Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

The Government communicated the following information:

The Ministry of Employment notes the observations of the Committee of Experts and those of the CDT and the UGTM. It reiterates that they were taken into consideration in the Bills drafted by the Government and, in particular, the draft Labour Code. The observations made by the Committee in 1991 have been transmitted to the competent authorities so as to speed up the adoption procedure of the aforementioned draft Acts.

As regards the absence in national legislation of provisions imposing penal sanctions for illegal forced labour, the draft Labour Code provides that violations of article 28 (which prohibits forced or compulsory labour) are punished by terms of imprisonment from two months to two years and a fine of 400 to 2,000 dirhams, or one of these penalties only. This draft, which has already been approved by the Council of Ministers, not only satisfies the requests made by the Committee of Experts, but would also allow ratification of other international instruments by Morocco.

Concerning the repeal of the Dahir dated 26 June 1930, allowing the employment of prisoners by private enterprises, the Ministry of Justice once again asked about this matter, reiterating that this Dahir is not applied any more since Morocco became independent. The draft general regulation on penitentiaries, which should repeal the provisions of this Dahir which are incompatible with Article 2 of the Convention, is currently being examined by the General Secretariat of the Government.

With respect to the legal texts and regulations allowing the calling up of persons and the requisitioning of goods in order to satisfy national needs, it should be noted that implementation of the right of requisition is limited in practice to exceptional situations, where the population's life and normal living conditions are at risk. The relevant departments have denied categorically the allegations made in this respect by the CDT and the UGTM. For instance, Royal Air Maroc states that the majority of staff reported voluntarily for work during the strike of 14 December 1991. The requisitioning of staff was unnecessary in the absence of exceptional circumstances which could justify it, in particular since the normal functioning of essential services is ensured by non-striking workers.

The information requests concerning the assignment of certain persons to civic service, and the applicable criteria to accept or reject the resignation request of a public servant, have been transmitted to the relevant departments.

In addition, a Government representative referred to the written information provided by his Government and added that the draft Labour Code which prohibited forced labour had been reviewed by a parliamentary committee on 13 May 1992. With regard to the persons assigned to civic service, he specified that this service was part of a series of measures aimed at the reinsertion of young persons into active life. It was very difficult for persons with diplomas who had no practical experience to find jobs. For budgetary reasons, the number of persons actually admitted to the civic service was much lower than the requests received. The Government was presently studying a draft text providing encouragement to private enterprise, such as the exemption from social taxes, if they would accept to take young university students as interns in order to help them complement their academic training with practical experience. The calling up of persons in order to satisfy national needs only occurred in exceptional situations. The law providing for this would be repealed and replaced by a new law, but since the Labour Code prohibited forced labour, perhaps this would not be necessary.

The Workers' members noted that the written and oral information provided by the Government had not been available to the Committee of Experts for examination. They recalled that, without the necessary information, the Committee of Experts could not assess the situation nor could this Committee be in a position to comment upon the substance of the case.

The Employers' members noted that the Government had been mentioning a draft Labour Code since 1969. They noted the Government's statement that the legal text concerning military recruits and the calling up of people in order to satisfy national needs would be repealed and requested the Government to indicate when this would be done. They hoped that draft legislation could be submitted to the Office for examination by the Committee of Experts in the near future. They noted the Government's indication that the employment of prisoners by the private sector no longer occurred in practice and that the relevant Dahir (Act) would be repealed by a general regulation on penitentiaries. They queried whether regulations were sufficient to repeal the provisions of an Act. In any event, all additional information should be provided to the Office for examination by the Committee of Experts so that this Committee would be in a position to consider this case again in the near future.

A Workers' member of Morocco noted that trade unions in his country were confronted with very exceptional circumstances. As concerns the employment of recruits in certain cases, he noted that his Government often used such measures to combat organised strikes. He also indicated that the work imposed on employees in the public sector was forced labour, incompatible with national laws and with this Convention.

The Government representative stated that the comments made by the Workers' member of Morocco should be verified. He noted two specific examples of strikes undertaken by the public health service and in the teaching sector. The former could reasonably be considered an essential service, yet no sanctions were taken against the trade union members. The reponsibility to continue this essential service, however, lay with the Government. Some trade unions always blamed the Government when a strike was unsuccessful.

A Workers' member of Greece welcomed the fact that the Workers' member of Morocco was able to attend the Conference, but pointed out that this was not enough. He noted that trade unions were often reproached for blaming governments for certain problems. Everyone had his own political opinions, but trade unionists first took care of the interests of the workers they represented. He added that often governments would do anything to break a strike if it was bothersome at the political level, including having recourse to scabs. No country lost when it dealt with its workers in a democratic manner. Governments were not the only representatives of their countries' interests. Workers also cared about the interests of their country and often a lot more than others.

The Committee noted the written and oral information provided by the Government. Since the Government had not reported within the prescribed time, the Committee did not feel it was able to discuss the substance fully without the Committee of Experts having made an assessment of the situation. It therefore hoped that the Government would report in detail the points raised by the Committee of Experts, in particular on the status of its intentions expressed over 20 years ago to amend the legislation so that the Conference Committee could consider the substance of the case at one of its next sessions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Trafficking in persons. In reply to the Committee’s comments on the absence of provisions in the legislation explicitly criminalizing trafficking in persons, the Government indicates that a Decree on the repression and criminalization of trafficking in persons was approved by the Council of Ministers on 7 May 2009. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to indicate whether this legislative text has been promulgated and has entered into force. If so, please provide a copy and supply information on its application in practice.

The Committee also noted previously that the country was faced with a considerable migration flow from sub-Saharan Africa in transit through Morocco towards Europe. It emphasized in this respect the importance of identifying, from among the illegal immigrants, those who are victims of trafficking for the exploitation of their labour in view of the vulnerability of their situation, and it requested the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to identify these victims, protect and encourage them to go to the authorities to denounce their situation. In its last report, the Government provides detailed information on the measures adopted to combat this clandestine emigration, including the creation of the Directorate of Migration and Frontier Control and the Migration Observatory, the reinforcement of security measures, the development of international cooperation and awareness-raising measures on the dangers of clandestine migration and the risks of exploitation by trafficking networks. The Committee notes all of these measures intended to dissuade clandestine migration. It asks the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to protect migrant and national workers who are victims of trafficking and to encourage them to lodge complaints against those responsible for these practices so that the latter can be prosecuted and convicted.

Finally, the Committee notes a draft study on the phenomenon of trafficking and smuggling in human beings in Morocco, undertaken by several international organizations, including the International Organization for Migration, in partnership with the Ministry of Justice. The Committee notes that the research is intended to overcome the lack of information in the field of trafficking in persons and to provide the necessary tools for the analysis of the phenomenon in Morocco, and to allow a clear distinction to be made between practices which constitute trafficking in persons and the illegal smuggling of persons. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress of this study, its conclusions and the recommendations made, as well as on the measures taken by the Government in this context.

2. Freedom of public servants and career members of the armed forces to terminate their employment. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to restrict the possibility of preventing an official from leaving his or her employment to emergency situations and to ensure the freedom of officials to terminate their employment by giving reasonable notice. Indeed, under the terms of sections 77 and 78 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 establishing the general conditions of employment of the public service, the resignation of an official does not come into effect unless it is accepted by the authority vested with the power of appointment. Moreover, the authority may refuse an application to resign in view of the needs of the service or the impossibility of finding a replacement for the official who is resigning. The Government indicated in this regard that, in the majority of cases, public administrations accept resignation requests from officials and that 40,000 officials had benefited from the voluntary departure operation organized in 2005.

In its latest report, the Government confirms that no application to resign has been refused. The Committee recalls that, in the absence of an express provision, the right to resignation is still uncertain. Therefore, it requests the Government to ensure, for example by issuing instructions in this respect, that if a resignation request is turned down on the grounds of the requirements of the service or the impossibility of finding a replacement, the competent authority may not keep the official in her or his employment beyond a reasonable deadline. Please continue to provide information on any application to resign which is refused and the circumstances prompting such refusal.

