CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced labour as punishment for expressing certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It emphasized, in particular, that when they involve compulsory labour, sentences of imprisonment fall within the scope of the Convention if they may be imposed for the expression of 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 1960 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. The Committee referred more particularly to the following provisions of the Act: 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 within 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); and sections 26 and 27 (slander and insults).

The Committee also referred to Act No. 97-010 of 20 August 1997 liberalizing audiovisual communication and establishing special penal provisions relating to offences relating to the press and audiovisual communications. While noting that the provisions of Act No. 97-010 prevail should they conflict with those of the Act on the freedom of the press, the Committee pointed out that the two Acts are different in scope, since Act No. 97-010 covers audiovisual communications 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 causing 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 against 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 two reports, received in October 2008 and November 2006, the Government indicates that it intends to bring national laws into line with ratified Conventions. In this context, a department to promote fundamental rights at work was established in November 2005 with responsibility, inter alia, for ensuring that laws and regulations are consistent with Conventions. The Government adds in its latest report that a study of their conformity was carried out by the Ministry of Labour and the Public Service and validated in 2007, and that it takes into account the Committee’s observations. The report indicates that draft texts to repeal or amend the provisions in question will soon be submitted to the National Assembly and will be communicated to the Office once they have been adopted. The Committee notes the renewed will of the Government to amend the provisions of the national legislation which may be incompatible with the Convention and it hopes that these provisions will be reviewed so as to ensure that the normal exercise of freedom of expression and peacefully expressed opposition to the established political, social or economic system cannot be punished by imprisonment involving an obligation to work. The Committee once again requests the Government to specify whether the courts have had recourse to the above 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 the Government’s indication in its last two reports that the draft Merchant Shipping Code that has been submitted to the National Assembly for adoption takes into account 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 Merchant Shipping Code as soon as it has been adopted.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.