Part I. General Report

I. Introduction

7.   The Committee has in recent years undertaken a thorough examination of its working methods. In order to guide this reflection on working methods efficiently, a subcommittee was set up in 2001. The mandate of the subcommittee includes examining working methods of the Committee and any related subjects, in order to make appropriate recommendations to the Committee. (Endnote_1) The subcommittee met on three occasions from 2002 to 04. During the 2005–06 sessions, issues relating to its working methods were discussed by the Committee in plenary sitting.

(1) With respect to measures to assist governments to follow up on its particular comments, the Committee recognized this as a crucial and ongoing issue, and decided to revisit it at its next session. The Committee provided guidance to the secretariat for the preparation of its work. This guidance included a more consistent implementation of the existing criteria to distinguish observations from direct requests; and, where comments were lengthy, possible ways to help governments identify which requests to address in the first instance in order to facilitate their timely reply to the Committee.

(2) With respect to its General Report, the Committee agreed: (a) to insert a new section highlighting cases which are examples of “good practices”, to enable governments to emulate these in advancing social progress, and to serve as a model for other countries to assist them in the implementation of ratified Conventions; (b) to resume publication next year of a section concerning highlights and major trends on topical issues arising from the Committee’s examination of reports, when such issues emerge.

(3) The Committee discussed the request from the Workers’ group of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards regarding the reproduction of certain previous comments in its report of the following year (i.e. a non-reporting year). This issue was also raised during its special sitting with the Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee. In the course of discussions on this topic, concerns were raised about whether such a request would need to come from the Conference Committee as a whole, how it could be considered by the Committee and importantly whether there would be a process whereby a government would be able to submit any additional elements.

(4) The Committee took note of the Governing Body’s request that the Office review existing report forms. For this purpose, the Committee designated three of its members to contribute their expertise on Conventions for which they were initially responsible in order to assist the Office’s review.

9.   A spirit of mutual respect, cooperation and responsibility has consistently prevailed in the Committee’s relations with the International Labour Conference and its Committee on the Application of Standards. The Committee of Experts takes the proceedings of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards into full consideration, not only in respect of general matters concerning standard-setting activities and supervisory procedures, but also in particular of specific matters concerning the way in which States fulfil their standards-related obligations. In this context, the Committee again welcomed the participation of its Chairperson as an observer in the general discussion of the Committee on the Application of Standards of the 96th Session (May–June 2007) of the International Labour Conference. It noted the request by the Conference Committee for the Director-General to renew this invitation for the 97th Session (May–June 2008) of the Conference. The Committee of Experts has accepted this invitation.

Follow-up to cases of serious failure by member States to fulfil reporting and other standards-related obligations mentioned in the report of the Committee on the Application of Standards

12.   The Committee recalls that, at the instigation of the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 93rd Session (June 2005) of the International Labour Conference, the two committees, with the assistance of the Office, strengthened the follow-up given to cases of serious failure by member States to fulfil reporting and other standards-related obligations with a view, in so far as possible, to identifying more accurately the difficulties underlying these failures and enabling appropriate solutions to be identified. As both committees have recalled on numerous occasions, such failures hinder the functioning of the supervisory system, which is based primarily on the information provided by governments in their reports. Therefore, in cases where a report has not been submitted for a number of years, which are the most serious cases, supervision of the application of ratified Conventions cannot begin or is limited by the lack of up to date information. Cases of failure to fulfil reporting obligations therefore have to be given the same level of attention as those relating to the application of ratified Conventions.

A. Supply of reports

17.   The Committee’s principal task consists of the examination of the reports supplied by governments on Conventions that have been ratified by member States and that have been declared applicable to non-metropolitan territories.

(a) a first detailed report was due after ratification;

(b) important discrepancies had previously been noted between national law or practice and the Conventions in question;

(c) reports due for the previous period had not been received or did not contain the information requested;

(d) reports were expressly requested by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards.

