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

A Government representative said that his country had faced many problems (war of liberation, civil war) which had monopolised all the Government's endeavours. The Government had now brought about a total transformation of social life. Legislative measures had been taken, such as the partial revision of the Constitution, the law on associations and the law on the right to strike, which bore witness to the attention paid to the comments of the Committee of Experts and of the present Committee.

The Workers' members noted the statement of the Government representative but remained extremely worried by the sentences of imprisonment mentioned by the Committee of Experts. No specific information had been given on that subject and it would be interesting to know precisely what measures had been taken, both in law and in practice, to eliminate those repressive measures which were in violation of the Convention.

The Workers' member of Angola thanked all those who had helped the Angolan people to restore peace, and asked the ILO to continue to help the Government to fulfil its obligations with respect to the ILO and to workers. The Angola workers had continuously attempted to exert an influence on labour legislation in their country. Their efforts and those of the supervisory bodies of the ILO had not been in vain. Since the signature of the ceasefire agreement, there had been a marked change in the legal situation and some ILO instruments had been submitted to the competent authorities. The Angolan workers nevertheless would remain vigilant in order to ensure that the Government put into practice its commitment to duly fulfil its obligations to the ILO. In that context, it should be noted that the Government appeared to be having some difficulty in ratifying Conventions Nos. 87, 102 and 144. It was extremely important for those instruments to be ratified and the Government should perhaps request a direct contacts mission to that end.

The Employers' members stressed that the application of Convention No. 105 in Angola had been examined many times. No real change appeared to have taken place, particularly regarding the question of sentences of imprisonment in a production camp, which were contrary to the Convention. The Government should present a full report on the measures taken to abolish such sentences. It was high time to be able to record progress in the matter, so as not to have to deal with the case any longer.

The Government member of Germany said that the problem brought up by the Committee of Experts and by the present Committee were very serious and had persisted for many years, but it should not be forgotten that only recently had there been a laying down of arms in Angola and that the process of restructuring was under way in the ocuntry. Great efforts had been made since the end of the civil war to change the situation. There was greater hope now than there had been a couple of years ago that the future would confirm those developments.

The Employers' member of Angola noted that his country had lived under a socialist dictatorship in which employers had never played their true role in the economy. The situation was in the process of changing and the employers were going to play a more active role within the framework of a market economy. Some changes had been made to the legal framework for labour relations but much remained to be done. The institution of a market economy would oblige the Government to legislate in such a way that work was no longer an obligation but a possibility. The Government should also adopt texts protecting the activities of employers.

The Government representative stated that the Government would endeavour to change the image of Angola so that the country appeared as one anxious to transform Angola society into a society in which human rights and international labour standards and an important and privileged place. The new legal texts adopted had been sent to the Office so that the Committee of Experts could examine them.

The Committee took note of the explanation provided by the Government representative. Although aware of the difficulties that he had mentioned, the Committee regretted that the Government had not been in a position to report substantial progress on the question, although some legal provisions had been revised or abrogated. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would be in a position, in the near future, to report substantial progress in putting law and practice into full conformity with the spirit and the letter of the Convention.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1990, Publication: 77th ILC session (1990)

A Government representative stated that all the member States of the ILO were aware of the conditions under which Angola had acceded to independence on 11 November 1975. Throughout the first years of its existence, the country had suffered from various plots which aimed at bringing the legally constituted and internationally recognised Government to its knees. In order to protect the interests of the Angolan people, the Government had to resort to protective measures. It was in this context that Act No. 11/7 of 15 December 1975, on labour discipline in the means of production, and other legislation, had been promulgated. He recalled that, despite the fact that these laws were the result of special circumstances, the Government was aware that certain provisions of the law in question did not correspond to the spirit and the letter of this Convention. This had been unavoidable in view of the circumstances at that time and the lack of trained administrators. He stressed that it was nevertheless inconceivable for independent Angola to maintain in its legislation provisions that were in contravention of the Convention. He stated that, firstly, since 1987 in the framework of economic and financial recovery, the restructuring of the economy by the Angolan Government was under way. In view of this, major revision of the Constitution and of legislation in general and the abrogation of any legislation which did not conform to the present reality was being undertaken. This was the case, for example, of Law No. 11/75 of 15 December 1975. Secondly, he pointed out that the Government had enacted Act No. 9/89 of 11 December 1989 concerning economic crimes. This Act clearly defined economic sabotage and consequently repeated paragraphs (a), (b), (e) and (k) of Section 1 of Act No. 11/75; a copy of this law had been sent to the ILO. Thirdly, with regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts on forced labour as a sanction for participation in strikes or for excessive time devoted to trade union activities, these questions were presently under study in the framework of the economic and political reform. All these reforms would permit the Government to provide more detailed information in relation to the comments of the Committee of Experts in its future reports.

The Workers' members wondered whether any real progress had been achieved since the case was last discussed before this Committee. It was still a question today of Act No. 11/75 of 15 December 1975 on labour discipline on the means of production. The Committee of Experts had highlighted the repressive nature of this law, despite the repeal of some of its provisions in 1982. In the opinion of the Workers' members, the problem was to know what was really happening, in view of the fact that the Government had been making similar promises since 1984. They pointed out that in 1986 the Government had declared that the comments of the Committee of Experts had been examined by a tripartite working party which had submitted its conclusions to the Committee for Youth, Health and Labour of the People's Assembly. At that time it had been maintained that this measure was necessary due to the political nature of some of the problems covered by this repressive law, and that a report would be submitted to the ILO after that committee had completed its deliberations. The Workers' members added that, since then, the only information received from the Government had been an extremely brief report received on 10 March 1988, indicating that it had not yet been possible to prepare a detailed report on the Convention, because the Government had not yet completed its study of the report of the Committee of Experts. They recalled that in 1989 no report had been received from the Government. However, it seemed to them that the Government representative had stated that the law in question had been repeated, and that the new text would be sent to the ILO for transmission to the Committee of Experts. The Workers' members asked the Government representative to indicate whether the law in question had in fact been repeated; if this was indeed the case, that would mean that progress had been achieved since receipt of the last report in 1986.

