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

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Iran (Islamic Republic of) (Ratification: 1964)

A Government representative reaffirmed the commitment of her Government to the application of the Convention, the provisions of which were in conformity with the principles and objectives of her Government. The Government recognized its obligation to promote and realize the principle of non-discrimination and had endeavoured to provide complete and substantive reports to the Committee of Experts, containing all the available information requested.

She recalled that last year during the Committee her Government had stated that it would invite a mission from the ILO to come to the Islamic Republic of Iran to discuss with various parties any issue that it wished regarding the application of the Convention. Her Government had also responded positively to the views expressed by the Worker members and other members of the Committee and had agreed and accepted the terms of reference of the mission as indicated by the ILO in their entirety. The Government had cooperated fully and provided all the necessary assistance and facilities requested for the mission. In an extensive work programme, the mission had discussed various issues regarding the application of the Convention and matters raised in the supervisory bodies in their meetings with various government officials, the judiciary, several NGOs and minority groups. As a result of the knowledge and experience of the mission members, it had been possible to hold very useful in-depth dialogue on all the issues raised, as indicated in the report of the Committee of Experts. She added that a national tripartite seminar would be held in her country in the next few months with ILO cooperation on the further implementation of the ILO's fundamental standards.

With respect to the comments of the Committee of Experts, she noted the reference to the existing national dialogue in the Islamic Republic of Iran on the issues covered by the Convention and the commitment in the governmental structure towards removing all possible obstacles to the application of universally recognized human rights standards. It had also referred to the national institutions set up to examine and promote human rights. She emphasized in this respect that the national environment in which the Convention was applied was of great importance. The existence of a lively civil society and a wide range of governmental and non-governmental institutions to ensure respect for the rights of citizens, including non-discrimination, was the best mechanism for the materialization of these rights. Any comments on the application of the Convention therefore needed to take into account the degree of social and civil development of the national environment, as had been done by the Committee of Experts when it noted the expanded activities in her country in the area of human rights.

With regard to discrimination on the basis of sex, the Government had received support from Parliament in adapting the present Five-Year Development Plan, under which legislation was introduced to promote equal opportunities and encourage the higher participation of women in employment and education, as noted by the Committee of Experts. In this respect, the credit should be given to Iranian women who had made the effort to achieve the breakthrough in their levels of participation in social activities, and particularly in educational and occupational areas. The pertinent statistics and facts, which had also been reported by the ILO mission, were significant in any comparison with other developing countries. She reported in this regard that social and awareness-raising activities included the establishment of a large number of state and non-governmental committees and institutes throughout the country to facilitate and encourage the higher participation by women in all socio-economic fields in accordance with the importance given by government policy to the empowerment of women. She added that, in the sixth Iranian parliamentary election held at the end of 1999, more than ten women had been elected, one of whom had subsequently been elected to the Bureau of the Parliament. She recalled that current developments in education in her country had received international acknowledgement, including by UNESCO. The numbers of students at universities had risen from 170,000 some 20 years ago, of whom 24 per cent had been women, to 1,400,000 at the present time, of whom 50 per cent were women. It was significant that over the past two years, female entrants to universities had accounted for 52 and 57 per cent of all students, respectively. A new type of women's empowerment project addressing specific target groups in deprived areas had also been initiated and included research, training workshops, the strengthening of local NGOs and other activities.

Turning to the subject of women in the judiciary, she stated that various high-ranking positions were occupied by competent women, as noted by the ILO mission. No distinctions or privileges were set out for women or men in the law respecting the recruitment of judges. Male and female applicants competed in the same examination, which was the only basis for admission as a candidate. All persons admitted had to complete one year of professional training to prepare for the final professional examination for qualification as a judge. At none of these stages was there any distinction between the sexes. Moreover, for a number of years, women had obtained the five highest marks in the examination. There were currently 146 women judges and 380 women attorneys-at-law. The Committee of Experts had noted the influential judicial capacity of women in her country. Moreover, the role of women in the judiciary was not confined to advisory positions. Women were now appointed as judges and made judicial decisions. With regard to the obligatory dress code for civil servants, she stated that the regulations applied equally to men and women working in the civil service. She announced the submission of a copy of the relevant document, as requested by the Committee of Experts, and stated that it did not include any element of discrimination between the sexes and had in practice served as a basis for a higher participation by women.

