CMNT_TITLE

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - United Arab Emirates (RATIFICATION: 1997)

Other comments on C105

Observation

2020
2016
2013
2012

Direct Request

DISPLAYINFrench - Spanish - ArabicAlle anzeigen

Preliminary remarks concerning the impact of compulsory prison labour on the application of the Convention. Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the national legislation, under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) may be imposed in circumstances falling under Article 1(a),(c) and (d) of the Convention. It noted the Government’s repeated explications that all the provisions in question refer only to sanctions of imprisonment, without mentioning forced labour as a penalty.

The Committee once again takes note of these indications, as well as the Government’s reference to the definition of forced labour contained in Article 2(1) of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). In this regard, the Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the explanations provided in paragraphs 144–147 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, according to which, in the great majority of cases, labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will have no relevance to the application of Convention No. 105, such as in the cases of the exaction of compulsory labour from common offenders convicted, for example, of robbery, kidnapping or other acts of violence or of having endangered the life or health of others, or numerous other offences.

However, the Committee emphasizes that if a person is required to perform compulsory prison labour because that person holds or has expressed certain political views, has committed a breach of labour discipline, or has participated in a strike, the situation is covered by the Convention which, prohibits the use “of any form” of forced or compulsory labour as a sanction in these circumstances.

Article 1(a). Political coercion and punishment for holding or expressing political or ideological views. Following its previous comments, the Committee takes due note that Federal Law No. 6 of 1974 on non profit-making organizations has been repealed by Federal Law No. 2 of 2008 on non-profit-making associations and organizations, which annuls the penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) to persons who violate the provisions of Law No. 6 of 1974 and replaces it by financial penalties (section 57).

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that Federal Law No. 15 of 1980 governing publications and publishing imposes penal sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) in accordance with sections 86 and 89 of the Law, for the violation of the following provisions of the law:

-section 70: prohibition upon criticizing the President of the Republic or the rulers of the Emirates;
-section 71: prohibition on publishing documents harmful to Islam, or to the Government, or to the country’s interests or the basic systems on which society is founded;
-section 76: prohibition on publishing material containing information shameful to the President of an Arab or Muslim country or a country with friendly ties, as well as material which may threaten the ties of the country with Arab, Muslim or friendly countries;
-section 77: prohibition on publishing material which causes an injustice to Arabs or constitutes a misrepresentation of Arab civilization or cultural heritage;
-section 81: prohibition on publishing material which harms the national currency or causes confusion over the economic situation of a country.

The Committee recalls that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society (such as, for example, laws on defamation, sedition and subversion, public order and security). But where the restrictions of these rights and freedoms are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, it falls within the scope of the Convention (paragraph 153 of its 2007 General Survey).

In the light of the above considerations, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that Federal Law No. 15 of 1980 is reviewed or abrogated, so that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

Regarding the promulgation on 24 September 2007 of a Decree prohibiting the imprisonment of journalists in judicial cases related to publications, freedom of expression or the exercise of their occupation, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the abovementioned Decree is currently in force before the State courts, and based on it, a draft bill (dated 2009 and annexed to the Government’s report), concerning the regulation of mass media activities, is currently in the process of adoption. Section 2 of this draft bill specifies that freedom of opinion and expression whether reflected orally or by any other means is guaranteed by the law. The Committee also notes that Chapter 6 of the draft bill lays down financial penalties in case of a violation of any provision and does not include any penalties which restrict or deprive freedom. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in the adoption of the draft bill of 2009, as well as a copy of the text once adopted.

Over a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the incompatibility with the Convention of certain provisions of the Penal Code which prohibit the establishment of an organization or the convening of a meeting or conference for the purpose of attacking or mistreating the foundations or teachings of the Islamic religion, or calling for the observance of another religion, with such offences being punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of ten years (sections 317 and 320). It also referred to sections 318 and 319 of the Penal Code which might impose a prison sentence, involving an obligation to work, on any person who is a member of an association specified in section 317, who challenges the foundations or teachings of the Islamic religion, proselytizes another religion or advocates a related ideology.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no information regarding this point. The Committee recalls that sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision (paragraph 154 of its 2007 General Survey).

The Committee therefore once again expresses its firm hope that appropriate measures will be taken to bring sections 317–320 of the Penal Code into conformity with the Convention and that, pending the adoption of such measures, the Government will provide information on the application of sections 317–320 in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions, indicating the penalties imposed.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that under the Federal Law on Merchant Shipping (No. 26 of 1981), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) may be imposed on seafarers for various breaches of labour discipline, such as violation of service-related orders, neglecting to serve on vessels or to mount guard, being absent from a vessel without authorization, or any other act that may disrupt order or the service on board (section 200(a)(c)(g) and (j)), refusal to comply with an order concerning work on board the vessel, repeated acts of disobedience (section 204(d) and (e)), or the performance of any acts mentioned in section 204 by more than three persons in agreement (section 205).

The Committee points out once again that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, and that sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience, are not in conformity with the Convention, unless the acts committed were liable to endanger the ship or the life or health of persons (paragraph 179 of its 2007 General Survey).

Noting that the Government’s report does not contain relevant information on these matters, the Committee once again reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken to bring the abovementioned provisions into conformity with the Convention by limiting their scope to circumstances in which the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee had referred to section 231(1) of the Penal Code which provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to work) in cases in which at least three public officials abandon their jobs or voluntarily abstain from performing any obligations related thereto, acting in agreement among themselves or pursuing an illegal objective.

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed explanations in its report. It however, observes that the Government’s report contain no relevant information on how the abovementioned provision is applied in practice. The Committee recalls, once again, that no one who has participated in a strike should be subject to penal sanctions for the mere fact of peacefully participating in a strike and in no event should risk a prison sentence involving compulsory labour.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide in its next report further information on the application of section 231(1) of the Penal Code in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.