Part I. General Report

I. Introduction

2. The composition of the Committee is as follows: Mr Mario ACKERMAN (Argentina), Mr Anwar Ahmad Rashed AL FUZAIE (Kuwait), Mr Denys BARROW, SC (Belize), Ms Janice R. BELLACE (United States), Mr Lélio BENTES CORRÊA (Brazil), Mr Halton CHEADLE (South Africa), Ms Laura COX, QC (United Kingdom), Ms Blanca Ruth ESPONDA ESPINOSA (Mexico), Mr Abdul G. KOROMA (Sierra Leone), Ms Robyn A. LAYTON, QC (Australia), Mr Pierre LYON-CAEN (France), Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER, MA (Germany), Ms Ruma PAL (India), Mr Raymond RANJEVA (Madagascar), Mr Miguel RODRIGUEZ PIÑERO Y BRAVO FERRER (Spain), Mr Yozo YOKOTA (Japan). The appendix of the General Report contains brief biographies of all the Committee members.

8. 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 the 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 between 2002 to 2004. During its sessions in 2005 and 2006, issues relating to its working methods were discussed by the Committee in plenary sitting. The subcommittee met once again in 2007.

10. 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 Ms Layton, QC, as an observer in the general discussion of the Committee on the Application of Standards of the 97th Session (May/June 2008) of the International Labour Conference. It noted the request by the Conference Committee for the Director-General to renew this invitation for the 98th Session (June 2009) of the Conference. The Committee of Experts 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

13. 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. 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.

19. 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 that it was unable to examine at its previous session.

24. A total of 2,517 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, 1,768 of these reports had been received by the Office. This figure corresponds to 70.24 per cent of the reports requested, representing a clear increase in relation to the previous year, when the figure was 65.04 per cent and the total number of reports requested was lower than this year.

27. 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 11 countries: Cape Verde, Denmark (Faeroe Islands), Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Sierra Leone, Somalia, United Republic of Tanzania (Zanzibar), Togo, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom (Anguilla), United Kingdom (British Virgin Islands) and United Kingdom (Falkland Islands (Malvinas)). In addition, all or the majority of the reports due this year have not been received from the following 40 countries: Armenia, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Denmark (Greenland), Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, France (French Southern and Antarctic Territories), Gambia, Guyana, Hungary, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Liberia, Malta, Namibia, Netherlands (Aruba), Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, United Republic of Tanzania, United Republic of Tanzania (Tanganyika), Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uganda, United Kingdom (Isle of Man), United Kingdom (St Helena) and Vanuatu. 28. The Committee urges the governments of these countries to make every effort to supply the reports requested on ratified Conventions. As it emphasized in paragraph 16 above, the Committee is aware that where no reports have been sent for some time, it is likely that administrative or other problems are preventing the government concerned from fulfilling its obligations under the ILO Constitution. In this respect, the Committee is bound to recall the importance of the assistance provided by the Office, in particular through the specialists on international labour standards in the subregional offices, in helping the governments concerned to overcome these difficulties.

29. 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.

32. A total of 94 of the 164 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 118 of the 212 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 1998 / Equatorial Guinea (Conventions Nos 68, 92);

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

/ since 2002 / Gambia (Conventions Nos 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);

/ since 2004 / Antigua and Barbuda (Conventions Nos 161, 182), Dominica (Conventions Nos 144, 169), The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Convention No. 182);

/ since 2005 / Liberia (Conventions Nos 81, 144, 150, 182);

/ since 2006 / Dominica (Conventions Nos 135, 147, 150), Kyrgyzstan (Conventions Nos 17, 184); and

/ since 2007: Armenia (Conventions Nos 14, 150, 160, 173); Chad (Convention No. 138); Lao People's Democratic Republic (Conventions Nos 138, 182); Saint Kitts and Nevis (Convention No. 138); Sao Tome and Principe (Conventions Nos 135, 138, 151, 154, 155, 182, 184); Seychelles (Conventions Nos 73, 144, 147, 152, 161, 180); Tajikistan (Convention No. 182) and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Convention No. 144).

34. Governments are requested to reply in their reports to the observations and direct requests made by the Committee. 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 35 governments to which such letters were sent, only five 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.

38. 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.