3. Persecution of vagrancy. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend section 329 of the Penal Code, under the terms of which a vagrant, who is liable to a prison sentence of one to six months, is defined as “any person without a fixed abode or means of subsistence who does not normally exercise an occupation or trade, despite being able to do so, and who is unable to show evidence of having sought employment, or who has refused paid work when it has been offered”. This section contains a definition of vagrancy that is too broad and may accordingly constitute an indirect means of forcing a person to work. The Committee noted that the convictions for vagrancy were only handed down where the offence is accompanied by other offences, including acts of violence, robbery or attempted robbery and begging, and that there had been contacts between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Justice with a view to examining possible ways of bringing the national legislation into line with the Convention.

In its latest report, the Government confirms that the revision of section 329 is envisaged in the context of the next revision of the Penal Code and that, on that occasion, only begging will be regulated. The Committee hopes that the revision of the Penal Code will be carried out in the very near future and will ensure that, in the absence of problems of public order and security, persons without fixed abode or means of subsistence, who are not engaged in any trade or occupation, will not be liable to sanctions.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. Prisoners hired to private individuals or companies. In reply to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the General Delegation of the Prison Administration and Reintegration has not had recourse to section 40 of Act No. 23-98 on the organization and operation of prison establishments, which provides that no prisoner may work for a private individual or company unless this is under a concession and an administrative agreement determining the conditions of employment and remuneration, among other matters. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in future reports on any administrative agreement for the hiring of prison labour which is concluded between the General Delegation for Prison Administration and Reintegration and a private enterprise and, if so, to provide a copy.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention. Requisitioning of persons. For many years the Committee has been emphasizing the need to amend or repeal several legislative texts which authorize the requisitioning of persons and of goods in order to satisfy national needs (the Dahirs of 10 August 1915 and 25 March 1918, as retained in the Dahir of 13 September 1938 and reintroduced by Decree
No. 2-63-436 of 6 November 1963). These provisions go beyond what is authorized under Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention, under the terms of which requisitioning, and consequently the imposition of work, should be confined to situations endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

In view of the consensus obtained with the social partners to amend the provisions of the legislation and the fact that in practice the public authorities do not appear to make use of these provisions for the requisitioning of persons, the Committee expressed the hope in its previous observation that contacts between the Department of Labour and the Ministry of the Interior would rapidly result in the Dahir of 1938 being brought into conformity with the Convention. Noting with regret that the Government has not provided any information on the progress achieved with a view to the amendment of the Dahir of 1938, the Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the national legislation is in conformity with the Convention and with the indicated practice.

Article 25. Effective and strictly applied penal sanctions. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed its reservations concerning the dissuasive nature of the penalties set out in section 12 of the Labour Code against persons requisitioning employees to perform forced labour or to work against their will (a fine of between 25,000 and 30,000 dirhams and, in the event of repeated offences, a fine of double that amount and imprisonment for between six days and three months, or one of these two penalties). The Committee emphasized that recourse to forced labour is a serious offence and that the penalties that may be imposed have to be considered effective enough to be of a really dissuasive nature. In its last report, the Government indicates that the penalties set out in section 12 of the Labour Code are deemed sufficiently repressive and that the courts opt for the penalty that appears to be the most appropriate, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the offence.

The Committee recalls the importance of the penalties set out by the national legislation in cases of the exaction of forced labour being of a penal nature, as required by Article 25 of the Convention, and of them being considered really effective. The Committee has already indicated that a fine or a short prison sentence cannot be considered an effective penalty in view of the gravity of the offence, on the one hand, and the need for the penalties to be of a dissuasive nature, on the other. While noting that the penalties set out in section 12 of the Labour Code correspond to the highest level of penalties established by the Labour Code, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able to re-examine this matter, either in the context of a revision of the Labour Code or by criminalizing forced labour in the Penal Code and making persons who have recourse to forced labour liable to the penalties applicable for criminal offences.

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

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government concerning section 26 of Decree No. 2-00-485 of 3 November 2000, which allows prisoners to be employed outside the penal establishment on work of general interest. According to the Government, this work is carried out for the State or public associations and may not be performed for the benefit of private individuals or companies.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Trafficking in persons. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to specify the provisions of the national legislation under which those responsible for the trafficking of persons in general, and not only young persons, whether for sexual exploitation or labour exploitation, can be prosecuted and penalized. Referring to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which called upon the Government “to acknowledge the existence of prostitution and of the exploitation of sub-Saharan migrants and to establish suitable instruments for the protection, assistance and rehabilitation of victims of trafficking in human beings” (E/CN.4/2004/76/Add.3, paragraph 78), the Committee requested information on the judicial procedures initiated against persons responsible for trafficking and on the protection provided to the victims.

In its last report, the Government refers to the provisions of the Penal Code which incriminate prostitution and procuring, as well as to Act No. 02-03 concerning the entry and residence of foreigners in the Kingdom of Morocco, illegal emigration and immigration. The Government also refers to the setting up of cooperation mechanisms and partnerships to dissuade clandestine migration movements (strengthening bilateral cooperation in legal matters and between the Moroccan police force and its counterparts in destination countries; awareness campaigns conducted by the media and NGOs). While noting this information, the Committee observes that the legislation still does not contain provisions specifically condemning the trafficking of persons. It hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to adopt the relevant legislation in this respect in the very near future. In order to combat effectively this phenomenon, it is vital that the legislation should specifically define what constitutes the trafficking of persons, both for the purposes of exploitation of their work and sexual exploitation, and provide for dissuasive penalties to punish perpetrators. The Committee is aware of the difficulties encountered by Morocco, a traditional emigration country, which has become in the past few years a transit country for a considerable migration flow from sub‑Saharan Africa to Europe. In this respect, the Committee stresses that it is important to identify, from among the illegal immigrants, those who are victims of trafficking and exploited for their work, on account of their vulnerable situation. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken to identify these victims to encourage them to go to the authorities to denounce their situation and to guarantee them protection. The Government is also asked to indicate the activities carried out to raise awareness on these issues among the competent authorities (police force and judicial authorities), and the difficulties encountered by these authorities. Finally, the Committee would like the Government to provide information on the court decisions handed down in the case of individuals involved in the trafficking in persons, specifying the nature of the penalties imposed.

2. Freedom of public servants and career members of the armed forces to terminate their employment. Under sections 77 and 78 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958, establishing the general conditions of employment of the public service, the resignation of an official does not come into effect unless it is accepted by the authority vested with the power of nomination. In the event of refusal, the person concerned may bring the case before the Joint Administrative Committee. Noting the criteria applied in accepting or rejecting a resignation request (needs of the service and impossibility of finding a replacement for the official who is resigning), the Committee had requested the Government to amend the legislation with a view to restricting the possibility of preventing an official from leaving his or her employment to emergency situations and to ensure the freedom of officials to terminate their employment by giving reasonable notice. In its last report, the Government points out that the Ministry of the Public Service considers that section 77 takes account of the balance that must exist between the principle of the continuity of public service and the right of civil servants to leave their employment. It adds that, in the majority of cases, the public administrations accept the resignation requests from officials. Finally, in the context of the reform of the public administration, an operation was launched in January 2005 to enable various categories of public servants to profit from “voluntary departures”, accompanied by a severance allowance; they also upheld their retirement benefits. The Committee takes note of this information and the fact that 40,000 public servants profited from this operation. It requests the Government to specify whether this operation of voluntary departures is still continuing. It also hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures, for example by issuing instructions in this respect, to ensure that, if a resignation request is turned down on the grounds of the needs of the service or the impossibility of finding a replacement, the competent authority will ensure that the official is not kept on in his or her employment beyond a reasonable deadline. The Government is asked to provide information on the number of requests for resignation turned down and the circumstances prompting these refusals.