The Committee also had before it a number of reports which it was unable to examine at its previous session.

22.   A total of 2,477 reports were requested from governments on the application of Conventions ratified by member States (article 22 of the Constitution). At the end of the present session of the Committee, 1,611 of these reports had been received by the Office. This figure corresponds to 65.04 per cent of the reports requested, compared with 66.47 per cent last year.

25.   Most of the governments from which reports were due on the application of ratified Conventions have supplied most or all of the reports requested (see Appendix I). However, no reports due have been received for the past two or more years from the following 16 countries: Bolivia, Cape Verde, Congo, Denmark (Faeroe Islands), Equatorial Guinea, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom (Anguilla, St. Helena) and Uzbekistan. In addition, all or the majority of the reports due this year have not been received from the following 32 countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cambodia, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France (French Guiana, French Southern and Antarctic Territories, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion, St. Pierre and Miquelon), Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Ireland, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malaysia, Malaysia (Sabah), Malaysia (Sarawak), Mauritania, Mongolia, Netherlands (Netherlands Antilles), Nigeria, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Slovenia, Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania (Zanzibar), The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uganda, United Kingdom (Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, Guernsey, Montserrat) and Zambia.

27.   The reports due on ratified Conventions should be sent to the Office between 1 June and 1 September of each year. Due consideration is given, when setting this date, to the time required to translate the reports, where necessary, to conduct research into legislation and other documents necessary for the examination of reports and legislation.

31.   A total of 118 of the 212 first reports due on the application of ratified Conventions were received by the time that the Committee’s session ended, compared to last year when 60 of the 179 first reports due had been received. However, a number of countries have failed to supply first reports, some of which are more than a year overdue. Thus, certain first reports on ratified Conventions have not been received for a certain number of years from the following 16 member States:

– since 1992 – Liberia (Convention No. 133);

– since 1994 – Kyrgyzstan (Convention No. 111);

– since 1995 – Armenia (Convention No. 111), Kyrgyzstan (Convention No. 133);

– since 1998 – Equatorial Guinea (Conventions Nos 68, 92);

– since 1999 – Turkmenistan (Conventions Nos 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111);

– since 2001 – Armenia (Convention No. 176);

– since 2002 – Gambia (Conventions Nos 29, 105, 138), Saint Kitts and Nevis (Conventions Nos 87, 98), Saint Lucia (Convention No. 182);

– since 2003 – Dominica (Convention No. 182), Gambia (Convention No. 182), Iraq (Conventions Nos 172, 182);

– since 2004 – Antigua and Barbuda (Conventions Nos 122, 131, 135, 142, 144, 150, 151, 154, 155, 158, 161, 182), Dominica (Conventions Nos 144, 169), The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Convention No. 182);

– since 2005 – Antigua and Barbuda (Convention No. 100), Liberia (Conventions Nos 81, 144, 150, 182), Uganda (Convention No. 138); and

– since 2006 – Albania (Convention No. 171), Dominica (Conventions Nos 135, 147, 150), Georgia (Convention No. 163), Kyrgyzstan (Conventions Nos 17, 184), Nigeria (Conventions Nos 137, 178, 179).

33.   Governments are requested to reply in their reports to the observations and direct requests made by the Committee, and the majority of governments have provided the replies requested. In accordance with the established practice, the Office has written to all the governments which failed to provide such replies requesting them to supply the necessary information. Of the 32 governments to which such letters were sent, only eight have provided the information requested.

(a) of all the reports requested from governments, no reply has been received; or

(b) the reports received contained no reply to most of the Committee’s comments (observations and/or direct requests), and/or did not reply to the letters sent by the Office.

37.   In examining the reports received on ratified Conventions and Conventions declared applicable to non-metropolitan territories, in accordance with its normal practice, the Committee assigned to each of its members the initial responsibility for a group of Conventions. Reports received early enough are sent to the members concerned in advance of the Committee’s session. The members submit their preliminary conclusions on the instruments for which they are responsible to the Committee in plenary sitting for discussion and approval. Decisions on comments are adopted by consensus.