On the subject of section 1117 of the Civil Code, which had been adopted some 70 years ago, the Committee of Experts had called for either the husband's right to object to his wife's employment to be removed or for the equivalent right of objection to be granted to the wife. In this context, she stated that more recent legislation, namely the Protection of the Family Act, granted the wife the same right in section 18.

She informed the Committee of a major development, namely the adoption of the present Five-Year Development Plan, which incorporated a gender dimension with regard to employment. She emphasized that her Government was determined to develop and adopt the necessary measures to further enhance the employment of women and to take any additional administrative decisions that might be necessary.

In relation to discrimination on the basis of religion, she recalled that her country had been famous for religious tolerance and that religious minorities had found that it was a home in which they could live and enjoy the same citizenship rights, as those acquainted with the situation of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians in her country could confirm. The ILO mission had confirmed that the members of the recognized religious minorities continued to have high levels of education and employment. Furthermore, in addition to access to all the legal and administrative channels available to all citizens, the members of minority groups also had other formal and informal channels through which they could raise any issue of interest to them. The protection of their interests was also ensured through their representation in the national decision-making process. Indeed, the number of representatives in Parliament from the religious minorities was proportionately higher than that of Muslims. These mechanisms and the tradition of coexistence, which had continued for many centuries, ensured the principle of non-discrimination.

With regard to the employment situation of persons not belonging to any recognized religious minority, she emphasized that the right to employment covered all the citizens in the country. The articles of the Constitution which set out the rights and liberties of the citizens used only general terms, such as "any individual" or "all Iranians". There were no grounds for discrimination in such rights, including in the right to employment. Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians were recognized in the Constitution as religious minorities with a view to ensuring their freedom in their religious rights and ceremonies and so that they could act according to their own cannon in matters of personal affairs, such as marriage and divorce, as well as with a view to the recognition of their religious holidays and their own religious sites and organizations. She therefore explained that recognition as a religious minority was related to religious issues, while non-discrimination was a general principle which applied to all citizens. She added that there were no restrictions for religious minorities in access to universities and higher education.

She indicated that the Government had taken several measures, and would continue to do so, to ensure that the rights of individuals as citizens of the country were well protected. The national Constitution explicitly guaranteed equal rights for the entire population of the country and specific mechanisms existed to ensure that any new legislation, including provisions on non-discrimination, were fully in line with the Constitution. One such mechanism was the Board of Follow-up and Supervision of the Implementation of the Constitution, established a few years previously, which was responsible for monitoring the full implementation of the Constitution and reporting any shortcomings to the President. Complaints against government officials and authorities could also be filed with the relevant courts, Parliament, the Administrative Justice Tribunal and the State General Inspection Organization. In addition to these judicial and administrative safeguards, non-governmental mechanisms were in full operation, including several NGOs active in various aspects of human rights.

She emphasized that new legislation of major importance and direct relevance to the Convention, namely the legislation on the rights of citizenship, had been approved by the Iranian Expediency Council in 1999. This legislation was based on the provisions of the Constitution and re-emphasized the equal rights for all the citizens of the country without any discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, race, ethnic origin and other grounds. It was applicable to all Iranians irrespective of their religion. She added that the Board of Follow-up and Supervision of the Implementation of the Constitution had held its second annual national seminar on citizens' rights and the Constitution which had been designed to raise public awareness and had focused on the rights of minorities. She also noted that her country would be the host of the Asian Preparatory Meeting for the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.