The Workers' member of Angola stressed that there was a gap between intentions and practice. While he supported the statements of the Workers' members, he recalled that since 1984 the Government had been making similar statements. If there were real difficulties, he invited the Government to make use of the direct contacts procedure. He intended to discuss these problems with his Government in Angola, stressing the necessity for the Government to continue its efforts to reconcile its national legislation with the Convention. He expressed the hope that the Government would take this warning seriously so that real progress would be noted next year.

The Employers' members highlighted the persistence of this case despite the many promises of good intentions made by the Government. The Government had recognised that the legislative texts referred to in the report of the Committee of Experts were contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Convention and that they needed to be modified. In Angola, it was still the case under existing legislation that labour discipline was carried out through forced labour and imprisonment, and that this law could be applied to anything which might interfere with production. The Government's explanation that the subject was under study was unsatisfactory. They considered that this Committee should undertake a new examination of this case next year; and that the Committee should express in the appropriate part of its report its serious concern with regard to the present situation and its intention to highlight the case in an appropriate manner if substantial changes had not occurred by next year.

The Government representative recalled that the reform of the Constitution and all the legislation of the country was under way. This meant that all of the labour law in force which was no longer appropriate would be subject to reform in the framework of the policy of economic recovery. He stressed that the Government had already recognised that the measures in Act No. 11/75 of 15 December 1975 did not conform with the Convention. This was why a revision of this particular Act was under way. He was convinced that next year the Government's reports would be much more detailed and would undoubtedly resolve the question of conformity of the legislation with the Convention. As for the particular case of Act No. 11/75 of 15 December 1975, he confirmed that the last part of this Act had been repealed and that the second part, which gave rise to problems, was in the process of being repealed. He repeated his statement that Act No. 9/89 of 11 December 1989 had already repealed paragraphs (a), (b), (e) and (k) of the first section of that law and that a complete reform of constitutional and legislative provisions was presently under way.

The Workers' members stressed that the reply of the Government representative was not entirely satisfactory. They noted that, as the Workers' member of Angola had pointed out, the Committee could no longer content itself with declarations of good intentions. It was not a question of lack of confidence in the Government representative, but they noted nevertheless that his statement today was very similar to the one made in 1984. At that time, the Committee had taken note of the explanations and assurances of good will that had been given by the Government. The Committee had expressed the hope that the legislation would be amended, in consultation with the workers' and employers' organisations, and that the following year it would be possible to note progress. The Workers' members, like the Employers' members, thought that this was a very worrying case. If the Government would show its good will and send detailed texts next year proving that Act No. 11/75 if 15 December 1975 had been completely repeated, the Committee would have cause to rejoice. If that was not the case, this Committee would have to express its great concern.

The Committee took due note of the explanations supplied by the Government representative, notably his undertaking to inform the Committee next year in a full and detailed manner. It regretted that the Government did not seem to be in a position to report further progress on this question. It sincerely hoped that the Government would report to the Committee on the repeal of the law concerned or, at least, of the relevant parts of that law. The Committee, however, felt the necessity of stressing the need to receive the information promised next year; if that was not the case it would envisage mentioning the case of Angola in a different way in its report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

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

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

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Adoption and communication of legislation which may have an impact on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the revision of the Penal Code is being carried out in the context of a process of participation in which State and civil society bodies have already taken part, and that a copy of the new Code will be transmitted to the Office as soon as it has been adopted. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the new Penal Code as soon as it has been adopted. Noting the copy of the 1991 Press Act, the Committee would also be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the 2006 Press Act as well as any implementing regulations.

The Committee takes advantage of this process of revising the penal legislation to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it would be preferable if the new Penal Code did not provide for prison sentences for press offences or participation in strikes in order to avoid any problems relating to the application of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, under the Convention, it is prohibited to exert forced labour, including prison labour, from individuals, because they have expressed certain political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, or because they have participated in a strike. Accordingly, prison sentences, where they involve compulsory labour – which is the case in Angola under sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981 – fall within the scope of the Convention when they penalize breaches of the prohibition to express views or opposition, or participation in a strike.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Imposition of forced labour as a means of labour discipline. In reply to the Committee’s comments on the need to amend certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, 1943, which are not in conformity with the Convention, the Government once again indicates that the revision of this Code is under way, now within the framework of the Committee set up within the Ministry of Justice which is working on a revision of the Code.

The Committee recalls that, under section 132 of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, a crew member who deserts at the port of embarkation is liable to a prison sentence of up to one year, while desertion in any other port may be punished by a sentence of two years. Under section 137, a crew member who fails to carry out orders issued by his superiors in relation to services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel may be punished by a prison sentence of one to six months. A crew member who refuses to obey an order and subsequently carries it out voluntarily may be punished by a maximum of three months’ imprisonment. These provisions are contrary to the Convention in so far as they allow prison sentences to be imposed (involving compulsory labour under sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981) for certain breaches of labour discipline which do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board.

The Committee trusts that the process of revision of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code will be completed in the near future in order to ensure that breaches of labour discipline which do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board are not punishable with a prison sentence. Please provide a copy of the new Code once adopted.

Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the need to amend the provisions of section 27(1) of the Strike Act (Act No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991), under which the organizers of a strike that is prohibited, declared unlawful or suspended by virtue of the law, are liable to a prison sentence and a fine. In fact, under this section, compulsory labour in the form of a prison sentence involving the obligation to work, may be imposed on the organizer of a strike that is prohibited, declared unlawful or suspended. Furthermore, the legislation also provides for restrictions on the right to strike which have the effect of making illegal certain activities which would be legitimate according to the principles of freedom of association (see the Committee’s comments concerning the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Strike Act is still in the process of being revised and there is a hope that the concerns expressed by the Committee will be taken into account in this context. Taking into account its repeated comments on numerous provisions of the Strike Act, under both this Convention and Convention No. 87, the Committee hopes that the revision process will be completed shortly so that, in accordance with Article 1(d) of the Convention, the peaceful participation in a strike (without the commission of acts of violence against persons or property) may not be punished by a prison sentence.

