Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2002, Publicación: 91ª reunión CIT (2003)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its earlier comments.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that sections 112, 119 and 126(2) of the Labour Code of 1997 specify that labour disputes which cannot be settled amicably within three weeks will be automatically referred to an arbitration body whose decision will be final and without appeal. Section 126(2) provides for a punishment of imprisonment for a period of up to six months in cases of violation or refusal to apply the provisions of the Code. According to the prison regulations, Chapter IX, section 94, prison labour is compulsory for convicted prisoners. The Committee also noted that the abovementioned provisions reinstate those of the Industrial Relations Act, 1976 (repealed by the Code), which were the subject of earlier comments.

The Government indicates in its report that these provisions of the Labour Code are aiming at the observance of an arbitration body decisions (which are in general directed to employers and not to workers) and not at the punishment of participants in strikes. The Government also states that the penalties specified in section 126(2) have not been applied in practice.

While noting these indications in the Government’s report, the Committee observes that, although the provisions of the Labour Code may be "aiming" at the observance of arbitration decisions, they are still capable of being applied to workers in a manner which exposes them inappropriately to sanctions involving forced labour.

The Committee recalls, referring to the explanations in paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that restrictions on the right to strike, if enforced with sanctions involving compulsory labour, are incompatible with Article 1(d) of the Convention; only penalties (even if involving compulsory labour) imposed for participation in strikes in the civil service or other essential services in the strict sense of the term (i.e. services whose interruption would endanger life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) are not covered by the Convention.

Referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 98, likewise ratified by Sudan, the Committee expresses the hope that appropriate measures will be taken to amend the above provisions so as to ensure that sanctions involving compulsory labour cannot be used to punish participation in strikes, in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the aforementioned provisions of the Labour Code, particularly regarding the number of persons convicted for having refused to fulfil the decision of an arbitration body, and to supply copies of the relevant judgements.

Article 1(a). In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the effect that the declaration of emergency and the suspension of the guarantees set forth in the Convention could have on its application. The Committee notes that the declaration of emergency proclaimed in December 1999 is still in force.

The Committee took note of the situation regarding human rights in Sudan as presented by the United Nations Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights (UN document A/55/374 of 11 September 2000). It also noted that the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed concern that "some restrictions on the freedoms of religion, expression and association and peaceful assembly still exist ..." (E/C.12/1/Add.48 of 1 September 2000).

The Committee previously noted that sentences of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) may be imposed under the following Penal Code provisions: section 50 (committing an act with the intention of destabilizing the constitutional system), section 66 (publication of false news with the intention of harming the prestige of the State) and section 69 (committing an act intended to disturb the peace).

The Committee recalled that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits all 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 certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

The Government states in its report that, since the declaration of emergency, freedom of association has not suffered at all, and trade unions fully exercised their freedom of expression, activities and peaceful assembly.

While noting this indication, the Committee recalls that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to the trade unions activities. As the Committee previously pointed out, it observes the importance for the effective respect of the Convention of the legal guarantees regarding freedom of assembly, expression, demonstration and association, and the direct effect which restriction of these rights can have on the application of the Convention.

The Committee again asks the Government to supply copies of the legislation in force concerning freedom of association, assembly and expression of political opinion, as well as the National Security Emergency Decree or any other provisions adopted pursuant to the declaration of emergency. It also renews its request to the Government to indicate whether the legislation exempts persons convicted for their political views from the obligation to perform prison labour.