Freedom of Association had decided that the two actions taken in support of the 27 demands - one in January 1996 and another in January 1997 - constituted legitimate trade union activity. It had considered that the declaration of illegality concerning these national strikes, taken in protest against the social and labour consequences of the Government's policy, constituted serious violations of freedom of association.

The Workers' members outlined other infringements, in practice, of the Convention: between the night of 31 January-1 February, 1997, four leaders of the SFTU were arrested under section 12 of the Public Order Act, 1963, on charges related to intimidation, for which bail was not granted. All were subsequently acquitted. In dismissing the case, it was reported that the judge used harsh words to the effect that there had never been a case to answer in the first place. This reflected a similar position taken by the judge who had presided over the case against Mr. Jan Sithole of the SFTU and other trade union leaders taken in January 1996, and who was subsequently demoted. The Government was openly using the media to threaten trade unionists and trade union activity. There was evidence of intimidation of the media not to give coverage to trade union activities or the SFTU. The Workers' members noted that, despite the comments made by the Government representative in the discussion of this case last year, broadcasting was still listed in section 73 of the Industrial Relations Act as an essential service, despite the pertinent decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government was continuing to use the police and armed forces directly to break up trade union meetings and disrupt legitimate trade union organization, such as the 1 February 1997 raid and search without warrant of the SFTU offices. It was using bullets, tear gas and beatings to break up assemblies, such as the 11 February 1997 shooting at Big Bend. It was perpetuating and intensifying the climate of fear and intimidation surrounding trade unions and trade union activity, such as the incident on 3 February 1997 when 150 armed police fired on 23 General Council members of the SFTU and ordered them to go to a local police station where they were locked in a tear gas filled room, beaten and individually questioned for several hours. It was extending the violence and intimidation to encircle the families, friends and relatives of those trade unionists, such as the February 1997 harassment of Mr. Sithole's mother and close relatives while he was in jail. The Workers' members stressed that the Committee on Freedom of Association had stated clearly that freedom of association could only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental human rights and, in particular, those relating to human life and personal safety, were fully respected and guaranteed. Violence, fear and intimidation and the lack of freedom of expression were incompatible with Convention No. 87, as was the lack of democratic process. So it was with deep concern that the Workers' members noted that there had been no progress on changing the national Constitution, since Swaziland was the only south African country where multi-party democracy had not been introduced. The suspension of the SFTU was now lifted, but not so for the trade unions which had been deregistered under the Act just two weeks ago, and which had lost their right to function, to collective bargaining and to represent their members on the Labour Advisory Board. This deregistration had been carried out by the Labour Commissioner on the spurious grounds that the unions had not submitted their annual returns, even though the Act did not define the period of the financial year. Such administrative dissolution of trade union organizations constituted a clear violation of Article 4 of the Convention and was a measure which should be taken only by judicial decision so that the rights of defence were fully guaranteed.

The Workers' members urged the Committee to adopt extremely firm conclusions in this case since the Government appeared, at best, complacent and, at worst, contemptuous of the supervisory procedures and authority of the ILO. It was time to give a clear message to the Government as there had been ample opportunity to make progress and this had not happened. In practice, the situation had deteriorated. Specifically, the Workers' members wanted to see, within a clearly defined timetable, progress in accordance with the comments of the Committee of Experts and the decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the following points: amendment of the 1963 Public Order Act so that it would no longer be used to oppress legitimate and peaceful strike action in contravention of the principles of freedom of association; repeal of section 12 of the 1973 Decree which placed important restrictions on the right of organizations to hold meetings and demonstrations, so that trade union organizations could operate freely without fear of police interference in trade union affairs; amendment of the 1996 Industrial Relations Act to bring it into conformity with the requirements of the Convention, giving due consideration to the proposals made by the Labour Advisory Board. They asked that the Government ensure that the social partners were fully involved in this process and that the technical assistance of the ILO be sought so that progress could be reported before the next meeting of the Governing Body in November 1997; that it stop any further harassments, threats, malicious arrests, intimidation and victimization of workers, their leaders and their families; and authorize freedom of the press and freedom of expression; establish independent inquiries into the many incidents which had taken place over recent months, including the dismissal of Mr. Jabulani Nxumalo, Assistant General Secretary of the SFTU; and enter into positive and meaningful negotiations on the 27 demands. The Workers' members concluded that this was a case of the most gross, wide-ranging and fundamental violation of the Convention and the principles of freedom of association. The Government should immediately commit itself to the full implementation of the recommendations of the direct contacts mission in a defined, short period of time and accept permanent monitoring of the implementation of these developments by the ILO.

The Employers' members recalled that the application of Convention No. 87 by Swaziland had been already examined by the present Committee in 1996. This case involved numerous restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and, in particular, interference in the internal affairs of the trade unions; the non-recognition of the right of association of a certain group of workers; the power of the Labour Commissioner to refuse to register trade unions if he was satisfied that an already registered organization was sufficiently representative; and the restrictions of the right to organize meetings and to hold peaceful demonstrations. These were flagrant violations which were, on the whole, the same that had been brought to light last year. On the question of restrictions on the right to strike, the Employers' members referred to their own well-known position according to which the point of departure was not an unlimited right to strike. There was no basis in the Convention for the unlimited right to strike, the provisions of the Convention would be infringed where the right to strike was constrained to such an extent that it no longer existed. He recalled that strikes always had an impact not only on the interests of the conflicting parties but also on the rights of persons who were not concerned with the conflict of interests. It was also reasonable to balance the interests of the conflicting parties on the one hand, and of the general public on the other. As for what concerned the qualified majority required when voting on strike action, it was not excessive in itself. What was worrying was that the Industrial Relations Act, 1996, worsened, not improved, the situation. Referring to the direct contacts mission which had taken place last year, they stated that an invitation for such a mission usually constituted proof of the readiness of the Government to change its law and practice to improve the situation. However, the position of the Government with respect to the required changes remained unclear. Although the Government representative mentioned, for example, the existence of tripartite consultations, he did not explain in which manner and on what subjects these consultations were held.Turning to the conclusions of the contacts mission report, the Employers' members recommended to incorporate those points into legislation on which the social partners had already reached an agreement. The Government should accept these recommendations and incorporate them into the legislation. It should provide detailed information, so as to enable this Committee to review the case, if necessary.

The Workers' member of Swaziland pointed out that his country was a signatory to various national instruments but had been in a state of emergency since 12 April 1973 when the rights of citizens had been usurped. This left workers as the only voice for the downtrodden and they had presented to the Government the popular "27 demands" which dealt with, inter alia, labour-related, economic, human and civil rights issues. The Government had ignored the demands, but the SFTU asked for a tripartite forum to look into them through dialogue. A series of tripartite structures was thus set up which deliberated on all the issues and advised the Government accordingly, but again, it ignored all their recommendations. Several international and regional workers' organizations visited Swaziland between 1995 and 1997 in order to help find a solution and their advice was also ignored by the Government on the pretext that it constituted foreign interference in national sovereignty. The Government's inaction had been met with a wave of industrial action, to which the authorities reacted with arrests and the shooting of workers, the lodging of applications in the High Court, for court injunctions to declare intended strikes unlawful; the issuing of extraordinary gazettes declaring the strike unlawful if the Government failed in its court applications; and judges who refused applications would suffer reprimands, demotion and/or dismissal. He considered that the Government had acted in bad faith since it acknowledged the violations of the Convention before international fora and yet remained intransigent at home. The Government had deceived the social partners because it had promised to table amendments to the Act in March 1996, but to date, no such amendments were before Parliament. Furthermore, the Government was not truthful when it stated that it was not aware that trade unions were being harassed: its security forces regularly raided trade union offices, interrupted trade union meetings, detained and arrested trade union leaders and members (including the 23 members of the general council of the SFTU) and physically assaulted them. After describing some of the infringements in practice of the Convention, the speaker stated that the 1996 Act's provisions were a flagrant legislative violation of the Convention and in serious breach of the principles of freedom of association. He expressed the belief that Swaziland and other Governments which were also members of the ILO Governing Body must be advocates and die-hard defenders of ILO principles, especially social justice; and, as such, must lead by an example of exemplary behaviour. Therefore, he agreed with the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association that the Government should bring the legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The 27 demands should be dealt with seriously once and for all. A clear deadline had to be set for the Government specifying when these issues would have to be tackled and resolved, and the ILO's technical assistance could help in the amendment of the Act. He proposed that this case be mentioned in a special paragraph of the Committee's general report.

