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

A Government representative indicated that the provisions of section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1968 to which the Committee of Experts referred to in its observation were not at all incompatible with the Convention; these provisions merely followed the well-known administrative law principle of continuity in the public service. As for the right to strike it was not only guaranteed by article 14 of the Constitution but this right was in fact exercised as was proved by the general strikes in the public health and teaching sectors of 13 and 25 February 1992 which did not lead to the imposition of any sanctions on those who had participated in them. The reference to the events of 1979 and 1981 which figured in the observation of the Committee of Experts did not require any comment to the extent that this point which did not concern forced labour was already examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association to which all the useful information had been communicated. This problem was in any case practically resolved by the reintegration of all the dismissed persons.

The Workers' members considered that the explanations of the Government representative were insufficient. The Committee of Experts started off in its observation by noting that the Government had not provided a report on the application of this Convention. It was indispensable that such a report be sent. The Committee of Experts then noted that the Government had not provided a reply to the observations of the two workers' unions on the same Convention. Document D10 only indicated that the information received by the Government exclusively concerned the direct request addressed to it, which was of little interest for this Committee. However, a Decree existed which provided that "any coordinated stoppage of work, any collective act of indiscipline may be punished without regard to the guarantees respecting discipline". The Committee of Experts wished to examine the application of this Decree in order to evaluate to what extent it could be used to force employees and public servants to work during a strike. But this Committee could only examine this point when all the relevant information had been communicated to the Committee of Experts which should be done without delay.

The Employers' members agreed with the Workers' members. The Committee of Experts' report contained general allegations and it was indispensable to know whether there was any basis in fact for these allegations. Rather than referring to a case brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Government should start a dialogue with the Committee of Experts and this Committee and provide information that supported its perspective. The Committee of Experts would then be in a position to make an observation as to whether or not the position taken by the Government constituted a violation of the Convention. It was therefore up to this Committee to urge the Government to provide all the necessary information.

> A Workers' member of Spain referred to the detention of two trade union leaders and wished to know if they were going to be judged under the Dahir of 24 February 1958 to which the Committee of Experts referred to in its observation.

The Government representative considered that, regarding judicial proceedings against the General Secretary of the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT), this question was outside the scope of the present Committee's competence. A complaint had been lodged on this matter before the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government would reply to this complaint in conformity with the relevant procedure.

A Workers' member of Morocco noted that to the extent that the Government representative had referred to the strikes of 1979 and 1981 it would be appropriate to emphasise that these events continued to have consequences. In the health sector notably, the problems had not been resolved. The Government violated international labour Conventions as well as the Constitution of its country which guaranteed the right to strike in the private and public sectors.

A Workers' member of the United Kingdom recalled that in paragraph 126 of its General Survey of 1979 on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee of Experts stated that "a suspension of the right to strike, enforced by sanctions involving compulsory work, is compatible with the Convention only in so far as it is necessary to cope with cases of force majeure".

The Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government in noting from the report of the Committee of Experts that no communication from the Government had been received by that Committee. The Conference Committee urged the Government to send a full report on the points raised by the Committee of Experts in the very near future in order that the Committee could assess the situation fully.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incidence of the legislation imposing the obligation to work on those convicted to a prison sentence on the application of the Convention. The Committee wishes to recall, further to the observations made by the Government in reply to the Committee’s comments, that the imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation of prison labour may fall within the scope of the Convention. The Convention prohibits the imposition of compulsory prison labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system or for participating in a strike. If national legislation provides for penalties of imprisonment in such circumstances, the Committee examines first of all whether, under the terms of those sentences of imprisonment, the convicted person is obliged to engage in compulsory labour. Under the terms of Moroccan national legislation, persons convicted to a sentence of imprisonment (life sentence, imprisonment or detention) are subject to the obligation to work (sections 24, 28 and 29 of the Penal Code and section 35 of Act No. 23-98 on the organization and operation of prison establishments). In this context, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the provisions of the legislation, which places limits on the exercise of certain civil rights or public freedoms, the violation of which gives rise to liability to prison sentences. Persons who, through failure to comply with these limits, are convicted to a sentence of imprisonment are also subject to the obligation to work, in accordance with the system for serving penalties.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views. The Committee noted previously that the Press Code (Dahir No. 1-58-378 of 15 November 1958, as amended by Act No. 77-00 of 3 October 2002) provided for sentences of imprisonment for several press-related offences. It noted in its last direct request the Government’s indication that a draft Press Code had been submitted to the Cabinet and that the innovations proposed included an easing of the penalties for offences committed by journalists and for press-related offences, and the abolition of custodial sentences or the reduction of their length. The Committee notes that the Government no longer refers in its latest report to the process of the revision of the Press Code. It simply indicates that the Press Code does not contain provisions which refer to the sections of the Penal Code that provide for compulsory labour.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the revision of the Press Code is still on the agenda and, if so, to indicate the progress achieved. The Committee recalls that, as the national legislation provides for the obligation to work in prison, the provisions of the Press Code penalizing peaceful activities with a custodial sentence may have an impact on the application of the Convention. Under these conditions, the Committee hopes that the Government will re-examine this matter and abolish sentences of imprisonment for press-related offences, such as insults towards the King or texts detrimental to the Islamic religion, the monarchy or territorial integrity (section 41) or the publication or dissemination of inaccurate facts or false reports (section 42), as such provisions are liable to be interpreted in extenso by the courts and serve as a basis for the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to provide examples of court rulings sentencing the persons concerned to imprisonment for the various offences set out in the Press Code.

