Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2000, Publication: 88th ILC session (2000)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Colombia (Ratification: 1976)

A Government representative stated that the Government was attending the Committee with a view to providing all the information that was considered necessary in relation to Convention No. 87. The Government had shown the will to maintain a permanent dialogue which was broad, transparent and sincere with employers, workers and the ILO, as well as to provide the necessary information to the Committee concerning the progress which had been made.

The Congress of the Republic had approved Bill No. 184, submitted by the Government, which amended, repealed and introduced significant changes in the legislation to bring it into conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. He emphasized that the scope of the right of association had been extended and that greater autonomy had been accorded to trade union organizations, with the elimination of the statutory restrictions on the membership and registration of trade unions and the empowerment of the civil authorities ("alcaldes") to register them. Furthermore, the simple notification of changes in their by-laws would be sufficient for their recognition. These measures would ensure compliance with Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention. Collective action was allowed in the event of the retention of wages, and sanctions had been eliminated, such as the prohibition on the right of freedom of association of leaders who caused the dissolution of a trade union. The conditions of nationality and the exercise of a specific occupation in order to be a trade union, federation or confederation officer had also been abolished. Federations and confederations would be strengthened by facilitating the payment of contributions by trade unions. The protected status of trade union leaders was extended to public servants and the issue of leave for trade union activities was regulated. Moreover, the procedure for demonstrating the status of trade union leaders had been simplified.

The above legislation constituted significant progress and included modern institutions for its application, as recognized by the ILO. The legislation made it possible for parties to collective bargaining to be workers in the branch, industry or economic activity. It also gave trade unions the option to request or refuse the presence of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security at meetings where, following direct bargaining, the decision was taken to refer the dispute to an arbitration tribunal or to call a strike, and its participation was restricted to monitoring votes. Now only workers who were on strike could decide to end the strike and submit outstanding disputes, if they considered it appropriate, to an arbitration tribunal without the intervention of the labour authorities. The legislation also took into account the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning the powers of inspection of the labour administration authorities, by eliminating the powers of officials to initiate inspections and controls, leaving it to the request of the trade union and/or second- and third-level organizations.

With regard to some of the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning the exercise of the right to strike, he noted in the first place that the Government had prepared draft legislation defining the essential public services. The subject had been included on the agenda of the Permanent Committee for Concertation on Wage and Labour Policies, which was a tripartite body. Once the study had been completed and a definitive text agreed with the social partners (employers, workers and the Government), it would be submitted for approval to the Congress of the Republic. He informed the Committee that the preliminary draft had been examined by the ILO experts during the direct contacts mission and had taken in their principal recommendations. This preliminary draft also established an alternative procedure for the determination of legal and illegal strikes, assigning the competence in this respect to the labour courts.

The Government of Colombia had fully demonstrated its commitment to promoting the independent exercise of the right of association by workers' organizations through the submission to the Congress of the Republic of draft legislation lifting the current restrictions. It should be emphasized that the above legislation was the outcome of agreement between the social partners, thereby demonstrating their common commitment to the development of a new culture of labour relations based on social dialogue and concerted action. The complete text of the legislation respecting freedom of association had been provided to the ILO by the Government with the request that it should be made available to the members of the Committee. The Government representative expressed her gratitude to the ILO for the unrestricted support which it had provided in the process of reforming the legislation.

The Worker members recalled that this case had been discussed repeatedly over the past decade and that the conclusions of the Committee had been taken up in a special paragraph on two occasions. Direct contacts missions had taken place in Colombia in 1996 and in February of this year. Numerous complaints of violations of freedom of association had been filed and new complaints regarding anti-union discrimination and violations of the right to collective bargaining had been filed recently by several trade unions. During the 86th Session of the Conference, a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution had been filed.

