All Comments

Home Page | Français | Español |

ILO is a United Nations Agency

RSS Feed | Newsroom | Contact us

NORMLEX

Information System on International Labour Standards

Instruments
Key documents
Ratification of ILO Conventions
Supervising the application of International Labour Standards: Supervision by country; Search comments by the supervisory bodies; Complaint procedures; Freedom of association cases; Representations (Art. 24); Commission of Inquiry (Art. 26)
Regular reporting
Country profiles
Comparatives
Maritime Labour Convention (2006)

MLC, 2006

NATLEX *new look*
National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights

LEGOSH
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation

EPLex
Employment protection legislation database

Compendium of court decisions

NORMLEX Home > Country profiles > > Comments > All Comments

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Ethiopia (Ratification: 1999)

Display in: French - Spanish

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

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions applicable to public servants for breaches of labour discipline and for participation in strikes. 1. Labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 420(1) of the Criminal Code, any public servant who fails to carry out his/her duties in a proper manner, to the prejudice of state, public or private interest, shall be subject to imprisonment not exceeding six months, which involves an obligation to perform labour by virtue of section 111(1) of the same law, or a fine. Where substantial damage has resulted from the above acts, the penalty may be increased up to the general legal maximum (section 420(2)). The Committee noted the Government’s reiterated statement that, according to the labour law and the civil servants’ law, only administrative measures are applicable as a means of labour discipline and not penal sanctions.

In this regard, the Committee notes that section 69 of the Federal Civil Servants Proclamation No.1064 of 2017 lists different types and classification of disciplinary penalties that may be imposed on civil servants for breach of discipline depending on the gravity of the offence. The Committee takes due note that the list of administrative penalties includes: (a) oral warning; (b) written warning; (c) fine of up to 15 days’ salary; (d) fine of up to three months’ salary; (e) down grading for a period of up to two years; and (f) dismissal. Penalties specified from sub-section (a) to (c) shall be classified as simple penalties and from (d) to (f) as rigorous penalties. The Committee welcomes the provisions under the Federal Civil Servants Proclamation No. 1064 of 2017 and the practice indicated, and hopes that the Government will review the broad wording of section 420(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code and restrict its application to the operation of essential services, or situations where the life, health and safety of persons are endangered.

2. Participation in strikes. The Committee had also referred to section 421 of the Criminal Code, according to which any public servant who, in breach of his/her professional or statutory obligations, goes on strike of his/her free will, or urges others to strike, is punishable under abovementioned section 420, which provides for sanctions of imprisonment or a fine. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that, conducting lawful strikes as a means to guarantee basic labour rights is a constitutionally declared right in the country, and is not a crime. Therefore, no one is compelled to be punished through compulsory labour for participating in strikes.

The Committee notes that as per section 70 of the Federal Civil Servants Proclamation No. 1064 of 2017, the offences related to neglect of duty, obstructing work or collaborating with others in committing such offence shall entail rigorous disciplinary penalties. It also takes due note that pursuant to section 186 (c) of the Labour Proclamation No. 1156/2019, the violations of prohibited acts (under section 161) related to strike shall be punished with a fine. The Committee welcomes the provisions under the Federal Civil Servants Proclamation No. 1064 of 2017 and the Labour Proclamation No. 1156/2019, the Committee hopes that the Government will review section 421 of the Criminal Code thereby ensuring that sanctions involving compulsory labour cannot be imposed for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to the following sections of the Criminal Code, under which penal sanctions involving compulsory prison labour may be imposed by virtue of section 111(1) of the Code, in circumstances covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention:

–sections 482(2) and 484(2): punishment of ringleaders, organizers or commanders of forbidden societies, meetings and assemblies;
–section 486(a): inciting the public through false rumours; and
–section 487(a): making, uttering, distributing or crying out seditious or threatening remarks or displaying images of a seditious or threatening nature in any public place or meeting (seditious demonstrations).

The Committee also referred to the broad definition of terrorism and the reference to “encouragement of terrorism” under section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009, according to which any person who “publishes or causes the publication of a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement, or other inducement to them, to the commission or preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from ten to 20 years”. The Committee noted with deep concern reports on the broad application of the above provisions and on the detentions of, and prosecutions against, members of the opposition parties and human rights defenders. It therefore requested the Government to amend the above-mentioned provisions so as to ensure that, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention, persons who express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, cannot be sanctioned to imprisonment involving compulsory labour on the basis of these provisions.