The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that section 179 of the Penal Code, which punishes with a prison sentence and a fine any offence against the King, the heir to the throne or members of the royal family, is not used. In practice, those committing such offences are prosecuted under section 41 of the Press Code. The Committee notes this information and refers to its comments above on the Press Code. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information in future reports on the use of section 179 of the Penal Code by the courts and, where appropriate, to provide copies of the rulings handed down.

Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the scope of section 288 of the Penal Code, under which any person who, through the use of violence, force, threats or deception, causes or maintains, or endeavours to cause or maintain a concerted stoppage of work with the aim of forcing an increase or decrease in wages or jeopardizing the free exercise of industry or work is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from one month to two years. It noted that these provisions had been the subject of extensive interpretation by the courts, with the result that strikers engaged in peaceful action had been convicted to sentences of imprisonment. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the courts ascertain that all the constitute elements of an act of violence or an obstacle to the freedom of labour have been met so as to prevent any prejudice to the right to strike or to the interests of employees who have not engaged in the acts incriminated under section 288. The Government adds that the Supreme Court has also indicated that, where they have recourse to the provisions of section 288 of the Penal Code, the courts have to demonstrate the sense of threat and its impact on the freedom to work. The Committee notes this information which illustrates the scope accorded by the judicial authorities to the provisions of section 288 of the Penal Code. It requests the Government to continue to indicate in future reports whether the courts have recently made use of section 288 of the Penal Code and, if so, to provide copies of the court rulings. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would indicate the progress achieved in the adoption of the Bill to regulate the right to strike, to which it referred previously.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee took note of a draft text to revise the Press Code and, pending its adoption, it asked the Government to provide copies of any court decisions handed down under various provisions of the Code (sections 20, 28, 29, 30, 41, 42, 52 and 53 of Dahir No. 1-58-378 of 15 November 1958 as amended by Act No. 77-00 of 3 October 2002), according to which several offences against the Press Law are punishable by imprisonment. The Committee pointed out in this connection that according to sections 24, 28 and 29 of the Penal Code and section 35 of Act No. 23-98 on the organization and operation of prisons, the prison sentences involve an obligation to work. The Committee notes that in its last report, the Government indicates that the abovementioned provisions of the Press Code provide for no penalties in the form of forced labour and make no reference to sections 24, 28 and 29 of the Penal Code. The Committee points out in this connection that breach of the above provisions of the Press Code is punishable by a custodial sentence of from one month to five years (the prison term applying to a délit). Furthermore, pursuant to section 28 of the Penal Code, work is compulsory for convicts. This means that on the basis of the abovementioned provisions of the Press Code, it is possible to sentence someone to a prison term during which work would be compulsory. This is contrary to the Convention, which prohibits the imposition of forced labour, including in the form of compulsory prison labour, as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

With regard to the revision of the Press Code, the Government states that the Ministry of Communications has involved the various actors in the revision process, the aim of which is to align national laws and regulations with international agreements and covenants that enshrine freedom of expression and opinion. The draft Press Code has been submitted to the Cabinet, and the innovations the latter has proposed include easing the penalties for offences committed by journalists, the abolition of custodial sentences or the reduction of their length or the strengthening of journalists’ rights and duties. The Committee notes this information and hopes that the Press Code will shortly be enacted and will abolish penal sanctions, particularly prison sentences, for press-related offences. Please provide a copy of the new Code once it is adopted.

2. The Committee notes the information that the Ministry of Employment has no information on the practical effect given to section 179 of the Penal Code, which punishes any offence against the King, the heir to the throne or members of the royal family with a prison sentence. It requests the Government to make the necessary contact with the relevant ministries or judicial authorities so that it is in a position to provide in its next report statistical information on the frequency with which the courts are called upon to hand down judgements under this provision. Please provide copies of judgements, if any.

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

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out how proper application of the Convention could be affected by too broad interpretation by national courts of the provisions of section 288 of the Penal Code. According to this provision, anyone, who through violence, the use of force, threats or deception, causes or maintains, or endeavours to cause or maintain, a concerted stoppage of work with the aim of forcing an increase or decrease in wages or jeopardizing the free exercise of industry or work, is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from one month to two years. It also pointed out that sentences of imprisonment involve an obligation to work pursuant to section 28 of the Penal Code and section 35 of Act No. 23-98 on the organization and operation of prisons.

In its latest report, the Government states that the obligation to work established in section 28 of the Penal Code and 35 of the Act on the organization and operation of prisons applies to convicts, and that prison labour is excluded from the definition of forced labour given in Convention No. 29. The Government again asserts that there is no link between the right to strike and the obligation to work in prison in so far as the prison sentence established in section 288 of the Penal Code applies only in the event of violence, use of force, threats or deception in the course of a strike. It adds that the Bill on the exercise of the right to strike, which needs the consensus of the social partners, has not as yet been enacted.

