REPRESENTATION (article 24) - SPAIN - C097, C111, C122 - 1998

Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Spain of the Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97), the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), and the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the General Confederation of Labour of Argentina (CGT)

Decision

1. The Governing Body adopted the report of the tripartite committee. Procedure closed.

Complaint Procedure

1. I. Introduction
2. 1. In a letter received on 7 October 1997, the General Confederation of Labour of Argentina (CGT) submitted to the International Labour Office, under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, a representation alleging that the Government of Spain has not adopted satisfactory measures to secure the observance of the Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97), the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), and the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122).
3. 2. Conventions Nos. 97, 111 and 122 have been ratified by Spain and are in force for that country.
4. 3. The provisions of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization concerning the submission of representations are as follows:
5. Article 24
6. In the event of any representation being made to the International Labour Office by an industrial association of employers or of workers that any of the Members has failed to secure in any respect the effective observance within its jurisdiction of any Convention to which it is a party, the Governing Body may communicate this representation to the government against which it is made, and may invite that government to make such statement on the subject as it may think fit.
7. Article 25
8. If no statement is received within a reasonable time from the government in question, or if the statement when received is not deemed to be satisfactory by the Governing Body, the latter shall have the right to publish the representation and the statement, if any, made in reply to it.
9. 4. The procedure to be followed in case of representations is governed by the revised Standing Orders adopted by the Governing Body at its 212th Session in March 1980. In accordance with articles 1 and 2, paragraph 1, of the Standing Orders, the Director-General acknowledged receipt of the representation and informed the Government of Spain, and brought the representation before the Officers of the Governing Body.
10. 5. At its 270th Session (November 1997), the Governing Body, on the recommendation of its Officers, decided that the representation was receivable and set up a committee to examine it, composed of Mr. D. Willers (Chairperson; Government member, Germany), Mr. R. Falbr (Worker member, Czech Republic) and Mr. D.C.L. Funes de Rioja (Employer member, Argentina).
11. 6. In accordance with article 4, paragraph 1(a) and (c), of the Standing Orders, the Committee decided: (a) to invite the complainant organization to communicate any additional information before 16 February 1998; and (b) to invite the Government to make a statement on the representation by 16 February 1998, it being understood that any additional information communicated by the complainant organization would be communicated to the Government for comment. A letter of reminder was sent to the Government on 19 February 1998.
12. 7. The Government presented its observations in communications dated 4 and 24 March 1998.
13. 8. The Committee met in June 1998 to adopt its report.
14. II. Examination of the representation
15. A. The complainant's allegations
16. 9. In its representation, the CGT, on behalf of the Association of Qualified Dentists of Argentina, alleged that there has been discrimination in employment contrary to the three ratified ILO Conventions, and breach of a 1971 bilateral "Cultural Cooperation Agreement" between Spain and Argentina on mutual recognition of academic qualifications of all types and levels officially awarded or recognized by the other country, by the refusal of Spain to continue to allow dentists with Argentinian qualifications to work in Spain.
17. 10. The CGT explained that in 1986 the qualification of dentist was created in Spain, prior to which it had not had any dentists who had qualified in their country of origin. The curricula for dentistry used in Argentine universities were adopted by Spanish universities in order to meet the requirements of the European Community. Despite this fact, from 1990 to 1992 the qualifications of Argentine dentists were not recognized as equivalent -- procedures to gain equivalence were initiated but no administrative response was obtained. In 1990 a so-called "comprehensive test" was introduced whereby, citing the lower level of Latin American qualifications as justification, the holder of the qualification is required, as a necessary step towards recognition of equivalency, to pass a series of examinations which can cover up to half the subjects required for the profession. The CGT stated that Council Directive 78/687/EEC gives each Member State freedom to recognize extra-Community qualifications, restricting itself to recommending that Spain should not recognize qualifications at a lower level than those in Europe. The CGT stressed, however, that Argentine training in dentistry cannot be considered as being inferior to that in Spain or Europe, and supplied copies of dentistry studies curricula in support of this claim. It also supplied a copy of a report "Spain and the recognition of qualifications" that was prepared by the General Directorate of Cultural Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship in May 1997, which stated that: "... one would be hard pressed to declare Argentine qualifications inferior to Spanish or European ones ...". Approximately 700 people have been affected.
