A/HRC/12/50 African Republic was ready to implement all recommendations, but needed assistance in that regard. Monaco 247. The review of Monaco was held on 4 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the national report submitted by Monaco in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/1); the compilation prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/3). 248. At its 14th meeting, on 23 September 2009, the Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on Monaco (see section C below). 249. The outcome of the review on Monaco comprises the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/3), the views of Monaco concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, and its voluntary commitments and replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group. 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome 250. The head of delegation and Permanent Representative of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva thanked all delegations who made comments during the Working Group discussions held on 4 May. He assured that they had been duly taken into consideration by the Monegasque authorities. He underlined the fact that the preparation of the national report was complex and mobilized forces in the country. Owing to the size of the State, problems arising on the ground are small in both number and scale. Although each individual case would be tackled, the overall human rights situation was rather good thanks notably to freedom of expression guaranteed by a recently adopted legislation and to a properly proportioned and efficient judicial system. 251. The head of delegation recalled that Monaco had already accepted a number of recommendations during the review and committed to reply to others during the current session. Regarding the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Monaco had signed it on 7 February 2007. However, in view of the fact that a legal reform, including a legislative reform, was required for its incorporation into Monegasque law, and although this process has already started, it would be long and complex. Therefore Monaco could not commit firmly to its ratification at present. 252. On the adhesion of Monaco to the International Labour Organization (ILO), the head of delegation recalled three important issues that currently prevented Monaco from adhering. Firstly, Monegasque legislation on trade union law is not compatible with ILO Convention No. 87 on three different issues. A legislative reform was envisaged to that end. Secondly, the employment priority system had to be seen in the light of ILO Conventions Nos. 100 and 111. The latter deals with national extraction, a concept distinct from citizenship, which therefore did not raise any problem in Monegasque law. However, the Monegasque employment priority could be regarded as discriminatory against foreigners living in Monaco. Although real, this issue was largely theoretic, as there were 8,000 nationals and 45,000 working people in the country. Thirdly, the reporting obligations resulting from the various ILO legal instruments were too onerous for a State like Monaco, which would not be in a position to respect these obligations with diligence and efficiency. 99