COMPLAINTS Only in the follow up is there a difference in approach, as detailed below. The Committee was established by the Governing Body in November 1951. It is a tripartite body with nine members (three each from governments’, employers’ and workers’ groups) and an independent Chair. Complaints can be submitted by employer or trade union organizations (national or international) or by governments (though this rarely happens). The Committee meets in Geneva three times a year. Complaints must be in writing, signed and supported by evidence. The government concerned is provided with an opportunity to respond and in urgent or serious cases, the Director-General may ask the government to allow an on-the-spot inquiry to help the Committee in its work. When the Committee has completed its examination of the case, if the government in question has ratified the ILO Conventions, then the regular ILO supervisory bodies, namely the Committee of Experts, follow up on the case. If the government has not ratified the Conventions, then the Director-General has the responsibility to follow up with the government concerned at regular intervals. As of June 2001, the Committee on Freedom of Association had 56 cases against governments before it. These included the following states: Australia, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Canada, Cameroon, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Gabon, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Nepal, Spain, Lebanon, Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine. In addition, there were ‘serious and urgent’ cases regarding Ethiopia (Case No. 1888), Haiti (Case No. 2052) and Venezuela (Cases Nos 2067 and 2088).60 2.2 Fact-finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association The Commission works in panels of three members who are highly qualified independent people appointed by the ILO Governing Body. It is primarily a fact-finding body. Its reports are published. As a general rule the government concerned must agree before a complaint can be submitted to this Commission (in contrast to the Committee on Freedom of Association where this is not necessary). As a result, the Commission is convened rarely. The Commission can look at complaints referred to it by the Governing Body regarding states that have not ratified the relevant Conventions or at the request of the UN Economic and Social Council, even if the concerned state is not a member of the ILO. 3. Direct Contacts n 1964, a special procedure was adopted whereby a country can invite a representative of the DirectorGeneral to visit the country. This is known as ‘Direct Contacts’ and the Director-General appoints the representative. The representative can be an ILO official or an independent person. • A Direct Contacts visit generally takes place when there is no perceived progress on an issue being reviewed by the ILO supervisory bodies. It can be proposed by trade union or employer delegates to the Applications Committee, or by the government, and often serves to break the deadlock. The Committee of Experts can also suggest a Direct Contacts visit. • It can take place only with the cooperation of, and at the invitation of, the government concerned. This provides an opportunity for constructive discussions to take place, in the country concerned, with the relevant government agencies, and with the tripartite partners. • While a government can refuse a Direct Contacts visit, this generally draws even greater attention to its lack of cooperation with the ILO and failure to observe a particular labour standard, thereby leading to even more intense criticism. For example, in June 2000 and in June 2001, members of the Applications Committee strongly recommended that a Direct Contacts visit investigate reports of forced abductions and slavery in Sudan, and assess what kind of assistance could be offered to the Government. When the Government did not accept the visit, the Committee’s conclusions were placed in a ‘special paragraph’. • The advantage of a Direct Contacts visit is that this often leads to constructive dialogue between the ILO and the government on practical solutions to the problem. • Where there is no noticeable progress as a result of a Direct Contacts visit, it can be used to increase the ILO’s authority to comment on a particular situation and criticize the government involved. This helps to maintain political pressure on the government concerned to bring its laws and practice into line with international labour standards. For example, when asked to appear before the June 1985 Applications Committee to discuss reports of gross human rights violations of the indigenous peoples in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, under Convention No. 107 on Indigenous and Tribal Populations (1957) the Government of Bangladesh requested ‘Direct Contacts’ (see ch. VII for more details). I THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION: A HANDBOOK FOR MINORITIES AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 35