Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Dominican Republic (Ratification: 1958)

Other comments on C105

Observation

Direct Request

Display in: French - SpanishView all

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Prison sentences involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. For a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to certain provisions of the Penal Code and of Act No. 6132 on the expression and dissemination of opinions, under the terms of which defamatory, offensive or abusive statements against public servants and certain persons in public authority representing the established political, social or economic system are punishable by imprisonment. Noting that, under the terms of section 57 of Act No. 224-84 regulating the prison system, individuals who are sentenced to imprisonment are required to perform compulsory prison labour, the Committee emphasized the fact that the imposition of imprisonment entailing compulsory prison labour affects the application of Article 1(a) of the Convention when it constitutes a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee referred in particular to the following provisions of the Penal Code:

-sections 86 and 368: offensive or abusive public statements against the head of State;
-sections 369 and 372: defamation or abuse of deputies, representatives of Congress, secretaries of State, magistrates of the Supreme Court or of courts of first instance;
-section 370: defamation of persons exercising public authority.

It also referred to the provisions of Act No. 6132 which criminalize offensive statements against the President of the Republic (section 26), and defamatory and abusive statements against courts and tribunals, the armed forces, the police, the legislative chambers, municipal authorities and other state institutions, members of the Cabinet and members of the legislative chambers, public servants, or persons exercising public authority (sections 30, 31 and 34).

The Committee noted that in 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice found that laws criminalizing the expression of criticism against public officials infringe freedom of expression. The Committee also noted that the Media Commission of the Chamber of Deputies was examining several draft laws tabled to amend Act No. 6132. The Committee observes that the Government refers in its report to various rights which give effect to freedom of expression and information as guaranteed by the Constitution, including the right of individuals to reply where they consider that the disseminated information is damaging to them. The Government does not provide any information on the current status of the draft laws which were being examined by the Chamber of Deputies. However, it has come to the Committee’s attention that an action was brought in the Constitutional Court to declare unconstitutional certain provisions of Act No. 6132, and that in its Decision No. TC/075/16 of February 2016 the Constitutional Court declared sections 30, 31, 34 and 37 of the Act null and void for not being in conformity with the Constitution. It considered that “establishing criminal penalties for any defamatory or abusive statements against public employees in the course of their duties or persons exercising public authority constitutes a legal limitation which affects the very essence of freedom of expression and opinion via the press when these public employees, by the very nature of their functions, are subjected to social control …”.

The Committee takes due note of the Constitutional Court decision and expresses the firm hope that the necessary steps will be taken to amend the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code, under which defamatory, abusive or offensive statements against certain public authorities and certain persons in public authority are punishable by imprisonment, so that no prison sentence entailing compulsory labour may be imposed on individuals who express political opinions or engage in peaceful opposition to the established system. It also hopes that any new law adopted to regulate the media will take account of the obligations deriving from the provisions of Article 1 of the Convention. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of persons convicted under the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code, the nature of the charges laid against them and any penalties imposed on them, and to send copies of any relevant court decisions.

Article 1(b). Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development. The Committee previously asked the Government to supply information on the obligation to provide “services for development” as prescribed by article 75(4) of the Constitution for Dominican citizens aged between 16 and 21 years. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has still not supplied information on this matter in its report. The Committee requests the Government to review the obligation to provide “services for development” in the light of Article 1(b) of the Convention, which prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a method of mobilizing and using labour for the purposes of economic development. In the meantime, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the precise nature of this duty set out in the Constitution and the manner in which it is implemented in practice, indicating the penalties incurred by any persons who refuse to work in the context of the obligation to provide “services for development”. The Committee also requests the Government to provide examples of any legislation adopted in this respect.