38.   In many cases, the Committee has found that no comment is called for regarding the manner in which a ratified Convention has been implemented. In other cases, however, the Committee has found it necessary to draw the attention of the governments concerned to the need to take further action to give effect to certain provisions of Conventions or to supply additional information on given points. As in previous years, its comments have been drawn up in the form either of “observations” which are reproduced in the report of the Committee, or “direct requests”, which are not published in the Committee’s report, but are communicated directly to the governments concerned. (Endnote_13)

– the seriousness of the problem; in this respect, the Committee emphasizes that an important consideration is the necessity to view the problem in the context of a particular Convention and to take into account matters involving fundamental rights, workers’ health, safety and well-being as well as any adverse impact, including at the international level, on workers and other categories of protected persons;

– the persistence of the problem;

– the urgency of the situation; the evaluation of such urgency is necessarily case-specific, according to standard human rights criteria, such as life-threatening situations or problems where irreversible harm is foreseeable; and

– the quality and scope of the government’s response in its reports or the absence of response to the issues raised by the Committee, including cases of clear and repeated refusal on the part of a State to comply with its obligations.

44.   It is customary for the Committee to note the information contained in the governments’ reports allowing it to appreciate the application of the Conventions in practice, such as information relating to judicial decisions, statistics and labour inspection. The supply of this information is requested in almost all report forms, as well as the specific terms of some Conventions. 45.   The Committee notes that 362 reports received this year contain information on the practical application of Conventions. Of these, 52 reports contain information on national jurisprudence. Such information has been communicated mostly concerning equality and opportunity of treatment (Conventions Nos 100 and 111) and the worst forms of child labour Convention (Convention No. 182). The Committee also notes that 310 of the reports contain information on statistics and labour inspection. The majority of this information relates to Conventions concerning the elimination of child labour (Conventions Nos 138 and 182), equality and opportunity of treatment (Conventions Nos 100 and 111), labour inspection (Convention No. 81) and employment policy (Convention No. 122).

47.   Following its examination of the reports supplied by governments, and in accordance with its standard practice, the Committee refers in its comments to cases in which it expresses its satisfaction or interest at the progress achieved in the application of the respective Conventions. Over the years, the Committee has developed a general approach, described below, concerning the identification of cases of progress. First, the Committee emphasizes that an expression of progress can refer to different kinds of measures. In the final instance, the Committee will exercise its discretion in noting progress having regard in particular to the nature of the Convention as well as to the specific circumstances of the country.

54.   The question of the application of the Marking of Weight (Package Transported by Vessels) Convention, 1929 (No. 27) in relation to modern methods of cargo handling, with particular reference to containers is addressed in a general observation which appears as an introduction to individual examination of the reports under this Convention.

56.   At each session, the Committee draws the attention of governments to the important role of employers’ and workers’ organizations in the application of Conventions and Recommendations. Moreover, it highlights the fact that numerous Conventions require consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations, or their collaboration in a variety of measures. The Committee notes that almost all governments have indicated in the reports supplied under articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution the representative organizations of employers and workers to which, in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, they have communicated copies of the reports supplied to the Office.

57.   Since its last session, the Committee has received 532 comments (compared to 518 last year), 40 of which were communicated by employers’ organizations and 492 by workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls the importance it attaches to this contribution by employers’ and workers’ organizations to the work of the supervisory bodies. This contribution is essential for the Committee’s evaluation of the application of ratified Conventions in law and in practice.

67.   In accordance with its terms of reference, the Committee this year examined the following information supplied by the governments of member States pursuant to article 19 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization:

(a) information on the steps taken to submit to the competent authorities the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, adopted by the Conference at its 94th (Maritime) Session on 23 February 2006;

(b) information on the steps taken to submit to the competent authorities the instruments adopted by the Conference at its 95th Session (Convention No. 187 and Recommendations Nos 197 and 198) on 16 June 2006; 

(c) replies to the observations and direct requests made by the Committee at its 77th Session (November–December 2006).