In addition, the Worker members recalled that the Committee of Experts had raised in the past three major questions. The first concerned the requirements for the creation of a trade union and in particular the clauses establishing requirements of Colombian nationality, professional experience, and a clean police record. The second question related to the provisions respecting compulsory arbitration and the restrictions on the right to strike. Finally, the third question concerned the climate of violence and impunity that reigned in the country. They had taken note of a draft Bill introduced by the Government with the intention of abrogating a series of legislative provisions which were not in conformity with the Convention. However, they observed that the Committee of Experts had concluded that many provisions still created problems, especially those relating to the supervision of the internal management of trade unions and trade union meetings. Another provision which continued to pose problems with regard to the Convention concerned the powers accorded to the officials of the Ministry of Labour to call before them trade union leaders or members to require them to provide information on their work, and to present their books, registers, plans and other documents. The Worker members observed that since the Government's promise to submit the Bill, there had been no follow-up. In fact, instead of progress, it seemed that the situation had deteriorated after the adoption on 30 December 1999 of Act No. 550, which represented a direct infringement on freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.

In addition, the Worker members noted the observations of the Committee of Experts according to which some provisions relating to the exercise of the right to strike, which had been the subject of comments for many years, had not been taken into account in the amendments proposed in the Bill. The provisions concerned, among other matters, the prohibition of strikes in several public services and the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who had participated in a strike. Regarding the exercise of the right to strike in practice, they referred to the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1916 according to which the concept of essential services had to be interpreted in the strict sense of the term. In this respect, the Worker members supported the views of the Committee of Experts and once again called upon the Government to take the necessary measures for the amendment of this provision.

The Worker members expressed their deep concern regarding the situation of violence which prevailed in the country against workers and trade union members. Devastating accounts had been provided by national, regional and international workers' organizations in relation to the anti-union violence. They raised questions about the actual respect of freedom of association in the country. Since June 1998, at least 125 trade unionists had been assassinated, and since November 1999 the number already amounted to 39 trade unionists assassinated. According to information from various international trade union confederations, of the 123 trade union members who had been murdered in the world in 1998, a total of 98 were Colombian. Moreover, of the 1,336 trade union members who had been assassinated in Colombia between 1991 and 1999, no fewer than 226 were trade union leaders. This continuous violence which mainly affected trade union members in the country was quite simply intolerable, since they were targeted in their capacity as trade union members and workers. In fact, their commitment and public activities made them systematic targets, as proven by many testimonies. The impunity of the assassins was total and the impotence of the Government was intolerable, particularly since, when ratifying Convention No. 87, it had undertaken to ensure the minimum conditions for its effective application. The Worker members once again emphasized the necessary interaction between ILO instruments and the principles set out in its Constitution in order to create a climate of social peace. Finally, they urged the Government to bring its law and practice into conformity with the principles of freedom of association in the broad sense. This necessarily involved the creation of a political and legal climate and the adoption of concrete provisions which put an end to impunity and anti-union terror. They therefore proposed that the Committee's conclusions should be included in a special paragraph.

The Employer members recalled that the Committee had examined the case of the application of the Convention by Colombia frequently. The observation by the Committee of Experts contained a list of discrepancies with the provisions of the Convention which were of differing significance. In the view of the Employer members, those points relating to the right to strike did not give rise to any violation of the Convention, since the issue of the right to strike was not in their opinion governed by Convention No. 87. However, many of the other points raised concerned clear violations of freedom of association. They noted that, with ILO assistance, some amendments had been drafted and that the resulting Bill had been approved in its first reading in the Congress in July 1999. The question clearly arose as to the number of readings required before the Bill would finally be passed into law. The draft amendments resolved 11 problems enumerated by the Committee of Experts with regard to the application of the Convention. In this respect, the progress achieved should be recognized, since the legislation in question had given the authorities broad powers to interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions.

The Employer members recalled that the Committee of Experts nevertheless continued to criticize the proposed amendment to section 486 of the Labour Code on the grounds that it empowered the State to exercise control over the internal management of trade unions. They noted the statement by the Government representative that courts of arbitration had been established in the country. However, information was required on whether the courts could carry out arbitration procedures independently without the interference of the State. The Employer members agreed with the assessment by the Worker members that the whole process had taken place in an extremely violent climate. They emphasized that while this background information was important for the overall understanding of the case, the Government was still obliged to give effect to the provisions of the Convention in national legislation. Even a situation which was similar to civil war should not be used as an excuse for failing to meet these requirements. In conclusion, they called on the Government to provide information on the number of readings required for the adoption of the draft amendments and on the time which would be required to complete the legislative process. However, many restrictions on freedom of association still remained in the country. In this respect, the draft amendments to many of the existing provisions which were in violation of the Convention constituted a first step in the right direction.