39. 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_11)

41. As in the past, the Committee has indicated by special notes at the end of the observations (traditionally known as footnotes) the cases in which, because of the nature of the problems encountered in the application of the Conventions concerned, it has seemed appropriate to ask the government to supply a report earlier than would otherwise have been the case and, in some instances, to supply full particulars to the Conference at its next session in June 2009.

/ 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.

List of the cases in which the Committee has requested early reports after an interval of either one or two years:
State	Conventions Nos
Algeria	42
Angola	17, 88
Argentina	169
Australia	42
Barbados	122, 144
Benin	143
Brazil	169
Cameroon	143
China – Hong Kong Special Administrative Region	97
Colombia	17, 169
Comoros	99
Congo	95, 152
Democratic Republic of the Congo	102, 119
Djibouti	19, 26
Ecuador	81, 103, 152
El Salvador	107
France	88, 94, 96, 97, 102
Guatemala	1, 169
Hungary	24
Israel	97
Italy	143
Japan	88
Madagascar	144
Malaysia – Peninsular Malaysia	19
Malaysia – Sabah	97
Mauritius	17, 19
Mexico	169
Niger	95
Pakistan	144
Paraguay	95
Peru	44, 169
Philippines	94
Portugal	117
Russian Federation	126
Saint Kitts and Nevis	144
Sao Tome and Principe	18
Slovenia	97, 143
Sri Lanka	103
Tunisia	107
Uganda	158
Uruguay	121
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela	102, 111, 118, 121, 142, 158
Yemen	131
Zambia	103
Zimbabwe	99

46. The Committee has also requested governments to supply full particulars to the Conference at its next session in June 2009 in the following cases:

48. 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.

51. 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.

List of the cases in which the Committee has been able to note with interest various measures taken by the governments of the following countries:
State	Conventions Nos
Afghanistan	111
Albania	81, 138, 182
Algeria	81
Antigua and Barbuda	81
Argentina	81, 100, 111, 138, 182
Australia	87, 98
Austria	81
Azerbaijan	103, 111, 129
Bahamas	103
Bangladesh	182
Barbados	81
Belarus	182
Belgium	100, 182
Belize	81, 97, 100, 138
Benin	81, 138, 143, 182
Bolivia	29, 182
Bosnia and Herzegovina	81, 111, 129
Brazil	97, 100
Bulgaria	29, 32, 111, 182 183
Burkina Faso	29, 81, 97, 143, 182
Burundi	42
Cambodia	138, 182
Canada	100, 111
Central African Republic	81
Chile	111, 138, 182
China – Macau Special Administrative Region	111, 182
Colombia	24, 81, 138
Comoros	81
Congo	81
Costa Rica	182
Croatia	111
Cuba	81
Cyprus	81, 182
Democratic Republic of the Congo	26, 81, 98, 138, 182
Djibouti	88, 122
Ecuador	81, 97, 100, 111, 138, 182
Egypt	81
El Salvador	29, 81, 138, 182
Eritrea	138
Estonia	111, 182
Fiji	138,182
Finland	182
France	129
Gabon	182
Georgia	29, 138, 182
Germany	182
Ghana	103, 182
Grenada	138
Guatemala	182
Honduras	81, 108, 138, 169, 182
Hungary	17
India	81, 122
Indonesia	182
Ireland	111
Italy	97,143
Jamaica	81, 138, 182
Japan	81
Jordan	81, 182
Kenya	29, 81, 98, 142, 182
Kiribati	87, 98
Korea, Republic of	111, 144
Kyrgyzstan	100
Latvia	3, 81, 111
Lebanon	150
Lesotho	138, 182
Liberia	87
Madagascar	98
Mauritius	87, 98
Mexico	87
Moldova, Republic of	81, 98, 129
Nepal	98, 144
Netherlands	111
New Zealand	52
Nicaragua	138, 182
Norway	97, 100, 111, 143
Pakistan	182
Panama	81, 107
Paraguay	169
Peru	29, 81, 98, 138
Poland	101, 111, 129, 144
Portugal	29, 97, 143
Qatar	81, 138
Romania	1, 81, 129
Rwanda	81
Senegal	10, 81, 182
Serbia	81
Slovakia	182
Slovenia	81, 129, 143
South Africa	144
Sri Lanka	100, 111
Sudan	81
Syrian Arab Republic	81, 129
Tanzania, United Republic of	98, 111
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	29
Turkey	81, 138, 155, 161, 182
Uganda	98, 162
United Arab Emirates	29, 81
United Kingdom	97
United Kingdom – Gibraltar	100
United Kingdom – Jersey	87, 98
Uruguay	144
Yemen	81
Zambia	100, 103, 111, 122, 138, 182

Cases of good practices

63. A general observation, which appears as an introduction to the individual examination of reports due on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), deals with the issue of the application of this Convention to the export processing zones' (EPZ) workers.