The Committee takes note of this information. It points out that, although compulsory prison labour carried out under certain conditions does constitute an exception to forced labour within the meaning of Convention No. 29, in certain circumstances compulsory prison labour can, nevertheless, fall within the scope of Convention No. 105. Where work, including prison work, is exacted, in whatever manner, for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system or for participating in a strike, such work imposed in these specific circumstances constitutes forced labour within the meaning of Convention No. 105. Thus, prison sentences, where they involve compulsory work, fall within the scope of the Convention if they sanction the prohibition on expressing views or opposition or participation in a strike.

The Committee concedes that section 288 of the Penal Code does not directly address the right to strike but aims to penalize such violent behaviour or obstruction of freedom to work as might arise during a collective work stoppage, that is to say a strike. However, in the past, the courts have construed these provisions broadly, so that they have enabled strikers whose conduct has been peaceful to be punished. The Committee recalls that a worker having carried out a strike in a peaceful manner may not be liable to penal sanctions, and that in no case may he or she incur a prison sentence. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the courts have had recourse to provisions of section 288 of the Penal Code recently and if so to specify the conduct that they have sanctioned and the penalties they have imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down to enable the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and thus satisfy itself that no prison sentences involving an obligation to work can be imposed on workers who exercise their right to strike peacefully.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for the expression of political views. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the effect given in practice to certain provisions of the Press Code (sections 20, 28, 29, 30, 41, 42, 52 and 53 of Dahir No. 1-58-378 of 15 November 1958, as amended by Act No. 77-00 of 3 October 2002), as the violation of these provisions may be penalized by the imposition of sentences of imprisonment, which involve the obligation to work under the terms of sections 24, 28 and 29 of the Penal Code and section 35 of Act No. 23-98, respecting the organization and operation of prisons.

In its report, the Government indicates that it is currently examining the revision of the Press Code with the objective of abolishing the provisions under which sentences of imprisonment can be imposed on journalists. The draft Press Code is under preparation with actors from the national media.

The Committee notes this information. It hopes that it will be possible to revise the Press Code rapidly and that none of its provisions will allow for the imposition of forced labour, in the form of compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide a copy of the new Press Code as soon as it is adopted. In the meantime, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide, where appropriate, copies of court decisions handed down under the above provisions of the Press Code that is currently in force and which impose sentences of imprisonment.

2. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether use has been made of section 179 of the Penal Code which punishes any offence committed towards the person of the King, the heir to the throne or members of the royal family with a sentence of imprisonment and a fine and, if so, to provide copies of the court decisions handed down in this respect. 

3. Finally, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of Dahir No. 1-58-377 of 15 November 1958 respecting public assemblies, as amended by Act No. 76-00 of 23 July 2002.

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

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the scope of section 288 of the Penal Code, under the terms of which anyone who, through violence, the use of force, threats or deception, causes or maintains, or endeavours to cause or maintain, a concerted stoppage of work, with the aim of forcing an increase or decrease in wages or jeopardizing the free exercise of industry or work, is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from one month to two years. Sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work under section 28 of the Penal Code and section 35 of Act No. 23-98 respecting the organization and operation of prisons.

The Government has indicated on several occasions that section 288 of the Penal Code is not in contradiction with the provisions of the Convention, since it does not penalize the exercise of the right to strike, but a collective stoppage of work accompanied by violence, the use of force, threats or deception, and that the only acts condemned by this section are acts which violate the freedom of work.

The Committee previously noted in this respect that the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) had requested the Government to repeal this provision which, in practice, was frequently used by the courts to imprison UMT militants for their peaceful participation in strikes. The Committee also noted the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the complaint made by the UMT and other organizations in September 1999 alleging the arrest of trade union leaders and members following strikes (Case No. 2048), as well as several court rulings under section 288 of the Penal Code, copies of which were provided by the Government at the request of the Committee.

Taking into account, on the one hand, the restrictions that an extensive application of section 288 of the Penal Code could place on the exercise of the right to strike and, on the other, the penalties which may be imposed under this provision, the Committee requested the Government to examine section 288 of the Penal Code in the light of Article 1(d) of the Convention, under the terms of which no form of forced labour, including compulsory prison labour, may be imposed as a punishment for having participated in strikes.

In its last report, the Government indicates once again that section 288 of the Penal Code does not penalize the exercise of the right to strike. It specifies that a framework Bill on the exercise of the right to strike, formulated by the Ministry of Employment and Vocational Training, has been examined in several meetings with the social partners, but has not yet obtained consensus. Despite the absence of a legal framework, the Government considers that the right to strike is exercised without obstacle in all sectors of activity.

The Committee notes this information. It observes that the Government no longer refers to a revision of section 288 of the Penal Code, which had been envisaged in the context of an overall revision of the Penal Code. It requests it to provide information on this subject. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to re-examine the issue of the scope of section 288 in the light of the protection afforded by Article 1(d) of the Convention and that it will take the necessary measures to ensure that no sentence of imprisonment involving the obligation to work may be imposed on workers who exercise their right to strike, which is moreover guaranteed by article 14 of the Constitution. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the framework Act on the exercise of the right to strike to which it makes reference as soon as it has been adopted.

