Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2014, Publicación: 104ª reunión CIT (2015)

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

Otros comentarios sobre C029

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Trafficking in persons. In view of the lack of a response from the Government on this matter, the Committee again requests it to provide information on the application of the provisions of the Penal Code that criminalize and penalize trafficking in persons (sections 303bis(3) ff.), indicating in particular whether court proceedings have been initiated and whether cases are pending before the criminal courts on the basis of these provisions. The Government is also requested to indicate the measures taken to raise the awareness of potential migrant workers regarding the risks connected with trafficking in persons and to build the capacity of the competent authorities with respect to identification and protection of trafficking victims. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether studies have been undertaken to evaluate the characteristics of trafficking in persons in Algeria.

2. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the broad definition of vagrancy laid down in section 196 of the Penal Code, whereby any person who, having no fixed abode or means of livelihood and ordinarily exercising no trade or occupation despite being fit for work, is unable to show that he or she has sought work or has refused an offer of paid work shall be deemed guilty of vagrancy and shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to six months. Such a definition, which is not limited to activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order, is tantamount to an indirect constraint to work, which is contrary to the provisions of the Convention. It appears from the information previously supplied by the Government that section 196 of the Penal Code is used solely for the purpose of preventing offences disturbing public order or endangering the safety of persons. Since the terms of section 196 go beyond this objective and can punish with imprisonment the simple fact of being unable to demonstrate efforts to seek work, or refusing paid work when having no fixed abode or means of livelihood and ordinarily exercising no trade or occupation despite being fit for work, the Committee requests the Government once again to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 of the Penal Code solely to persons who engage in unlawful activity or in activities likely to disturb public order. In the meantime, the Government is requested to provide information on the application in practice of section 196 and to supply copies of any relevant court decisions. In this regard, the Committee notes with regret that the Government has not taken the opportunity afforded by the various reforms of the Penal Code – in particular that of February 2014, which revised the provisions relating to begging – to amend the provisions concerning vagrancy.

3. Freedom of seafarers to leave their employment. The Committee previously drew the Government’s attention to section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 establishing the conditions of employment of seafarers in merchant shipping and fisheries. Under section 56, the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory. Furthermore, under sections 53 and 55, any seafarer wishing to terminate an employment relationship must inform the shipowner in writing, and the latter has 15 days following receipt of the letter to accept or refuse the resignation request. Referring to the explanations given by the Government, the Committee emphasized that even though section 56 protects seafarers against dismissal which could result in forcibly disembarking the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not enable a seafarer to leave his employment after expiry of the notice period if he is not on national territory at that time.

Since section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 has the effect of turning a contractual relationship voluntarily entered into by the parties into service imposed by law for an indefinite period, by prohibiting seafarers from terminating their employment, even after the completion of the statutory period of notice, while they are outside the national territory, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary steps to repeal or amend this provision.

Article 2(2)(a). Defence forces. Non-military work. The Committee previously noted that, under the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 establishing and determining the functions and structure of the defence of the people, citizens between 18 and 60 years of age are subject to the obligations of defence of the people, set up within the framework of national defence, and that they may be required in this context to participate in the protection of units of production and the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country. The Government previously explained that Act No. 87-16 had become obsolete since it had never been applied in practice since its enactment. The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will have no difficulty in adopting the necessary measures to formally repeal Act No. 87-16 and thereby ensure the conformity of the national legislation with Article 2(2)(a) of the Convention, according to which any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws must be of a purely military nature if it is not to be regarded as forced or compulsory labour.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. Hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. In its previous comments the Committee noted that Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005, issuing the Code on the organization of prisons and the social rehabilitation of prisoners, permits the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises involved in the performance of work of public interest (section 100(2)). It noted the detailed information provided by the Government on the manner in which prisoners express their consent in practice to work on external sites or in open establishments, for either public or private enterprises, and on the organization of such work, the guarantees that apply to it, and the absence of any penalty for refusal to work for private enterprises.

In view of the lack of information on this subject, the Committee again requests the Government to indicate the provisions of the national legislation which require the prior formal consent of prisoners for any work done for private entities. The Government is also requested to indicate whether, in practice, prisoners have been made to work for private enterprises, either in the context of the hiring out of labour or under any other arrangements.