Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1993, Publication: 80th ILC session (1993)

The Government has communicated the following information:

The Minister for Labour and Human Resources has proceeded to carry out the appropriate steps before the National Congress, which is responsible for discussing the draft reforms of the law which were prepared in 1989, to take note and approve of these reforms. The Government has sent a copy of the official letter No. 02-AIT-93 of 13 April 1993 that the Minister of Labour and Human Resources has addressed to the President of the National Congress and in which he requests that the constitutional procedures be engaged with respect to the following bills:

-- II-90-154 to interpret Legislative Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967, published in the Official Register No. 161 of 3 July 1967, respecting collective work stoppages.

-- II-90-156, containing reforms of sections 443(11), section 455(4), section 456 and section 43(f) of the Labour Code;

-- II-90-157, to amend various provisions of the Commercial Code;

-- II-90-158, to repeal section 165 of the Maritime Police Code;

-- II-90-159, to amend section 11 of the Co-operatives Act;

-- II-90-160, to interpret the provisions of sections 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Penal Code, and section 22 of the Code on the Execution of Penalties and Social Rehabilitation, with respect to forced labour.

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

A Government representative reiterated that in order to satisfy the comments of the Committee of Experts in relation to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, a draft decree had been sent to the Congress to interpret the existing provision relating to collective work stoppages.

In order to address the most recent comments of the Committee of Experts with respect to the implementation of the Convention, the Congress had also been sent a draft decree relating to articles 53 to 56 of the Penal Code. This draft made it clear that these provisions did not establish forced or compulsory labour. The work of prisoners in re-edudation sites and prisons would be voluntary, and the fruits of their labour would be exclusively their benefit. The draft decree also made clear that sections 53 to 56 of the Penal Code could not be applied as a means of coercion, punishment or political education because of the expression of political opinion, and that they could not be used for economic development, as a means of labour discipline, as punishment for having participated in a strike, or as a form of racial, social, national, religious or other discrimination. The Government hoped that this provision would be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Referring to article 165 of the Maritime Police Code, he considered that this provision protected the crews of ships as workers and helped maintain the stability of the crew. He considered that to dispense with this provision would lead to absurd results and would not be in the interests of employers, workers or the Government.

In conclusion, he indicated that his Government fully respects the obligations it had undertaken as a result of ratification of both Conventions Nos. 87 and 105.

The Workers' members considered that it was necessary to include the situation in relation to Convention No. 105 in the conclusions of the Committee. There were two issues which needed to be considered in this context. First, there was the need to amend section 165 of the Maritime Police Code. They hoped that the draft legislation would contain clear responses to these concerns.

The Employers' members considered that the draft decree did seem to deal with the issue of the right to strike. However, the Government had not indicated that it would amend section 165 of the Maritime Police Code. They asked the Government representative to clarify the steps which were being taken with respect to seamen.

The Government representative did not wish to make any further comment.

The Workers' members proposed that these conclusions should be included in the special paragraph.

The Government member of Venezuela considered that, in line with the usual practice, the present Committee should note with interest the draft legislation envisaged to exempt prisoners, as contemplated by the Convention, from compulsory labour so as to maintain dialogue on these matters.

The Committee nevertheless decided that its conclusions should appear in a special paragraph.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative, and the discussion that took place in the Committee. It noted that at the time of the meeting of the Committee of Experts the report of the Government had not been received. Consequently, the Committee of Experts was merely in a position to recall its previous conclusions. The Committee for its part noted with concern that only certain measures had been taken to ensure conformity in law and practice with the provisions contained in the Convention, and on this score it expressed the firm hope that the Government would take, without delay, the necessary measures in order to bring law and practice into conformity with the Convention. The Committee hoped that it would be able to take note of substantia-l and real progress in the very near future.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1988, Publication: 75th ILC session (1988)