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

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the Government’s reply to these comments.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 288 of the Penal Code (violation of the freedom of work), which provides for imprisonment of one month to two years, including compulsory labour (pursuant to section 28 of the Code), for anyone who through violence, use of force, threats or deception causes or maintains, or endeavours to cause or maintain, a coordinated stoppage of work, with the aim of forcing an increase or decrease in wages or jeopardizing the free exercise of industry or work.

The Committee previously noted the request made by the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) to the Government to repeal this provision which, according to the UMT, is frequently used by the courts to imprison UMT militants because of their peaceful participation in strikes. It noted the Government’s statement that the acts sanctioned under section 288 are violence, use of force, threats or deception, as well as violations of the freedom of work. The Committee previously observed that, in one of the judgements handed down under section 288, a copy of which was provided by the Government at the Committee’s request, the element constituting violation of the freedom of work was the fact of having placed stones on the access road to the workplace, without any mention of violence or of any consequences giving rise to injury. Furthermore, in four out of the nine judgements communicated by the Government, the court acquitted the accused of the charges brought against them.

The Committee also noted the complaint against the Government of Morocco presented by the UMT to the Committee on Freedom of Association on 4 September 1999 alleging the arrest of trade union leaders and members following strikes.

The Committee requested the Government to examine section 288 of the Penal Code in the light of the Convention and the restrictions that application of this penal provision causes to the free exercise of freedom of association and the right to strike, which are in fact guaranteed in the country’s Constitution (article 14).

The Committee notes that the Government reiterated in a previous report that section 288 of the Penal Code does not contradict the provisions of the Convention since it does not penalize the exercise of the right to strike but a collective stoppage of work accompanied by violence, use of force, threats or deception, and the only acts condemned by this section are acts which violate the freedom of work.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that revision of section 288 of the Penal Code is envisaged in the context of an overall revision of the Penal Code and the new text of this section will be communicated to the Office once it is adopted.

The Committee trusts that the revision of section 288 of the Penal Code will make it possible to ensure that sanctions including the obligation to work cannot be used to repress the normal exercise of the right to strike. Noting that article 14 of the Constitution provides for the adoption of an Organic Act to lay down the circumstances and forms in which the right to strike may be exercised, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether this Act has been adopted and, if so, to provide a copy.

Article 1(a). In its previous observation, the Committee referred to the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/79/Add.113), further to consideration of the fourth periodic report submitted by Morocco, in which the Committee expressed its concern at the provisions of the Press Code which seriously restrict freedom of expression.

The Committee notes the adoption of Dahir No. 1-02-207 of 25 Rejeb 1423 (3 October 2002) promulgating Act No. 77-00 amending and supplementing Dahir No. 1-58-378 of 3 Joumada I 1378 (15 November 1958) establishing the Press and Publishing Code.

The Committee notes that, under the following provisions of the Press Code, prison sentences including compulsory labour may be imposed for certain offences relating to the press and in order to penalize the exercise of freedom of expression:

-  Article 20 states that any proprietor of a newspaper or editor of a publication or one of his collaborators who receives funds or any other consideration, directly or indirectly, with the exception of funds for the payment of advertising, from a foreign government or foreign third party shall be liable to imprisonment of one to five years;

-  Article 28 states that any person who produces, publishes or prints a newspaper, journal or periodical beyond the expiry date of the relevant authorization shall be liable to imprisonment of one month to one year;

-  Article 29 states that any person who knowingly puts on sale, distributes or reproduces newspapers, journals or periodicals which are detrimental to the Islamic religion, the monarchy, territorial integrity, respect for the King or public order, shall be liable to imprisonment of six months to three years;

-  Article 30 states that any person who engages in the distribution, sale, public exhibition or possession with a view to distribution, sale, or exhibition for propaganda purposes of bulletins, tracts or publications of foreign origin or receiving foreign support which are detrimental to the sacred values of the country laid down in section 29 above or to the best interests of the nation shall be liable to imprisonment of one to three years;

-  Article 40 states that any person responsible for provocation by speeches, cries or threats uttered in public places or meetings, by written tracts put on sale or exhibited in public places or meetings, by notices or posters placed on public view or by audiovisual or electronic information media which has the purpose of inciting the armed forces of land, sea or air or law enforcement officers to fail in their duties and in the obedience which they owe to their superiors shall be liable to imprisonment of two to five years;

-  Article 41 states that any person found guilty of any insult towards the King, royal princes or princesses or responsible for the publication of any newspaper, journal or periodical which is detrimental to the Islamic religion, the monarchy or territorial integrity shall be liable to imprisonment of three to five years;

-  Article 42 states that any person responsible for the publication, dissemination or reproduction in bad faith by whatever means of false reports, allegations, inaccurate facts, or fabricated or falsified items attributed to third parties, causing disruption of public order or anxiety among the general public, shall be liable to imprisonment of one month to one year. The penalty shall be imprisonment of one to five years where such publication, dissemination or reproduction may undermine the discipline or morale of the armed forces;

-  Article 52 states that any person found guilty of publicly insulting the person or rank of the Heads of State, Heads of Government or Foreign Ministers of foreign countries shall be liable to imprisonment of one month to one year;

-  Article 53 states that any person found guilty of publicly insulting the person or rank of foreign diplomatic or consular officials shall be liable to imprisonment of one to six months.