Finally, on the occasion of the ILO mission to her country, a commitment had been made to undertake a number of joint activities with the ILO to further promote the application of the Convention and of fundamental principles. She reiterated the invitation to the ILO to hold a national tripartite seminar in the autumn of 2000 which would cover in detail the provisions and requirements of the ILO's fundamental Conventions. She welcomed ILO cooperation and expressed readiness to collaborate with the Office in various activities to promote the application of fundamental Conventions, including Convention No. 111, in her country. The Islamic Republic of Iran was therefore willing to continue its constructive dialogue and cooperation with the ILO on all subjects, including the implementation of the Convention.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for the information provided and recalled that the application of the Convention raised very serious issues which had been examined by the Committee over a period of many years. At the Conference in 1999, the Government representative had agreed to receive an ILO technical advisory mission, the functions of which had been set out in the Committee's conclusions. The Employer members believed that the statement by the Government representative had demonstrated a certain superficial appeal, in that the right things had been said. Nevertheless, they expressed a certain concern at the Government representative's affirmation that the Convention complied with the legislation and principles in the Islamic Republic of Iran. They pointed out that the process should be reversed, and it was for national law and practice to be brought into accordance with the Convention. The Government representative had also expressed a commitment to the principles set out in the Convention. However, this differed from complying with its legal obligations. While the national policy objectives might be in the right direction, the necessary legal protection might still not exist. The Employer members expressed the belief that neither the report of the Committee of Experts nor the statement by the Government representative contained precise information on the manner in which the fundamental problems raised were being addressed. While they welcomed measures such as the tripartite seminar and grass-roots educational programmes, they emphasized that the problems were of a systemic nature. Their resolution would require a sense of urgency, which had not been evident in the statement by the Government representative. In practice, despite the existence of a human rights commission, in view of the country's long history of human rights violations, it was not surprising that many citizens might be reluctant to file complaints.

While the Employer members welcomed the improvements with regard to discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, they pointed out that the number of women employed was still relatively low, being under 10 per cent. Moreover, there remained a clear distinction between participation rates of women in high-skilled and low-skilled jobs. The situation was the same in the field of education, where much more needed to be done to facilitate the access of women to higher education. Despite the affirmation by the Government representative that the selection of candidates for the judiciary did not involve any discrimination on the basis of sex, the Employer members referred to the comments of the Committee which still raised concern and called upon the Government to provide proof of the improvements which they claimed had been made. Such proof could consist, for example, of a statistical analysis of the number of judicial decisions taken by women in the judiciary in order to demonstrate that they did not merely fill an advisory role. The Employer members also observed that the issue of the obligatory dress code had not been mentioned by the Government representative. They called for further information to be provided on the exact situation in this respect. With reference to section 1117 of the Civil Code, under which a husband could bring a court action to object to his wife taking up a profession or job contrary to the interests of the family, they urged the Government to take action to remedy this discriminatory situation in both law and practice. Finally, with reference to the situation of the members of the Baha'i, which had not been mentioned by the Government representative, they expressed the conviction that discrimination continued to be exercised in practice.

While noting with interest the information provided by the Government representative, the Employer members feared that little progress had been made in practice over the past ten years with regard to the application of the Convention. They therefore urged the Government to continue taking the positive measures which had been mentioned, particularly in cooperation with the ILO. They also called on the Government to understand the need for a sense of urgency in addressing the problems of non-compliance with the Convention.

The Worker members, after thanking the Government representative for the information provided, recalled that the ILO mission to the Islamic Republic of Iran had constituted a welcome breakthrough in the manner in which this difficult and very serious case had been addressed. After a hostile and confrontational beginning in the early years, it had gradually been possible to progress to a climate of dialogue with the Government. In this respect, they recalled that some years ago the Government had claimed that it was completely different and could not be judged by ILO standards as they were supervised by international bodies. The Government had stated at that time that international standards would only be observed if they were compatible with Islamic precepts.

While welcoming the mission, the Worker members feared that the tone of the comments by the Committee of Experts was too positive, without wanting to degrade in any way the importance of the mission. They recalled that a mission was merely a tool and that the only thing which counted was the result. The result they wished to see was that Iranian law and practice would be brought into line with the Convention. They warned that there was still a long way to go before that point could be reached. While the mission had been expected to clarify the precise situation, it had not necessarily shortened the distance to the desired destination.

