Case of serious failure (CAS) - Discussion: 2000, Publication: 88th ILC session (2000)

Nigeria

(c) Failure to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts

The Employer members noted that the Governments' obligation to submit replies to comments made by the Committee of Experts formed part of the general reporting obligations of member States and expressed concern at the increasing number of countries which failed to supply replies to comments made by the Committee of Experts. Noting that a number of reports had been transmitted to the ILO in the period following the publication of the General Report, the Employer members nevertheless expressed concern at the number of countries failing to comply with this obligation and stressed the urgent need for the countries concerned to do so.

The Worker members noted that incomplete, unclear or late responses hampered the task of the Conference Committee and of the Committee of Experts. Governments must therefore take their reporting obligations seriously. The Worker members shared the concerns expressed by the Employer members and hoped that they would not hear the same explanations this year concerning the reasons why governments were unable to respond to the comments made by the Committee of Experts.

A Government representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that the information supplied earlier was unfortunately still valid for the present. Five years after the end of the war, Bosnia and Herzegovina still needed technical assistance from the Office for the submission of its reports.

A Government representative of Burkina Faso stated that the information supplied earlier concerning the reasons for the failure to supply information in reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts remained valid.

A Government representative of the Central African Republic pointed out that his Government had discharged its obligation to supply information in reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts in February 2000.

A Government representative of Denmark noted that the Faeroe Islands were independent in the area of social politics, and that, despite his Government's best efforts, it could not require the Faeroe Islands to comply with its reporting obligations. He nevertheless assured the Committee that his Government would continue to do its utmost to encourage the Faeroe Islands to supply the reports due.

A Government representative of France noted that his country constituted a type of a borderline case. As Conventions ratified by France had been declared applicable to several non-metropolitan territories by virtue of article 35 of the Constitution, the French Government had had to submit a very high number of reports on the application of Conventions (234 reports in 2000). Possible additional ratifications by France would further increase this number, as well as the scope of the dialogue with the Committee of Experts. Far from Geneva, reports on the application of ratified Conventions and exchanges with the Committee of Experts may seem to be of lesser importance. Without in any way providing a justification, the realities were such that the French Government's efforts to supply the reports due were affected by coordination difficulties with its numerous and dispersed counterparts, as well as a lack of administrative rigour and bad habits. These realities did not correspond to any desire by the French Government to dissimulate anything. The situation noted by the Committee of Experts could not be justified. As he was particularly concerned with the negative consequences that the failure to supply reports or information might have on the supervisory system, he reaffirmed his Government's intention to comply with all its obligations, so that the situation would improve considerably in the future.

A Government representative of Guinea-Bissau stated that his Government had taken note of the comments of the Committee of Experts and undertook to take steps to reply to these comments. An ILO mission was soon to arrive in his country with the aim, inter alia, of dealing with this matter. The Ministry of Public Administration and Labour had been restructured to enable the competent bodies to fulfil their obligations in line with the new reconstruction process in the country.

A Government representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran indicated that her Government's reports on the Conventions in question were being prepared and finalized and that the reports would be transmitted to the ILO within the next three months.

A Government representative of Jamaica regretted that his country had failed to submit timely reports. However, he pointed out that it had been impossible for his Government to fulfil its reporting obligations due to staff changes in the Ministry of Labour. These changes had taken place at critical times for the section responsible for dealing with ILO matters. The situation had now been corrected and reports would be submitted to the ILO within the next three months. He thanked the ILO's Caribbean Office for its assistance and assured the Committee of his Government's full compliance in the future.

A Government representative of Kenya expressed his regret that his country had not submitted timely responses to comments made by the Committee of Experts. He noted that his Government had submitted some of the replies and he assured the Committee that the remaining replies would be transmitted as soon as possible. The delays were not deliberate, but were caused by a high turnover rate among the staff trained to handle ILO reporting responsibilities. Another equally important factor had been the delays experienced in receiving replies from the relevant departments. In order to rectify the situation, his Government had proposed establishing an interministerial committee, to handle ILO matters, consisting of representatives of the Labour Ministry, the Attorney General's Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The ILO Area Office in Dar-es-Salaam had been asked to provide capacity-building training for members of the interministerial committee and a sensitization workshop had also been requested for staff from other ministries. In order to prevent a recurrence of the problem caused by staff turnover, the ILO had been asked to provide assistance in training three officers to handle ILO reporting obligations, in the hope that they would also pass on their skills to other staff. Kenya remained committed to the ideals of the ILO and would continue to comply with its constitutional obligations.