70.   The Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, was to be submitted to the competent authorities within 12 months or, under exceptional circumstances, within 18 months of the closure of the session of the Conference, that is, by 23 February 2007 or 23 August 2007, respectively. In all, 66 governments out of the 178 member States concerned have sent information on steps taken in this regard: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Switzerland, United Republic of Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

72.   At its 95th Session in June 2006, the Conference adopted the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention (No. 187) and Recommendation (No. 197) and the Employment Relationship Recommendation (No. 198). The 12-month period for submission to the competent authorities of Convention No. 187 and Recommendations Nos 197 and 198 ended on 16 June 2007, and the 18-month period, on 16 December 2007. In all, 59 governments out of the 178 member States concerned have sent new information on steps taken in this regard: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Viet Nam.

74.   The Committee notes with interest the information sent in 2007 by the Governments of Afghanistan, Armenia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Madagascar and Swaziland. It welcomes the efforts made by these governments to make up for the significant delay in submission and thus fulfil their obligation to submit to their parliamentary bodies the instruments adopted by the Conference over a number of years.

75.   To facilitate the work of the Committee on the Application of Standards, this report mentions only the governments which have not provided any information on the submission to the competent authorities of instruments adopted by the Conference for at least the seven sessions held from June 1999 (i.e. from the 87th Session to the 94th (Maritime) Session in February 2006). This time frame was deemed long enough to warrant inviting Government delegations to a special sitting of the Conference Committee so that they may account for the delays in submission.

81.   As in its previous reports, the Committee makes individual observations, in section III of Part Two of this report, on the points that should be brought to the special attention of governments. Observations are made in cases where there has been no information provided for five or more sessions of the Conference. Furthermore, requests for additional information on other points have been addressed directly to a number of countries (see list of direct requests at the end of section III).

85.   In accordance with the decision taken by the Governing Body, (Endnote_22) governments were requested to supply reports under article 19 of the Constitution on the Labour Clauses (Public Contracts) Convention (No. 94) and Recommendation (No. 84), 1949.

III. Collaboration with other international organizations and functions relating to other international instruments

A. Cooperation in the field of standards with the United Nations, the specialized agencies and other international organizations

90.   In the context of collaboration with other international organizations on questions concerning supervision of the application of international instruments relating to subjects of common interest, the United Nations, certain specialized agencies and other intergovernmental organizations with which the ILO has entered into special arrangements for this purpose, are asked whether they have information that it might be useful for the Committee to examine on how certain Conventions are being applied. The list of the Conventions concerned and the international organizations that were consulted is as follows:

– Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107): United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Inter-American Indian Institute of the Organization of American States, United Nations, office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and World Health Organization (WHO);

– Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115): International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);

– Social Policy (Basic Aims and Standards) Convention, 1962 (No. 117): FAO, United Nations, office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNESCO;

– Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970 (No. 134), and Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147): International Maritime Organization (IMO);

– Rural Workers’ Organizations Convention, 1975 (No. 141): FAO, United Nations and office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights;

– Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142): UNESCO;

– Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143): United Nations, office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNESCO and WHO;

– Nursing Personnel Convention, 1977 (No. 149): WHO;

– Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169): FAO, Inter-American Indian Institute of the Organization of American States, United Nations, office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNESCO and WHO.

91.   The Committee recalls that international labour standards and the provisions of related United Nations human rights treaties are complementary and mutually reinforcing. It emphasizes that continuing cooperation between the ILO and the United Nations with regard to the application and supervision of relevant instruments is necessary, particularly in view of the approach to development based on human rights adopted by the United Nations. The Committee welcomes the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 September 2007.