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

The Committee also recalls that the protection afforded by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting divergent opinions in the context of established principles. Consequently, even though the aim of certain activities is to bring about fundamental changes to state institutions, this does not constitute a reason for considering that they are outside the scope of the Convention, provided that there is no recourse or call to violent methods for the purpose of achieving the desired result.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of the abovementioned provisions of the Press Code, indicating the number of convictions pronounced and attaching a copy of the judgements handed down in application of these provisions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

Article 1(d) of the Convention.  For several years the Committee has been referring in its observations to section 288 of the Penal Code (violation of the freedom of work) which provides for prison sentences of from one month to two years, involving compulsory labour, for acts of violence, the use of force, threats or fraudulent activities during certain types of work stoppage.

The Committee had previously noted the request submitted by the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) to the Government to repeal this provision which, according to the UMT, is frequently used by the courts to imprison UMT militants because of their peaceful participation in strikes. The Committee also noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association had concluded, when examining a complaint from the UMT, that "the authorities should not resort to arrests and imprisonment in connection with the organization of or participation in a peaceful strike: such measures entail serious risks of abuse and are a grave threat to freedom of association" (GB.267/7, paragraph 409, 267th Session).

The Committee asked the Government to supply copies of any rulings handed down in this connection. It notes that a certain number of judgements were attached to the Government’s report and that in its report the Government indicates, once again, that the acts sanctioned under section 288 are acts of violence, the use of force, threats or fraudulent activities, as well as violations of the freedom of work.

The Committee notes that, in one of the rulings handed down under section 288, the element constituting violation of the freedom of work was the fact of having placed stones on the access road to the workplace, without any mention of violence or of any consequences giving rise to injury. The Committee also observes that in four out of the nine judgements communicated by the Government, the Court acquitted the accused of the charges made against them, which may suggest a certain abuse of this procedure. This impression is reinforced by the Government’s indication in its report that "an abundance of rulings are handed down under this section". The Committee notes the complaint against the Government of Morocco to the Committee on Freedom of Association presented by the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) on 4 September 1999, alleging the arrest of trade union officers and members following strikes. According to the UMT, the workers of the AVITEMA factory were participating in a peaceful, legal strike within the factory when the forces of order intervened violently on 2 September 1999, arresting 21 militant trade union members who were brought before the Court of First Instance of Rabat and charged under the "sinister section 288 of the Penal Code which represses trade union members exercising their right to strike".

The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association, in its conclusions on this complaint (Case No. 2048), reminds the Government that "no one should be deprived of their freedom or be subject to penal sanctions for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike" (GB.279/8, 279th Session, November 2000). This complaint was also presented by the Arab Maghreb Worker’s Union (USTMA) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU).

The Committee requests the Government to examine section 288 of the Penal Code in the light of the Convention and the restrictions that application of this penal provision causes to the free exercise of freedom of association and the right to strike, which are in fact guaranteed in the national Constitution. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that sanctions, including compulsory labour, cannot be imposed for participating in strikes.

The Committee asked the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958 respecting the exercise of the right to organize by public servants. The Committee noted, from the observations formulated by the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) and the General Union of Moroccan Workers (UGTM) that the Government had recourse to this Decree to threaten public servants and oblige them to work during strikes and that in certain cases it had arrested teachers and health-care personnel.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the only risk run by public employees, who contravene the rules of conduct stipulated under section 5, is the suspension of the right to defend themselves before the Disciplinary Council, and in no case is there a risk of forced labour.

Article 1(a).  The Committee notes the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/79Add.113 of 1 November 1999) after consideration of the fourth periodic report of Morocco, in which the Committee "continues to be concerned that the Moroccan Press Code includes provisions which severely restrict freedom of expression by authorizing seizure of publications and by imposing penalties for broadly defined offences (such as publishing inaccurate information or undermining the political or religious establishment). It is deeply concerned that 44 persons have been imprisoned for offences under these laws. In addition, the Committee is particularly concerned that persons expressing political views opposing the Government or calling for a republican form of government have been sentenced to imprisonment under section 179 of the Penal Code for the offence of insulting members of the royal family" (paragraph 23). "The Committee is concerned at the breadth of the requirement of notification for assemblies and that the requirement of a receipt of notification of an assembly is often abused, resulting in de facto limits of the right of assembly" (paragraph 24).

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

The Committee also recalls that the protection provided by the Convention is not restricted to activities expressing or displaying opinions different from established principles. Consequently, if certain activities are directed towards the introduction of fundamental changes to the institutions of the State, this does not constitute a reason for considering them to fall outside the protection provided by the Convention, as long as the use of, or incitation to, violence is not made in arriving at the desired result.

