Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2001, publiée 90ème session CIT (2002)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

1. The Committee notes the observations of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) which were transmitted to the Government in October 2001. These observations refer once again to the persistence of certain forms of slavery in Mauritania. The ICFTU alleges that in the eyes of certain persons, birth continues to impose an inferior status on descendants of slavery. The ICFTU adds that these persons of inferior status typically work as agricultural workers, herders of livestock or domestic servants, but remain completely dependent on their traditional masters to whom they pass the money they earn or for whom they work directly in exchange for food and lodging.

In its observations, the ICFTU points out the difficulties encountered by people to escape from their traditional masters. It cites the example of a young man and a 13 year-old girl who were forced to work for their masters as a shepherd and camel herder respectively before escaping and being caught with the help of the police. According to the ICFTU, the victims of slavery rarely overcome their conditions of servitude due to their belief in certain traditional values which lead them to think they belong to their masters.

The Committee also notes that according to the ICFTU, "the central point of concern does not relate to the legal status of slavery in Mauritania, but to whether slavery and involuntary servitude (what the Government refers to as ‘the vestiges of slavery’) have been abolished in practice".

In its previous reports, the Committee had noted a communication from the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), of October 1997, on the application of the Convention. The WCL had alleged that the Convention was violated through the persistence of practices equivalent to slavery, despite Decree No. 81-234 of 1981 abolishing slavery. In this respect, WCL described the specific testimony of a woman indicating the names of her successive masters, the nature of her work as well as her contacts with the authorities.

The Committee notes that in its most recent report, the Government states that the phenomenon of slavery has gradually disappeared and has not been present for a long time in Mauritanian society.

The Committee had noted the WCL’s statements according to which the Government had indicated that persons continuing to denounce slavery in Mauritania were enemies of the country. The Committee had also noted the imprisonment of a leader of an opposition party who was also an anti-slavery activist. Furthermore, the Committee notes the statement of Anti-Slavery International to the Commission on Human Rights in August 1998, according to which several persons were convicted and imprisoned because they condemned the persistence of certain forms of slavery. The Committee also notes that the Government had prohibited the holding of a seminar on servitude which was planned at Kiffa in Assaba from 15 to 18 September 2001 by the Free Confederation of Mauritanian Workers (CLTM).

The Committee has been examining for a great number of years the consistent allegations made by workers’ organizations and by non-governmental organizations concerning the persistence of situations of forced labour in Mauritania. The Committee also has examined over the years the Government’s repeated indications to the effect that it is inappropriate to refer to the persistence of forced labour situations, instead there are only certain after-effects of the historical phenomenon of slavery, being isolated occurrences linked to the plight of economically weak social groups.

In examining whether there is observance of the Convention in practice, the Committee is faced with the difficulty of reconciling the contradictory assertions made by the workers’ organizations and the non-governmental organizations on the one hand and the Government on the other. Bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations and the complexity of the situation, the Committee suggests that the Government invite the ILO to send a mission to clarify the factual situation. The Committee hopes that it will then be able to assess the situation with the benefit of a report from such a mission together with the Government’s response, at its next session in 2002.

2. Article 25 of the Convention. The Committee has noted the poverty eradication programme undertaken by the Government with a view to improving the condition of the most underprivileged groups as well as the intention to amend the Labour Code to strengthen the prohibition of forced labour.

The Committee notes however, that there are no provisions imposing legal sanctions as required by Article 25 of the Convention. In effect, neither Decree No. 81-234 of 1981, nor other statutory instruments contain provisions which provide for punishing as a penal offence the illegal exaction of forced labour.

The Committee had noted in its previous reports that forced labour was prohibited by the Labour Code, but that the Code only applied to relations between employers and workers. The Committee had invited the Government to take measures to extend the prohibition on any form of forced labour to work relationships such as may result from after-effects of historical phenomena. The Committee had suggested that measures be taken to extend the prohibition of forced labour contained in section 3 of the Labour Code to all forms of work relationships, even where they were not covered by a contract. The Committee had also stated that it would be possible to provide explicitly that, subject to the exceptions admitted by the Convention, any situation in which individuals provided work or a service for which they had not offered themselves of their own free will was illegal, could be brought before a civil court and was punishable as a penal offence, in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the measures taken to give effect to the Convention on this point.

3. The Committee had noted the adoption of Act No. 71059 of 25 February 1971 issuing rules to organize civil protection, which limits the powers to requisition labour to specific exceptional circumstances, corresponding to the definition of cases of emergency set out in Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention. The Committee had requested the Government to take measures to repeal the Ordinance of 1962 conferring very wide powers on local leaders to requisition labour.

The Committee notes that in its last report the Government expresses its intention to repeal the Ordinance of 1962 and requests it to indicate in its next report the measures taken to this end.

4. The Committee had noted that Act No. 70-029 of 23 January 1970 provided for the possibility of requisitioning labour when circumstances so required, to ensure the functioning of a service considered to be essential for the country or the population. Under section 5 of Act No. 70-029, persons who have not obeyed a requisition order can be subject to a penalty of imprisonment ranging from one month to one year, as well as to a fine.

In its last report, the Government states that it considers that the types of requisitioning provided by the abovementioned law are in conformity with the Convention and that, in particular, the terms "a service considered to be essential to meet a need of the country or the population" correspond to the cases of emergency set out in Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention. The Government indicates that these measures concern public establishments where employees could be requisitioned in the event of a strike.

The Committee requests the Government to provide a complete list of establishments that could be considered as services that are essential for the population and which could be affected by a possible requisition order under Act No. 70-029.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2002.]