Monitoring compliance with international labour standards98
23. ILO: Minutes, Governing Body, 33rd Session, October 1926, pp. 384–386; and 34th Session, January
1927, pp. 59 and 67–68.
24. ILO: Minutes, Governing Body, 68th Session, September 1934, p. 292.
25. ILO: Record of Proceedings, International Labour Conference, 34th Session, 1951, Appendix VI, para. 23.
26. ILO: Minutes, Governing Body, 159th Session (June–July 1964), Statement by the Employers’ group,
p. 49.
27. When asked for its views by the Governing Body, the CEACR welcomed the suggestion, considering
that its examinations in this respect could “promote uniformity in the interpretation” of identical obliga-
tions. The Governing Body approved the procedure in 1956. ILO: Minutes, Governing Body, 132nd Session,
June 1956, p. 32 and Appendix XI, pp. 79–80.
28. ILO: CEACR General Report, Report III (Part 4A), International Labour Conference, 73rd Session, 1987,
pp. 7–19, paras 9–49.
29. ibid., para. 20.
30. In 1996, the dates of the CEACR’s sessions were moved from February–March to November–December.
31. ILO: The Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Confer-
ence – A dynamic and impact built on decades of dialogue and persuasion (Geneva, 2011).
32. ILO: CEACR General Report, Report III (Part A), International Labour Conference, 108th Session, 2019,
para. 70.
33. ibid., para. 77.
34. ILO: ibid., 90th Session, 2002, p. 14, para. 24.
35. ILO: ibid., 103rd Session, 2014, para. 30.
36. ILO: ibid., 107th Session, 2018, paras 9–10.
37. ILO: ibid., 102nd Session, 2013, paras 26–35.
38. ILO: ibid., 103rd Session, 2014 and subsequent years.
39. ILO: ibid., 104th Session, 2015, para. 24.
40. Governing Body, 334th Session, October–November 2018, GB.334/INS/5.
41. ILO: CEACR General Report, Report III (Part I), International Labour Conference, 43rd Session, 1959,
para. 25. In one case, when an observation from a workers’ organization had been sent directly to the
Office, the CEACR asked for the observation to be sent to the government concerned for comments and
for that practice to be followed in future cases.
42. ILO: CEACR General Report, Report III (Part A), International Labour Conference, 105th Session, 2016,
paras 58–63.
43. ILO: Record of Proceedings, International Labour Conference, 38th Session, 1955, Appendix V, p. 590.
44. ILO: ibid., Appendix V, p. 583, paras 6–7.
45. The CAS is composed of Government, Employers’ and Workers’ delegates. It elects a Chairperson,
who is always a Government delegate, and two Vice-Chairpersons, a Workers’ and an Employers’ dele-
gate. The three Chairpersons agree on the conclusions of the Committee. The Committee also elects a
“Reporter”, who presents the outcome of the discussions in the CAS to the plenary of the International
Labour Conference.
46. ILO: CEACR General Report, Report III (Part 4A), International Labour Conference, 81st Session, 1994,
para. 39.
47. ILO: CEACR General Report, Report III (Part A), International Labour Conference, 108th Session, 2019,
paras 24–26.
48. Governing Body, 301st Session, March 2008, GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), para. 69.
49. ILO: Freedom of Association: Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association,
sixth edition (Geneva, 2018).
50. A good example of such collaboration was the recent case on the application of the ILO Worst Forms
of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), by Uzbekistan, which is treated in more detail in Part II of this
publication. In this case, the CEACR was joined by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimin-
ation against Women and the UN Human Rights Committee in commenting on mass-scale incidents of
forced labour of children in the country’s cotton harvest.