The Committee also observes the importance, for the effective respect of the Convention, of legal guarantees regarding the rights of assembly, of expression, to demonstration and association, and the direct incidence that restriction of these rights may have on the effect given to the Convention. It is in fact often in the exercise of these rights that political opposition to the established order may show itself.

The Committee requests the Government to supply the text of Dahir No. 1‑58-378 of 15 November 1958 enacting the Press Code and the texts regarding the rights of assembly and of association.

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

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee takes note of the Government's reply to its previous observations.

1. The Committee's previous observations referred to the comments of the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) and the General Union of Moroccan Workers (UGTM), concerning the fact that section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958 provides penalties for any coordinated stoppage or collective act of indiscipline by public servants. The Committee observed that, unless such penalties were applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term, section 5 would allow the exaction of compulsory prison labour, contrary to the terms of the Convention.

2. In this connection, the Committee notes the Government's statement to the effect that the right to strike is freely exercised in both the public and the private sectors. It therefore requests the Government to ensure that the text in question is brought into conformity with the Convention, to avoid any threat of forced or compulsory labour being imposed under conditions that are not compatible with the Convention.

3. The Committee also noted the comments of the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) concerning section 288 of the Penal Code, which provides for a sentence of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for acts of violence, the use of force, threats or fraudulent activities during certain types of stoppage. The Committee takes note of the Government's commitment in this regard and trusts that it will provide with its next report copies of any rulings handed down by the courts.

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

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

Article 1(d) of the Convention. 1. In its previous comments concerning the penalties applicable to public servants in the event of a strike, the Committee noted that, under the terms of section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958 respecting the exercise of the right to organize by public servants, "any coordinated stoppage of work, any collective act of indiscipline may be punished without regard to the guarantees respecting discipline". The Committee noted the allegations of the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) and the General Union of Moroccan Workers (UGTM) that the Government had recourse to the above Decree to threaten public servants and oblige them to work during strikes, and that in certain cases it had arrested teachers and health-care personnel. With regard to this matter, the Committee noted the statements by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1992 to the effect that section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958 corresponds to the principle of the continuity of the public service. On this matter, the Committee refers to the explanations provided in paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it recalls that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties of imprisonment for participation in strikes in the civil service or other essential services, provided that such provisions are applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population. The imposition of sanctions involving compulsory prison labour breaches a general prohibition of the right to strike in the public service (section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958) is incompatible with the requirements of the Convention, which prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated in strikes. 2. The Committee has also noted the allegations made by the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) in 1994, that the Secretary-General of the UMT officially lodged a petition with the Moroccan Government to repeal section 288 of the Penal Code, which provides that "anyone who, through violence, the use of force, threats or fraudulent activities has caused or maintained, or endeavoured to cause or maintain, a coordinated stoppage of work, with the objective of achieving by force the raising or lowering of wages, or jeopardizing the free exercise of industry or work, shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from one month to two years (...)", on the grounds that it violates the freedom of work. According to the UMT, section 288 of the Penal Code is frequently used by the courts to imprison members of the UMT on the grounds of their peaceful participation in strikes, the right to the exercise of which is nevertheless guaranteed by the Constitution. The UMT adds that the wording of section 288 is too general and that its systematic use constitutes a violation of the right to strike and a violation of the Convention, inasmuch as the Penal Code imposes compulsory labour on persons sentenced to imprisonment (section 28). The Committee notes the information and explanations provided by the Government with regard to the constitutional guarantees of the right to strike and the freedom of work. In the observations that it has made on the matters raised by the UMT, the Government states that the annual number of strikes (356 in 1994, with the participation of 28,551 workers) and the diversity of sectors in which strikes occurred in 1995 (railways, phosphate industry and health) illustrate that the right to strike is recognized as a basic right of workers to defend their economic and social interests, but that, when exercising the right to strike, workers are bound to respect other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of work, which is also guaranteed by the Constitution. With regard to section 288 of the Penal Code, the Government states that it constitutes a guarantee of the freedom of work and that the elements which violate this freedom are violence, threats and fraudulent activities. The Committee notes that the matters which have been raised in the allegations made by the trade union organizations refer to the penalties imposed, which involve compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes; the penalties imposed under the terms of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958 respecting the exercise of the right to organize of public officials and sections 288 (violations of the freedom of work) and 28 (compulsory labour for those sentenced to prison terms) of the Penal Code. With regard to the imprisonment of persons who have participated in strikes, on the grounds of violations of section 288 of the Penal Code (violations of the freedom of work), the Committee notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in the case of the complaint against the Government of Morocco submitted by the UMT (Case No. 1724) in which the Committee recalled that "taking part in picketing and firmly but peaceably inciting other workers to keep away from their workplace cannot be considered unlawful" (Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXVII, 1994, Series B, No. 2, paragraph 367). The Committee also notes the frequent imposition of sentences of imprisonment upon workers who go on strike and notes in this respect the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 1687 and 1691 (complaints against the Government of Morocco, submitted by the UMT and the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF)), to the effect that "the authorities should not resort to arrests and imprisonment in connection with the organization of or participation in a peaceful strike; such measures entail serious risks of abuse and are a grave threat to freedom of association" (GB.267/7, 267th Session (November 1996), paragraph 409). The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures as regards section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958 respecting the exercise of the right to organize by public servants and section 288 of the Penal Code, to ensure that no form of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, is imposed in the circumstances covered by Article 1(d) of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958 respecting the exercise of the right to organize by public servants and section 288 of the Penal Code, including the number of convictions over the past four years for violations of these provisions, and copies of court rulings that can define or illustrate their scope. The Committee notes article 14 of the Constitution (Dahir No. 1-92-155 of 9 October 1992, enacting the revised Constitution), under the terms of which "The right to strike remains guaranteed. An organic Act shall set out the conditions and forms under which this right may be exercised." The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the organic Act respecting the conditions for the exercise of the right to strike envisaged under article 14 of the Constitution (right to strike) has been enacted. The Committee notes with interest, from the Government's report, that Dahir No. 1-94-288, of 25 July 1994, repealed the Dahir of 29 July 1935 which prohibited strikes that disturbed the public order and the respect due to the state authorities.

