Informe provisional - Informe núm. 362, Noviembre 2011

1. 358. The complaint is contained in communications from the CSP dated 6 July 2010, 29 November 2010 and 3 May 2011.
2. 359. The CTUC sent its observations in a communication dated 7 March 2011.
3. 360. The Government sent partial observations in communications dated 15 February, 29 March, 28 June and 1 August 2011.
4. 361. Cameroon has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 362. Refusal to recognize the CSP. In a communication dated 6 July 2010, the complainant organization states that the CSP was established on 11 March 2000. Currently, it is the only one of the seven confederations in Cameroon to represent public servants. The confederation currently brings together 12 of the 17 primary trade unions in existence in this sector with 60,018 members belonging to one or other of its affiliates, which amounts to 30 per cent of public servants.
2. 363. After having been freely established, and in accordance with the regulatory provisions in force in Cameroon (Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969, which regulates the implementation of Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, which subsequently determines the organizational structure of and conditions of approval for associations and professional trade unions not governed by the Labour Code), the complainant organization proceeded to declare its existence to the Prefecture of Mfoundi in Yaoundé. However, the Prefecture did not issue the CSP with a deposit slip, as provided for in the regulations, nor did the complainant organization receive any formal response from the competent authorities. It took more determined measures for the CSP, which, in spite of this, already existed de facto, to secure a copy of the letter sent by the Prefect of Mfoundi informing the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralization (MINATD) of the trade union’s existence. However, the Government refuses to recognize the legal personality of the CSP.
3. 364. The complainant organization states that it often finds itself in conflict with the Government and the police, who continually disrupt its activities and intimidate and persecute its members. Furthermore, these practices are becoming increasingly widespread and pose a threat to freedom of association within the public service sector.
4. 365. The complainant organization states that since its establishment it has been the victim of anti-union discrimination at the hands of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (MINTSS). Not only is the CSP rarely invited to consultations with the Government and other trade union confederations, it has been invariably excluded from the delegation of Cameroon at the International Labour Conference held every year in Geneva. The complainant organization claims that it is the Minister for Labour himself who decides which worker representatives attend the International Labour Conference each year.
5. 366. May day Demonstrations. The complainant organization adds that the Government prohibits it from organizing with full autonomy and freedom demonstrations to commemorate International Labour Day on 1 May each year. The Government has assumed control of organizing demonstrations to commemorate the occasion in Cameroon and has banned all side events, even those organized by trade unions. The complainant organization also claims that workers’ protest banners are prohibited and that a price is exacted for participating in the procession.
6. 367. As regards the events of May Day 2009, following previous attempts to change the location, the CSP decided to celebrate May Day on its premises in Mvog-Ada, a busy and popular area of Yaoundé where a number of institutions have their headquarters. The complainant organization claims that all legal provisions regarding public demonstrations were respected. The law provides that a letter declaring the demonstration must be sent to the Deputy Prefect of Yaoundé V. However, on 30 April 2009, the Deputy Prefect sent a letter to the CSP forbidding it from holding the scheduled demonstration, stating that: “I hereby inform you that this meeting, as well as the celebrations you have organized, are prohibited in the light of the fact that the 123rd International Labour Day is to be celebrated in Yaoundé by means of a single meeting presided over by the Minister for Labour and Social Security. This will be the only opportunity for trade unions to participate in the celebrations. Consequently, no public sideline demonstrations will be allowed”.
7. 368. Despite this ban, which the complainant organization claims to be unfounded, the CSP proceeded with its preparations and took steps to ensure the celebration ran smoothly. However, at around 6 a.m. on May Day morning, the confederation’s headquarters was seized by more than 100 armed police officers while around ten senior officers coordinated the operation under the watchful eye of the Deputy Prefect. The entrance to the headquarters was sealed off and demonstrators and union officials were refused entry. The location of the demonstration (the building’s car park) was occupied by police officers. The vehicles of the law enforcement officers were used to stem the flow of traffic in the area surrounding the confederation’s headquarters. Several altercations with law enforcement officers took place. The intervention lasted until 2 p.m., which, according to the administrative authorities, was to allow the official celebration to take place unhindered.