18. 11. According to the CGT, at no time did the persons affected by this measure obtain official, written and reliable information concerning the "comprehensive test"; the competent Spanish authority simply limited itself to oral explanations. It cites the legal proceedings for recognition of equivalent qualifications initiated on 21 June 1990 by Dr. Silvana Ruth Schachter. The administrative decision taken against her by the Technical General Secretariat of the Ministry of Education and Science of Spain did not indicate what were the specific shortcomings of her qualifications.
19. 12. According to the CGT, dentists qualified in Argentina, at the same university, some of Spanish and some of Argentine extraction, experienced different treatment. The Spanish nationals had their qualifications recognized as equivalent without any problem. The Argentine nationals found that their qualifications were judged as not being appropriate for recognition as equivalent, given that there were shortcomings in 13 subjects and that it was therefore necessary to sit the "comprehensive test" in order to gain recognition of equivalence. The Faculty of Dentistry of the National University of Rosario carried out a detailed study of the subjects in which shortcomings had supposedly been detected and concluded that the teaching provided at that university closely matched the requirements of the Technical Commission of the Council of Universities of Spain. The only possible explanation in the CGT's opinion was that there was intentional discrimination by Spain towards foreign dentists.
20. 13. In court challenges to the non-recognition of equivalent qualifications until 1996, the law found in favour of the Argentine claimants on the basis that the qualification should automatically be recognized as equivalent. However, the situation changed towards the end of 1996, when the Spanish Supreme Court changed a long-standing criterion, and many Argentine dentists employed in various places were dismissed, and sometimes even criminally charged for unqualified entry into a profession. The CGT alleges that the General Council of Colleges of Dentists and Stomatologists of Spain began a type of "witch hunt", inviting associates to state whether they knew of any Argentines working as dentists as they should be brought before the law.
21. 14. Regarding Convention No. 111, the CGT was of the opinion that Argentine dentists come under the protective provisions of Article 1 because they would come under the concept of national extraction, or alternatively Article 1, paragraph 1(b). The CGT also stated that, since Argentine workers are no less qualified than those who qualified in Spain or elsewhere in Europe, discrimination against them is not covered by Article 1, paragraph 2 (inherent requirements of a particular job).
22. 15. The fact of not having qualifications recognized as equivalent prevented Argentine workers from being contracted as dentists and forced them into a wide variety of substitute jobs, such as insurance salesmen, clinical assistants, dental prosthetics and dental hygienists, in order to justify their presence at the dental clinic in the event of an inspection. This implied that treatment in employment was not equal. It revealed a disproportionate preference and differentiation which translates into inferior conditions for workers who should have equal treatment in employment pursuant to Convention No. 111.
23. 16. As regards Convention No. 97, the CGT argued that if the Governing Body should find that there was no violation of Convention No. 111, Spain's actions were, alternatively, in violation of Convention No. 97. Recalling Article 2 ("Each Member for which this Convention is in force undertakes to maintain, or satisfy itself that there is maintained, an adequate and free service to assist migrants for employment, and in particular to provide them with accurate information."), the CGT pointed out that accurate information had not been provided by Spain. All questions relating to the non-recognition of equivalent qualifications were dealt with in a report by the Council of Universities which neither gave details nor explained what the shortcomings of those qualifications were. In addition, the CGT claimed that Article 3(1) ("Each Member for which this Convention is in force undertakes that it will, so far as national laws and regulations permit, take all appropriate steps against misleading propaganda relating to emigration and immigration") was violated by the non-recognition of equivalent qualifications and by the persecution by the General Council of Colleges of Dentists and Stomatologists of Spain on the basis of "unqualified entry into a profession". This campaign was causing errors, confusion and fear and forced qualified dentists to accept lesser posts in order to be able to exercise their profession.