On the subject of the mission, the Worker members recalled the efforts which had been made in the Committee in 1999 to ensure that there could be no misunderstanding about the nature of the mission or its mandate. The Worker members had emphasized that its objectives should be clear and that all the problems which had arisen in the application of the Convention should be discussed. In view of the past controversy over the facts of the case, it had seemed evident that the mission would endeavour to contribute to greater clarity on the factual situation as to the application of the Convention. While this had not been stated as among its objectives, the mission appeared indeed to have tried to clarify the situation in this respect. However, what the Committee's report did not contain was a clear and complete list of the mission's contacts. The question therefore arose as to which government officials and representatives of employers and workers, and which other parts of Iranian society had been included and whether they were independent of the Government. They also raised the question of whether the national institutions set up to examine and promote human rights, including discrimination in employment, were independent of the Government. They asked for more information on the mission's contacts with representatives of the recognized religious minorities and whether these had included representatives of the Jewish community as, at the time of the mission, there were serious and politically sensitive problems regarding the latter. They also wondered whether the people engaged in such contacts could be considered to truly represent the views of their minority or of the Government. He questioned whether the mission had met representatives of the Baha'i, and other non-recognized religious minorities. All of these were important questions, the answers to which were indispensable in interpreting the report of the mission. An indication was also required of whether the mission had been able to meet all the persons it wanted to see and whether it had the impression that the people it had met feared reprisals by the Government.

With regard to the findings of the mission, the Worker members drew attention to the many valuable elements in the report of the Committee of Experts. One of these, which was apparently in line with the views of the Government, had been the effort made to situate the shortcomings in the application of the Convention within a broader human rights context. Interesting information had also been included on the issues discussed earlier in the Committee. However, one issue which the Committee of Experts had raised in the past, and which the Worker members had especially requested the mission to cover last year, was that concerning the Islamic Works Councils. No information had been included in the report on this matter and the reasons for its omission were unclear. The message in the observation by the Committee of Experts was that there were many positive elements concerning the promotion of human rights, including with regard to discrimination on the basis of sex and religion, and tripartite consultation. The Committee of Experts had requested the Government to continue to supply information on the cases pending before the Islamic Human Rights Commission and on the Commission's activities. It had also requested the Government to continue supplying information in its reports on the situation with regard to discrimination on the basis of sex and on the participation of women in the labour market and in certain professions. The Committee of Experts had expressed the hope that certain restrictions on equality of opportunity and treatment of men and women workers would be removed, that section 1117 of the Civil Code would be reviewed and that measures would be taken to promote non-discrimination and the non-recognized minorities.

While all the above was of importance, the Worker members believed that what was completely missing in the report was a reference to what a serious case this had been, to the continuing serious nature of the case, and to the precise situation at the present time in the country with regard to the application of the Convention. Although positive developments had been recognized, the observations contained hardly any criticism of current problems. In this respect, there was a marked contrast between the observation by the Committee of Experts and the report of the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and such discrepancies had either to be explained or avoided by closer cooperation. It was good that the mission had gone, but it had raised as many questions as it had provided answers.

In conclusion, the Worker members welcomed the Government's desire for dialogue, but emphasized that it was necessary to concentrate on the application of the Convention in both law and practice. It was to be hoped that the mission could be repeated when deemed necessary, some time in the future, and that other forms of cooperation would be developed between the ILO and the Government. They urged the Committee of Experts in particular to examine in its next report whether there had been any changes in the law to bring it into compliance with the Convention, as this aspect of the case appeared to have been neglected by the Committee of Experts.

The Worker member of the Islamic Republic of Iran, mentioning the reference in the Committee of Experts' comments to the first tripartite consultation on social and labour matters, welcomed the first National Labour Conference held last year. He urged the Government to fully implement the recommendations of the Conference, especially those regarding contract labour, small enterprises, and the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

He further stated that during discussions with the ILO technical advisory mission, workers had raised the issue of recent legislation which exempted small enterprises with five or fewer employees from the ambit of the labour law. Unfortunately, this matter had not been examined in the report of the Committee of Experts. He stated that, in his opinion, the law was in open violation of the Convention because it discriminated against workers employed in small enterprises. He noted that parliaments usually enacted laws in favour of workers and that it was unprecedented in the history of his country for a law to be adopted to provide for the non-application of a law to one part of the working population. This new law was against the essence of the Islamic Constitution and principles of social justice and would usher in an era of exploitation. He noted that this law would endanger the rights of approximately 3 million workers, and he therefore urged the Committee to take note of the situation and take appropriate measures. Similarly, he requested the Committee of Experts to evaluate this situation and reflect it in their comments.