A Government representative stated that his country had ratified the Convention freely and in good faith, with no reservations whatsoever, since both the wording and the spirit fully coincided with national legislation and with the guiding principles of its democratic life. From the very beginning of its existence as an independent and sovereign State in the first part of the 19th century, Ecuador had proceeded to abolish and penalise all forms of slavery. During 150 years it had developed its institutions in such a way as to render impossible any form of forced or compulsory labour in its territory. The legal system and Constitution of Ecuador guaranteed the exercise of all political rights and the basis human rights to all citizens. Nevertheless, work was considered to be a right, a duty and a social honour which was not imposed on anyone except in cases of force majeure that might affect the community and ought not, could not, be considered as forced labour. This was in line with Convention No. 29, which his country has ratified as well. The right to strike was constitutionally guaranteed and fully protected by Ecuador's labour legislation, which was one of the most advanced in the world. Striking workers had the right to remain in the enterprises; the public authorities were obliged to protect them and stop any strike busters. Job security was also guaranteed by legislation for strikers, and if the strike was declared legitimate the employers was obliged to pay his workers their wages for the duration of the strikes. When Ecuador has ratified the Convention no one had any idea that this instrument could be used as a pretext for destabilising the legal order of the State as regards the provisions protecting internal public order and guaranteeing the practical exercise of human rights. If the legal provisions enabling the State to exercise its authority in guaranteeing social order were eliminated, the rule of chaos and violence would only be hastened. The Committee of Experts had requested the repeal of Decree No. 105 which prohibited and penalised acts of rebellion, sedition or resistance to the authorities. The Government representative stated that this Decree applied to situations in which individuals obstructed public roads by setting up obstacles, lighting fires, throwing indendiary bombs, etc., and forcing workers to leave their jobs against their will. This had nothing to do with the right to strike. There were offences, yet the penal law of Ecuador actually sanctioned such acts in a very benevolent manner. The Government representative noted with satisfaction that the report of the Committee of Experts no longer required, as it had previously, that the articles stipulating the sanctions which could be applied to such acts should be deleted from the Penal Code. He explained that these sanctions allowed the re-education of the convicted person, hastened their probation and contributed to their rapid reinsertion into society through freely chosen work. The demands of the Committee of Experts were tantamount to pressure for dismantling the State and were based on an exaggerated interpretation of the Convention's provision. He asserted, that by refusing to consider these unfounded claims, his Government, whose term of office would end in a few days, had only done its duty of safeguarding the national interest. As regards the request for deleting Article 165 from the Maritime Police Code, the Government had already informed the Committee a few years ago that a new Code was in preparation. This was a complex and technical topic which was of special interest and relevance for the national armed forces. The Government did not wish to obstruct this delicate process which should end before the National Congress, but wanted to make it known that it was in favour of eliminating the article in question. Nevertheless, merchant marine crews were subject to the Labour Code as regards their working conditions, including the right to resign subject to giving due notice to their employer. Only when the ship was away from its home port would the crew be subject to Article 165 which prohibited them from deserting and required them to obtain their captain's consent before leaving ship in a foreign port.

The Employers' members noted that the report of the Committee of Experts raised two questions on Convention No. 105. The first which was closely linked to Convention No. 87 was discussed this morning. A 1967 Decree (No. 105) allowed for the imposition of prison or forced labour sentences for all offences related to collective stoppage of work. The prerequisites for invoking this Decree were paralysis of communication networks and similar anti-social acts. The Decree therefore allowed for a vast number of possibilities for imposing such sanctions if the Government wished to do so. The Employers' members were obviously not in favour of unlimited freedom to strike, but Decree 105 imposed rather excessive restrictions on trade union activities. For this reason, the Committee on Freedom of Association had also recommended the abrogation of this Decree, although it seemed that prohibition for crew members to ask to leave ship in any port; offences were punishable by forced labour or prison sentences. For obvious safety reasons desertions should be prevented or stopped but this could be done through dismissals or other sanctions, and not necessarily by automatically imposing prison or forced labour sentences. It would be desirable to modify this Decree during the revision of the Maritime Police Code; all the more so because such a modification had been announced in 1971. If they understood the Government representative correctly, his Government was favourably inclined to consider such a modification. The Employers' members therefore believed that the Government should provide more precise information on its intention. They expressed the wish that these modifications would be introduced in the Maritime Police Code.

The Workers' members also referred to the same two points and recalled the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association on Decree No. 105. They noted that the Government of Ecuador had already been mentioned in a special paragraph last year in connection with Conventions No. 98, 105 and 87. On that occasion the Committee had requested the Government to take all the necessary steps to modify the relevant provisions in national legislation in order to ensure conformity with the Convention. In the meantime, the Committee of Experts, having considered the comments supplied by the Government, had made a further appeal to the Government to amend Decree No. 105. The Government representative had not indicated in this discussion that this would be done. They also hoped that the Government would give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association to modify Decree No. 105. As regards the second point, the Government representative had stated that his Government was preparing a new version of the Maritime Police Code but that it had not been finalised. He had also insisted that the supervision of the application of international Conventions should not have a negative effect on this process. The Workers' members regretted this statement, because the Committee's work was intended to help governments bring their legislation into conformity with ILO Conventions and not to obstruct such efforts. They hoped for progress in the very near future on the Maritime Police Code.

The Employers' members, in the light of the preceeding discussion concerning the Government's position and the lack of progress noted with regard to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and of the Committee of Freedom of Association, requested that this case be mentioned in a special paragraph.

The Workers' members supported the request of the Employers' members.

The Employers' members, in the light of the preceding discussions, the position of the Government, and the lack of progress observed with regard to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association, requested that their case be mentioned in a special paragraph.

The Worker member of Ecuador thanked the Employers' and Workers' members for their statement which faithfully reflected the real problems in his country. Referring to the statement by the Government representative. he indicated that legislation in his country did provide for the right to strike, except for public servants, but in order to strike it was necessary to follow a tortuous procedure provided for in the Labour Code. Even when strikes were legal, employers had used mercenaries to renove workers on several occasions. In 1986 when the workers of Plásticos Naciones were on strike. a trade unionist named Bernado Soledispa was killed while escaping from mercenaries. As regards Decree No. 105, he stated that many of its provisions had been inserted in another decree concerning national security. Since political violence was punishable under that latter decree, it was necessary to repeal Decree No. 105 which had been applied in particular against strikes by teachers in 1975, and workers of the Astra sugar refinery in 1976.