68. 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. However, the Committee notes an increase this year in the number of governments which did not indicate in their reports the representative organizations of employers and workers to which copies of the reports shall be communicated. It emphasizes in this respect that, for the first time, it had to make an observation to two countries which had failed to provide this indication for the third consecutive year.(Endnot_15) The Committee hopes that in the future all of the governments concerned will comply with this constitutional obligation.

79. 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 instruments adopted by the Conference at its 95th Session (Convention No. 187 and Recommendations Nos 197 and 198) on 16 June 2006;

(b) information on the steps taken to submit to the competent authorities the instruments adopted by the Conference at its 96th Session (Convention No. 188 and Recommendation No. 199) on 14 June 2007;

(c) replies to the observations and direct requests made by the Committee at its 78th Session (November/December 2007).

84. At its 96th Session in May/June 2007, the Conference adopted the Work in Fishing Convention (No. 188) and Recommendation No. 199. The 12-month period for submission to the competent authorities of Convention No. 188 and Recommendation No. 199 ended on 14 June 2008, and the 18-month period on 14 December 2008. In all, 62 governments out of the 178 member States concerned have sent new information on the steps taken in this regard: Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Philippines, Poland, Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, United Republic of Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

85. The Committee notes with interest the information sent in 2008 by the Governments of Grenada, Namibia and Peru. It welcomes the efforts made by these two 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.

86. To facilitate the work of the Committee on the Application of Standards, this report only mentions the governments which have not provided any information on submission to the competent authorities of instruments adopted by the Conference for at least the seven sessions held from May/June 2000 (i.e. from the 88th Session to the 95th Session in May/June 2006). This time frame was deemed long enough to warrant inviting Government delegations to a special sitting of the Conference Committee so that they could account for the delays in submission.

93. 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 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).

97. In accordance with the decision taken by the Governing Body, (Endnote_18) governments were requested to supply reports under article 19 of the Constitution on the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), the Protocol of 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981, and the Occupational Safety and Health Recommendation, 1981 (No. 164).

102. In accordance with its decision at its 78th Session (November/December 2007),(Endnote-20) the Committee considers that it is useful to draw attention to the following highlights and major trends in relation to topical issues arising from the reports that it has examined this year.

104. In the 60th anniversary year of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee of Experts wishes to emphasize the fundamental importance it attaches to freedom of association as a core enabling right, essential to the meaningful attainment of all other rights at work. This has been firmly anchored in the 2008 Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, which highlights this right as particularly important to the attainment of the four strategic objectives of the ILO. Respect for freedom of association at the workplace goes hand in hand with respect for the basic civil liberties and human rights inherent to human dignity. Yet the Committee regrets to observe that billions of workers in the world remain deprived of this fundamental right in law or in practice. In the first instance, the Committee deeply regrets that Convention No. 87 lags behind as the least ratified of the fundamental Conventions. Moreover, among the 33 member States that have not ratified this Convention, one can find several of the most populous nations of the world. The Committee echoes the Director-General's solemn call to all those countries that have not yet ratified the Convention to make concerted efforts to do so by 2015, the proposed goal for the universal ratification of the fundamental Conventions. Recognizing significant organizational deficits in law and in practice for workers in export processing zones and for those making up the informal economy, among many other groups of vulnerable workers, the Committee has also decided to make a general observation in its report this year to highlight its concern and requests further information from governments in this regard.

105. This year, the Committee celebrates the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). The Convention was forward-looking in 1958, and remains the most comprehensive, dedicated international instrument on non-discrimination and equality in employment and occupation. It is intrinsically linked to the ILO's mission to promote social justice through securing decent work for all, as most recently reaffirmed in the 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization. On this 50th anniversary of the Convention, it is appropriate to highlight some of the progress that has been made in its implementation and to reflect on means of overcoming the remaining obstacles to equality.

