ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments > All Comments

Display in: French - Spanish

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

Previous comment

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Requisitioning of public servants in the event of a strike. The Committee notes the lack of information provided by the Government on the penalties imposed on public servants who fail to comply with a requisition order issued in the event of a strike. It notes, however, the adoption of Decree No. 2022-022/PR of 23 February 2022 on the representativeness of trade unions and the exercise of the right to strike in the Togolese Republic, applicable to persons and agents of the State and local authorities, as well as to staff of public, semi-public and private enterprises and establishments. It notes in particular that sections 21 to 26 of the Decree govern the requisitioning of workers in the event of a strike and define essential services. Section 28 of Decree No. 2022-022/PR of 23 February 2022 provides that a worker who fails to comply with a requisition order issued in the event of a strike will be liable to disciplinary action. Observing that section 33 of the above-mentioned Decree provides that all previous conflicting provisions shall be repealed, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether sections 244 to 246 of the General Public Service Regulations (Act No. 2013-002 of 21 January 2013), which provide for a prison sentence for workers who have failed to comply with a requisition order issued in the event of a strike, have been tacitly repealed as a result. On the question of the extent of the services covered by the concept of essential services and the associated power of requisition, the Committee refers to its Observation of 2022 on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), as well as to its direct request under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).

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

Previous comment

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 1. Penal Code and Charter for political parties. The Committee recalls that a number of provisions in national legislation may give rise to the application of prison sentences involving an obligation to work under section 68 of the Penal Code, for offences related to activities through which persons express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, namely:
  • Penal Code: sections 290 to 292 (defamation), 301 and 302 (insulting the President or members of the Government or other public authorities), 491 and 492 (insulting representatives of public authority, or insulting the flag or anthem), 540 (organizing demonstrations on public thoroughfares that fail to comply with legal requirements), 552 (seditious cries or chants uttered in public places or gatherings) and 665 (the publication, dissemination or reproduction, by whatever means of fake news).
  • Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991 establishing a charter for political parties: section 25 (persons who lead or run a political party in violation of the provisions of the charter).
The Committee notes with regret the absence of information from the Government on the application of these provisions in practice, and on any measures envisaged to ensure that no penalty involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views or of opposition to the established order on the basis of these provisions.
The Committee further notes that, in its concluding observations of 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed concern in relation to: (1) the existence of a number of vague legislative provisions that impose excessive limits on the content of speech, notably in the Press and Communications Code; (2) a number of sections of the Penal Code that criminalize activities linked to the exercise of freedom of expression, such as seditious chants and cries in public places or meetings, the publication of fake news, and defamation; (3) allegations of the use of these penal provisions to hamper the activities of journalists, trade unionists, opinion leaders and human rights defenders, and to curb their freedom of expression; and (4) reports concerning numerous incidents involving threats, intimidation, harassment and arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders (CCPR/C/TGO/CO/5, 24 August 2021).
The Committee notes this information and expresses concern at the continuing existence in the legislation of provisions that can be used to restrict the exercise of the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media) and that can result in the imposition of penalties involving compulsory prison labour.
The Committee once again recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The range of activities which must be protected, under this provision, from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour thus comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media, or through the exercise of the right of association, including the creation of political parties or societies). However, certain limitations may be imposed by law on the rights and freedoms concerned, which must be accepted as normal safeguards against their abuse, examples being laws against incitement to violence, civil strife or racial hatred (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 302 and 303).
The Committee urges the Government to take steps, both in law and in practice, to ensure that any person expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system cannot be sentenced to penalties involving an obligation to work. It requests the Government to amend these sections of the Penal Code and the charter for political parties, clearly limiting the scope of these provisions to situations involving the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing the penal sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect and to indicate the number of prosecutions initiated on the basis of these provisions, the nature of the penalties imposed, and the events giving rise to the prosecutions or convictions.
2. Act No. 40-484 of 1 July 1901 concerning contracts of association. The Committee recalls that a number of provisions of Act No. 40-484 of 1 July 1901 concerning contracts of association provide for prison sentences that include the obligation to work for offences related to the exercise of freedom of expression and which may therefore fall within the scope of the Convention, namely:
  • section 8(1), which provides for a fine, which may be commuted to a prison sentence for non-payment pursuant to section 76 of the Penal Code, in the event of failure to comply with formalities relating to prior notification of changes in the administration or management of an association, and any amendments to the statutes;
  • section 8(2), which provides for a fine and imprisonment of between six days and one year for the founders, directors or administrators of an association that has been maintained or reconstituted illegally after a ruling of dissolution, and section 8(3), which provides that any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty; and
  • section 15, which provides for the penalties established in section 8(2) for the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such a list at the request of the prefect.
The Committee notes with regret the repeated lack of information in the Government’s report on the practical application of these provisions. The Committee also notes that a draft bill on freedom of association to replace the 1901 Act was launched in 2020 and that it provides for prison sentences. It notes that several United Nations Special Rapporteurs have expressed concern about this draft bill, particularly with regard to the penalties imposed (OL/TGO 3/2021, 13 August 2021).
The Committee trusts that in revising Act No. 40-484 of 1 July 1901 concerning contracts of association, the Government will take account of the requirements of the Convention and ensure that no penalty involving compulsory labour may be imposed on persons who exercise rights through which they express opinions or oppose the established political, social or economic system. It requests the Government to provide updated information on this legislative review process and to send copies of any new legislation adopted in this regard. Meanwhile, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice and to communicate any court decisions handed down on the basis of these provisions.
3. Press and Communications Code. With regard to the Press and Communications Code, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that progress has been made leading to the adoption of a new Press and Communications Code (Act No. 2020-001 of 7 January 2020). The Government indicates that section 157 of the Code, replacing section 86 of the previous Code, no longer provides for prison sentences for journalists, technicians or media assistants who incite the public to violate the laws of the Republic, but rather stipulates that this offence shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of ordinary law. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions of ordinary law that would be applicable in this respect.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 68 of the Penal Code (Act No. 2015-010 of 24 November 2015), persons sentenced to imprisonment are subjected to the obligation to work. It noted that the following items of legislation establish penalties of imprisonment of three months to one year: (i) Penal Code: sections 301 and 302, concerned with insulting the President or members of the Government or other public authorities; sections 491 and 492, concerning insults towards representatives of the public authority; and sections 540 and 665, concerned with the organization of demonstrations on public thoroughfares; and (ii) Charter of Political Parties: section 25, concerning persons who lead or run a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application of the above-mentioned sections in practice.
The Committee notes the Government’s indications in its report that in practice the court of first instance has never issued judgments on the basis of, or pursuant to, sections 301, 302, 491, 492, 540 and 665 of the Penal Code. As regards the application in practice of section 25 of the Charter of Political Parties, the Government indicates that the Directorate of Public Freedoms and Political Affairs has been assigned the task of studying files for the recognition of political parties and the out-of-court settlement of disputes. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 25 of the Charter of Political Parties (Act of 1991) and of sections 301, 302, 491, 492, 540 and 665 of the Penal Code, indicating the number of convictions handed down on the basis of these provisions, the material facts behind the convictions and the type of penalties imposed.
Article 1(d) and (e). Imposition of prison sentences including an obligation to work as punishment for participation in strikes and as a means of racial, social, national or religious discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to a number of provisions of the Act of 1 July 1901 concerning contracts of association, which provide for prison sentences that include the obligation to work in circumstances falling within the scope of the Convention. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application of the following provisions in practice:
  • -section 8(1), which provides that any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a fine of 16 to 200 CFA francs, the amount of the fine being doubled for a repeat offence (section 5 concerns the formalities for prior declaration, changes that have occurred in an association’s administration or management, and modifications that have been made to its regulations, read in conjunction with section 36 of the Penal Code);
  • -section 8(2), which provides that the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgment of dissolution shall be punished with a fine of 16 to 5,000 CFA francs and imprisonment of six days to one year, and section 8(3), which provides that any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty;
  • -section 15, which provides for the penalties established in section 8(2) for the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such a list at the request of the prefect.
