Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2018, publiée 108ème session CIT (2019)

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

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Workers of Mauritania (CGTM) received on 31 August 2018 and requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments initially made in 2015.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment involving compulsory labour as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to supply information on the manner in which the national courts interpret and make use of certain provisions of the national legislation under which prison sentences can be imposed for activities relating to the freedom to express political or ideological views. It recalled that persons sentenced to imprisonment are under the obligation to work (sections 23 and 117 in conjunction with section 9 of Decree No. 70-153 of 23 May 1970 establishing the prison regulations) and that the exception established for persons convicted of political offences does not apply to the offences referred to below:

– 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 concerning political parties: section 27 (imprisonment ranging from six months to three years for any person who founds, manages or administers a political party in breach of the provisions of the Ordinance);
– Act No. 64-098 of 9 June 1964 concerning associations: section 8 (imprisonment ranging from one to three years for any person who takes up or continues to hold responsibility for the administration of an association without authorization);
– Act No. 73-008 of 23 January 1973 concerning public meetings: section 9 (imprisonment ranging from two to six months for any breach of the Act);
– Ordinance No. 2006-17 of 12 July 2006 concerning freedom of the press: imprisonment for offences involving: 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 notes the Government’s indication in its report that the penalties established by these provisions do not obstruct freedom of expression and have nothing to do with it; they are concerned with safeguarding public order, which must not be disrupted by illegal activities. The Government adds that there have been no court decisions convicting persons for freely expressing their views concerning the political, social, economic or ideological system. The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention protects persons who, without recourse or incitement to violence, have expressed certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system by prohibiting their punishment through penalties that would require them to work, particularly prison sentences involving compulsory labour. Freedom of expression takes the form of the exercise of various rights, such as the right of association, the right of assembly and freedom of the press. While recognizing that these rights may undergo certain restrictions that are necessary in the interests of public order to protect society, such restrictions must be strictly defined by law. The Committee notes that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association expressed his concern, in the press release of 10 August 2015, at the bill concerning associations which was being discussed in Parliament. He referred in particular to the prior authorization procedure and the “strict punishments for vaguely worded provisions” that run the risk of hindering the work of civil society in Mauritania.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any court decision handed down on the basis of the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code, the Ordinance of 1991 concerning political parties, the Act of 1973 concerning public meetings and the Ordinance of 2006 concerning freedom of the press, so that it can examine the manner in which the national courts interpret and make use of these provisions, and can then evaluate their scope in the light of the protection afforded by Article 1(a) of the Convention.