Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 1996, Publicación: 85ª reunión CIT (1997)

1. In earlier comments the Committee referred to the provisions of sections 113 and 157 (new) of the Penal Code under which "whoever by any means whatsoever incites to the obstruction of the execution of any law, regulation or lawful order of the public authority is liable to imprisonment for from three months to four years" (157); "whoever professes or propagates false information liable to injure public authorities or national unity is liable to imprisonment for from three months to three years" (113). Under section 154(2) "whoever, whether in speech or in writing intended for the public, incites to revolt against the Government and the Institutions of the Republic shall be punished with imprisonment for from three months to three years".

The Committee noted that section 18 (new) of the Penal Code (Act No. 90-61 of 19 November 1990) no longer refers to the penalty of detention (a penalty depriving someone of his freedom for a political crime or lesser offence during which convicts were not required to work) and that imprisonment with compulsory labour had replaced detention.

The Committee notes that in its report the Government indicates that section 157 of the Penal Code punishes any disturbance of the public order.

The Committee observes that, under the provisions of section 113, 154(2) and 157, penalties of imprisonment with compulsory labour under section 24 of the Penal Code may be imposed on persons who express certain political opinions or demonstrate their ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic order. It also notes that section 111 of the same Penal Code allows a penalty of life imprisonment to be imposed on "whoever attempts, in time of peace, by whatever means, to undermine the integrity of the territory" and that section 116 allows a penalty of imprisonment of from 10 to 20 years to be imposed on "whoever provokes or facilitates, during an insurrectionary movement, the assembling of the insurgents by whatever means (a); prevents by whatever means the convening, meeting or exercise of the authority responsible for public order or takes over such authority (b); appropriates public or private buildings (c)".

The Committee notes that under section 12 of Act No. 90-53 concerning freedom of association, associations may be dissolved by judicial decision on the initiative of the Legal Department or at the request of any interested party in case of nullity as provided for under section 4 of the same Act. Section 4 declares null and void associations founded in support of a cause or in view of a purpose contrary to the Constitution, and associations whose purpose is to undermine, especially security, the integrity of the national territory, national unity, national integration or the republican character of the State. Section 14 of the same Act provides that "the dissolution of an association shall not bar any legal proceedings which may be instituted against the officials of such association" and section 33 provides for imprisonment for from three months to one year for the board members or founders of an association which continues operations or which is re-established illegally after a judgement or decision has been issued for its dissolution. The same penalties apply to anyone who encourages meetings of members of a dissolved association by allowing them the use of his premises (section 34).

The Committee recalls that, as indicated in paragraphs 102 to 109 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, States which have ratified the Convention must abolish all forms of forced labour, including labour imposed as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, in the cases provided for in the Convention.

The Committee also recalls that the protection provided by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or demonstrating dissent within the framework of established principles. Consequently, the fact that some activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in the institutions of the State does not afford grounds for considering them to be outside the scope of the Convention, provided that violent methods are not used or advocated in the pursuit of the objective sought.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention, the persons protected by the Convention, particularly as regards the expression of opinions in the press, political activities, and the right of association and assembly, may not be subjected to penalties involving compulsory labour. It also asks the Government to provide all information relevant to the application in practice of the above-mentioned provisions, including the number of convictions for violations of them, and copies of any judicial decisions which define or illustrate their scope.

2. In the comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has noted that under sections 226, 229, 242, 259 and 261 of the Merchant Shipping Code (Ordinance No. 62/DF/30 of 1962), certain breaches of discipline committed by seamen may be punished by imprisonment involving the obligation to work.

The Government had stated that studies were being conducted with a view to revising the Merchant Shipping Code and harmonizing national legislation and practice with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate the outcome of these studies, report on the progress made in revising the Merchant Shipping Code and supply information on the measures taken or contemplated to ensure that penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may not be imposed on seamen for breaches of discipline that do not endanger the vessel or human life or health.