Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2007, publiée 97ème session CIT (2008)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee reminded the Government that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced labour as a punishment for expressing certain political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It stressed in particular that when they involve compulsory labour, sentences of imprisonment fall within the scope of the Convention when they may be imposed for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It observed that by virtue of section 67 of Decree No. 73-293 of 15 September 1973 issuing the prison regulations, as amended by Decree No. 78‑161 of 23 June 1978, convicted prisoners may be assigned to social rehabilitation work.

In view of the foregoing, the Committee has for many years been drawing the Government’s attention to certain provisions of Act No. 60-12 of 30 June 1962 on the freedom of the press under which various acts or activities relating to the exercise of freedom of expression are punishable by a prison sentence. It referred more particularly to the following provisions: section 8 (deposit of a publication with the authorities before its release to the public); section 12 (ban on publications of foreign origin in French or the vernacular printed in or outside the country); section 20 (incitement to commit an act classified as an offence); section 23 (causing offence to the Prime Minister); section 25 (publishing false reports); sections 26 and 27 (slander and insults).

The Committee likewise referred to Act No. 97-010 of 20 August 1997 liberalizing audiovisual communication and establishing special penal provisions relating to offences in the area of the press and audiovisual communications. While noting that the provisions of this Act prevail should they conflict with those of the abovementioned Act on the Freedom of the Press, the Committee pointed out that the two Acts were different in scope, since Act No. 97-010 covers audiovisual communication and the Act on the Freedom of the Press covers printing, books and periodicals. For the above reasons, the Committee also drew the Government’s attention to certain provisions of Act No. 97-010: section 79(3), under which “any seditious shouting or chanting against the lawfully established authorities in public places or meetings” is punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of from six months to two years; section 81, under which to cause offence to the President of the Republic is punishable by imprisonment of from one to five years; and section 80, which punishes by imprisonment of from two to five years any provocation of the public security forces aimed at distracting them from their duty of defending security or of obeying the orders given by their chiefs for the enforcement of military laws and regulations.

In its last report, the Government indicates its intention of ensuring that national laws are brought into line with ratified Conventions, and that in November 2005 a department to promote fundamental rights at work was established for the purpose, inter alia, of ensuring that laws and regulations are consistent with Conventions. The Government adds that the provisions of the offending texts will thus be revised. The Committee takes note of the Government’s resolve to amend provisions of the national legislation that could be incompatible with the Convention. It hopes that these provisions will be revised to ensure that normal exercise of freedom of expression and peacefully expressed opposition to the established political, social or economic system may not be punished by imprisonment involving an obligation to work. It requests the Government once again to specify whether the courts have had recourse to the abovementioned provisions of Acts Nos 60-12 and 97-010 and, if so, to send copies of court decisions clarifying their scope.

Article 1(c). Imposition of forced labour as a means of labour discipline. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend sections 215, 235 and 238 of the Merchant Shipping Code of 1968. Under these provisions, certain breaches of labour discipline by seafarers are punishable by imprisonment which, pursuant to section 67 of Decree No. 73‑293 of 15 September 1973, involves the obligation to work. The Committee notes that in its last report, the Government states that the draft Merchant Shipping Code submitted to the National Assembly for adoption takes account of the Committee’s comments.

The Committee trusts that the new Merchant Shipping Code will be adopted very shortly and that it will make no provision for prison sentences involving the obligation to work to be imposed for breaches of labour discipline where they do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons. Please send a copy of the new Code as soon as it is adopted.

The Committee raises other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.