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

Adoption and communication of legislation which may have an impact on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the revision of the Penal Code is being carried out in the context of a process of participation in which State and civil society bodies have already taken part, and that a copy of the new Code will be transmitted to the Office as soon as it has been adopted. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the new Penal Code as soon as it has been adopted. Noting the copy of the 1991 Press Act communicated with its latest report, the Committee would also be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the 2006 Press Act as well as any implementing regulations.

The Committee takes advantage of this process of revising the penal legislation to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it would be preferable if the new Penal Code did not provide for prison sentences for press offences or participation in strikes in order to avoid any problems relating to the application of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, under the Convention, it is prohibited to exert forced labour, including prison labour, from individuals, because they have expressed certain political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, or because they have participated in a strike. Accordingly, prison sentences, where they involve compulsory labour – which is the case in Angola under sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981 – fall within the scope of the Convention when they penalize breaches of the prohibition to express views or opposition, or participation in a strike.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Imposition of forced labour as a means of labour discipline. In reply to the Committee’s comments on the need to amend certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, 1943, which are not in conformity with the Convention, the Government once again indicates that the revision of this Code is under way, now within the framework of the Committee set up within the Ministry of Justice which is working on a revision of the Code.

The Committee recalls that, under section 132 of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, a crew member who deserts at the port of embarkation is liable to a prison sentence of up to one year, while desertion in any other port may be punished by a sentence of two years. Under section 137, a crew member who fails to carry out orders issued by his superiors in relation to services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel may be punished by a prison sentence of one to six months. A crew member who refuses to obey an order and subsequently carries it out voluntarily may be punished by a maximum of three months’ imprisonment. These provisions are contrary to the Convention in so far as they allow prison sentences to be imposed (involving compulsory labour under sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981) for certain breaches of labour discipline which do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board.

The Committee trusts that the process of revision of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code will be completed in the near future in order to ensure that breaches of labour discipline which do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board are not punishable with a prison sentence. Please provide a copy of the new Code once adopted.

Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the need to amend the provisions of section 27(1) of the Strike Act (Act No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991), under which the organizers of a strike that is prohibited, declared unlawful or suspended by virtue of the law, are liable to a prison sentence and a fine. In fact, under this section, compulsory labour in the form of a prison sentence involving the obligation to work, may be imposed on the organizer of a strike that is prohibited, declared unlawful or suspended. Furthermore, the legislation also provides for restrictions on the right to strike which have the effect of making illegal certain activities which would be legitimate according to the principles of freedom of association (see the Committee’s comments concerning the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Strike Act is still in the process of being revised and there is a hope that the concerns expressed by the Committee will be taken into account in this context. Taking into account its repeated comments on numerous provisions of the Strike Act, under both this Convention and Convention No. 87, the Committee hopes that the revision process will be completed shortly so that, in accordance with Article 1(d) of the Convention, the peaceful participation in a strike (without the commission of acts of violence against persons or property) may not be punished by a prison sentence.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows.

Adoption and communication of legislation which may have an impact on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes from the Government’s web site that a draft Penal Code has been finalized and that it is to be adopted shortly. It has also learnt of the adoption in 2006 of a Press Act which repeals the Press Act of 1991. The Committee asks the Government to communicate a copy of the new Press Act and a copy of the new Penal Code once it has been adopted.

Within the context of the revision of penal legislation, the Committee wishes to recall that work imposed upon persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, in most cases, has no relevance to the application of this Convention. However, where an individual has to perform labour including compulsory prison labour, because she or he has expressed certain political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, or has participated in a strike, the situation is covered by the Convention. Accordingly, prison sentences, where they involve compulsory labour – which is the case in Angola under sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981 – fall within the scope of the Convention when they penalize breaches of the prohibition to express views or opposition, or participation in a strike. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the above comments into account within the context of the revision of penal legislation. In this regard, it asks the Government to provide information on the impact that the new Press Act and the new Penal Code, once adopted, have on the application of the Convention.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Imposition of forced labour as a means of labour discipline. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the need to amend certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, 1943, which are not in conformity with the Convention. These provisions allow custodial prison sentences to be imposed (involving compulsory labour, by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981) for failure to carry out orders concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board. Under section 132 of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, a crew member who deserts at the port of embarkation is liable to a prison sentence of up to one year; desertion in any other port may be punished by a sentence of two years. Under the terms of section 137, a crew member who fails to carry out orders issued by his superiors concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel may be punished by a prison sentence of from one to six months. A crew member who refuses to obey an order and subsequently carries it out voluntarily may be punished by a maximum of three months’ imprisonment.

The Committee notes that the Government stated that a general revision of merchant shipping legislation is under way. It further stated that this process would take into account the Committee’s comments and the need to align national legislation with the recently adopted ILO Conventions on maritime labour which Angola intends to ratify. The Committee therefore trusts that the necessary amendments will be made to the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code in the very near future in order to ensure that breaches of labour discipline which do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board are not liable to a prison sentence. Please provide a copy of the legislation adopted in this respect.

Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously drew the Government’s attention to the need to amend the provisions of section 27(1) of the Strike Act (Act No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991), under which the organizers of a strike that is prohibited, unlawful or suspended by virtue of the law are liable to a prison sentence and a fine. The Committee pointed out that this provision, read in conjunction with other legislative provisions restricting the exercise of the right to strike, was inconsistent with Article 1(d) of the Convention. In fact, forced labour, in the form of a prison sentence involving the obligation to work, may be imposed on the organizer of a strike that is prohibited, unlawful or suspended and, at the same time, legislation provides restrictions on the right to strike which run counter to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that the Strike Act is currently under revision, and it is hoped that this revision will respond to the concerns expressed by the Committee. The Committee hopes that the legislative revision process can be completed as soon as possible so as to ensure that, in accordance with this provision of the Convention, participation in a strike cannot be punished by a prison sentence (involving compulsory labour).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Adoption and communication of legislation which may have an impact on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes from the Government’s web site that a draft Penal Code has been finalized and that it is to be adopted shortly. It has also learnt of the adoption in 2006 of a Press Act which repeals the Press Act of 1991. The Committee asks the Government to communicate a copy of the new Press Act and a copy of the new Penal Code once it has been adopted.