3. Persecution of vagrancy. For a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to section 329 of the Penal Code which gives too broad a definition of vagrancy which could constitute an indirect means of forcing a person to work. A vagrant, who is liable to a prison sentence of one to six months, is defined as “any person without a fixed home or means of subsistence, who does not normally exercise an occupation or trade despite being able to do so and who is unable to show evidence of having sought employment, or has refused paid work when it has been offered”. The Committee had noted the information provided by the Government, according to which this section did not apply to persons without employment or who had their own means of subsistence, such as an inheritance, nor to persons who had sought employment without success, but only applied to persons whose failure to work was likely to become a nuisance to others, particularly if they had no abode or means of subsistence. It had also noted that none of the convictions for vagrancy cited by the Government related to convictions based on the mere offence of vagrancy alone. On the contrary, they related to convictions for the offence of vagrancy accompanied by other offences, including acts of violence, robbery or attempted robbery and begging.

In its last report, the Government points out that, following the visit of an ILO multidisciplinary team to Morocco in December 2006, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Justice have made contact with a view to examining possible ways of bringing national legislation in line with the Convention. The Committee takes note of this information and hopes that these initial contacts will result in the adoption of specific measures to amend the provisions of section 329 of the Penal Code, so as to ensure that the legislation reflects the practice followed by the courts and to guarantee that persons with no fixed address or means of subsistence, who are not engaged in any occupation or trade, and who are not disturbing the public order or security in any way, cannot be classified as vagrants.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. Prisoners hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals or companies. In reply to the Committee’s comments, the Government points out that the prison administration has never applied the possibility provided under section 40 of Act No. 23-98 concerning the organization and operation of penal establishments. This section provides that no prisoner can work for a private individual or company, unless this is under a concession or an administrative agreement fixing the conditions of employment and remuneration. The Committee takes note of this information. It would like the Government to indicate, in its next reports, whether the prison administration has amended, or envisages amending, its practice, by entering into administrative agreements with private enterprises in order to assign prison labour. In this respect, it recalls that the employment of prisoners by private persons can only be compatible with the Convention if the conditions under which the work is carried out approximate those of a free labour relationship.

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

Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention. Requisitioning of persons. In its previous comment, the Committee once again stressed the need to amend or repeal several legislative texts which authorize the requisitioning of persons and goods in order to satisfy national needs (the Dahirs of 10 August 1915 and 25 March 1918, as retained in the Dahir of 13 September 1938 and reintroduced by Decree No. 2-63-436 of 6 November 1963). Indeed, these provisions went beyond what is authorized under Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention, according to which requisitioning, and constantly imposing work, should be strictly limited to situations endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

In its report, the Government points out that the Labour Directorate is in constant contact with the Ministry of the Interior in order to review the provisions of the Dahir of 1938 to bring it into conformity with the Convention, and that the public authorities have never, in practice, resorted to the requisitioning of persons. The Committee takes note of this information. It points out that, in its 2003 report, the Government had already referred to an agreement with the social partners to repeal this decree. Given the number of years that have lapsed since its first comments on the matter, the general consensus that the provisions of the legislation should be changed and the fact that, in practice, these provisions have never allegedly been used, the Committee hopes that the contacts with the Ministry of the Interior will result in the adoption of specific legislative measures without further delay.

Article 25. Imposition of really effective penalties. In its last comments, the Committee expressed its reservations as to the dissuasive nature of the penalties against persons guilty of exacting forced labour in the legislation. According to sections 10 and 12 of the new Labour Code, any employer in breach of the prohibition to requisition employees to perform forced labour or to work against their will, is liable to a fine of between 25,000 and 30,000 dirhams and, in the event of a repeated offence, a fine of double that amount and imprisonment for between six days and three months, or one of these two penalties. Only cases of repeated violations of the prohibition of forced labour may be penalized by a prison sentence, although the judge might, however, opt for a mere fine if he or she considers it appropriate.

In its report, the Government points out that the fines provided under section 12 of the Labour Code are the maximum provided under this legislation, and that a prison sentence has serious consequences for the person involved because he or she is subsequently illegible for public office or able to compete for public markets. The Committee takes note of these details. Given the seriousness of the offence of resorting to forced labour, the Committee is of the opinion that the penalties imposed must be effective enough to ensure that they are truly of a dissuasive nature. The Committee hopes that the Government will re-examine this matter, either in the context of a revision of the Labour Code or by criminalizing forced labour in the Penal Code and establishing the corresponding penalties for offences or crimes.

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

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Repression of vagrancy. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 329 of the Penal Code, persons convicted of vagrancy may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of between one and six months. It noted the information provided by the Government that this section does not apply to persons without employment who have their own means of subsistence, such as an inheritance, nor to persons who have sought employment without success, but only applies to persons whose failure to work is likely to become a nuisance to others, particularly if they have no abode or means of subsistence. In practice, the courts endeavour to establish adequate proof, such as the absence of a fixed address and means of subsistence, a person’s failure to work despite being able to do so, failure to provide evidence of having sought work unsuccessfully, or refusal of employment when offered. The Committee noted with interest the fact that none of the convictions for vagrancy cited by the Government related to convictions based on the mere offence of vagrancy alone. On the contrary, they related to convictions for the offence of vagrancy accompanied by other offences, including acts of violence, robbery or attempted robbery and begging. The Committee nevertheless drew the Government’s attention to section 329 of the Penal Code, which provides a much broader definition of vagrancy than that applied by the courts, since this section defines as a vagrant "any person without a fixed home or means of subsistence, who does not normally exercise an occupation or trade despite being able to do so and who is unable to show evidence of having sought employment, or has refused paid work when it has been offered". Such a definition could constitute an indirect means of forcing a person to work. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided any information on this subject in its latest reports. It once again requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to amend section 329 of the Penal Code so as to ensure that the legislation reflects the practice followed by the courts and to guarantee that persons with no fixed address or means of subsistence, who are not engaged in any occupation or trade, and who are not disturbing the public order or security in any way, cannot be classified as vagrants and punished with the penalty envisaged in section 329 of the Penal Code.

Article 2, paragraph 2 (c). Labour exacted from convicted persons. Work of general interest. The Committee notes that section 26 of Decree No. 2-00-485 of 3 November 2000 determining the means of application of Act No. 23-98 envisages the possibility of convicts being employed outside the establishment on work of general interest. So that it can assess the effect that this provision may have on the application of the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to specify whether such work may be performed for the benefit of private individuals or companies, including associations. If so, please provide information on the conditions under which such work is performed (the consent of convicted persons, the types of work performed, working hours, etc.).

Trafficking in persons. In its previous comments, the Committee requested more detailed information on the measures adopted by the Government to combat the trafficking in persons, particularly with regard to points 1(b), 2 and 3 of its general observation of 2001. In its last two reports, the Government has not provided specific information in this respect. It nevertheless refers to certain amendments made to the Penal Code, and particularly section 467-1, which establishes a penalty of imprisonment of between two and ten years and a fine for the sale of young persons under 18 years of age. The sale of young persons is understood to mean any act or transaction involving the transfer of a young person from any individual or group of individuals to another individual or group of individuals in exchange for remuneration. While noting this provision with interest, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the provisions of the national legislation under which those responsible for the trafficking of persons in general, and not only young persons, whether for sexual exploitation or labour exploitation, can be prosecuted and penalized.