The Worker member of Argentina stated that he supported the request of the Committee of Experts to remove Article 165 from the Maritime Police Code. This article, which required workers to obtain the captain's consent before leaving ship, gave rise to situations of forced labour. In Ecuador's case the situation was all the more serious because Ecuador had ratified only a few ILO maritime Conventions, if any at all. He stressed that if a crew member left ship or resigned this did not endanger the lives of the crew, the cargo or the boat since regulations provided that any member of the crew should be replaced. Moreover, Article 165 was inhumanitarian is it took no account of family or other personal reasons that might cause a crew member to leave ship.

The Government representative was pleased that it was possible to continue the dialogue on the application of the Convention, but recalled that last year he had been unable to speak on the issue since he had not been given the floor. He stressed that Article 165 of the Maritime Police ode had nothing to do with the Convention. ILO Conventions ere interlinked and Convention No. 29, Article 2, stipulated that the expression "forced or compulsory labour" did not any work or service that was required of any person as a consequence of a conviction include in court, provided that the said work or service would be carried out under the supervision and control of a public authorities, and that the said person would not be hired or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. Consequently he could not understand why the Committee of Experts had considered as forced labour what Convention No. 29 did not consider as such. The special law for the application of sanctions had modified the corresponding provisions of the Penal Code, and this special law prescribed work as a tool of rehabilitation. The convicted person could maintain the upkeep of his family with the remuneration he received for his work, and obtain probation before the end of his sentence. Such work was also humanitarian as it allowed the convicted person to be busy and reinsert himself into society after he had served his sentence. Consequently, work was something that was beneficial for the convicted person. Decree No. 105 applied to situations of collective violence and collective work stoppages. In regard to prescribed sentences Article 606 of the Penal Code, which concerned third-class offences, was applied. In conclusion he stated that the debate had driften into areas which were completely outside the terms of the Convention.

The Government representatives made the following declaration: The Government of Ecuador could only express its concern with the fact that it was possible to use Conventions such as this so as to interpret them in a spurious fashon, outside the obligations established in the text in order to demand idiosyncratic reforms to national legislation, by exerting pressure through inquisition-like procedures.

The Committee took note of the information given by the Government representative. It recalled that this case had been discussed in 1987 and on many previous occasions. It noted that the current information showed that the Government was not willing to amend one aspect of the shortcomings mentioned by the Committee of Experts. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would soon take the necessary measures to amend Decree No. 105 and the Maritime Police Code so as to ensure full conformity with the Convention, and that at the next Conference it would be possible to note real progress. The Committee decided to mention this case in a special paragraph of its report.

The Government representatives made the following declaration: The Government of Ecuador could only express its concern with the fact that it was possible to use Conventions such as this so as to interpret them in a spurious fashon, outside the obligations established in the text in order to demand idiosyncratic reforms to national legislation, by exerting pressure through inquisition-like procedures.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

The Government has communicated the following information:

The Government must once again refer to Legislative Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967, since the comments of the Committee of Experts dealing with the application of this Convention are based almost entirely on calling for its repeal. The Government reiterates that the Court of Constitutional Guarantees, in a proceeding initiated by workers' representatives, recently declared that Legislative Decree to be fully valid, since it does not contravene any constitutional precept.

In regard to the legal nature of Legislative Decree No. 105, see the Government's reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts regarding the application of Convention No. 87.

With reference to the penal system, the situation of persons accused of having committed infractions, and the situation of incarcerated persons, the Constitution contains the following guarantees: (a) Slavery and servitude are prohibited in all their forms. (b) No one may be imprisoned because of debts, fees, gratuities, taxes, fines or other obligations, except in the case of family maintenance orders. (c) No one may be punished for an act or omission which, at the time it was committed, was not subject to criminal punishment, nor may anyone be subject to a penalty not previously established by law. In the case of a conflict between two penal laws, the least severe one shall apply, even when its post-dates the infraction.

The second principal point of the comments on the application of Convention No. 105 regards the reach of section 165 of the Maritime Police Code. In this regard, the Government restates the following:

(a) The criteria set forth by the Director-General of the Merchant Marine, which were provided in the Government's 1983 report, to wit, "Serious consideration should be given to the fact that guaranteeing crew members the option of unilaterally terminating their employment relationship and abandoning the ship in a port which is not a port of embarkation could cause grave harm to the shipowner in cases where the ship had to interrupt its voyage for this reason."

(b) It was again necessary to cite the consideration that a ship being abandoned by its crew in a foreign port would cause serious and considerable trouble for the authorities of the country of disembarkation, burdening them with the presence of undocumented aliens.