Finally, he announced that the workers of the Islamic Republic of Iran were determined, while maintaining peace, to follow up on their demands through proper legal channels, both at the national and international levels. He demanded that the Government repeal the above law as a matter of urgency.

The Worker member of Italy took note of the comments of the Committee of Experts on the basis of the mission invited by the Iranian Government last year. It was clear from those observations that no effective legal and political steps had been taken by the Government to overcome the serious and continuous breach of the content of the Convention. Serious violations of basic human rights and political freedoms had continued to be registered by several human rights organizations. It was quite clear that in this general climate of repression, very few cases on discrimination had been reported to the Islamic Human Rights Commission or to the Supervisory Commission on the Implementation of the Constitution, since both institutions were composed of former high-level government members. In addition, she considered that the judicial system was not independent and was subject to government and religious influence. She recalled that women were not allowed to become magistrates empowered to deliver verdicts, which constituted a clear violation of the Convention. In this regard she requested the Government to abrogate the Conditions for Selection of Magistrates Act of 1982. She also pointed out that women could not freely enter certain sectors of the world of work.

With regard to education, she emphasized that higher education remained an opportunity for only a very small and privileged group of women and pointed out that 30 per cent of adult women were still completely illiterate. She expressed her indignation concerning the fact that discrimination was enshrined in the law through section 1117 of the Civil Code, which gave the husband the right to bring his wife to court for taking a job that he or the family considered contrary to the interests of the family. She therefore called on the Government to abolish section 1117 of the Civil Code. She also strongly criticized the 1975 Protection of the Family Act, which was supposed to extend some rights to women, as well as a new law which had been adopted last April and which provided for sex segregation in health care at all levels.

With regard to violations of the compulsory dress code, while this did not lead immediately to a dismissal, other humiliating disciplinary measures were implemented which could be compared to dismissals. As for the new legislation on small enterprises which denied social protection and other rights at work, she considered this to be a clear violation of the Convention. Finally, unless new legislation and effective programmes were implemented to redress the situation and sanctions imposed on those violating the provisions of the Convention, no real progress would be achieved. As many women in the country were trying to achieve emancipation, these measures were needed to help them succeed in their efforts.

The Worker member of Turkey referred to section 6 of the Labour Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran which provided for equality without distinction based on ethnic origin, race or language. He noted that the absence of any direct reference to sex in respect of non-discrimination created the impression that this legislation did not provide for protection against discrimination for Iranian women. He stated that discrimination against women with respect to marriage, inheritance, guardianship and divorce, as stipulated in the Civil Code, had its parallel in employment and occupation as well. He further noted that section 6 of the Labour Code guaranteed the freedom to choose an occupation, provided that such an occupation was not inconsistent with Islamic principles. He asked for more information regarding the nature of such "Islamic principles".

He added that, under certain circumstances, discrimination on the basis of sex might take on a disguised form, such as in the assignment of tasks and jobs according to the alleged strength of a worker. In the context of a general attitude which considered women as an inferior sex with respect to mental and physical capabilities, such disguised discrimination might be especially important. In this regard, he asked the Government to provide information as to whether Iranian legislation or government policy considered males and females equal with respect to their mental capabilities. He also asked the Government to provide information regarding section 75 of the Labour Code, which provided that women should not be employed to perform dangerous, arduous or harmful work. He asked for further clarification with regard to the definition of these types of prohibited work and as to whether such prohibitions were based on internationally accepted standards. With regard to the observation that women judges had only advisory powers, he asked whether the regulation concerning the conditions for the selection of judges, which stipulated that only male Muslims could become judges, had been amended to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

He then turned to the question of consultations with representatives of workers' organizations during the ILO's technical advisory mission. He pointed out that the Labour Code provided for two types of workers' organizations: guild societies, and Islamic societies and associations established "in order to propagate and disseminate Islamic culture, to defend the achievements of the Islamic Revolution and to further the implementation of article 26 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran". He indicated that current legislation allowed for the appointment of an employer's representative in such organizations. Consequently, he asked whether any such organization could be considered as an independent body.