95.   In accordance with the supervisory procedure established under Article 74(4) of the Code, and the arrangements made between the ILO and the Council of Europe, the Committee of Experts examined 21 reports on the application of the European Code of Social Security and, as appropriate, its Protocol. At the sitting in which the Committee examined the reports on the Code and its Protocol, the Council of Europe was represented by Ms Ana Gomez Heredero. The conclusions of the Committee regarding these reports will be sent to the Council of Europe for examination by the Committee of Experts on Standard-Setting Instruments in the Field of Social Security. Once approved, the Committee’s comments should lead to the adoption of resolutions by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the application of the Code and the Protocol by the countries concerned.

* * *

Geneva, 7 December 2007.

A. Al-Fuzaie,

Composition of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations

Mr Mario ACKERMAN (Argentina),

Director of the Labour Law and Social Security Department and Professor in Labour Law, University of Buenos Aires; former adviser to the Parliament of the Republic of Argentina; former Director of the Labour Police of the National Ministry of Labour and Social Security of the Republic of Argentina.

Docteur en droit; Professor of Law; Professor of Private Law of the University of Kuwait; attorney; former member of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC); member of the Administrative Board of the Centre of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Kuwait; Member of the Governing Body of the International Islamic Centre for Mediation and Commercial Arbitration (Abu Dhabi); former Director of Legal Affairs of the Municipality of Kuwait; former Adviser to the Embassy of Kuwait (Paris), former Director of Legal Department (Kuwait Finance House).

Judge of Appeal for the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court; former High Court Judge for Belize, Saint Lucia, Grenada and the British Virgin Islands; former Chairperson of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal in Belize; former member of the Committee of Experts for the Prevention of Torture in the Americas.

Samuel Blank Professor and Professor of Legal Studies and Management of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; Trustee and Founding President, Singapore Management University; Senior Editor, Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal; President-elect of the International Industrial Relations Association; member of the Executive Board of the US branch of the International Society of Labour Law and Social Security; member of the Public Review Board of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implements Workers’ Union; former Secretary of the Section on Labour Law, American Bar Association.

Judge at the Labour Federal High Court (Tribunal Superior do Trabalho) of Brazil; LLM of the University of Essex, United Kingdom; former Labour Public Prosecutor of Brazil; Professor (Labour Team and Human Rights Team) at the Centro de Ensino Unificado de Brasilia.

Professor of Labour Law at the University of Cape Town; former Chief Legal Counsel of the Congress of South African Trade Unions; former Special Adviser to the Labour Minister; former Convener of the Task Team to draft the South African Labour Relations Act.

Justice of the High Court, Queen’s Bench Division and Judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal; LL B, LL M of the University of London; previously a barrister specializing in employment law, discrimination and human rights; Head of Cloisters Chambers, Temple (1995–2002); Chairperson of the Bar Council Sex Discrimination Committee (1995–99) and Equal Opportunities Committee (1999–2002); Bencher of the Inner Temple; member of the Independent Human Rights Organization Justice (former Council member) and one of the founding Lawyers of Liberty (the National Council for Civil Liberties); previously a Vice-President of the Institute of Employment Rights and member of the Panel of Experts advising the Cambridge University Independent Review of Discrimination Legislation; Chairperson of the Board of INTERIGHTS, the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights (2001–04) and Chairperson of the Equality and Diversity Advisory Committee of the Judicial Studies Board (2003–); appointed Honorary Fellow of Queen Mary College, London University (2005); member of Council of the University of London (2003–06); President of the Association of Women Barristers and Committee member of the United Kingdom Association of Women Judges.

Doctor of Law; Professor of International Public Law at the National Autonomous University of Mexico; member of the National Federation of Lawyers and of the Lawyers’ Forum of Mexico; recipient of the award for Juridical Merit “the Lawyer of the Year (1993)”; Social Counselor and member of the Governing Body of the National Institute for Women; President of the Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere (IPPF/WHR). She has been: President of the Senate of Mexico and of the Foreign Relations Committee; Secretary of the House of Representatives; President of the Population and Development Committee and member of the Labour and Social Security Committee; President of the Congress of the State of Chiapas; President of the Inter-American Parliamentary Group on Population and Development (IPG); Vice-President of the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders; Director-General of the National Institute for Labour Studies; Commissioner of the National Immigration Institute and editor of the Mexican Labour Review.