The Committee notes that there is no information on this matter in the Government’s report. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above-mentioned provisions and to send a copy of any court ruling issued on this basis.
Article 1(d). Requisitioning of public officials in the event of a strike. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that sections 244 and 245 of the Public Service Regulations (21 January 2013) provide for the requisitioning of public officials in the event of a strike, and that the posts and jobs concerned would be identified in a decree. Even though the new provisions restrict the power of requisition to cases where the officials concerned occupy posts that are essential to the security of people and property, to the maintenance of public order, to the continuity of public services or to meeting the nation’s essential needs, the Committee noted that officials who do not comply with a requisition order are liable to six days’ imprisonment and/or a fine. The Committee recalled that the power of requisition should be limited to exceptional circumstances, including in services that are essential in the strict sense of the term, namely services the interruption of which would endanger the life, safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee therefore asked the Government to take this restriction into account when adopting the decree defining the posts of officials subject to requisitioning.
The Committee notes that there is no information on this matter in the Government’s report. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether the decree defining the posts of officials subject to requisitioning has been adopted and, if so, to specify the provisions defining requisitioning. The Committee also requests the Government to send a copy of the above-mentioned decree.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 68 of the Penal Code (Act No. 2015-010 of 24 November 2015), persons sentenced to imprisonment are subjected to the obligation to work. It noted that, following the adoption of a new Penal Code in 2015, sections 290, 291 and 292 of that Code relating to defamation prescribe prison sentences of one to six months and a fine. The Committee further noted that section 86 of the Media Code establishes a penalty of three months to one year of imprisonment and a fine for any person who, through various means referred to in section 85 of the Code (written or printed matter, posters or drawings), incites the population to violate the laws of the Republic and that, in the event of a repeat offence, the maximum penalty may be doubled. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of the above-mentioned sections in practice.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that in practice the court of first instance has never issued judgments on the basis of, or pursuant to, sections 290, 291 and 292 of the Penal Code. However, the Government adds that a judicial proceeding has been initiated on the basis of section 86 of the Media Code. This proceeding is still in progress.
The Committee notes that in the 2016 compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Council noted that the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders had received testimonies of continued harassment and intimidation of journalists who worked on human rights-related issues, reported information of cases of corruption of government officials or publicly criticized the Government. Some of them had faced criminal lawsuits for defamation or charged under the Media Code. The Special Rapporteur recommended that defamation be repealed from criminal jurisdiction and be handled in civil jurisdiction, with penalties proportionate to the harm done (A/HRC/WG.6/26/TGO/2, paragraphs 65 and 67).
The Committee notes this information and expresses concern at the continuing existence in the legislation of provisions which can be used to restrict the exercise of the freedom to express political or ideological views (orally, in the press or through other communications media) and which can result in the imposition of penalties involving compulsory prison labour. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for persons who, without having recourse to violence, hold or express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It emphasizes that the range of activities which must be protected, under this provision, from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour thus includes the freedom to express political or ideological views (orally, in the press or through other communications media) (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 302). The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps, in law and in practice, to ensure that no penalty involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views or of opposition to the established order, for example by suppressing penal sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all progress made in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to provide further details on the judicial proceeding initiated on the basis of section 86 of the Media Code and to indicate the outcome thereof, as well as on any other proceedings initiated on this basis or on the basis of the above-mentioned sections of the Penal Code.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Preliminary comment on the impact of compulsory prison labour on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes the adoption of the new Penal Code (Act No. 2015-010 of 24 November 2015). It notes that section 68 provides that persons sentenced to imprisonment are subjected to the obligation to work. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following provisions of Togolese law which may fall within the scope of certain Articles of the Convention.
Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 86 of the Media Code (Act No. 2004-15 of 27 August 2004) establishes the penalty of three months to one year of imprisonment and a fine for any person who, through various means referred to in section 85 of the Code, incites the population to violate the laws of the Republic and that, in the event of a repeat offence, the maximum penalty may be doubled. The Committee also noted section 25 of Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991, issuing the Charter of Political Parties which provides that any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter shall be liable to imprisonment of three to 12 months and/or a fine. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 86 of the Media Code and section 25 of the 1991 Charter Political Parties.
The Committee notes the lack of information on this matter in the Government’s report. The Committee notes that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in her 2014 report, expressed her concern that defamation was an offence under the Penal Code (section 58) that carried heavy penalties, including fines (A/HRC/25/55/Add.2, paragraph 23).
The Committee notes that new sections 290, 291 and 292 of the Penal Code of 2015 relating to defamation now prescribe suspended prison sentences of one to six months and a fine. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 86 of the Media Code and section 25 of the 1991 Charter Political Parties, including on court decisions illustrating their scope. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 290, 291 and 292 of the Penal Code of 2015 relating to defamation.
The Committee also notes the following sections of the Penal Code which may fall within the scope of application of the Convention:
– sections 491 and 492, which provide for imprisonment of six months to four years for insulting representatives of the public authority, or insulting the national flag or the national anthem;
– section 665, which provides for imprisonment of one to three years for any person who publishes, disseminates or reproduces false information by any means. Any person who is the author of false information shall be liable to imprisonment of three to five years.
Moreover, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following sections of the Penal Code: (i) sections 301 and 302 concerned with insulting the President or members of the Government or other public authorities; and (ii) section 540 concerned with the organization of an unlawful demonstration on a public thoroughfare. The Committee notes that the aforementioned sections provide for suspended prison sentences of one to six months and a fine.
The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the imposition of labour, and especially compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, without recourse to violence. It emphasizes that the range of activities which must be protected, under this provision, from punishment involving compulsory labour, includes the freedom to express political or ideological views (whether orally or through the press or other media) (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 302). In order to be able to evaluate the application in practice of the abovementioned provisions, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on their application in practice, including copies of any court decisions illustrating their scope.
Article 1(d) and (e). Imposition of prison sentences including an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes and as a means of racial, social, national or religious discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to a number of provisions of the Act of 1 July 1901, concerning contracts of association which provide for prison sentences that include the obligation to work in circumstances falling within the scope of the Convention. It asked the Government to provide information on the application of the following provisions in practice:
  • -section 8(1), which provides that any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a fine of 16 to 200 CFA francs, the amount of the fine being doubled for a repeat offence (section 5 concerns the formalities for prior declaration, changes that have occurred in an association’s administration or management, and modifications that have been made to its regulation, read in conjunction with section 36 of the Penal Code);
  • -section 8(2), which provides that the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgment of dissolution shall be punished with a fine of 16 to 5,000 CFA francs and imprisonment of six days to one year, and section 8(3), which provides that any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty;
  • -section 15, which provides for the penalties established in section 8(2) to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such a list at the request of the prefect.
Noting the lack of information on this matter in the Government’s report, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the abovementioned provisions and to send copies of any court decisions based on them.
Article 1(d). Requisitioning of public officials in the event of a strike. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that sections 244 and 245 of the Public Service Regulations (21 January 2013) provide for the requisitioning of public officials in the event of a strike, and that the posts and jobs concerned would be identified in a decree. Even though the new provisions restrict the power of requisition to cases where the officials concerned occupy posts that are indispensable to the security of people and property, to the maintenance of public order, to the continuity of public services or to meeting the nation’s essential needs, the Committee noted that officials who do not comply with a requisition order are liable to six days’ imprisonment and/or a fine. The Committee recalled that the power of requisition should be limited to exceptional circumstances, including in services that are essential in the strict sense of the term, namely services the interruption of which would endanger the life, safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee therefore asked the Government to take this restriction into account when adopting the decree defining the posts of officials subject to requisitioning.
The Committee notes the lack of information on this matter in the Government’s report. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the decree defining the posts of officials subject to requisitioning has been adopted and, if so, to specify the provisions defining requisitioning and to send a copy of the aforementioned decree.