8. 369. As regards the events of May Day 2010, the complainant organization states that history repeated itself in every respect. This time, in response to the distribution of a CSP leaflet calling for the mobilization of public servants on 1 May 2010, the Deputy Prefect of Yaoundé V sent a letter dated 26 April 2010 prohibiting the latter in the same terms as the previous year. Resisting this provocation, the CSP declared its demonstration on 27 April 2010 in accordance with the legal provisions contained in the Act governing public demonstrations, which stipulate that this must be done 72 hours before the event takes place. Providing no explanation, the office of the Deputy Prefect broke the law by refusing to acknowledge the letter declaring the demonstration. On 28 April 2010, which was still within the established time frame, the CSP made a second attempt by means of a notification from the bailiff. The reaction of the Deputy Prefect was immediate. In a letter dated 26 April 2010, the Deputy Prefect acknowledged receipt of the bailiff’s letter dated 28 April 2010 and reiterated the ban on the public demonstration on the grounds that the established time frame had not been respected. On 1 May 2010, a law enforcement unit similar to that from the previous year was stationed in the grounds from 6 a.m. Conflict and altercations reminiscent of the previous year ensued and lasted until 1 p.m. when the union members involved decided to forcibly occupy the area where the demonstration was to take place by means of a sit in. The scheduled activities (sketches, chants and public addresses) went ahead in a climate akin to that of an uprising. Those artists who were contracted for and invited to the event were forced to perform without sound equipment, as the logistical preparations that had been made were no longer feasible.
9. 370. As regards the events of May Day 2011, the complainant organization was once again prohibited from organizing its own activities by the Deputy Prefect on the grounds that “it is not feasible to have two different locations for the same demonstration in the same city at the same time, as this would only serve to disrupt public order”.
10. 371. Strike and demonstration of 28 November 2007. The complainant organization states that, during the meeting of the confederation council in Yaoundé on 23 December 2006, the confederation executive committee was empowered to take any action necessary regarding the upcoming wage review in the public service sector. In the light of this, the executive committee met and decided to call a 72-hour strike, which was to be punctuated by a sit in on 28 November 2007 in front of the National Assembly as it held an ordinary session to examine the country’s budget for 2008. To this end and in keeping with the legislation in force at the national level, the Government was issued with a strike notice. This strike notice notwithstanding, the CSP followed procedure by sending a letter declaring the demonstration to the Deputy Prefect of Yaoundé III, who is the competent authority for the area in which the demonstration was to be held, with a view to organizing the sit in. The Deputy Prefect’s response was to issue a letter of prohibition.
11. 372. On the day in question, demonstrators came face to face with squadrons of police officers. Despite the force’s dissuasive presence, more than 300 people gathered at exactly 11 a.m. to demonstrate. This demonstration was violently dispersed by the police officers, who rammed and struck the demonstrators with truncheons, causing slight injuries to some and serious injuries to others. All banners were seized and shredded. The president of the CSP and members of the executive committee were detained for more than ten hours in the police station attached to the offices of Secretary of State for Defence prior to their release later that evening. The complainant organization states that, following this demonstration, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security unwaveringly proclaimed that the CSP did not have legal personality and that the public demonstration calling for an increase in the salary of public servants was illegal, making the demonstrators liable to sanctions.
12. 373. Strike and demonstration of 1 October 2010. Pursuant to one of the resolutions drafted during the confederation’s second ordinary congress in Yaoundé on 25, 26 and 27 August 2010, a strike notice dated 1 October 2010 was issued to the Prime Minister on behalf of the President of the Republic. The notice was to be effective from 11 to 13 November 2010, should the Government not reply.
13. 374. As the Government sent no reply, steps were taken to call for strike action. Consequently, the complainant organization set about organizing a peaceful sit in, in front of the offices of the Prime Minister on 11 November 2010 from 10 a.m. until midday. Once the sit in had ended, a memorandum was to be sent to the President of the Republic.