The Employers' member of South Africa pointed out that in this case there had been many promises but little progress. The Committee of Experts' observation noted that not only did the 1996 Industrial Relations Act perpetuate the previous discrepancies between the legislation and the Convention, but it contained new provisions which further contravened the terms of the Convention. The Government's behaviour in drafting this Act disclosed a series of breaches of undertakings made to the social partners. In March 1994, a tripartite committee had been established by the Government to consider a series of demands made by the SFTU and significant progress had been made on 21 of the 27 points raised by the Federation. Although the Government expressed its support for some of the recommendations of the tripartite committee, it indicated that it would formulate its own proposals in the form of amendments to the legislation. Early in 1995, the Government published a draft Bill for comment and later tabled it in Parliament but the social partners had not been consulted. Further discussions were held between the Government and the social partners before the Bill reached the Senate because there was general disagreement with a number of its provisions. In July 1995 the tripartite forum adopted a resolution to the effect that it would identify unacceptable aspects of the Bill and attempt to agree on amendments acceptable to all parties. The Government undertook to submit these amendments at the same time as the Bill was presented to the Senate. In September 1996 the tripartite forum formally adopted a protocol containing 65 proposed amendments to the Bill. However, the Government introduced the Bill to the Senate without the amendments. The parties in the tripartite forum expressed their dismay over this turn of events and the Government's good faith was questioned. After the enactment of the Act, further efforts to review it were initiated and the SFTU's concerns were referred to the Labour Advisory Board, which in March 1996, submitted proposals for amendments to the Minister. They had not yet been introduced in Parliament. So the history of this legislation reflected some form of general agreement between the social partners, but mostly a history of unfulfilled promises by the Government. The direct contacts mission that had visited Swaziland in October 1996 noted that no convincing explanation could be given by the Government for either its unilateral decision to redraft the Act or for its refusal to introduce the amendments to the Act proposed by the Labour Advisory Board. Therefore, while he had noted the Government representative's expression of support for the ILO's Constitution and Conventions, what was needed now was some progress in Government action. It should move without further delay to implement the recommendations of the direct contacts mission, with guidance and technical assistance from the ILO.

The Workers' member of the United States pointed out that this was the second consecutive year that this case, which involved fundamental violations of the Convention, was before the Committee. In addition to the violations of a legislative nature, as reflected in the observation of the Committee of Experts, this Committee had heard in great detail about the violations in practice, in particular the intensifying campaign of intimidation and harassment of union leaders and their families. This pattern of behaviour by the Government demonstrated its disdain for the ILO and this Committee. However, it was important to point out to the Government that its behaviour had caught the attention of the Committee of Experts and this Committee, as well as that of the international community. Therefore its days of operating in relative obscurity had passed. The Workers' members were following closely the developments in the country since the personal safety and welfare of members of the SFTU were at stake. If the Government intended to take its obligations arising from the Convention seriously, it had to put an immediate end to its campaign of intimidation and harassment against trade unions and their leaders. Moreover, it had to return immediately to the bargaining table with the SFTU and the employers to negotiate in good faith a revision of the Industrial Relations Act. This year, the Committee should send to the Government an even stronger message than its 1996 conclusions in the hope that it could be influenced to choose the path of the rule of law and respect for basic worker rights, rather than that of repression and increasing international condemnation.

The Workers' member of Zambia asserted that the Government representative had repeated the assurances that his Government had given to this Committee in previous years and had stated nothing new this year. Therefore he fully supported the view that the Government should commit itself immediately before this Committee to engage in effective and genuine dialogue with the workers and employers of Swaziland with a view to amending the Industrial Relations Act and other labour laws in line with international labour standards. Moreover, this action should be accomplished in a short time-frame.

The Government member of the United Kingdom welcomed the fact that a direct contacts mission to Swaziland had taken place and was pleased to note the readiness of the Government to continue its dialogue with the ILO. He supported the Government's request for further technical assistance to tackle the problems which had been identified. While his Government had been very concerned over the arrest in early 1997 of the principal trade union leaders of the SFTU, and had made those concerns clear to the authorities at the time, he was very glad that they had since been released. The Committee of Experts' observation had noted that the Industrial Relations Act, 1996, still contained a number of discrepancies with the provisions of the Convention. He was pleased to hear that the Swazi Government intended to rectify the situation and hoped that it would turn this commitment into concrete action as soon as possible.

The Workers' member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Nordic Workers of this Committee, expressed grave concern over the violations of the Convention. In spite of appeals by the international community, missions from the ILO and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and interventions from trade union leaders from neighbouring countries, the Government had continuously harassed Swazi trade unions and their leaders. She fully supported the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the Industrial Relations Act. It was disturbing that a so-called democratic country still thought it was acceptable for workers not to have the right to strike, for unions to face major restrictions on their right to hold peaceful demonstrations and meetings or for the court to wind up a federation which had been actively campaigning on matters that were defined as political issues but that could not in fact be distinguished from occupational issues. Moreover, trade union leaders had been imprisoned, including the four senior leaders of the SFTU, for having threatened to go on strike over labour demands. Although they were finally released, democratic reforms and the opening of negotiations did not follow and matters had worsened. Just before the present Conference she had heard that the Government had suspended the activities of the SFTU and the 17 unions affiliated to it apparently because of failure to submit on time the 1996 financial reports. It was incomprehensible that trade union activities could be suspended for this reason. She assured Swazi workers that they had the support of the Nordic trade unions. The right to carry out trade union activities, including the right to strike, was so fundamental in Nordic countries that it was hard to believe the action taking place in Swaziland. It was not acceptable that in 1997 workers were denied their most fundamental rights.