The Worker member of Colombia indicated that once again, the workers in general and Colombians in particular were witnessing the lamentable spectacle of a Government attempting to deflect the attention of the international community with reports and excuses which did not reflect the true situation in Colombia in respect of Convention No. 87, freedom of association and respect for human rights. The Government made great use of a huge capacity to confuse the members of the Committee with matters such as Bill No. 184, which had been approved last week but had not yet received assent. While the legal aspects concerning Convention No. 87 were a cause for concern, as had been very precisely expressed by the Workers' spokesperson, the truth was that the workers were concerned by many issues which today affected all Colombian workers and people. The Government was aware of the existence of a Bill on labour flexibility which, if approved, would give rise to discussions in this Committee for many years to come. The same was true of the Social Security Bill, as well as the negative impact of Act No. 550 of 30 December 1999, which in itself constituted a serious threat to workers, collective bargaining and freedom of association. To this should be added deep concern for the resurgence of the status of non-unionization or "profit plans" which were practices intended to hinder the trade union movement, violating the provisions of Convention No. 87.

Various circumstances made it necessary to discuss this case. Thirty-nine trade unionists had been assassinated since the beginning of this year, almost 2 million people had been displaced by violence, there was an unemployment rate of 22 per cent, the informal economy had reached 56 per cent, there were rural workers without land and indigenous people affected because of badly named "development", and, in general, a situation of democratic instability reigned. These facts encouraged the Workers to look to the international level in the hope of finding initiatives which would soon contribute to a change in the situation. It was necessary to stress that while the Government spoke of a draft bill to determine essential public services, the workers' organizations had not been consulted in this respect. The Ministry of Labour had shown complacency with regard to the dismissal of thousands of workers, particularly in the public sector; at district level, for example, over 40,000 workers had been dismissed in the last 14 months. The Ministry of Labour had also authorized dismissals of workers in the private sector, for example in the Tennis Club of Cúcuta. It was not possible to speak of freedom of association when in the current year workers were denied freedom of association through the prohibition of the right to collective bargaining in the entire public sector and the freezing of salaries by decree. Finally, he pointed out that the Colombian people were dependent upon the decisions of the ILO and that it was appropriate to include this case in a special paragraph so that the Government would not yet again forget the promises it had made to this Organization.

Another Worker member of Colombia, refuting the Government's statement that questions concerning violent acts against trade union leaders and trade unionists should not be discussed in this body, referred to the resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties adopted by the Conference in June 1970 and emphasized that the concept of trade union rights lost all meaning when civil liberties were not respected and the right to life was not guaranteed. The theme of violence against the trade union movement had to be mentioned, as well as the difficulties in forming trade unions in Colombia. On many occasions, trade unions had to be formed clandestinely so that workers would not be dismissed by their employer or by public entities. In this respect, he referred to a quote from a Colombian guerrilla who had stated that it was easier to organize an insurgent group than to form a trade union in Colombia. He wondered in these circumstances how the Colombian authorities could refuse to discuss the question of assassinations and violent acts against trade union leaders and members. He indicated that, while the law to bring some legislative provisions into conformity with the freedom of association Conventions had just been approved in Colombia, the problem was one of the non-application of numerous existing laws. For example, he pointed out that Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 had been ratified by Colombia in 1976, yet year after year their application continued to be discussed. He stressed that the ILO should continue to follow what was happening in Colombia in respect of the violation of these Conventions. There was great respect in Colombia for the ILO and great expectations on the part of workers for what the ILO could accomplish in defending their interests. In this respect, he called for a special paragraph so that the Government would react and in this way could indicate next year that it had complied with the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the comments of the Committee of Experts.