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

Preliminary comment on the impact of compulsory prison labour on the application of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that the implementing decrees provided for under sections 22(2), 26(2) and 35(3) of the Penal Code, provide for the possibility for persons sentence to reclusion and imprisonment to work, had not been adopted. The Committee was therefore bound to consider, following the information supplied by the Government on the application in practice of the above provisions, work may be imposed on prisoners sentenced to reclusion or imprisonment. The Committee also noted the Government’s statement that, in the context of the national programme for modernizing the justice system, the Penal Code was revised and is currently before the National Assembly for adoption, and that in the revised version forced labour is prohibited, thereby making way for non-forced labour in prisons with a view to the better reintegration of detainees into society. The Committee again notes the Government’s statement that the Penal Code has been revised and that it is in the process of being adopted. The Committee again requests the Government to provide a copy of the revised Penal Code once it is adopted, specifying the new provisions regarding work by detainees in prisons. In the meantime, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following provisions of the legislation of Togo that may fall within the scope of certain Articles of the Convention.
Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences comprising an obligation to work as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments the Committee noted Act No. 2004-15 of 27 August 2004 amending Act No. 98-4 of 11 February 1998 issuing the Media and Communications Code, previously amended in 2000 and 2002. The Committee noted that the Act abolished prison sentences for violations of the provisions respecting the press and offences which may be related to freedom of expression. However, the Committee noted that section 86 of the new Media and Communications Code establishes a penalty of between three months and one year of imprisonment and a fine for any person who, through various means referred to in the new section 85, incites the population to violate the laws of the Republic and that, in the event of a second offence, double the maximum penalty may be imposed. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the provisions of the Media Code are applied in practice but that copies of judicial rulings on the basis for these sections are not yet available. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate how these provisions are applied in practice and to provide copies of court decisions made on the basis of section 86 of the 2004 Media and Communications Code so that the Committee can examine the scope of these provisions.
The Committee also referred to section 25 of Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991 issuing the Charter of Political Parties, under which “any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter shall be liable to imprisonment of from three to 12 months and a fine of from 100,000 to 500,000 CFA francs, or one of these two penalties only”.
The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, in the revised Penal Code, section 25 of Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991 issuing the Charter of Political Parties has been abrogated. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to provide a copy of the text abrogating the Act issuing the Charter of Political Parties.
The Committee also drew the Government’s attention to a number of provisions in the Penal Code providing for prison sentences that entail an obligation to work in circumstances falling within the scope of the Convention. It requested the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice:
  • -section 182(1), which provides that “whoever participates on a public thoroughfare in a procession, gathering or any other demonstration impeding the public traffic, without having received prior administrative authorization, shall be punished with a fine of from 2,000 to 30,000 CFA francs”, read together with section 36, under which “in case of failure to pay the police fine within the allotted time, the fine may be replaced by penal labour at the rate of one day’s work for a 500 CFA franc fine”;
  • -section 182(2), which provides that “the organizers of unauthorized demonstrations on the public thoroughfare, even if they have not themselves participated in the demonstrations, shall be punished with one to six months of imprisonment and a fine of from 20,000 to 100,000 CFA francs, or one of these two penalties only”, also read together with section 36; and
  • -section 217, which provides that “whoever has participated in a concerted work stoppage outside the current regulations shall be punished with from one to 20 days of penal labour or a 2,000 to 30,000 CFA franc fine” (subsection 1), and that “the organizers of the concerted work stoppage shall be punished with between one and six months of imprisonment” (subsection 2).
The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the above sections are applied in practice but that the court decisions on the subject are not available. So that the Committee can be sure that the above provisions of the Penal Code are applied in a manner that complies with the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on their application in practice and to attach copies of any court decisions based thereon.
Article 1(d) and (e). Imposition of prison sentences comprising an obligation to work as a punishment for having participated in strikes and as a means of racial, social, national or religious discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to a number of provisions of the Act of 1 July 1901 respecting contracts of association which provide for prison sentences that include the obligation to work in circumstances falling within the scope of the Convention. It requested the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice:
  • -section 8(1), which provides that “any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a 16 to 200 CFA franc fine and, in the event of a second offence, with a double fine”, with section 5 concerning the formalities for prior declaration, changes that have occurred in an association’s administration or management, and modifications that have been made to their statutes, read together with section 36 of the Penal Code;
  • -section 8(2), which provides that “the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgment of dissolution shall be punished with a fine of from 16 to 5,000 CFA francs and six days to one year of imprisonment” and section 8(3), which provides that “any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty”; and
  • -section 15, which makes the penalties established in section 8(2) applicable to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such a list at the request of the prefect.
The Committee noted the Government’s statement that violations of the above provisions are settled out of court in a context of dialogue and cooperation.
Noting an absence of information on this point, the Committee again requests the Government in its next report to provide information on the application in practice of these provisions and on any court decisions based thereon.
Article 1(d). Requisition of public officials in the event of a strike. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 7 of the general statute for public officials (Ordinance No. 1 of 4 January 1968) allowed the Government to limit public servants’ exercise of the right to strike by requisitioning them collectively or individually. It also noted the Government’s statement before the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2009 that no use had been made of the right to requisition and that a reform of the general statute for public officials was on the agenda and would cover the right to requisition.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the right to requisition is now embodied in sections 244 and 245 of the new statute for public officials adopted on 21 January 2013. The posts and jobs concerned will be identified in a decree that is currently being drafted.
The Committee notes that the new provisions restrict the power of requisition to cases where the officials concerned occupy posts that are indispensable to the security of people and goods, to the maintenance of public order, to the maintenance of public services or to the satisfaction of the nation’s essential needs. It notes, however, that officials who do not comply with a requisition order are liable to six days’ imprisonment and/or a fine. The Committee recalls that the power of requisition should be limited to exceptional circumstances and to services that are essential in the strict sense of the term, that is services whose interruption could endanger the life, security or health of all or part of the population.
Consequently, the Committee hopes that, when the decree defining the posts of officials subject to requisition is adopted, the Government will take this restriction into account.