A Government representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stated that his country attached special importance to the Committee of Experts' reports, and was always ready to engage in a dialogue with the Committee of Experts on his country's law and practice relating to ratified Conventions. He noted that his Government had taken measures to facilitate the preparation of responses to the Committee of Experts' comments, including establishing a body composed of labour experts who represented relevant sectors of industry as well as employers' and workers' organizations. This body was responsible for preparing periodic responses to the Committee of Experts' comments, examining Conventions approved by the International Labour Conference to determine conformity with the national legislation and determining whether domestic legislation should be amended to conform with ratified Conventions. The Conventions concerned had been examined by this body and reports would be transmitted to the Committee of Experts. He also noted that the political constraints that had been imposed on his country for seven years had impeded the exchange of information.

A Government representative of Malaysia explained that technical reasons had prevented the supply of information in reply to comments by the Committee of Experts. Although the replies had been drafted by the Ministry of Labour, they had not been sent on by other authorities. His country undertook to supply the requested information in the near future.

A Government representative of the Netherlands (Aruba) expressed regret that his country had once again been called upon to explain its position concerning its failure to fulfil its obligations to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts. He reiterated the information provided in previous years to the effect that Aruba was a full and equal member of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and was therefore itself fully responsible for fulfilling its international obligations. The European partner of the Kingdom could therefore do little when Aruba fell behind in fulfilling its reporting obligations. However, he reported that during recent contacts with Aruba he had been told that a number of reports and answers to the comments of the Committee of Experts were on the point of being sent. He nevertheless reiterated his great regret that a country such as his own, which prided itself on being fairly efficient, had failed to discharge important obligations and he hoped for an improvement in the near future.

A Government representative of Nigeria observed that it had been difficult for his country to supply reports during the period 1994-98 because of the political situation in the country, which had adversely affected its labour administration. The dissolution of the National Executive Council of the Nigeria Labour Congress had made the National Labour Advisory Council (NLAC) moribund for that period. In the absence of the NLAC, it had not been possible to consult with employers' and workers' organizations on the reports due to the ILO. However, he affirmed that his Government had amended the anti-labour legislation which had been commented upon by the Committee of Experts. He reported that the NLAC had recently been reconstituted and would meet in due course to deal with all outstanding labour matters. He appealed for cooperation and support in his country's efforts to sustain its nascent democracy.

A Government representative of Sao Tome and Principe stated that he regretted this situation, particularly since his Government had been cited on three occasions in the list of automatic cases. He also referred to the Conventions ratified by Sao Tome and Principe, as well as several laws enacted to implement these Conventions. Finally, he recalled that the main reasons for the failures noted by the Committee of Experts were of an administrative, technical and organizational nature. His Government undertook to remedy the situation.

A Government representative of Sierra Leone explained that the failure to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts was not due to a lack of political will by his Government. The long-lasting conflict in his country had made it impossible to provide any comprehensive replies. However, he expressed the firm intention of fulfilling the respective obligations in future.

A Government representative of the Slovak Republic observed that his country had been obliged to supply 15 reports to the ILO for the year 1999 on the measures which had been taken to give effect to ratified Conventions. Seven reports had been supplied in response to requests by the Committee of Experts on Conventions Nos. 11, 42, 111, 138, 144 and 161. However, reports had not been provided on several other Conventions. He explained that his country had experienced staffing problems in the elaboration of the above reports. However, recent information indicated that the requested reports on Conventions Nos. 12, 17, 89, 130, 148, 155 and 160 had been completed and would be communicated to the ILO in July or August after translation into English or French. He apologized for the delay.