The Worker member from the United States considered that the physical integrity of Columbian unionists could be seriously affected by a proposed 1.6 billion dollars aid package destined to the security forces for the prosecution of the internal conflict against drug traffickers and the guerrillas. Tragically, Colombian unionists were being purposely targeted by all armed parties in the conflict. In February of this year, the AFL-CIO had adopted a resolution and joined the Colombian labour movement in calling for the respect of core labour rights as necessary preconditions to the passage of the United States aid package to Colombia. He recalled that the Committee of Experts had pointed out that the new amendments to the Labour Code allowed the Ministry of Labour to conduct inquests and investigations of trade union activities, even when there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal offence on the part of the trade unions. He mentioned that one question of non-compliance had not been mentioned by the Committee of Experts. This question was the fact that neither the Collective Bargaining Law No. 50 nor the current Labour Code effectively permitted the establishment of collective bargaining representatives and mechanisms per national sector and industry, thus limiting trade union and collective bargaining representation to the local and enterprise level. He emphasized that physical violence against Colombian unionists and the issue of impunity remained totally unresolved and appeared to be worsening. In this regard, he criticized the Government for arguing that this issue was irrelevant to Convention No. 87 and recalled that the Government had specifically objected to an ILO commission of inquiry by asserting that the assassination of unionists was not systematic, but the result of the endemic violence in the society. To that argument, he replied that Article 8 of Convention No. 87 stated that the laws of a country should not impair the exercise of the rights contained in the Convention. He questioned whether that could be a greater hinderance to the exercise of the rights contained in Convention No. 87 than a justice system which failed to effectively stop, deter and remedy violence purposely directed against workers or employers. Furthermore, he recalled that the human and labour rights resolution adopted during the ILO Conference in 1970, drew the nexus between core labour rights and the right to physical security and protection from arbitrary detention. Over 2,000 Colombian unionists had been murdered in the last ten years. The Human and Labour Rights Programme of the Escuela Nacional Sindical of Colombia had found that the vast majority of trade union assassinations in 1999 had taken place during periods of collective bargaining and collective worker action. Finally, he insisted that since this case had been before this Committee on so many occasions and without substantial improvement, this Committee should do nothing less than cite it in a special paragraph.

The Worker member of Costa Rica recalled that the Colombian case had been discussed in the Committee for many years. The very clear link between the legal situation and the barbarous acts committed daily against trade unionists could not be denied. There was a situation of generalized aggression towards workers, which was demonstrated by labour legislation which hindered collective bargaining in the public sector, which permitted interference by the administrative authorities in trade union affairs, as well as in the dismissals of workers for strikes declared illegal because this right was denied to workers, and in the impunity in cases of assassinations, kidnapping and imprisonment of trade union leaders and members. This situation obliged the Committee to place this case in a special paragraph, since it concerned the violation of human rights in the broadest sense of the term. He maintained that, if the Committee wanted to cooperate for an improvement in the situation in Colombia, its conclusion could not simply consist of offering ILO technical assistance, but rather of condemnation by the international community.

The Worker member of Guatemala asserted that the Colombian case and the systematic violation of Convention No. 87 had been dealt with by this Committee over the last 15 years at least. He supported the statement by the Worker members and insisted that the situation which Colombia was experiencing was dramatic. The Commissioner of Human Rights of his central trade union systematically requested the Colombian Government to respect and ensure respect for freedom of association and the right to organize. He indicated that, despite the observations of the Committee of Experts, the situation of trade unionists continued to get worse, particularly as a result of the assassinations committed by the dark forces and interests in the country. Trade unionists and civil societies of the world could not be indifferent to the situation of the Colombian trade union movement. He added that it was urgent to know the measures which the Government had taken and intended to take to put an end to the trade union slaughter. Finally, he supported the inclusion of this case in a special paragraph.

The Worker member of Uruguay recalled that Colombia had ratified Convention No. 87 in 1976 and that 20 years later the Committee was receiving the Minister of Labour, who was convincing it that Colombia was going to amend its legislation, which unfortunately had not happened. Today, neither the Minister nor the Deputy Minister were present to try to discuss and seek solutions to the situation of violence and pain which is being experienced by Colombian workers, provoked by the numerous murders and the lack of protection under which they had to carry out their activities. He maintained that it was the Government's responsibility to protect trade union action. The present Government and earlier governments had not complied with and were not complying with Convention No. 87 and there was also evidence of a will to continue violating the Convention in such areas as the right to strike. The Committee of Experts had referred to comments by a trade union organization concerning the non-deduction of trade union subscriptions. This proved that, in addition to seriously violating the Convention through death threats and assassinations of trade unionists, the Convention was also violated in matters of less importance. Finally, he asked for this case to be mentioned in a special paragraph and expressed his confidence that next year the Government would present genuine and concrete solutions.