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

Preliminary comment on the impact of compulsory prison labour on the Convention. For some years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to forward copies of the implementing decrees provided for under sections 22(2), 26(2) and 35(3) of the Penal Code, regarding prisoners’ working conditions. The Government has consistently replied that no such texts have been adopted. The Committee has inferred from this that even though the texts to implement the above sections of the Penal Code have not been adopted, work may be imposed in practice on prisoners sentenced to reclusion or imprisonment.
The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, in the context of the national programme for modernizing the justice system, the Penal Code was revised and that it is currently before the National Assembly for adoption. The Government adds that in the revised Penal Code, forced labour is prohibited, making way for non-forced labour in prisons, with a view to better reintegration of detainees in society. A copy of the revised Penal Code will be sent once it has been adopted.
The Committee notes this information and hopes that the Government will be in a position to provide information on progress made on the revision of the Penal Code, specifying the new provisions on labour in prisons. In the meantime, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following provisions of the legislation of Togo, which may fall within the scope of certain Articles of the Convention.
Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences comprising an obligation to work as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted Act No. 2004-15 of 27 August 2004 amending Act No.98-4 of 11 February 1998 issuing the Media and Communications Code, previously amended in 2000 and 2002. The Committee noted that the Act abolished prison sentences for violations of the provisions respecting the press and offences which may be related to freedom of expression. However, the Committee noted that section 86 of the new Media and Communications Code establishes a penalty of between three months and one year of imprisonment and a fine for any person who, through various means referred to in new section 85, incites the population to violate the laws of the Republic and that, in the event of a second offence, double the maximum penalty may be imposed.
In the absence of information on this matter, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate how the provisions are applied, in practice, providing copies of court decisions made on the basis of section 86 of the 2004 Media and Communications Code.
The Committee also referred to section 25 of Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991 issuing the Charter of Political Parties, under the terms of which “any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter shall be liable to imprisonment of from three to 12 months and a fine of from 100,000 to 500,000 CFA francs, or one of these two penalties only”. The Committee noted the information that this section had not been applied so far.
In the absence of information on this matter, the Committee reiterates the hope that the Government will take measures with a view to repealing the above section. It requests the Government to provide information on this matter in its next report.
The Committee also drew the Government’s attention to a number of provisions in the Penal Code, providing for prison sentences including an obligation to work in circumstances falling within the scope of the Convention. It requested the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice.
  • – section 182(1), which provides that “whoever participates on the public highway in a procession, gathering or any other demonstration impeding the public traffic, without having received prior administrative authorization, shall be punished with a fine of from 2,000 to 30,000 francs”, read together with section 36, under which “in case of failure to pay the police fine within the allotted time, the fine may be replaced by penal labour at the rate of one day’s work for a 500 franc fine”;
  • – section 182(2), which provides that “the organizers of unauthorized demonstrations on the public thoroughfare, even if they have not themselves participated in the demonstrations, shall be punished with one to six months of imprisonment and a fine of from 20,000 to 100,000 francs, or one of these two penalties only”, also read together with section 36; and
  • – section 217, which provides that “whoever has participated in a concerted work stoppage outside the current regulations shall be punished with from one to 20 days of penal labour or a 2,000 to 30,000 franc fine” (subsection 1), and that “the organizers of the concerted work stoppage shall be punished with between one and six months of imprisonment” (subsection 2).
Noting the absence of any information on this matter in the Government’s report, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate how the above provisions are applied in practice. Please provide copies of the court decisions handed down in this connection.
Article 1(d) and (e). Imposition of prison sentences including an obligation to work as a punishment for having participated in strikes and as a means of racial, social, national or religious discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to a number of provisions of the Act of 1 July 1901 respecting contracts of association, providing for prison sentences including the obligation to work in circumstances falling within the scope of the Convention. It requested the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice.
  • – section 8(1), which provides that “any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a 16 to 200 franc fine and, in the event of a second offence, with a double fine”, and which concerns the formalities for prior declaration, changes that have occurred in an association’s administration or management, and modifications that have been made to their statutes, read together with section 36 of the Penal Code;
  • – section 8(2), which provides that “the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgment of dissolution shall be punished with a fine of from 16 to 5,000 francs and six days to one year of imprisonment” and section 8(3), which provides that “any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty”;
  • – section 15, which makes the penalties established in section 8(2) applicable to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such a list at the request of the prefect.
The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the various violations of the above provisions are settled out of court in the context of dialogue and cooperation. Noting that the above provisions of the Act of 1 July 1901 respecting contracts of association provide for prison sentences involving an obligation to work in circumstances that may fall within the scope of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide, in its future reports, information on the application in practice of these provisions, and on any court decisions based thereon.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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:
Repetition
Article 1(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention. In a previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to provide certain legislative texts in order to ascertain that there were no provisions in the national legislation under which any form of forced or compulsory labour could be imposed in any of the cases listed in the Convention. The Government provided a copy of Act No. 2002-027 of 25 September 2002 regarding press cards, the French Act of 1 July 1901 respecting contracts of association, which it indicated regulated freedom of association in Togo, and Decree No. 91-167 of 31 May 1991 organizing the right to strike in public services.
In its comments concerning the application of Convention No. 29, the Committee has been requesting the Government for a number of years to provide it with copies of any texts establishing practical arrangements and regulations for prison labour which may have been adopted pursuant to sections 22(2), 26(2) and 35(3) of the Penal Code. The Government has constantly replied that no such texts have been adopted. The Committee however noted that the above sections of the Penal Code provide for the possibility for persons sentenced to reclusion and imprisonment to work. It also noted from the Government’s report under Convention No. 29, received in October 2000, that in practice, pre-trial and other prisoners not convicted by a court of law are not compelled to perform any work other than the cleaning of cells and their immediate surroundings. The Committee was therefore bound to consider that, even though the texts to give effect to the above sections of the Penal Code have not been adopted, work may be imposed in practice on prisoners sentenced to reclusion or imprisonment.
The Government indicated to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2009 that no use was made in practice of prison work. Texts are to be adopted in the context of the programme of modernizing the justice system, taking into account the issue of prison labour. The Government indicated that they would be provided to the Office once they have been adopted.
The Committee trusts that the Government will be in a position to provide information with its next report on the programme for the modernization of the justice system and its effects in relation to the texts governing prison labour. In the meantime, it recalls that it previously drew the Government’s attention to the following provisions of the legislation of Togo, which may fall under the scope of Article 1(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention.
Penal Code:
  • – section 182(1), which provides that “whoever participates on the public highway in a procession, gathering or on any other demonstration impeding the public circulation, without having received prior administrative authorization, shall be punished with a fine of from 2,000 to 30,000 francs”, read together with section 36, under which “in case of failure to pay the police fine within the allotted time, the fine may be replaced by penal labour at the rate of one day’s work for a 500 franc fine”;
  • – section 182(2), which provides that “the organizers of unauthorized demonstrations on the public highway, even if they have not themselves participated in the demonstrations, shall be punished with one to six months of imprisonment and a fine of from 20,000 to 100,000 francs, or one of these two penalties only”, also read together with section 36; and
  • – section 217, which provides that “whoever has participated in a concerted work stoppage outside the current regulations shall be punished with from one to 20 days of penal labour or a 2,000 to 30,000 franc fine” (clause 1), and that “the organizers of the concerted work stoppage shall be punished with between one and six months of imprisonment” (clause 2).

Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association:

  • – section 8(1), which provides that “any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a 16 to 200 franc fine and, in the event of a second offence, with a double fine”, read together with section 36 of the Penal Code. Section 5 concerns the formalities with respect to the requirement of a prior declaration, changes that have occurred in the association’s administration or management, and modifications that have been made to their statutes;
  • – section 8(2), which provides that “the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgement of dissolution shall be punished with a fine of from 16 to 5,000 francs and six days to one year of imprisonment”, while section 8(3) provides that “any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty”; and
  • – section 15, which makes the penalties established in section 8(2) applicable to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such a list at the request of the prefect.
The Committee once again asks the Government to indicate how these various provisions are applied in practice.
Article 1(a). The Committee notes Act No. 2004-15 of 27 August 2004 amending Act No. 98-4 of 11 February 1998 issuing the Media and Communications Code, which had previously been amended in 2000 and 2002. The Committee notes that the Act abolishes the sentences of imprisonment for violations of the provisions respecting the press and offences which may be related to freedom of expression. However, the Committee notes that section 86 of the new Media and Communications Code establishes a penalty of between three months and one year of imprisonment and a fine for any person who, through the various means referred to in new section 85, has incited the population to violations of the laws of the Republic and that, in the event of a second offence, double the maximum penalty may be imposed. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the manner in which effect is given to these provisions in practice by providing copies of court decisions handed down under section 86 of the new Media and Communication Code.
The Committee also referred previously to section 25 of Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991 issuing the Charter of Political Parties, under the terms of which “any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter shall be liable to imprisonment of from three to 12 months and a fine of from 100,000 to 500,000 CFA francs, or one of these two penalties only”. The Committee previously noted the indication in the Government’s report that this section had not been applied up to now. Under these conditions, the Committee trusts that the Government will see no inconvenience in taking measures with a view to repealing this section. It requests the Government to provide information on this matter in its next report.

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

The Committee notes with regret that, for the fifth consecutive year, the Government has not provided a report on the application of the Convention. It notes the information provided by the Government during the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (98th Session, June 2009).

Article 1(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention. In a previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to provide certain legislative texts in order to ascertain that there were no provisions in the national legislation under which any form of forced or compulsory labour could be imposed in any of the cases listed in the Convention. The Government provided a copy of Act No. 2002-027 of 25 September 2002 regarding press cards, the French Act of 1 July 1901 respecting contracts of association, which it indicated regulated freedom of association in Togo, and Decree No. 91-167 of 31 May 1991 organizing the right to strike in public services.