(c) The Government reiterates its observation that, under the provision in force, the only procedure which the crew member has to initiate is to reach agreement with the master as to the embarkation, with the participation of the portmaster or the Ecuadorian consul; the latter has the task of facilitating resolution of the crew member's immigration problems.

(d) Section 165 of the Maritime Police Code, in the Government's view, is not lacking in conformity with the Convention, and the freedom of contract with which the crew members act at the time of their engagement guarantees the full expression, without impediment, of the conditions for terminating the employment relationship.

(e) New legislation on maritime affairs is under study.

The Committee took note of the information communicated by the Government concerning the application of Convention No. 105, as well as the supplementary information supplied by the Government representatives with regard to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The Committee regretted that the Government had not indicated its intention to take the measures necessary with regard to the points raised in the comments of the Committee of Experts. The Committee requested the Government to take the measures necessary to modify the relevant provisions in the national legislation so as to ensure conformity with the Convention, and hoped that the Government would provide information on progress in this regard. Finally, the Committee decided to mention this case in a special paragraph of its report.

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

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

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

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

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

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Imprisonment involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In the comments that the Committee has been making for many years, it has urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that Article 1(d), of the Convention is applied.

(a). Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967. The Committee has previously referred to Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967 which allows a prison sentence of two to five years to be imposed on any person fomenting or taking a leading part in a collective work stoppage. The penalty laid down in the Decree for anyone who participates in such a stoppage without fomenting or taking a leading part in it is correctional imprisonment of three months to one year. For the purposes of this provision, “there is a work stoppage when there is a collective stoppage of work or the imposition of a lockout except in the cases permitted by law, the paralysing of the means of communication and similar antisocial acts”. Prison sentences involve compulsory labour under sections 55 and 66 of the Penal Code. The Committee has repeatedly insisted that, in accordance with the Convention, prison sentences involving compulsory labour should not be imposed for participation in peaceful strikes.

The Government has repeatedly indicated that it is making every effort to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention and that, to this end, it has taken measures for the Congress of the Republic to amend the provisions contained in Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967. It indicated previously that, to this end, the Committee’s observation had been submitted to the relevant commissions of the National Congress. The Committee noted this information and expressed the hope that Decree No. 105 would be repealed without delay.

The Committee notes that in its latest report, the Government indicates that Decree No. 105 of 1967 is not in force but does not mention its repeal. The Committee notes with regret that it has been commenting for many years on the repeal of Decree No. 105 and that its repeal is also requested in its observations concerning the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

Noting the most recent information provided by the Government, according to which Decree No. 105 is not in force, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide a copy of the text repealing that Decree and, in the event that the Decree concerned has not been formally repealed, the Committee once again expresses the hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to repeal it, thereby bringing the national legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

(b). Article 326(15) of the 2008 Constitution. The Committee notes that the new Constitution promulgated in September 2008 entered into force on 20 October 2008. The Committee notes that article 326(15) of the Constitution prohibits the stoppage of public services which are not essential services in the strict sense of the term, such as education, transport, processing, public transport and the postal services, and notes with regret that the Committee has been commenting on this prohibition in relation to the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the penalties applicable in the case of a stoppage in public services are those set out in the Penal Code.

Noting with regret that the new Constitution prohibits strikes in services that are not essential in the strict sense of the term and that such interruption may be punished as a penal offence, the Committee hopes that the Government will review this situation in the light of Convention No. 87 and Convention No. 105 which protects against prison sentences involving compulsory labour as a punishment for participation in peaceful strikes, and that it will provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure compliance with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Sentence of imprisonment imposed as a means of labour discipline. Under the terms of section 165 of the Maritime Police Code, crew members are prohibited from disembarking in a port other than the port of embarkation, except with the agreement of the ship’s master. Section 165 further provides that crew members who desert shall forfeit their pay and belongings to the vessel and, if recaptured, shall pay the cost of arrest and be punished in accordance with the naval regulations in force.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its reports that it was making every effort to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention. In its latest report, the Government merely indicates that the Committee’s observation has been forwarded to the Directorate of the Merchant Navy.

Given that the Committee has been commenting on this matter for many years, it hopes that the Government will be able to provide information without delay on the amendment or repeal of section 165 of the Maritime Police Code.

Article 1(a). Imprisonment involving compulsory labour for offences related to freedom of expression and expression of political views. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the application of the following sections of the Penal Code: 230 and 231 (disrespect or insult towards public officials); 130, 133, 134, 148, 153 and 155 (internal security of the State), in order to ascertain the scope of these provisions in relation to Article 1(a), of the Convention. The Committee recalled the implications for the application of the Convention of provisions that restrict the right to express peacefully a political opinion that is contrary to the established political system and requested the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions of the Penal Code, including the number of sentences handed down, with copies of them, so that the Committee could assess their scope. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide the information requested and will indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that prison sentences involving compulsory labour are not imposed for the peaceful expression of political views.