The Committee notes that the Government merely reiterates in its report that the peaceful expression of views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system is a constitutionally respected right and nobody is subjected to forced or compulsory labour as a result of this. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide information on the review of the above-mentioned provisions of the Criminal Code nor on their application in practice.

The Committee nevertheless observes from the Compilation Report of the Office of the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights, of March 2019, that in 2018, the Government of Ethiopia lifted the state of emergency decree and released a number of political detainees, bloggers and other individuals who had been detained following their participation in protests in recent years (A/HRC/WG.6/33/ETH/2, paragraph 33). The Committee also notes from the Report of the UNSpecial Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression of April 2020, that since 2018 the Government of Ethiopia has taken significant steps to identify and reform laws that were historically used to restrict freedom of expression. In this regard, the Committee notes that Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652 of 2009 was repealed and replaced by the Proclamation for the Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism Crimes No. 1178 of 2020. The Committee observes that the preamble to this Act recognizes the need to replace the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation of 2009, which had substantive and enforcement loopholes that had a negative effect on the rights and freedoms of citizens, with a law that adequately protects the rights and freedoms of individuals. The Committee welcomes the fact that new Proclamation No. 1176 of 2020 addresses some of its previous outstanding comments, for example by removing the reference to encouragement of terrorism under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009. Moreover, new Proclamation No. 1176 of 2020 under section 4 provides for an exception to terrorist acts, by stating that “notwithstanding the provisions of section 3(1)(e) (on terrorist acts that seriously obstruct public or social service), obstruction of public service caused by a strike and the obstruction related to the institution or profession of the strikers or exercising rights recognized by law such as demonstration, assembly and similar rights shall not be deemed to be a terrorist act”. The Committee also takes due note of the adoption of Media Proclamation No. 1238/2021, which establishes that acts of defamation committed through the media shall result in civil liability and not criminal liability.

The Committee requests the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to ensure that both in law and practice no penalties involving compulsory labour can be imposed on persons for the peaceful expression of political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It therefore requests the Government to review the provisions of sections 482(2), 484(2), 486(a) and 487(a) of the Criminal Code to ensure compliance with the Convention by limiting the application of criminal sanctions to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard, as well as information on the application in practice of the above-mentioned sections of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions, specifying the penalties imposed and describing the facts that led to the convictions.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions applicable to public servants for breaches of labour discipline and for having participated in strikes. 1. Labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 420(1) of the Criminal Code, any public servant who fails to carry out his/her duties in a proper manner, to the prejudice of state, public or private interest, shall be subject to imprisonment not exceeding six months, which involves an obligation to perform labour by virtue of section 111(1) of the same law, or a fine. Where substantial damage has resulted from the above acts, the penalty may be increased up to the general legal maximum (section 420(2)). In this regard, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that, although section 420 may emanate from breaches of labour discipline, the provision concerns criminal acts of individuals who violate their work duties and cause harm to the state, public or private interest. The Government also indicated that, for breaches of labour discipline, in the strict sense of the term, administrative measures were taken.

The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated statement in its report that, according to the labour law and the civil servants law, only administrative measures are applicable as a means of labour discipline. The punishment for breaching labour discipline is more of an administrative type and is not a penal sanction. While noting this information, the Committee once again points out that, pursuant to Article 1(c) of the Convention, sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline may only be applied if such breaches impair or are likely to endanger the operation of essential services, or in cases of wilful acts which would endanger the safety, health or life of individuals. The Committee observes in this connection that section 420(1) and (2) is worded in terms broad enough to lend itself to be applied as a means of punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the strict sense of the term. Furthermore, any infringement of these provisions may lead to the imposition of a prison sentence under which compulsory prison labour may be required. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 420(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code in order to restrict its application to acts concerning the operation of essential services, or to situations where the life, health and safety of persons are in danger due to wilful acts, so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

2. Participation in strikes. The Committee had also referred to section 421 of the Criminal Code, according to which any public servant who, in breach of his/her professional or statutory obligations, goes on strike of his/her free will, or urges others to strike, is punishable under abovementioned section 420, which provides for sanctions of imprisonment or a fine.

