Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its previous direct request.

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. Referring to its earlier comments, the Committee has noted the Government’s indication that no legal proceedings have been instituted and no penalties imposed during the reporting period for offences falling under sections 145(2) and (5), 146 to 149, 151 or 159(a) of Penal Law 5737-1977, concerning seditious statements and publications. The Committee requests the Government to continue to supply information on the application in practice of these provisions, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that they are not applied in a manner incompatible with the Convention.

2. Article 1(d). In comments made since 1980, the Committee noted that under section 160 of Penal Law 5737-1977, "if the Government is of the opinion that serious disturbances exist in labour relations, threatening or prejudicing the economy in Israel or trade with foreign States, it may by proclamation declare a state of emergency for the purposes of this section, and so long as such a proclamation is not revoked, a person who takes part in a lockout or strike in relation to the commercial transport of goods or conveyance of passengers in Israel or between Israel and foreign States or in the provision of a public service in Israel or incites to, aids or encourages such a lockout or strike or the continuance thereof is liable to imprisonment for one year", which involves an obligation to perform labour in accordance with section 48(a) of the same Law.

While noting the Government’s repeated statement that section 160 has never been enforced, the Committee referred to paragraph 126 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour in which it pointed out that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour is compatible with the Convention only in so far as it is necessary to cope with the cases of force majeure in the strict sense of the term, namely when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered, provided that the duration of the prohibition is limited to the period of immediate necessity.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its reports that the question of rephrasing of section 160 would be examined within the framework of an overall revision of the Penal Law. The Government states in its latest report that the question of amending this section is still being considered.

The Committee trusts that section 160 of the Penal Code will be either repealed or amended so as to limit its scope to circumstances which would constitute a "state of emergency" in the strict sense of the term. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.