The Government member of the United States supported the statement of the Government member of the United Kingdom and hoped that the recommendations of the direct contacts mission to Swaziland would be implemented soon.

The Workers' member of the United Republic of Tanzania endorsed the concern expressed by his colleagues concerning the gravity of the situation in Swaziland. The Government should in no way be proud of the fact that it had ratified 31 ILO Conventions while in practice it violated them daily. He therefore insisted that the Government adopt a clearly defined timetable of action towards applying the Convention, including the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act. It further needed to engage in much-needed dialogue with the SFTU.

The Workers' member of Zimbabwe indicated that the situation in Swaziland, contrary to the promises made here by the Minister in 1996, had deteriorated significantly. The Committee of Experts had identified two aspects to the problem, namely the national legislation and the situation in practice. The Industrial Relations Act, 1996, contained new provisions which contravened the Convention even further as highlighted in the Committee of Experts' observation. In practice, the Government had been harassing the leadership of the SFTU, together with the use of force to prevent workers from holding meetings and exercising their other rights under the Convention. While he supported the need for dialogue, he considered that the authorities were using dialogue as a delaying tactic. This Committee needed to act decisively by including this case in a special paragraph of its report.

The Government member of Zambia, the Minister of Labour and Social Security, expressed his concern over developments in Swaziland. He was of the view that the Government should take steps to move towards democratization and labour rights as had occurred in other countries in southern Africa. Only this could really ensure respect for trade union rights.

The Government representative indicated that he took seriously what had been stated in the Committee. It was obvious from the observation of the Committee of Experts, from the recommendations of the direct contacts mission, as well as from the debate that had just taken place, that the basic problems in respect of the Convention stemmed from the adoption of the Industrial Relations Act, 1996. He reassured the Committee that he had not just made empty promises; his country was genuinely ready to ensure that the provisions of the Convention were complied with. He assured the Committee that the document that had been prepared by the Labour Advisory Board with ILO technical assistance would be discussed on 27 June 1997, and that the social partners should be fully involved. The final amendment Bill would be passed through Parliament by August 1997. He concluded by stating that his Government, like this Committee, wanted the national legislation to be in conformity with the Convention and would take the appropriate measures.

The Workers' members noted that the Government representative had focused his reply on discussions that had taken place in relation to the Industrial Relations Act. However, the conclusions of the direct contacts mission went beyond the Act, since they also related to infringements in practice of the Convention. All that was required was that the Government agreed to commit itself to implement immediately all the recommendations of the direct contacts mission, including those concerning issues beyond the Act. The Workers' members also wanted a permanent monitoring of its attempts to implement these recommendations.

The Employers' members, referring to the recommendations of the report made by the direct contacts mission, insisted on their immediate implementation, particularly with respect to the questions on which the social partners had reached an agreement. Rapid changes were necessary to improve the situation and it would be necessary to review the case in the near future taking into account the regrettable further deterioration in the situation after the direct contacts mission. The Government should supply a detailed report on the amendments and changes brought to the situation. The Employers' members supported the proposal to mention this case in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

The Committee took note of the written and oral information supplied by the Government representative, as well as the discussion which ensued. The Committee noted the concern expressed by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association that, despite a direct contacts mission in October 1996 and specific progress concerning the education sector, the Industrial Relations Act, 1996, contained provisions which further violated the fundamental principles of freedom of association. The Committee expressed its deep concern for the numerous and major discrepancies between the national law and practice on the one hand, and the provisions of the Convention on the other. The Committee urged the Government to respect fully the civil liberties essential to the implementation of the Convention and to apply very rapidly the recommendations of the direct contacts mission, particularly those already agreed upon by the social partners. The Committee also urged the Government to take all measures necessary to eliminate the restrictions on the right of workers to constitute organizations of their own choice, to hold meetings and to demonstrate peacefully, to formulate their programmes of action and to bargain collectively. The Committee trusted that the next report would indicate detailed measures adopted by the Government, with the assistance of the Office, to secure the full application of the Convention. The Committee decided to mention this case in a special paragraph of its report.