In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, conducting lawful strikes as a means to guarantee basic labour rights is a constitutionally declared right in the country, and is not a crime. Therefore, no one is compelled to be punished through compulsory labour for participating in strikes.

The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the fact that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated peacefully in a strike. It points out that, in all cases and regardless of the legality of the strike action in question, any sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and that the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment against persons peacefully organizing or participating in a strike. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring section 421 of the Criminal Code into conformity with the Convention, so as to ensure that persons peacefully organizing or participating in a strike are not liable to sanctions of imprisonment involving an obligation to work. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Communication of texts. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this matter, the Committee requests it to provide a copy of the legislation governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to the following sections of the Criminal Code, under which penal sanctions involving compulsory prison labour may be imposed by virtue of section 111(1) of the Code, in circumstances covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention:

– sections 482(2) and 484(2): punishment of ringleaders, organizers or commanders of forbidden societies, meetings and assemblies;

– section 486(a): inciting the public through false rumours; and

– section 487(a): making, uttering, distributing or crying out seditious or threatening remarks or displaying images of a seditious or threatening nature in any public place or meeting (seditious demonstrations).

The Committee also referred to the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009, under section 6 of which any person who “publishes or causes the publication of a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement, or other inducement to them, to the commission or preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from ten to 20 years”. In this regard, the Committee noted that in 2010 the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group expressed concern at the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation which, due to its broad definition of terrorism, had led to abusive restrictions on the press. The Committee further noted that journalists and opposition politicians had been given sentences ranging from 11 years to life imprisonment under the Proclamation, and that numerous defendants were scheduled to appear before the courts on similar charges. The Committee therefore urged the Government to take measures to limit the scope of application of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation and the above provisions of the Criminal Code in order to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour could be imposed on those holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated indication in its report that, the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system is a constitutionally respected right and nobody is forced to be subjected to forced or compulsory labour as a result of this. The Committee also notes that an ILO mission took place in Ethiopia in September 2016, as a follow-up to the March 2015 mission on implementation gaps in the application of the forced labour Conventions. According to the mission report, discussions were held with the relevant stakeholders regarding certain provisions of the Criminal Code that involve compulsory prison labour with a view to ensuring their conformity with the Convention.

Moreover, the Committee notes that, in a press release of 2016, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Commission) observed with deep concern the deterioration of the human rights situation in Ethiopia, particularly the recent unrest and violence in the Oromia Region. Moreover, the Committee observes that the African Commission adopted a resolution in which it expressed concern about the use of excessive and disproportionate force to disperse protests, resulting in the deaths and injuries of several protestors, as well as the arbitrary arrest and detention of many others. Following the protests which began in November 2015, the African Commission also expressed its concern about allegations relating to the arbitrary arrest and detention of members of opposition parties and human rights defenders (ACHPR/Res.356(LIX) 2016). Moreover, the Committee observes that the African Commission is concerned by restrictions on movement, assembly, media access, internet services as well as the arbitrary arrest and detention of many people following the state of emergency declaration.

The Committee is bound to express its deep concern over the detentions of, and prosecutions against, members of the opposition parties and human rights defenders, and recalls that restriction on fundamental rights and liberties, including freedom of expression may have a bearing on the application of the Convention if such restrictions are enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour. In this respect, referring to its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee points out that the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving compulsory labour under Article 1(a) of the Convention include the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media), as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion (paragraph 302). The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour are imposed for the peaceful expression of political views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, for example by clearly restricting the application of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, as well as the following provisions of the Criminal Code: sections 482(2), 484(2), 486(a) and 487(a), to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this connection, as well as information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections of the Criminal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, including copies of any court decisions specifying the penalties imposed.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

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

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions applicable to public servants for breaches of labour discipline and for having participated in strikes. 1. Labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 420(1) of the Criminal Code, any public servant who fails to carry out his/her duties in a proper manner, to the prejudice of state, public or private interest, shall be subject to imprisonment not exceeding six months, which involves an obligation to perform labour by virtue of section 111(1) of the same law, or a fine. Where substantial damage has resulted from the above acts, the penalty may be increased up to the general legal maximum (section 420(2)). In this regard, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that, although section 420 may emanate from breaches of labour discipline, the provision concerns criminal acts of individuals who violate their work duties and cause harm to the state, public or private interest. The Government also indicated that, for breaches of labour discipline, in the strict sense of the term, administrative measures were taken.