Within the context of the revision of penal legislation, the Committee wishes to recall that work imposed upon persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, in most cases, has no relevance to the application of this Convention. However, where an individual has to perform labour including compulsory prison labour, because she or he has expressed certain political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, or has participated in a strike, the situation is covered by the Convention. Accordingly, prison sentences, where they involve compulsory labour – which is the case in Angola under sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981 – fall within the scope of the Convention when they penalize breaches of the prohibition to express views or opposition, or participation in a strike. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the above comments into account within the context of the revision of penal legislation. In this regard, it asks the Government to provide information on the impact that the new Press Act and the new Penal Code, once adopted, have on the application of the Convention.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Imposition of forced labour as a means of labour discipline. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the need to amend certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, 1943, which are not in conformity with the Convention. These provisions allow custodial prison sentences to be imposed (involving compulsory labour, by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981) for failure to carry out orders concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board. Under section 132 of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, a crew member who deserts at the port of embarkation is liable to a prison sentence of up to one year; desertion in any other port may be punished by a sentence of two years. Under the terms of section 137, a crew member who fails to carry out orders issued by his superiors concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel may be punished by a prison sentence of from one to six months. A crew member who refuses to obey an order and subsequently carries it out voluntarily may be punished by a maximum of three months’ imprisonment.

The Committee notes that in its latest report the Government states that a general revision of merchant shipping legislation is under way. It states that this process will take into account the Committee’s comments and the need to align national legislation with the recently adopted ILO Conventions on maritime labour which Angola intends to ratify. The Committee therefore trusts that the necessary amendments will be made to the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code in the very near future in order to ensure that breaches of labour discipline which do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board are not liable to a prison sentence. Please provide a copy of the legislation adopted in this respect.

Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously drew the Government’s attention to the need to amend the provisions of section 27(1) of the Strike Act (Act No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991), under which the organizers of a strike that is prohibited, unlawful or suspended by virtue of the law are liable to a prison sentence and a fine. The Committee pointed out that this provision, read in conjunction with other legislative provisions restricting the exercise of the right to strike, was inconsistent with Article 1(d) of the Convention. In fact, forced labour, in the form of a prison sentence involving the obligation to work, may be imposed on the organizer of a strike that is prohibited, unlawful or suspended and, at the same time, legislation provides restrictions on the right to strike which run counter to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its latest report to the effect that the Strike Act is currently under revision, and it is hoped that this revision will respond to the concerns expressed by the Committee. The Committee hopes that the legislative revision process can be completed as soon as possible so as to ensure that, in accordance with this provision of the Convention, participation in a strike cannot be punished by a prison sentence (involving compulsory labour).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes that in its latest report the Government indicates that a working group coordinated by the Ministry of Justice has been set up to revise penal legislation. It requests the Government to supply information on the work conducted by this group and any legislation adopted. It hopes that during the penal legislation revision process the Government will take account of the comments below. Meanwhile, the Committee requests the Government to supply with its next report copies of the Penal Code and the Penal Procedure Code currently in force.

1. Article 1(c) of the Convention. Imposition of forced labour as a means of labour discipline. Since 1992, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, 1943, which are not in conformity with the Convention. These provisions allow custodial prison sentences to be imposed (involving compulsory labour, by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981) for failure to carry out orders concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board. Under section 132 of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, a crew member who deserts at the post of embarkation is liable to a prison sentence of up to one year; desertion in any other port may be punished by a sentence of two years. Under the terms of section 137, a crew member who fails to carry out orders issued by his superiors concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel may be punished by a prison sentence of from one to six months. A crew member who refuses to obey an order and subsequently carries it out voluntarily may be punished by a maximum of three months’ imprisonment. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future to amend these provisions, particularly in the framework of the penal legislation revision process, in order to bring its national legislation into conformity with Article 1(c) of the Convention. Please supply information on this matter as well as copies of any legislation adopted.

2. Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee notes that under section 27(1) of the Strike Act (Act No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991) the organizers of a strike that is prohibited, illicit or suspended by virtue of the law are liable to a prison sentence and a fine. As noted above, prison sentences involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981. The Committee notes, furthermore, that in the context of application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) it has drawn the Government’s attention to a number of legislative provisions which restrict the exercise of the right to strike. The result of all the abovementioned elements is that forced labour, in the form of a prison sentence involving the obligation to work, may be imposed on the organizer of a strike that is prohibited, illicit or suspended and that legislation provides restrictions on the right to strike which seem to run counter to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee therefore requests the Government to examine the provisions of section 27(1) of the Strike Act in the light of the Convention and to supply information on the measures taken or envisaged to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

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

The Committee notes that in its latest report the Government indicates that a working group coordinated by the Ministry of Justice has been set up to revise penal legislation. It requests the Government to supply information on the work conducted by this group and any legislation adopted. It hopes that during the penal legislation revision process the Government will take account of the comments below. Meanwhile, the Committee requests the Government to supply with its next report copies of the Penal Code and the Penal Procedure Code currently in force.

1. Article 1(c) of the Convention. Imposition of forced labour as a means of labour discipline. Since 1992, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, 1943, which are not in conformity with the Convention. These provisions allow custodial prison sentences to be imposed (involving compulsory labour, by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981) for failure to carry out orders concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board. Under section 132 of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, a crew member who deserts at the post of embarkation is liable to a prison sentence of up to one year; desertion in any other port may be punished by a sentence of two years. Under the terms of section 137, a crew member who fails to carry out orders issued by his superiors concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel may be punished by a prison sentence of from one to six months. A crew member who refuses to obey an order and subsequently carries it out voluntarily may be punished by a maximum of three months’ imprisonment. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future to amend these provisions, particularly in the framework of the penal legislation revision process, in order to bring its national legislation into conformity with Article 1(c) of the Convention. Please supply information on this matter as well as copies of any legislation adopted.

2. Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee notes that under section 27(1) of the Strike Act (Act No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991) the organizers of a strike that is prohibited, illicit or suspended by virtue of the law are liable to a prison sentence and a fine. As noted above, prison sentences involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations of 9 July 1981. The Committee notes, furthermore, that in the context of application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) it has drawn the Government’s attention to a number of legislative provisions which restrict the exercise of the right to strike. The result of all the abovementioned elements is that forced labour, in the form of a prison sentence involving the obligation to work, may be imposed on the organizer of a strike that is prohibited, illicit or suspended and that legislation provides restrictions on the right to strike which seem to run counter to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee therefore requests the Government to examine the provisions of section 27(1) of the Strike Act in the light of the Convention and to supply information on the measures taken or envisaged to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

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

1. The Committee noted in previous direct requests that several draft texts in respect of the prison system were under examination, and particularly a Bill respecting the general principles of the prison system. It had also noted that the Government confined itself in its report to referring to its previous reports. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide specific information in its next report on the state of work on these Bills.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee also noted that certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code (Legislative Decree No. 33/252, sections 132 and 137, respecting desertion and failure to execute certain orders) could result in prison sentences involving compulsory labour. The Committee recalled that the only sentences not covered by the Convention are those applying to acts which endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report referring to the information provided previously, to the effect that the revision of the Merchant Shipping Act is still in progress. It therefore once again requests the Government to supply specific information in its next report on the progress of the revision work.

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

Article 1(c) of the Convention. The Committee had previously commented over many years on subsections (g) and (m) of section 1 of Act No. 11/75, of 15 December 1975, regarding discipline in the production process, under which "passive resistance to labour" or "any other acts which seriously hinder the production process" constituted "crimes against production" and were punishable with sentences of imprisonment of up to one year or more than six months respectively, involving an obligation to work (section 8(2)). The Committee notes with satisfaction that section 324(b) of the new General Labour Act (No. 2/2000 of 11 February 2000) repeals those non-complying subsections.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report.

1. The Committee noted in its previous direct requests that several draft texts in respect of the prison system were under examination, particularly a Bill on the general principles of the prison system. The Committee notes that the Government merely refers in its report to its previous reports. The Committee requests the Government to communicate in its next report specific information on the state of progress of these drafts.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. 2. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 1(g) and (m) of Act No. 11/75 on discipline in the production process under which passive resistance to labour or any other acts which seriously hinder the production process constitute crimes against production and are punishable, under the terms of sections 4 and 6 of the same Act, by imprisonment of up to one year or more than six months respectively. The Committee notes that the Strike Act (No. 23/91) repealed any provision contrary to this Act, and specifically section 1(1) of Act No. 11/75; with regard to section 1(g) and (m) of Act No. 11/75, the Government indicated in its 1995 report that it believed that with the enactment of the Strike Act and Trade Union Act (No. 21-D/92) those two paragraphs would be implicitly revoked. The Committee notes that the Strike Act and Trade Union Act relate to collective action, whereas section 1(g) and (m) of Act No. 11/75 apply without distinction to individual offences against labour discipline; the Strike Act specifically repealed section 1(1) of Act No. 11/75 without mentioning subsections (g) and (m). The Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to expressly repeal subsections (g) and (m) of Act No. 11/75 so that these provisions cannot be invoked in any circumstances.

3. In its previous comments, the Committee also pointed out that certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code (Legislative Decree No. 33/252, sections 132 and 137, on desertion and failure to execute certain orders) could result in prison sentences involving compulsory labour. The Committee recalled that the only sentences not covered by the Convention are those applying to acts which endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board. The Committee notes that revision of the Merchant Shipping Act is still in progress. It requests the Government to supply in its next report specific information on the progress of the revision work.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report.

1. The Committee had noted in its previous direct request that several draft texts respecting the prison system were under examination, in particular a draft text respecting the general principles of the prison system. The Committee again requests the Government to provide information with regard to the status of the above draft texts and to indicate the effect these texts may have on the undertaking to suppress the use of forced labour as laid down in the Convention.

2. Article 1(c) of the Convention. In its previous direct requests, the Committee had presented its comments with regard to subsections (g) and (m) of Act No. 11/75 (breaches of labour discipline, passive resistance to forced labour or acts which seriously damage the production process shall be punishable by sanctions which impose forced labour). The Committee had also noted that the above subsections had been implicitly repealed by Acts Nos. 23/91 of 15 June 1991 and 21/D/92 of 28 August 1992, which in general terms repeal any legislation that is not in conformity with these Acts. The Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to explicitly repeal the provisions in question in order to eliminate any doubt or uncertainty as to the status of statutory law and to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention.

3. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that under certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping and Penal Code (Legislative Decree No. 33/252, sections 132 and 137 respecting desertion and the failure to carry out certain orders) prison sentences which include compulsory labour could be enforceable. The Committee again recalls that only prison sentences which punish acts which threaten the safety of the vessel or the lives and health of the persons on board are excluded from the scope of the Convention. The Committee notes, in this respect, the Government's statement to the effect that the revision and amendment of the Act respecting merchant shipping is under way. The Committee takes due note of the Government's undertaking to communicate the progress achieved in this respect in future reports.

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. 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 matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government to the effect that subsection (g) (passive resistance to work) and (m) (acts seriously harmful to the production process) of Act No. 11/75 have been implicitly repealed by Act No. 23/91. Under the terms of the above provisions, penalties involving forced labour (sections 6 and 8(2) of the same Act) can be imposed to punish breaches of labour discipline.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation formally into conformity with the Convention by expressly repealing or amending subsections (g) and (m) of Act No. 11/75 to eliminate any doubt or uncertainty as to the status of the statutory law.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the terms of section 132 of Legislative Decree No. 33/252 (Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code) crew members who desert at the post of embarkation are liable to a prison sentence of up to one year; desertion in any other port may be punished by a sentence of two years.

