Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes that in its latest report the Government indicates that a working group coordinated by the Ministry of Justice has been set up to revise penal legislation. It requests the Government to supply information on the work conducted by this group and any legislation adopted. It hopes that during the penal legislation revision process the Government will take account of the comments below. Meanwhile, the Committee requests the Government to supply with its next report copies of the Penal Code and the Penal Procedure Code currently in force.

1. Article 1(c) of the Convention. Imposition of forced labour as a means of labour discipline. Since 1992, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, 1943, which are not in conformity with the Convention. These provisions allow custodial prison sentences to be imposed (involving compulsory labour, by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981) for failure to carry out orders concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board. Under section 132 of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, a crew member who deserts at the post of embarkation is liable to a prison sentence of up to one year; desertion in any other port may be punished by a sentence of two years. Under the terms of section 137, a crew member who fails to carry out orders issued by his superiors concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel may be punished by a prison sentence of from one to six months. A crew member who refuses to obey an order and subsequently carries it out voluntarily may be punished by a maximum of three months’ imprisonment. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future to amend these provisions, particularly in the framework of the penal legislation revision process, in order to bring its national legislation into conformity with Article 1(c) of the Convention. Please supply information on this matter as well as copies of any legislation adopted.

2. Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee notes that under section 27(1) of the Strike Act (Act No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991) the organizers of a strike that is prohibited, illicit or suspended by virtue of the law are liable to a prison sentence and a fine. As noted above, prison sentences involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981. The Committee notes, furthermore, that in the context of application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) it has drawn the Government’s attention to a number of legislative provisions which restrict the exercise of the right to strike. The result of all the abovementioned elements is that forced labour, in the form of a prison sentence involving the obligation to work, may be imposed on the organizer of a strike that is prohibited, illicit or suspended and that legislation provides restrictions on the right to strike which seem to run counter to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee therefore requests the Government to examine the provisions of section 27(1) of the Strike Act in the light of the Convention and to supply information on the measures taken or envisaged to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.