CMNT_TITLE

Repetition

The Committee notes that the Human Rights Council condemned and expressed profound concern at the grave and systematic human rights violations in the Syrian Arab Republic (Resolution by the Human Rights Council at its 17th special session on the human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, 23 August 2011 – A/HRC/S-17/2) and regretted the lack of progress made in the political reform process. The Committee recognizes that, without an inclusive, credible and genuine dialogue conducted in an environment without fear and intimidation, and without effective protection of human rights, the implementation of the Convention is seriously hindered, if not rendered impossible. However, given that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments, it is bound to repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

Legislative developments. The Committee notes the adoption of a new Labour Law (No. 17/2010), section 75(a) of which provides that the employer shall apply the principle of “equal pay for work of equal value” to all workers without any discrimination, including discrimination based on gender. Section 75(b) then defines “work of equal value” as “work that requires equal scientific qualifications and professional skills, as attested by a work experience certificate”. While welcoming the specific reference to “work of equal value” in the new Labour Law, the Committee is concerned that the definition in section 75(b) may unduly restrict the application of section 75(a), as it does not appear to allow a comparison of jobs requiring different qualifications and skills, which are nonetheless of equal value. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical application of section 75 of the new Labour Law, including any administrative or judicial decisions. Please also provide specific information regarding the scope of comparison permitted under section 75(b), and in particular whether it is possible to compare jobs of an entirely different nature, requiring different qualifications and skills, to determine whether they are of equal value under section 75(a).

Application in practice. The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no information in response to its previous observations regarding concrete measures taken to determine the nature, extent and causes of inequalities in remuneration that exist in practice, in order to identify specific measures to address these inequalities. The Committee once again urges the Government to undertake studies to determine the nature, extent and causes of inequalities in remuneration existing in practice between men and women for work of equal value in the public and private sectors, and to identify specific measures to address these inequalities. Please also provide full information on the occupational classification system referred to in the previous report, including information on the criteria used to ensure that this classification system is free from gender bias.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.