106. In the process of applying the Convention, it is essential to acknowledge that no society is free from discrimination and that continuous action is required to address it. However, a few governments continue to assert that discrimination does not exist in their countries and declare that no action is required to apply the Convention. The Committee considers that such a position is contrary to the spirit of the Convention and is a considerable obstacle to its implementation. As already stated in its 1988 General Survey, the promotion of equality of opportunity and treatment is not aimed at a stable situation but achieved in successive stages in the course of which the national equality policy must be adjusted to newly emerging forms of discrimination for which solutions must be found.

107. Progress made. When assessing whether a given country has declared and is pursuing a national policy on equality of opportunity and treatment in accordance with the Convention, the Committee has been guided by the criteria of effectiveness, taking into account the specific circumstances of each country. In this context, the Committee wishes to recall that under Article 3(f) of the Convention, ratifying States have the obligation to provide information regularly on the measures taken to promote equality and also to indicate "the results secured by such action". While information is often provided on the various measures taken, the Committee is obliged regularly to request information on the impact of these measures. The Committee notes that an increasing number of countries apply the Convention through a combination of legislative and administrative measures, public policies, practical programmes aimed at preventing discrimination and redressing de facto inequalities, and through the establishment of national equality commissions or other specialized bodies mandated to promote equality and to deal with complaints.

108. Important legislative developments. The Committee has been able to note considerable progress in the adoption of legal provisions on equality and non-discrimination based on the grounds enumerated in the Convention. Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention requires ratifying countries to ensure protection against discrimination on all the seven enumerated grounds, namely race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin; Article 1(1)(b) acknowledges that new manifestations of discrimination will arise or be recognized, and envisages ratifying States determining additional grounds to be addressed under the Convention. Countries are increasingly making use of the possibility to determine additional grounds, and are taking measures, including legislative protection, to address discrimination based on additional grounds, such as age, health, disability, HIV/AIDS status, nationality, family status or responsibilities and sexual orientation. The Committee observes that in many cases discrimination in employment and occupation is not limited to discrimination on solely one ground. For example, sex-based discrimination frequently interacts with other forms of discrimination or inequality based on race, national extraction or religion or even age, migrant status, disability or health. In this regard, the Committee wishes to draw attention to the particular situation of migrant workers, including female domestic workers, indigenous women, and persons suffering from HIV/AIDS.

- Certain categories of workers such as casual workers, domestic workers and migrant workers often remain excluded from the protection against discrimination enshrined in national legislation.

- Some anti-discrimination laws do not cover all the grounds set out in the Convention.

- A ground frequently omitted in the legislation is social origin, which remains of importance as new forms of rigid social stratification develop.

- Protection against discrimination does not cover all aspects of employment and occupation, from recruitment to termination.

113. A continuing challenge. The implementation of anti-discrimination legislation remains a challenge almost everywhere. Where no cases or a negligible number are being lodged, the Committee has queried whether this could indicate a lack of awareness of the principle of the Convention, lack of confidence in or absence of practical access to procedures, or fear of reprisals. It has invited member States to raise awareness of the legislation, to enhance the capacity of the responsible authorities, including judges, labour inspectors and other public officials, to identify and address such cases, and also to examine whether the applicable substantive and procedural provisions, in practice, allow victims of discrimination to bring their claims successfully. The Committee has also consistently stressed the need to collect and publish information on the nature and outcome of discrimination cases addressed by the competent bodies, including the courts, national human rights or equality institutions and the labour inspectorate, as a means of raising awareness of the legislation and of the avenues for dispute resolution, and as a basis for examining their effectiveness.

114. Repealing discriminatory legislation and enacting and enforcing non-discrimination legislation, while clearly important, are not sufficient to eliminate de facto inequality in employment and occupation, which often results from discrimination that is deeply entrenched in tradition and societal values and manifests itself in a systematic and structural manner.

117. Proactive measures. Tackling de facto inequalities requires proactive approaches and measures, to achieve gender equality and to overcome discrimination of particularly vulnerable groups. Such measures have included affirmative action, awareness raising and training, and ensuring coherent policies in areas affecting equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation. Indirect discrimination and tackling structural disadvantage remains a serious concern. The special circumstances, human rights and needs and aspirations of the groups concerned need to be taken into account in the design and implementation of policies and programmes in the areas of training, skills development and employment promotion.