A Government representative of Swaziland explained that he could neither confirm nor deny receipt of the requests for the reports from the Committee of Experts. This was because the office of the Commissioner of Labour was located some distance from that of the Principal Secretary of the Ministry. He therefore suggested that all ILO correspondence should in future be addressed to the Principal Secretary, but using the address of the Commissioner of Labour, who would take the necessary action on all such official correspondence. His country undertook to check whether the requests from the Committee of Experts had reached the office of the Commissioner of Labour and either take appropriate action to send the reports to the ILO or inform the ILO that they had not been received.

A Government representative of the United Republic of Tanzania apologized for the failure to comply with reporting obligations, which had been due to human resources problems, as she had explained previously with regard to Zanzibar. In relation to Conventions Nos. 17 and 144, she observed that the request for information by the Committee of Experts had arisen mainly from the poor drafting of the reports submitted and she undertook to resubmit fuller reports in the near future. With regard to Conventions Nos. 63 and 137, she said that technical assistance might be required for their application. Finally, with regard to Convention No. 148, she acknowledged that an inadequate report had been submitted following the reform of the labour legislation. She re-emphasized the importance of replying to the comments of the Committee of Experts and undertook to supply reports promptly once technical assistance had been provided.

A Government representative of Trinidad and Tobago apologized for the adverse effects her country's failure to supply the requested reports had had on the work of the supervisory mechanisms. She reaffirmed that her Government was very mindful of the comments made by the Committee of Experts and had actively been seeking to take the necessary action to bring its law and practice into line with the provisions of ratified Conventions. The delay in supplying the requested reports was therefore deeply regretted. The Ministry of Labour in her country was endeavouring to find its own equilibrium in an era of modernization and strategic planning. Her Government undertook to provide comprehensive responses within the deadline period.

A Government representative of Uganda noted that although his country had supplied a total of 14 reports, it had failed to provide the reports requested on Conventions Nos. 105, 144, 154, 159 and 162. While he was in Geneva, he would contact the Office to review the action necessary in this regard as soon as possible. There were a number of technical reasons why his country had not fulfilled its reporting requirements. In the first place, his Government had recently carried out an administrative restructuring, with a downsizing of the staff. Difficulties had also arisen in coordination between the ministry responsible for labour matters and other ministries, which were often slow to provide the necessary information. He added that the process of reforming the labour legislation had taken a long time. However, the Workers' Compensation Act had been approved by parliament earlier in the year and was now ready to receive presidential assent. Technical assistance had been received from the ILO and UNDP concerning other labour legislation. He thanked the ILO for its support and technical assistance and looked forward to continued cooperation in the future.

A Government representative of Yemen stated that his Government had a strong will to ratify international labour Conventions. The question of the ratification of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), had been submitted to the competent authorities. The instrument of ratification of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), had been sent to the ILO and the Government had taken all the necessary measures for the ratification of the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138). The Government ensured the supply of reports on ratified Conventions, but it required technical assistance from the Office for the proper fulfilment of these obligations. In recent years, Yemen had made great progress in the execution of its reporting obligations. The Government had thoroughly examined the observations which the Committee of Experts had addressed to it and had submitted a response to the ILO on that subject. He apologized for the delays incurred, which would be remedied as soon as possible.

The Employer members noted that a variety of explanations had been provided by the governments concerned with regard to their failure to reply to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. In some cases, rather bizarre explanations had been given. The number of countries listed, and the fact that one of them had failed to reply to the comments made on 29 Conventions, meant that the situation penalized the work of the supervisory machinery. They also noted the indications made by many governments that a lack of resources and rapid changes in personnel had caused their failure to reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts. In this respect, they recalled, in the case of changes in the staff dealing with matters related to international labour standards, the relevant professional competence needed to be transmitted. It would not be justified to request technical assistance from the ILO on every occasion that the personnel changed. They emphasized that the obligation to reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts formed part of the general reporting obligations of governments. Finally, if a decision were to be taken to introduce sanctions in cases of serious failure to comply with reporting obligations, these sanctions should also be applicable in the event of failure to reply to the observations and direct requests of the Committee of Experts.

The Worker members observed that they had been provided with the same explanations as in the past concerning the reasons why governments had been unable to reply to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. Several governments had not spoken on the issue, despite the opportunity afforded to them. Additional steps needed to be taken by these governments to meet their reporting obligations and it was hoped that the situation would improve next year. They emphasized that incomplete reports affected the ability of the Committee of Experts to carry out its functions effectively. They therefore urged the governments concerned to take all the necessary measures.

