Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2011, Publicación: 101ª reunión CIT (2012)

Convenio sobre el trabajo forzoso, 1930 (núm. 29) - Iraq (Ratificación : 1962)

Otros comentarios sobre C029

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - Español - ArabicVisualizar todo

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Restrictions on the freedom to resign of persons in the service of the State. In the comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has noted that various legislative provisions, which restrict the freedom to resign of persons in the service of the State, are incompatible with the Convention. It noted in particular: section 40(1) and (2) of Act No. 201 of 1975 on civil maritime service, under the terms of which an application to resign filed by a civil officer or seafarer in the merchant navy may be refused and that such refusal is final; resolutions Nos 917 of 1988 and 550 of 1989, which establish similar restrictions with regard to various categories of state officials; and section 35 of the Civil Service Act No. 24 of 1960, under which the resignation of an official is not valid unless accepted by the competent authority. Finally, the Committee noted that under section 364 of the Penal Code, any official or any person entrusted with public office may be punished with imprisonment if their absence from work may result in the paralyzation of a public service.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that employees in the public sector, including members of the armed forces, are free to leave their employment or to resign when they so wish, in compliance with the rules set out in the Civil Service Act.

The Committee recalls that the Civil Service Act empowers the competent authority to refuse an application for resignation and, with regard to officers, under the terms of the Act on the civil maritime service, such a refusal is considered as being final. The Committee considers that such provisions prevent the persons concerned from leaving their employment by giving notice of reasonable length and have the effect of transforming a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service imposed by law.

The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to review all of the provisions referred to above so as to ensure that the persons covered by these provisions are able to resign within a reasonable period, either by giving notice, or at specified intervals. In the meantime, please provide statistical data on the number of applications made to resign and the number of such applications which have been refused, with an indication of the reasons given for such refusals.

The Committee also notes the adoption of Act No. 3 of 2 August 2010 on military service and the retirement of military personnel. It observes that, under sections 33 and 35, members of the armed forces are engaged for a period of service (including training and studies) which may be up to 20 years. Members of the armed services may not leave the service before the end of this period of service, and the Ministry of Defence may postpone requests for the termination of contracts for reasons of public order.

With reference to its comments above, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which career military personnel are guaranteed in practice the possibility to leave the service during peacetime before the completion of this 20-year period, either at specified intervals or by giving a reasonable period of notice, or by reimbursing part of the training costs borne by the State.

Article 2(c). Obligation to work as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. The Committee notes that, by virtue of section 87 of the Penal Code of 1969, any prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life or a shorter period is obliged to perform the work envisaged by the Act respecting prison establishments. It also notes that sections 88 and 89 specify that severe and shorter sentences are combined with the obligation to work. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Act on prison establishments and any text regulating the conditions of work of persons convicted to a prison sentence who are subject to the obligation to work. Please indicate whether work imposed upon convicted persons may be performed for the benefit of private entities.

Article 25. Penal sanctions for the exaction of forced or compulsory labour. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 325 of the Penal Code, any public servant or person entrusted with a public service who exacts forced labour from individuals in circumstances other than those relating to the public interest, as set out in laws and regulations, or as required by a state of necessity, or who require them to work in cases other than those envisaged by the law, is liable to a sentence of imprisonment. The Committee emphasized that this provision does not give full effect to Article 25 of the Convention, under the terms of which the illegal exaction of forced labour shall be punishable as a penal offence, this provision being applicable if forced labour is exacted by any person of whatever status, irrespective of whether the work is exacted for public or private purposes.

In its report, the Government refers once again solely to section 325 of the Penal Code and indicates that section 5(2) of the draft Labour Code addresses the elimination of all forms of forced labour. The Committee trusts that, in the context of the revision of the Labour Code, the Government will take into account the comments that it has been making for many years with a view to the inclusion of provisions penalizing the exaction of forced labour and thereby ensuring that individuals or private law entities which exact forced labour are liable to the penal sanctions envisaged in Article 25 of the Convention.