The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated statement in its report that, according to the labour law and the civil servants law, only administrative measures are applicable as a means of labour discipline. The punishment for breaching labour discipline is more of an administrative type and is not a penal sanction. While noting this information, the Committee once again points out that, pursuant to Article 1(c) of the Convention, sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline may only be applied if such breaches impair or are likely to endanger the operation of essential services, or in cases of wilful acts which would endanger the safety, health or life of individuals. The Committee observes in this connection that section 420(1) and (2) is worded in terms broad enough to lend itself to be applied as a means of punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the strict sense of the term. Furthermore, any infringement of these provisions may lead to the imposition of a prison sentence under which compulsory prison labour may be required. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 420(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code in order to restrict its application to acts concerning the operation of essential services, or to situations where the life, health and safety of persons are in danger due to wilful acts, so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, conducting lawful strikes as a means to guarantee basic labour rights is a constitutionally declared right in the country, and is not a crime. Therefore, no one is compelled to be punished through compulsory labour for participating in strikes.

The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the fact that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated peacefully in a strike. It points out that, in all cases and regardless of the legality of the strike action in question, any sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and that the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment against persons peacefully organizing or participating in a strike. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring section 421 of the Criminal Code into conformity with the Convention, so as to ensure that persons peacefully organizing or participating in a strike are not liable to sanctions of imprisonment involving an obligation to work. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Communication of texts. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this matter, the Committee requests it to provide a copy of the legislation governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.

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

-sections 482(2) and 484(2): punishment of ringleaders, organizers or commanders of forbidden societies, meetings and assemblies;
-section 486(a): inciting the public through false rumours; and
-section 487(a): making, uttering, distributing or crying out seditious or threatening remarks or displaying images of a seditious or threatening nature in any public place or meeting (seditious demonstrations).

The Committee also referred to the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009, under section 6 of which any person who “publishes or causes the publication of a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement, or other inducement to them, to the commission or preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from ten to 20 years”. In this regard, the Committee noted that in 2010 the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group expressed concern at the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation which, due to its broad definition of terrorism, had led to abusive restrictions on the press. The Committee further noted that journalists and opposition politicians had been given sentences ranging from 11 years to life imprisonment under the Proclamation, and that numerous defendants were scheduled to appear before the courts on similar charges. The Committee therefore urged the Government to take measures to limit the scope of application of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation and the above provisions of the Criminal Code in order to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour could be imposed on those holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated indication in its report that, the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system is a constitutionally respected right and nobody is forced to be subjected to forced or compulsory labour as a result of this. The Committee also notes that an ILO mission took place in Ethiopia in September 2016, as a follow-up to the March 2015 mission on implementation gaps in the application of the forced labour Conventions. According to the mission report, discussions were held with the relevant stakeholders regarding certain provisions of the Criminal Code that involve compulsory prison labour with a view to ensuring their conformity with the Convention.

Moreover, the Committee notes that, in a press release of 2016, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Commission) observed with deep concern the deterioration of the human rights situation in Ethiopia, particularly the recent unrest and violence in the Oromia Region. Moreover, the Committee observes that the African Commission adopted a resolution in which it expressed concern about the use of excessive and disproportionate force to disperse protests, resulting in the deaths and injuries of several protestors, as well as the arbitrary arrest and detention of many others. Following the protests which began in November 2015, the African Commission also expressed its concern about allegations relating to the arbitrary arrest and detention of members of opposition parties and human rights defenders (ACHPR/Res.356(LIX) 2016). Moreover, the Committee observes that the African Commission is concerned by restrictions on movement, assembly, media access, internet services as well as the arbitrary arrest and detention of many people following the state of emergency declaration.