The Government member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Governments of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, welcomed the efforts undertaken to support the peace process. However, he noted with great concern that several provisions still did not comply with the requirements of Convention No. 87, even though this case had been raised repeatedly over the years in the observations of the Committee of Experts and in the Conference Committee. With reference to the right to strike, he noted the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1916, which had been approved by the Governing Body at its March 1999 session, and strongly emphasized that a declaration of illegality regarding a strike should be made by a judicial or an independent authority, not by the Government. He also noted that the Governing Body would decide whether or not to establish a commission of inquiry at its session in June 2000. Finally, he urged the Government to take measures to bring the provisions in question into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association and expressed hope that the Government of Colombia would be able to report positive developments next year so that everybody could be ensured of the effective application of the Convention.

The Worker member of Cuba emphasized the repeated violations which had occurred in Colombia for many years now and which had been addressed in this and other meetings. He expressed his great concern at the grave situation endured by Colombian trade unionists and his profound solidarity with them. Persecuted Colombian trade unionists were to be found in all the countries of Latin America. He firmly insisted on the fact that the subject of the deaths of trade unionists could not be ignored, whether or not it was technically linked to the discussion of the observation of the Committee of Experts. He expressed the hope that the situation of violence and the legislative problems could be resolved rapidly and stressed that the peace process was a matter of urgency.

The Employer member of Colombia, commenting on the previous statements by the Worker members, stated that it also bothered the employers to have to come before bodies like the present Committee. He expressed the employers' permanent condolences for the death of Colombian compatriots, including trade unionists. The employers were respectful of the law and carried out their business activities within it. He emphasized the enormous efforts made by the Government in the peace process and the national accord. He stated that the Bill referred to by the Committee of Experts overcame the large majority of questions raised and added that it had already been discussed and approved by Congress (Senate and House), and was presently being considered by the President of the Republic for his assent, in accordance with the procedures in force. He stressed that, during the negotiation of the Bill in the Senate and the House, many points had been agreed upon with the workers' and the employers' representatives. No agreement had been reached only in respect of section 486 of the Labour Code and, with the agreement of the employers and workers, the ILO had been requested to provide a final opinion, which had been reflected in the text of the Bill. He indicated that the Committee on Negotiation of Labour Policies and Wages was discussing two subjects: occupational training and the definition of essential public services in which strikes could be prohibited. This demonstrated the employers' will to support initiatives for improved coexistence and harmony in the country.

The Government representative referred to the difficult situation which Colombia had experienced for over 40 years due to the internal armed conflict and stressed that in the last two years it had been possible to bring the parties in the conflict to the negotiation table. One of the parties would be coming to discuss a ceasefire on 3 July 2000, which would help to change the problem of violence. He emphasized the great progress which had been made in bringing the national legislation into conformity with ILO Conventions, in particular Convention No. 87. In this respect, he mentioned Act No. 50 of 1990, which had introduced very important amendments and innovations; the 1991 Constitution which consecrated the rights of association, strike and collective bargaining and which established that ratified Conventions were part of national legislation; Act No. 278 of 1996 which created the tripartite Negotiation Committee; and Bill No. 184, approved by Congress at the end of May, which was before the President of the Republic for signature and which included the points raised by the Committee of Experts. He said that a document indicating clearly the changes made in the sense requested by the Committee of Experts had been submitted to the Conference Committee. In February 2000, the direct contacts mission had taken note of the draft bills prepared by the Minister of Labour on essential public services where strikes could be prohibited and disputes submitted to compulsory arbitration by one party, and on the right to collective bargaining of public employees which permitted them respectfully to present their demands to the authorities. The mission had made proposals for the modification of these draft bills which included summary recourse to the judicial authorities against decisions taken by the administrative authority declaring a strike illegal, the inclusion of the expression "collective bargaining of public employees" in one of the draft bills, the right to strike of federations and confederations and the replacement of compulsory arbitration after 60 days of strike action with compulsory arbitration agreed to by both parties. The draft bills and the modifications proposed by the mission were being examined, taking into account in particular that some matters had economic repercussions. Subsequently, the bills would be submitted to the social partners in accordance with existing legal mechanisms. Article 29 of the Constitution guaranteed due process including in the administrative procedures. Finally, he informed the Committee that the Minister of Labour could not come this week, but that the President of the Republic had already established, within the framework of the peace process, negotiations on pensions, employment and taxes, where certain issues raised by earlier speakers would also be discussed. These negotiations would include employers, workers, the Church and civil society.