(a) Failure to supply reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations for the past five years

The Worker members thanked the Government representatives for the information that they had provided to the Committee. However, they stressed that the failures to submit noted were not caused by chance, since the same failures had occurred over the past five years. The statements had not supplied many new details regarding these failures. The Committee should urge governments to respect fully this obligation deriving from the Constitution of the ILO, to enable the Committee of Experts to prepare complete General Surveys.

The Employer members fully agreed with the remarks made by the Worker members. They pointed out that according to the General Report, it appeared that only 52 per cent of the reports requested had been received. They recalled that these reports provided very important information and questioned why governments would be reluctant to send such reports; they could not face criticism, since they had not ratified the Conventions. They emphasized that if a large number of reports were received they provided a more realistic picture. They considered that the failure to submit such reports was serious and should be mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts.

A Government representative of Algeria recalled that his Government had ratified the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), in 1993. It had submitted the first report on the application of this Convention in 1997 and a second report in 1999. Algeria had also fulfilled its obligations by submitting several other reports in response to requests from the ILO. It was true, however, that some of these reports had been submitted after the last meeting of the Committee of Experts. Furthermore, the procedure for the ratification of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), had been commenced. Algeria had made every effort to honour its obligations towards the ILO, particularly in previous years. The failures noted by the Committee of Experts were rather embarrassing for his Government, as they did not reflect the efforts it had made. The situation would be examined in order to determine the causes of these failures. Algeria attached the greatest importance to rigorous compliance with its international obligations and would endeavour to ensure that this uncomfortable and regrettable situation did not recur in the future.

A Government representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina noted that the clarifications which she had provided also applied to the question under discussion.

A Government representative of Burundi stated that for the last five years his Government had not been able to produce any reports on the unratified Conventions because of the crisis that the country had been experiencing since 1993 and the embargo which had been imposed on it from 1996 to 1999. Another constraint was related to the shortage of skills in the country and the absence of a standards specialist in the multidisciplinary advisory team in Yaoundé. The situation would certainly improve as a result of the recent appointment of a standards specialist and the participation of a representative from Burundi in the annual training course on international labour standards which had just taken place. He expressed the hope that his Government would fulfil its obligations in this field before the next session of the Conference. He also requested that a technical assistance mission be sent to Burundi in order to help make up the delay quickly and provide training for the officials of the labour administration and the social partners at the local level.

A Government representative of Georgia stressed that his country was making every effort to respect its international obligations, but that his Government was currently going through a process of reorganization. He indicated that the officials dealing with these reports did not have the necessary skills and mentioned that working groups had to be created in this respect. He hoped that these working groups could receive technical assistance from the ILO.

A Government representative of Liberia indicated that in the past two years his country had tried to submit the requested reports and had made great efforts to reply to all the observations formulated by the Committee of Experts. The Ministry of Labour had asked for technical assistance from the ILO multidisciplinary advisory team in Dakar and as soon as they came to Liberia, the reports would be supplied.

A Government representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya indicated that a large number of instruments had been submitted to the competent authorities of his country for ratification. In this regard, he enumerated several Conventions and pointed out that the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), had been submitted to the competent authorities in 1999. He stressed that, due to the great number of Conventions, his country needed to devote more time and effort to this process, but that it would be done gradually. He emphasized that his country always took into account the observations made by the Committee of Experts.

A Government representative of Malawi indicated that there were several reasons why his country had failed to submit the reports required under article 19. Firstly, his country had emerged from a dictatorial regime which had no democratic structures for tripartite cooperation and social dialogue. A tripartite labour advisory council had been established in September 1998 and it was largely involved in the ratification of fundamental Conventions. Secondly, the Ministry of Labour had lost most of the officials trained in the preparation of reports on the ILO Conventions through retirement and resignations, and it was proving difficult to replace them without proper training. Thirdly, due to the number and frequency at which ILO Conventions and Recommendations were being produced, it was difficult to submit regular reports on unratified Conventions and Recommendations, since his country put most of its efforts into reporting on ratified instruments. Finally, he indicated that his country had not received a positive answer when it requested technical assistance from the ILO multidisciplinary advisory teams in South Africa and Zimbabwe. He looked forward to complying with the demands of the Committee in the future, provided the ILO helped with the necessary training, as requested.