119. Key players. In keeping with the spirit of the Convention, workers' and employers' organizations are playing an important role in promoting understanding, acceptance and the realization of the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation through the development and implementation of workplace polices and measures to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment and promote diversity at work. Trade unions in all regions have taken up anti-discrimination work, ranging from designing internal procedures to joining national public campaigns. Employers and employers' organizations have developed codes of conduct and implemented diversity management and training activities in a considerable number of countries. Collective bargaining has also been instrumental in securing the rights under the Convention in practice. The Committee stresses the need for full respect for freedom of association as a precondition to enable workers' and employers' organizations to carry out their important role in the context of the Convention, as social dialogue is key to addressing legislative and implementation gaps.

120. The application of the Convention has clearly contributed to the promotion and realization of equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation and thus to social justice. Yet the goal of eliminating all discrimination in employment and occupation remains a distant one. Noting that at present 14 ILO member States have not yet ratified Convention No. 111, an instrument of fundamental and enduring importance, the Committee hopes that universal ratification will be achieved by 2015, as called for by the ILO Director-General.

128. Many national economic indicators are giving the convergent message that the impact of the current financial crisis may be severe, long-lasting and global, thereby posing a real threat to the financial viability and sustainable development of social security systems and undermining the application of ILO social security standards. Banking, insurance and pension fund failures, followed by the closure of enterprises in the other sectors of the economy, are causing growing unemployment and reduced pensions. Social safety nets will come under increasing stress as the number of claimants increase while taxes and contributions to social security schemes decline. The huge cost of bank bailouts and stabilization measures taken by governments leaves national treasuries with little room for manoeuvre and constrains social spending. The Committee is led to observe that social security systems are set to experience the worst financial and economic crisis since the systems were first created. In this situation, the Committee is bound to remind governments that, under the ILO Conventions on social security, governments must accept general responsibility for the proper administration of the national social security institutions and for the due provision of the benefits; to enable them to effectively discharge this general responsibility, the Conventions place them under the obligation to "take all measures required for this purpose". (Endnote_22)

129. During the economic turbulence of the 1990s, financial pressures led some governments to adopt hasty measures and make cuts in social security expenditure. The Committee emphasized at that time that immediate financial pressures, however important, should not take precedence over the need to preserve the stability and effectiveness of social security systems, and that any reduction in their expenditure should be carried out within the framework of a coherent policy aimed at achieving viable long-term solutions ensuring the levels of protection guaranteed by the ILO standards. The Committee now wishes to reiterate this concern with even greater force: unless major countries adopt a coherent and comprehensive response to the global financial crisis, social protection mechanisms may be severely jeopardized and pushed well below the minimum levels established by Convention No. 102 over 50 years ago. Depending on how this crisis is managed, it has the potential to turn into a full-scale social and political crisis, resulting in a major setback for social progress worldwide.

131. In the 1990s, many governments reduced their role in discharging the responsibilities in relation to social security down to the mere provision of basic safety nets, while at the same time expanding the role of private insurers, enterprises and insured persons themselves. In these countries, the move to privatization led to the gradual reduction of the public tier of social security, particularly in sickness and pension insurance. The Committee has emphasized that this transfer of responsibilities is not always compatible with the principle of collective financing and the general responsibility of the State for the proper administration of the system and the due provision of benefits. One of the negative consequences involved was the exclusion of the public authorities, social partners and insured persons from participating in the administration of social security schemes, thereby exposing their members to greater financial risks while removing state guarantees.

133. When private schemes face the prospect of being unable to pay out expected benefits and with some even facing bankruptcy, governments must be ready to accept increased responsibility for the proper administration and supervision of such schemes, which may include taking them over in extreme cases. The global financial crisis calls for a State that is willing and able to effectively regulate markets by all appropriate means. In some countries, governments have already been forced to take on once again the responsibilities that they had previously ceded to private actors, particularly in the pension insurance sector. Rebuilding the State's institutional and regulatory capacity to manage their expanding responsibilities now needs to be identified as a priority objective of international cooperation in the field of social security. The Director-General of the ILO has recently brought this issue to the fore in the multilateral system: "The capacity of governments has been reduced over the past decades with the belief that markets could deliver better development results on their own. It is now painfully clear that inclusive markets function best alongside a strong State. The multilateral system should identify rebuilding of state institutional capacity as a priority objective of development cooperation and emergency assistance." (Endnote_23) The prospects of overcoming the crisis are linked to more, and not less government regulation and, in this process, States can fully rely on the basic principles and provisions of the ILO social security standards.