Finally, he referred to the Rules of Procedure and Propagation and Extension of the Culture of Prayer of 29 April 1997, which provided that workers should also be evaluated by virtue of their daily prayers. He asked whether Muslims who did not fulfil their religious obligations could be considered as objects of discrimination. In conclusion, he called for a direct contacts mission to the Islamic Republic of Iran and the inclusion of this case in a special paragraph.

The Worker member of Singapore noted that the Government had taken a number of measures to attempt to provide more opportunities for women and to assure them greater equality. She urged the Government to put these plans into practice. She further called upon the Committee of Experts and the ILO to continue to monitor the situation closely. With regard to discrimination, she observed that there was no religious basis to justify the ill-treatment and marginalization of women in any society. She stated that equal opportunity for women in education was an investment in the present and future of a country. It was an investment in the present because women made up at least 50 per cent of any society, and a society which chose to deprive itself of women's resources and intellect would severely restrict its own growth. It was an investment in the future because women remained the key caregivers in the family, and poorly educated women would have a harmful effect on future generations. She further stressed that the initiatives by the Government mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts should not be regarded as concessions but rather as basic rights due to women in any civilized society. With regard to the new law mentioned by the Worker member of the Islamic Republic of Iran, she strongly urged the Government to repeal it immediately. She noted that small enterprises were common in developing countries and that they were usually the largest employer of workers. Excluding such small enterprises from the ambit of labour law would deprive a large majority of workers from the basic protection of the law. In conclusion, she called upon the Government to respect its obligations under the Convention and to immediately repeal the new law.

The Worker member of Romania recalled that this case had been discussed several times in the past and that it had been mentioned seven times in a special paragraph. After reading the report of the Committee of Experts, it appeared to him that several issues were still unclear. For example, he noted that the legal status of the technical mission had only been of an advisory nature and that the sources of information had not been disclosed in the report. According to available information, it appeared that recent law and practice had only increased discrimination against women and religious minorities. The participation of women in the labour market continued to be low and they did not have access to higher posts. Discrimination persisted in the areas of marriage, inheritance, guardianship and divorce, as well as in the field of employment. Legal obstacles to the promotion of women to higher positions in the public service also remained. The situation concerning the obligatory dress code for women public employees had not improved either. In this regard, he referred to the France-Presse news agency which had reported last January on ten women who had been imprisoned for violating the dress code. Furthermore, discrimination on the basis of religion with regard to access to education and employment still persisted. Persons who wished to study at a university had to sit an Islamic theological examination, which prevented religious minorities from entering higher education. This religious discrimination also existed in the public sector. Finally, he emphasized that the new law exempting small enterprises with fewer than five employees from labour legislation constituted a new violation of ILO Conventions. He therefore requested that this case be mentioned in a special paragraph.

The Worker member of Canada stated that the Canadian trade union movement had always followed the situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran with concern and that it had always supported the mention of this case in special paragraphs and the request of a direct contacts mission. He wondered whether it was appropriate to reconsider this approach today. Indeed, a number of developments mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts appeared positive and encouraging. Nevertheless, he emphasized that the report only mentioned plans and not real change. The Board of Follow-up and Supervision of the Implementation of the Constitution, which had as its aim the reexamination of legislation, was an example of a result which was still awaited. With regard to the Islamic Human Rights Commission, which also dealt with matters related to discrimination, he questioned the composition of the Commission and its independent character and impartiality. He expressed his scepticism about the future, since there had not been a real direct contacts mission, but rather a technical mission. In this regard, he wondered if the technical mission had really had access to victims of discrimination. Furthermore, he observed that, with the entry into force of the new legislation on small enterprises, 3 million workers had been deprived of fundamental rights, thus becoming even more vulnerable to all forms of discrimination. Finally, he emphasized that virtually nothing had been done in this case.