14. 375. In accordance with the current procedures governing public demonstrations, a letter declaring the demonstration was sent to the Deputy Prefect of Yaoundé III, who is the administrative authority of the district where the demonstration was to be held. The Deputy Prefect replied by sending a letter dated 8 November 2010 prohibiting the demonstration on the grounds that the time frame for declaring it had not been respected. The complainant organization claims that it had respected the time frame given that the legal time frame for declaring a demonstration is fixed at 72 hours before the event and that the complainant organization had submitted its declaration on 5 November 2010, six days before the sit in was scheduled to take place. The Deputy Prefect’s decision to ban the demonstration was therefore unfounded.
15. 376. On 11 November 2010, the day of the strike, the offices of the Prime Minister and the entire administrative complex, an area covering more than 500 metres, were occupied by hundreds of heavily armed police officers, which disrupted the general activity, particularly the economic activity, of that area. Despite the heavy police presence, around ten union officials managed to infiltrate the lines of police officers and come within a short distance of the offices of the Prime Minister.
16. 377. At around 10.40 a.m., while union representatives were being interviewed by journalists, law enforcement officers decided to launch a violent attack on union members, who were subsequently picked up and taken by force to the main police station in Yaoundé. In addition, a journalist and plain-clothed soldier were inadvertently arrested. After having been identified as such, they were released. Seven union members, including Jean-Marc Bikoko, the President of the CSP; Maurice Phouet Foé, the General Secretary of the SNAEF (an affiliate of the CSP); Thobie Mbassi Ondoa, the Director-General of the FECASE (an affiliate of the CSP); Eric Nla’a, the accountant of the CSP; Joseph Ze, the General Secretary of the SNUIPEN (the object of Case No. 2382); Charles Felein Clause, a member of the SNUIPEN; and Effoa Nkili, a member of the SNUIPEN, were also arrested.
17. 378. After having been identified, the seven union members had their mobile telephones and national identity cards confiscated. Each member was then assigned to an investigating officer and questioned for over an hour. Following the questioning, in the absence of their attorney, who had been turned away, the union members were led to a dilapidated group holding cell to join other inmates. The cell had neither toilets nor running water and the holding conditions constituted a violation of human dignity. They were held in these conditions from just after midday on Thursday 11 November 2010 until 9 a.m. on Friday 12 November 2010 before being handcuffed and transported by the police to the offices of the State Prosecutor. After spending a whole day in a substandard holding cell with 50 other people at the offices of the State Prosecutor, the union members were brought before the State Prosecutor at around 8 p.m.. It was only then that the latter informed them of the charges brought against them: “demonstrating illegally and disrupting public order”. The union members did not admit to the acts and were subsequently released at around 9.30 p.m. to appear freely before the judge on Monday 15 November at 8 a.m. It was only on 13 November 2010 at around 3 p.m. that they regained possession of their mobile telephones and identity cards.
18. 379. On 15 November 2010, the seven union members appeared freely before the Court of First Instance of Mfoundi and pleaded not guilty. At the request of their attorney, who wished to examine the substance of the case against them, the latter was put back to 20 December 2010, then until 7 February 2011 and finally until 21 March 2011. The judge’s absence on that date then caused the case to be put back until 16 May 2011.
19. 380. In a communication dated 7 March 2011, the CTUC states that there is legislative disharmony, as well as discrepancies, between private sector trade unions governed by the Labour Code, which come under the jurisdiction of the union registrar, and public sector trade unions governed by Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 and Enforcement Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969, which come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralization, and reiterates the observations made by trade unions of workers in Cameroon on several occasions regarding the need to repeal Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 and Enforcement Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969 and the need to align national legislation with ILO standards, in particular by amending the Labour Code and by adopting a single Act on trade unions.
20. 381. Furthermore, the CTUC, while acknowledging the letters prohibiting demonstrations issued by the administrative authorities, regrets the heavy-handed approach adopted by law enforcement officers, the physical violence and the arbitrary arrests that took place and distinguishes between a strike and a public demonstration, which it claims are governed by different legal and regulatory provisions.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 382. In a communication dated 15 February 2011, the Government states that, as regards the CSP’s peaceful sit in of 11 November 2010 in front of the offices of the Prime Minister, the CSP has not been granted legal personality as a trade union in Cameroon and, regardless of whether the CSP was recognized as such, the fact remains that the sit in it organized was not approved by the administrative authority, as a letter issued by the Prefecture had forbidden all public protest demonstrations in the entire Mfoundi department, and that it was on those grounds that the CSP demonstrators were brought before the courts: for demonstrating illegally and disrupting public order. The Government emphasizes that, pursuant to the principle of separation of administrative and judicial power, it cannot become involved in this matter.