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

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

Article 1(d) of the Convention. 1. In its previous comments concerning the penalties applicable to public servants in the event of a strike, the Committee noted that, under the terms of section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958 respecting the exercise of the right to organize by public servants, "any coordinated stoppage of work, any collective act of indiscipline may be punished without regard to the guarantees respecting discipline".

The Committee noted the allegations of the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) and the General Union of Moroccan Workers (UGTM) that the Government had recourse to the above Decree to threaten public servants and oblige them to work during strikes, and that in certain cases it had arrested teachers and health-care personnel.

With regard to this matter, the Committee noted the statements by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1992 to the effect that section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958 corresponds to the principle of the continuity of the public service.

On this matter, the Committee refers to the explanations provided in paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it recalls that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties of imprisonment for participation in strikes in the civil service or other essential services, provided that such provisions are applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

The imposition of sanctions involving compulsory prison labour breaches a general prohibition of the right to strike in the public service (section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958) is incompatible with the requirements of the Convention, which prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated in strikes.

2. The Committee has also noted the allegations made by the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) in 1994, that the Secretary-General of the UMT officially lodged a petition with the Moroccan Government to repeal section 288 of the Penal Code, which provides that "anyone who, through violence, the use of force, threats or fraudulent activities has caused or maintained, or endeavoured to cause or maintain, a coordinated stoppage of work, with the objective of achieving by force the raising or lowering of wages, or jeopardizing the free exercise of industry or work, shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from one month to two years (...)", on the grounds that it violates the freedom of work.

According to the UMT, section 288 of the Penal Code is frequently used by the courts to imprison members of the UMT on the grounds of their peaceful participation in strikes, the right to the exercise of which is nevertheless guaranteed by the Constitution. The UMT adds that the wording of section 288 is too general and that its systematic use constitutes a violation of the right to strike and a violation of the Convention, inasmuch as the Penal Code imposes compulsory labour on persons sentenced to imprisonment (section 28).

The Committee notes the information and explanations provided by the Government with regard to the constitutional guarantees of the right to strike and the freedom of work. In the observations that it has made on the matters raised by the UMT, the Government states that the annual number of strikes (356 in 1994, with the participation of 28,551 workers) and the diversity of sectors in which strikes occurred in 1995 (railways, phosphate industry and health) illustrate that the right to strike is recognized as a basic right of workers to defend their economic and social interests, but that, when exercising the right to strike, workers are bound to respect other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of work, which is also guaranteed by the Constitution.

With regard to section 288 of the Penal Code, the Government states that it constitutes a guarantee of the freedom of work and that the elements which violate this freedom are violence, threats and fraudulent activities.

The Committee notes that the matters which have been raised in the allegations made by the trade union organizations refer to the penalties imposed, which involve compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes; the penalties imposed under the terms of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958 respecting the exercise of the right to organize of public officials and sections 288 (violations of the freedom of work) and 28 (compulsory labour for those sentenced to prison terms) of the Penal Code.

With regard to the imprisonment of persons who have participated in strikes, on the grounds of violations of section 288 of the Penal Code (violations of the freedom of work), the Committee notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in the case of the complaint against the Government of Morocco submitted by the UMT (Case No. 1724) in which the Committee recalled that "taking part in picketing and firmly but peaceably inciting other workers to keep away from their workplace cannot be considered unlawful" (Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXVII, 1994, Series B, No. 2, paragraph 367).

The Committee also notes the frequent imposition of sentences of imprisonment upon workers who go on strike and notes in this respect the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 1687 and 1691 (complaints against the Government of Morocco, submitted by the UMT and the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF)), to the effect that "the authorities should not resort to arrests and imprisonment in connection with the organization of or participation in a peaceful strike; such measures entail serious risks of abuse and are a grave threat to freedom of association" (GB.267/7, 267th Session (November 1996), paragraph 409).