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

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of sections 130, 133, 134, 148, 153, 155 (internal security of the State) and 367 of the Penal Code so that it could ascertain the scope of these provisions in the light of Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted the Government’s statement that, in practice, no penalties are imposed for the offences defined in the above provisions. The Committee recalled the implications for the application of the Convention of provisions that restrict the right to express peacefully a political opinion that is contrary to the established political system and requested the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions of the Penal Code, including the number of sentences handed down, with copies of them, so that the Committee could assess their scope.

The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the same indications in its report. Taking into account that, according to the Government, the above provisions are not applied in practice, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on any change in this situation.

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

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Imprisonment involving compulsory labour for participation in a strike. In the comments that the Committee has been making for many years, it has urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that Article 1(d) of the Convention is applied. The Committee referred previously to Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967, which allows a prison sentence of from two to five years to be imposed on any person fomenting or taking a leading part in a collective work stoppage. The penalty laid down in the Decree for anyone who participates in such a stoppage without fomenting or taking a leading part in it is correctional imprisonment of from three months to one year. For the purposes of this provision, there is a work stoppage “when there is a collective stoppage of work or the imposition of a lockout except in the cases allowed by the law, the paralysing of the means of communication and similar anti-social acts”. Prison sentences involve compulsory labour under sections 55 and 66 of the Penal Code.

In its report, the Government once again indicates that it is making every effort to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention and that for this purpose the Government has taken measures for the Congress of the Republic to amend the provisions contained in Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967. For this purpose, the Committee’s observation has been submitted to the relevant commissions of the National Congress.

The Committee notes this information and hopes that Decree No. 105 will be repealed without delay. The Committee points out in this respect that the repeal of this Decree has also been requested in the observation on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

Article 1(c). Sentence of imprisonment imposed as a means of labour discipline. Under the terms of section 165 of the Maritime Police Code, crew members are prohibited from disembarking in a port other than the port of embarkation, except with the agreement of the ship’s master. Section 165 further provides that crew members who desert, forfeit their pay and belongings to the vessel and, if recaptured, shall pay the cost of arrest and be punished in accordance with the naval regulations in force.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its reports that it is making every effort to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention. As it has been commenting on this matter for many years, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able to indicate in the very near future that section 165 of the Maritime Police Code has been amended or repealed.

Following a detailed examination of the list of draft legislative texts submitted to the specialized commissions of the National Congress, available on its web site (www.congreso.gov.ec), the Committee has not found draft texts relating to Decree No. 105 of 1967, nor section 165 of the Maritime Police Code. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the stage reached by the draft texts in their examination by the special commissions and whether any statement has been made relating to the amendment or repeal of the above provisions, as requested by the Committee.

Article 1(a). Imprisonment involving compulsory labour for offences related to freedom of expression. The Committee also previously requested the Government to provide information on the application of sections 230 and 231 of the Penal Code (disrespect or insult towards public officials). The Government reiterates that no court decisions have been made under these provisions. The Committee notes from the web site of the National Congress that two draft texts have been submitted to the Standing Specialized Commission on Civil and Penal Matters with a view to decriminalizing insults, as well as disrespect towards public officials, which are established as offences in section 230 and 231 of the Penal Code.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress of these draft texts which bring the national legislation into greater conformity with the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

In earlier comments the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of sections 130, 133, 134, 148, 153, 155 (internal security of the State) and 367 of the Penal Code so that it could ascertain the scope of these provisions in the light of Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that, in practice, no penalties are imposed for the offences defined in the above provisions.

In this connection, the Committee has learned that the following provisions of the Penal Code have been applied in recent cases: section 130 (internal security of the State), section 82 (libel), and section 493 (calumny). The Committee recalls the implications for the application of the Convention of provisions that restrict the right peacefully to express a political opinion that is contrary to the established political system. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the application of the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code, including the number of sentences handed down together with copies of them, so that the Committee can assess their scope. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application of sections 230 and 231 of the Penal Code (disrespect or insult towards public officials).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Imprisonment involving compulsory labour for participation in a strike. In comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has requested the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention is applied. The Committee has referred to Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967, which allows a prison sentence of from 2 to 5 years to be imposed on anyone fomenting or taking a leading part in a collective work stoppage. The penalty laid down in the Decree for anyone who participates in such a stoppage without fomenting or taking a leading part in it, is correctional imprisonment of from 3 months to 1 year. For the purposes of this provision, there is a work stoppage "when there is collective stoppage of work or the imposition of a lockout except in the cases allowed by the law, the paralyzing of the means of communication and similar anti-social acts". Prison sentences involve compulsory labour under sections 55 and 66 of the Penal Code.

Article 1(c). Section 65 of the Maritime Police Code forbids crew members from disembarking in a port other than the port of embarkation, except with the agreement of the ship’s master. It further provides that crew members who desert forfeit their pay and belongings to the vessel and, if recaptured, must pay the cost of arrest and be punished in accordance with the naval regulations in force.

The Committee notes that in its reports the Government reiterates that every effort is being made to bring the national legislation into line with the Convention.

