Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

  Article 1(d) of the Convention. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the terms of section 41 of Act No. 90-02, requisition orders may be issued, in accordance with the legislation in force, for striking workers who occupy, in public institutions or administrations, or in enterprises, posts which are essential for the safety of persons, plant and property, as well as for the continuity of public services which are essential to the vital needs of the country or to undertake essential activities for supplying the public. The Committee had noted that sections 37 and 38 of Act No. 90-02 determine the list of essential services in which the right to strike is restricted and in which it is necessary to organize a compulsory minimum service. It noted that this list is very broad and includes, among other sectors, services such as banking and telecommunications which, according to the Committee on Freedom of Association, do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term (paragraph 545 of the Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee). The list in sections 37 and 38 of Act No. 90-02 also includes court registry services.

The Committee also referred to section 43 of Act No. 90-02 prohibiting the exercise of the right to strike in certain sectors of public institutions and administrations, such as the judiciary and customs.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications in its report that the refusal to comply with a requisition order issued under the terms of sections 41 and 43 of Act No. 90-02 does not constitute an offence under penal law. The Committee notes that the refusal to implement a requisition order is punishable by the penalties set out in the Penal Code under section 42 of the same Act.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 41 and 43 of Act No. 90-02, with an indication in particular of the number of persons convicted and copies of the court decisions handed down in this respect.

2. The Committee referred to section 6(5) of Presidential Decree No. 92-44, declaring a state of emergency and conferring upon the Minister of the Interior and Local Communities the power to requisition workers to carry out their usual occupational activities in the event of an unauthorized or unlawful strike. Section 5 of the above Decree permits the Minister of the Interior to order the detention in a security centre of any person whose activities endanger public order, public security or the proper functioning of public services.

The Committee notes the indications by the Government in its report in October 1999 that the orders issued by the Minister of the Interior responsible for administering the state of emergency (detention measures, security centres) have been repealed and that the detention centres were closed even when the state of emergency was still in force. The Committee notes, from the information contained in the document submitted by the Special Rapporteur of the Sub Commission of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/31), that the state of emergency was still in force on that date.

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the text which lifted the state of emergency and of the text which repealed Decree No. 92-75 of 20 February 1992 establishing the conditions for the implementation of certain provisions of the Decree declaring the state of emergency.

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether Presidential Decree No. 91-196 of 4 June 1991 declaring a state of emergency and Executive Decree No. 91-201 are still in force.

3. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 87bis of the Penal Code (Ordinance No. 95 11 of 25 February 1995) respecting subversive acts.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications that Ordinance No. 95-11 assimilates terrorist activities to a form of delinquency covered by the civil courts. Offenders "considered under Algerian law to be criminals under ordinary law, subject to the ordinary courts, are subject to ordinary legal procedures, such as those set out in the Code of Penal Procedure. As detainees, they are governed by the rules issued by the Prisons Reform Code, as well as by the texts governing the organization and operation of prisons".

The Committee also notes the Government’s statements concerning the Clemency Act, which contains a series of measures, ranging from exemption from charges to the substantial reduction of the scale of penalties.

The Committee nevertheless notes that, under the terms of section 87bis of the Penal Code, any act is considered to be a terrorist or subversive act which threatens the stability and normal functioning of institutions, or any action with the objective, among others, of "hindering traffic and freedom of movement on thoroughfares and occupying public places with gatherings", "prejudicing means of communication and transport, public and private property, taking possession thereof or unduly occupying it", and "hindering the operation of public institutions (…)". As a result, actions which do not have recourse to violence, but which are taken with the aim of manifesting ideological opposition to the established political system, may be covered by the scope of section 87bis, and the imposition of prison labour on persons convicted under such provisions is contrary to Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure compliance with the Convention in this respect and to provide information on the application in practice of section 87bis of the Labour Code, including copies of any court decisions clarifying the scope of the above provision.