The Committee notes that, in the report on her visit to Morocco in October 2003, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations called upon the Government "to acknowledge the existence of prostitution and of the exploitation of sub-Saharan migrants and to establish suitable instruments for the protection, assistance and rehabilitation of victims of trafficking in human beings" (E/CN.4/2004/76/Add.3, paragraph 78). In the debate which followed the presentation of this report, the representative of Morocco indicated that, in its awareness of the gravity and complexity of this phenomenon, Morocco had adopted a strategy in which priority was given in government action to combating networks for the trafficking in human beings. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted in the context of this strategy and the results achieved. Please provide information on the prosecution of persons responsible for such trafficking, the judicial procedures initiated against them, the manner in which victims of trafficking have been encouraged to turn to the authorities and the protection provided to them, as well as the difficulties encountered by the public authorities in preventing and combating the trafficking in persons.

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

Article 2, paragraph 2 (c), of the Convention. Prison work. Prisoners hired to private enterprises or individuals. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under the terms of section 40 of Act No. 23-98 concerning the organization and operation of penal establishments, no prisoner may work for a private individual or organization other than under the concession system and under the terms of an administrative agreement determining the conditions of employment and remuneration. This possibility was already envisaged in the Dahir of 26 June 1930 which, for many years, the Committee had requested the Government to repeal or amend. In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, prison labour is not considered to be forced labour on condition that the prisoner is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The employment of prisoners by private individuals could only be compatible with the Convention in so far as the conditions under which it is carried out approximate those of a free employment relationship (see paragraphs 97-101 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour). In the absence of information provided by the Government in its last reports on this subject, the Committee once again requests it to indicate whether the possibility envisaged in the section 40 of Act No. 23-98 referred to above has been used in practice and, if so, to provide copies of the corresponding administrative agreements and information on the manner in which it is ensured that the consent of the prisoners is given freely, the level of the wages paid to them and their other conditions of work.

Article 2, paragraph 2(d). Requisitioning of persons. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend or repeal several legislative texts which authorize the requisitioning of persons and goods in order to satisfy national needs (the Dahirs of 10 August 1915 and 25 March 1918, as contained in the Dahir of 13 September 1938 and reintroduced by Decree No. 2-63-436 of 6 November 1963). The Committee requested the Government to take steps to ensure that requisitioning could only be decided upon under conditions strictly limited to situations endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population. It noted that, according to the Government, the only cases in which the provisions allowing for the requisitioning of goods and persons could be invoked were emergencies within the meaning of the Convention and that recourse to requisitioning had to be based on the necessity to satisfy urgent needs, under circumstances of extreme difficulty, in order to protect the nation’s vital interests (for example, in cases of war, natural disasters or major accidents). The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report in 2003 that this issue was debated during discussions held with the social partners and that the accord concluded following these discussions contains a specific provision on the need to repeal the Decree of 13 September 1938. The Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report the adoption of the necessary measures to amend the national legislation so as to limit the requisitioning of persons to situations endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

Article 25. Imposition of really effective penal sanctions. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the absence in the national legislation of any penal sanctions against persons guilty of exaction of forced labour, whereas under Article 25 of the Convention, the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour must be subject to really adequate and strictly enforced penal sanctions. In this respect, the Government refers to sections 10 and 12 of the new Labour Code, which prohibit the requisitioning of employees to perform forced labour or to work against their will. Any employer in breach of this prohibition is liable to a fine of between 25,000 and 30,000 dirhams and, in the event of a repeated offence, a fine of double that amount and imprisonment for between six days and three months, or one of these two penalties. The Committee notes these provisions but expresses reservations as to the dissuasive nature of these penalties. Indeed, only cases of repeated violations of the prohibition of forced labour could be penalized by a prison sentence, although the judge could however opt for a mere fine if he or she considered it appropriate. Furthermore, the maximum prison sentence which could be imposed is short (from six days to three months).

At the same time, the Committee notes that, among the changes made to the Penal Code, new section 467-1 punishes any person who exploits a child under 15 years of age for forced labour, acts as an intermediary or causes such exploitation with a sentence of imprisonment of from one to three years and a fine. The Committee requests the Government to re-examine the penalties under the Labour Code and provide information on the manner in which the imposition of adequate and dissuasive penal sanctions are ensured against any person who has recourse to forced labour, irrespective of the age of the victims.

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2. Freedom of public servants and career members of the armed forces to terminate their employment. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under the terms of section 77 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 establishing the general conditions of employment of the public service, the resignation of an official does not come into effect unless it is accepted by the authority vested with the power of nomination. In the event of refusal, the person concerned may bring the case before the Joint Administrative Committee, and the criteria which were applied in accepting or rejecting a resignation request were the needs of the service and whether or not it was possible to find a similarly qualified or specialized replacement for the official who was resigning. Under these conditions, the Committee requested the Government to amend the legislation with a view to restricting the possibility of preventing an official from leaving his or her employment, to emergency situations and to ensure the freedom of officials to terminate their employment by reasonable notice.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in the context of the accord concluded by the social partners and the Government, the Ministry sent a letter to the competent department with a view to repealing section 77 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted for this purpose and to provide a copy of any text that is adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

Also referring to its observation, the Committee takes note of the Government’s reports and asks it to communicate information on the following point.

Article 2, paragraph 1
Punishment of vagrancy

In its previous direct requests, the Committee had asked the Government to supply detailed information on the application in practice of section 329 of the Penal Code, under which persons convicted of vagrancy can be sentenced to a period of one to six months’ imprisonment. The Committee notes the Government’s information, according to which section 329 does not apply to unemployed persons with their own means of subsistence, for example from an inheritance, or to persons who have sought employment without success; it applies only to persons whose failure to work is likely to become a nuisance to others, in particular if they have no home and no means of subsistence. The Committee notes that in practice the courts endeavour to establish adequate proof, such as the absence of a fixed address and means of subsistence, a person’s failure to work despite being able to do so, failure to supply evidence of having sought work unsuccessfully, or refusal of employment when offered. The Committee also notes the cases indicated in the report of persons who have been sentenced for vagrancy. The Committee notes with interest the fact that none of the cases enumerated by the Government relate to convictions based on the mere fact of vagrancy alone, but on the contrary, relate to convictions for multiple offences, that is, vagrancy accompanied by other offences, including acts of violence, robbery or attempted robbery and begging. The Committee notes, however, that the terms of section 329 of the Penal Code provide a much broader definition of vagrancy than the one applied by the courts, since this section defines as a vagrant "anyone without a fixed home or means of subsistence, who does not normally exercise an occupation or trade despite being able to do so and who is unable to show evidence of having sought employment, or has refused work when it has been offered". Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the actual practice of the courts in this area is reflected in law by amending section 329 of the Penal Code in such a way that it no longer defines as vagrants persons who, even if they have no fixed address, means of subsistence or employment, pose no threat to public order or safety.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention

Prison work

1. For many years, the Committee has been asking the Government to repeal or amend the Dahir of 26 June 1930 which allows prisoners to be handed over to and employed by private enterprises. Although this Dahir was repealed by Act No. 23-98 concerning the organization and operation of penal establishments, promulgated by Dahir No. 1-99-200 of 25 August 1999, the Committee notes that section 40 of the Act provides for the possibility of a prisoner to work for a private individual or organization under an administrative agreement fixing the conditions of employment and remuneration. The Committee recalls that employment of prisoners by private individuals would not be compatible with the Convention, unless the conditions under which the work is carried out were similar to those that apply in a free labour relationship. The Committee refers on this point to paragraphs 97 to 101 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, paragraphs 82 to 146 of its 2001 General Report, especially paragraph 143, which defines what is to be understood as a free labour relationship, as well as to its 2002 general observation, in particular paragraphs 10 and 11. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the procedures for concluding the administrative agreement in question, measures taken to ensure that prisoners consent freely (that is, have a genuine choice as to whether or not to work, without pressure or threats of any form of penalty), wages paid and other conditions of work, in particular, the application of labour law, social security coverage and safety and health.

2. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its 1999 general observation on prisoners working for private enterprises. In this regard, the Committee notes that there are no private prisons, or prisons managed by private companies, in Morocco, and notes also that there is no legislation authorizing individuals to enter prisons for the purpose of hiring prisoners. Furthermore, prisoners do not work outside prison premises, with the exception of those employed to do agricultural work for the prison, in which case the consent of the prisoners is required and they must be paid. Such work is done as part of the training and re-education of the prisoners and in order to facilitate their reintegration. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether there are private enterprises using prisoners in prison establishments, either for themselves or on behalf of other enterprises, and whether the prisoners who are allowed to work outside prisons to do agricultural work can be employed by private enterprises or individuals and, if so, to supply information on the safeguards that apply in respect of prisoners’ freely given consent. The Committee notes that the joint Order of the Ministers of Justice and Economics and Finance, No. 239-00 of 3 February 2000 enacted under the terms of section 45 of Act No. 23-98 referred to above, sets the rate of remuneration of each prisoner carrying out work in prison at six dirhams a day. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the rate of remuneration of prisoners employed outside prison premises.

3. The Committee notes that section 26 of Decree No. 2-00-485 of 3 November 2000 establishing procedures for implementing Act No. 23-98 provides for the possibility of convicts to be employed outside the prison on work of benefit to the community. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether such work can be carried out for the benefit of private parties, be they individuals or companies, and to communicate information on the practical arrangements for carrying out this work.

Article 2, paragraph 2(d)

Call-up of persons

4. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to a number of legislative texts which authorized the calling up of persons and the requisitioning of goods in order to satisfy national needs (the Dahirs of 10 August 1915 and 25 March 1918, as contained in the Dahir of 13 September 1938 and reintroduced by Decree No. 2-63-436 of 6 November 1963). The Committee had requested the Government to take steps to ensure that calling up could only take place in situations endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population. The Committee noted that according to the Government, the only cases in which the provisions allowing the requisitioning of goods and the calling up of persons may be invoked are emergencies within the meaning of the Convention and that recourse to such measures must be based on the necessity of satisfying urgent needs, under circumstances of extreme difficulty, in order to protect the nation’s vital interests (for example, war, natural disasters or major accidents). The Committee had expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures in the very near future to give legislative expression to this practice, by repealing or amending the aforementioned provisions. Since the Government has not communicated any information on this point in its most recent reports, the Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will soon repeal or amend the legislation in question and supply information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the conditions under which persons can be called up are strictly limited to situations endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

Article 25

5. The Committee previously also drew attention to the absence in national legislation of any penal sanctions against persons guilty of the illegal exaction of forced labour, and recalled that Article 25 of the Convention stipulates that the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour must be subject to really adequate and strictly enforced penal sanctions. The Committee takes note of the information in the Government’s report to the effect that under the terms of section 10 of the draft Labour Code, the exaction of forced labour is prohibited and liable to criminal sanctions. The Committee notes that the draft Labour Code is currently being discussed by Parliament. The Committee reiterates its hope that this legislation will be adopted soon, and requests the Government to supply a copy once it has been adopted.

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention

Freedom of public servants and career members of the armed forces to terminate their employment

6. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that, under the terms of section 77 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 establishing the General Conditions of Employment of the Public Service, the resignation of an official does not come into effect unless it is accepted by the authority within whose competence the power of appointment lies, and in the event of refusal by the competent authority the person concerned may bring the case before the Joint Administrative Committee, which issues a reasoned opinion for transmission to the competent authority. The Committee noted the information provided by the Government to the effect that the criteria applied in accepting or rejecting a resignation request are the needs of the service and whether or not it is possible to find a similarly qualified replacement for the official who is resigning. Furthermore, since this is an administrative decision, a refusal of the resignation request, like any other administrative decision, can be challenged before the competent jurisdiction on grounds of exceeding authority. The Committee had referred to paragraphs 67-73 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it had expressed the view that legislation under which workers may in emergency situations be prevented from leaving employment does not affect the observance of the Convention in so far as the power is limited to what is necessary to cope with cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention. The Committee took the view that the worker’s right to free choice of employment remains inalienable, and that legislation preventing an employee from terminating his employment by a reasonable period of notice has the effect of transforming a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law and is thus incompatible with the Convention. Since no information has been communicated by the Government on this point in its most recent reports, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend the legislation with a view to restricting the possibility of preventing an official from leaving his or her employment to emergency situations, and to ensure the freedom of officials to terminate their employment by reasonable notice. The Committee again asks the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or planned to this end, and to provide a copy of the provisions governing the resignation of career officials.

Reply of the Government to the general observation of 2001

7. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its general observation of 2001, in particular regarding the provisions of national legislation to punish the exploitation of the prostitution of others. The Committee would like to have had more detailed information on points 1(b), 2 and 3, in particular with regard to measures taken to combat trafficking in persons.

In addition, the Committee raises another matter in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

1. Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention. In its earlier observation concerning the freedom of public servants and career members of the armed forces to terminate their employment, the Committee noted that, under the terms of section 77 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 establishing the General Conditions of Employment of the Public Service, the resignation of an official does not come into effect unless it is accepted by the authority within whose competence the power of appointment lies, and in the event of refusal by the competent authority the person concerned may bring the case before the Joint Administrative Committee, which issues a reasoned opinion for transmission to the competent authority. In this regard, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government to the effect that the criteria applied in accepting or rejecting a resignation request are the needs of the service and whether or not it is possible to find a similarly qualified replacement for the official who is resigning. Furthermore, since this is an administrative decision, a refusal of the resignation request, like any other administrative decision, can be challenged before the competent jurisdiction on grounds of exceeding authority.

Taking this information into account, the Committee considered in its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour (see paragraphs 67 to 73), that legislation under which workers may in emergency situations be prevented from leaving employment does not affect the observance of the Convention in so far as the power is limited to what is necessary to cope with cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention. In the opinion of the Committee, the worker's right to free choice of employment remains inalienable. The Committee therefore considered that legislation preventing an employee from terminating his employment by a reasonable period of notice has the effect of transforming a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law and is thus incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend the legislation with a view to restricting the possibility of preventing an official from leaving his or her employment to emergency situations, and to ensure the freedom of officials to terminate their employment by reasonable notice. In the meantime, the Committee hopes that the Government will communicate information on any decision in this matter by the jurisdictions in question. The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or planned and to provide a copy of the provisions governing the resignation of career officials.

2. Article 2, paragraph 1. Further to its previous direct request the Committee refers once again to section 329 of the Penal Code, which provides for a sentence of imprisonment of from one to six months for persons convicted of vagrancy. With particular regard to the comments made by the Committee in paragraphs 45 to 48 of the 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, relating to vagrancy, the Committee again requests the Government to supply detailed information on the application in practice of section 329 of the Penal Code and to provide a copy of any decision taken in implementation of this provision including the length of the sentence, and to indicate the number of persons concerned, so that it can assess whether the legislation and practice are in conformity with the Convention.

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

1. Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2(a), of the Convention. The Committee notes with satisfaction that the provisions relating to civic service which had been the subject of previous comments were repealed by the Dahir issuing Act No. 46-97-1 of 4 Chaoual 1417 (12 February 1997), confirming the practice according to which persons called up are made available to public administrations only if they so request. The Committee is once again drawing attention to another aspect of these provisions of the Convention in a direct request.

2. Article 2, paragraph 2(c). The Committee previously requested the Government to repeal or amend the Dahir of 26 June 1930, which allowed prisoners to be assigned to and employed by private enterprises. The Committee noted that the Government had always indicated that the law in question had not been applied since independence. The Committee notes the information in the Government's last report to the effect that the Bill on penal establishments which prohibits the employment of prisoners by private enterprises or for the benefit of private individuals is being studied by a joint committee consisting of representatives of the Justice Department and the General Secretariat of the Government. The Committee takes note of the Government's statement to the effect that the Bill will be adopted in the very near future and that a copy will be communicated as soon as it has been finalized. The Committee hopes that the Bill will be adopted swiftly and that it will be possible to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention in this area.