In its comments of 2003 on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee likewise noted information from the Government to the effect that a reform of the legislation had been proposed, in which Decree No. 105 of 1967 was to be amended or repealed.

Since the Committee has been commenting on this matter for many years, it hopes that the Government will provide information without delay on the amendment or repeal of Decree No. 105 of 1967 and section 65 of the Maritime Police Code.

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

In its previous comments, the Committee referred to Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967, under which penalties of imprisonment of from two to five years can be imposed on anyone who foments or takes a leading part in a collective work stoppage. The penalty laid down in the Decree for anyone who participates in such a stoppage, without fomenting or taking a leading part in it, is correctional imprisonment of from three months to one year. For the purposes of this provision, there is a work stoppage when there is collective stoppage of work or the imposition of a lockout except in the cases allowed by the law, the paralysing of means of communication and similar anti-social acts. Prison sentences involve compulsory labour under sections 55 and 66 of the Penal Code. The Committee also referred to section 65 of the Maritime Police Code, under which crew members of an Ecuadorian vessel may not apply to disembark in a port other than the port of embarkation, except by mutual agreement with the master. It also provides that if a crew member deserts he shall lose his outstanding wages and his belongings to the vessel and, if captured, he shall pay the cost of his arrest and be punished in accordance with the naval regulations in force.

The Committee expressed the hope that measures would be taken regarding these provisions in order to assure the observance of Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that the legal reforms suggested by the Committee are proceeding through the National Congress but that the crisis being experienced by the country at present has meant that the legislature must give priority to its work on reforms that are essential for the life of the country and the survival of its people. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures as soon as possible to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and that it will provide detailed information on progress in this work.

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

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it has commented for many years on Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967, under which penalties of imprisonment of two to five years can be imposed on anyone who foments or takes a leading part in a collective works stoppage. Prison sentences involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 55 and 66 of the Penal Code. The Committee also noted previously that section 65 of the Maritime Police Code forbids crew members from disembarking in a port other than the port of embarkation, except with the agreement of the ship's master and provides that crew members who desert forfeit their pay and belongings to the vessel; if recaptured they must pay the cost of arrest and be punished in accordance with the naval regulations in force.

The Committee takes note in particular of the Government's information to the effect that a number of bills were transmitted by the Minister of Labour to the National Congress and submitted by a letter of 6 May 1998 to the President of the National Congress. The bills in question are: Bill No. II-90-154 concerning interpretation of Legislative Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967 respecting collective labour stoppages; Bill No. II-98-158 to repeal section 165 of the Maritime Police Code and other texts relating to other international labour Conventions; and Bill No. II-90-160 concerning sections 54, 55 and 56 of the Penal Code. The Committee observes, however, that the same texts had already been submitted to the President of the Congress by the Ministry of Labour in April 1993. The Committee also notes that the preliminary draft bill to amend the Labour Code, which was prepared during the ILO technical assistance mission in September 1997, is being examined by the relevant tripartite consultative body.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide detailed information in its next report on the progress made in the work of bringing its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

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

For many years, the Committee has been making comments referring to Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967, under which penalties of imprisonment of from two to five years can be imposed on anyone who foments or takes a leading part in a collective works stoppage. The penalty laid down in the Decree for anyone who participates in such a stoppage, without formenting or taking a leading part in it, is correctional imprisonment of from three months to one year. For the purposes of this provision, there is a work stoppage when there is collective stoppage of work or the imposition of a lock out except in the cases allowed by the law, the paralysing of means of communication and similar antisocial acts. Prison sentences involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 55 and 66 of the Penal Code.

The Committee also referred to section 65 of the Maritime Police Code, under which crew members of an Ecuadorian vessel may not apply to disembark in a port other than the port of embarkation, except with the agreement of the master. It also provides that if a crew member deserts, he shall forfeit his pay and belongings to the vessel and that if he is captured he shall pay the cost of his arrest and be punished in accordance with the naval regulations in force.

The Committee noted that several draft decrees had been prepared with the assistance of representatives of the Director General of the ILO in 1989, under which Legislative Decree No. 105 would be interpreted as being inapplicable to strikes or collective labour disputes; section 165 of the Maritime Police Code would be repealed, and section 22 of the Code on the Application of Sentences and Social Rehabilitation must be interpreted in the sense that the work of convicted persons in detention and re-education centres would have to be voluntary. In 1991, the Committee noted that the Minister of Labour and Human Resources submitted the above-mentioned draft texts to the President of the National Congress with a view to their inclusion on the agenda of the Congress. Subsequently (in 1992 and 1995) the Committee noted that the drafts had not been adopted and stressed that the Government should take the necessary measures to align national legislation with the Convention.

The Committee has taken note of the report of the ILO technical assistance mission which visited Ecuador from 4 to 10 September 1997, and of the preliminary draft bill amending the Labour Code prepared during the mission, of which the final section provides for repeal of Decree No. 105.