A Government representative of Nigeria indicated that the statement he had made earlier applied equally here.

A Government representative of Rwanda stated that his Government had prepared and submitted all the reports requested, and that he would deposit at the ILO copies of all the reports that had been drawn up. It seemed, however, as though the communications between his country and the ILO had been disturbed recently. He further remarked that the request for submission of reports on non-ratified Conventions had been received rather late and that his Government had been able to transmit its report on 3 May 2000. He therefore hoped that, in the future, requests would be received at an earlier date to enable the Government to react in time.

The Worker members recalled that under article 19 of the Constitution member States had to report on unratified Conventions and Recommendations. These reports served as the basis for the drafting of the General Surveys and provided an overview of the obstacles to ratification facing member States. The reports also made it possible to evaluate the manner in which Conventions were applied in the countries which had not yet ratified them. Twenty-three member States had not fulfilled this obligation compared with 17 last year. The Worker members renewed their call to the governments concerned to comply with their obligations under article 19 of the Constitution.

The Employer members once again fully endorsed the statement made by the Worker members. They noted that many requests had been made for ILO technical assistance in order to train government civil servants responsible for supplying the reports. In this regard, they expressed their concern that the ILO should invest most of its resources in normal training activities and not in training government bureaucrats.

The Committee took note of the diverse information provided and the explanations given by the Government representatives. It insisted upon the great importance, for the continuation of an essential dialogue, of communicating clear and complete information in response to comments made by the Committee of Experts. It reiterated that this was an aspect of the constitutional obligation to report. In this connection, it expressed its profound concern at the very high number of cases of failure to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts. It reiterated that assistance from the ILO could be requested by governments in order to overcome any difficulties they might be facing.

The Committee urged the governments concerned, namely Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark (Faeroe Islands), Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, France (French Guiana and St. Pierre and Miquelon), Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Netherlands (Aruba), Nigeria, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Yemen to spare no effort to provide the information requested as soon as possible. The Committee decided to mention these cases in the appropriate section of its General Report.

(a) Failure to supply reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations for the past five years

The Worker members thanked the Government representatives for the information that they had provided to the Committee. However, they stressed that the failures to submit noted were not caused by chance, since the same failures had occurred over the past five years. The statements had not supplied many new details regarding these failures. The Committee should urge governments to respect fully this obligation deriving from the Constitution of the ILO, to enable the Committee of Experts to prepare complete General Surveys.

The Employer members fully agreed with the remarks made by the Worker members. They pointed out that according to the General Report, it appeared that only 52 per cent of the reports requested had been received. They recalled that these reports provided very important information and questioned why governments would be reluctant to send such reports; they could not face criticism, since they had not ratified the Conventions. They emphasized that if a large number of reports were received they provided a more realistic picture. They considered that the failure to submit such reports was serious and should be mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts.

A Government representative of Algeria recalled that his Government had ratified the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), in 1993. It had submitted the first report on the application of this Convention in 1997 and a second report in 1999. Algeria had also fulfilled its obligations by submitting several other reports in response to requests from the ILO. It was true, however, that some of these reports had been submitted after the last meeting of the Committee of Experts. Furthermore, the procedure for the ratification of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), had been commenced. Algeria had made every effort to honour its obligations towards the ILO, particularly in previous years. The failures noted by the Committee of Experts were rather embarrassing for his Government, as they did not reflect the efforts it had made. The situation would be examined in order to determine the causes of these failures. Algeria attached the greatest importance to rigorous compliance with its international obligations and would endeavour to ensure that this uncomfortable and regrettable situation did not recur in the future.

A Government representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina noted that the clarifications which she had provided also applied to the question under discussion.