2. 383. The Government adds that the law enforcement officers did indeed disperse the demonstrators in front of the offices of the Prime Minister and that the CSP members were taken to the main police station in Yaoundé for demonstrating illegally and disturbing public order. The Government explains that the case is pending before the Court of First Instance of Mfoundi and that, consequently, the Government must refrain from taking a decision until a verdict has been handed down. The Government reiterated its position in a communication dated 28 June 2011.
3. 384. In a communication dated 29 March 2011, the Government states that the problems concerning the legal personality of the CSP will be solved following the amendment of the Labour Code of Cameroon and the adoption of a law on trade unions; and that, consequently, the ban on public demonstrations affecting the trade union is merely the upshot of it not having legal personality. The Government reiterated its position in a communication dated 1 August 2011. It added that a preliminary draft law on the establishment and functioning of social organizations was being examined by the Ministry.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 385. The Committee recalls that this case refers to allegations concerning the violent suppression of a peaceful strike by law enforcement officers, the arrest of union officials, the authorities’ refusal to recognize the trade union’s existence, as well as the occupation of its premises by law enforcement officers to prevent it from celebrating May Day.
2. 386. The Committee notes that after having been freely established in 2000, and in accordance with the regulatory provisions in force, the CSP declared its existence to the Prefecture of Mfoundi in Yaoundé. However, the Prefecture did not issue the CSP with a deposit slip, as provided for in the regulations, nor did the CSP receive any formal reply to their request for legal personality.
3. 387. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the problems concerning the legal personality of the CSP will be solved following the amendment of the Labour Code of Cameroon and the adoption of a law on trade unions. However, the Committee also notes that, according to the CSP, while preliminary work on the amendment of the Labour Code has been the subject of some discussion, for the last few years and for no official reason, no further discussion has taken place. As regards the law on trade unions, according to the CSP, no such discussion had ever taken place and there was no evidence of willingness on the part of the Government to move forward with the proposal.
4. 388. The Committee also notes that, for many years, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has been requesting the Government to take the necessary measures to amend both Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, which makes the decision to grant legal personality to a trade union or a professional association of public servants subject to prior approval from the Minister responsible for territorial administration, and section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, which provides that the supporters of a hitherto unregistered trade union who act as if it were already registered are liable to have legal proceedings instituted against them, while section 166 of the Labour Code prescribes heavy fines for union members committing this offence. On this final point, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations noted that the Government had announced that the draft law to amend and complement certain provisions of the Labour Code had been adopted by the National Consultative Committee for Labour, which meant that penalties and/or fines would no longer be prescribed to sanction this offence. The Committee recalls that public servants, like all other workers, without distinction whatsoever, have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, without previous authorization, for the promotion and defence of their occupational interests. Therefore, a law providing that the right of association is subject to authorization granted by a government department purely in its discretion is incompatible with the principle of freedom of association [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, paras 219 and 273]. The Committee urges the Government, in consultation with the most representative organizations of workers and employers, to accelerate the process of legislative reform while guaranteeing full respect for the principles of freedom of association of public servants, and expects that, in the near future, the CSP will be able to lawfully represent its members and exercise all attendant rights. The Committee urges the Government to keep it informed of any developments concerning this process of reform and to inform it of the practical measures taken in this regard as soon as possible. The Committee invites the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this respect.