The Worker member of Colombia, referring to the reports of the Committee of Experts on Convention No. 111 and on the technical advisory mission, said that although they contained some indications of progress, it would be a great surprise if the situation had changed radically over such a short period. He emphasized the fundamental importance attached by the Conference Committee to the observance of human rights. In this respect, he stated that it had to be taken into account that cases of discrimination in employment in both the public and the private sectors in the Islamic Republic of Iran were examined by the Islamic Human Rights Commission. However, it was not known whether this Commission was indeed of an independent nature and of an authentically pluralistic composition. Although the Committee of Experts continued to report the existence of acts of discrimination, the Government representative had endeavoured to demonstrate that progress had been made. The Committee of Experts had indicated that recent legislative reforms appeared to include changes, but asked the Government whether it was possible to speak of progress in these matters when only 10 per cent of women participated in the labour market. He insisted upon the need for a direct contacts mission which, in his view, would be more effective than a technical advisory mission. With regard to the ILO mission which had visited the Islamic Republic of Iran, he requested information on the persons and organizations interviewed and whether the Iranian Government had met its requirements. The Conference Committee no longer wished to hear promises, but wanted to see results in law and in practice. In conclusion, he expressed concern at the adoption of a new Act on 26 February 2000 which excluded enterprises with fewer than five workers from the provisions of the Labour Code. This Act showed that, far from improving, the situation was continuing to deteriorate.

The Worker member of France recalled that he had made a firm intervention before this Committee several years ago to denounce the discrimination against the Baha'i community. At that time the Government representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran had severely criticized his statement. He appreciated that the dialogue was now more constructive. He was rather surprised at reading the report and the conclusions of the Committee of Experts. In his view, discrimination was still present in the Islamic Republic of Iran. He recalled that the Government had declared last year that the mission could be conducted without any restrictions on its mandate. This had, however, not been the case in practice. He referred to paragraph 4 of the report of the Committee of Experts and highlighted the contradiction between the fact that, on the one hand, only 10 per cent of women were employed, which apparently corresponded to their desires, and on the other hand, laws were in force which allowed men to prohibit their wives from working. Finally, he requested that this case be mentioned in a special paragraph.

The Worker member of Greece recalled that this case had been the object of discussions in a wholly different climate in the past. He noted with pleasure the changed attitude of the Iranian Government. He was uncertain why the Government feared a direct contacts mission and had transformed it into a simple advisory mission. With reference to the report of the Committee of Experts, he fully agreed with the observations made by the Worker member of France. He also emphasized that the word "Islamic" should not be part of the title of the Committee on Human Rights, as this meant at the outset that religious minorities would not be recognized by it. With regard to the discriminatory measures, he was of the view that international public opinion would not be appeased by statistics, but required concrete action. He also emphasized that the Islamic Republic of Iran had not ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Finally, he considered that this case should be mentioned in a special paragraph, not as a sanction, but in order to enable observers to be informed both on the progress accomplished and on what remained to be done.

The Worker member of Pakistan stated that it was positive that the Government had accepted the mission and opened dialogue. He also noted with great interest the interventions concerning the contradiction between law and practice in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Convention No. 111. He expressed particular concern regarding the reference that the Iranian Worker member had made to the new Act which deprived workers in enterprises employing less than five persons of all labour protection and social benefits. He further recalled previous discussions in this Committee in which the Government had displayed little interest in heeding the requests of the Committee of Experts. The fact that a dialogue had now been established was positive. He recalled, however, that the Government was bound by an international obligation to remove all discrimination based on gender, race, colour or creed both in practice and in law. He expressed the wish that by its next meeting the Committee would be able to note clear progress in this respect and that the recently adopted law would be repealed.

