Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2009, Publicación: 99ª reunión CIT (2010)

Article 1, subparagraph a of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political system. 1. In its earlier comments made for a number of years, the Committee referred to a number of provisions of the Penal Code, the Press Act, the Societies Act and certain other enactments, under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, by virtue of sections 87 and 88 of the Penal Code) may be imposed as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for expressing political views or views which are ideologically opposed to the established political system.

In particular, the Committee referred to the following legislative provisions:

–      section 43 of Act No. 1 of 1960 respecting societies, in conjunction with section 23 (suspension of societies’ activity for 30 days), and section 26(b) (dissolution of societies whose aims are contrary to the Republican regime or the requirements of the regime, etc.);

–      section 16 of Law No. 206, which provides for a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for publication in the press of prohibited matter (e.g. matter which is injurious to the authorities, the propagation of certain ideas);

–      restrictions imposed by the legislation on the freedom of expression. In particular, in the event of insults against the authorities, severe penalties are prescribed under Decision No. 840 of 4 November 1986 amending section 225 of the Penal Code;

–      sections 1–4 of Act No. 7 of 1958 concerning punishment of those who plot against the security of the State (directing the country’s policy against the national interest, issuing laws for the benefit of a certain number of persons against the common welfare, influencing morale by circulating alarming rumours, etc.).

The Committee pointed out that, to the extent that the abovementioned provisions allow the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or as punishment for expressing political views or views which are ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, they have a bearing on the observance of the Convention.

While noting the Government’s assurances that it endeavours to meet its obligation to ensure the effective application of the Convention and to amend legislation, starting with the adoption of the new Labour Code, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure the observance of the Convention (e.g. by removing the restrictions on the freedom of expression or by removing the penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work through which these restrictions are enforced) and that the Government will soon report on legislative amendments. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions in practice, if they are still in force, including copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

2. The Committee previously asked the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the following provisions of the Penal Code, which provide for penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour), and on any measures taken to ensure observance of the Convention in this regard:

–      section 201 (making of propaganda for Zionism or adhering to any Zionist organization or assisting it morally or materially, or working in any capacity to obtain its ends);

–      section 202 (treating with contempt in public the Iraqi nation or people or any group of inhabitants of Iraq);

–      section 210 (deliberately broadcasting false or misleading news, statements or rumours likely to cause alarm or despondency, disturb the peace or damage national interest);

–      section 215 (possessing or procuring or issuing or holding with a view to trading or distributing or offering pictures, drawings or written material likely to disturb public security or impair the prestige or standing of the country, with a view to giving a false or distorted impression of events);

–      section 221 (convening, controlling the movements of, or taking part in, a gathering in a public place, knowing that such gathering had been forbidden by the authorities).

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 demonstrations.

The Committee notes that the scope of the provisions referred to above is not limited to violence or incitement to violence, and these provisions seem to be worded in such wide and general terms that they may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or as a punishment of the peaceful expression of views that are critical of government policy and the established political system, or as a punishment of various non-violent actions affecting the organization of meetings and demonstrations.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the interpretation and application of the abovementioned provisions in practice, including sample copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, and on any measures taken or contemplated to ensure observance of the Convention, such as for example, to limit their scope to the acts of violence or incitement to violence or to replace sanctions involving compulsory labour with other kinds of sanctions, such as, for example, fines.

Article 1, subparagraphs c and d, of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline and for the participation in strikes. In its earlier comments made for a number of years, the Committee referred to section 364 of the Penal Code, under which any official and any person in charge of a public service may be punished with imprisonment, inter alia, if they leave their work, even after having resigned, if this might paralyse a public service. It also referred to section 197(4) of the Penal Code, under which imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) may be imposed in cases where activities are stopped or disrupted in public services or bodies, public utilities, state industrial installations or public establishments of importance to the national economy. The Committee noted from the Government’s earlier reports that state officials and public sector workers had no right to strike, and that, under section 197(4), sanctions involving compulsory prison labour were applicable to work stoppages in a large range of activities and industrial installations.

The Committee refers to the explanations provided in paragraphs 175–177 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it indicated that, while the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline that impair the operation of essential services or in circumstances where life and health are in danger, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, the workers concerned must remain free to terminate their employment on reasonable notice. The Committee further recalls that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to change a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Iraq.

As regards work stoppages in the public service and in the public sector enterprises, the Committee recalls, referring also to the explanations in paragraphs 184-189 of the General Survey referred to above, that any restrictive provisions enforceable with penalties involving compulsory labour should be limited in scope to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, to emergency situations or, more generally, to circumstances where the life, personal safety or health of persons are endangered.

The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will soon be taken to ensure the application of the Convention in this respect, for example, by restricting the application of the provisions referred to above to officials whose functions include the exercise of authority in the name of the State and to circumstances endangering the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or by removing the penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to work) through which these restrictions are enforced.