24. 17. Recalling Article 6, paragraph 1 ("Each Member for which this Convention is in force undertakes to apply, without discrimination in respect of nationality, race, religion or sex, to immigrants lawfully within its territory, treatment no less favourable than that which it applies to its own nationals in respect of ... remuneration, including family allowances where these form part of remuneration, hours of work, overtime arrangements, holidays with pay, restrictions on home work, minimum age for employment, apprenticeship and training, women's work and the work of young persons; ... enjoyment of the benefits of collective bargaining; and ... appropriate arrangements for the maintenance of acquired rights and rights in course of acquisition; ..."), the CGT claimed that those Argentine dentists who have had to disguise their contracts as a result of the non-recognition of their equivalent qualifications receive less favourable treatment with respect to remuneration, family allowances, hours of work and overtime than Spanish workers or workers of other European nationalities. As a result of having to accept employment in a lower category, such as that of dental hygienist, they do not enjoy the advantages accorded by collective agreements pertinent to their true category. In addition, there was a violation of acquired rights and rights in course of acquisition, as, knowing full well that Argentine dentists were suffering persecution, the pretext of making their identity known was used to oblige them to relinquish better acquired rights.
25. 18. As regards Convention No. 122, the CGT states that Article 1, paragraph 2(c), has not been respected because the ground of the national extraction (in this case Argentine) of dentists qualified at Argentine universities has been the basis of different treatment when it came to recognizing their qualifications as equivalent. This reveals marked differentiation and discrimination with respect to Argentine workers, and also a definite restriction of the right to freedom of choice in employment, as their national extraction stops them from being employed in clinics as dentists, to which their training should entitle them.
26. 19. Finally, the CGT requested that Spain demonstrate and justify the non-recognition of equivalent qualifications, which resulted in Argentine dentists finding their employment possibilities restricted. It suggested that the Government should provide information as to why it was not complying with the provisions of the 1971 Cultural Cooperation Agreement which is still in force. The CGT also requested that, if the Spanish Government based its response on supposed shortcomings in Argentine qualifications, the Council of Universities of Spain carry out a detailed study comparing the curricula of Spanish and Argentine universities, and the requirements of the European Community as regards length of study and content of curricula. It asked the Government to provide information on whether there had been persecution of Argentine dentists based on "unqualified entry into a profession" by the Spanish authorities and/or denunciations by the General Council of Colleges of Dentists and Stomatologists of Spain. It also wanted to know how many qualifications had been recognized as equivalent from 1971 to date and the differences in training between those qualifications and the ones that were not recognized as equivalent, and between those qualifications and Spanish ones. In addition it wished the Government to provide information as regards the recognition as equivalent of qualifications gained by Spanish citizens studying at the same time, in the same manner and at the same Argentine university, as Argentine citizens whose qualifications were not recognized as equivalent although conditions were identical.
27. B. The Government's observations
28. 20. In its letter of 4 March 1998, the Government states that the representation contains a number of baseless affirmations. First, it explains the character of the 1971 Cultural Cooperation Agreement. It is aimed exclusively at a number of listed activities in the field of cultural cooperation, such as encouraging the creation of higher education institutions, recognition of academic titles, development of an equivalency plan for partial university studies, promotion of scholarships for continued study, exchange of professors, lecturers, writers, journalists, artists and students in general and of the management of cultural institutions; the organization of concerts and other artistic events; the encouragement of activities for the dissemination of Spanish; reciprocal access to historical and cultural documentation and investigation and the exchange of publications in general; assistance in exoneration from fiscal requirements and in importing cultural or artistic material; promoting touristic exchanges and assistance to cooperation between commercial media; promotion of high level artistic exhibitions showing the common cultural heritage; and sports contacts.
29. 21. Secondly, the Government states that, while the Cultural Cooperation Agreement contains a brief mention of mutual recognition of academic titles and the exercise in both countries of the profession of one's qualifications, this was made in a specific sense, different to the claim made in the representation. It cites section 2 of the Agreement.
30. 22. According to the Government, the rules under Spanish law for permission to exercise the profession of dentist are found in Act No. 10/1986 (which specifies a university degree and requires that studies, training and specialization be adapted to the standards and directives of the European Community), Royal Decree No. 970/1986 (rules for obtaining the title of bachelor of dentistry, adjusted to the training requirements of the European Community) and Royal Decree No. 1418/1990 (amending the annex to Royal Decree No. 970). The Government points out that it is inexact to claim that the dentistry profession commenced in Spain only in 1986 since the profession was covered by regulations dating back to 1875 with intervening legislative norms leading up to Act No. 10/1986. It was also inexact to claim that Argentinian curricula were adopted by Spanish universities since above-mentioned Royal Decree No. 970/1986 aligned itself to the European Community standard contained in Directive 78/687/CEE, consisting of, inter alia, a Plan of Studies for Dentists and permission for Member States to accept access to the profession by persons accredited outside the EEC only when the training corresponds to the requirements set down in EEC Directives, such as the accomplishment of the detailed Plan of Studies for Dentists, at least five years' full-time study and training in areas such as medico-surgery.