The Government representative stated his appreciation of the views expressed during the discussion tending to constructive dialogue. He recalled that when a government was considering the ratification of a Convention, it studied its law and practice and, once it had determined that there were no contradictions, proceeded to ratify the Convention. His Government believed there were no contradictions; it was determined to implement all the provisions of the Convention in full and requested the assistance of the ILO in that regard. In replying to the points raised during the discussion, he offered to provide all the available information to the ILO after it had been translated. With regard to the issue of religion, he pointed out that the new President had established the Supervisory Commission on the Implementation of the Constitution, the mandate of which covered all Iranians irrespective of their sex or religion. He also stated that the members of the Islamic Human Rights Commission were independent and that it was not just dealing with problems of Iranian Muslims. All Iranians could refer violations of their rights to this Commission. He recalled that the Protection of the Family Act gave the same rights to women as those granted to men in section 1117 of the Civil Code. With regard to the participation of women in education, he noted that UNICEF had reported on the increased participation of girls in the education system and the role of women in raising educational standards. For example, over 70 per cent of the candidates accepted for pharmaceutical examinations were women and their marks were better than those of men. He referred members of the Committee to the detailed statistics found in the UNESCO report. He also offered to provide a list of high-ranking women in the Government, including the Vice-President, deans of universities, and members of parliament. Concerning the new law on small enterprises, he noted that the workers had protested against the law and the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs had objected to its adoption. He indicated that the new Parliament would soon address the issue again and consider a new law. On the subject of the recognized religious minorities, he emphasized that they were represented in Parliament and had enjoyed a long tradition of peaceful coexistence within the country. Although the members of the Baha'i faith did not belong to a recognized religious minority, under the terms of the legislation on the rights of citizenship approved by the Expediency Council in 1999, all Iranians enjoyed the rights of citizenship irrespective of their belief. The Government was making all efforts to remove difficulties within the framework of the Constitution. In conclusion, he recalled that the ILO mission had been made welcome although the discussions had sometimes been difficult. Everything should be done to facilitate the continuation of the constructive measures taken by the Government, including the holding of seminars and training courses. In view of the efforts which were being made, his Government looked forward to cooperation from all concerned.

The Employer members emphasized the importance of the Government making a demonstrable improvement in its law and practice before the next meeting of the Conference Committee. It would be necessary for it to provide the relevant amended legislation and statistical evidence to prove to everyone that meaningful progress was being made in complying with the provisions of the Convention.

The Worker members stated that between now and next year proof would need to be provided of the progress which had been made. The evidence should be reflected in the text of the report of the Committee of Experts next year. On the basis of the information provided during the discussion, the Committee should recognize the positive attitude shown by the Government and the value of the ILO mission. It should also express a cautious welcome with regard to certain positive developments in the country, while emphasizing the serious nature of the shortcomings in the application of the Convention. It should also urge the Committee of Experts in its next report to include a detailed assessment of the situation with regard to compliance with the Convention in practice and, in particular, in law. The Government's request for ILO assistance should also be noted.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and the subsequent discussions. It recalled that this case had been the subject of discussion in the Committee over a number of years and that serious divergencies from the requirements of the Convention had been noted. It also recalled that last year it had welcomed the Government's request for a technical mission to examine all points raised concerning the application of the Convention, and that the report of the mission had been reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts. The Committee noted with concern that some legal restrictions remained on the employment of women, including the fact that women judges were still unable to render verdicts, and section 1117 of the Civil Code. In spite of the progress in participation rates, women's participation in the labour market remained very low. It noted that the Government was examining measures to remove the formal obstacles to equality for women, and noted the intention to hold a national seminar on workers' fundamental rights before the end of 2000. The Committee also regretted the legal and social obstacles to equality which still remained for religious minorities, although it noted the Government's intention to take measures in this regard. The Committee urged the Government to continue to work towards improvements in the application of the Convention in law and in practice, including the promotion of greater tolerance for all groups in the country, and to be vigilant in prohibiting discriminatory practices on the grounds enshrined in the Convention. It noted nevertheless that serious questions of application of the Convention still remained. The Committee requested the Government to submit all the information provided orally during the meeting to the Committee of Experts. It also requested the Government to report in detail to the Committee of Experts on the concrete measures taken to address the questions raised by the Committee of Experts and this Committee, including detailed statistical analysis of the participation of women and men and minorities in the labour market in both the public and the private sectors. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would deal with the issues raised as a matter of urgency and would be in a position next year to report progress on the outstanding issues in order to ensure the full application of the Convention in law and in practice and requested the Committee of Experts to provide a detailed assessment of compliance with law and practice. The Committee encouraged the Government to continue cooperation with the ILO.