Caso individual (CAS) - Discusión: 2000, Publicación: 88ª reunión CIT (2000)

Convenio sobre la discriminación (empleo y ocupación), 1958 (núm. 111) - Afganistán (Ratificación : 1969)

The Worker members recalled that, according to the usual working methods the case of a country, the Government of which had not responded to the invitation of the Conference Committee, was examined on the last day of the discussion of individual cases. The objective was not to examine the substance of these cases, given the impossibility of having a discussion with the governments concerned, but to underline in the Conference Report the importance of the issues raised and the necessary measures for the re-establishment of dialogue. The report would mention for each country the case in question.

The Worker members observed that the Committee of Experts had been drawing the attention of this Committee since 1997 to the reports which had been sent to it by various sources concerning the serious problems of gender discrimination which were culminating in the violation of Convention No. 111 by the Government of Afghanistan. The Worker members expressed once again their regret and their grave concern at not having been able to discuss this situation with the Government and which merited the undivided attention of this Committee. It was regrettable that the efforts undertaken by the ILO had not succeeded up to now. The ILO and the whole international community should take their responsibilities with greater conviction and force and increase their pressure on the Government of Afghanistan.

Regarding the application of Convention No. 98 by Saint Lucia, the Worker members recalled that this case had been included on the list because of the existence of violations of the right to collective bargaining and anti-union discrimination, actions against which there was no protection. For the last nine years, the Government of Saint Lucia had not sent a single report on the application of this Convention. It appeared, however, from the written information communicated by the Goverenment that the latter had transmitted a copy of an act respecting the registration, status and recognition of workers' and employers' organizations. The Committee of Experts should examine this law and its application in practice.

The Employer members regretted that some countries had not appeared before the Committee, despite being requested to do so in relation to the application of ratified Conventions. In this regard, they referred specifically to Afghanistan and Saint Lucia, noting that this was not the first time that they had failed to appear. These countries had been placed on the list of individual cases due to the Committee of Experts' concerns regarding their non-application of ratified Conventions. The Employer members considered this failure to appear as negative behaviour towards this Committee and the ILO as a whole. It was one of the worst forms of deliberate obstruction of the work of the supervisory machinery. The Employer members deplored this lack of cooperation in relation to the Committee of Experts and the entire Organization.

The Worker members, so that the report of the Committee should reflect this point, declared that they were certain that the Committee would also once again wish to request the Director-General to invite the Chairman of the Committee of Experts to attend next year's general discussion as an observer.