31. 23. The Ministry of Education and Science, in accordance with Royal Decree No. 86/1987 (on accreditation of higher qualifications obtained outside Spain), had accredited about 6,000 Argentinian university qualifications by 1990, when the Commission of the European Communities wrote to the Government. Over 2,200 of these accreditations were for dentistry qualifications, and they expressly stated that this did not imply that the qualifications in question met the requirements laid down by EEC Directives. The Government points out that during the same period Argentina accredited 284 Spanish university qualifications, of which one was for a Spanish dentist. That same period saw the first graduates of Spanish university dentistry degree courses enter the labour force. The EEC Commission's letter of 19 October 1990 pointed out to Spain that, as of its entry into the Communities, it was not authorized to recognize qualifications of third countries which did not fulfil the requirements of Community legislation, nor was it to permit holders of qualifications granted following dentistry studies to accede to or exercise the profession of dentist. Subsequently, in 1992, the Commission, noting that Spain was accrediting qualifications, under a bilateral agreement, without ensuring that the training of the holders of those qualifications met the minimum standards of the EEC, determined that Spain was not complying with the relevant EEC Directives. It requested Spain to adopt the measures necessary to remedy the situation, failing which procedures before the European Court of Justice might be invoked.
32. 24. According to the Government, following October 1990, the Ministry of Education and Science agreed to revise all the administrative forms used in the accreditation process, in particular those pertaining to professions where training requirements were set down by EEC Directives, including that of dentists. After careful examination, the Council of Universities discovered shortcomings in certain areas of training and, with a view to respecting both the undertakings derived from the Cultural Cooperation Agreement signed with Argentina and the EEC standards, made accreditation of qualifications subject to an examination in these areas. The Government points out that, if the Agreement had not been taken into account, the requested accreditations were refused. It stresses that the Council of Universities never considered that the training received by Argentinian dentists was inferior to Spanish training. It did, however, identify a lack of training in certain subjects which were obligatory in the Spanish Plan of Study. That body did not disqualify holders of such qualifications, but merely required them to sit an examination in those subjects before granting accreditation.
33. 25. The Government denies that dentists who were required to sit the examination did not receive official, written and authentic information about them. All those who made requests received individual notification of the rights involved, including the decision of the Council of Universities, with a listing of the missing training and an inscription form for sitting the pertinent examination. It points out that almost all of those involved did not complete the inscription form. Moreover, states the Government, a Ministerial Order was published in the Official Gazette on 12 June 1992 for public scrutiny, laying down the general conditions for sitting the examinations and prerequisite skills for recognition of foreign higher qualifications, including those for dentists.
34. 26. The Government also denies that there was discrimination on the basis of nationality of the applicants in the handling of applications for accreditation. The Council of Universities just checked the academic and scientific syllabus of the applicants, irrespective of their nationality. In fact, states the Government, that body had cases where, after verification of the curriculum in question, no shortcomings were identified and it gave a positive recommendation for accreditation without the need to sit the examination. This was the case for dentists who had studied in Argentina, but already held degrees in medicine and surgery. In this respect, the Government also stresses that the same procedure of having to sit an examination was invoked in relation to many applications filed by Spanish citizens who had moved to Argentina to obtain dentist qualifications, but did not have prior degrees in medicine and surgery and therefore suffered the same lack of training. It cites examples of both instances.