In its comments concerning the application of Convention No. 29, the Committee has been requesting the Government for a number of years to provide it with copies of any texts establishing practical arrangements and regulations for prison labour which may have been adopted pursuant to sections 22(2), 26(2) and 35(3) of the Penal Code. The Government has constantly replied that no such texts have been adopted. The Committee however noted that the above sections of the Penal Code provide for the possibility for persons sentenced to reclusion and imprisonment to work. It also noted from the Government’s report under Convention No. 29, received in October 2000, that in practice, pre-trial and other prisoners not convicted by a court of law are not compelled to perform any work other than the cleaning of cells and their immediate surroundings. The Committee was therefore bound to consider that, even though the texts to give effect to the above sections of the Penal Code have not been adopted, work may be imposed in practice on prisoners sentenced to reclusion or imprisonment.

The Government indicated to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2009 that no use was made in practice of prison work. Texts are to be adopted in the context of the programme of modernizing the justice system, taking into account the issue of prison labour. The Government indicated that they would be provided to the Office once they have been adopted.

The Committee trusts that the Government will be in a position to provide information with its next report on the programme for the modernization of the justice system and its effects in relation to the texts governing prison labour. In the meantime, it recalls that it previously drew the Government’s attention to the following provisions of the legislation of Togo, which may fall under the scope of Article 1(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention.

Penal Code:

–      section 182(1), which provides that “whoever participates on the public highway in a procession, gathering or on any other demonstration impeding the public circulation, without having received prior administrative authorization, shall be punished with a fine of from 2,000 to 30,000 francs”, read together with section 36, under which “in case of failure to pay the police fine within the allotted time, the fine may be replaced by penal labour at the rate of one day’s work for a 500 franc fine”;

–      section 182(2), which provides that “the organizers of unauthorized demonstrations on the public highway, even if they have not themselves participated in the demonstrations, shall be punished with one to six months of imprisonment and a fine of from 20,000 to 100,000 francs, or one of these two penalties only”, also read together with section 36; and

–      section 217, which provides that “whoever has participated in a concerted work stoppage outside the current regulations shall be punished with from one to 20 days of penal labour or a 2,000 to 30,000 franc fine” (clause 1), and that “the organizers of the concerted work stoppage shall be punished with between one and six months of imprisonment” (clause 2). Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association

–      section 8(1), which provides that “any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a 16 to 200 franc fine and, in the event of a second offence, with a double fine”, read together with section 36 of the Penal Code. Section 5 concerns the formalities with respect to the requirement of a prior declaration, changes that have occurred in the association’s administration or management, and modifications that have been made to their statutes;

–      section 8(2), which provides that “the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgement of dissolution shall be punished with a fine of from 16 to 5,000 francs and six days to one year of imprisonment”, while section 8(3) provides that “any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty”; and

–      section 15, which makes the penalties established in section 8(2) applicable to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such a list at the request of the prefect.

The Committee once again asks the Government to indicate how these various provisions are applied in practice.

Article 1(a). The Committee notes Act No. 2004-15 of 27 August 2004 amending Act No. 98-4 of 11 February 1998 issuing the Media and Communications Code, which had previously been amended in 2000 and 2002. The Committee notes that the Act abolishes the sentences of imprisonment for violations of the provisions respecting the press and offences which may be related to freedom of expression. However, the Committee notes that section 86 of the new Media and Communications Code establishes a penalty of between three months and one year of imprisonment and a fine for any person who, through the various means referred to in new section 85, has incited the population to violations of the laws of the Republic and that, in the event of a second offence, double the maximum penalty may be imposed. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the manner in which effect is given to these provisions in practice by providing copies of court decisions handed down under section 86 of the new Media and Communication Code.

The Committee also referred previously to section 25 of Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991 issuing the Charter of Political Parties, under the terms of which “any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter shall be liable to imprisonment of from three to 12 months and a fine of from 100,000 to 500,000 CFA francs, or one of these two penalties only”. The Committee previously noted the indication in the Government’s report that this section had not been applied up to now. Under these conditions, the Committee trusts that the Government will see no inconvenience in taking measures with a view to repealing this section. It requests the Government to provide information on this matter in its next report.

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

The Committee notes with regret that, for the fifth consecutive year, the Government has not provided a report on the application of the Convention. It notes the information provided by the Government during the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (98th Session, June 2009).

Article 1, subparagraphs (a), (d) and (e), of the Convention. In a previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to provide certain legislative texts in order to ascertain that there were no provisions in the national legislation under which any form of forced or compulsory labour could be imposed in any of the cases listed in the Convention. The Government provided a copy of Act No. 2002-027 of 25 September 2002 regarding press cards, the French Act of 1 July 1901 respecting contracts of association, which it indicated regulated freedom of association in Togo, and Decree No. 91-167 of 31 May 1991 organizing the right to strike in public services.

In its comments concerning the application of Convention No. 29, the Committee has been requesting the Government for a number of years to provide it with copies of any texts establishing practical arrangements and regulations for prison labour which may have been adopted pursuant to sections 22(2), 26(2) and 35(3) of the Penal Code. The Government has constantly replied that no such texts have been adopted. The Committee however noted that the above sections of the Penal Code provide for the possibility for persons sentenced to reclusion and imprisonment to work. It also noted from the Government’s report under Convention No. 29, received in October 2000, that in practice, pre-trial and other prisoners not convicted by a court of law are not compelled to perform any work other than the cleaning of cells and their immediate surroundings. The Committee was therefore bound to consider that, even though the texts to give effect to the above sections of the Penal Code have not been adopted, work may be imposed in practice on prisoners sentenced to reclusion or imprisonment.

The Government indicated to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2009 that no use was made in practice of prison work. Texts are to be adopted in the context of the programme of modernizing the justice system, taking into account the issue of prison labour. The Government indicated that they would be provided to the Office once they have been adopted.

The Committee trusts that the Government will be in a position to provide information with its next report on the programme for the modernization of the justice system and its effects in relation to the texts governing prison labour. In the meantime, it recalls that it previously drew the Government’s attention to the following provisions of the legislation of Togo, which may fall under the scope of Article 1(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention.

Penal Code

–           section 182(1), which provides that “whoever participates on the public highway in a procession, gathering or on any other demonstration impeding the public circulation, without having received prior administrative authorization, shall be punished with a fine of from 2,000 to 30,000 francs”, read together with section 36, under which “in case of failure to pay the police fine within the allotted time, the fine may be replaced by penal labour at the rate of one day’s work for a 500 franc fine”;

–           section 182(2), which provides that “the organizers of unauthorized demonstrations on the public highway, even if they have not themselves participated in the demonstrations, shall be punished with one to six months of imprisonment and a fine of from 20,000 to 100,000 francs, or one of these two penalties only”, also read together with section 36; and

–           section 217, which provides that “whoever has participated in a concerted work stoppage outside the current regulations shall be punished with from one to 20 days of penal labour or a 2,000 to 30,000 franc fine” (clause 1), and that “the organizers of the concerted work stoppage shall be punished with between one and six months of imprisonment” (clause 2).

Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association

–           section 8(1), which provides that “any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a 16 to 200 franc fine and, in the event of a second offence, with a double fine”, read together with section 36 of the Penal Code. Section 5 concerns the formalities with respect to the requirement of a prior declaration, changes that have occurred in the association’s administration or management, and modifications that have been made to their statutes;

–           section 8(2), which provides that “the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgement of dissolution shall be punished with a fine of from 16 to 5,000 francs and six days to one year of imprisonment”, while section 8(3) provides that “any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty”; and

–           section 15, which makes the penalties established in section 8(2) applicable to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such a list at the request of the prefect.

The Committee once again asks the Government to indicate how these various provisions are applied in practice.