Under the terms of section 137 of the above Code, crew members who fail to carry out orders issued by superiors concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel may be punished by a prison sentence of from one to six months. A crew member who refuses to obey an order and subsequently carries it out voluntarily may be punished by a maximum of three months' imprisonment. Prison sentences involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations (Regulamento do regime progressivo) of 9 July 1981.

The Committee recalled that the only sentences not covered by the Convention are those applying to acts which endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board.

The Committee notes that the Government's report does not contain information on this matter.

The Committee once again requests the Government to examine the above provisions in the light of the Convention and to provide information on the measures that have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that sanctions involving compulsory labour may not be imposed for breaches of labour discipline.

3. The Committee noted previously, from the information provided by the Government, that several draft texts on prisons were under examination, including a preliminary draft Bill on the general principles of the prison system. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the status of the above draft texts.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

1. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government to the effect that subsection (g) (passive resistance to work) and (m) (acts seriously harmful to the production process) of Act No. 11/75 have been implicitly repealed by Act No. 23/91. Under the terms of the above provisions, penalties involving forced labour (sections 6 and 8(2) of the same Act) can be imposed to punish breaches of labour discipline.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation formally into conformity with the Convention by expressly repealing or amending subsections (g) and (m) of Act No. 11/75 to eliminate any doubt or uncertainty as to the status of the statutory law.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the terms of section 132 of Legislative Decree No. 33/252 (Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code) crew members who desert at the post of embarkation are liable to a prison sentence of up to one year; desertion in any other port may be punished by a sentence of two years.

Under the terms of section 137 of the above Code, crew members who fail to carry out orders issued by superiors concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel may be punished by a prison sentence of from one to six months. A crew member who refuses to obey an order and subsequently carries it out voluntarily may be punished by a maximum of three months' imprisonment. Prison sentences involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations (Regulamento do regime progressivo) of 9 July 1981.

The Committee recalled that the only sentences not covered by the Convention are those applying to acts which endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board.

The Committee notes that the Government's report does not contain information on this matter.

The Committee once again requests the Government to examine the above provisions in the light of the Convention and to provide information on the measures that have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that sanctions involving compulsory labour may not be imposed for breaches of labour discipline.

3. The Committee noted previously, from the information provided by the Government, that several draft texts on prisons were under examination, including a preliminary draft Bill on the general principles of the prison system. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the status of the above draft texts.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

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 matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. The Committee has noted that section 1(1) of Act No. 11/75 has been repealed by Act No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991 of which the Government has provided a copy.

The Committee noted previously that subsections (a), (b), (e) and (k) of section 1 of Act No. 11/75 had also been repealed.

The Committee has observed that subsections (g) and (m) referred to in earlier comments and which concern, respectively, passive resistance to work (punishable by one year in prison under section 4 of the same Act) and acts seriously harmful to the production process (punishable by a minimum six months' imprisonment under section 6) are still in force. Both sentences must be served in a production camp (section 8.2).

The Committee again requests that the Government indicate the measures taken or under consideration to ensure observance of Article 1(c) of the Convention which prohibits the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour to punish breaches of labour discipline.

2. The Committee noted from information supplied by the Government that several draft texts on prisons were being examined, including a preliminary draft Act on the general principles of the prisons' system. The Committee again asks that the Government report on the status of the above drafts and to provide a copy of them as soon as they have been adopted.

3. The Committee notes that under section 132 of Legislative Decree No. 33/252 (Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code) crew members who desert at the port of embarkation are liable to a prison sentence of up to one year; desertion in any other port may be punished by a sentence of two years.

Under section 137 of the same Code, crew members who fail to carry out orders issued by superiors concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel may be punished by a prison sentence of from one to six months. A crew member who refuses to obey an order and subsequently executes it voluntarily may be punished by a maximum of three months' imprisonment. Prison sentences involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations (Regulamento do regime progressivo) of 9 July 1981.

The Committee again recalls that the only sentences not covered by the Convention are those applying to acts which endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board.

The Committee asks the Government to examine the above-mentioned provisions in the light of the Convention and to provide information on the measures taken or under consideration to ensure that sanctions involving compulsory labour may not be imposed for breaches of labour discipline.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

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:

1. The Committee has noted that section 1(1) of Act No. 11/75 has been repealed by Act No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991 of which the Government has provided a copy.

The Committee noted previously that subsections (a), (b), (e) and (k) of section 1 of Act No. 11/75 had also been repealed.

The Committee has observed that subsections (g) and (m) referred to in earlier comments and which concern, respectively, passive resistance to work (punishable by one year in prison under section 4 of the same Act) and acts seriously harmful to the production process (punishable by a minimum six months' imprisonment under section 6) are still in force. Both sentences must be served in a production camp (section 8.2).

The Committee again requests that the Government indicate the measures taken or under consideration to ensure observance of Article 1(c) of the Convention which prohibits the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour to punish breaches of labour discipline.

2. The Committee noted from information supplied by the Government that several draft texts on prisons were being examined, including a preliminary draft Act on the general principles of the prisons' system. The Committee again asks that the Government report on the status of the above drafts and to provide a copy of them as soon as they have been adopted.

3. The Committee notes that under section 132 of Legislative Decree No. 33/252 (Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code) crew members who desert at the port of embarkation are liable to a prison sentence of up to one year; desertion in any other port may be punished by a sentence of two years.

Under section 137 of the same Code, crew members who fail to carry out orders issued by superiors concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel may be punished by a prison sentence of from one to six months. A crew member who refuses to obey an order and subsequently executes it voluntarily may be punished by a maximum of three months' imprisonment. Prison sentences involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations (Regulamento do regime progressivo) of 9 July 1981.

The Committee again recalls that the only sentences not covered by the Convention are those applying to acts which endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board.