35. 27. The Government disputes the CGT's interpretation of the courts' actions regarding appeals against non-recognition of equivalent qualifications. There is no jurisprudence of the Supreme Court on automatic accreditation of qualifications obtained in Argentina (or any other Latin American country with which Spain has signed cultural agreements) for the Spanish title "Bachelor of Dentistry", created by virtue of Act No. 10/1986. The High Court, in numerous decisions handed down since 1996 and which form the basis of jurisprudence in accordance with the Civil Code, has upheld the decisions in individual cases to require an examination before permitting accreditation of foreign dentistry qualifications. The Government cites the reasoning of applying the above-mentioned Act No. 10/1986 in the context of the proper application of the Cultural Cooperation Agreement, whereby the authorities must undertake a control of equivalency of the foreign qualification in question vis-à-vis the Spanish qualification.
36. 28. The Government states that there has been no campaign of persecution against Argentinian -- or any other nationality -- dentists who are freely exercising their profession in the country. It is aware of certain complaints filed before Spanish Courts of First Instance by the General Council of Colleges of Dentists and Stomatologists of Spain against specified Spanish or foreign dentists, irrespective of their nationality, alleging non-compliance with the legislative requirements for exercising the profession of dentist in Spain.
37. 29. In general, the Government points out that the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture is still implementing the 1971 Cultural Cooperation Agreement in accordance with the following principles: (1) accreditation is accorded to Argentinian qualifications where the level of education and training requirements are equivalent to the basic minimum requirements pertaining in Spain for obtaining the corresponding qualification (since 1990 around 9,000 such Argentinian university qualifications have been accredited unconditionally); (2) when the training does not fulfil the basic requirements, accreditation of the qualification is subject to passing an examination in the areas in which shortcomings have been identified (approximately 1,400 degrees over the last seven years); and (3) accreditation of some Argentinian qualifications has been denied only when the studies cannot be deemed to be minimum equivalents to Spanish studies, without prejudice to the right of those concerned to request a Spanish university to establish partial validation of studies.
38. 30. As regards the alleged violation of Convention No. 111, the Government points out that the situation of Argentinian dentists does not fall under Article 1, paragraph 1(a) or (b), since the terminology refers to "national extraction", not nationality, and since Spain has not determined nationality as an additional ground of proscribed discrimination. Likewise, the allegations do not fall under Article 1, paragraph 2 because the exercise of the profession of dentist in Spain requires the person to hold the pertinent degree of Bachelor of Dentistry or the corresponding accreditation where the qualification was obtained outside Spain. The complainant organization incorrectly links the provision of the Cultural Cooperation Agreement with automatic accreditation; that Agreement refers the question of exercise of professions to the respective national regulations. That is also the interpretation given by the Spanish courts, as outlined above.
39. 31. The Government also refutes the allegations under Convention No. 97, in particular as they rely on Article 2 which requires a ratifying State to maintain a free service to assist migrants and to provide them with adequate information. It repeats that each request from persons involved in this matter is dealt with in files to which they have access at any time. There is a unit devoted to relations with members of the public within the General Sub-Directorate for Degrees, Validations and Accreditations which handles such requests. The Government also points out that the accreditation procedure is free.
40. 32. The annexes to the Government's letter of 24 March 1998 show that the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice-Administrative Litigation Division in cases lodged by Argentinian citizens against administrative decisions of non-accreditation of qualifications obtained in Argentina hold that the requirement to pass a corresponding examination were lawful.
41. III. The Committee's conclusions
42. 33. The Committee notes that this representation involves allegations that three ratified Conventions were violated by the Spanish Government's actions to introduce a further step in the procedure relating to accreditation of foreign dentistry qualifications, allegedly also in contradiction of a bilateral agreement between Spain and Argentina on mutual recognition of academic titles and free exercise of professions.
43. 34. The Committee at the outset wishes to make it clear that it is not competent to assess the fulfilment of the bilateral agreement or suggest ways of achieving its stated aims to the satisfaction of both signatories. Nor is it the role of this Committee to weigh up Spain's duties under a bilateral agreement into which it has entered freely and its implementation of Community law -- in this case Directives on the maintenance of standards in the process of accreditation of certain qualifications. The mandate is, rather, to assess on the basis of the information provided to it whether the provisions of ratified ILO instruments have been adhered to. The Committee would also point out at the outset that, while there are comments pending before the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations for all three instruments referred to in this representation, none of them relate to discrimination on the basis of Argentinian nationality or on the basis of having degrees from Argentinian institutions.