Judge at the International Court of Justice since 1994; President of the Henri Dunant Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in Geneva; former member of the International Law Commission; former Ambassador and Ambassador Plenipotentiary to many countries as well as to the United Nations.

Justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia; LL B, LL M; Chairperson of the Advisory Panel for the Australian Centre for Child Protection; member of the Gender Committee and member of the Child Witness Handbook Committee of the Judicial College of Australia; previously a Barrister-at-Law; Judge and Deputy President of the South Australian Industrial Court and Commission; Deputy President of the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal; Reporter on a Child Protection framework for South Australia; Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee of the Law Society of South Australia; Director, National Rail Corporation; Commissioner on the Health Insurance Commission; Chairperson of the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council; Honorary Solicitor for the South Australian Council for Civil Liberties; Solicitor for the Central Aboriginal Land Council; Chairman of the South Australian Sex Discrimination Board.

Honorary Advocate-General, Court of Cassation (Social Division); President, Journalists Arbitration Commission; Former Deputy Director, Office of the Minister of Justice; Public Prosecutor at the Nanterre Tribunal de Grande Instance (Hauts de Seine); former President of the Pontoise Tribunal de Grande Instance (Val d’Oise); graduate of the Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature.

Doctor of Law; Professor of Law at the University of Cologne; Director of the Institute for Eastern European Law of the University of Cologne; substitute member of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) of the Council of Europe; former legal adviser in the Directorate General of Social Cohesion of the Council of Europe (2001–02).

Judge of the Supreme Court of India from 2000 to June 2006; former judge in the Calcutta High Court; former member of the General Council of National Law School of India University; former member of the Executive Committee of the National Judicial Academy; former member of the General Council and Executive Council of the West Bengal National University on Juridical Sciences (NUJS); founding member of the Asia-Pacific Advisory Forum on Judicial Education on equality law; Executive Council member of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and member of various other national and regional bodies; Professor, Ford Foundation Chair on Human Rights, NUJS; Ombudsman (Eastern Region) of the Confederation of Indian Industries.

Doctor of Law; President of the Second Section of the Council of State (Legal, Labour and Social Matters); Professor of Labour Law; Doctor honoris causa of the University of Ferrara (Italy) and the University of Huelva (Spain); President Emeritus of the Constitutional Court; member of the European Academy of Labour Law, the Ibero-American Academy of Labour Law, the Andalusian Academy of Social Sciences and the Environment, and the European Institute of Social Security; Director of the review Relaciones Laborales; President of the SIGLO XXI Club; recipient of the gold medallion of the University of Huelva, and of the Labour Gold Medallion; former President of the National Advisory Commission on Collective Agreements and President of the Andalusian Industrial Relations Council; former Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Seville; former Director of the University College of La Rábida; President ad honorem of the Spanish Association of Labour Law and Social Security.

Honorary President of the Council of State; former member of the Constitutional Council; former President of the Social and Administrative Section of the Supreme Court; former Secretary-General of the Supreme Court; former Councillor of the Supreme Court; former President of the Social Chamber of the Court of Appeal; former Director of Judicial Services; former Councillor of the Court of Appeal; former President of the Dakar Labour Court; former Auditor of the Supreme Court; former Inspector of Railways.

Professor, Chuo Law School; Special Adviser to the Rector, United Nations University; President, Centre for Human Rights Affairs (Japan); Commissioner, International Commission of Jurists; Board Member, Japan Association of International Human Rights Law and Japan Association of World Law; former Professor, University of Tokyo and International Christian University; former member, UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Endnotes

Endnote 1