The Committee is bound to express its deep concern over the detentions of, and prosecutions against, members of the opposition parties and human rights defenders, and recalls that restriction on fundamental rights and liberties, including freedom of expression may have a bearing on the application of the Convention if such restrictions are enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour. In this respect, referring to its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee points out that the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving compulsory labour under Article 1(a) of the Convention include the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media), as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion (paragraph 302). The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour are imposed for the peaceful expression of political views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, for example by clearly restricting the application of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, as well as the following provisions of the Criminal Code: sections 482(2), 484(2), 486(a) and 487(a), to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this connection, as well as information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections of the Criminal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, including copies of any court decisions specifying the penalties imposed.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions applicable to public servants for breaches of labour discipline and for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, under section 420(1) of the Criminal Code, any public servant who fails to carry out his/her duties in a proper manner, to the prejudice of state, public or private interest, shall be subject to imprisonment not exceeding six months, which involves an obligation to perform labour by virtue of section 111(1) of the same law, or a fine. Where substantial damage has resulted from the above acts, the penalty may be increased up to the general legal maximum (section 420(2)). In this regard, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that, although section 420 may emanate from breaches of labour discipline, the provision concerns criminal acts of individuals who violate their work duties and cause harm to the state, public or private interest. The Government also indicated that, for breaches of labour discipline, in the strict sense of the term, administrative measures were taken.

The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated statement in its report that, according to the labour law and the law governing civil servants, only administrative sanctions are applicable as a means of labour discipline. While noting this information, the Committee once again points out that, pursuant to Article 1(c) of the Convention, sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline may only be applied if such breaches impair or are likely to endanger the operation of essential services, or in cases of wilful acts which would endanger the safety, health or life of individuals. The Committee observes in this connection that section 420(1) and (2) is worded in terms broad enough to lend itself to be applied as a means of punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the strict sense of the term. Furthermore, any infringement of these provisions may lead to the imposition of a prison sentence under which compulsory prison labour may be required. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 420(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code in order to restrict its application to acts concerning the operation of essential services, or to situations where the life, health and safety of persons are in danger due to wilful acts, so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee had also referred to section 421 of the Criminal Code, according to which any public servant who, in breach of his/her professional or statutory obligations, goes on strike of his/her free will, or urges others to strike, is punishable under abovementioned section 420, which provides for sanctions of imprisonment or a fine. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s repeated statement that section 421 is only applicable in case of participation in unlawful strikes. The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the fact that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated peacefully in a strike. It points out that, in all cases and regardless of the legality of the strike action in question, any sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and that the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment against persons peacefully organizing or participating in a strike. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring section 421 of the Criminal Code into conformity with the Convention, so as to ensure that persons peacefully organizing or participating in a strike are not liable to sanctions of imprisonment involving an obligation to work. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Communication of texts. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this matter, the Committee requests it to provide a copy of the legislation governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. The Committee previously noted that the following sections of the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment, which involve compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 111(1) of the Code, in circumstances covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention:

– section 486(a): inciting the public through false rumours;
– section 487(a): making, uttering, distributing or crying out seditious or threatening remarks or displaying images of a seditious or threatening nature in any public place or meeting (seditious demonstrations); and
– sections 482(2) and 484(2): punishment of ringleaders, organizers or commanders of forbidden societies, meetings and assemblies.

The Committee also referred to the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009, under section 6 of which any person who “publishes or causes the publication of a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement, or other inducement to them, to the commission or preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from ten to 20 years”. In this regard, the Committee noted that in 2010 the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group expressed concern at the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation which, due to its broad definition of terrorism, had led to abusive restrictions on the press (A/HRC/13/17). The Committee further noted that journalists and opposition politicians had been given sentences ranging from 11 years to life imprisonment under the Proclamation, and that numerous defendants were scheduled to appear before the courts on similar charges. The Committee therefore urged the Government to take measures to limit the scope of application of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation and the above provisions of the Criminal Code in order to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed on those holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated indication in its report that the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system is not considered a crime in Ethiopia. The Government indicates that sections 482(2), 484(2), 486(a) and 487(a) of the Criminal Code do not criminalize such acts and that freedom of expression, thought and opinion are constitutionally recognized rights, which can only be limited through laws that aim to protect the well-being of the population, and the honour and reputation of individuals.

