Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2012, publiée 102ème session CIT (2013)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Mauritanie (Ratification: 1997)

Autre commentaire sur C105

Observation

2019

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that persons convicted to a prison sentence are under the obligation to work, except for those convicted for a sentence of a political nature (sections 23 and 117 in conjunction with section 9 of Decree No. 70-153 of 23 May 1970 establishing the prison rules). The Government indicated in this respect that political offences are those relating to a breach of state security, namely any takeover or attempt to takeover power or to overthrow institutions in a manner contrary to the Constitution. It added that the offences referred to by the Committee in its previous comments were not political offences. In light of the indications provided by the Government on the detainees who are required to work, the Committee requested it to provide information on the application in practice of a number of the provisions of the national legislation under which prison sentences could be imposed for activities relating to the freedom to express political or ideological views, namely:

-Penal Code: section 101 (prohibition of unarmed gatherings on public thoroughfares or in other public places which might breach the peace); section 102 (refusal by an unarmed person to leave an armed or unarmed gathering after one warning); section 104 (direct provocation to an unarmed gathering either by speeches made in public or by the posting or distribution of written or printed matter);
-Ordinance No. 91-024 of 25 July 1991 on political parties: section 27 (imprisonment for a term ranging from six months to three years for founding, managing or administering a political party in breach of the provisions of the Ordinance);
-Act No. 64-098 of 9 June 1964 on associations: section 8 (imprisonment for a term ranging from one to three years for anyone who takes up or continues to hold responsibility for the administration of an association without authorization);
-Act on public meetings: section 9 (imprisonment for a term ranging from two to six months for any breach of the Act);
-Ordinance No. 91-023 of 27 July 191 on freedom of the press: sections 11, 17, 18, 24–28 (now repealed by Ordinance No. 2006-17 of 12 July 2006, see below).

The Committee notes that the Government has not provided information in its last report on any court rulings based on the above provisions of the national legislation. It nevertheless indicates that, for reasons of security and the protection of property and persons, demonstrators have to seek prior authorization from the competent authorities. No one can be convicted in Mauritania for having participated in an authorized demonstration. The Government adds that the press is free and publishes regularly. However, in the case of defamation, victims are entitled to go to the courts to defend their honour. To avoid this type of situation, a school of journalism has been established, as well as a High Press and Audio-Visual Authority.

The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who have expressed certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system by prohibiting their punishment by sanctions that would require them to work, and particularly prison sentences involving compulsory labour. While noting the information provided by the Government on the exercise of certain public freedoms, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the national courts interpret and make use of the above provisions of the national legislation, so that it can assess their scope and ensure that no prison sentence is imposed under these provisions on persons who, without having recourse to violence, express their political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It would therefore be grateful if the Government would provide copies of any court rulings issued under these provisions or, in the event that it is impossible to obtain copies of such rulings, if it would provide information on the acts for which such persons were convicted under these provisions.

With regard to the legislation on the freedom of the press, the Committee observes, from the information available on the website of the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), that the Ordinance on the freedom of the press of 1991 was repealed by Ordinance No. 2006-17 of 12 July 2006. The Committee observes that the adoption of the 2006 Ordinance constitutes a step forward in so far as it abolishes prison sentences for the offence of offending the President of the Republic or foreign Heads of State, and for defamation of the courts, tribunals, armed and security forces and other institutions of the public authority. However, prison sentences are still envisaged for the offences of the distribution, sale, exhibition and possession of pamphlets and flyers liable to be harmful to the general interest and public order (section 30); the publication of false information (section 36); defamation of private individuals (section 40); and insults (section 41). The Committee further notes that, according to the website of the CNDH, the Council of Ministers adopted a Bill in June 2011 to amend certain provisions of the Ordinance on the freedom of the press of 2006. According to the CNDH, the Bill introduces substantial reductions in the obstacles to the freedom of the press by abolishing the prison sentences envisaged, among others, for insults and defamation. The Committee hopes that the Government will take all the necessary measures to ensure the adoption in the very near future of the Bill to amend the Ordinance of 2006 on the freedom of the press, so as to continue the depenalization of press-related offences, thereby guaranteeing that persons who express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system cannot be convicted to prison sentences.