44. 35. Regarding Convention No. 111, the Committee notes that Article 1, paragraphs 1 and 2 read:
45. 1. For the purpose of this Convention the term "discrimination" includes --
46. (a) any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation;
47. (b) such other distinction, exclusion or preference which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation as may be determined by the Member concerned after consultation with representative employers' and workers' organizations, where such exist, and with other appropriate bodies.
48. 2. Any distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements thereof shall not be deemed to be discrimination.
49. The complainant organization refers to discrimination in the granting of accreditation to Argentinians possessing Argentinian university degrees, in other words, on the basis of nationality, not national extraction. It attempts to argue that the two terms amount to the same thing. However, as recalled in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the 1996 Special Survey on Equality in Employment and Occupation, the concept of national extraction in Convention No. 111 does not refer to distinctions that may be made between the citizens of one country and those of another, but to distinctions between the citizens of the same country on the basis of a person's place of birth, ancestry or foreign origin. Moreover, the complainant organization's reference to Article 1, paragraph 2, does not support its claim that there was discrimination, since there is no material presented to show that the Spanish authorities required "qualifications from Spain or elsewhere in Europe" as an inherent requirement of the job of dentist, and thus might fall foul of ILO jurisprudence on what can be legitimately deemed to be absolutely necessary for the performance of the specific task in hand. The Committee therefore is of the opinion that the legislation and practice are not inconsistent with Convention No. 111.
50. 36. As regards Convention No. 122, the Committee notes that the complainant organization refers to the provisions of Article 1, paragraph 2(c), to allege the existence of a discriminatory practice against Argentinian workers at the time of accreditation of their degrees which, contrary to these provisions, allegedly restricts their free choice of employment by linking it to the nationality of the worker.
51. 37. The Committee points out that this provision of the Convention, in stipulating that employment policies should aim at ensuring that there is freedom of choice of employment and the fullest possible opportunity for each worker to qualify for, and to use his skills and endowments in, a job for which he is well suited, irrespective of national extraction, does not cover distinctions that might be made between nationals of the country concerned and foreigners. The scope of the expression "national extraction" is thus the same in this Convention as in Convention No. 111, as discussed above. Moreover, the Committee notes that the complainant organization does not allege that such distinctions arise from the implementation of an employment policy in the sense of the Convention. The Committee is accordingly of the opinion that it need not examine further the allegations of non-compliance with Convention No. 122.
52. 38. Convention No. 97 is relevant to the allegations in that it provides not only for services to assist and inform migrants for employment, but also for treatment irrespective of, inter alia, nationality, no less favourable than that which ratifying States apply to their own nationals. These provisions appear in Articles 2 and 6 cited by the complainant organization. The complainant states that the Argentinian dentists were not given any information on the new procedures; it adds that the body which verified the curricula on which foreign qualifications were based did not explain what the shortcomings were that necessitated the foreigner having to sit further examinations. The Government directly denies that there was no information, citing not only the existence of a unit within the accreditation authority which is specifically aimed at communicating with the public, as well as the publication of the new procedures and the individual treatment of all requests for information. It explains that the EEC Directive laid down certain requirements both as to the length of studies and content of syllabus, which are reproduced in Spanish laws on the subject of accreditation and were used by the Council of Universities. There is no evidence that this additional step -- the examination in certain subjects -- was applied only to Argentinians. The Government, on the contrary, was able to present cases showing that the requirement of sitting an examination was not applied only to Argentinians, but that Spaniards having Argentinian qualifications without having studied certain subjects also had to sit the corresponding examination if they wished to have their degrees accredited for work in Spain.
53. 39. The Government has thus demonstrated, in the Committee's opinion, that the accrediting body merely added a further step to the procedure towards accreditation without reference to the nationality of the applicant and without applying less favourable treatment to Argentinian dentists that it did to its own citizens. The Committee is of the opinion that the facts before it do not support the allegation that there was a violation of Convention No. 97 by the additional procedure.
54. IV. The Committee's recommendations
55. 40. The Committee recommends that the Governing Body:
56. (a) approve the present report, and in particular the conclusions contained in paragraphs 35, 37 and 39 above given the evidence that was presented to the Committee; and
57. (b) declare closed the procedure initiated as a result of the representation of the CGT alleging non-observance of the Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97), the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), and the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122).