VII. Case studies 1. Introduction his section of the Handbook describes how the ILO supervises its Conventions, providing case studies as examples. The case studies may also help to illustrate how international attention can be brought to bear on violations of international Conventions, and how this contributes to increased pressure on governments to comply with their obligations towards their citizens, including minorities and indigenous peoples. The case studies also show trade unions, NGOs and other organizations working with minorities and indigenous peoples can use the ILO human rights systems. T Note: The ILO does not have any punitive authority beyond censuring a member state for not meeting its obligations. It is an inter-governmental organization and although the employers’ and workers’ organizations have standing in the ILO, it is weighted in favour of governments. Governments have two votes, with one each for employers and workers. The ILO’s strength lies in its ability to call governments to task for contravening universal guidelines and principles that they have voluntarily agreed to uphold. It can do so by publicizing how member states carry out these responsibilities through reports and other publications; and/or by summoning governments to appear before the Applications Committee for a public discussion on the issue. In the long term, such processes do contribute to increased attention being focused on the human rights of minorities and indigenous peoples. 2. Burma (Myanmar) ince 1955, when Burma ratified the Forced Labour Convention (1930) (No. 29), ILO supervisory bodies have been examining forced labour in Burma. As far back as 1964, the Committee of Experts began asking for further information on this issue. In more recent times, it has been the exploitation of porters by the armed forces which has drawn the sharpest criticism. Minorities and indigenous peoples have also been used as labourers by the army. This case study touches on discrimination, S 36 forced labour, and minorities and indigenous peoples. • Article 24 representation procedure: – In January 1993, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) filed an Article 24 representation against Burma for failure to comply with Convention No. 29 on Forced Labour. – A tripartite committee established to examine the complaint concluded its work in November 1994 and submitted its report to the Governing Body. – The Governing Body adopted the committee’s Recommendations on 7 November 1994 and requested the Government to inform the Committee of Experts on the measures it had taken to comply with the tripartite committee’s Recommendations. – In February 1995, the Committee of Experts made an Observation noting that it had not received any information from the Government. At the International Labour Conference in June 1995, the Applications Committee adopted a ‘special paragraph’ asking the Government to comply with the Recommendations of the tripartite committee and to report to the Committee of Experts in November that year. The Government failed to do so. – In June 1996, 25 workers’ delegates at the International Labour Conference filed a complaint against the Government under Article 26 of the ILO Constitution.61 • Article 26 complaints procedure: – The Governing Body forwarded the complaint to the Government, which sent its reply in February 1997. The Governing Body did not find the response satisfactory and set up a Commission of Inquiry. – The Commission of Inquiry adopted its final report in July 1998. – Shortly after its appointment the Commission of Inquiry put out a request for information on forced labour in Burma to selected governments, international organizations, NGOs with or without ILO consultative status, and companies with knowledge of Burma. The bulk of the documentation received (including that submitted by governments) had its origin in reports prepared by minority and indigenous organizations and other concerned NGOs. The Commission of Inquiry held hearings in Geneva in November 1997, where most of the witnesses were representatives of NGOs or minority and indigenous victims of forced labour. In its visit to the THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION: A HANDBOOK FOR MINORITIES AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES