CMNT_TITLE

The Committee refers to its observation under this Convention and, while awaiting the Government’s response on the issue of compulsory prison labour, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the following points.

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imprisonment involving compulsory labour as a penalty for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted certain provisions of Ordinance No. 97-09 of 6 March 1997 issuing the Organic Act on political parties. Under section 38 of the Ordinance, without prejudice to the other provisions of the legislation in force, anyone who founds, directs or administers a political party, regardless of its form or name, in breach of the provisions of the present Act shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to five years and/or a fine. The same penalties apply to anyone who directs, administers or belongs to a political party which is maintained or reconstituted while it is suspended or after being dissolved. Section 39 of the Ordinance states that anyone who infringes the provisions of sections 3, 5 and 7 of the present Act shall be liable to the penalties laid down by section 79 of the Penal Code, i.e. imprisonment of one to ten years. Finally, under the terms of section 41 of the Ordinance, anyone who infringes the provisions of sections 28–32, 34 and 35 of the present Act shall be liable to imprisonment of one to five years and/or a fine. The sentence may be increased to ten years’ imprisonment when the offender is responsible for the finances of the political party. Recalling once again that the imposition of a term of imprisonment involving compulsory labour as a penalty for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system is contrary to the provisions of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to supply information in its next report on the practical application of the abovementioned provisions, including copies of any relevant court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Article 1(d). Requisitioning of workers in the event of an unauthorized or illegal strike. The Committee previously referred to section 6(5) of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992 declaring a state of emergency and conferring on the Minister of the Interior and Local Communities the power to requisition workers to carry out their usual occupational activities in the event of an unauthorized or illegal strike. Section 5 of the Decree and also sections 2 and 3 of Executive Decree No. 92-75 of 20 February 1992 establishing the conditions for the application of certain provisions of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 allow the Minister of the Interior to order the detention in a security centre of any person whose activities endanger public order, public security or the proper functioning of public services.

The Committee noted that the state of emergency declared for a period of 12 months from 9 February 1992, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 92-44, had been extended indefinitely by Legislative Decree No. 93-02 of 6 February 1993 prolonging the duration of the state of emergency, and that it was still in force.

The Committee noted the Government’s statement in its report of October 1999 that orders issued by the Minister of the Interior, who was responsible for administering the state of emergency (detention measures, security centres), had been repealed and that the detention centres were closed while the state of emergency was still in force.

Noting the information in the Government’s report that the state of emergency was still in force, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 and Executive Decree No. 92-75. The Committee expresses the strong hope that the Government will supply the requested information in its next report.