Caso de incumplimiento grave (CAS) - Discusión: 1994, Publicación: 81ª reunión CIT (1994)

República Democrática del Congo

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

The Workers' members underscored the importance of replying to comments made by the Committee of Experts as a key element in the dialogue between the Government and the supervisory bodies, without which neither the Committee of Experts nor the Conference Committee would be able to work. If a lengthy reply was supplied to the Conference Committee, it would need to be referred to the Committee of Experts and would thus interrupt the dialogue. They emphasized that such a failure would slow down the process of supervision but would not let the Government escape from supervision. They criticized strongly the supply of incomplete and unclear reports.

The Employers' members considered such a failure was a subcategory of those relating to the normal obligation to report and stated that reports with unclear or incomplete points were almost equal to no report. The figure of 353 such cases noted in paragraph 129 of the General Report was a cause for concern and, without some progress, the whole supervisory system would be put into question. This was unfair to those governments that supplied proper reports.

A Government representative of Barbados expressed his Government's regret that it was unable to supply the information due to a number of factors: the prime ones being institutional difficulties arising from structural changes in the Ministry of Labour over the last year or so. He referred to a contact that his Government had made with the ILO Office in the Caribbean for assistance so as to strengthen its capacity to respond more effectively to the requests. He assured the Committee that the available information would be submitted to the Office on his return to the country.

A Government representative of Burundi stated that, as soon as they had received the Report of the Committee of Experts, they had prepared a report and sent it to the ILO in May. He pointed out that the direct request concerning Convention No. 81 had not been received with the Report of the Committee of Experts. After referring to the efforts to repeal certain legal texts which werein contradiction with Convention No. 29, he referred to the political situation in his country since last year: the democratic elections, the assassination of the new President, and the plane accident that befell his successor. He requested the understanding of the Committee of Experts in view of these circumstances and expressed his commitment to respond to the direct request on Convention No. 81, a copy of which he had just received.

A Government representative of the Central African Republic informed the Committee that his delegation had provided to the ILO at the beginning of the Conference ten reports, namely on Conventions Nos. 17, 18, 26, 29, 41, 88, 95, 98, 105 and 118, containing information on comments of the Committee of Experts. Replies had also been sent by post on Conventions Nos. 13, 81, 100, 111, 117 and 119, which had apparently not been received by the ILO. He emphasized his Government's willingness to respect its constitutional obligations by putting in order the services responsible for the relevant questions, in the general framework of technical cooperation of the ILO.

A Government representative of Gabon stressed that the failure was not due to bad faith or to an attempt to hide anything. The period when the report forms and the Committee of Experts' comments were received coincided with the period of presidential elections, which brought to a standstill the functioning of the entire administration in his country. He assured the Committee that the reports due would be sent in good time for supervision, barring unforeseen circumstances.

A Government representative of Ghana regretted that the failure was partly due to the channel through which the information had to pass before reaching the ILO, and stated that action had been taken to correct this lapse so as to supply any information directly to the Office with copies to the Ministry responsible for labour matters. He noted that information on six out of 11 Conventions concerned had been supplied, and that efforts were being made to supply information on the remaining five Conventions as soon as possible and, in any case, before the end of the year. Ghana benefited from training programmes organized by the ILO, which would no doubt enhance their knowledge regarding the preparation, supply and submission of reports in accordance with articles 19, 22 and 35 of the Constitution.

A Government representative of Haiti stressed that he represented the legitimate Government of the country, which, however, did not exercise any real power in the country since the coup d'ítat of September 1991. His Government was not able to fulfil its obligations because the institutions such as the Ministries of Justice and of Social Affairs and Parliament did not function. He assured the Committee that, as soon as a legitimate constitutional order was established, all efforts would be made to comply with these obligations. He also expressed his wish that the Committee of Experts would draw particular attention to the case of Haiti by mentioning it in the appropriate part of its report.

A Government representative of Honduras stated that the Permanent Mission in Geneva had requested the Ministry of Labour to supply information to respond to the comments made by the Committee of Experts and that this information had unfortunately not yet been received. She stressed her Government's firm willingness to discharge its obligations vis-à-vis the ILO and to send reports on time. In addition, she referred to the modernization of labour legislation under way, for which the assistance of the ILO was requested.