3. Article 2, paragraph 2(d). The Committee previously drew the Government's attention to a number of legislative texts which authorized the calling up of persons and the requisitioning of goods in order to satisfy national needs (the Dahirs of 10 August 1915 and 25 March 1918, as contained in the Dahir of 13 September 1938 and reintroduced by Decree No. 2-63-436 of 6 November 1963). The Committee requested the Government to take steps to ensure that calling up could only take place in situations endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the only cases in which the provisions allowing the requisitioning of goods and the calling up of persons may be invoked are emergencies within the meaning of the Convention; and recourse to such measures must be based on the necessity of satisfying urgent needs, under circumstances of extreme difficulty, in order to protect the nation's vital interests (for example, war, natural disasters, major accidents). The Committee notes that in order to formalize this practice in legislation, so as to be in conformity with the spirit of the Convention, the Government advises that the Department of Employment will inform the competent authorities. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in the very near future to give legislative expression to this practice, by repealing or amending the aforementioned provisions. It requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any progress made in this area.

4. Article 25. In its previous comments, the Committee drew attention to the absence in national legislation of any penal sanctions on persons guilty of the illegal exaction of forced labour. The Committee recalled that this Article of the Convention stipulates that the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour must be subject to really adequate and strictly enforced penal sanctions. The Committee takes note of the Government's statement that the draft Labour Code which formalizes the prohibition of the illegal exaction of forced labour provides penal sanctions of a sufficiently deterrent nature, to ensure the application of the Convention, and that it will be discussed on a tripartite basis in the very near future. The Committee hopes that the draft Labour Code will be adopted soon. It requests the Government to provide in its next report comprehensive information on any progress made in the discussions and a copy of the Labour Code as soon as it is adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that section 329 of the Penal Code provides a penal sanction of from one to six months' imprisonment for persons convicted of vagrancy.

The Committee refers to paragraphs 45 to 48 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour which specify that only provisions relating to vagrancy and similar offences that are intended to protect society against disturbances of public order and tranquillity by persons who not only refuse to work but are also without any legal means of subsistence are compatible with the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information on the application in practice of section 329 of the Penal Code.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

1. Article 2, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention.The Committee has previously drawn the Government's attention to the civic service established under section 4 of Royal Decree No. 137-66 (institution and organization of military service) and sections 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9 of the Dahir to issue Act No. 1-73-415. Under the provisions mentioned above, all holders of certain higher academic qualifications have to do civic service for a period of two years (section 1). Those subject to civic service are called up by individual order and made available to public administrations on conditions set by decision of the government authorities (section 5). On the basis of section 15, any person found guilty of deliberately avoiding or having tried deliberately to avoid civic service will be punished by imprisonment of from one to three months and a fine of 1,200 to 5,000 dirhams, or one of these sanctions only. These sanctions are applicable to persons liable to civic service who, without a valid reason, have not replied to the summons to appear before the special selection committee or a call-up order from the military authorities.

The Committee notes the Government's indications to the effect that, first, the requests and training of the persons concerned and the needs of the administration are taken into consideration in making recruits available for civic service and, secondly, civic service is considered as a period of training in the public administration received by qualified persons after which they are often, at their request, recruited into the units where they carried out their civic service.

The Committee observes that the voluntary nature of civic service is not clear from the provisions mentioned and that execution of the service is ensured by the threat of imprisonment and/or a fine.

The Committee again asks the Government to take the necessary measures to include in legislation the practice -- which the Government states exists already -- under which recruits are made available to public administrations only if they so request.

2. Article 2, paragraph 2(c).For many years, the Committee has been asking the Government to repeal or amend the Dahir of 26 June 1930 which allows prisoners to be handed over to and employed by private enterprises.

The Committee noted the previous reports in which the Government indicated that this law has not been applied since Morocco gained independence and that a draft reform of the prison system repealing the Dahir of 1930 was in preparation.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its most recent report to the effect that section 39 of the Bill on penal establishments prohibits the employment of prisoners by private enterprises or in aid of private individuals and the Government's information to the effect that the Consultative Council on Human Rights adopted the Bill after examining its conformity with the international conventions on human rights.

Considering this matter has been subject of comments since 1962, the Committee expresses strongly the hope that the new law will be adopted in the near future, bearing in mind the requirements of the Convention, and that a copy of the text adopted will be supplied.

3. Article 2, paragraph 2(d). For many years the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to a number of legislative texts contrary to the Convention. These are the Dahirs of 10 August 1915 and 25 March 1918, contained in the Dahir of 13 September 1938, as reintroduced by Decree No. 2-63-436 of 6 November 1963, authorizing the calling up of persons and the requisitioning of goods in order to satisfy national needs.

The Committee also noted the comments made by the CDT and UGTM to the effect that these provisions are still in force and were applied in times of strike, and the statement by a government representative in 1992 to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards that application of the right of requisition is limited in practice to exceptional situations, where the population's life and normal living conditions are at risk. The Committee asked the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the provisions relating to the calling up of persons, including the decrees on requisition and the sanctions imposed for lack of compliance.

The Committee notes that the Government's reports contain no information on these matters.

The Committee expresses strongly the hope that the Government will repeal or amend in the very near future the above-mentioned legislative texts and will supply information on the measures taken or contemplated to ensure that the circumstances allowing the calling up of persons will be limited strictly to situations endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

4. Article 25. For several years, the Committee has been pointing out to the Government the absence from the national laws, of penal sanctions on persons guilty of the illegal exaction of forced labour.

Since 1969, the Government has been referring to a draft Labour Code which would satisfy the requirements of the Convention on this matter. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the draft Labour Code in its final version, transmitted to the Chamber of Deputies for adoption, provides that offences against section 39 on the prohibition of forced or compulsory labour shall be punished by a fine of between 3,000 and 5,000 dirhams.

The Committee notes this information but points out that Article 25 of the Convention lays down that the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be subject to really adequate and strictly enforced penal sanctions.

The Committee therefore expresses the hope that the Labour Code which will be adopted shortly will also ensure compliance with the Convention on this matter and that the text of the new law will be supplied.

5. Freedom of public servants and career members of the armed forces to terminate their employment.The Committee noted that under section 77 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 establishing the General Conditions of Employment of the Public Service, the resignation of an official does not come into effect unless it is accepted by the authority within whose competence the power of appointment lies and that, in the event of refusal, the person concerned may place the case before the Joint Administrative Committee which issues a reasoned opinion for transmission to the competent authority.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether the provisions of sections 77 and 78 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 are still in force and, if so, to specify the criteria applied by the competent authorities in accepting or rejecting a resignation request and by the Joint Administrative Committee in support of its opinion.

The Committee recalls its request for information regarding the situation of various categories of persons in the service of the State, particularly with reference to their freedom to leave the service on their own initiative, after a reasonable time, either at specified intervals or by giving notice. The Committee notes that the latest report contains no information on this matter.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to supply the text of the provisions applicable to the resignation of career members of the armed forces.

The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government on another point.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received and 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 following matters raised in its previous direct request:

1. Article 2, paragraph 2(a) of the Convention. The Committee has previously drawn the Government's attention to the non-conformity with the provisions of the Convention of section 4 of Royal Decree No. 137-66 concerning the institution and organisation of military service, under which certain recruits may be made available to public administrations for work in the general interest. The Government indicated previously that this practice was not systematic and did not duplicate other economic policy measures or regular vocational training programmes, and that the recruits were only placed at the disposal of public administrations on a voluntary basis and under conditions of extreme necessity. The Committee requested the Government to supply details on present practice regarding the use of recruits for work in the general interest and to indicate the nature of the work and the number of recruits affected.

The Committee noted the information in the Government's report for the period ending 30 June 1990 to the effect that certain recruits were placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Primary Education to substitute for regular teachers away on retraining courses in 1969-71; others were placed at the disposal of the State Secretariat for Planning to assist in processing the general census forms in 1971 and 1972. The Government indicates that there have been no other cases of recruits being made available and that in the above cases this was generally done with the consent of the persons concerned. The Committee also notes the Government's indications that there has been no further application of the provisions in question; it hopes once again that the Government will take the necessary measures to give statutory effect to the practice of placing recruits at the disposal of public administrations only with their consent.

2. The Committee notes the Government's indications that it will provide information on the other matters raised in the previous direct request as soon as it has been communicated by the competent departments. The Committee recalls that these matters concern the following points:

(a) The Committee has noted that by virtue of sections 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9 of the Dahir to issue Act No. 1-73-415 of 13 August 1973, a civic service is established for the holders of certain higher academic qualifications who are placed at the disposal of administrations in return for remuneration; that civic and military service cannot be combined; and that those officials who have performed two years' service before finally becoming entitled to the academic qualification are exempted from civic service. The Committee has also noted that by virtue of Decree No. 2-80-658 of 12 April 1982, a proportion of the recruits to civic service may be obliged to undergo a 15 month period of military instruction.

Referring to the explanations given in paragraphs 24 to 33 and 49 to 62 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of the above-mentioned provisions, and in particular the number of holders of certain degrees recruited to perform civic service, their assignment under the provisions of section 6 (as amended) of the Dahir of 13 August 1973, and the possibility of the recruits choosing between civic and military service.

(b) Freedom of public servants and career members of the armed forces to terminate their employment. The Committee recalls its request for information regarding national legislation and practice concerning the situation of various categories of persons in the service of the State, and particularly with reference to their freedom to leave the service on their own initiative after a reasonable time, either at specified intervals, or by giving notice. The Committee has noted that, by virtue of section 77 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 establishing the General Conditions of Employment of the Public Service, the resignation of an official does not come into effect unless it is accepted by the authority within whose competence the power of appointment lies; in the event of refusal by the competent authority, the person concerned may, under section 78, place the case before the Joint Administrative Committee, which issues a reasoned opinion for transmission to the competent authority.

The Committee again requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether these provisions are still in force and, if so, to specify the criteria applied by the competent authorities in accepting or rejecting a resignation request and by the Joint Administrative Committee in support of its opinions.

The Committee also once again requests the Government to communicate the text of the provisions applicable to the resignation of career members of the armed forces.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes that the Government has not supplied any report. It also notes that the Government has not supplied a reply to the observations made by the Democratic Confederation of Workers (CDT) and the General Union of Workers of Morocco (UGTM) in March 1991 concerning the application of the Convention.

The Committee must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following points:

1. Article 25 of the Convention. In the comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has referred to the absence from the national laws of penal sanctions for the illegal exaction of forced labour. Since 1969, the Government has referred to a draft Labour Code which is to provide for the prohibition of forced or compulsory labour enforceable by penal sanctions. The Committee asks the Government to report on the progress of the draft Labour Code which, according to the Government's previous indications, was to be submitted to Parliament. It hopes that the Labour Code will be adopted shortly and that it will bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention in this respect. 2. Article 2, paragraph 2(c). In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government's statement that the Dahir of 26 June 1930 concerning the employment of prisoners by private enterprises has not been applied since Morocco gained independence and that it is planned to repeal it in the draft legislation respecting the reform of the prison system. The Committee hopes that the planned amendments to the legislation, to which the Government has been referring for many years, will be adopted in the near future and that the Government will provide the text of the provisions that ensure observance of the Convention on this point. 3. Article 2, paragraph 2(a). The Committee noted the information provided by the Government concerning the provisions under which military recruits may be assigned to work in the general interest and the provisions introducing civic service for certain holders of higher academic qualifications. The Committee is again addressing a direct request on this subject to the Government. 4. Article 2, paragraph 2(d). For many years the Committee has been referring to the provisions of the Dahirs of 10 August 1915 and 25 March 1918, contained in the Dahir of 13 September 1938, as reintroduced by Decree No. 2-63-436 of 6 November 1963, authorising the calling up of persons and the requisitioning of goods in order to satisfy national needs.

The Committee also referred to a Bill amending provisions on the right to call up persons and noted that, although some of the situations envisaged in the Bill were within the limits of Article 2, paragraph 2(d), that was not necessarily the case for others (for example, public transport or the installation or maintenance of public services, other than those essential for the life of the nation, which are also covered by the Bill).

The Committee notes that, in the observations they have made, CDT and UGTM regret that these provisions are still in force and have been applied in strikes.

The Committee again requests the Government to indicate the measures that have been taken or are contemplated to repeal the provisions of the texts mentioned above respecting the right to call up persons, which are incompatible with Article 2, paragraph 2(d) of the Convention, and also to indicate the measures that have been taken or are contemplated with respect to the Bill and the draft implementing Decree to be issued thereunder, which had also been mentioned by the Government, to ensure that, under the legislation, the conditions conferring the right to call up persons are expressly limited to situations endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee hopes that the Government will reply to the observations of CDT and UGTM.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in its report.

1. Article 2, paragraphs 2(a) of the Convention. The Committee has previously drawn the Government's attention to the non-conformity with the provisions of the Convention of section 4 of Royal Decree No. 137-66 concerning the institution and organisation of military service, under which certain recruits may be made available to public administrations for work of a general nature. The Government indicated previously that this practice was not systematic and did not duplicate other economic policy measures or regular vocational training programmes, and that the recruits were only placed at the disposal of public administrations on a voluntary basis and under conditions of extreme necessity. The Committee requested the Government to supply details on present practice regarding the use of recruits for work of a general nature and to indicate the nature of the work and the number of recruits affected.

The Committee notes the information in the Government's report to the effect that certain recruits were placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Primary Education to substitute for regular teachers away on retraining courses in 1969-71; others were placed at the disposal of the State Secretariat for Planning to assist in processing the general census forms in 1971 and 1972. The Government indicates that there have been no other cases of recruits being made available to public administrations and that in the above cases this was generally done with the consent of the persons concerned. The Committee also notes the Government's indications that there has been no further application of the provisions in question, and hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to give statutory effect to the practice of placing recruits at the disposal of public administrations only with their consent.

2. The Committee notes the Government's indications that it will provide information on the other matters raised in the previous direct request as soon as they have been communicated by the competent departments. The Committee recalls that these matters concern the following points:

(a) The Committee noted that by virtue of sections 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9 of the Dahir to issue Act No. 1-73-415 of 13 August 1973, a civic service is established for the holders of certain higher academic qualifications who are placed at the disposal of administrations in return for remuneration, that civic and military service cannot be combined and that those officials who have performed two years' service prior to finally becoming entitled to the academic qualification are exempted from civic service. The Committee also noted that by virtue of Decree No. 2-80-658 of 12 April 1982, a proportion of the recruits to civic service may be obliged to undergo a 15 month period of military instruction.

Referring to the explanations given in paragraphs 24 to 33 and 49 to 62 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of the above-mentioned provisions, and in particular the number of holders of certain degrees recruited to perform civic service, their assignment under the provisions of section 6 (as amended) of the Dahir of 13 August 1973, and the possibility of the recruits choosing between civic and military service.

(b) Freedom of public servants and career members of the armed forces to terminate their employment. The Committee recalls its request for information regarding national legislation and practice concerning the situation of various categories of persons in the service of the State, and particularly with reference to their freedom to leave the service on their own initiative after a reasonable time, either at specified intervals, or by giving notice. The Committee has noted that, by virtue of section 77 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 establishing the General Conditions of Employment of the Public Service, the resignation of an official does not come into effect unless it is accepted by the authority within whose competence the power of appointment lies; in the event of refusal by the competent authority, the person concerned may, under section 78, place the case before the Joint Administrative Committee which issues a reasoned opinion for transmission to the competent authority.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether these provisions are still in force and, if so, to specify the criteria applied by the competent authorities in accepting or rejecting a resignation request and by the Joint Administrative Committee in support of its opinions.