5. 389. As a general rule, the Committee recalls that the requirement of administrative permission to hold public meetings and demonstrations is not objectionable per se from the standpoint of the principles of freedom of association. The maintenance of public order is not incompatible with the right to hold demonstrations so long as the authorities responsible for public order reach agreement with the organizers of a demonstration concerning the place where it will be held and the manner in which it will take place [see Digest, op.cit., para. 141]. As regards International Labour Day celebrations on May Day, the Committee notes that the complainant organization states that the Government prohibits it from organizing with full autonomy and freedom demonstrations to commemorate International Labour Day on 1 May each year and that the Government has assumed control of organizing demonstrations to commemorate the occasion and has banned all side events. In particular, the Committee notes that on at least three occasions, on 1 May 2009, 2010 and 2011, the CSP was forbidden from organizing a public demonstration at its headquarters despite having declared the demonstration in keeping with the relevant legal provisions and on the grounds that “International Labour Day is to be celebrated in Yaoundé by means of a single meeting presided over by the Minister for Labour and Social Security. This will be the only opportunity for trade unions to participate in the celebrations”. After having proceeded to organize celebrations regardless, its headquarters was seized by the police and demonstrators and union officials were refused entry. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the ban on public demonstrations affecting the trade union is merely the upshot of it not having legal personality and that this will be solved following the amendment of the Labour Code of Cameroon and the adoption of a new law on trade unions.
6. 390. The Committee considers that the CSP’s lack of legal personality owing to the shortcomings of the national legislative framework and the Government’s failure to reply to the CSP’s request to be granted recognition by virtue of Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 should not jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of association. The Committee recalls that the membership of a State in the International Labour Organization carries with it the obligation to respect in national legislation freedom of association principles and the Conventions which the State has freely ratified, namely Conventions Nos 87, 98 and 135 [see Digest, op. cit., para. 16]. The Committee also notes that the preamble of Act No. 96-06 of 18 January 1996 regarding the Constitution of the Republic of Cameroon provides that: “the people of Cameroon affirm their attachment to the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the United Nations, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and all duly ratified international conventions pertaining thereto, and to the following principles in particular ...: freedom of communication, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and the right to strike, all of which are guaranteed in the conditions established by law” and expressly provides in its section 45 that “duly approved or ratified treaties and international agreements shall, following publication, take precedence over national laws”.
7. 391. The Committee recalls that the right to organize public meetings and processions, particularly on the occasion of May Day, constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights. The holding of public meetings and the voicing of demands of a social and economic nature on the occasion of May Day are traditional forms of trade union action. Trade unions should have the right to organize freely whatever meetings they wish to celebrate on May Day, provided that they respect the measures taken by the authorities to ensure public order. Permission to hold public meetings and demonstrations, which is an important trade union right, should not be arbitrarily refused. Lastly, the inviolability of trade union premises and property is a civil liberty, which is essential to the exercise of trade union rights, and the access of trade union members to their union premises should not be restricted by the state authorities [See Digest, op. cit., paras 136, 137, 142, 178 and 192]. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that, in the future, those principles are fully respected and expects the new legislation to guarantee full respect for those principles.
8. 392. As regards the strikes, public demonstrations and the arrest of the union officials, the Committee notes that the complainant organization organized the first strike, punctuated by a sit in, on 28 November 2007 in front of the National Assembly as it held an ordinary session to examine the country’s budget for 2008. To this end and in keeping with the national legislation in force, the Government was issued with a strike notice. This strike notice notwithstanding, the CSP followed procedure by sending a letter declaring the demonstration to the Deputy Prefect of Yaoundé III, who is the competent authority for the area in which the demonstration was to be held. The Deputy Prefect’s response was to issue a letter of prohibition. On the day in question, the peaceful demonstration was violently dispersed by police officers who rammed and struck the demonstrators with truncheons, causing slight injuries to some and serious injuries to others. The Committee also notes that the president of the CSP and members of its executive committee were detained for more than ten hours on the premises of the Secretary of State of Defence prior to their release late into the evening.
9. 393. The Committee notes that around three years later, on 11 November 2010, another strike, once again punctuated by a sit in, had been voted for and organized by the CSP. Once the sit in had ended, a memorandum was to be sent to the President of the Republic. A strike notice had previously been issued to the Prime Minister on behalf of the President of the Republic on 1 October 2010. Once again, a letter declaring the demonstration had been sent to the administrative authority of the district where the demonstration was to be held within the specified legal time frame. Once again, the Deputy Prefect responded by banning the demonstration.
