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

A Government representative stated that his Government has examined the observations made by the Committee of Experts. He noted that the Committee had read section 87 of the Iraqi Penal Code and Law No. 104 of 1981 on the State Organisation for Social Reform governing prison work as laying down the obligation to work as an essential corollary of the prison sentence which were contrary to the provisions of the Convention. He stated that neither section 87 of the Penal Code nor Law No. 104 of 1981 provide for forced labour on the part of prisoners. Prison work was part of the process of rehabilitation of the prisoners in conformity with the United Nations Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Detainees (1955), a copy of which was sent to the Committee of Experts. The practical application of Law No. 104 of 1981 and the regulations related to it clearly showed, in his view, that work performed by prisoners was not only compulsory and that they had the right to choose the kind of work they wanted according to their qualifications. This work was governed by the Iraqi labour laws for such questions as hours of work, wages, rest periods, social security and coverage for occupational injury and the like. Referring to possible ambiguities in the language of section 19 of the Law No. 104 of 1981, he stated that instructions for its application were however clear as to the voluntary nature of the work. On the recommendation of a national committee set up to study the Committee of Experts' comments, draft amendments to section 19 had been submitted to the competent legislative authorities and that a copy of the amended law would be transmitted to the ILO when adopted. This Committee, he said, also included representatives of the social partners. Referring to the comments of the Committee of Experts on the imposition of sanctions for breach of labour discipline and participation in strikes, he said that the draft amendments to section 19 of the Law No. 104 of 1981 will ensure that work done by workers or prisoners would not, in any way, be compulsory. With regard to resolution No. 521 of 1983 and resolution No. 552 of 1986 of the Revolutionary Command Council he stated that these resolutions were issued in the exceptional circumstances of the long war that had lasted ten years. Certain restrictions placed on the right of civil servants and employees in the public sector to leave their work were done in the context of the special needs that existed in the country at the time. He said these resolutions were repealed based on the new direction taken by the country and taking into account the comments made by this Committee last year. He said copies of the repealing decisions and resolutions will be provided to the ILO.

The Workers' members stressed the importance of this case as it concerned human rights and recalled that this Committee had devoted considerable attention to it in the past. They regretted to note once again that a Government representative repeated statements made earlier to the Conference Committee in 1990 and 1991. They referred to this year's report of the Committee of Experts where the Government's failure to reply to the points raised by them was clearly stated. They were perplexed by the Government representative's statement that the Committee of Experts has misread and misunderstood the relevant laws but that this would be removed by the adoption of the proposed amendments. They were further puzzled by the Government representative's statement that prisoners had to observe the rules laid down by penal authorities but that the work they did in prison was not compulsory. Unless prisons in Iraq were unique they were sceptical about the voluntary nature of prison labour in this context. They requested the Government representative to clarify if sections 197(4) and 216 of the Penal Code, under which imprisonment with a work obligation with a fixed term or life may be imposed in cases where activities are stopped or disrupted in public services or bodies, were clearly repealed. In this regard they recalled that the Government had indicated in earlier reports that state officials and employees of government establishments had no right to strike; that section 197(4) applied without qualification and made no distinction between essential and non-essential services provided by the undertakings, and a threat of imprisonment for disruption of work was intended to induce the continuation of work by anyone who would otherwise abandon it and thus disrupt the services in question. In view of the fact that this was a continuing case of serious violations of the Convention and considering the fact that the Government had consistently said it was in the process of changing the laws they felt obliged to request the Government to provide solid reassurances on the time scales for such changes in order to avoid repetition of previous discussions on this case in future sessions of this Committee. In the absence of clarifications regarding the legal situation, they were bound to believe forced labour continued to exist in Iraq.

The Employers' members expressed their agreement with the views of the Workers' members regarding the statement made by the Government representative. It seemed to them the Government was not aware of the contents of Article 1 of the Convention which requires all Members which ratify the Convention to undertake to suppress and not to make use of any form of forced or compulsory labour. Having heard the statement of the Government representative, which referred to amendments that were to be made to the laws to eliminate all ambiguities concerning the compulsory nature of prison work, the Employers' members were convinced that the obligation to work in prisons continued to exist as far as prisoners were concerned. Taking into account the statement by the Government representative that prison labour was aimed at rehabilitation, they wished to know what would happen if prisoners refused to work and if there would be any measures taken against them. In light of these considerations, they felt it was necessary that the Committee of Experts examine the relevant amending texts after their adoption with a view to ensuring their conformity with the Convention. They strongly felt that this case called out for urgent solutions and requested the Government to take the necessary measures, as soon as possible, to eliminate the discrepancies of the national legislation with the Convention. The Government representative considered that he had provided the clarifications and information requested by the Experts in their report. With regard to the United Nations Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Detainees of 1955, he indicated that the penal system in Iraq was not different than other penal systems around the world which aimed at rehabilitating and reforming prisoners with a view to making them constructive members of society. He reiterated that the provisions of Law No. 104 of 1981 clearly provided that work by prisoners be voluntary and that those who refused to work would not be punished in any way. In addition, they were given a choice of types of work they wanted. In view of the ambiguous language of section 19 of the above-mentioned law and the confusion that may have resulted from it, the Government representative stated that this section would be amended to eliminate all doubts. He stated that the resolutions providing for the imprisonment of resigning officials was repealed and the texts repealing these resolutions would be made available to the Committee of Experts as soon as possible.

The Workers' members, referring to the comments of the Committee of Experts that the Government's report tended to repeat earlier statements, considered the Government representative should, in his reply, address the substance of these comments, as well as the remarks and questions made by the Employers' and Workers' members. They noted that the Government representative had not yet given precise indications regarding the time frame for the proposed amendments and only stated that the above-mentioned resolutions were indeed repealed. If the Government representative did not wish to reply, that would be duly noted by this Committee.

The Government representative stated that he could provide this Committee with a copy of the resolution of the Revolutionary Command Council that repealed the resolution on the imprisonment of resigning officials and that he would also transmit the other texts repealing the resolutions which were the subject of criticism by the Committee of Experts. He pointed out that any legislative reform takes time but he was authorised to state that serious measures to amend the national legislation had been taken and that other measures would be submitted to the national assembly. Copies of the draft amendments will be communicated as soon as possible.

The Workers' members insisted that this Committee, in its conclusions, should note, in strong language, the absence of the required information relating to the problems raised.

The Government representative expressed his disagreement with that part of the conclusion which referred to most of the information supplied by his Government as being a repetition of previous statements.

The Committee noted with concern the information provided by the Government representative. It felt that this information was mostly a reiteration of earlier communications and did not contain the full information the Committee of Experts had requested. It strongly urged the Government to send copies of the draft amendments intended to modify existing legislation, as well as all other relevant documents in order for the Committee to make a full assessment of the measures taken or envisaged and to discuss the problems raised at its next session.

The Government representative expressed his disagreement with that part of the conclusion which referred to most of the information supplied by his Government as being a repetition of previous statements.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1991, Publication: 78th ILC session (1991)

A Government representative of Iraq stated that the Committee of Experts report had not been received in his country due to a situation of a lack of communication with the outside world. He was, therefore, only able to obtain a copy of the report upon his arrival in Geneva. His Government was working to provide assurances and incentives to the labour force so that productivity would be increased and the quality of work would be improved. The legal provisions adopted to deal with the conditions due to the war were only of a temporary nature and the Government was in the process of revising all the laws and regulations promulgated in these exceptional circumstances. The speaker pointed out that these legal provisions might be repealed or amended so as to become compatible with international labour standards. Furthermore, these amendments would cover the measures prescribed in the Penal Code which were referred to in the Committee of Experts' report so that they could be brought into conformity with the principles stipulated in the Convention. This Convention did not provide protection for officials whose functions included the exercice of public authority or to employees of essential services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The speaker referred to the Committee of Experts' comments concerning the right to strike and stated that this right was granted by virtue of section 136 of the Labour Code (Law No. 71 of 1987) which was compatible with Law No. 150 concerning the implementation of international labour Conventions ratified by his country.

With regard to the Committee of Experts' observation concerning prison labour under sections 87, 88 and 89 of the Penal Code, the speaker pointed out that, by virtue of Law No. 104 of 1981 regarding the State Organisation for Social Reform, this type of prison labour was not forced labour, but was of a voluntary nature and was subject to the Labour Code provisions in respect of hours of work, holidays, wages, pensions and safety and health regulations. This enabled prisoners to acquire new skills and to earn an acceptable salary so that they could meet the needs of their families and make extra savings before being released. The requirments of Law No. 104 emanated from the need to use punishment as a correctional method and was governed by a number of regulations which provide for proper minimum treatment of prisoners adopted by the international community in Geneva in 1955. These measures were intended to socially rehabilitate these offenders so as to be able to guarantee them a proper return to society and enable them to carry out their responsibilities within this context. The programme implemented in penal institutions was completely different from the previous practice which considered forced labour as part of the treatment which these offenders should undergo. The speaker asked the Committee of Experts and the present Committee to take these facts into consideration during their discussion. He assured the Committee that his Government would provide detailed report with replies to the Committee of Experts' comments concerning the application of Convention No. 105.

The Workers' members stated that the Committee of Experts' report raised two problems, labour discipline and the denial of the right to strike, which had already dealt with by the present Committee in 1989. Yet the Government had only repeated the statement it made before the Committee in 1989, adding a little more detail concerning the measures evisaged to bring the legislation in conformity. The Workers' members noted that the Government representative had promised that all the necessary information would be provided so that the Committee of Experts could appropriately examine the situation. It was, nevertheless, surprising that the Government had indicated in its report of 14 September 1990 that no change had occurred concerning the application of the Convention. This was contrary to the promise made by the Government in 1989. For this reason, the Workers' members expressed their concern that the Government had only repeated the promise it had made last year. They urged that the Government make the necessary changes and provide sufficient information to enable the supervisory bodies to examine the situation and to make conclusions concerning any changes.

The Employers' members associated themselves with the Workers' members position. They referred to the discussion of this case in the present Committee's last year and recalled that it had seemed as if the Government had not been addressing the same issues which the Committee of Experts had raised.

The first point made by the Committee of Experts in its report concerned legislation which provided for a penalty of imprisonment, involving an obligation to work, if a person in charge of a public service left his or her job, even if he or she gave notice. The Government should take the necessary measures to permit these workers to give notice and resign. The Government declared in its report for 1990 that there had been no change concerning the application of the Convention. Some changes must be made, however, as the legislation in force was not in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee of Experts' second point concerned section 136 of the new Labour Code which granted workers the right to strike when an employer refused to give effect to a judgement handed down by the Labour Dispute Chamber of the Court of Cassation. The Experts had asked the Government to indicate whether penalties existed and, if so, what the penalties were for workers who went on strike under circumstances other than those provided in section 136.

Thirdly, the Committee pointed out that the right to strike was prohibited for all civil servants in all sectors, as well as certain normal economic activities. Perhaps this prohibition of the right to strike went too far, but this was not at issue under this Convention. The issue was, quite clearly, that forced labour could not be imposed for certain acts relative to one's employment or as a means of labour discipline. The Government did not seem to understand that the legislation was punishing certain violations of labour contracts and questions of discipline with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work). The legislation in this respect should be changed to be in conformity with the Convention.

Finally, the Experts pointed out that the new draft Penal Code provided for a penalty of imprisonment for anyone who voluntarily destroyed, deteriorated or damaged public property or a socialist sector enterprise with the aim of overthrowing the socialist republic system. This would really be going too far, yet the Government talked about these measures being designed for rehabilitation purposes. This indicated how different the views were in this regard. There was need for clarification of the law and practice on this issue. The least the Government could do in this respect would be to provide the precise wording of this provision as requested by the Committee of Experts. Otherwise, it would be impossible to assess the situation adequately. After two years discussing this case in the Committee, the case should be further along than simply a promise from the Government to provide a detailed report. The Government should be requested to provide full particulars in reply to the Committee of Experts' comments and to ensure that the necessary amendments will be made to the legislation in order to give effect to Convention No. 105.

The Workers' member of Kuwait stated that the problem was not one of issuing legislation, but rather one of the need to apply and implement the legislation in force. He stated that he had witnessed violations of international Conventions, in particular Convention No. 105 when his country was occupied by Iraq. Contrary to the statement made by the Government representative, he believed that there was no right to strike in Iraq. He also referred to the Government's indication that the penal institutions were used to rehabilitate prisoners and stated that, from what he had seen, these institutions were in complete violation of minimum international standards applied in other countries.

The Government representative stated that he was not in a position to reply concerning detailed aspects of the Committee of Experts' comments because it would be necessary to review the relevant legislation and make a careful study of the situation in order to give an opinion on the matter. The Government was in the process of reviewing all legislation approved since 1980 and even some texts adopted before that date. Recently, several new laws and regulations had been adopted including a set of rules concerning the state of exception. With reference to the comments made by the Worker member of Kuwait, the speaker expressed the opinion that the comment made was not within the purview of this Committee and that other competent organisations were dealing with that subject in an appropriate manner. As concerns the legislation in force in his country, he stated that it was indeed respected and implemented. Furthermore, he questioned whether the speaker had actually seen an Iraqi penal institution as the international community had admitted that they were quite developed and in conformity with modern legislation.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative. Like the Committee of Experts, the Committee noted with regret that the workers in the public service were still hindered from freely terminating their employment and that sanctions involving an obligation to work were still imposed for violations of labour discipline and for participation in strikes. The Committee noted the assurances given again by the Government representative that the legislation in question will be brought into conformity with the Convention. It trusted that the Government will take all the necessary measures as soon as possible to bring the law and practice into conformity with the provisions of the Convention and to reply to the Committee of Experts' observation in its next report. It expressed the firm hope that substantial and decisive progress can be noted in the near future.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1989, Publication: 76th ILC session (1989)

The Government representative recalled that his Government endeavoured to give every guarantee to workers in every sector in the spirit of securing social security and well-being for everyone. However, a number of temporary and exceptional provisions had been implemented, in the light of the very specific situation brought about by the war in order to secure the pursuance of work on certain projects, without which there would have been a health risk to the population. The situation now having evolved, the Government was reconsidering some of these provisions in the light of the economic and social development of the country.

The Workers' members considered the reply of the Government representative lacking in answers to the specific questions raised in the report of the Committee of Experts. He had to note that in several circumstances, e.g. where a worker resigned from his job, or changed jobs or as a consequence of certain so-called offences, the Government could, through the legislation, have the worker punished, even with imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour. Thus, in cases where there should be freedom to work and to resign from work, there was or could be state intervention enforced to work and to resign from work, there was or could be state intervention enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour, where the worker did not wish to continue working or abandoned tasks which were held important for the State They failed to see altogether clearly how the Government was going to eliminate all the divergencies, terminate certain practices and, on several points, abolish specific legal provisions violating the Convention. Public servants were the persons most exposed to sanctions and the problem should be re-examined. They suggested that the Office, possibly through a regional adviser, could help with the details of the case, especially in view of the goodwill that could be discerned.

The Employers' members also felt that the reply of the Government representative had not responded to the concerns expressed in the Committee of Experts' report. The two issues concerned were labour discipline and the right to strike as it related to public officials. Whereas the labour discipline issue was tied to situations involving national emergency and health and safety, the provisions in statute in this respect appeared to be overly broad and inconsistent with Convention No. 105. Law No 71 concerned the right of workers to terminate their employment with notice to the employer, but as this provision applied only to private sector employees and not to public officials, there too, seemed to be inconsistency with the Convention. Finally, section 132 of the Labour Code dealt with the situation involving unresolved labour disputes; in such cases, all disputes. regardless of the nature of the work and the degree of its impact on the country's economy, had to be resolved by the Supreme Court. Thus, it appeared that in all cases in which voluntary settlement was not reached, the right to strike was foreclosed, with any employee engaging in a strike becoming subject to imprisonment and obliged to work. They thought the Government needed to re-evaluate the scope of its legislation on labour discipline and strikes with respect to public officials; they asked for indications that the Government was taking action towards the positive implementation of its obligations under the Convention.

The Government representative emphasised that the provisions he had earlier referred to were temporary and exceptional, and that they were necessary in a given context in order to protect society and public health. He did not accept that they constituted forced labour. As to the possibility of assistance involving an ILO regional adviser, he did not think this was necessary, as, with the war over, the Government was intending to revise a number of provisions in its legislation. It had issued instructions to repeal certain laws or restrictions imposed on workers that had been required by the war. He wished to reassure the present Committee that the Government was pursuing the adoption of a number of measures to eliminate all obstacles to conformity with the Convention.

The Workers' members expressed their satisfaction that the temporary and exceptional measures were being revised and looked forward to hearing, through the Committee of Experts, about real changes and the abolition of the above-mentioned measures.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative. The Committee noted that the conclusions of the Committee of Experts pointed to divergencies with the Convention both in law and in practice. The Committee noted the assurance provided by the Government and wished to believe that it would take the necessary measures to bring law and practice into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to supply detailed information about measures taken so that substantial and decisive progress could be noted in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

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

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Article 1, subparagraph a of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political system. 1. In its earlier comments made for a number of years, the Committee referred to a number of provisions of the Penal Code, the Press Act, the Societies Act and certain other enactments, under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, by virtue of sections 87 and 88 of the Penal Code) may be imposed as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for expressing political views or views which are ideologically opposed to the established political system.

In particular, the Committee referred to the following legislative provisions:

–      section 43 of Act No. 1 of 1960 respecting societies, in conjunction with section 23 (suspension of societies’ activity for 30 days), and section 26(b) (dissolution of societies whose aims are contrary to the Republican regime or the requirements of the regime, etc.);

–      section 16 of Law No. 206, which provides for a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for publication in the press of prohibited matter (e.g. matter which is injurious to the authorities, the propagation of certain ideas);

–      restrictions imposed by the legislation on the freedom of expression. In particular, in the event of insults against the authorities, severe penalties are prescribed under Decision No. 840 of 4 November 1986 amending section 225 of the Penal Code;

–      sections 1–4 of Act No. 7 of 1958 concerning punishment of those who plot against the security of the State (directing the country’s policy against the national interest, issuing laws for the benefit of a certain number of persons against the common welfare, influencing morale by circulating alarming rumours, etc.).

The Committee pointed out that, to the extent that the abovementioned provisions allow the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or as punishment for expressing political views or views which are ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, they have a bearing on the observance of the Convention.

While noting the Government’s assurances that it endeavours to meet its obligation to ensure the effective application of the Convention and to amend legislation, starting with the adoption of the new Labour Code, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure the observance of the Convention (e.g. by removing the restrictions on the freedom of expression or by removing the penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work through which these restrictions are enforced) and that the Government will soon report on legislative amendments. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions in practice, if they are still in force, including copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

2. The Committee previously asked the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the following provisions of the Penal Code, which provide for penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour), and on any measures taken to ensure observance of the Convention in this regard:

–      section 201 (making of propaganda for Zionism or adhering to any Zionist organization or assisting it morally or materially, or working in any capacity to obtain its ends);

–      section 202 (treating with contempt in public the Iraqi nation or people or any group of inhabitants of Iraq);

–      section 210 (deliberately broadcasting false or misleading news, statements or rumours likely to cause alarm or despondency, disturb the peace or damage national interest);

–      section 215 (possessing or procuring or issuing or holding with a view to trading or distributing or offering pictures, drawings or written material likely to disturb public security or impair the prestige or standing of the country, with a view to giving a false or distorted impression of events);

–      section 221 (convening, controlling the movements of, or taking part in, a gathering in a public place, knowing that such gathering had been forbidden by the authorities).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring also to the explanations provided in
paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Such views may be expressed orally or through the press or other communications media or through the exercise of the right of association or participation in meetings and demonstrations.

The Committee notes that the scope of the provisions referred to above is not limited to violence or incitement to violence, and these provisions seem to be worded in such wide and general terms that they may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or as a punishment of the peaceful expression of views that are critical of government policy and the established political system, or as a punishment of various non-violent actions affecting the organization of meetings and demonstrations.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the interpretation and application of the abovementioned provisions in practice, including sample copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, and on any measures taken or contemplated to ensure observance of the Convention, such as for example, to limit their scope to the acts of violence or incitement to violence or to replace sanctions involving compulsory labour with other kinds of sanctions, such as, for example, fines.

Article 1, subparagraphs c and d, of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline and for the participation in strikes. In its earlier comments made for a number of years, the Committee referred to section 364 of the Penal Code, under which any official and any person in charge of a public service may be punished with imprisonment, inter alia, if they leave their work, even after having resigned, if this might paralyse a public service. It also referred to section 197(4) of the Penal Code, under which imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) may be imposed in cases where activities are stopped or disrupted in public services or bodies, public utilities, state industrial installations or public establishments of importance to the national economy. The Committee noted from the Government’s earlier reports that state officials and public sector workers had no right to strike, and that, under section 197(4), sanctions involving compulsory prison labour were applicable to work stoppages in a large range of activities and industrial installations.

The Committee refers to the explanations provided in paragraphs 175–177 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it indicated that, while the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline that impair the operation of essential services or in circumstances where life and health are in danger, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, the workers concerned must remain free to terminate their employment on reasonable notice. The Committee further recalls that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to change a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Iraq.

As regards work stoppages in the public service and in the public sector enterprises, the Committee recalls, referring also to the explanations in paragraphs 184-189 of the General Survey referred to above, that any restrictive provisions enforceable with penalties involving compulsory labour should be limited in scope to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, to emergency situations or, more generally, to circumstances where the life, personal safety or health of persons are endangered.

The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will soon be taken to ensure the application of the Convention in this respect, for example, by restricting the application of the provisions referred to above to officials whose functions include the exercise of authority in the name of the State and to circumstances endangering the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or by removing the penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to work) through which these restrictions are enforced.

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

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee refers to its observation under the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention

1. In previous comments, the Committee referred to the following legislative provisions:

-  section 43 of Act No. 1 of 1960 respecting societies, in conjunction with section 323 (suspension of societies’ activity for 30 days), and section 26(b) (dissolution of societies whose aims are contrary to the Republican regime or the requirements of the regime, etc.);

-  section 16 of Law No. 206, which provides for a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for publication in the press of prohibited matter (e.g. matter which is injurious to the authorities, the propagation of certain ideas);

-  restrictions imposed by the legislation on the freedom of expression. In particular, in the event of insults against the authorities, severe penalties are prescribed under decision No. 840 of 4 November 1986 amending section 225 of the Penal Code;

-  sections 1 to 4 of Act No. 7 of 1958 concerning punishment of those who plot against the security of the State (directing the country’s policy against the national interest, issuing laws for the benefit of a certain number of persons against the common welfare, influencing morale by circulating alarming rumours, etc.).

The Committee pointed out that, to the extent that the abovementioned provisions allow the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or as punishment for expressing political views or views which are ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic order, they have a bearing on the observance of the Convention.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its 1993 report that drafts were being prepared with a view to the adoption of new laws on societies and the press. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures have been taken to ensure the observance of the Convention and that the Government will report on legislative amendments, and/or on the practical application of the above provisions, if they are still in force, including copies of relevant court decisions.

2. The Committee also had asked the Government to provide information on the practical application of the following provisions of the Penal Code, and on any measures taken to ensure observance of the Convention in this regard:

(a)  section 157(i) (joining association hostile to Iraqi Republic, even though such a body may not consist of belligerents);

(b)  section 200 (arguing the overthrow of the existing system of government in Iraq, or exposing it to hatred or ridicule, or giving encouragement to anything which might stir up sectoral or religious strife);

(c)  section 201 (making of propaganda for Zionism or adhering to any Zionist organization or assisting it morally or materially, or working in any capacity to obtain its ends);

(d)  section 202 (treating with contempt in public the Iraqi nation or people or any group of inhabitants of Iraq);

(e)  section 205 (setting up, managing or performing a leading part in a secret association as defined in that section);

(f)  section 206 (setting up, founding, managing, directing or joining an organization of an international character without permission from the responsible authorities);

(g)  section 208 (concerning acquisition or possession of certain written matter or records or means of printing or recording same, containing incitement to or propaganda for any of the things mentioned in sections 200 (promoting political change or overthrow of government through use of violence, terrorism or other illegal means), 201 (promoting Zionism) and 202 (treating Iraq, its people, or any group of its inhabitants with contempt or contumely), of the Penal Code);

(h)  section 210 (deliberately broadcasting false or misleading news, statements or rumours likely to cause alarm or despondency, disturb the peace, or damage national interest);

(i)  section 211 (availing oneself of any means or publicity to publish false news or forged or fraudulent documents or news or documents falsely ascribed to other persons, if the aim is to disturb the peace or damage national interest);

(j)  section 213 (using any means of publicity to preach disobedience to the law or desirability or an act deemed to be an offence);

(k)  section 214 (raising a cry or singing a song likely to cause civil strife);

(l)  section 215 (possessing or procuring or issuing or holding with a view to trading or distributing or offering pictures, drawings or written material likely to disturb public security or impair the prestige or standing of the country, with a view to giving a false or distorted impression of events);

(m)  section 221 (convening, controlling the movements of, or taking part in a gathering in a public place, knowing that such gathering had been forbidden by the authorities);

(n)  section 221(i) and (iii) (convening or participating in a gathering to influence the authorities in their duties, inter alia);

(o)  section 225 (using means of publicity to belittle the President of the Republic or person replacing him).

3. Article 1(c) and (d). In previous comments, the Committee had referred to sections 197(4) and 216 of the Penal Code, under which imprisonment (with an obligation to work) for a fixed term or for life may be imposed in cases where activities are stopped or disrupted in public services or bodies, public utilities, state industrial installations or public establishments of importance to the national economy. The Government indicated in earlier reports that state officials and government establishments had no right to strike; section 197(4) was applied without qualification and made no distinction between essential and non-essential services provided by the undertakings, and the threat of imprisonment for disruption of work was intended to induce the continuation of work by anyone who would otherwise abandon it and thus disrupt the services in question. The Committee noted that under those provisions, sanctions involving compulsory prison work were applicable to work stoppages in a large range of activities and industrial installations. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the steps taken or envisaged to ensure the application of the Convention in this respect, for example by restricting the application of those provisions to officials whose functions include the exercise of public authority and employees in the essential services, interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its 1993 report that the necessary measures were being taken to amend sections 197(4) and 364 of the Penal Code (to which the Committee refers under point 2 of its observation). The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate measures taken to bring those provisions, as well as section 216 of the Penal Code, into conformity with the Convention.

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

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters:

1. Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to a number of provisions of the Penal Code, the Press Act and the Societies Act, under which penalties of imprisonment involving, according to section 87 of the Penal Code, compulsory prison labour, may be imposed as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for expressing political views or views which are ideologically opposed to the established political order, or for stopping or hampering activities in a wide range of government offices, public utilities, organizations, associations and industrial installations, without distinction between essential and non-essential services.

The Committee also noted the Government’s repeated statements that neither section 87 of the Penal Code nor Law No. 104 of 1981 on the State Organization for Social Reform governing prison work provided for forced labour on the part of prisoners. Work performed by prisoners was not compulsory; it was executed in conformity with section 18 of Law No. 104 which provided that each inmate had the right to work in conformity with his capacities and qualifications, in order to get vocational training; work was governed by the provisions of the Labour Code and, in practice, it was not even possible to satisfy all the demands for work.

In its latest report, the Government repeats these indications, adding that under section 20(2) of Law No. 104 of 1981, as amended by Law No. 8 of 1986, work by prisoners outside the penal institutions is voluntary.

The Committee takes due note of these indications. It recalls that under both sections 87 and 88 of the Penal Code, concerning imprisonment and hard detention (to be imposed on persons sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment), persons convicted are to be assigned to work, as specified by law, in a penal institution. Under section 19 of Law No. 104 of 1981 on the State Organization for Social Reform, work, while not being a punishment in itself, "shall constitute an integral part of the enforcement of the punishment", and "the technical committees shall regard the work as a mandatory necessity for maintaining intact the integrity of the inmates, the wards and the community". While the Government indicated in an earlier report that the necessary measures were being taken to modify section 19 of Law No. 104 of 1981 with a view to providing that work of persons sentenced to imprisonment was optional and depended on their will and free choice, no such measures appear to have been taken so far. The Committee once more expresses the hope that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure the observance of the Convention with regard to the abovementioned provisions of the legislation, be it by removing the restrictions on the freedom of expression, the right to strike and the other rights and freedoms touched upon in Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention, or by removing the penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to work) through which these restrictions are enforced, or by amending sections 87 and 88 of the Penal Code and Law No. 104 of 1981 so as to make prison labour optional for those concerned.

Pending the adoption of the appropriate legislative amendments, the relevant provisions of the Penal Code, the Press Act and the Societies Act are again set out in a request addressed directly to the Government.

2. Article 1(c). In previous comments, the Committee referred to section 364 of the Penal Code, which provides for imprisonment in cases where officials or persons with public functions leave their work even after resignation or do not carry out their work when this might endanger the life, health or safety of the population or cause riots or unrest or paralyse a public service. It noted that under resolution No. 150 of 1987 of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) all workers in state service and the socialist sector are public officials, and that under RCC resolution No. 521 of 7 May 1983 the resignation of Iraqi officials in the state services or the socialist sector or mixed sector may not be accepted in the first ten years of service and is subject to the reimbursement of all training costs before or after the appointment. Officials resigning without the agreement of their department also lose their rights arising from previous service, under resolution No. 700 of 13 May 1980. Only women may have their resignation accepted unconditionally under resolution No. 703 of 5 September 1987. Also, under resolution No. 200 of 12 February 1984 any official or worker in state services or the socialist sector who after written notice does not resume work or exceeds leave by more than three days without a reasonable excuse is subject to imprisonment of from six months to ten years, and under resolution No. 552 of 28 June 1986 the same applies to all officials or graduates centrally placed who do not accept their posting.

The Committee refers to the explanations provided in paragraph 110 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it indicated that forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline may consist, inter alia, of measures to ensure the due performance by a worker of his service under compulsion of law. While the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline that impair the operation of essential services or in circumstances where life and health are in danger, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, the workers concerned must remain free to terminate their employment on reasonable notice. The Committee further recalls that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to change a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Iraq.

The Committee once more refers to the report of the Governing Body committee set up to consider the representation made by the Federation of Egyptian Trade Unions under article 24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by Iraq of several ILO Conventions (document GB.250/15/25, Geneva, May-June 1991). The Committee notes that the Governing Body committee concluded in its recommendations, inter alia, that:

(i)  the Government should take the necessary measures to repeal, in so far as they are still in force, the provisions of the Penal Code and the Revolutionary Command Council resolutions which prevent workers from terminating their employment by giving notice of reasonable length and which provide for penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline;

(ii)  pending the repeal of these provisions, the Government should take the necessary measures to enable all workers wishing to terminate their employment relationship to leave their jobs by giving notice of reasonable length and without being liable to sanctions or deprivation of rights accrued from previous service;

(iii)  the Government should communicate, in its reports to be transmitted under article 22 of the Constitution on the application of the present Convention, information on the measures taken or envisaged to give effect to these recommendations in order to enable the supervisory bodies of the ILO to continue the examination of the questions dealt with in this report.

The Committee recalls that, in its 1993 report, the Government indicated that measures had been taken to amend, inter alia, section 364 of the Penal Code. In the absence of further information on the matter, the Committee again requests the Government to supply detailed information on any measures taken so far to give effect to the recommendations of the Governing Body committee, including copies of any amending legislation adopted.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee refers to its observation under the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention

1. In previous comments, the Committee referred to the following legislative provisions:

-- section 43 of Act No. 1 of 1960 respecting societies, in conjunction with section 323 (suspension of societies' activity for 30 days), and section 26(b) (dissolution of societies whose aims are contrary to the Republican regime or the requirements of the regime, etc.);

-- section 16 of Law No. 206, which provides for a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for publication in the press of prohibited matter (e.g. matter which is injurious to the authorities, the propagation of certain ideas);

-- restrictions imposed by the legislation on the freedom of expression. In particular, in the event of insults against the authorities, severe penalties are prescribed under decision No. 840 of 4 November 1986 amending section 225 of the Penal Code;

-- sections 1 to 4 of Act No. 7 of 1958 concerning punishment of those who plot against the security of the State (directing the country's policy against the national interest, issuing laws for the benefit of a certain number of persons against the common welfare, influencing morale by circulating alarming rumours, etc.).

The Committee pointed out that, to the extent that the abovementioned provisions allow the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or as punishment for expressing political views or views which are ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic order, they have a bearing on the observance of the Convention.

The Committee noted the Government's indication in its 1993 report that drafts were being prepared with a view to the adoption of new laws on societies and the press. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures have been taken to ensure the observance of the Convention and that the Government will report on legislative amendments, and/or on the practical application of the above provisions, if they are still in force, including copies of relevant court decisions.

2. The Committee also had asked the Government to provide information on the practical application of the following provisions of the Penal Code, and on any measures taken to ensure observance of the Convention in this regard:

(a) section 157(i) (joining association hostile to Iraqi Republic, even though such a body may not consist of belligerents);

(b) section 200 (arguing the overthrow of the existing system of government in Iraq, or exposing it to hatred or ridicule, or giving encouragement to anything which might stir up sectoral or religious strife);

(c) section 201 (making of propaganda for Zionism or adhering to any Zionist organization or assisting it morally or materially, or working in any capacity to obtain its ends);

(d) section 202 (treating with contempt in public the Iraqi nation or people or any group of inhabitants of Iraq);

(e) section 205 (setting up, managing or performing a leading part in a secret association as defined in that section);

(f) section 206 (setting up, founding, managing, directing or joining an organization of an international character without permission from the responsible authorities);

(g) section 208 (concerning acquisition or possession of certain written matter or records or means of printing or recording same, containing incitement to or propaganda for any of the things mentioned in sections 200 (promoting political change or overthrow of government through use of violence, terrorism or other illegal means), 201 (promoting Zionism) and 202 (treating Iraq, its people, or any group of its inhabitants with contempt or contumely), of the Penal Code);

(h) section 210 (deliberately broadcasting false or misleading news, statements or rumours likely to cause alarm or despondency, disturb the peace, or damage national interest);

(i) section 211 (availing oneself of any means or publicity to publish false news or forged or fraudulent documents or news or documents falsely ascribed to other persons, if the aim is to disturb the peace or damage national interest);

(j) section 213 (using any means of publicity to preach disobedience to the law or desirability or an act deemed to be an offence);

(k) section 214 (raising a cry or singing a song likely to cause civil strife);

(l) section 215 (possessing or procuring or issuing or holding with a view to trading or distributing or offering pictures, drawings or written material likely to disturb public security or impair the prestige or standing of the country, with a view to giving a false or distorted impression of events);

(m) section 221 (convening, controlling the movements of, or taking part in a gathering in a public place, knowing that such gathering had been forbidden by the authorities);

(n) section 221(i) and (iii) (convening or participating in a gathering to influence the authorities in their duties, inter alia);

(o) section 225 (using means of publicity to belittle the President of the Republic or person replacing him).

3. Article 1(c) and (d). In previous comments, the Committee had referred to sections 197(4) and 216 of the Penal Code, under which imprisonment (with an obligation to work) for a fixed term or for life may be imposed in cases where activities are stopped or disrupted in public services or bodies, public utilities, state industrial installations or public establishments of importance to the national economy. The Government indicated in earlier reports that state officials and government establishments had no right to strike; section 197(4) was applied without qualification and made no distinction between essential and non-essential services provided by the undertakings, and the threat of imprisonment for disruption of work was intended to induce the continuation of work by anyone who would otherwise abandon it and thus disrupt the services in question. The Committee noted that under those provisions, sanctions involving compulsory prison work were applicable to work stoppages in a large range of activities and industrial installations. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the steps taken or envisaged to ensure the application of the Convention in this respect, for example by restricting the application of those provisions to officials whose functions include the exercise of public authority and employees in the essential services, interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee noted the Government's indication in its 1993 report that the necessary measures were being taken to amend sections 197(4) and 364 of the Penal Code (to which the Committee refers under point 2 of its observation). The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate measures taken to bring those provisions, as well as section 216 of the Penal Code, into conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

1. Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to a number of provisions of the Penal Code, the Press Act and the Societies Act, under which penalties of imprisonment involving, according to section 87 of the Penal Code, compulsory prison labour, may be imposed as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for expressing political views or views which are ideologically opposed to the established political order, or for stopping or hampering activities in a wide range of government offices, public utilities, organizations, associations and industrial installations, without distinction between essential and non-essential services.

The Committee also noted the Government's repeated statements that neither section 87 of the Penal Code nor Law No. 104 of 1981 on the State Organization for Social Reform governing prison work provided for forced labour on the part of prisoners. Work performed by prisoners was not compulsory; it was executed in conformity with section 18 of Law No. 104 which provided that each inmate had the right to work in conformity with his capacities and qualifications, in order to get vocational training; work was governed by the provisions of the Labour Code and, in practice, it was not even possible to satisfy all the demands for work.

In its latest report, the Government repeats these indications, adding that under section 20(2) of Law No. 104 of 1981, as amended by Law No. 8 of 1986, work by prisoners outside the penal institutions is voluntary.

The Committee takes due note of these indications. It recalls that under both sections 87 and 88 of the Penal Code, concerning imprisonment and hard detention (to be imposed on persons sentenced to more than one year's imprisonment), persons convicted are to be assigned to work, as specified by law, in a penal institution. Under section 19 of Law No. 104 of 1981 on the State Organization for Social Reform, work, while not being a punishment in itself, "shall constitute an integral part of the enforcement of the punishment", and "the technical committees shall regard the work as a mandatory necessity for maintaining intact the integrity of the inmates, the wards and the community". While the Government indicated in an earlier report that the necessary measures were being taken to modify section 19 of Law No. 104 of 1981 with a view to providing that work of persons sentenced to imprisonment was optional and depended on their will and free choice, no such measures appear to have been taken so far. The Committee once more expresses the hope that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure the observance of the Convention with regard to the abovementioned provisions of the legislation, be it by removing the restrictions on the freedom of expression, the right to strike and the other rights and freedoms touched upon in Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention, or by removing the penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to work) through which these restrictions are enforced, or by amending sections 87 and 88 of the Penal Code and Law No. 104 of 1981 so as to make prison labour optional for those concerned.

Pending the adoption of the appropriate legislative amendments, the relevant provisions of the Penal Code, the Press Act and the Societies Act are again set out in a request addressed directly to the Government.

2. Article 1(c). In previous comments, the Committee referred to section 364 of the Penal Code, which provides for imprisonment in cases where officials or persons with public functions leave their work even after resignation or do not carry out their work when this might endanger the life, health or safety of the population or cause riots or unrest or paralyse a public service. It noted that under resolution No. 150 of 1987 of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) all workers in state service and the socialist sector are public officials, and that under RCC resolution No. 521 of 7 May 1983 the resignation of Iraqi officials in the state services or the socialist sector or mixed sector may not be accepted in the first ten years of service and is subject to the reimbursement of all training costs before or after the appointment. Officials resigning without the agreement of their department also lose their rights arising from previous service, under resolution No. 700 of 13 May 1980. Only women may have their resignation accepted unconditionally under resolution No. 703 of 5 September 1987. Also, under resolution No. 200 of 12 February 1984 any official or worker in state services or the socialist sector who after written notice does not resume work or exceeds leave by more than three days without a reasonable excuse is subject to imprisonment of from six months to ten years, and under resolution No. 552 of 28 June 1986 the same applies to all officials or graduates centrally placed who do not accept their posting.

The Committee refers to the explanations provided in paragraph 110 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it indicated that forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline may consist, inter alia, of measures to ensure the due performance by a worker of his service under compulsion of law. While the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline that impair the operation of essential services or in circumstances where life and health are in danger, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, the workers concerned must remain free to terminate their employment on reasonable notice. The Committee further recalls that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to change a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Iraq.

The Committee once more refers to the report of the Governing Body committee set up to consider the representation made by the Federation of Egyptian Trade Unions under article 24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by Iraq of several ILO Conventions (document GB.250/15/25, Geneva, May-June 1991). The Committee notes that the Governing Body committee concluded in its recommendations, inter alia, that:

(i) the Government should take the necessary measures to repeal, in so far as they are still in force, the provisions of the Penal Code and the Revolutionary Command Council resolutions which prevent workers from terminating their employment by giving notice of reasonable length and which provide for penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline;

(ii) pending the repeal of these provisions, the Government should take the necessary measures to enable all workers wishing to terminate their employment relationship to leave their jobs by giving notice of reasonable length and without being liable to sanctions or deprivation of rights accrued from previous service;

(iii) the Government should communicate, in its reports to be transmitted under article 22 of the Constitution on the application of the present Convention, information on the measures taken or envisaged to give effect to these recommendations in order to enable the supervisory bodies of the ILO to continue the examination of the questions dealt with in this report.

The Committee recalls that, in its 1993 report, the Government indicated that measures had been taken to amend, inter alia, section 364 of the Penal Code. In the absence of further information on the matter, the Committee again requests the Government to supply detailed information on any measures taken so far to give effect to the recommendations of the Governing Body committee, including copies of any amending legislation adopted.

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

Further to its observation, the Committee hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. In its previous direct request, the Committee requested the Government to supply further information on a series of provisions of the Penal Code which impose penalties for activities including joining associations, making public statements, propaganda for Zionism, possession of propaganda or the means of producing it, and other activities (sections 157(i), 200, 201, 202, 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215, 221, 222(i) and (iii), 225, 226 and 227). It also noted that other legislation (Act No. 1 of 1960 respecting societies, the Press Act No. 206 of 1968, sections of the Penal Code, and others) provided for penalties for offences related to the expression of opinion considered to be harmful to the State. The Government has provided indications in its report on the intent and the use of these provisions, and has remarked that most of these provisions and the Committee's comments on them relate to the protection of the internal and external security of the State and not to the Labour Code or to the abolition of forced labour.

2. The Committee notes the information provided and the Government's comments. It notes also the information provided by the Government to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations in this regard, and the statement by that Committee at its 61st Session in July 1997 that it was "deeply concerned that all government power in Iraq is concentrated in the hands of an executive which is not subject to scrutiny or accountability either politically or otherwise" (UN document CCPR/C/79/Add.84). Most of the concerns expressed by the Human Rights Committee had to do with the repression of independent political activity, which is of direct relevance to the present Convention. It recalls that the Convention's intention is to prohibit the use of compulsory labour as a punishment for activities including the expression of political opinion. It notes also that many of the activities penalized in the legislation appear to go well beyond the normal bounds of the need to protect state security, and to punish the peaceful expression of views. As noted previously, to the extent that these provisions allow the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour for expressing political views or views which are ideologically opposed to the established political order, they are covered by the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to repeal or amend the legislation concerned so as to come into closer conformity with the Convention, and to provide detailed information in its next report on the steps which have been taken or are contemplated in this regard.

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

1. Prison labour. In its earlier comments, the Committee has noted that section 87 of the Penal Code requires convicted persons "to perform the work prescribed by law in penal institutions". It has also noted that Act No. 104 of 1981 on State Organization for Social Reform, which governs work for prisoners, does not distinguish between political and other prisoners. The Government has reiterated in its last report that prisoners are allowed to work, but are not obliged to do so, and that in fact there is not enough work for all the prisoners who desire to work. The Government has also provided information on conditions of work, as laid down in section 20 of the same Act (as amended by Act No. 8 of 1986), which it indicates approach those of work outside prisons. The Government has not referred again to its earlier expressed intention to amend the Penal Code to remove any lingering doubts in this respect. 2. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, and requests it to indicate what measures it contemplates to bring the legislation into line with its indications of the practice followed. The Committee also requests the Government to provide an updated copy of the legislation in force in this area. 3. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee noted in its previous comments that, under sections 197(i) and (iv) of the Penal Code, imprisonment (with an obligation to work) may be imposed when activities are stopped or gravely hampered in government departments and offices, public utilities and organizations and associations considered to be in the public interest, or in industrial installations, including oil installations, electric power stations, water installations and means of communication. The Government has indicated in earlier reports that state officials have no right to strike, and that section 197(iv) was applied without qualification and made no distinction between essential and non-essential services; the threat of imprisonment for disruption of work was intended to induce continuation of work. The Committee also referred to section 364 of the Penal Code, which prescribed imprisonment (with an obligation to work) in cases where officials or persons with public functions leave their work even after resignation or do not carry out their work when this might endanger the life, health or safety of the population or causes riots or unrest, or a stoppage in public utilities. It also noted that, under resolution No. 150 of 1987 of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), all workers in state service and the socialist sector are public officials. Finally, the Committee noted severe restrictions on the resignation of public officials under RCC resolution No. 700 of 13 May 1980. 4. The Committee again takes note of these severe restrictions on the right of public officials to strike, or to leave their posts, under threat of imprisonment involving compulsory labour. It recalls that it has stated in paragraphs 122 to 132 of the 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour that restrictions on the right of public servants to strike can be imposed but that they are compatible with the Convention only if the interruption of the services concerned would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population. 5. The Committee recalls that, in its 1993 report, the Government indicated that measures had been taken to amend sections 197(iv) and 364 of the Penal Code. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on the legislation now in force in this regard, and on its application in practice. It also requests it to repeal or modify any legislation which remains contrary to the requirements of the present Convention.

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

1. In its previous direct request, the Committee requested the Government to supply further information on a series of provisions of the Penal Code which impose penalties for activities including joining associations, making public statements, propaganda for Zionism, possession of propaganda or the means of producing it, and other activities (sections 157(i), 200, 201, 202, 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215, 221, 222(i) and (iii), 225, 226 and 227). It also noted that other legislation (Act No. 1 of 1960 respecting societies, the Press Act No. 206 of 1968, sections of the Penal Code, and others) provided for penalties for offences related to the expression of opinion considered to be harmful to the State. The Government has provided indications in its report on the intent and the use of these provisions, and has remarked that most of these provisions and the Committee's comments on them relate to the protection of the internal and external security of the State and not to the Labour Code or to the abolition of forced labour.

2. The Committee notes the information provided and the Government's comments. It notes also the information provided by the Government to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations in this regard, and the statement by that Committee at its 61st Session in July 1997 that it was "deeply concerned that all government power in Iraq is concentrated in the hands of an executive which is not subject to scrutiny or accountability either politically or otherwise" (UN document CCPR/C/79/Add.84). Most of the concerns expressed by the Human Rights Committee had to do with the repression of independent political activity, which is of direct relevance to the present Convention. It recalls that the Convention's intention is to prohibit the use of compulsory labour as a punishment for activities including the expression of political opinion. It notes also that many of the activities penalized in the legislation appear to go well beyond the normal bounds of the need to protect state security, and to punish the peaceful expression of views. As noted previously, to the extent that these provisions allow the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour for expressing political views or views which are ideologically opposed to the established political order, they are covered by the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to repeal or amend the legislation concerned so as to come into closer conformity with the Convention, and to provide detailed information in its next report on the steps which have been taken or are contemplated in this regard.

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

1. Prison labour. In its earlier comments, the Committee has noted that section 87 of the Penal Code requires convicted persons "to perform the work prescribed by law in penal institutions". It has also noted that Act No. 104 of 1981 on State Organization for Social Reform, which governs work for prisoners, does not distinguish between political and other prisoners. The Government has reiterated in its last report that prisoners are allowed to work, but are not obliged to do so, and that in fact there is not enough work for all the prisoners who desire to work. The Government has also provided information on conditions of work, as laid down in section 20 of the same Act (as amended by Act No. 8 of 1986), which it indicates approach those of work outside prisons. The Government has not referred again to its earlier expressed intention to amend the Penal Code to remove any lingering doubts in this respect.

2. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, and requests it to indicate what measures it contemplates to bring the legislation into line with its indications of the practice followed. The Committee also requests the Government to provide an updated copy of the legislation in force in this area.

3. Article 1(c) and (d). The Committee noted in its previous comments that, under sections 197(i) and (iv) of the Penal Code, imprisonment (with an obligation to work) may be imposed when activities are stopped or gravely hampered in government departments and offices, public utilities and organizations and associations considered to be in the public interest, or in industrial installations, including oil installations, electric power stations, water installations and means of communication. The Government has indicated in earlier reports that state officials have no right to strike, and that section 197(iv) was applied without qualification and made no distinction between essential and non-essential services; the threat of imprisonment for disruption of work was intended to induce continuation of work. The Committee also referred to section 364 of the Penal Code, which prescribed imprisonment (with an obligation to work) in cases where officials or persons with public functions leave their work even after resignation or do not carry out their work when this might endanger the life, health or safety of the population or causes riots or unrest, or a stoppage in public utilities. It also noted that, under resolution No. 150 of 1987 of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), all workers in state service and the socialist sector are public officials. Finally, the Committee noted severe restrictions on the resignation of public officials under RCC resolution No. 700 of 13 May 1980.

4. The Committee again takes note of these severe restrictions on the right of public officials to strike, or to leave their posts, under threat of imprisonment involving compulsory labour. It recalls that it has stated in paragraphs 122 to 132 of the 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour that restrictions on the right of public servants to strike can be imposed but that they are compatible with the Convention only if the interruption of the services concerned would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

5. The Committee recalls that, in its 1993 report, the Government indicated that measures had been taken to amend sections 197(iv) and 364 of the Penal Code. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on the legislation now in force in this regard, and on its application in practice. It also requests it to repeal or modify any legislation which remains contrary to the requirements of the present Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. In its previous comments the Committee referred to certain legislative provisions in relation to the application of Article 1(a) of the Convention:

- section 43 of Act No. 1 of 1960 respecting societies, noted in conjunction with section 23 (suspension of societies' activity for 30 days), and section 26(b) (dissolution of societies whose aims are contrary to the Republican regime or the requirements of the regime, etc.);

- section 16 of Law No. 206, which provides for a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for publication in the press of prohibited matter (e.g. matter which is injurious to the authorities, the propagation of certain ideas);

- restrictions imposed by the legislation on the freedom of expression. In particular, in the event of insults against the authorities, severe penalties are prescribed under Decision No. 840 of 4 November 1986 amending section 225 of the Penal Code;

- sections 1 to 4 of Act No. 7 of 1958 concerning punishment of those who plot against the security of the State (directing the country's policy against the national interest, issuing laws for the benefit of a certain number of persons against the common welfare, influencing morale by circulating alarming rumours, etc.).

The Committee pointed out that, to the extent that the above-mentioned provisions allow the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour for expressing political views or views which are ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic order, they are covered by the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that provisions are under consideration for the adoption of new laws on societies and press. The Committee asks the Government to provide copies of the new laws when adopted. It also requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of the above-mentioned provisions as well as on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention.

In its previous direct requests the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the practical application of the following provisions, and on any measures to ensure observance of the Convention:

(a) section 157(i) (joining association hostile to Iraqi Republic, even though such a body may not consist of belligerents);

(b) section 200 (arguing the overthrow of the existing system of government in Iraq, or exposing it to hatred or ridicule, or giving encouragement to anything which might stir up sectoral or religious strife);

(c) section 201 (making of propaganda for Zionism or adhering to any Zionist organization or assisting it morally or materially, or working in any capacity to obtain its ends);

(d) section 202 (treating with contempt in public the Iraqi nation or people or any group of inhabitants of Iraq);

(e) section 205 (setting up, managing or performing a leading part in a secret association as defined in that section);

(f) section 206 (setting up, founding, managing, directing or joining an organization of an international character without permission from the responsible authorities);

(g) section 208 (concerning acquisition or possession of certain written matter or records or means of printing or recording same, containing incitement to or propaganda for any of the things mentioned in sections 200 (promoting political change or overthrow of government through use of violence, terrorism or other illegal means), 201 (promoting Zionism) and 202 (treating Iraq, its people, or any group of its inhabitants with contempt or contumely), of the Penal Code);

(h) section 210 (deliberately broadcasting false or misleading news, statements or rumours likely to cause alarm or despondency, disturb the peace, or damage national interest);

(i) section 211 (availing oneself of any means of publicity to publish false news or forged or fraudulent documents or news or documents falsely ascribed to other persons, if the aim is to disturb the peace or damage national interest);

(j) section 213 (using any means of publicity to preach disobedience to the law or desirability of an act deemed to be an offence);

(k) section 214 (raising a cry or singing a song likely to cause civil strife);

(l) section 215 (possessing or procuring or issuing or holding with a view to trading or distributing or offering pictures, drawings or written material likely to disturb public security or impair the prestige or standing of the country, with a view to giving a false or distorted impression of events);

(m) section 221 (convening, controlling the movements of, or taking part in a gathering in a public place, knowing that such gathering had been forbidden by the authorities);

(n) section 222(i) and (iii) (convening or participating in a gathering to influence the authorities in their duties, inter alia);

(o) section 225 (using means of publicity to belittle the President of the Republic or person replacing him);

(p) section 226 (using means of publicity to belittle Parliament, the Government, the courts, the armed forces, or any other constituted body or the authorities or government departments and agencies);

(q) section 227 (using means of publicity to belittle a foreign State or international organization with offices in Iraq).

For some of these provisions, the Committee expressly asked for detailed information on the laws, judicial decisions, regulations and orders governing this matter (sections 205, 206, 221).

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide detailed information as requested.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report received in the ILO in March 1993, as well as the discussion which took place in the Conference Committee in 1992.

Prison work. 1. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that Law No. 104 of 1981 on the State Organization for Social Reform governing prison work does not distinguish political from other prisoners. Similarly, the definition of imprisonment in section 87 of the Penal Code provides for compulsory work as laid down in the Penal Institutions Law.

The Committee notes the Government's renewed statement in its report and to the Conference Committee, that neither section 87 of the Penal Code nor Law No. 104 of 1981 provide for forced labour on the part of prisoners. Work performed by prisoners is not compulsory; it is executed in conformity with section 18 of Law No. 104 which provides that each resident has the right to work in conformity with his capacities and qualifications, in order to get vocational training; work is governed by the provisions of the Labour Code and, in practice, it is not even possible to satisfy all the demands for work.

The Committee notes that the Government, while restating its position that legislative provisions and practice confirm the non-existence of any form of forced labour in the social reform section (prison), indicates in its report that the necessary measures to modify section 19 of Law No. 104 of 1981 are being taken with a view to eliminating any doubt and to provide clearly that work of persons sentenced to prison is optional and depends on their will and free choice.

Referring to the explanations in paragraphs 102 to 109 of the 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour and the explicit terms of the Convention, the Committee recalls that penal sanctions involving the obligation to work are covered by the Convention in cases of punishment for the expression of political opinions or ideological opposition to the political, social or economic system, or for breach of labour discipline, or participation in strikes.

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the law as amended.

2. Article 1(c) and (d). In previous comments, the Committee referred to section 364 of the Penal Code, which provides for imprisonment (with an obligation to work) in cases where officials or persons with public functions leave their work even after resignation or do not carry out their work when this might endanger the life, health or safety of the population or cause riots or unrest or paralyse a public service. It also noted that under Resolution No. 150 of 1987 of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) all workers in state service and the socialist sector are public officials.

Referring to the June 1991 report of the Governing Body Committee, the Committee noted the severe limitations imposed on resignation of officials under the Revolutionary Council Resolutions No. 521 of 7 May 1983 and No. 700 of 13 May 1980; it also noted that under Resolution No. 200 of 12 February 1984, any official or worker in state services or the socialist sector who after written notice does not resume work or exceeds leave by more than three days without a reasonable excuse is subject to imprisonment of from six months to ten years; and under Resolution No. 552 of 28 June 1986 the same applies to all officials or graduates centrally placed who do not accept their posting.

The Committee notes with interest that Resolutions Nos. 521 of 7 May 1983 and 200 of 12 February 1984 were repealed by Orders Nos. 170 and 171 of 5 June 1991.

The Committee hopes that the Government will indicate measures taken or envisaged as regards the provisions of Resolutions No. 700 of 13 May and No. 552 of 28 June 1986.

3. Article 1(d). In earlier comments, the Committee noted that under section 132 of the Labour Code (Act No. 71 of 1987) unresolved labour disputes are referred to the Labour Dispute Chamber of the Court of Cassation, whose judgement is final under section 133. Section 136(i) lays down the workers' right to stop work if the employer refuses to observe the Court's decision and sanctions are imposed on the employer. The Committee noted that this seemed to be the only right to strike allowed. It asked the Government to indicate the sanctions applicable to workers on strike despite the final judgement under, i.e. in any case other than one falling under section 136.

The Committee takes note of the Government's statement in its report that no other provisions exist concerning sanctions applied to workers on strike.

4. In previous comments, the Committee referred to sections 197(4) and 216 of the Penal Code, under which imprisonment (with a work obligation) for a fixed term or for life may be imposed in cases where activities are stopped or disrupted in public services or bodies, public utilities, state industrial installations or public establishments of importance to the national economy. The Government indicated in earlier reports that state officials and government establishments had no right to strike; section 197(4) was applied without qualification and made no distinction between essential and non-essential services provided by the undertakings, and the threat of imprisonment for disruption of work was intended to induce the continuation of work by anyone who would otherwise abandon it and thus disrupt the services in question.

The Committee noted that under those Penal Code provisions sanctions involving compulsory prison work were applicable to work stoppages in a large range of activities and industrial installations. It asked the Government to indicate the steps taken or proposed to ensure the application of the Convention in this respect, for example by restricting the application of those provisions to officials whose functions include the exercise of public authority and employees in essential services, interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that the necessary measures have been taken to amend sections 197(4) and 364 of the Penal Code (to which the Committee refers under point 2). The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the provisions adopted to this effect. It hopes that the Government will also indicate the measures taken or envisaged in relation to section 216.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention

In its previous comments, the Committee referred to a number of legislative provisions in connection with Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes that some of these provisions have been repealed, but have been replaced by other texts which are either identical or similar. The Committee notes the Government's statement that sections 31 of the Act of 1959, F6 and M13 of the Act of 1924; sections 4, 5 and 8 of the Act of 1959 and sections 1 and 2 of Act No. 38 of 1963, were repealed but with the promulgation of the Penal Code. However, articles 4, 5 and 8 of the Act of 1959 respecting public meetings and demonstrations have, in fact, been replaced by sections 220, 221 and 222 of the Penal Code, and sections 1 and 2 of Act No. 38 of 1963 have been replaced by section 200 of the Penal Code.

With regard to sections 1 to 4 of Act No. 7 of 1958 concerning punishment of those who plot against the security of the State (directing the country's policy against the national interest, issuing laws for the benefit of a certain number of persons against the common welfare, influencing morale by circulating alarming rumours, etc.), the Committee notes that the Government's report provides no new information.

With regard to Act No. 1 of 1960 respecting societies, the Committee noted section 43, in conjunction with section 23 (suspension of societies' activity for 30 days), and section 26(b) (dissolution of societies whose aims are contrary to the Republican regime or the requirements of the regime, etc.). The Committee notes that, according to the Government, Act No. 31 of 1978 abolishes the sanctions previously laid down in sections 31 and 32 of Act No. 1 of 1960. The Committee points out that the penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) provided for in section 43 of Act No. 1 of 1960 remains applicable and that sections 23 and 26.2 remain unchanged.

The Committee again asks the Government to provide information on the practical application of these provisions, including any relevant judicial decisions.

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Press Law (No. 206 of 1968) repeals Act No. 53 of 1964. It notes that Law No. 206, in section 16, lays down the penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for publication in the press of prohibited matter (e.g. matter which is injurious to the authorities, the propagation of certain ideas).

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the report of 18 February 1992 of the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (Document E/CN4/1992/31) refers to restrictions imposed by the legislation on the freedom of expression. In particular, in the event of insults against the authorities, severe penalties are prescribed under Decision No. 840 of 4 November 1986 amending section 225 of the Penal Code.

The Committee points out that, to the extent that the above-mentioned provisions allow the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour for expressing political views or views which are ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic order, they are covered by the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical application of these provisions and to communicate any decisions handed down on the subject, particularly any judgements defining or illustrating their exact scope, and on any measures taken or envisaged in this respect to ensure observance of the Convention.

The Committee noted previously that section 197(1) of the Penal Code provides for a penalty of imprisonment for life to be imposed on anyone who voluntarily destroys, deteriorates or damages public property or a socialist sector enterprise, with the aim of overthrowing the Socialist Republic regime, and this provision applies not only to officials or persons in charge of public services but likewise to any person who commits one of these acts. The Committee again requests the Government to supply indications enabling it to ascertain whether the scope of the provision in question is limited to damages caused by violence or misappropriation of public funds or whether it also applies to strikes; in the latter case, the Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure observance of the Convention.

Referring to its previous comments on Convention No. 105 and also to its comments under Convention No. 29, the Committee asks the Government to take all necessary measures to bring law and practice into conformity with provisions of the Convention.

In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the practical application of the following provisions, and on any measures to ensure observance of the Convention:

(a) section 157(i) (joining association hostile to Iraqi Republic, even though such a body may not consist of belligerents);

(b) section 200 (arguing the overthrow of the existing system of government in Iraq, or exposing it to hatred or ridicule, or giving encouragement to anything which might stir up sectoral or religious strife);

(c) section 201 (making of propaganda for Zionism or adhering to any Zionist organisation or assisting it morally or materially, or working in any capacity to obtain its ends);

(d) section 202 (treating with contempt in public the Iraqi nation or people or any group of inhabitants of Iraq);

(e) section 205 (setting up, managing or performing a leading part in a secret association as defined in that section);

(f) section 206 (setting up, founding, managing, directing or joining an organisation of an international character without permission from the responsible authorities);

(g) section 208 (concerning acquisition or possession of certain written matter or records or means of printing or recording same, containing incitement to or propaganda for any of the things mentioned in sections 200 (promoting political change or overthrow of government through use of violence, terrorism or other illegal means), 201 (promoting Zionism) and 202 (treating Iraq, its people, or any group of its inhabitants with contempt or contumely), of the Penal Code);

(h) section 210 (deliberately broadcasting false or misleading news, statements or rumours likely to cause alarm or despondency, disturb the peace, or damage national interest);

(i) section 211 (availing oneself of any means of publicity to publish false news or forged or fraudulent documents or news or documents falsely ascribed to other persons, if the aim is to disturb the peace or damage national interest);

(j) section 213 (using any means of publicity to preach disobedience to the law or desirability of an act deemed to be an offence);

(k) section 214 (raising a cry or singing a song likely to cause civil strife);

(l) section 215 (possessing or procuring or issuing or holding with a view to trading or distributing or offering pictures, drawings or written material likely to disturb public security or impair the prestige or standing of the country, with a view to giving a false or distorted impression of events);

(m) section 221 (convening, controlling the movements of, or taking part in a gathering in a public place, knowing that such gathering had been forbidden by the authorities);

(n) section 222(i) and (iii) (convening or participating in a gathering to influence the authorities in their duties, inter alia);

(o) section 225 (using means of publicity to belittle the President of the Republic or person replacing him);

(p) section 226 (using means of publicity to belittle Parliament, the Government, the courts, the armed forces, or any other constituted body or the authorities or government departments and agencies);

(q) section 227 (using means of publicity to belittle a foreign State or international organisation with offices in Iraq).

For some of these provisions, the Committee expressly asked for detailed information on the laws, judicial decisions, regulations and orders governing this matter (sections 205, 206, 221).

The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government refers in general terms to the provisions of the Penal Code mentioned above. The Government states that the provisions of the Penal Code and other laws were promulgated in order to preserve the country's integrity and independence. According to the Government, most of the sections referred to concern the protection of national security and have nothing to do with the Convention.

The Committee recalls that the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee again asks the Government to provide the information requested. The Committee refers to its observation under this Convention, and requests the Government to provide information on the current review of the legislation and to supply copies of any texts repealing or amending the above-mentioned provisions.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report, and other documentation sent by it, as well as the discussions in the Conference Committee in 1991 and the Governing Body Committee's June 1991 report on the representation under article 24 of the Constitution relating in particular to Conventions Nos. 29 and 105.

Prison work. 1. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that Law No. 104 of 1981 on the State Organisation for Social Reform governing prison work does not distinguish political from other prisoners. Similarly, the definition of imprisonment in section 87 of the Penal Code provides for compulsory work as laid down in the Penal Institutions Law. The Committee now notes the Government representative's statement in the Conference Committee that the prison work contemplated by Law No. 104 of 1981 is voluntary and governed by the Labour Code: it is said to be a corrective exercise aimed at social rehabilitation, and penal institutions' programmes are said to have changed completely from the time when forced labour was considered part and parcel of the sentence. The Committee also notes similar statements in the report, repeating largely what was said before.

The Committee notes that the obligation to work is laid down in Law No. 104 and the Penal Code as an essential corollary of the prison sentence. It refers to the explanations in paragraphs 102 to 109 of the 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour and the explicit terms of the Convention and recalls that penal sanctions involving the obligation to work are covered by the Convention in cases of punishment for the expression of political opinions or ideological opposition to the political, social or economic system or for breach of labour discipline or participation in strikes.

Article 1(c) and (d). 2. In previous comments, the Committee referred to section 364 of the Penal Code, which provides for imprisonment with an obligation to work in cases where officials or persons with public functions leave their work even after resignation or do not carry out their work when this might endanger the life, health or safety of the population or cause riots or unrest or paralyse a public service. It noted that under Resolution No. 150 of 1987 of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) all workers in State service and the socialist sector are public officials.

The Committee refers to the June 1991 report of the Governing Body Committee and notes that under RCC Resolution No. 521 of 7 May 1983 the resignation of Iraqi officials in the State services or the socialist sector or mixed sector may not be accepted in the first ten years of service and is subject to the reimbursement of all training costs before or after the appointment. Officials resigning without the agreement of their department also lose their rights arising from previous service, under Resolution No. 700 of 13 May 1980. Only women may have their resignation accepted unconditionally under Resolution No. 703 of 5 September 1987. Also, under Resolution No. 200 of 12 February 1984 any official or worker in State services or the socialist sector who after written notice does not resume work or exceeds leave by more than three days without a reasonable excuse is subject to imprisonment of from six months to ten years. And under Resolution No. 552 of 28 June 1986 the same applies to all officials or graduates centrally placed who do not accept their posting.

The Committee notes that the Conference Committee noted with regret that sanctions involving compulsory labour are still imposed for breach of labour discipline and participation in strikes. It refers to the explanations in paragraphs 67 and 68 of the 1979 General Survey and observes that provisions preventing workers from leaving their jobs with reasonable notice are also contrary to Convention No. 29, which provides for the abolition of forced or compulsory work.

The Committee notes that the Governing Body Committee concluded in its recommendations that:

(i) the Government should take the necessary measures to repeal, in so far as they are still in force, the provisions of the Penal Code and the Revolutionary Command Council Resolutions which prevent workers from terminating their employment by giving notice of reasonable length and which provide for penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline;

(ii) pending the repeal of these provisions, the Government should take the necessary measures to enable all workers wishing to terminate their employment relationship, in particular the Egyptian workers wishing to return to their country, to leave their jobs by giving notice of reasonable length and without being liable to sanctions or deprivation of rights accrued from previous service;

(iii) the Government should communicate, in its reports to be transmitted under article 22 of the Constitution on the application of the present Convention, information on the measures taken or envisaged to give effect to these recommendations in order to enable the supervisory bodies of the ILO to continue the examination of the questions dealt with in this report.

The Committee notes that neither the Government's report on the present Convention nor that on Convention No. 29 contains the information requested. It therefore reiterates the request and asks the Government to supply a full report on the matters mentioned above.

Article 1(d). 3. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that under section 132 of the Labour Code (Act No. 71 of 1987) unresolved labour disputes are referred to the Labour Dispute Chamber of the Court of Cassation, whose judgement is final under section 133. Section 136(I) lays down the workers' right to stop work if the employer refuses to observe the Court's decision and sanctions are imposed on the employer. The Committee noted that this seems to be the only right to strike allowed. It again asks the Government to indicate the sanctions applicable to workers on strike contrary to a section 133 final judgement, viz. in any case other than one falling under section 136.

4. In previous comments, the Committee referred to sections 197(4) and 216 of the Penal Code, under which imprisonment with a work obligation for a fixed term or for life may be imposed in cases where activites are stopped or disrupted in public services or bodies, public utilities, state industrial installations or public establishments of importance to the national economy. The Government indicated in earlier reports that state officials and government establishments had no right to strike; section 197(4) was applied without qualification and made no distinction between essential and non-essential services provided by the undertakings, and the threat of imprisonment for disruption of work was intended to induce the continuation of work by anyone who would otherwise abandon it and thus disrupt the services in question.

The Committee noted that under those Penal Code provisions sanctions involving compulsory prison work were applicable to work stoppages in a large range of activities and industrial installations. It asked the Government to indicate the steps taken or proposed to ensure the application of the Convention on this, for example by restricting the application of those provisions to officials whose functions include the exercise of public authority and employees in essential services interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will re-examine sections 197(1) and (4) and 216 together with section 87 of the Penal Code and will indicate the measures taken or proposed to ensure the Convention is applied.

5. The Committee notes the Government representative's statements in the Conference Committee, that the Government was revising all legislation enacted in exceptional circumstances or approved since 1980 and some from earlier periods. He gave assurances that the amendments would also deal with Penal Code provisions and said that several recent laws and regulations had been enacted, including rules on the state of exception. The Committee hopes the Government will send copies. It hopes the Government will indicate how far the revision exercise has advanced and send any relevant enactments.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on several other points under Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention.

[The Government is requested to supply full details to the 79th Session of the Conference and to communicate a report for the period ending 30 June 1992.]

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

Referring also to its observation under the Convention, the Committee notes that the Government's report received on 14 September 1990 merely states that there has been no change concerning the application of the Convention. In these circumstances, the Committee is bound to repeat its previous direct request on the following points:

1. In its previous direct request, the Committee referred to section 52 of Act No. 104 of 1981 on the State Organisation for Social Reform which repealed sections 45 and 55 of Act No. 151 of 1969 on the prison administration under which political prisoners were exempted from prison labour and requested the Government to indicate whether political prisoners are exempted from prison labour under the 1981 Act. The Committee noted the Government's indication in its report dated 15 October 1987 that Act No. 104 of 1981 does not provide for any distinction among the prisoners.

The Committee recalled its direct request of 1973 in which it reserved further comments on the substantive provisions of the Penal Code and other legislation referred to earlier under Article 1(a) of the Convention. That reservation was made in light of the exemption from forced or compulsory labour made for political prisoners. In view of the repeal of sections 45 and 55 of Act No. 151 of 1969, the Committee referred to the following legislative provisions previously considered:

(a) section 31 of the Baghdad Penal Code Amendment Law, 1959 (spreading information calculated to weaken the Government, to disturb public order, to insult the military forces or to strengthen foreign influence);

(b) section F6 of the Baghdad Penal Code Amendment Law, 1924 (publication of false information calculated to disturb the public peace, weaken the Government, or strengthen foreign influence);

(c) section M13 of the Baghdad Penal Code Amendment Law, 1924 (publications seeking to bring the Government or army into contempt);

(d) sections 4, 5 and 8 of the Public Concourses and Demonstrations Law, 1959 (demonstrations jeopardising public security or unfriendly to the democratic regime of the Republic);

(e) sections 1 and 2 of Act No. 38 of 1963 to supplement the Baghdad Penal Code (disseminating or expressing approval of certain doctrines, e.g. doctrines assailing Arab nationalism or aiming at a change in the system of government, or membership in associations whose aim is to disseminate or approve such doctrines);

(f) sections 1-4 of Act No. 7 of 1958 concerning punishment of those who plot against the security of the State (directing the country's policy against the national interest, issuing laws for the benefit of a certain number of persons against the common welfare, influencing morale by circulating alarming rumours, etc.);

(g) section 43 of the Societies Laws, No. 1 of 1960, read together with its section 23 (suspension of societies' activity for 30 days) and its section 26(2) (dissolution of societies whose aims are contrary to the Republican regime or the requirements of the regime, etc.); and

(h) section 23(1) of the Press Law, No. 53 of 1964 (publishing any matter which injures the Republic or spreads the ideology of imperialism, etc.).

The Committee again requests the Government to indicate whether the above-mentioned provisions are still in force and, if so, to supply copies of these provisions as presently in force and any information which may be available on their practical application (including any court decisions defining or illustrating their precise scope), as well as information on any measures taken or proposed to be taken with regard to these provisions to ensure the observance of the Convention. In so far as any of the above provisions have been amended or repealed, the Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the amending legislations.

2. With respect to the following provisions of the Penal Code, the Committee again requests the Government to supply any information on their practical application, including any court decisions defining or illustrating their precise scope, as well as information on any measures taken or envisaged with regard to these provisions to ensure observance of the Convention:

(a) section 157(i) (joining association hostile to Iraqi Republic, even though such a body may not consist of belligerents);

(b) section 200 (arguing the overthrow of the existing system of government in Iraq, or exposing it to hatred or ridicule, or giving encouragement to anything which might stir up sectoral or religious strife);

(c) section 201 (making of propaganda for Zionism or adhering to any Zionist organisation or assisting it morally or materially, or working in any capacity to obtain its ends);

(d) section 202 (treating with contempt in public the Iraqi nation or people or any group of inhabitants of Iraq);

(e) section 208 (concerning acquisition or possession of certain written matter or records or means of printing or recording same, containing incitement to or propaganda for any of the things mentioned in sections 200 (promoting political change or overthrow of Government through use of violence, terrorism or other illegal means), 201 (promoting Zionism) and 202 (treating Iraq, its people, or any group of its inhabitants with contempt or contumely), of the Penal Code);

(f) section 210 (deliberately broadcasting false or misleading news, statements or rumours likely to cause alarm or despondency, disturb the peace, or damage national interest);

(g) section 211 (availing oneself of any means of publicity to publish false news or forged or fraudulent documents or news or documents falsely ascribed to other persons, if the aim is to disturb the peace or damage national interest);

(h) section 213 (using any means of publicity to preach disobedience to the law or desirability of an act deemed to be an offence);

(i) section 214 (raising a cry or singing a song likely to cause civil strife);

(j) section 215 (possessing or procuring or issuing or holding with a view to trading or distributing or offering pictures, drawings or written material likely to disturb the peace of the realm or impair the prestige or standing of the country, with a view to giving a false or distorted impression of events);

(k) section 227 (using means of publicity to belittle a foreign State or international organisation with offices in Iraq);

(l) section 222(i) and (iii) (convening or participating in a gathering to influence the authorities in their duties, inter alia);

(m) section 225 (using means of publicity to belittle the President of the Republic or person replacing him);

(n) section 226 (using means of publicity to belittle Parliament, the Government, the courts, the armed forces, or any other constituted body or the authorities or government departments and agencies).

3. The Committee also again requests the Government to provide particular information about the practical application of the following provisions of the Penal Code:

(a) With respect to section 205 (relating to setting up, managing or performing a leading part in a secret association as defined therein), the Committee asks the Government to provide information, including relevant laws, court decisions, and/or regulations governing the lawful foundation and operation of associations particularly with respect to any approval required of the Government and any basis for government refusal to permit foundation or operation of such associations.

(b) With respect to section 221 (convening, controlling the movements of, or taking part in a gathering in a public place, knowing that such gathering had been forbidden by the authorities), the Committee asks the Government to provide information, including relevant laws, court decisions, regulations and/or orders, indicating those gatherings which are or have been forbidden by the authorities and the reasons for forbidding these gatherings, and the manner in which the Government has communicated to the public the fact that these gatherings are forbidden.

(c) With respect to section 206 (setting up, founding, managing, directing, or joining an organisation of an international character without permission from the responsible authorities), the Committee asks that the Government provide information, including relevant laws, court decisions, regulations and/or orders governing the manner in which permission is to be sought and granted for setting up, founding, managing, directing or joining an organisation of an international character; those persons and respective organisations which have not been granted such permission and the reasons for those denials; and any laws, court decisions, regulations and/or orders defining the meaning of "international character" in section 206.

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

The Committee has noted the discussion on this case which took place in the Conference Committee in 1989. It notes that a government representative assured the Committee that the Government endeavoured to give every guarantee to workers in every sector in the spirit of securing social security and well-being for everyone. However, a number of temporary and exceptional provisions had been implemented, in the light of the very specific situation brought about by the war in order to secure the pursuance of work on certain projects, without which there would have been a health risk to the population. The situation now having evolved, the Government was reconsidering some of these provisions in the light of the economic and social development of the country.

The Committee notes that in its report received on 14 September 1990, the Government indicates that there has been no change concerning the application of the Convention. In these circumstances, the Committee is bound to raise again the following points:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. 1. The Committee, in earlier comments, referred to section 364 of the Penal Code, under which a penalty of imprisonment (involving an obligation to work) may be imposed on any official and any person in charge of a public service who leaves his work, even after having resigned, or who abstains from performing his duty or work if he thereby might endanger the life, health or personal safety of the population, cause riots or unrest among the population or paralyse a public service. The Committee noted from the Government's report dated 30 December 1986 that the same persons are to be punished with heavier prison terms under section 241 of the draft new Penal Code.

The Committee also noted the Government's reference, in its report dated 15 October 1987, to section 36, paragraph III of the Labour Code (Law No. 71 of 1987), under which workers may terminate their labour contract by giving notice. The Committee further noted that under Decision No. 150 of 1987 of the Revolutionary Command Council, referred to in the new Labour Code, all workers of state services and the socialist sector are to be public officials and thus excluded from the scope of the new Labour Code, whose application is thus limited to the private, co-operative and mixed sectors. Moreover, section 364 of the Penal Code and section 241 of the draft new Penal Code apply even to persons having formally resigned.

The Committee referred the Government to paragraphs 110 and 114 to 116 of the 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour and indicated that the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life and health are in danger. Since the scope of the national provisions is not limited to such circumstances, but includes, inter alia, cases falling within Article 1(c), the Committee requested the Government to re-examine the provisions in the light of the Convention. Referring also to Convention No. 29, under which workers must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice, the Committee asked the Government to supply information on any amendment made or contemplated in section 241 of the draft Penal Code, as well as on application in practice of section 364 of the Penal Code.

In the absence of an indication that these provisions have undergone revision, the Committee again requests the Government to re-examine these provisions in the light of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105 and to supply information on any amendment made or contemplated, as well as on their application in practice, including in particular, copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Article 1(d). 2. In its earlier comments, the Committee pointed out that under section 132 of the Labour Code all labour disputes that are not settled by mutual agreement must be submitted to the Supreme Labour Court, whose judgement was final, without appeal and binding on the parties. The Committee noted that under section 132 of the new Labour Code (Law No. 71 of 1987) unresolved trade disputes are referred to the Labour Dispute Chamber of the Court of Cassation, whose judgement is final according to section 133. Section 136(I) of the new Code provides (as did section 134 of the former Code) that if an employer does not give effect to the decision of the Chamber, the workers have the right to strike and sanctions may be imposed against the employer.

The Committee noted that except for the strike action allowed under section 136, the right to strike does not appear to be recognised. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the penalties applicable to workers who go on strike in disregard of a final judgement under section 133 of the Labour Code, that is, otherwise than in the case envisaged in section 136.

3. In its earlier comments, the Committee pointed out that section 197, subsection 4, read together with section 216 of the Penal Code provides for imprisonment (involving the obligation to work) for a fixed period or for life as a punishment for stopping activities of public services or bodies, public utility associations, state industrial installations or public establishments of importance to the national economy. The Government had stated in earlier reports that officials of the State and of government establishments have no right to strike, that section 197, subsection 4, is applied without qualification and makes no distinction between the essential and the non-essential services provided by the undertakings, and that the penalty of imprisonment for disrupting work is a threat intended to induce persons to remain at work who would otherwise leave it, thereby causing a disruption in the activities of the services in question.

The Committee had pointed out that under the above-mentioned provisions of the Penal Code, penalties involving the imposition of compulsory prison work can be inflicted for stoppages of work in a wide range of activities and industrial installations. The Committee had asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or under consideration to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard, for example by restricting the application of these provisions to officials whose functions include the exercise of public authority and to employees of essential services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee noted the Government's statement in its report dated 15 October 1987 that article 19 of Law No. 104 of 1981 regarding the State Organisation for Social Reform provides that work is a part of the implementation of the punishment and not a punishment in itself. Further, the Government indicated that sections 87, 88 and 89 of the Penal Code provide for imprisonment, but do not contemplate the imposition of forced labour within the penal establishment. The Committee observed that under sections 87 and 88 of the Penal Code, concerning imprisonment and penal servitude, persons sentenced are to be assigned to specified work. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102 to 109 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee recalled that the Convention prohibits the use of "any form" of compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, in the five cases specified in the Convention. Thus, the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory prison labour of any kind on persons sentenced for breaches of labour discipline, or for participation in a strike, is covered by Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention.

The Committee again requests the Government to re-examine section 197, subsection 4, and section 216, read together with section 87, of the Penal Code and to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to ensure the observance of the Convention.

4. In the same connection the Committee previously noted that section 152 of the draft new Penal Code corresponds to section 197, paragraph 4 of the Penal Code; the Government stated that section 152 of the draft new Penal Code provides for a penalty of imprisonment for life to be imposed on anybody who voluntarily destroys, deteriorates or damages public property or a socialist sector enterprise, with the aim of overthrowing the socialist republic system and that this provision applies not only to officials or persons in charge of a public service but likewise to any person who commits one of those acts. The Committee requests again that the Government supply a copy of the precise wording of the provision referred to as well as any indications enabling it to ascertain whether the scope of the draft provision shall be limited to damages caused by violence or misappropriation of public funds, or whether this provision could also apply to a strike; in the latter case the Committee request the Government to indicate any measure taken or contemplated to ensure the observance of the Convention.