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

The Committee has noted the Government’s report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention

1. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred, inter alia, to certain provisions of the Penal Code, Act No. 156 of 1960 respecting the reorganization of the press, Act No. 32 of 12 February 1964 respecting associations and private foundations, the Public Meetings Act of 1923, the Meetings Act of 1914 and Act No. 40 of 1977 respecting political parties. It pointed out that the implementation of these provisions could affect the application of Article 1(a) of the Convention, which prohibits the use of sanctions involving any form of compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

2. The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its 1997 report that Act No. 156 of 1960 respecting the reorganization of the press had been amended by Act No. 148 of 1980 respecting press authority, which had subsequently been repealed by Act No. 96 of 1996 on the reorganization of the press. The Government stated that the new Act provides for the independence of journalists from any intervention in the performance of their work, though they are subject to the provisions of the law, and prohibits the imposition of pre-trial detention on journalists for crimes related to publication. The Government indicates in its latest report that Act No. 156 of 1960, which was previously referred to, as amended by Act No. 148 of 1980, has been repealed by the said Act, in virtue of its section 55. The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will supply a copy of the repealing provision.

3. In its earlier comments, the Committee also referred to the following legislative provisions, which are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour:

(a)  section 98(a)bis and 98(d) of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 34 of 24 May 1970, which prohibit the following: advocacy, by any means, of opposition to the fundamental principles of the socialist system of the State, encouraging aversion or contempt for these principles, encouraging calls to oppose the union of the people’s working forces, constituting or participating in any association or group pursuing any of the foregoing aims, or receiving any material assistance for the pursuit of such aims;

(b)  sections 2, 12 and 92 of Act No. 32 of 12 February 1964 concerning associations and private foundations, under which no association may be established if its objective is to impair the social system of the Republic, wide discretionary powers are granted to the competent administrative authorities to refuse the establishment of any association, and imprisonment with compulsory labour may be imposed on anyone who undertakes any activity on behalf of an association not duly established;

(c)  the Public Meetings Act, 1923, and the Meetings Act, 1914, granting general powers to prohibit or dissolve meetings, even in private places;

(d)  sections 98(b), 98(b)bis and 174 of the Penal Code (concerning advocacy of certain doctrines); and

(e)  sections 4 and 26 of Act No. 40 of 1977 respecting political parties, which prohibit the creation of political parties whose objectives are in conflict with Islamic legislation or with the achievements of socialism, or which are branches of foreign parties.

Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102 to 109 and 133 to 134 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee must point out that the abovementioned provisions are contrary to the Convention in so far as they provide for sanctions involving compulsory prison labour for expressing certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the political system, or for having infringed a discretionary decision by the administration depriving persons of the right to make public their opinions or suspending or dissolving certain associations. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken. Pending the amendment of the legislation, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide full information on their application in practice.

Article 1(d)

4. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 124, 124A, 124C and 374 of the Penal Code, under which strikes by any public employee may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Government states in its latest report that the concept of a public employee is linked with the performance of public services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 123 and 124 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee must point out that only penalties for participation in strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would pose a clear and imminent threat to the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) fall outside the scope of the Convention. This cannot be taken for granted generally for any public employee. The Committee therefore hopes that appropriate measures will be taken in this connection to ensure the observance of the Convention (e.g. by limiting the scope of the abovementioned provisions to persons working in essential services in the strict sense as indicated above), and that pending the amendment of the legislation, the Government will supply copies of any court decisions handed down under the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code.

Article 1(c) and (d)

5. The Committee previously referred to sections 13(5) and 14 of the Maintenance of Security, Order and Discipline (Merchant Navy) Act, 1960, under which penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed on seafarers who together commit repeated acts of insubordination. The Committee recalled in this connection that Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention prohibits the exaction of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline or as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee noted that, in order to remain outside the scope of the Convention, punishment should be linked to acts that endanger or are likely to endanger the safety of the vessel or the life of persons. The Committee observed that, under section 13(5) read together with section 14 of the Act, breaches of discipline or participation in strikes may be punished with imprisonment even in circumstances where the safety of the vessel or the life and health of persons are not endangered. While noting the Government’s indication in its latest report that the Act on Maritime Commerce No. 8 of 1990 does not contain provisions relating to the punishment of seafarers, the Committee trusts that appropriate measures will be taken in the near future with a view to amending the abovementioned provisions of the 1960 Act in order to ensure the observance of the Convention.

The Committee addresses a request on certain other points directly to the Government.