10. 394. On the day in question, the peaceful demonstration was once again violently dispersed by law enforcement officers, leading to union members being picked up and taken by force to the main police station in Yaoundé. Seven union members, including Jean-Marc Bikoko, the President of the CSP; Maurice Phouet Foé, the General Secretary of the SNAEF (an affiliate of the CSP); Thobie Mbassi Ondoa, the Director-General of the FECASE (an affiliate of the CSP); Eric Nla’a, the accountant of the CSP; Joseph Ze, the General Secretary of the SNUIPEN (the object of Case No. 2382); Charles Felein Clause, a member of the SNUIPEN; and Effoa Nkili, a member of the SNUIPEN, were arrested, questioned and detained for more than 24 hours in extremely poor conditions. They were able to reclaim their identity cards and personal belongings on 13 November. The Committee notes that the seven union members appeared before the Court of First Instance of Mfoundi on 15 November 2010 and pleaded not guilty. The case was put back to 20 December 2010, then until 7 February 2011 and finally until 21 March 2011. The judge’s absence on that date then caused the case to be put back to 16 May 2011. The Committee observes that no new information on the referral of the case has been brought to its attention.
11. 395. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in its reply, the Government only reiterates that the CSP is a trade union without legal personality and that the sit in organized on 11 November 2010 was illegal because it had not been approved by the authorities. It is for this reason that the CSP demonstrators were brought before the courts for demonstrating illegally and disturbing public order. The Government explains that the case is still pending before the Court of First Instance of Mfoundi and that, consequently, it must refrain from taking a decision until a verdict has been handed down. The Committee recalls that in general, the use of the forces of order during trade union demonstrations should be limited to cases of genuine necessity [see Digest, op. cit., para. 150]. The Committee also recalls that the authorities should not resort to arrests and imprisonment in connection with the organization of or participation in a peaceful strike; such measures entail serious risks of abuse and are a grave threat to freedom of association. No one should be deprived of their freedom or be subject to penal sanctions for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike. Furthermore, the arrest and sentencing of trade unionists to long periods of imprisonment on grounds of the “disturbance of public order”, in view of the general nature of the charges, might make it possible to repress activities of a trade union nature [see Digest, op. cit., paras 93, 671, 672]. The Committee requests the Government to respect trade union demonstrations and to ensure that this type of demonstration can take place in the future. Noting that the case involving the seven union members who were arrested during the sit in that took place on 11 November 2010 is still pending before the Court of First Instance of Mfoundi, the Committee expects the case to be settled swiftly. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard and to provide it with a copy of all relevant legal decisions.
12. 396. As regards the allegations concerning the violent intervention of law enforcement officers during the demonstrations, the Committee recalls that the authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened. The intervention of the forces of order should be in due proportion to the danger to law and order that the authorities are attempting to control and governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the danger entailed by the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations which might result in a disturbance of the peace [see Digest, op. cit., para. 140]. The Committee requests the Government to conduct an inquiry into this allegation and to issue instructions in order to prevent such actions from reoccurring.
13. 397. The Committee recalls that detained trade unionists, like all other persons, should enjoy the guarantees enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights according to which all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person [see Digest, op. cit., para. 54]. As regards the conditions in which the union members were detained and the CSP’s allegation of ill-treatment, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether an independent inquiry has been conducted in order to clarify the facts, determine responsibility, punish those responsible and prevent the repetition of such acts.
14. 398. Lastly, the Committee takes note of the allegation that the CSP was rarely invited to consultation meetings with the Government and other trade union confederations and had been invariably excluded from the delegation of Cameroon at the International Labour Conference held every year in Geneva. The complainant organization claims that it was the Minister of Labour himself who decided which worker representatives attended the International Labour Conference each year. While it recalls that the question of representation at the Conference falls within the purview of the Conference Credentials Committee, the Committee has reiterated the special importance it attaches to the right of workers’ and employers’ representatives to attend and to participate in meetings of international workers’ and employers’ organizations and of the ILO [see Digest, op. cit., para. 766]. The Committee expects the Government to consult the CSP on issues concerning the interests of its members and urges the Government to send its observations in this regard.