134. While it is clear that in the unprecedented conditions of the global financial crisis there is a manifold increase in the role of the State, the manner in which the State fulfils these responsibilities and obligations also takes on primary importance. Governments must see national social security schemes, both public and private, through the period of crisis in such a way as to ensure the lowest possible level of losses. They must manage the skyrocketing levels of budgetary deficit in such a way as not to endanger the social guarantees of the population. It is the view of the Committee that measures taken by governments to salvage private providers cannot be taken at the expense of cutting the resources available to public social security schemes. In seeking to manage the financial crisis by increasing public debt, governments must preserve the sustainability of social security funds. The Committee notes that a further increase in the social security deficit, which in many countries is already extremely high, will mean carrying over to future generations an even more significant proportion of the cost of social protection, which runs counter to the logic of sustainable development that underpins ILO social security standards. Continually rising levels of public debt are incompatible with the principles of good governance established by them. On the contrary, these principles require the State to clear former social security debts as soon as possible, make sufficient budgetary provision for future commitments and introduce governance rules to prevent the recurrence of debt in the future.

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

137. 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 might be useful for the Committee to examine how certain Conventions are being applied. This year, information has been received from the United Nations regarding the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107) and the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), and from the United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization (UNESCO) as regards the migrant workers Conventions, which the Committee took into account when examining the application of these instruments.

138. 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.

141. In accordance with the supervisory procedure established under Article 74, paragraph 4 of the Code, and the arrangements made between the ILO and the Council of Europe, the Committee of Experts examined 20 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 its 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.

* * *

Chairperson

Anwar Ahmad Rashed Al-Fuzaie

Reporter

Appendix to the General Report

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, Labour Law Chair, University of Buenos Aires; former adviser to the Parliament 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 Director of Legal Affairs of the Bank KFH; former Adviser to the Embassy of Kuwait in Paris.

Justice 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, Business Ethics 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 Labor 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 Labor Law, American Bar Association.

Judge at the Labour Federal High Court (Tribunal Superior do Trabalho) of Brazil; former Labour Public Prosecutor of Brazil; Professor (Labour Team and Coordinator of the Human Rights Centre) at the Instituto de Ensino Superior de Brasilia.

Professor of Labour Law at the University of Cape Town; Special Adviser to the Minister of Justice; 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 (since 2003); appointed Honorary Fellow of Queen Mary College, London University (2005); member of Council of the University of London (2003/06); Honorary President of the Association of Women Barristers and Vice-President 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 Counsellor 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; former 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; patron of the South Australian Migrant Resource Centre; 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); member of the National Security Ethics Commission; 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; member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (since 2008); former legal adviser in the Directorate-General of Social Cohesion of the Council of Europe (2001/02).

Former judge of the Supreme Court of India; former judge in the Calcutta High Court; 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).

Member of the International Court of Justice (1991/2009); Vice-President (2003/06), President (2005) of the Chamber formed by the International Court of Justice to deal with the case concerning the Frontier Dispute; senior judge of the Court since February 2006; Bachelor's degree in law (1965), University of Madagascar, Antananarivo; Doctorate of Law, University of Paris II; Agrégé of the Faculties of Law and Economics, Public Law and Political Science section, Paris (1972); Doctor honoris causa of the Universities of Limoges and Strasbourg.

Professor at the University of Madagascar (1981/91) and other institutions; a number of administrative posts held, including First Rector of the University of Antananarivo (1988/90); member of the Malagasy delegations to several international conferences; Head of the Malagasy delegation to the United Nations Conference on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, Vienna (1976/77); First Vice-President for Africa of the International Conference of French-speaking Faculties of Law and Political Science (1987/91); member of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce; member of numerous international and national professional and academic societies.

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.

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 Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Endnotes