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures as regards section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958 respecting the exercise of the right to organize by public servants and section 288 of the Penal Code, to ensure that no form of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, is imposed in the circumstances covered by Article 1(d) of the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958 respecting the exercise of the right to organize by public servants and section 288 of the Penal Code, including the number of convictions over the past four years for violations of these provisions, and copies of court rulings that can define or illustrate their scope.

The Committee notes article 14 of the Constitution (Dahir No. 1-92-155 of 9 october 1992, enacting the revised Constitution), under the terms of which "The right to strike remains guaranteed. An organic Act shall set out the conditions and forms under which this right may be exercised." The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the organic Act respecting the conditions for the exercise of the right to strike envisaged under article 14 of the Constitution (right to strike) has been enacted.

The Committee notes with interest, from the Government's report, that Dahir No. 1-94-288, of 25 July 1994, repealed the Dahir of 29 July 1935 which prohibited strikes that disturbed the public order and the respect due to the state authorities.

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

The Committee notes the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning Case No. 1490, approved by the Governing Body at its 243rd Session (May-June 1989; Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXII, 1989, series B, No. 2, pp. 59-69) which refers, inter alia, to sentences of imprisonment against trade unions for the distribution of tracts considered to be likely to disrupt the public order. The report refers to the application on that occasion of a text of 1939 concerning subversive tracts. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply a copy of the above text or of any other text that has been applied in this connection, as well as copies of any sentences handed down.

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

The Committee notes that the Government has not transmitted a report. It also notes that the Government has not responded to the comments made in March 1991 by the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) and the General Union of Moroccan Workers (UGTM) concerning the application of the Convention.

In its previous comments concerning the penalties applicable to public servants in the event of a strike, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the disciplinary penalties that are applicable are those laid down in section 66 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958, issuing the general terms and conditions of employment of the public service, and that the public servant has the right to appeal to the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court. The Committee observed, however, that section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958, respecting the exercise of the right to organise by public servants, lays down that "any coordinated stoppage of work, any collective act of indiscipline may be punished without regard to the guarantees respecting discipline", and it requested the Government to indicate whether sanctions that are different from those provided for in section 66 of the above Dahir may be imposed on public servants.

The Government stated in its report for the period ending 30 June 1990 that the penalties to which public servants are liable are set out limitively in the Dahir of 1958 issuing the general terms and conditions of employment of the public service and that, in practice and to the knowledge of the Ministry of Employment, no sanctions other than those provided for in the above Dahir have ever been imposed on public servants.

The Committee notes that, in their comments, the CDT and the UGTM allege that the Government had recourse to Decree No. 2-57-1465 in order to threaten public servants and employees and oblige them to work during a strike, and that this has occurred on several occasions and particularly during the general strike of 14 December 1990, during which the Government threatened to have recourse to the above Decree, which it applies without taking into account the guarantees relating to disciplinary measures set out in the terms and conditions of employment of the public service. They consider that the Decree does not cover strikes and should not be interpreted as doing so since the Constitution, which was adopted in 1972, postdates the Decree and guarantees the right to strike. They believe that the Decree concerns cases of civil disobedience and bears no relation to strike, which is called on the grounds of specific claims and after notice has been given.

According to the CDT and the UGTM, the fact of having recourse to the above Decree in the event of a strike in the public sector or of a general strike constitutes recourse to forced and compulsory labour. With regard to the Government's statement that the sanctions applied to the public servants were those provided for under section 66 of the terms and conditions of employment of the public service and that they are not subject to judicial appeal, the above organisations consider that this statement is inexact since in the event of strikes, and particularly in 1979 and 1981, the Government arrested teachers and health-care personnel without applying section 66, which requires the opinion of joint committees. The Committee hopes that the Government will supply information concerning the allegations of the CDT and the UGTM.

[The Government is requested to provide full particulars to the Conference at its 79th Session.

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

1. In its previous comments concerning the penalties applicable to public servants in the event of a strike, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the disciplinary penalties that are applicable are those laid down in section 66 of the Dahir of 24 February 1958, issuing the general terms and conditions of employment of the public service, and that the public servant has the right to appeal to the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court. The Committee observed, however, that section 55 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958, respecting the exercise of the right to organise by public servants lays down that "any co-ordinated stoppage of work, any collective act of indiscipline may be punished without regard to the guarantees respecting discipline", and asked the Government to indicate whether sanctions that are different from those provided for in section 66 of the above Dahir may be imposed on public servants.

The Committee takes note of the Government's statement in its last report, that the penalties to which public servants are liable are set out limitatively in the Dahir of 1958 issuing the general terms and conditions of employment of the public service and that, in practice and to the knowledge of the Ministry of Employment, no sanctions other than those provided for in the above-mentioned Dahir have ever been imposed on public servants.

2. The Committee has examined the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning case No. 1490 approved by the Governing Body at its 243rd Session (May-June 1989; Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXII, 1989, Series B, No. 2, pp. 59-69). The Committee's report refers to sentences of imprisonment which were imposed on trade unionists for distributing tracts likely to disrupt the public order. The report mentions a text dating back to 1939 concerning subversive tracts, which reportedly served as the basis for the accusation in this case. The Committee asks the Government to provide a copy of the text in question or of any other text applied in this case, along with copies of any sentences handed down.