CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Penal Code adopted in 1990 no longer exempts from the obligation to work persons sentenced to imprisonment for political offences. Under section 24 of the Penal Code and section 49 of Decree No. 92-052 establishing the prison regime, penalties of imprisonment involve the obligation to work. The Committee stressed that where an individual is, in any manner whatsoever, compelled to prison labour as punishment for expressing certain political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, this falls within the scope of the Convention. Penalties of imprisonment that involve compulsory labour are covered by the Convention when imposed as punishment for the expression of views or of opposition. To enable the Committee to ascertain that the application of the provisions mentioned below is restricted to activities falling outside the protection provided by the Convention, it requested the Government to provide all available information on their application in practice, including copies of court decisions handed down under these provisions, which define or illustrate their scope. The Committee referred to the following provisions:

–           Section 113 of the Penal Code, under which the issuing or propagation of false information liable to injure the public authorities or national unity is punishable by a prison term of from three months to three years.

–           Section 154(2) of the Penal Code, under which incitement, whether in speech or in writing intended for the public, to revolt against the Government and the institutions of the Republic, is punishable by imprisonment of from three months to three years.

–           Section 157(1)(a) of the Penal Code, under which incitement to obstruction of the execution of any law, regulation or lawfully issued order of the public authority is punishable by imprisonment of from three months to four years.

–           Section 33(1) and (3) of Act No. 90-53 on freedom of association which provides for imprisonment of three months to one year for board members or founders of an association which continues operations or which is re‑established unlawfully after a judgement or decision has been issued for its dissolution, and for persons who have encouraged the assembly of members of the dissolved association by allowing continued use of the association’s premises. Section 4 of the Act declares null and void associations founded in support of a cause or in view of a purpose contrary to the Constitution, and associations whose purpose is to undermine, inter alia, security, territorial integrity, national unity, national integration or the republican nature of the State. According to section 14 of the Act, the dissolution of an association does not bar any legal proceedings from being instituted against the officials of such an association.

The Committee notes that in its report the Government states that the aim of the prison policy is the social rehabilitation of convicts, including those found guilty of the offences referred to in the abovementioned provisions. In this context, all necessary measures are taken to prevent the exploitation of convicts. The Committee reminds the Government that under the Convention, persons who express, without using or inciting to violence, political views or views that are ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic order, may not be subjected to imprisonment involving compulsory labour, whatever the form of such labour. In view of the developments referred to above, the Committee again asks the Government to provide information on judicial decisions handed down under the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code and the Act on freedom of association (number of sentences and copies of the decisions) that illustrate their scope. It would also be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention, the persons protected by the Convention may not be subjected to penalties involving an obligation to work.

Article 1(c) and (d). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. For many years the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend sections 226, 229, 242, 259 and 261 of the Merchant Shipping Code (Ordinance No. 62/DF/30 of 1962), under which certain breaches of discipline committed by seafarers may be punished by imprisonment involving the obligation to work. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption of the revised Merchant Shipping Community Code by the Council of Ministers of the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa – CEMAC (Regulation No. 03/01-UEAC-088-CM-06 of 3 August 2001). Under the above Code, breaches of labour discipline by seafarers are not punishable by imprisonment. The Committee notes, that in its last report, referring to the legislation giving effect to the Convention, the Government cites the Cameroonian Merchant Shipping Code of 1962 and the CEMAC Code of 2001 and indicates that the text of the revised CEMAC Code will be sent as soon as it is adopted. The Committee requests the Government to provide more extensive information on the provisions that actually apply to the discipline of seafarers and to state which of the two Codes prevails should their provisions be contradictory.