Case of serious failure (CAS) - Discussion: 2005, Publication: 93rd ILC session (2005)

Sao Tome and Principe

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

The Worker members observed that incomplete or unclear reports, or the late submission of the reports due, seriously hampered the work of the Conference Committee and of the Committee of Experts. Governments had to take the comments formulated by the Committee of Experts seriously and fulfil their obligations. The number of governments which failed to reply to requests made by the Committee of Experts was constantly increasing. This year, in 444 cases (covering 49 countries), the governments had not replied to the comments of the Committee of Experts, while last year this number was 325 (covering 37 countries). The attitude of these governments was unacceptable. The Worker members indicated that they had discussed the case of Pakistan with respect to Conventions No. 87 and 98 and the consequences for the workers in that country. As in the other cases, this situation was unacceptable in the opinion of the Worker members.

The Employer members said that at times the reports supplied by States were difficult to understand or the information provided was incomplete. The obligation to submit reports with additional information was part of the process covered by the general obligation to supply reports. There had been no improvements this year, as 49 countries, compared with 37 in 2004, had not provided the additional information requested. This was serious because such information made it possible to determine whether the case was serious. Without relevant and clear information, the entire process would fall apart, which also constituted a failure in relation to countries which regularly submitted their reports within the prescribed time limits.

A Government representative of Barbados regretted that her country had been unable to meet all of its reporting obligations, particularly since it was committed to the principles of the ILO and usually submitted fully detailed and timely reports. She assured the Committee that of those listed in the General Report, the reports on Conventions Nos. 63 and 81 had already been submitted. The report on Convention No. 118 was also ready and available for submission to the Committee. A simplified report on Convention No. 105 had also been submitted. However, there were outstanding comments in respect of this Convention relating to the observations made by the Committee of Experts. She added that there were also outstanding reports on Conventions Nos. 108 and 147. She explained that in each of these cases the difficulty in submitting the outstanding reports and comments had arisen because her Government had not yet received the comments from all of the social partners. She assured the Committee that reports on the remaining Conventions would be submitted to the Committee shortly.

A Government representative of Cambodia indicated that, as a result of the technical assistance provided by the Office, Cambodia had made progress the previous year. Hence, the reports for the year 2004 had already been sent. With regard to the reports for 2005, they had not yet been prepared because of the changes within the Ministry of Labour. In July 2004, the Government of Cambodia had been restructured and a new Ministry of Labour had been created, combining a part of the former Ministry of Social Affairs and the Ministry of Education. He added that his Government was ready to prepare the reports for 2005. However, because the staff of the different services had changed posts due to the restructuring, the staff that were competent in the field of labour had not yet taken up their functions, in particular those related to the drafting of ILO reports. He hoped that the new Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training would fulfil its reporting obligations.

A Government representative of Côte d'Ivoire indicated that his Government took due note of the information contained in paragraph 31 of the report of the Committee of Experts concerning failure to supply information in reply to the comments made on Conventions Nos. 81 and 129. He stated that his Government had not been able to send a reply within the established deadlines. The reports had been prepared, but the annexes were still missing. He indicated that his Government sincerely regretted this situation and was committed to fulfilling its obligations after the Conference. Moreover, he undertook to ensure that such delays did not occur again in the future.

A Government representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo expressed his Government's regret at not having fulfilled its obligations. Concerning the failure to supply information in response to the comments made by the Committee of Experts, he indicated that the normal operation of the public service of the State had been paralysed due to the difficulties encountered by the country as a result of the war. These difficulties had caused a delay in the submission of the reports concerning Conventions Nos. 81, 87, 98, 100, 102 and 150. However, the Government undertook to submit these reports to the employers' and workers' organizations and to supply them to the ILO not later than 1 September 2005. Concerning the reports requested under article 19 of the Constitution, his Government had found it inappropriate to send these reports without having first submitted them to the employers' and workers' organizations. To date, the reports concerning Conventions Nos. 1 and 30 on working time, Convention No. 122 on employment policy, Convention No. 142 on human resources development, Recommendation No. 69 on medical care and Recommendation No. 189 on job creation in small and medium-sized enterprises had been prepared. He added that his Government's failure to supply reports could be explained, among other reasons, by the fact that the Minister of Labour and Social Insurance had not received some correspondence. In conclusion, he stated that in order to facilitate the work of the Committee of Experts, his Government was determined to supply the reports requested within the time limits established.

A Government representative of Denmark referred to his previous statement and recalled Greenland's limited population and small administration. He said that Greenland deeply respected the ILO's instruments. He added that over the past 20-30 years Greenland had obtained increased autonomy on social and labour law issues. This meant that Greenland had sometimes been led to question commitments assumed by Denmark on its behalf. Moreover, the Government of Denmark could not instruct the Home Rule Authority in Greenland or fulfil the reporting obligations on its behalf. In 2003, his country had received important and systematic assistance from the ILO Office, which had helped it to determine precisely which Conventions should be considered as having been ratified by Greenland. He noted that this assistance would help Greenland to fulfil its reporting obligations, including the obligation to reply to the comments from the Committee of Experts.

A Government representative of Djibouti indicated that Conventions Nos. 111, 138 and 182 had been ratified the previous year, which meant that Djibouti had ratified the eight fundamental Conventions. With regard to the failure to submit information in reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts, Djibouti had ratified a fairly large number of Conventions (68) which had overloaded the labour services responsible for preparing reports. Moreover, several of these Conventions had no relevance to the economic activities in the country. The Government was therefore thinking about the possibility of denouncing certain Conventions. He requested the technical assistance of the ILO in relation to this matter.

A Government representative of Haiti indicated that information concerning Conventions Nos. 14, 24, 25, 29, 77, 78, 81, 87, 98, 100 and 106 would be sent to the Office.

A Government representative of Guinea indicated that, with regard to the issue of the failure to submit instruments to the competent authorities, the Government had submitted Conventions adopted by the ILO to the Parliament for ratification. Conventions Nos. 156 and 159, as well as Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 on child labour, could be mentioned as examples. With regard to the failure to supply reports for the past two years or more on the application of ratified Conventions, he indicated that Guinea had ratified 58 Conventions and thus had become one of 110 member States that had ratified all the fundamental Conventions, the principles of which were contained in the ILO Declaration. He took due note of the information provided and undertook to supply the necessary reports. Finally, concerning failure to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts, he said that almost all the reports had been sent in accordance with the schedule prepared by the Government in collaboration with the international labour standards specialist. Thus, reports on Conventions Nos. 87, 95, 98, 113, 117, 122, 133, 139 and 140 had been supplied, as well as those concerning Conventions Nos. 135, 150 and 151. Reports on Conventions Nos. 3, 16, 100, 144, 149, 152 and 159 would be sent.

He recognized that the reports had not been prepared within the established time limits and said that in future this situation would change. Moreover, the reports that had not yet been sent would be supplied to the ILO. The Government was making efforts to fulfil its obligations. For example, a new Labour Code had been adopted which was more flexible. Furthermore, the reports were always sent to workers' and employers' organizations, in conformity with article 23 of the Constitution. Measures had also been taken with regard to child labour, and in particular the Government was collaborating with ILO/IPEC. Finally, he indicated that the reports would be sent by the end of 2005 at the latest and requested technical assistance from the ILO.

A Government representative of the Netherlands said that he appreciated being given the opportunity to explain the situation in Aruba in more detail before the Committee. He thanked the Committee of Experts for its transparency and good work. He said that the Labour Department of Aruba had undergone a major reorganization in June 2004. This reorganization had come with many changes in different functions and unfortunately had interfered with the day-to-day operation of the Department. He added that at the moment the Government of Aruba was busy responding to observations made by the Committee of Experts, as stated in the General Report, paragraph 31. He apologized for that delay and hoped that the necessary information would be submitted within the next three months.

A Government representative of Pakistan said that his country had sent reports on most of the Conventions ratified. He regretted that replies to some of the comments of the Committee of Experts had not been sent as they required certain information from different stakeholders, such as provincial governments and federal ministries. He said that the matter had already been referred to them. Some of the required information had been received, although a few had yet to respond. He noted that replies would be provided to the Committee in the near future. He informed the Committee that his Government was in the process of amending some of its labour laws, including the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which had been referred to in the comments under Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. He reiterated the importance and respect attached by his Government to the work of the Conference Committee.

A Government representative of Paraguay referred to his previous statement on failure to supply reports for the past two years or more on the application of ratified Conventions.

A Government representative of the United Kingdom apologized on behalf of Montserrat for its failure to fully respond to the requests for reports under article 22 of the ILO Constitution. She assured the Committee that this was not due to a lack of commitment on the part of the Government of Montserrat to fulfil its obligations as a Member of the ILO, but due to a question of capacity. She said that unfortunately the reality of the situation was that Montserrat was an extremely small autonomous island with limited human and financial resources. While this was not an excuse, it had to be recognized that heavy reporting schedules could place a considerable burden on even the largest administrations. Her Government had been working with the Government of Montserrat to help it address the capacity issue. In December 2004, in conjunction with the ILO Caribbean Office, her Government had held a workshop for a number of Caribbean-based territories, including Montserrat, with the specific aim of reviewing ILO reporting requirements and other standards-related activities. She was pleased to report that, following the workshop, the Government of Montserrat was making progress. A Human Rights Reporting Committee had been established which was considering ways to ensure that all future human rights reports, including those that covered ILO Conventions, were completed on time and that all outstanding ILO reports were submitted as soon as possible.

A Government representative of Yemen recalled that his country had ratified 29 Conventions, which demonstrated its readiness to fulfil its commitments in relation to the ILO and its instruments. He indicated that a copy of the new draft Labour Code had been sent to the Office for technical comments and that his country intended to consider these comments when assessing whether its legislation was in accordance with the obligations of the Conventions it had ratified. It was still awaiting a response from the ILO. He said that in the past his country had been able to submit its reports within the established time limits due to the technical assistance received. However, it had now encountered certain difficulties and required assistance, but he regretted to note that there had been a reduction in the rate of technical assistance to countries in his region in recent years. He therefore called for the volume of assistance provided in the region to be strengthened. In conclusion, he reaffirmed his Government's commitment to the ILO's principles and standards.

A Government representative of Zambia expressed deep sadness at the failure of his country to provide timely responses to the requests for information and the comments of the Committee of Experts. He assured the Conference Committee that this failure was not deliberate and was not intended to undermine the valuable work of the supervisory system. The reason lay with the long drawn-out process of the restructuring of the Ministry of Labour, during the course of which the staff experienced in attending to the reporting requirements of the ILO had taken early retirement. Nevertheless, he assured the Committee that in future all the reports and information required by the supervisory bodies would be attended to promptly. Some of the reports that were overdue had already been dispatched and the others would be prepared and sent off as soon as possible. With a view to resolving the problem of lack of capacity, approaches had been made to the ILO to provide training for the new administrative officers responsible for ILO reporting procedures.

The Worker members, while thanking the Governments concerned for their replies, stated that they had heard almost the same reasons as in the past for their failure to send replies to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. Despite the opportunity afforded to them, several Governments had not taken the floor on this subject. Considering the importance of the obligation to submit reports, the Worker members emphasized that governments had to be urged to comply with these requirements.

The Worker member of Pakistan said that he had listened to the statement by the Government representative and wished to draw his attention to the importance of submitting the reports due on Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 100. He recalled that the Committee of Experts had requested the Government to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, to bring it into conformity with its international obligations under ILO Conventions. He therefore urged the Government to amend its legislation in the near future so that trade union rights were restored to workers, who were at particular risk in the current process of liberalization and privatization. He hoped that the commitment made by the Government representative would be put into effect in the near future through strong action to amend the legislation that infringed the basic rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining.

The Employer members indicated that the explanations provided by Governments were similar to those which had been advanced for many years, namely war, administrative problems, the need for ILO technical assistance. Some speakers had referred to the issue of the ratification of many Conventions in a relatively short period of time, and others to the restructuring of the labour administration. Still others had undertaken to supply the reports in the near future. They emphasized the relevance and importance of supplying reports, which was part of and affected not only the work of the Conference Committee, but of the entire process of supervising the application of international labour standards.

(d) Written information received up to the end of the meeting of the Committee on the Application of Standards

Sao Tome and Principe. The ratifications of Conventions Nos. 182 and 184, adopted at the 87th and the 89th Sessions of the Conference (1999 and 2001, respectively), were registered on 4 May 2005.

Reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations (Article 19 of the Constitution)

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

The Worker members recalled that article 19 of the ILO Constitution established the obligation for member States to supply reports on unratified Conventions and Recommendations. These reports served as a basis for the drafting of general surveys and gave an overview of the obstacles that might prevent States from ratifying Conventions. The reports also showed whether standards were still adapted to the economic and social situation. This year, in the context of the General Survey, governments had had to supply reports concerning Conventions Nos. 1 and 30 on hours of work. In this regard, it was regrettable that only 52.57 per cent of the reports requested had been supplied. The Worker members emphasized that over the past five years too many countries had not fulfilled the obligation to supply reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations and urged the governments concerned to comply with article 19 of the ILO Constitution.

The Employer members said that the supply of reports on unratified Conventions was of great importance for the Committee of Experts to be able to prepare general surveys and examine the extent to which national law and practice were in accordance with the instruments concerned. They emphasized that cases of failure to submit reports in the last five years on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations should not give rise to problems in practice. They urged governments to comply with their obligations or, where appropriate, to explain the reasons why they had not been able to do so.

A Government representative of the Congo assured the Conference Committee of the commitment of his Government to comply with its constitutional obligations. In this respect, the Congo had ratified all the fundamental Conventions and last year reports on Conventions Nos. 13, 14, 26, 29, 81, 87, 89, 95, 98, 100, 105, 111, 119, 138, 144, 149, 150, 152 and 182 had been sent to the Office, thereby complying with the provisions of article 22 of the ILO Constitution. With regard to the supply of reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations, his country took due note of the comments made by the Committee of Experts. While indicating that his Government would take all the necessary measures as rapidly as possible to resolve this situation, he noted that one of the reasons for the failure to comply with this obligation was the change of government in his country.

A Government representative of the Dominican Republic invited the secretariat to take a careful look at the reasons for including the Dominican Republic on the list of countries which for the past five years had not submitted any of the reports requested for the preparation of the General Survey. He indicated that his country had ratified Convention No. 122, which had been the subject of the General Survey the previous year, and which indicated that the information provided by his Government had been examined by the Committee of Experts in the context of articles 19 and 22 of the ILO Constitution. Furthermore, information on his country had been included on 54 occasions in the General Survey of 2003 on the protection of wages. It would therefore be presumptuous to consider that his country had not met its obligations under article 19 of the Constitution. He asserted that his country complied with its obligations related to reporting and submission and responded to the Office's other requests, which was why he was surprised that his country had been included in the group of countries listed for non-compliance. Finally, he emphasized the importance of the ratification of the ILO's fundamental Conventions and their full implementation by the authorities and social partners.

A Government representative of Uganda stated that it was regrettable that his Government had not been able to supply the reports requested. He added that his Government had sought technical clarifications and guidance from the Office with respect to its obligations regarding the submission of these reports. The situation had now been settled, and his Government would, in the course of the first week of July 2005, supply reports on Convention No. 81, the Protocol of 1995 to Convention No. 81, Recommendations Nos. 81 and 82, Convention No. 129 and Recommendation No. 133.

A Government representative of Zambia referred to his previous statement in which he had deeply regretted that his Government had encountered difficulties in fulfilling its obligations to submit reports on time. He recalled that this was due to the restructuring of the Ministry of Labour, which had taken much longer than expected, and which had resulted in the early retirement of those officials who had been responsible for reporting to the ILO. However, the Ministry was now taking the necessary steps, with the assistance of the local ILO Office, to prepare these reports as soon as possible, and it would start training the new officials in the very near future.

The Worker members regretted that the statements made by Government representatives had not provided much new information on the reasons for their failure to supply reports. The Committee should therefore urge governments to comply fully with this obligation established by the ILO Constitution, thereby allowing the Committee of Experts to prepare complete general surveys.

The Employer members thanked the representatives of the four Governments which had presented additional information, but pointed out that this information had not provided any further significant elements. In one case, reference had been made to a change of government, in another to the restructuring of the Ministry of Labour, in a third to an error in relation to the receipt of the reports, and in another to the need for ILO technical assistance. They urged member States to collaborate in complying with this basic obligation and, where appropriate, to explain any difficulties encountered and the reasons for their failures to comply, as this would help to determine how attuned the instruments were to the situation at the national level.

The representative of the Secretary-General, in response to the statement by the Government member of the Dominican Republic, said that following a verification of the relevant files she could confirm that none of the reports due from his country for the past five years on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations had been received by the Office. She added that, with a view to the preparation of general surveys that were as complete as possible, in cases where it was not supplied directly by the government, the Office endeavoured to find information that was available on the countries concerned. She indicated that the Office was prepared to discuss with the Government any difficulties that it was encountering in this regard.

The Worker members indicated that the present situation was a matter of concern as it involved serious breaches of constitutional obligations. Governments needed to make all possible efforts to fulfil their obligations. They called for a discussion to be held on the methods of work relating to cases of serious failure of member States to respect their obligations to supply reports and other standards-related obligations so as to prepare for the next session of the Committee on this issue.

The Employer members agreed with the Worker members that the failure of member States to respect their reporting or other standards-related obligations constituted a serious failure in the system in general. It was necessary to improve the procedures followed by the Conference Committee concerning these cases and for the Committee of Experts to provide fuller information, on a country-by-country basis, on why such failures in reporting were occurring, as well as on cases in which assistance was being provided. In their view, it would not be possible to solve these problems until the underlying reasons for non-compliance with reporting and other obligations were known and understood.

The representative of the Secretary-General, in response to the discussion, indicated that the Office had taken note of the suggestions made by the Employer and Worker members. The Office would examine once again the information made available to the Conference Committee with a view to providing it with much fuller information next year. The countries concerned would be asked to provide explanations on the specific reasons which had prevented them from fulfilling their obligations, whether they were of an institutional, political or other nature, so that technical assistance could be provided to help overcome such obstacles. It was to be hoped that this process could be undertaken in consultation with the Officers of the Committee and that the information provided would allow the Conference Committee to engage in a fuller discussion of the important issues arising out of cases of serious failure by member States to respect their reporting or other standards-related obligations.

The Committee took due note of the information and explanations provided by the Government representatives who took the floor. It noted with concern the large number of countries which had not replied to the comments on several Conventions. The Committee emphasized the great importance, for the continuation of dialogue, of providing clear, relevant and full information. It reiterated that this was part of the constitutional obligation to supply reports. It urged Governments to request the assistance of the ILO to overcome any difficulties they might face and asked the Office to give effect to such requests.

The Committee urged the Governments concerned, and particularly, Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Cape Verde, Cambodia, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark (Greenland), Djibouti, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Netherlands (Aruba), Pakistan, Paraguay, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom (Montserrat), Yemen, Zambia, to make every effort to provide the requested information as soon as possible. The Committee decided to mention these cases in the appropriate section of its General Report.

(d) Written information received up to the end of the meeting of the Committee on the Application of Standards

Sao Tome and Principe. The ratifications of Conventions Nos. 182 and 184, adopted at the 87th and the 89th Sessions of the Conference (1999 and 2001, respectively), were registered on 4 May 2005.

Reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations (Article 19 of the Constitution)

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

The Worker members recalled that article 19 of the ILO Constitution established the obligation for member States to supply reports on unratified Conventions and Recommendations. These reports served as a basis for the drafting of general surveys and gave an overview of the obstacles that might prevent States from ratifying Conventions. The reports also showed whether standards were still adapted to the economic and social situation. This year, in the context of the General Survey, governments had had to supply reports concerning Conventions Nos. 1 and 30 on hours of work. In this regard, it was regrettable that only 52.57 per cent of the reports requested had been supplied. The Worker members emphasized that over the past five years too many countries had not fulfilled the obligation to supply reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations and urged the governments concerned to comply with article 19 of the ILO Constitution.

The Employer members said that the supply of reports on unratified Conventions was of great importance for the Committee of Experts to be able to prepare general surveys and examine the extent to which national law and practice were in accordance with the instruments concerned. They emphasized that cases of failure to submit reports in the last five years on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations should not give rise to problems in practice. They urged governments to comply with their obligations or, where appropriate, to explain the reasons why they had not been able to do so.

A Government representative of the Congo assured the Conference Committee of the commitment of his Government to comply with its constitutional obligations. In this respect, the Congo had ratified all the fundamental Conventions and last year reports on Conventions Nos. 13, 14, 26, 29, 81, 87, 89, 95, 98, 100, 105, 111, 119, 138, 144, 149, 150, 152 and 182 had been sent to the Office, thereby complying with the provisions of article 22 of the ILO Constitution. With regard to the supply of reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations, his country took due note of the comments made by the Committee of Experts. While indicating that his Government would take all the necessary measures as rapidly as possible to resolve this situation, he noted that one of the reasons for the failure to comply with this obligation was the change of government in his country.

A Government representative of the Dominican Republic invited the secretariat to take a careful look at the reasons for including the Dominican Republic on the list of countries which for the past five years had not submitted any of the reports requested for the preparation of the General Survey. He indicated that his country had ratified Convention No. 122, which had been the subject of the General Survey the previous year, and which indicated that the information provided by his Government had been examined by the Committee of Experts in the context of articles 19 and 22 of the ILO Constitution. Furthermore, information on his country had been included on 54 occasions in the General Survey of 2003 on the protection of wages. It would therefore be presumptuous to consider that his country had not met its obligations under article 19 of the Constitution. He asserted that his country complied with its obligations related to reporting and submission and responded to the Office's other requests, which was why he was surprised that his country had been included in the group of countries listed for non-compliance. Finally, he emphasized the importance of the ratification of the ILO's fundamental Conventions and their full implementation by the authorities and social partners.

A Government representative of Uganda stated that it was regrettable that his Government had not been able to supply the reports requested. He added that his Government had sought technical clarifications and guidance from the Office with respect to its obligations regarding the submission of these reports. The situation had now been settled, and his Government would, in the course of the first week of July 2005, supply reports on Convention No. 81, the Protocol of 1995 to Convention No. 81, Recommendations Nos. 81 and 82, Convention No. 129 and Recommendation No. 133.

A Government representative of Zambia referred to his previous statement in which he had deeply regretted that his Government had encountered difficulties in fulfilling its obligations to submit reports on time. He recalled that this was due to the restructuring of the Ministry of Labour, which had taken much longer than expected, and which had resulted in the early retirement of those officials who had been responsible for reporting to the ILO. However, the Ministry was now taking the necessary steps, with the assistance of the local ILO Office, to prepare these reports as soon as possible, and it would start training the new officials in the very near future.

The Worker members regretted that the statements made by Government representatives had not provided much new information on the reasons for their failure to supply reports. The Committee should therefore urge governments to comply fully with this obligation established by the ILO Constitution, thereby allowing the Committee of Experts to prepare complete general surveys.

The Employer members thanked the representatives of the four Governments which had presented additional information, but pointed out that this information had not provided any further significant elements. In one case, reference had been made to a change of government, in another to the restructuring of the Ministry of Labour, in a third to an error in relation to the receipt of the reports, and in another to the need for ILO technical assistance. They urged member States to collaborate in complying with this basic obligation and, where appropriate, to explain any difficulties encountered and the reasons for their failures to comply, as this would help to determine how attuned the instruments were to the situation at the national level.

The representative of the Secretary-General, in response to the statement by the Government member of the Dominican Republic, said that following a verification of the relevant files she could confirm that none of the reports due from his country for the past five years on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations had been received by the Office. She added that, with a view to the preparation of general surveys that were as complete as possible, in cases where it was not supplied directly by the government, the Office endeavoured to find information that was available on the countries concerned. She indicated that the Office was prepared to discuss with the Government any difficulties that it was encountering in this regard.

The Committee noted the information and explanations provided by the Government representatives who had taken the floor. The Committee emphasized the importance that it attached to the constitutional obligation of supplying reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations. Such reports made it possible to evaluate the situation more fully in the context of the general surveys prepared by the Committee of Experts. The Committee urged all member States to comply with their obligations in this respect and expressed the firm hope that the Governments of Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Guinea, Guyana, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Zambia would comply in future with their obligations under article 19 of the Constitution. The Committee reaffirmed the availability of the Office to provide technical assistance to help in complying with these obligations. The Committee decided to mention these cases in the appropriate section of its General Report.

The Worker members indicated that the present situation was a matter of concern as it involved serious breaches of constitutional obligations. Governments needed to make all possible efforts to fulfil their obligations. They called for a discussion to be held on the methods of work relating to cases of serious failure of member States to respect their obligations to supply reports and other standards-related obligations so as to prepare for the next session of the Committee on this issue.

The Employer members agreed with the Worker members that the failure of member States to respect their reporting or other standards-related obligations constituted a serious failure in the system in general. It was necessary to improve the procedures followed by the Conference Committee concerning these cases and for the Committee of Experts to provide fuller information, on a country-by-country basis, on why such failures in reporting were occurring, as well as on cases in which assistance was being provided. In their view, it would not be possible to solve these problems until the underlying reasons for non-compliance with reporting and other obligations were known and understood.

The representative of the Secretary-General, in response to the discussion, indicated that the Office had taken note of the suggestions made by the Employer and Worker members. The Office would examine once again the information made available to the Conference Committee with a view to providing it with much fuller information next year. The countries concerned would be asked to provide explanations on the specific reasons which had prevented them from fulfilling their obligations, whether they were of an institutional, political or other nature, so that technical assistance could be provided to help overcome such obstacles. It was to be hoped that this process could be undertaken in consultation with the Officers of the Committee and that the information provided would allow the Conference Committee to engage in a fuller discussion of the important issues arising out of cases of serious failure by member States to respect their reporting or other standards-related obligations.