Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2008, Publicación: 98ª reunión CIT (2009)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views opposed to the established system. For many years, the Committee has been referring to the following provisions of the Penal Code, the Public Meetings Act of 1923, the Meetings Act of 1914 and Act No. 40 of 1977 respecting political parties, which provide for penal sanctions involving compulsory labour in circumstances falling within the scope of Article 1(a) of the Convention:

(a)   section 98(a)bis and 98(d) of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 34 of 24 May 1970, which prohibit the following: advocacy, by any means, of opposition to the fundamental principles of the socialist system of the State, encouraging aversion or contempt for these principles, encouraging calls to oppose the union of the people’s working forces, constituting or participating in any association or group pursuing any of the foregoing aims, or receiving any material assistance for the pursuit of such aims;

(b)   sections 98(b), 98(b)bis and 174 of the Penal Code (concerning advocacy of certain doctrines);

(c)   the Public Meetings Act, 1923, and the Meetings Act, 1914, granting general powers to prohibit or dissolve meetings, even in private places;

(d)   sections 4 and 26 of Act No. 40 of 1977 respecting political parties, which prohibit the creation of political parties whose objectives are in conflict with Islamic legislation or with the achievements of socialism, or which are branches of foreign parties.

The Committee points out once again, referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 152–166 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, that the abovementioned provisions are contrary to the Convention in so far as they provide for sanctions involving compulsory prison labour for expressing certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established system, or for having infringed a discretionary decision by the administrative authorities depriving people of the right to make public their opinions or suspending or dissolving certain associations.

The Committee has taken due note of the adoption of Act No. 95 of 2003, to which the Government refers in its 2006 report in reply to the Committee’s earlier comments. It has noted that section 2 of the Act has abolished the penalty of hard labour in the Penal Code or any other penal text, and replaced it with the penalty of “aggravated imprisonment” (as distinct from “simple imprisonment”), which involves an obligation to work. The Committee refers in this connection to the explanations in paragraph 147 of the above General Survey, in which it pointed out that the scope of the Convention is not restricted to sentences of “hard labour” or other particularly arduous forms of labour, as distinct from ordinary prison labour. The Convention makes no distinction between “hard labour” and compulsory labour exacted from people as a result of any other type of sentence and prohibits the use of “any form” of forced or compulsory labour as a sanction, as a means of coercion, education or discipline, or as a punishment in respect of the persons within the ambit of Article 1(a), (c) and (d).

The Committee also draws the Government’s attention to the explanations contained in paragraphs 154, 162 and 163 of the above General Survey, where it observed 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 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. Since opinions and views ideologically opposed to the established system are often expressed at various kinds of meetings, if such meetings are subject to prior authorization granted at the discretion of the authorities and violations can be punished by sanctions involving compulsory labour, they also come within the scope of the Convention.

The Committee has observed that the scope of the provisions referred to above is not limited to acts of violence or incitement to the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising, but appears to provide for the punishment of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system, with penalties involving compulsory labour. The Committee therefore reiterates the firm hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken to bring the above provisions into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this end. Pending the amendment of the legislation, the Committee again requests the Government to provide full information on their application in practice, supplying sample copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

Article 1(b). Use of conscripts for purposes of economic development. The Committee refers in this connection to its observation addressed to the Government under Convention No. 29, likewise ratified by Egypt.

Article 1(d). Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for participation in strikes. In comments it has been making for many years, the Committee referred to sections 124, 124A, 124C and 374 of the Penal Code, under which strikes by any public employees may be punished with imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the observance of Article 1(d) of the Convention, which prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes.

The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated indications in its reports that terms of imprisonment under the above sections of the Penal Code vary from six months to one year, which means that the imprisonment in question is “simple imprisonment” which involves no obligation to perform labour. However, the Committee previously noted that section 124 refers to imprisonment for a period of up to one year, which may be doubled in certain cases; the maximum penalty is two years under section 124A; sections 124 and 124A apply in conjunction with sections 124C and 374 of the Code. The Committee also noted previously that under sections 19 and 20 of the Penal Code, imprisonment with labour is imposed in all cases where persons are sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more. It follows from the provision of section 20 that the judge will pass a sentence of imprisonment with labour already when the term of imprisonment is one year, which is the maximum term under section 124, paragraph 1. As regards the provision of section 124, paragraph 2, concerning a possibility to double the term of imprisonment, this provision is applicable in certain cases defined in terms large enough to raise questions about their compatibility with the Convention: when such work stoppages create disorder among the people or are prejudicial to the public interest.

The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that appropriate measures will be taken in this connection to ensure the observance of the Convention, so that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of participating in a peaceful strike. Having also noted the Government’s indication in its previous report that no court decisions have been issued yet under the abovementioned sections of the Penal Code, the Committee hopes that, pending the amendment of the legislation, the Government will supply copies of such court decisions, if and when they are handed down.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour applicable to seafarers. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 13(5) and 14 of the Maintenance of Security, Order and Discipline (Merchant Navy) Act, 1960, under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on seafarers who together commit repeated acts of insubordination. The Committee recalled in this connection that Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention prohibits the exaction of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline or as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee observed that, in order to remain outside the scope of the Convention, punishment should be linked to acts that endanger or are likely to endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its report that the above Act was being amended. Since the Government’s latest report contains no new information on this matter, the Committee reiterates its hope that, in the course of the revision, the abovementioned provisions of the 1960 Act will be brought into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will supply a copy of the amended text, as soon as it is adopted.

The Committee is also addressing a request on certain other points directly to the Government.