CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with satisfaction that Act No. 2001-09 of 21 June 2002 respecting the exercise of the right to strike repeals Ordinance No. 69-14/MFPRAT of 19 June 1969, under which striking workers could be requisitioned under penalty of imprisonment.

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to certain provisions of Act No. 60-12 of 30 June 1962 on the freedom of the press, under which sentences of imprisonment may be imposed as punishment for various acts or activities relating to the exercise of the right of expression. Moreover, 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.

More precisely, the Committee referred previously to the following sections of the Act: section 8 (deposit of a publication with the authorities before its release to the public); section 12 (allowing a ban on publications of foreign origin in French or the vernacular printed in 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); sections 26 and 27 (slander and insults).

The Committee also noted previously that Act No. 97-010 of 20 August 1997, liberalizing audiovisual communications and establishing special penal provisions relating to offences in the area of the press and audiovisual communications, does not repeal Act. No. 60-12 referred to above, but that in the event of conflicting provisions those of Act No. 97-010 prevail. It emphasized that these two laws were different in scope, as Act No. 97-010 covers audiovisual communication and Act No. 60-12 relates to printing, sales of books and periodicals. Furthermore, the Committee regretted that some of the provisions of the new Act were similar to those of Act No. 60-12, on which it had commented. For example, under section 79(3) of Act No. 97-010, "any seditious shouts or chants against the lawfully established authorities in public places or meetings" are punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of from six months to two years; causing offence to the President of the Republic is punishable by imprisonment of from one to five years, under section 81; and section 80 punishes by imprisonment of from two to five years any provocation of the public security forces aimed at distracting them from their duty of defending security or obeying the orders given by their chiefs for the enforcement of military laws and regulations.

The Committee recalls that Article 1, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention prohibits the use of forced labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Sentences of imprisonment, when they involve compulsory labour, come under the scope of the Convention when they are imposed to uphold the prohibition of expressing views or opposition.

In its last report, the Government indicates that it will make every effort to ensure that the national laws are brought into conformity with the Convention as soon as possible. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure observance of the Convention and to guarantee that no sentence of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for activities related to freedom of expression. It would also be grateful if the Government would provide any relevant information on the effect given in practice to the above provisions of Acts Nos. 60-12 and 97-010, together with copies of any court decisions clarifying their scope.

2. Article 1(c). Imposition of forced labour as a means of labour discipline. Since 1970, 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 discipline by seafarers are punishable by imprisonment which, in accordance with section 67 of Decree No. 73-293 of 15 September 1973, involves the obligation to work. In its last report, the Government indicates that the draft new Merchant Shipping Code has still not been adopted.

The Committee hopes that it will be possible to adopt the new Merchant Shipping Code in the very near future. It trusts that the Government will take all the necessary measures to ensure that the new Merchant Shipping Code does not contain provisions allowing the imposition of sentences of imprisonment, involving the obligation to work, for breaches of labour discipline where they do not endanger safety. Please provide a copy of the new Merchant Shipping Code as soon as it is adopted.