A Government representative of Jamaica apologized for the absence of some of the reports, due to certain administrative difficulties. Referring to the assistance obtained from the ILO Office in the Caribbean, he assured the Committee that reports would in future be submitted on time.

A Government representative of Lebanon noted that her Government had submitted during 1993 the reports on 23 ratified Conventions, 20 of which had apparently been commended by the Committee of Experts for their comprehensive details. She stated that information on Conventions Nos. 81 and 98 was also supplied to the ILO in the aforementioned reports. No replies to the comments on the other Conventions could be sent because the Government had not received the related documents, such as in the case of Convention No. 90. She also considered that some cases of brief or incomplete answers to the questions raised by the Committee of Experts could be due to the fact that no major amendments had been introduced to the Labour Code of 1946. The speaker further referred to the current revision and updating of the Labour Code, to the measures taken by the Ministry of Labour to give effect to some of the provisions of the ratified Conventions by means of administrative decisions, and to the submission of 38 Conventions to the competent authorities.

A Government representative of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya noted that a reply to the observations concerning Convention No. 29 had been made by the report of the national committee that was specially established to respond to comments of the Committee of Experts and that this had been sent on 29 May 1992. The same report also responded to observations concerning labour inspection and Convention No. 88 and also concerning freedom of association and collective bargaining. As to the social security Conventions, the relevant observations had recently been submitted to the competent authority so that a reply could be prepared. The speaker pointed out that the observations were received in April 1994 and referred to delays in postal delivery caused by the air embargo. He expressed the hope that the comments of the Committee of Experts could be provided in Arabic.

The representative of the Secretary-General reminded the Committee that comments in the Arabic language had been sent systematically since 1988.

A Government representative of Madagascar stated that since 1992 his Government had made particular efforts to make up for the delay of the supply of reports and that the reports on 20 out of 25 Conventions concerned had already been sent to the ILO. After supplying information on the application of certain Conventions, he added that his Government would continue the efforts in line with the comments made by the Committee and that the other reports requested would be submitted to the ILO in the near future.

A Government representative of Mozambique stated that the delay in sending reports was due to the fact that the two officials in charge of their preparation had left the Ministry of Labour and that another official had to be trained to deal with the activities concerning standards and obligations with regard to the ILO. As regards Convention No. 81, the delegation to this Conference had submitted the report to the ILO. As to Conventions Nos. 18, 88 and 100, the reports would be supplied to the ILOas soon as the delegation returned to the country. She concluded by recalling the technical assistance that her country had received from the ILO.

A Government representative of Papua New Guinea highlighted the technical and administrative difficulties which his Government had faced in recent years and stated that they had requested the technical assistance of the ILO through the multidisciplinary team based in Manila.

d) Failure to supply reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations

The Employers' members recalled the nature of the obligation to supply reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations and drew attention to paragraph 157 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts, according to which only 50 per cent of the reports requested of States that had not ratified the Conventions concerned had been received, a situation considered extremely regrettable. They urged member States to discharge their obligations in this respect, because the General Survey would otherwise have only a partial value.

The Workers' members subscribed to the comments of the Employers' members and recalled that, during the general discussion on the future of standards, the importance of General Surveys was emphasized not only as a means to obtain a clear image of the situation in different countries of the world, but also to appreciate and prepare what measures should be taken in future regarding, for instance, the possible revision of the instruments concerned. In addition, such surveys were important to dissipate miscomprehensions that hindered or slowed down the ratification of Conventions by certain countries.

A Government representative of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stated that the necessary measures had been taken to draw the attention of the competent authorities to unratified Conventions and Recommendations.

A Government representative of Namibia stated that his country, being a young nation, was faced with numerous problems and that for the last four years his Government had tried to reinforce the institutional capacity of his country and, in particular, that of the Ministry of Labour, which now included a department that dealt directly with questions relating to the application of standards and to the ILO. He added that the fact that the employers' and workers' organizations were new, and still growing, was an additional cause of difficulty in supplying detailed reports, but that his Government hoped that it would be able to discharge its obligations towards the Committee of Experts with the above-mentioned measures.