The Committee asks the Government to examine the above-mentioned provisions in the light of the Convention and to provide information on the measures taken or under consideration to ensure that sanctions involving compulsory labour may not be imposed for breaches of labour discipline.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. It also notes the discussions that took place at the Conference Committee in 1991.

1. With reference to its observation, the Committee notes with interest that section 1(1) of Act No. 11/75 has been repealed by Act No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991 of which the Government has provided a copy.

The Committee noted previously that subsections (a), (b), (e) and (k) of section 1 of Act No. 11/75 had also been repealed.

The Committee observes that subsections (g) and (m) referred to in earlier comments and which concern, respectively, passive resistance to work (punishable by one year in prison under section 4 of the same Act) and acts seriously harmful to the production process (punishable by a minimum six months' imprisonment under section 6) are still in force. Both sentences must be served in a production camp (section 8.2).

The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or under consideration to ensure observance of Article 1(c) of the Convention which prohibits the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour to punish breaches of labour discipline.

2. The Committee noted from information supplied by the Government that several draft texts on prisons were being examined, including a preliminary draft Act on the general principles of the prisons' system. The Committee asks the Government to report on the status of the above drafts and to provide a copy of them as soon as they have been adopted.

3. The Committee notes that under section 132 of Legislative Decree No. 33/252 (Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code) crew members who desert at the port of embarkation are liable to a prison sentence of up to one year; desertion in any other port may be punished by a sentence of two years.

Under section 137 of the same Code, crew members who fail to carry out orders issued by superiors concerning services which do not endanger the safety of the vessel may be punished by a prison sentence of from one to six months. A crew member who refuses to obey an order and subsequently executes it voluntarily may be punished by a maximum of three months' imprisonment. Prison sentences involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Prison Regulations (Regulamento do regime progressivo) of 9 July 1981.

The Committee recalls that the only sentences not covered by the Convention are those applying to acts which endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board.

The Committee asks the Government to examine the above-mentioned provisions in the light of the Convention and to provide information on the measures taken or under consideration to ensure that sanctions involving compulsory labour may not be imposed for breaches of labour discipline.

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

The Committee notes with satisfaction the repeal of the following laws and provisions under which sentences involving compulsory labour could be imposed in circumstances falling within the scope of the Convention and on which the Committee had commented:

- Legislative Decree No. 3/75 of 8 January 1975 which laid down restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike (repealed by Act No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991);

- section 23(1) and (2) of Act No. 7/78 of 10 June 1978, under which a sentence of imprisonment could be inflicted on persons who encourage, prepare or organise the paralysis of a work centre (repealed by Act No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991);

- section 8, 24(1) and (2) of Act No. 7/78 of 10 June 1978 concerning, respectively, the publicising of false assertions damaging to the reputation of the State and the disturbance of the public order by any means whatsoever (repealed by Act No. 22/91 of 15 June 1991).

The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Act No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991 respecting the right to strike; Act No. 22/91 of 15 June 1991 respecting the press; Act No. 16/91 of 11 May 1991 respecting freedom of assembly and opinion; Act No. 14/91 of 11 May 1991 respecting associations.

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

Prison labour. 1. In earlier comments, the Committee has noted the statement by the Government that the legal basis of prison labour that existed under the previous regime is no longer in force, prison labour being governed by the Penal Code, and that certain prisoners are exempted from the obligation to perform prison labour. The Committee had asked the Government to supply copies of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure in force, of Act No. 4-D/80 of 21 November 1980, respecting detention pending trial and any text dealing with the organisation of prisons and production camps, since in the absence of these texts the Committee is unable to ascertain the conformity of the legislation with the Convention.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that several draft texts on prisons are being prepared, including a preliminary draft Act on the general principles of the prisons system. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the developments regarding these drafts and to supply copies once they have been adopted.

The Committee notes that the copy of the Penal Code previously asked for has not been appended to the Government report. It again requests the Government to send a copy with its next report.

The Committee has noted Act No. 4-D/80 (Act on detention pending trial) supplied by the Government.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 2. The Committee has noted that sentences of imprisonment may be inflicted under the following provisions of Act No. 7/78 of 10 June 1978 and, with a view to ascertain whether the scope of these provisions is compatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention, it has asked the Government to furnish full information concerning their application in practice, including the number of sentences pronounced and copies of the judgements handed out:

(a) section 8, under which a sentence of imprisonment can be inflicted on any person who makes, reproduces in public, divulges or attempts to divulge in any form whatever assertions that he knows to be false or seriously distorted and damaging to the reputation of the State or its prestige abroad;

(b) section 24(1) and (2), under which, in particular, a sentence of imprisonment can be inflicted for any attempt to disturb public order or the peace by any means whatsoever, particularly by disseminating false or tendentious news or malicious predictions likely to cause alarm, anxiety, discontent or public disorder and for drafting , using, distributing, attempting to distribute or holding written texts or other means of communication leading to the same result.

The Committee notes from the Government 's report that a draft Act on Societies, governing their functioning, is being examined, as well as a draft on the creation of an Information Ministry.

The Committee hopes that in the preparation of the new Acts on societies and on information, due regard will be held to the provisions of the Convention so as to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, in particular as regards the expression of views by the press, political activities and the freedoms of association and of assembly.

Pending the adoption of the texts referred to by the Government, the Committee requests the Government to supply the information asked for concerning the practical application of sections 8 and 24(1) and (2) of Act No. 7/78 of 10 June 1978.

Article 1(d). 3. In earlier direct requests, the Committee had referred to restrictions on the right to strike provided for under sections 8(4), 11 and 18 of Legislative Decree No. 3/75 of 8 January 1975, which are enforceable with sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work by virtue of sections 22(b) and 28 of the same Decree. The Committee had noted that new legislation was being drafted on the exercise of trade union rights.

The Committee had noted that, by virtue of section 23(1) and (2) of Act No. 7/78 of 10 June 1978, a sentence of imprisonment can be inflicted on those who encourage, prepare or organise the closing or paralysis of a work centre by the workers or who attempt to do so.

The Committee notes the Government's indication that this issue will be discussed at the third Congress of the Labour Party (MPLA).

The Committee hopes that measures will soon be taken to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point and that the Government will indicate the provisions adopted to this end.

4. The Committee again requests the Government to send a copy of the the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code at present in force, which was not appended to the Government's report.

5. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government on the application of Sections 10 and 11(1)(c) of Decree No. 83-A-81 of 7 November 1981.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. It has also noted the discussion which has taken place at the Conference Committee in 1990.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee has pointed out in earlier comments that under title I of Act No. 11/75 of 15 December 1975 sentences of imprisonment in a production camp can be inflicted for various breaches of labour discipline, including failure to use the means of production, passive resistance to work, exceeding the time allowed to union committees and union delegates for performing union activities during working hours, the paralysis of work and strikes not called by the unions or workers' committees and any other acts seriously harmful to the production process, including any bargaining on wages carried out in the face of the prohibition laid down by the Order of 30 June 1976 to suspend all bargaining on wages.

The Committee had noted that the examination of these comments had begun. In its latest report the Government indicates that the Act is being revised and that letters (a), (b), (e) and (k) of section 1 have already been repealed.

The Committee observes that its comments bear on letters (g), (h) and (m) in addition to letter (a) of section 1 of Act No. 11/75.

The Committee hopes that the Government will in the very near future make every effort to bring the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 11/75 into conformity with Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention.

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

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:

Prison labour. 1. In earlier comments, the Committee has noted the statement by the Government that the legal basis of prison labour that existed under the previous regime is no longer in force, prison labour being governed by the Penal Code, and that certain prisoners are exempted from the obligation to perform prison labour. The Committee again asks the Government to furnish a copy of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure at present in force, of Act No. 4-D/80 of 21 November 1980 respecting detention pending trial and any text dealing with the organisation of prisons and production camps, since in the absence of these texts the Committee is unable to ascertain the conformity of the legislation with the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 2. The Committee has previously noted from the statement by the Government that various legislative decrees that formerly governed freedom of expression, the right of association and the right of meeting have been repealed by section 84 of the Constitution, that no legislation has been drafted to govern the exercise of these rights and freedoms, which are guaranteed by section 22 of the Constitution, and that Act No. 7/78 of 26 May 1978 has repealed Title II of Book II of the Penal Code, under which infringements of the provisions of the above-mentioned legislative decrees were punished.

The Committee notes that sentences of imprisonment may be inflicted under the following provisions of Act No. 7/78 of 10 June 1978 and, with a view to ascertaining whether the scope of these provisions is compatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention, it asks the Government to furnish full information concerning their application in practice, including the number of sentences pronounced and copies of the judgements handed out:

(a)section 8, under which a sentence of imprisonment can be inflicted on any person who makes, reproduces in public, divulges or attempts to divulge in any form whatever assertions that he knows to be false or seriously distorted and damaging to the reputation of the State or its prestige abroad;

(b)section 24(1) and (2), under which, in particular, a sentence of imprisonment can be inflicted for any attempt to disturb public order or the peace by any means whatsoever, particularly by disseminating false or tendentious news or malicious predictions likely to cause alarm, anxiety, discontent or public disorder and for drafting, using, distributing, attempting to distribute or holding written texts or other means of communication leading to the same result.

The Committee also asks the Government to furnish a copy of any text adopted on the maintenance of law and order, freedom of expression, freedom of meeting and freedom of association.

Article 1(c). 3. With reference to its observation, the Committee notes that by virtue of sections 10 and 11(1)(c) of Decree No. 83-A/81 of 7 November 1981, absences that are not properly justified or are not accepted by the management of the enterprise are considered to be unwarranted offences with consequences including "punishment under the law".

The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or under consideration to ensure that the provisions of title I of Act No. 11/75 and, in particular, the designation of crime of passive resistance to work, punishable by a sentence of imprisonment in a labour camp, shall not be applied to the authors of unwarranted offences leading to punishment under the law.

4. The Committee again asks the Government to furnish the text of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code at present in force.

Article 1(d). 5. In earlier direct requests, the Committee has referred to restrictions on the right to strike provided for under sections 8(4), 11 and 18 of Legislative Decree No. 3/75 of 8 January 1975, failure to observe which makes a person liable to a sentence of imprisonment involving the obligation to work by virtue of sections 22(b) and 28 of the same Decree. The Committee has noted, from the report the Government furnished in 1981, that the right to strike is not subject to restrictions under the Constitution, that Legislative Decree No. 3/75 was adopted before independence and that new legislation was being drafted on the exercise of trade union rights.

The Committee notes that, by virtue of section 23(1) and (2) of Act No. 7/78 of 10 June 1978, a sentence of imprisonment can be inflicted on those who encourage, prepare or organise the closing or paralysis of a work centre by the workers or who attempt to do so.

The Committee hopes that measures will be taken shortly to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point and that the Government will indicate the provisions adopted for the purpose.

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

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

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee has pointed out in earlier comments that under title I of Act No. 11/75 of 15 December 1975 sentences of imprisonment in a production camp can be inflicted for various breaches of labour discipline, including failure to use the means of production, passive resistance to work, exceeding the time allowed to union committees and union delegates for performing union activities during working hours, the paralysis of work and strikes not called by the unions or workers' committees and any other acts seriously harmful to the production process, including any bargaining on wages carried out in the face of the prohibition laid down by the Order of 30 June 1976 to suspend all bargaining on wages. In the absence of explanations by the Government, the Committee understands that the provisions of title I of Act No. 11/75 of 15 December 1975, as amended by Act No. 6/82 of 13 February 1982, providing for the imposition of penal sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline and participation in strikes, remain in force. The Committee notes the statement by the Government that the examination of these comments has begun. Referring to the statement of the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1984 that the necessary explanations, or indeed new texts amending the legislation, would be communicated within a short period, the Committee trusts that measures will be taken rapidly to bring the provisions of title I of Act No. 11/75 into conformity with the provisions of Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention and that the Government will indicate any action undertaken for this purpose.

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