Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2013, Publicación: 103ª reunión CIT (2014)

Convenio sobre la abolición del trabajo forzoso, 1957 (núm. 105) - Perú (Ratificación : 1960)

Otros comentarios sobre C105

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Article 1(a) and (d) of the Convention. Imposition of community service as a punishment for expressing views opposed to the established political, social or economic system or for participation in a strike. The Committee previously asked the Government to provide information on any court decisions handed down under the provisions of section 200(3) of the Penal Code and to specify whether persons found to be in breach of these provisions may be sentenced, as an alternative to imprisonment, to the performance of community service and, if so, whether their consent is required for the performance of such work. According to section 200(3), anyone who, through violence or threats, occupies premises, blocks transportation routes, prevents the free movement of citizens or disrupts the normal operation of public services or work on a legally authorized worksite, with a view to obtaining from the authorities an undue benefit or economic advantage or advantage of any other nature, shall be liable to a custodial sentence of five to ten years. The Committee noted in this connection that the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP) found the definition of this offence to be ambiguous and too broad: making it possible to impose criminal penalties for participation in protest action against the political, social or economic system or for exercising the right to strike.

In its report, referring to the provisions of section 200(3) and (4), the Government states that the conduct described in section 200(3) is confined to public officials who have decision-making authority or hold positions of trust or management posts and for whom the right to strike is not recognized in the Constitution. It adds that if accompanied by violence or threats, such conduct would amount to the offence of “special extortion” and that the courts have the discretion to determine the penalty applied.

The Committee takes note of this information. It points out that the provisions for which it sought information from the Government regarding their application in practice were only those of section 200(3) of the Penal Code, the coverage of which does not appear to be confined to public employees. In so far as the provisions of section 200(3) are drafted in broad terms, it should be ensured that they are not used to impose criminal penalties on persons who participate peacefully in activities involved in a social protest movement or a strike. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to provide information, in future reports, on court decisions handed down under section 200(3) of the Penal Code – distinguishing cases of participation in social protest actions and cases of the exercise of the right to strike – to enable the Committee to examine how the courts interpret these provisions. Please indicate whether persons found to be in breach of the provisions of section 200(3) of the Penal Code may be sentenced to the alternative penalty of community service without having consented thereto.