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

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Niger (Ratification: 1962)

Autre commentaire sur C105

Observation

2012

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imprisonment with compulsory labour as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that, under the terms of section 81 of Decree No. 99-368/PCRN/MJ/DH of 3 September 1999 determining the organization and internal rules of prisons, persons convicted for political offences or the expression of views are not required to work.

With regard to the application in practice of sections 2 and 23 of Ordinance No. 84-6 of 1 March 1984 regulating associations (as amended), the Committee notes that, as in its previous reports, the Government confirms that no one has been convicted for creating an undeclared association.

Article 1(c) and (d). Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a means of labour discipline or as a punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the national legislation places excessive restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike of State officials and officials of territorial communities, particularly by laying down the obligation to provide a minimum service in vital services defined more broadly than essential services in the strict sense of the term, and that it also provides for the possibility of requisitioning officials for this purpose (Ordinances Nos 96-009 and 96-010 of 21 March 1996 establishing, respectively, the conditions for the exercise of the right to strike of State officials and officials of territorial communities and the list of strategic and/or vital services). The Committee also observed that, under the terms of section 119(2) of the Penal Code, public servants found guilty of dereliction of duty, the aim or effect of which is to prevent or suspend the discharge of their tasks, shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from one to three years.

The Committee notes that, in reply to its request for information on the scope of these provisions, the Government indicates that Ordinance No. 96-009 and its implementing decrees do not establish penalties to which State officials or officials of territorial communities may be liable if they have been requisitioned and have refused to ensure the minimum service in a vital State service. In practice, requisitioned officials who have refused to perform the work have been subject to salary reductions corresponding to the number of days not worked. The Government adds that there has never been any question of having recourse to section 119(2) of the Penal Code to categorize a refusal to comply with a requisition order as dereliction of duty. The Committee notes this information and, with regard to the issue of excessive restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike by State officials and officials of territorial communities, the Committee refers to the comments that it is making on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee also requests the Government to provide information in future reports on the application in practice of section 119(2) of the Penal Code and, in particular, further details on the circumstances in which public officials may be liable to the penal sanctions set out in this provision for dereliction of duty.