Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following legislative provisions under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, in accordance with rule 38 of the Prison Rules) may be imposed:

–      printing, publishing, selling, distributing, importing, etc., of seditious publications or uttering seditious words (section 10 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200);

–      various violations of the prohibition of printing and publication (sections 18(i) and 20 of the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance, Cap. 268; regulations 9 and 15 of the News Agencies Registration Regulations, Cap. 268A; regulations 8 and 19 of the Newspaper Registration and Distribution Regulations, Cap. 268B; regulations 7 and 13 of the Printed Documents (Control) Regulations, Cap. 268C);

–      various contraventions of regulations of public meetings, processions and gatherings (section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245).

The Committee notes the information concerning the application in practice of section 17A(3)(b)(i) of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245), provided by the Government in its report, as well as the Government’s repeated indication that there have been no cases that would involve offences under other provisions referred to above.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 154 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence; but sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision.

The Committee expresses the hope that, in the light of the above explanations, measures will be taken in order to bring the above provisions into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, so as to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to continue to supply information on the application of these provisions in practice, including copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance, Chapter 234, which lays down penalties for misconduct and provides that any officer of the Correctional Services Department or other person employed in the prisons, who after having duly engaged to serve as such absents himself from his duties, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for six months (which involves compulsory prison labour).

While having noted the Government’s repeated indication that there have been no cases involving the application of section 21(a) so far, the Committee expresses the hope that measures will be taken in order to bring this provision into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, so as to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a means of labour discipline. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of section 21(a) in practice, supplying copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.