The Worker member of Colombia, commenting on the motives behind the absence of the Colombian Minister of Labour in this Committee and the reasons expressed by the Government representatives for this, indicated that it should be explained that negotiations were under way which, in principle, the workers had decided to attend in order to discuss specific subjects, but that the absence of the Minister was due in reality to the fact that the Government was experiencing a serious political crisis.

Another Government representative stated that a special paragraph was not justified, especially since the current Government had achieved important progress which had not been possible at earlier times. In particular, the Act approved by Congress and the other bills covered all of the points raised by the Committee of Experts. The progress achieved had been the result of work carried out jointly by the Government with the ILO through machinery and negotiation. Furthermore, the current Government was committed to the peace process. As concerned the questions posed by some speakers on the climate of violence, he stated that the Government was not avoiding the debate but rather that this debate would take place shortly, in the corresponding body, with the Minister of Labour present.

The Worker members, after having heard the various speakers, observed that no progress had been made in relation to the observations of the experts. The accounts which had been heard confirmed that in Colombia the worker members of trade unions were exposed to violence due to the exercise itself of the commitment which they had undertaken in favour of workers in their quality as trade union members. They repeated their deep concern confronted with a situation which lasted since almost 20 years and which, due to its gravity, figured on a quasi-permanent basis in the agenda of the Conference Committee or the Committee on Freedom of Association. They asked one more time that the conclusions would be included in a special paragraph. The Worker members regretted not having been able to share their evaluation of the situation with the Employer members during the discussion. They firmly insisted one more time on the gravity of the situation in that country and deplored the fact that the Colombian workers had paid with their lives in too many cases.

The Employer members agreed that it was necessary to take into account the overall situation in the country. They recalled that for many years the Committee of Experts had been drawing attention to many provisions in the national legislation which violated the Convention. Now many of these points were being resolved by means of the draft legislation which had already gone through Parliament, but which still needed to receive presidential assent. Nevertheless, the Committee of Experts still considered that one of the proposed amendments contravened the provisions of the Convention. With regard to the comments by the Committee of Experts relating to the exercise of the right to strike, the Employer members reiterated their view that this matter could not be addressed within the context of Convention No. 87. The Employer members noted that all speakers had emphasized the importance of the civil disturbances and conflicts in the country. Nevertheless, these should not be used as an excuse for the maintenance of provisions which were in violation of the Convention. The situation in the country was indeed very serious and affected all the parties concerned. But the problem was of a political nature and could not be addressed solely through the Convention. The draft amendments contained very significant changes which the Committee of Experts had been requesting for many years. It was nevertheless the duty of the Government to examine any points which were still pending and to provide a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the concrete measures taken and the adoption of the draft legislation.

The Committee took note of the oral information supplied by the Government representatives and of the discussion which ensued. The Committee noted with great concern that the long-standing and major discrepancies between law and practice and the provisions of the Convention had resulted in several complaints before the Committee on Freedom of Association and a formal complaint presented by a number of Workers' delegates at the International Labour Conference in June 1998 under article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning the non-application of Convention No. 87. The Conference Committee had discussed the application of Convention No. 87 on many occasions without being able to note progress in the implementation of the Convention. The Committee recalled, once again, that the Committee of Experts insisted that the Government should remove all the obstacles that hinder the right of workers to form and join trade unions of their own choosing, to elect their representatives in full freedom and the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities without interference from the public authorities which restrict or impede their lawful exercise. The Committee noted the information supplied by the Government representative that draft legislation was adopted by Congress on 29 May 2000. It stressed that it was for the Committee of Experts to examine the compatibility of this legislation with the legal requirements of the Convention. However, it noted that new complaints concerning in particular anti-union violence were still being lodged with the ILO. The Committee recalled that the full respect of civil liberties was essential to the implementation of the Convention. It urged the Government to take further measures in order to bring its legislation and practice into full conformity with the Convention at an early date. It expressed the firm hope that the Government would supply a detailed report to the coming session of the Committee of Experts on genuine progress made in law and practice to ensure the application of this Convention. The Committee firmly hoped to be in a position to note at its next session concrete and definitive progress in the trade union situation in the country.