The Committee also once again requests the Government to communicate the text of the provisions applicable to the resignation of career members of the armed forces.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report.

1. Article 25 of the Convention. In the comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has referred to the absence of penal sanctions for the illegal exaction of forced labour. Since 1969, the Government has referred to a draft Labour Code which is to provide for the prohibition of forced or compulsory labour enforceable by penal sanctions. The Committee asks the Government to report on the progress of the draft Labour Code which, according to the Government's previous indications, was to be submitted to Parliament. It hopes that the Labour Code will be adopted shortly and that it will bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention in this respect.

2. Article 2, paragraph 2(c). In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government's statement that the Dahir of 26 June 1930 concerning the employment of prisoners by private enterprises has not been applied since Morocco gained independence and that it is planned to repeal it in the draft legislation respecting the reform of the prison system. The Committee hopes that the planned amendments to the legislation, to which the Government has been referring for many years, will be adopted in the near future and that the Government will provide the text of the provisions that ensure observance of the Convention on this point.

3. Article 2, paragraph 2(d). For many years, the Committee has been referring to the provisions of the Dahirs of 10 August 1915 and 25 March 1918, contained in the Dahir of 13 September 1938, as reintroduced by Decree No. 2-63-436 of 6 November 1963, authorising the calling up of persons and the requisitioning of goods in order to satisfy national needs.

The Committee also referred to a Bill amending provisions on the right to call up persons and noted that although some of the situations envisaged in the Bill are within the limits of Article 2, paragraph 2(d), this was not necessarily the case for others (for example, public transport or installation or maintenance of public services, other than those essential for the life of the nation, which are also covered by the Bill).

The Committee again requests the Government to indicate the measures that have been taken or are contemplated to repeal the provisions of the texts mentioned above respecting the right to call up persons, which are incompatible with Article 2, paragraph 2(d) of the Convention, and also to indicate the measures that have been taken or are contemplated with respect to the Bill and the draft implementing Decree to be issued thereunder, which had also been mentioned by the Government, to ensure that, under the legislation, the conditions conferring the right to call up persons are expressly limited to situations endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

4. Article 2, paragraph 2(a). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the provisions under which military recruits may be assigned to work of a general nature and the provisions introducing civic service for certain holders of higher academic qualifications. The Committee is again addressing a direct request on this subject to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's three last reports contain no information in reply to its direct request of 1985.

It is therefore bound to reiterate its previous comments on the following points:

1. Article 2, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention. For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the non-conformity with the provisions of the Convention of section 4 of Royal Decree No. 137-66 concerning the institution and organisation of military service, under which certain recruits may be made available to public administrations for work of a general nature. The Government stated that this practice was not systematic and did not duplicate other economic policy measures or regular vocational training programmes. It added that the recruits were only placed at the disposal of public administrations on a voluntary basis and under conditions of extreme necessity.

The Committee once again requests the Government to supply details on present practice regarding the use of recruits for work of a general nature, to indicate the nature of the work and the number of recruits affected. In addition, it requests the Government to indicate the measures that have been taken or are contemplated to give statutory effect to the practice of placing recruits at the disposal of public administrations only with their consent.

The Committee also notes that by virtue of sections 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9 of the Dahir to issue Act No. 1-73-415 of 13 August 1973, a civic service is established for the holders of certain higher academic qualifications, who are placed at the disposal of administrations in return for remuneration, that civic and military service cannot be combined and that those officials who have performed two years' service prior to finally becoming entitled to the academic qualification are exempted from civic service. The Committee also notes that by virtue of Decree No. 2-80-658 of 12 April 1982, a proportion of the recruits to civic service may be obliged to undergo a 15-month period of military instruction.

Referring to the explanations given in paragraphs 24 to 33 and 49 to 62 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on the practical application of the above-mentioned provisions, and in particular the number of holders of certain degrees recruited to perform civic service, their assignment under the provisions of section 6 (as amended) of the Dahir of 13 August 1973 and the possibility of the recruits choosing between civic and military service.

2. Freedom of public servants and career members of the armed forces to terminate their employment. The Committee recalls its request for information regarding national legislation and practice concerning the situation of various categories of persons in the service of the State and particularly with reference to their freedom to leave the service on their own initiative after a reasonable time, either at specified intervals, or by giving notice.

The Committee has noted that, by virtue of section 77 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958 establishing the General Conditions of Employment of the Public Service, the resignation of an official does not come into effect unless it is accepted by the authority within whose competence the power of appointment lies; in the event of the refusal by the competent authority, the person concerned may, under section 78, place the case before the Joint Administrative Committee which issues a reasoned opinion for transmission to the competent authority.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether these provisions are still in force and, if so, to specify the criteria applied by the competent authorities in accepting or rejecting a resignation request and by the Joint Administrative Committee in support of its opinions.

The Committee also once again requests the Government to communicate the text of the provisions applicable to the resignation of career members of the armed forces.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government.

1. Article 25 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the absence of penal sanctions for the illegal exaction of forced labour. The Committee pointed out that, since its report for 1967-69, the Government has referred to the draft Labour Code which is to provide for the prohibition of forced or compulsory labour enforceable by penal sanctions. The Committee notes the Government's statement in its last report that the draft Labour Code adopted by the Government lays down a formal prohibition of forced labour that is enforceable by penal sanctions. It hopes that this draft will be submitted to Parliament in the very near future and that the Government will be in a position to transmit the definitive adopted text very soon.

2. Article 2, paragraph 2(d). With regard to the power to call up persons in exceptional circumstances, the Committee has for several years been drawing the Government's attention to the continuation in force of the provisions of the Dahirs of 10 August 1915 and 25 March 1918, contained in the Dahir of 13 September 1938, as reintroduced by Decree No. 2-63-436 of 6 November 1963, authorising the calling up of persons and the requisitioning of goods in order to satisfy national needs. It has taken note of a draft law respecting the right to call up persons.

Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 63 to 66 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee observed that it should be clearly laid down in the legislation that the power to exact labour is 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. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous observations regarding the Government's draft law. Although some of the situations which, according to the draft law, are to give rise to the right to call up persons would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the population, this is not necessarily the case, for example, for public transport or for the installation or maintenance of public services (other than those essential for the life of the nation, which are also covered by the draft law).

The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures that have been taken or are contemplated to repeal the provisions of the texts mentioned above respecting the right to call up persons, which are incompatible with Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention, and also to indicate the measures that have been taken or are contemplated with respect to the draft bill and the draft implementing decree to be issued thereunder, in order to ensure that under the legislation the conditions conferring the right to call up persons are expressly limited to situations endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

3. Article 2, paragraph 2(c). The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report for the period 1983-85 that the Dahir of 26 June 1930 concerning the employment of prisoners by private enterprises has not been applied since Morocco gained independence and that it is planned to repeal it in the draft legislation respecting the reform of the prison system. The Committee recalls that the Convention forbids prison labour to be placed at the disposal of private enterprises, but does not prevent prisoners being able to take employment in such enterprises under the conditions of a free employment relationship. It hopes that the Government will be able in the near future to transmit a text that ensures observance of Article 2, paragraph 2(c).

4. Article 2, paragraph 2(a). In its previous comments, the Committee also referred to texts providing for the assignment of military recruits to work of a general nature.

The Committee notes that the Government's last reports contain no new information on this subject. It is once again addressing a direct request to the Government on this point and hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that any national service which does not lie within the framework of work of a strictly military nature (or work undertaken in cases of emergency) is organised on a voluntary basis. [The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1990.]