Article 1, subparagraph (a). The Committee notes Act No. 2004-15 of 27 August 2004 amending Act No. 98-4 of 11 February 1998 issuing the Media and Communications Code, which had previously been amended in 2000 and 2002. The Committee notes with interest that the Act abolishes the sentences of imprisonment for violations of the provisions respecting the press and offences which may be related to freedom of expression. However, the Committee notes that section 86 of the new Media and Communications Code establishes a penalty of between three months and one year of imprisonment and a fine for any person who, through the various means referred to in new section 85, has incited the population to violations of the laws of the Republic and that, in the event of a second offence, double the maximum penalty may be imposed. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the manner in which effect is given to these provisions in practice by providing copies of court decisions handed down under section 86 of the new Media and Communication Code.

The Committee also referred previously to section 25 of Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991 issuing the Charter of Political Parties, under the terms of which “any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter shall be liable to imprisonment of from three to 12 months and a fine of from 100,000 to 500,000 CFA francs, or one of these two penalties only”. The Committee previously noted the indication in the Government’s report that this section had not been applied up to now. Under these conditions, the Committee trusts that the Government will see no inconvenience in taking measures with a view to repealing this section. It requests the Government to provide information on this matter in its next report.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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 following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to communicate certain legislative texts in order to ascertain that there were no provisions in the national legislation under which any form of forced or compulsory labour might be imposed in any of the cases listed in the Convention. With its last report, the Government communicated copies of Act No. 2002-027 of 25 September 2002 regarding press cards, the French Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association, which the Government indicates is applicable in Togo, as well as Decree No. 91-167 of 31 May 1991, organizing the right to strike in public services.

In its comments relating to the application of Convention No. 29, the Committee has been asking the Government for a number of years to provide copies of any texts setting out practical arrangements and regulations for prison labour which may have been adopted pursuant to sections 22(2), 26(2) and 35(3) of the Penal Code. The Government has constantly replied that no such texts have been adopted. The Committee notes, however, that the above sections of the Penal Code provide for the possibility for persons sentenced to reclusion and imprisonment to work. In addition, the Committee notes from the Government’s report under Convention No. 29, received in October 2000, that in practice, pre-trial and other prisoners not convicted by a court of law are not compelled to perform any work other than the cleaning of cells and of their immediate surroundings. The Committee is therefore bound to consider that, even though the texts which are to give application to the above sections of the Penal Code have not been adopted, work may be imposed in practice on prisoners sentenced to reclusion or imprisonment. In such conditions, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practice of prison labour and draws its attention to the following provisions of the legislation of Togo, which may fall under the scope of Article 1(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention.

       Penal Code:

–      section 182(1), which provides that “whoever participates on the public highway in a procession, gathering, or in any other demonstration impeding the public circulation, without having received prior administrative authorization shall be punished with a fine of 2,000 to 30,000 francs”, read together with section 36, according to which “in case of failure to pay the police fine within the allotted time, the fine may be replaced by penal labour at the rate of one day’s work for a 500 franc fine”;

–      section 182(2), which provides that “the organizers of the unauthorized demonstrations on the public highway, even if they have not themselves participated in the demonstrations, shall be punished with one to six months imprisonment and a 20,000 to 100,000 franc fine, or one of these two penalties only”, also read together with section 36;

–      section 217, which provides that “whoever has participated in a concerted work stoppage outside the current regulations shall be punished with one to 20 days penal labour or a 2,000 to 30,000 franc fine” (paragraph 1), and that “the organizers of the concerted work stoppage shall be punished with one to six months imprisonment” (paragraph 2).

       Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association:

–      section 8(1), which provides that “any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a 16 to 200 franc fine and, in the event of a second offence, with a double fine”, read together with section 36 of the Penal Code. Section 5 concerns the formalities with respect to the requirement of a preliminary declaration, changes which have occurred in the association’s administration or management, and modifications which have been made to their statutes;

–      section 8(2), which provides that “the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgement of dissolution shall be punished with a 16 to 5,000 franc fine and six days to one year of imprisonment”, while section 8(3) provides that “any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty”;

–      section 15, which makes the penalties established in section 8(2) applicable to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such list at the request of the prefect.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate how these various provisions are applied in practice.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted the Media and Communication Code (Act No. 4 of 11 February 1998), sections 86 et seq. of which establish penalties of imprisonment. In its report, the Government indicates that this Act was repealed by Act No. 2000-06 of 23 February 2000, which was itself modified by Act No. 2002-026 of 25 September 2002, and that the last text adopted in August 2004 has not yet entered into force. The Committee understands that the Bill adopted by the Council of Ministers on 21 July 2004, modifying the Media and Communication Code, was adopted in Parliament in August 2004. It notes that the Bill, as adopted by the Government, still provides for prison sentences and heavy fines in case of violation of the press laws and offences which may be related to freedom of expression. The Committee asks the Government to communicate a copy of the Media and Communication Code, as amended in August 2004, and to specify whether it has entered into force.

The Committee also referred previously to section 25 of the Charter of Political Parties (Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991), according to which “any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter is liable to imprisonment of from three to 12 months and a 100,000 to 500,000 CFA franc fine, or one of these two penalties only. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report that the above provisions have not been applied up to now. In such conditions, the Committee trusts that the Government will see no inconvenience in taking measures to repeal this section.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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:

Article 1(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to communicate certain legislative texts in order to ascertain that there were no provisions in the national legislation under which any form of forced or compulsory labour might be imposed in any of the cases listed in the Convention. With its last report, the Government communicated copies of Act No. 2002-027 of 25 September 2002 regarding press cards, the French Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association, which the Government indicates is applicable in Togo, as well as Decree No. 91-167 of 31 May 1991, organizing the right to strike in public services.

In its comments relating to the application of Convention No. 29, the Committee has been asking the Government for a number of years to provide copies of any texts setting out practical arrangements and regulations for prison labour which may have been adopted pursuant to sections 22(2), 26(2) and 35(3) of the Penal Code. The Government has constantly replied that no such texts have been adopted. The Committee notes, however, that the above sections of the Penal Code provide for the possibility for persons sentenced to reclusion and imprisonment to work. In addition, the Committee notes from the Government’s report under Convention No. 29, received in October 2000, that in practice, pretrial and other prisoners not convicted by a court of law are not compelled to perform any work other than the cleaning of cells and of their immediate surroundings. The Committee is therefore bound to consider that, even though the texts which are to give application to the above sections of the Penal Code have not been adopted, work may be imposed in practice on prisoners sentenced to reclusion or imprisonment. In such conditions, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practice of prison labour and draws its attention to the following provisions of the legislation of Togo, which may fall under the scope of Article 1(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention.

         Penal Code:

–      section 182(1), which provides that “whoever participates on the public highway in a procession, gathering, or in any other demonstration impeding the public circulation, without having received prior administrative authorization shall be punished with a fine of 2,000 to 30,000 francs”, read together with section 36, according to which “in case of failure to pay the police fine within the allotted time, the fine may be replaced by penal labour at the rate of one day’s work for a 500 franc fine”;

–      section 182(2), which provides that “the organizers of the unauthorized demonstrations on the public highway, even if they have not themselves participated in the demonstrations, shall be punished with one to six months imprisonment and a 20,000 to 100,000 franc fine, or one of these two penalties only”, also read together with section 36;

–      section 217, which provides that “whoever has participated in a concerted work stoppage outside the current regulations shall be punished with one to 20 days penal labour or a 2,000 to 30,000 franc fine” (paragraph 1), and that “the organizers of the concerted work stoppage shall be punished with one to six months imprisonment” (paragraph 2).

         Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association:

–      section 8(1), which provides that “any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a 16 to 200 franc fine and, in the event of a second offence, with a double fine”, read together with section 36 of the Penal Code. Section 5 concerns the formalities with respect to the requirement of a preliminary declaration, changes which have occurred in the association’s administration or management, and modifications which have been made to their statutes;

–      section 8(2), which provides that “the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgement of dissolution shall be punished with a 16 to 5,000 franc fine and six days to one year of imprisonment”, while section 8(3) provides that “any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty”;

–      section 15, which makes the penalties established in section 8(2) applicable to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such list at the request of the prefect.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate how these various provisions are applied in practice.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted the Media and Communication Code (Act No. 4 of 11 February 1998), sections 86 et seq. of which establish penalties of imprisonment. In its report, the Government indicates that this Act was repealed by Act No. 2000-06 of 23 February 2000, which was itself modified by Act No. 2002-026 of 25 September 2002, and that the last text adopted in August 2004 has not yet entered into force. The Committee understands that the Bill adopted by the Council of Ministers on 21 July 2004, modifying the Media and Communication Code, was adopted in Parliament in August 2004. It notes that the Bill, as adopted by the Government, still provides for prison sentences and heavy fines in case of violation of the press laws and offences which may be related to freedom of expression. The Committee asks the Government to communicate a copy of the Media and Communication Code, as amended in August 2004, and to specify whether it has entered into force.

The Committee also referred previously to section 25 of the Charter of Political Parties (Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991), according to which “any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter is liable to imprisonment of from three to 12 months and a 100,000 to 500,000 CFA franc fine, or one of these two penalties only. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report that the above provisions have not been applied up to now. In such conditions, the Committee trusts that the Government will see no inconvenience in taking measures to repeal this section.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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 following matters raised in its previous direct request:

In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to communicate certain legislative texts in order to ascertain that there were no provisions in the national legislation under which any form of forced or compulsory labour might be imposed in any of the cases listed in the Convention. With its last report, the Government communicated copies of Act No. 2002-027 of 25 September 2002 regarding press cards, the French Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association, which the Government indicates is applicable in Togo, as well as Decree No. 91-167 of 31 May 1991, organizing the right to strike in public services.

In its comments relating to the application of Convention No. 29, the Committee has been asking the Government for a number of years to provide copies of any texts setting out practical arrangements and regulations for prison labour which may have been adopted pursuant to sections 22(2), 26(2) and 35(3) of the Penal Code. The Government has constantly replied that no such texts have been adopted. The Committee notes, however, that the above sections of the Penal Code provide for the possibility for persons sentenced to reclusion and imprisonment to work. In addition, the Committee notes from the Government’s report under Convention No. 29, received in October 2000, that in practice, pretrial and other prisoners not convicted by a court of law are not compelled to perform any work other than the cleaning of cells and of their immediate surroundings. The Committee is therefore bound to consider that, even though the texts which are to give application to the above sections of the Penal Code have not been adopted, work may be imposed in practice on prisoners sentenced to reclusion or imprisonment. In such conditions, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practice of prison labour and draws its attention to the following provisions of the legislation of Togo, which may fall under the scope of Article 1(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention.

        Penal Code:

–      section 182(1), which provides that “whoever participates on the public highway in a procession, gathering, or in any other demonstration impeding the public circulation, without having received prior administrative authorization shall be punished with a fine of 2,000 to 30,000 francs”, read together with section 36, according to which “in case of failure to pay the police fine within the allotted time, the fine may be replaced by penal labour at the rate of one day’s work for a 500 franc fine”;

–      section 182(2), which provides that “the organizers of the unauthorized demonstrations on the public highway, even if they have not themselves participated in the demonstrations, shall be punished with one to six months imprisonment and a 20,000 to 100,000 francs fine, or one of these two penalties only”, also read together with section 36;

–      section 217, which provides that “whoever has participated in a concerted work stoppage outside the current regulations shall be punished with one to 20 days penal labour or a 2,000 to 30,000 franc fine” (paragraph 1), and that “the organizers of the concerted work stoppage shall be punished with one to six months imprisonment” (paragraph 2).

        Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association:

–      section 8(1), which provides that “any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a 16 to 200 franc fine and, in the event of a second offence, with a double fine”, read together with section 36 of the Penal Code. Section 5 concerns the formalities with respect to the requirement of a preliminary declaration, changes which have occurred in the association’s administration or management, and modifications which have been made to their statutes;

–      section 8(2), which provides that “the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgement of dissolution shall be punished with a 16 to 5,000 franc fine and six days to one year of imprisonment”, while section 8(3) provides that “any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty”;

–      section 15, which makes the penalties established in section 8(2) applicable to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such list at the request of the prefect.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate how these various provisions are applied in practice.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted the Media and Communication Code (Act No. 4 of 11 February 1998), sections 86 et seq. of which establish penalties of imprisonment. In its report, the Government indicates that this Act was repealed by Act No. 2000-06 of 23 February 2000, which was itself modified by Act No. 2002-026 of 25 September 2002, and that the last text adopted in August 2004 has not yet entered into force. The Committee understands that the Bill adopted by the Council of Ministers on 21 July 2004, modifying the Media and Communication Code, was adopted in Parliament in August 2004. It notes that the Bill, as adopted by the Government, still provides for prison sentences and heavy fines in case of violation of the press laws and offences which may be related to freedom of expression. The Committee asks the Government to communicate a copy of the Media and Communication Code, as amended in August 2004, and to specify whether it has entered into force.

The Committee also referred previously to section 25 of the Charter of Political Parties (Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991), according to which “any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter is liable to imprisonment of from three to 12 months and a 100,000 to 500,000 CFA franc fine, or one of these two penalties only. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report that the above provisions have not been applied up to now. In such conditions, the Committee trusts that the Government will see no inconvenience in taking measures to repeal this section.

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

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:

In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to communicate certain legislative texts in order to ascertain that there were no provisions in the national legislation under which any form of forced or compulsory labour might be imposed in any of the cases listed in the Convention. With its last report, the Government communicated copies of Act No. 2002-027 of 25 September 2002 regarding press cards, the French Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association, which the Government indicates is applicable in Togo, as well as Decree No. 91-167 of 31 May 1991, organizing the right to strike in public services.

In its comments relating to the application of Convention No. 29, the Committee has been asking the Government for a number of years to provide copies of any texts setting out practical arrangements and regulations for prison labour which may have been adopted pursuant to sections 22(2), 26(2) and 35(3) of the Penal Code. The Government has constantly replied that no such texts have been adopted. The Committee notes, however, that the above sections of the Penal Code provide for the possibility for persons sentenced to reclusion and imprisonment to work. In addition, the Committee notes from the Government’s report under Convention No. 29, received in October 2000, that in practice, pretrial and other prisoners not convicted by a court of law are not compelled to perform any work other than the cleaning of cells and of their immediate surroundings. The Committee is therefore bound to consider that, even though the texts which are to give application to the above sections of the Penal Code have not been adopted, work may be imposed in practice on prisoners sentenced to reclusion or imprisonment. In such conditions, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practice of prison labour and draws its attention to the following provisions of the legislation of Togo, which may fall under the scope of Article 1(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention.

Penal Code:

–      section 182(1), which provides that “whoever participates on the public highway in a procession, gathering, or in any other demonstration impeding the public circulation, without having received prior administrative authorization shall be punished with a fine of 2,000 to 30,000 francs”, read together with section 36, according to which “in case of failure to pay the police fine within the allotted time, the fine may be replaced by penal labour at the rate of one day’s work for a 500 franc fine”;

–      section 182(2), which provides that “the organizers of the unauthorized demonstrations on the public highway, even if they have not themselves participated in the demonstrations, shall be punished with one to six months imprisonment and a 20,000 to 100,000 francs fine, or one of these two penalties only”, also read together with section 36;

–      section 217, which provides that “whoever has participated in a concerted work stoppage outside the current regulations shall be punished with one to 20 days penal labour or a 2,000 to 30,000 franc fine” (paragraph 1), and that “the organizers of the concerted work stoppage shall be punished with one to six months imprisonment” (paragraph 2).

Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association:

–      section 8(1), which provides that “any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a 16 to 200 franc fine and, in the event of a second offence, with a double fine”, read together with section 36 of the Penal Code. Section 5 concerns the formalities with respect to the requirement of a preliminary declaration, changes which have occurred in the association’s administration or management, and modifications which have been made to their statutes;

–      section 8(2), which provides that “the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgement of dissolution shall be punished with a 16 to 5,000 franc fine and six days to one year of imprisonment”, while section 8(3) provides that “any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty”;

–      section 15, which makes the penalties established in section 8(2) applicable to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such list at the request of the prefect.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate how these various provisions are applied in practice.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted the Media and Communication Code (Act No. 4 of 11 February 1998), sections 86 et seq. of which establish penalties of imprisonment. In its report, the Government indicates that this Act was repealed by Act No. 2000-06 of 23 February 2000, which was itself modified by Act No. 2002-026 of 25 September 2002, and that the last text adopted in August 2004 has not yet entered into force. The Committee understands that the Bill adopted by the Council of Ministers on 21 July 2004, modifying the Media and Communication Code, was adopted in Parliament in August 2004. It notes that the Bill, as adopted by the Government, still provides for prison sentences and heavy fines in case of violation of the press laws and offences which may be related to freedom of expression. The Committee asks the Government to communicate a copy of the Media and Communication Code, as amended in August 2004, and to specify whether it has entered into force.

The Committee also referred previously to section 25 of the Charter of Political Parties (Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991), according to which “any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter is liable to imprisonment of from three to 12 months and a 100,000 to 500,000 CFA franc fine, or one of these two penalties only. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report that the above provisions have not been applied up to now. In such conditions, the Committee trusts that the Government will see no inconvenience in taking measures to repeal this section.

Article 1(c). In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to indicate whether disciplinary detention under section 79 of Ordinance No. 29 of 12 August 1971, issuing the Merchant Shipping Code for breach of discipline, involves the obligation to work. The Committee notes the information communicated by the Government in its report that disciplinary detention does not involve the obligation to work.

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

In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to communicate certain legislative texts in order to ascertain that there were no provisions in the national legislation under which any form of forced or compulsory labour might be imposed in any of the cases listed in the Convention. With its last report, the Government communicated copies of Act No. 2002-027 of 25 September 2002 regarding press cards, the French Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association, which the Government indicates is applicable in Togo, as well as Decree No. 91-167 of 31 May 1991, organizing the right to strike in public services.

In its comments relating to the application of Convention No. 29, the Committee has been asking the Government for a number of years to provide copies of any texts setting out practical arrangements and regulations for prison labour which may have been adopted pursuant to sections 22(2), 26(2) and 35(3) of the Penal Code. The Government has constantly replied that no such texts have been adopted. The Committee notes, however, that the above sections of the Penal Code provide for the possibility for persons sentenced to reclusion and imprisonment to work. In addition, the Committee notes from the Government’s report under Convention No. 29, received in October 2000, that in practice, pretrial and other prisoners not convicted by a court of law are not compelled to perform any work other than the cleaning of cells and of their immediate surroundings. The Committee is therefore bound to consider that, even though the texts which are to give application to the above sections of the Penal Code have not been adopted, work may be imposed in practice on prisoners sentenced to reclusion or imprisonment. In such conditions, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practice of prison labour and draws its attention to the following provisions of the legislation of Togo, which may fall under the scope of Article 1(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention.

Penal Code:

-  section 182(1), which provides that "whoever participates on the public highway in a procession, gathering, or in any other demonstration impeding the public circulation, without having received prior administrative authorization shall be punished with a fine of 2,000 to 30,000 francs", read together with section 36, according to which "in case of failure to pay the police fine within the allotted time, the fine may be replaced by penal labour at the rate of one day’s work for a 500 franc fine";

-  section 182(2), which provides that "the organizers of the unauthorized demonstrations on the public highway, even if they have not themselves participated in the demonstrations, shall be punished with one to six months imprisonment and a 20,000 to 100,000 francs fine, or one of these two penalties only", also read together with section 36;

-  section 217, which provides that "whoever has participated in a concerted work stoppage outside the current regulations shall be punished with one to 20 days penal labour or a 2,000 to 30,000 franc fine" (paragraph 1), and that "the organizers of the concerted work stoppage shall be punished with one to six months imprisonment" (paragraph 2).

Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association:

-  section 8(1), which provides that "any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a 16 to 200 franc fine and, in the event of a second offence, with a double fine", read together with section 36 of the Penal Code. Section 5 concerns the formalities with respect to the requirement of a preliminary declaration, changes which have occurred in the association’s administration or management, and modifications which have been made to their statutes;

-  section 8(2), which provides that "the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgement of dissolution shall be punished with a 16 to 5,000 franc fine and six days to one year of imprisonment", while section 8(3) provides that "any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty";

-  section 15, which makes the penalties established in section 8(2) applicable to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such list at the request of the prefect.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate how these various provisions are applied in practice.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted the Media and Communication Code (Act No. 4 of 11 February 1998), sections 86 et seq. of which establish penalties of imprisonment. In its report, the Government indicates that this Act was repealed by Act No. 2000-06 of 23 February 2000, which was itself modified by Act No. 2002-026 of 25 September 2002, and that the last text adopted in August 2004 has not yet entered into force. The Committee understands that the Bill adopted by the Council of Ministers on 21 July 2004, modifying the Media and Communication Code, was adopted in Parliament in August 2004. It notes that the Bill, as adopted by the Government, still provides for prison sentences and heavy fines in case of violation of the press laws and offences which may be related to freedom of expression. The Committee asks the Government to communicate a copy of the Media and Communication Code, as amended in August 2004, and to specify whether it has entered into force.

The Committee also referred previously to section 25 of the Charter of Political Parties (Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991), according to which "any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter is liable to imprisonment of from three to 12 months and a 100,000 to 500,000 CFA franc fine, or one of these two penalties only. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report that the above provisions have not been applied up to now. In such conditions, the Committee trusts that the Government will see no inconvenience in taking measures to repeal this section.

Article 1(c). In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to indicate whether disciplinary detention under section 79 of Ordinance No. 29 of 12 August 1971, issuing the Merchant Shipping Code for breach of discipline, involves the obligation to work. The Committee notes the information communicated by the Government in its report that disciplinary detention does not involve the obligation to work.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s first report.

So that the Committee may ascertain that there are no provisions in the national legislation under which any form of forced or compulsory labour might be imposed in any of the cases listed in the Convention, the Government is requested to provide copies of the following legislative texts:

Article 1(a):

-  legislation on state of siege and state of emergency;

-  legislation on the defence of the internal and external security of the State;

-  legislation on the media (press);

-  legislation on the right of assembly and association.

Article 1(b):

-  legislation on cases of force majeure;

-  legislation on the mobilization of persons;

-  legislation on compulsory military service.

Article 1(c):

-  legislation on breaches of labour discipline;

-  legislation on the conditions of work of seafarers.

Article 1(d)

-  legislation on the right to strike and essential services.

The Committee also asks the Government to send a copy of the Penal Code and of the rules governing prison labour.

Article 1(a). The Committee notes the Media and Communication Code (Act No. 4 of 11 February 1998), sections 86 et seq. of which establish penalties of imprisonment. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical effect given to these provisions enabling the Committee to assess their scope, together with copies of court decisions showing the field of application of the provisions.

The Committee notes that sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Charter of political parties (Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991) provide for imprisonment for breaches of certain provisions of the law. It asks the Government to provide information in its next report on the practical effect given to sections 5(1) (defence of national security and democracy); 5(2) (protection of the republican form of government) and 5(6) (defence of the Constitution and laws of the Republic), to enable the Committee to determine their scope. Please also provide copies of any relevant court decisions.

Article 1(c). The Committee notes that under section 79 of Ordinance No. 29 of 12 August 1971 establishing the Merchant Shipping Code, breaches of discipline whether committed by officers, passengers, ships’ masters or members of the crew are punishable by disciplinary detention of not more than 15 days. According to section 78, breaches of labour discipline include disobeying or refusing to obey orders concerning the vessel, failure to show respect to a superior or insulting a subordinate, quarrels and disputes without use of violence, negligence whilst on watch and absence without leave other than when the seafarer misses the departure of the vessel as a result.

Please indicate whether disciplinary detention involves the obligation to work.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer