Caso de incumplimiento grave (CAS) - Discusión: 1995, Publicación: 82ª reunión CIT (1995)

Santo Tomé y Príncipe

(a) Failure to supply reports on the application of ratified Conventions

The Employers' members noted that a dozen member States were listed under this paragraph but only Haiti, which had had many problems in the past, had provided an explanation. He hoped that in the future Haiti would meet its obligation to supply reports. The other member States would be mentioned in two places in the report, firstly for failing to supply the reports, and secondly because they had failed to attend the meeting of this Committee despite repeated invitations. They also intended to make this point in a statement to the plenary session of the Conference, which might help to improve the situation in the future.

The Workers' members indicated that they were fully in agreement with the statements of the Employers' members and emphasized that, in effect, non-compliance with this obligation rendered supervision impossible and could result in a blockage of the system. He indicated that if there were only 12 countries on the list it was because only countries that had not sent reports for the last two years were invited. They emphasized that in this paragraph the Committee of Experts mentioned 43 Governments rather than the 50 that were mentioned last year, which amounted to an improvement. However, he considered that this number was still too high in view of the importance of this obligation. Finally, he stressed the importance of requesting that these countries make a greater effort to fulfil the obligation.

The Employers' members were in full agreement with the points made by the Workers' members. In some cases reports were submitted that did not provide any real information on either the law or practice in the country. In other cases reports were sent which did not actually provide the answer requested by the Committee of Experts. In both cases it was impossible to make a factual and realistic assessment of the situation, in the absence of which there could be no supervisory activity. For this reason they attached great importance to the fulfilment by governments of this obligation. They considered that 337 cases of non-compliance with this obligation was a frightening figure.

The Workers' members were entirely in agreement with the comments made by the Employers' members, and emphasized that separate reference should be made in the general part of the report of the Committee to the governments that had been invited but were absent from this meeting.

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

The Workers' members indicated that there were only 20 countries on the list of countries that had not complied with this obligation, whereas the Committee of Experts referred to 337 cases in respect of which no responses or only incomplete ones had been received. Considering that the sending of clear and complete reports was a requirement of the Experts and was one of the key elements of examination and dialogue, they emphasized the importance of insisting that governments comply with this requirement, and of suggesting that they ask for assistance from the Office when necessary.

The Employers' members fully agreed with the points made by the Workers' members that a report which did not provide any concrete information on the law and practice of the country made it impossible to give a conclusive assessment of the situation. The figure of 337 cases pointed out in the report of the Committee of Experts, which was a frighteningly large number, left room for reflection.

The Employers' members deplored what constituted a real "blacklist" given the lack of participation of the majority of the countries concerned. They invited the Government representative of Ghana to provide written and detailed information. They considered that the intervention of the Government representative of Denmark for Greenland was somewhat limited.

The Workers' members agreed with the views expressed by the Employers' members. They wished to recall that all governments had to send complete information so that the manner in which ratified Conventions were applied could be examined. The ILO could always provide its assistance to governments so that they could give more pertinent replies to the questions raised.

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

In reply to the 1994 observations of the Committee of Experts, the Government indicated that the delay in sending the reports due and replies to the Committee's comments occurred because of a lack of experienced personnel and changes resulting from the present political situation, such as the fall of a government, the construction of an interim government, the calling of early legislative elections, and the restructuring of all the state apparatus. The Government also indicated that the sector of the Ministry of Labour, Public Administration, Employment and Social Justice responsible for labour matters had begun to deal with all matters in the Ministry related to the Secretary of State for Employment and Occupational Training in order to re-establish and maintain the appropriate order in existing documentation.

The Committee recalled the fundamental importance of the supply of reports on the application of ratified Conventions, not just of their supply as such, but of doing so within the stipulated time-limit. This obligation constituted the foundations of the supervisory system, and the Committee expressed its firm hope that the Governments of Albania, Burundi, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Somalia and Zaire, which had not to date submitted reports on the application of ratified Conventions, would do so as soon as possible and decided to mention these cases in the appropriate section of its General Report.

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

The Workers' members indicated that there were only 20 countries on the list of countries that had not complied with this obligation, whereas the Committee of Experts referred to 337 cases in respect of which no responses or only incomplete ones had been received. Considering that the sending of clear and complete reports was a requirement of the Experts and was one of the key elements of examination and dialogue, they emphasized the importance of insisting that governments comply with this requirement, and of suggesting that they ask for assistance from the Office when necessary.

The Employers' members fully agreed with the points made by the Workers' members that a report which did not provide any concrete information on the law and practice of the country made it impossible to give a conclusive assessment of the situation. The figure of 337 cases pointed out in the report of the Committee of Experts, which was a frighteningly large number, left room for reflection.

The Employers' members deplored what constituted a real "blacklist" given the lack of participation of the majority of the countries concerned. They invited the Government representative of Ghana to provide written and detailed information. They considered that the intervention of the Government representative of Denmark for Greenland was somewhat limited.

The Workers' members agreed with the views expressed by the Employers' members. They wished to recall that all governments had to send complete information so that the manner in which ratified Conventions were applied could be examined. The ILO could always provide its assistance to governments so that they could give more pertinent replies to the questions raised.

The Committee took due note of the various 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 further observed that assistance from the ILO could be requested by governments in order to overcome any difficulties they may be facing.

The Committee urged the Governments concerned, namely Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Denmark (Greenland), Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Haiti, Kuwait, Liberia, Madagascar, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Yemen and Zaire, 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.

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

In reply to the 1994 observations of the Committee of Experts, the Government indicated that the delay in sending the reports due and replies to the Committee's comments occurred because of a lack of experienced personnel and changes resulting from the present political situation, such as the fall of a government, the construction of an interim government, the calling of early legislative elections, and the restructuring of all the state apparatus. The Government also indicated that the sector of the Ministry of Labour, Public Administration, Employment and Social Justice responsible for labour matters had begun to deal with all matters in the Ministry related to the Secretary of State for Employment and Occupational Training in order to re-establish and maintain the appropriate order in existing documentation.