The Employers' member of Namibia stated that the Namibian Employers' Federation and its constituent employer associations were actively involved in the development of a tripartite system, based on the notion of participatory democracy, freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Labour Act of 1992 had established a framework for, and encouraged a pluralist system of, industrial relations, putting into effect the principles contained in the nation's Constitution. Although Namibia had not formally ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, he reassured the Committee that in spirit these Conventions were being honoured and applied in his country.

A Government representative of Papua New Guinea stated that his Government was faced with administrative difficulties. He took note of the comments by the Committee of Experts and hoped to comply with ILO obligations in the future.

The Employers' members stated that the Committee should make clear the significance attached to the formal reporting obligations because if this was not done the supervisory machinery would be unable to function. Under the new simplified reporting system, they hoped that governments would fulfil these obligations and that there would be fewer cases of unfulfilled obligations. They noted a certain improvement in relation to last year in the number of governments appearing before the Committee, but the situation was still worrisome. The accumulation of all of these cases in one single session should not serve as an excuse for governments not to appear before the Committee. They asked that those governments that had not appeared be referred to in an appropriate section of the report of the Committee.

The Workers' members endorsed the Employers' members statement in its entirety.

The Committee took due note of the information and explanations provided by Government representatives. It stressed the great importance 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 extremely high number of cases of failure to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts. It reiterated the fact 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 Barbados, Burkina Faso, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Somalia and Zaire to spare no effort to provide the information requested as soon as possible. The Committee decided to mention all these cases in the appropriate section of its General Report.

d) Failure to supply reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations

The Employers' members recalled the nature of the obligation to supply reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations and drew attention to paragraph 157 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts, according to which only 50 per cent of the reports requested of States that had not ratified the Conventions concerned had been received, a situation considered extremely regrettable. They urged member States to discharge their obligations in this respect, because the General Survey would otherwise have only a partial value.

The Workers' members subscribed to the comments of the Employers' members and recalled that, during the general discussion on the future of standards, the importance of General Surveys was emphasized not only as a means to obtain a clear image of the situation in different countries of the world, but also to appreciate and prepare what measures should be taken in future regarding, for instance, the possible revision of the instruments concerned. In addition, such surveys were important to dissipate miscomprehensions that hindered or slowed down the ratification of Conventions by certain countries.

A Government representative of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stated that the necessary measures had been taken to draw the attention of the competent authorities to unratified Conventions and Recommendations.

A Government representative of Namibia stated that his country, being a young nation, was faced with numerous problems and that for the last four years his Government had tried to reinforce the institutional capacity of his country and, in particular, that of the Ministry of Labour, which now included a department that dealt directly with questions relating to the application of standards and to the ILO. He added that the fact that the employers' and workers' organizations were new, and still growing, was an additional cause of difficulty in supplying detailed reports, but that his Government hoped that it would be able to discharge its obligations towards the Committee of Experts with the above-mentioned measures.

The Employers' member of Namibia stated that the Namibian Employers' Federation and its constituent employer associations were actively involved in the development of a tripartite system, based on the notion of participatory democracy, freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Labour Act of 1992 had established a framework for, and encouraged a pluralist system of, industrial relations, putting into effect the principles contained in the nation's Constitution. Although Namibia had not formally ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, he reassured the Committee that in spirit these Conventions were being honoured and applied in his country.

A Government representative of Papua New Guinea stated that his Government was faced with administrative difficulties. He took note of the comments by the Committee of Experts and hoped to comply with ILO obligations in the future.

The Employers' members stated that the Committee should make clear the significance attached to the formal reporting obligations because if this was not done the supervisory machinery would be unable to function. Under the new simplified reporting system, they hoped that governments would fulfil these obligations and that there would be fewer cases of unfulfilled obligations. They noted a certain improvement in relation to last year in the number of governments appearing before the Committee, but the situation was still worrisome. The accumulation of all of these cases in one single session should not serve as an excuse for governments not to appear before the Committee. They asked that those governments that had not appeared be referred to in an appropriate section of the report of the Committee.

The Workers' members endorsed the Employers' members statement in its entirety.

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 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 the following States: Solomon Islands, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Namibia, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, St. Lucia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Zaire, would fulfil their obligations under article 19 of the Constitution in the future. The Committee decided to mention these cases in the appropriate section of its General Report.