Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. 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 matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 6.2 of Act No. 92-020 of 23 September 1992 issuing the Labour Code which lays down that the term "compulsory labour" does not include work required in the public interest by legislative provisions on the organization of defence, the creation of a national service or participation in development.

The Committee also noted the information supplied by the Government to the effect that Act No. 87-48/AN-RM which defines the conditions for exercising the right to requisition persons, services and assets, restricts its application to the cases allowed by the legislation on the general organization of defence and on states of emergency.

The Committee asked to be supplied with a copy of this Act and referred the Government to the explanations given in paragraphs 63 to 68 of the 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour. It also drew the Government's attention to the need to ensure that it is laid down clearly in the legislation that the power to exact labour is to be limited to what is strictly required in order to cope with circumstances endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

In its report, the Government indicates that the legislation on the organization of national defence, the establishment of national service or participation in development does not impose compulsory labour in so far as this exclusively concerns the military organization and national defence.

The Committee notes this information and once again requests the Government to supply a copy of the legislation in question so that it can examine its conformity with the provisions of the Conventions on forced labour.

2. Article 25 of the Convention. The Committee refers to section 314 of the Labour Code which provides fines of from 20,000 to 100,000 CFA francs or imprisonment of from 15 days to six months, or both, for infringements of the provisions of section L.6 on forced labour.

The Committee observes that under this provision, the exaction of forced labour may be punishable only by fines and recalls the penal nature of the penalties required by Article 25 of the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate if there have been cases where section 314 of the Labour Code has been applied and, if so, to supply information on the penalties imposed.

3. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to information regarding cases of debt bondage in the salt mines north of Timbuktu and asked the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 314 of the Labour Code which lays down penalties on persons infringing the provisions of section 6 on forced labour.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the salt mines are worked exclusively for the profit of the mining companies and that cases of debt bondage of any kind no longer exist. The Government specifies that the only place where some cases of forced labour existed, the penal colony at Tadouenit, was closed in the late 1980s.

The Committee notes, nevertheless, that information received still refers to the existence of debt bondage in the salt mines and that, furthermore, in the north of the country, members of the Bellah ethnic group are still the victims of slavery practices by the Tuareg people.

The Committee requests the Government to supply in its next report any information it can collect on this situation.