In this connection, the Committee observes that, on 18 September 2014, five United Nations human rights experts, including the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, while acknowledging that confronting terrorism was important, urged the Government of Ethiopia to stop misusing anti-terrorism legislation to curb the freedom of expression and association in the country. The United Nations experts emphasized that, two years after they had raised the issue for the first time, numerous reports of the misuse of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation indicate that the law is still being used “to target journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders and opposition politicians in Ethiopia” (UN press release, 18 September 2014).

The Committee once again points out that sanctions involving compulsory prison labour, are incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving compulsory labour under this provision include the freedom to express political or ideological views, as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly through which citizens peacefully seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views. The Committee also recalls that, even if counter-terrorism legislation responds to the legitimate need to protect the security of the public against the use of violence, it can nevertheless become a means of punishing the peaceful exercise of civil rights and liberties, such as freedom of expression and freedom of association, where it is couched in vague and general terms. The Convention protects these rights and liberties against repression by means of sanctions involving compulsory work, including compulsory work as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, and the limits which may be imposed on them by law need to be properly addressed.

In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to limit the scope of application of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 so as to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed on those holding or peacefully expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, and requests it to provide information on the steps taken to this end. The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to provide information on the application in practice of sections 482(2), 484(2), 486(a) and 487(a) of the Criminal Code, in particular by providing copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions which could define or illustrate their scope. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 613 of the Criminal Code which allows for the imposition of prison sentences of up to one year for defamation. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that no prison sentences, which involve compulsory prison labour, are imposed under this provision on persons for the expression of political views.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Article 1(b). Obligation to perform economic and social work incurred through voluntary community service. Regarding section 18(4)(d) of the Constitution of Ethiopia, according to which “forced or compulsory labour” does not include any obligation to perform economic and social work incurred through voluntary community service, the Committee refers to its request directly addressed to the Government regarding the application of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).

Article 1(c) and (d). Penal sanctions applicable to public servants for breaches of labour discipline and for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, under section 420(1) of the Criminal Code, any public servant who fails to carry out his duties in a proper manner, to the prejudice of state, public or private interest, may be punished with penalties of imprisonment (which involves an obligation to perform labour). Where substantial damage has resulted from the above acts, a penalty may be increased up to the general legal maximum (section 420(2)). Under section 421 of the Criminal Code, public servants who go on strike of their own free will, in breach of their professional or statutory obligations, are also punishable with imprisonment.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that sections 420 and 421 relate to acts which, although they may emanate from breaches of labour discipline, concern criminal acts. The sections concern acts of individuals who violate their work duties and cause harm to the state, public or private interest and who participate in an unlawful strike. Due to their criminal nature, such acts involve penal punishment which could include an obligation to perform labour during imprisonment. For breaches of labour discipline, administrative measures are taken. The Government further states that practical cases regarding sections 420 and 421 are unavailable, in particular as regards section 421 since no unlawful strike has occurred in Ethiopia since 1991.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(c) prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. Only acts which concern the operation of essential services and the exercise of functions which are essential to safety or to circumstances where the life or health of persons are endangered are excluded from the scope of the Convention. Noting the broad language of section 420 of the Criminal Code which relates to state, public or private interest, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that its scope is restricted to acts which concern the operation of essential services and the exercise of functions which are essential to safety or to circumstances where the life or health of persons are endangered and to provide information on progress made in this regard in its next report.

The Committee furthermore recalls that Article 1(d) prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee refers in this respect to its observation addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which raises the restrictions on the right to strike in Ethiopia. Recalling the general principle that, regardless of the legality of the strike action in question, any sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed (General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 315), the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend section 421 so as to ensure that sanctions involving compulsory labour cannot be imposed for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee requests the Government to provide information concerning the measures taken or envisaged to bring section 421 of the Criminal Code into conformity with the Convention.

Communication of texts. As the Government’s report again contains no information on this issue, the Committee reiterates its requests to the Government to communicate, with its next report, a copy of the law governing the civil service and any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions for violation of provisions restricting political freedoms. The Committee previously noted that the following sections of the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment which involve an obligation to perform labour (by virtue of section 111(1)) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

-section 486(a): inciting the public through false rumours;
-section 487(a): seditious demonstrations: making, uttering, distributing or crying out seditious or threatening remarks or displaying images of a seditious or threatening nature in any public place or meeting; and
-sections 482(2) and 484(2): punishment of ringleaders, organizers or commanders of forbidden societies, meetings and assemblies.

Following the Committee’s request to provide information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections, the Government indicates in its report that peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system are not considered a crime in Ethiopia. The Government further states that the abovementioned provisions are designed and applied observing the protection of the constitutional provision on freedom of expression, thought and opinion.

The Committee furthermore takes note of the adoption of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 in August 2009. Section 3 defines terrorist acts and section 6 provides that anyone who “publishes or causes the publication of a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission or preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from ten to 20 years”.

The Committee notes that, during the discussion by the United Nations Human Rights Council of the Universal Periodic Review of Ethiopia in December 2009, concern was expressed about Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 which, due to its broad definition of terrorism had led to abusive restrictions on the press (A/HRC/13/17, 4 January 2010). The Government accepted “to take further measures to ensure that any efforts to counter terrorism are carried out in full compliance with its human rights obligations, including respect for due process and freedom of expression” (paragraph 91).

The Committee observes that, on 2 February 2012, UN human rights experts, including the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, expressed their dismay at the continuing abuse of anti-terrorism legislation to curb freedom of expression in Ethiopia. The Committee notes with concern that under Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 journalists and opposition politicians have recently been given sentences ranging from 11 years to life imprisonment and numerous defendants are scheduled to appear on similar charges before the Court.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. The Committee also recalls that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting opinions diverging from established principles; even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities are covered by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to or call for violent means to these ends. The Committee would also like to point out that, if counter-terrorism legislation responds to the legitimate need to protect the security of the public against the use of violence, it can nevertheless become a means of political coercion and a means of punishing the peaceful exercise of civil rights and liberties, such as freedom of expression and the right to organize. The Convention protects these rights and liberties against repression by means of sanctions involving compulsory work, and the limits which may be imposed on them by law need to be properly addressed.

Observing the broad scope of application in practice of Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to limit its scope of application and ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed on those holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system under this Proclamation. It requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the measures taken to bring its legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention in this respect.

In the light of the above considerations, the Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections 482(2), 484(2), 486(a) and 487(a) of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner which is in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Communication of texts. The Committee again requests the Government to communicate, with its next report, a copy of the law governing the civil service and any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions for violation of provisions restricting political freedoms. The Committee has noted that the following sections of the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment which involve an obligation to perform labour (by virtue of section 111(1)) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

– section 486(a) (inciting the public through false rumours);

– section 487(a) (seditious demonstrations: making, uttering, distributing or crying out seditious or threatening remarks or displaying images of a seditious or threatening nature in any public place or meeting); and

– sections 482(2) and 484(2) (punishment of ringleaders, organizers or commanders of forbidden societies, meetings and assemblies).

The Committee previously noted that, under the provisions of section 10(2), read in conjunction with section 20(1), of the Press Proclamation No. 34/1992, violation of the duty to ensure that the content of any press product is free from any criminal offence against the safety of the State or from any defamation or false accusation against any individual, nation, people or organization is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to three years.

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

In the light of the above considerations, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections 482(2), 484(2), 486(a) and 487(a) of the Criminal Code, and sections 10(2) and 20(1) of Press Proclamation No. 34/1992, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention. Please also provide information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Article 1(b). Obligation to perform economic and social work incurred through voluntary community service. The Committee previously noted that, under article 18(4)(d) of the Constitution of Ethiopia, the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include any obligation to perform economic and social work incurred through voluntary community service. The Committee again requests the Government to specify the scope of such obligation and indicate whether it is enforced by the menace of any penalty, supplying copies of relevant texts and the information of their application in practice, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(c) and (d). Penal sanctions applicable to public servants for breaches of labour discipline and for having participated in strikes. The Committee has noted that under section 420(1) of the Criminal Code, any public servant who fails to carry out his duties in a proper manner, to the prejudice of state, public or private interest, may be punished with penalties of imprisonment (which involves an obligation to perform labour). Where substantial damage has resulted from the above acts, a penalty may be increased up to the general legal maximum (section 420(2)). Under section 421 of the Criminal Code, public servants who go on strike of their own free will, in breach of their professional or statutory obligations, are also punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work).

Recalling that Article 1(c) and (d) prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline and as a punishment for having participated in strikes, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of sections 420–421 in practice, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Referring also to its observation addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Ethiopia, as well as to the explanations provided in paragraphs 184–186 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee hopes that the Government will consider a possibility to amend section 421 so as to limit its scope to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and to emergency situations or, more generally, to circumstances where the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population are endangered.

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

– section 486(a) (inciting the public through false rumours);

– sections 482(2) and 484(2) (punishment of ringleaders, organizers or commanders of forbidden societies, meetings and assemblies).

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

Recalling that Article 1(c) and (d) prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline and as a punishment for having participated in strikes, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of sections 420 and 421 in practice, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

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

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

The Committee requests the Government to communicate, with its next report,, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: the new Penal Code of 2004; the laws and regulations governing the execution of penal sentences; the law governing the Civil Service; and any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping. Please also provide additional information on the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee has noted that, under articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of Ethiopia, certain rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution (e.g. freedom of opinion and expression or right of assembly and demonstration) may be made subject to legal limitations in order to protect the well-being of youth, the honour and reputation of individuals and human dignity. It has also noted that, under the provisions of section 9 of the Peaceful Demonstration and Public Political Meeting Procedure Proclamation No. 3/1991, any violation of the provisions of the Proclamation is punishable under the Penal Code. The Committee requests the Government to describe any restrictions imposed by law on the freedom of opinion and expression and on the right to assemble and to demonstrate peacefully, under the above provisions of the Constitution and Proclamation No. 3/1991, indicating sanctions which may be imposed for violation of such restrictions and supplying copies of relevant texts.

2. The Committee has noted that, under the provisions of section 10(2), read in conjunction with section 20(1), of the Press Proclamation No. 34/1992, violation of the duty to ensure that the content of any press product is free from any criminal offence against the safety of the State or from any defamation or false accusation against any individual, nation, people or organization is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to three years. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to assess their conformity with the Convention.

3. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the Special Penal Code Proclamation No. 8 of 1974, which contains provisions punishing with imprisonment publishing or disseminating inaccurate or subversive information or insinuations calculated to demoralize the public and to undermine its confidence (section 10), or publishing or spreading news, notes, findings, criticisms, reports or other writings, which are inaccurate or distort the facts, for the purpose of influencing a judicial decision (section 32), is still in force and, if so, to provide information on their application in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Article 1(b). The Committee has noted that, under article 18(4)(d) of the Constitution of Ethiopia, the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include any obligation to perform economic and social work incurred through voluntary community service. The Committee requests the Government to specify the scope of such obligation and indicate whether it is enforced by the menace of any penalty, supplying copies of relevant texts and the information of their application in practice, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Referring to its observation addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Ethiopia, in which the Committee referred to restrictions on the right to strike imposed by the Labour Proclamation No. 377/2003, and noting also that, under section 183 of the Labour Proclamation, violation of its provisions may be punishable with the penalties laid down in the Penal Code, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any penal sanctions are applicable for participation in unlawful strikes and, if so, to supply information on their application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.

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

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

The Committee requests the Government to communicate, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: updated and consolidated text of the Penal Code; the laws and regulations governing the execution of penal sentences; the law governing the Civil Service; and any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping. Please also provide additional information on the following points.

Article 1(d). Referring to its observation addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Ethiopia, in which the Committee referred to broad restrictions on the right to strike imposed by the Labour Proclamation No. 42/1993, and noting also that, under section 183 of the Labour Proclamation, violation of its provisions may be punishable with the penalties laid down in the Penal Code, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any penal sanctions are applicable for participation in unlawful strikes and, if so, to supply information on their application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to communicate, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: updated and consolidated text of the Penal Code; the laws and regulations governing the execution of penal sentences; the law governing the Civil Service; and any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping. Please also provide additional information on the following points.