The Committee notes that the Government's report, received on 6 November 1997, contains no reference to this preliminary draft bill. It also notes that the report contains no information on the situation in regard to section 65 of the Maritime Police Code.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures without delay to ensure application of Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention.

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

In earlier comments the Committee has referred to Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967 under which sentences of imprisonment of from two to five years can be imposed on anyone who foments or takes a leading part in a collective work stoppage. The sentence laid down for someone who participates in such a stoppage without fomenting or taking a leading part in it is correctional imprisonment of from three months to one year. For the purposes of this provision "there is a work stoppage when there is a collective cessation of activity, the imposition of a lockout other than in the cases allowed by law, the paralysing of ways of communication and similar anti-social acts". Prison sentences involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 55 and 56 of the Penal Code.

The Committee also referred to section 65 of the Maritime Police Code, under which crew members of an Ecuadorian vessel may not apply to disembark in a port other than the port of embarkation except with the agreement of the master. It also provides that if a crew member deserts he shall forfeit his pay and belongings to the vessel and that if he is captured he shall pay the cost of his arrest and be punished in accordance with the navy regulations in force.

The Committee expressed the hope that measures would be taken concerning these provisions in order to ensure the observance of Article 1(c) and (d), of the Convention. The Committee also asked the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 130, 133, 134, 148, 153, 155 and 367 of the Penal Code to enable it to ascertain the scope of these provisions in the light of Article 1(a) and (c), of the Convention.

The Committee noted with interest that several draft decrees had been prepared with the assistance of representatives of the Director-General of the ILO in November 1989. Under these draft decrees, Legislative Decree No. 105 is interpreted as inapplicable to strikes or collective labour disputes; section 165 of the Maritime Police Code is repealed; sections 53, 54, 55 and 66 of the Penal Code and section 22 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences and Social Rehabilitation must be interpreted so that the work of convicted persons in detention and re-education centres shall be voluntary and the proceeds from this work shall accrue exclusively to the convicted persons.

The Committee noted that on 25 March 1991 the Minister of Labour and Human Resources submitted the above-mentioned drafts to the National Congress with a view to their being placed on the latter's agenda.

The Committee expressed the hope that the drafts would be adopted rapidly to ensure that the Convention was observed with regard to the points raised.

The Committee notes that in its report of November 1994 the Government states that the above drafts have not yet been dealt with by the National Congress. The Committee notes the communications to the President of the National Congress in which the Ministry of Labour requested in April 1993 and in March 1994 that the drafts be dealt with.

The Committee notes the comments made by the Ecuadorian Federation of Classist Organizations in October 1994 to the effect that nothing has been done to comply with the Committee's observation concerning the application of this Convention.

The Committee deems it necessary to urge the Government once again to take the necessary steps to bring the national legislation into line with the Convention, and trusts that the adoption of the decrees drafted for this purpose will not be further postponed.

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

In previous comments, the Committee referred to Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967, under which penalties of imprisonment of from two to five years can be imposed on anyone who foments or takes a leading part in a collective work stoppage. The penalty laid down in the same Decree for anyone who participates in such a stoppage, without fomenting or taking a leading part in it, is correctional imprisonment of from three months to one year. For the purposes of this provision, "there is a work stoppage when there is a collective stoppage of work or the imposition of a lockout except in the cases allowed by the law, the paralysing of means of communication and similar anti-social acts". Prison sentences involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 55 and 66 of the Penal Code.

The Committee also referred to section 65 of the Maritime Police Code, under which crew members of an Ecuadorian vessel may not apply to disembark in a port other than the port of embarkation, except with the agreement of the master. It also provides that if a crew member deserts, he shall forfeit his pay and belongings to the vessel and that if he is captured he shall pay the cost of his arrest and be punished in accordance with the naval regulations in force.

The Committee expressed the hope that measures would be taken concerning these provisions in order to ensure the application of Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention.

The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 103, 133, 134, 148, 153, 155 and 367 of the Penal Code, in order to enable it to ascertain the scope of these provisions in the light of Article 1(a) and (c) of the Convention. In this respect the Committee notes the statement made by the Government in its report that in practice sentences are not imposed for the offences set out in sections 130, 133, 134, 148, 153, 155 and 367 of the Penal Code.

The Committee noted with interest that several draft Decrees had been prepared with the assistance of representatives of the Director-General of the ILO in November 1989. Under these draft Decrees, Legislative Decree No. 105 is interpreted as being inapplicable to strikes or collective labour disputes; section 165 of the Maritime Police Code is repealed; sections 53, 54, 55 and 66 of the Penal Code and section 22 of the Code on the Application of Sentences and Social Rehabilitation must be interpreted in the sense that the work of convicted persons in detention and re-education centres has to be voluntary and the proceeds from this work shall accrue exclusively to the benefit of the convicted persons.

The Committee noted that on 25 March 1991, the Minister of Labour and Human Resources submitted the above draft texts to the President of the National Congress with a view to their inclusion on the agenda of the Congress.

The Committee expressed the hope that the above draft texts would be adopted rapidly in order to ensure that effect is given to the Convention with regard to the points raised.

The Committee notes that in its report the Government states once again that the above draft texts have not been dealt with by the National Congress and that the delay in dealing with these matters is not the responsibility of the Government, but of the Congress of the Republic, which is a public authority that acts in total independence of the Government.

The Committee deems it necessary to urge the Government once again to take the necessary steps to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention and trusts that the adoption of the Decrees drafted for this purpose will not be further delayed.

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

In earlier comments, the Committee has referred to Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967, under which sentences of imprisonment of from two to five years can be imposed on any persons who foments, or takes a leading part in, a collective cessation of activity ("paro"). The sentence laid down by the Decree for a person who participates in a cessation of activity ("paro") without fomenting or taking a leading part in it, is correctional imprisonment of from three months to one year. For the purposes of this provision, "there is a cessation of activity ("paro") when a collective cessation of activity, the imposition of a lockout outside the cases permitted by law, the paralysing of ways of communication and similar anti-social acts occur". Sentences of imprisonment involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 55 and 56 of the Penal Code.

The Committee also referred to section 165 of the Maritime Police Code, which prohibits crew members of an Ecuadorian vessel from disembarking in any port other than the port of embarkation except with the agreement of the master. It also provides that if a crew member deserts he shall forfeit his pay and belongings to the vessel and that if he is captured he shall pay the cost of his arrest and be punished in accordance with the navy regulations in force.

The Committee expressed the hope that measures would be taken concerning these provisions in order to ensure the observance of Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee requested the Government to supply information on the practical application of sections 130, 133, 134, 148, 153, 155 and 367 of the Penal Code to enable it to ascertain the scope of these provisions in the light of Article 1(a) and (c) of the Convention.

The Committee noted with interest that several draft decrees had been prepared with the assistance of representatives of the ILO Director-General in November 1989. Under these draft decrees, Legislative Decree No. 105 is interpreted as inapplicable to strikes or collective labour disputes; section 165 of the Maritime Police Code is repealed; sections 53, 54, 55 and 66 of the Penal Code and section 22 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences and Social Rehabilitation are mandatorily interpreted so that the work of convicted persons in detention and re-education centres shall be voluntary and the profits from this work shall accrue exclusively to the convicted persons.

The Committee notes that on 25 March 1991, the Ministry of Labour and Human Resources submitted the above-mentioned drafts to the President of the National Congress with a view to their being placed on the agenda of Congress.

The Committee hopes that the above drafts will be adopted rapidly to ensure that the Convention is observed with regard to the points raised and that the Government will provide copies of them as soon as they have been adopted.

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

The Committee has taken note of the Government's report and of the discussion which took place at the Conference Committee in 1989.

In its previous comments, the Committee has referred to Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967, under which sentences of imprisonment of from two to five years can be imposed on any person who foments, or takes a leading part in, a collective cessation of activity ("paro"). The sentence laid down by the Decree for a person who participates in a cessation of activity ("paro") without fomenting or taking a leading part in it, is correctional imprisonment of from three months to one year. For the purposes of this provision "there is a cessation of activity ("paro") when a collective cessation of activity, the imposition of a lock-out outside the cases permitted by law, the paralysing of ways of communication and similar anti-social acts occur". Sentences of imprisonment involve compulsory labour by virtue of sections 55 and 66 of the Penal Code.

The Committee has also referred to section 165 of the Maritime Police Code, which prohibits crew members of an Ecuadorian vessel from disembarking in any port other than the port of embarkation except with the agreement of the master. It also provides that if a crew member deserts he shall forfeit his pay and belongings to the vessel and that if he is captured he shall pay the cost of his arrest and be punished in accordance with the navy regulations in force.

The Committee had expressed the hope that measures would be taken as concerns these provisions in order to ensure the observance of Article 1 (c) and (d) of the Convention. Moreover, the Committee has requested the Government to supply information on the practical application of sections 130, 133, 134, 148, 153, 155 and 367 of the Penal Code, so that it would be able to assess the scope of these provisions in light of Article 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention.

The Committee notes with interest that the Government has referred, in its report, to several draft decrees elaborated with the assistance of representatives of the ILO Director-General in November 1989. Under these draft decrees, Legislative Decree No. 105 is mandatorily interpreted as inapplicable to strikes or collective work conflicts, section 165 of the Maritime Police Code is repealed, and sections 53, 54, 55 and 66 of the Penal Code and section 22 of the Code on the execution of sentences and social rehabilitation are mandatorily interpreted so that the work of convicted persons in detention and re-education centres shall be voluntary and the profits from this work shall accrue exclusively to the convicted persons.

The Committee notes the Government's indication that these texts will be presented to the Congress immediately, with the support of the Executive Branch, and that it will continue to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Noting also with interest the indication made by the Government in its report that there have been no judicial decisions under the above-mentioned sections of the Penal Code, the Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to report the adoption of the decrees it has drafted.