A Government representative of Burundi stated that for the last five years his Government had not been able to produce any reports on the unratified Conventions because of the crisis that the country had been experiencing since 1993 and the embargo which had been imposed on it from 1996 to 1999. Another constraint was related to the shortage of skills in the country and the absence of a standards specialist in the multidisciplinary advisory team in Yaoundé. The situation would certainly improve as a result of the recent appointment of a standards specialist and the participation of a representative from Burundi in the annual training course on international labour standards which had just taken place. He expressed the hope that his Government would fulfil its obligations in this field before the next session of the Conference. He also requested that a technical assistance mission be sent to Burundi in order to help make up the delay quickly and provide training for the officials of the labour administration and the social partners at the local level.

A Government representative of Georgia stressed that his country was making every effort to respect its international obligations, but that his Government was currently going through a process of reorganization. He indicated that the officials dealing with these reports did not have the necessary skills and mentioned that working groups had to be created in this respect. He hoped that these working groups could receive technical assistance from the ILO.

A Government representative of Liberia indicated that in the past two years his country had tried to submit the requested reports and had made great efforts to reply to all the observations formulated by the Committee of Experts. The Ministry of Labour had asked for technical assistance from the ILO multidisciplinary advisory team in Dakar and as soon as they came to Liberia, the reports would be supplied.

A Government representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya indicated that a large number of instruments had been submitted to the competent authorities of his country for ratification. In this regard, he enumerated several Conventions and pointed out that the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), had been submitted to the competent authorities in 1999. He stressed that, due to the great number of Conventions, his country needed to devote more time and effort to this process, but that it would be done gradually. He emphasized that his country always took into account the observations made by the Committee of Experts.

A Government representative of Malawi indicated that there were several reasons why his country had failed to submit the reports required under article 19. Firstly, his country had emerged from a dictatorial regime which had no democratic structures for tripartite cooperation and social dialogue. A tripartite labour advisory council had been established in September 1998 and it was largely involved in the ratification of fundamental Conventions. Secondly, the Ministry of Labour had lost most of the officials trained in the preparation of reports on the ILO Conventions through retirement and resignations, and it was proving difficult to replace them without proper training. Thirdly, due to the number and frequency at which ILO Conventions and Recommendations were being produced, it was difficult to submit regular reports on unratified Conventions and Recommendations, since his country put most of its efforts into reporting on ratified instruments. Finally, he indicated that his country had not received a positive answer when it requested technical assistance from the ILO multidisciplinary advisory teams in South Africa and Zimbabwe. He looked forward to complying with the demands of the Committee in the future, provided the ILO helped with the necessary training, as requested.

A Government representative of Nigeria indicated that the statement he had made earlier applied equally here.

A Government representative of Rwanda stated that his Government had prepared and submitted all the reports requested, and that he would deposit at the ILO copies of all the reports that had been drawn up. It seemed, however, as though the communications between his country and the ILO had been disturbed recently. He further remarked that the request for submission of reports on non-ratified Conventions had been received rather late and that his Government had been able to transmit its report on 3 May 2000. He therefore hoped that, in the future, requests would be received at an earlier date to enable the Government to react in time.

The Worker members recalled that under article 19 of the Constitution member States had to report on unratified Conventions and Recommendations. These reports served as the basis for the drafting of the General Surveys and provided an overview of the obstacles to ratification facing member States. The reports also made it possible to evaluate the manner in which Conventions were applied in the countries which had not yet ratified them. Twenty-three member States had not fulfilled this obligation compared with 17 last year. The Worker members renewed their call to the governments concerned to comply with their obligations under article 19 of the Constitution.

The Employer members once again fully endorsed the statement made by the Worker members. They noted that many requests had been made for ILO technical assistance in order to train government civil servants responsible for supplying the reports. In this regard, they expressed their concern that the ILO should invest most of its resources in normal training activities and not in training government bureaucrats.

The Committee noted the information and explanations supplied by Government representatives and other speakers. The Committee emphasized the importance it attached to the constitutional obligation to send reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations. In fact, these reports made possible a better evaluation of the situation within the context of the General Surveys of the Committee of Experts. The Committee insisted that all member States should fulfil their obligations in this respect and expressed the firm hope that the Governments of Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Georgia, Grenada, Haiti, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Republic of Moldova, Nigeria, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkmenistan would fulfil their obligations under article 19 of the Constitution of the ILO in the future. The Committee decided to mention these cases in the appropriate section of its General Report.