CMNT_TITLE

Incidence of the legislation imposing the obligation to work on those convicted to a prison sentence on the application of the Convention. The Committee wishes to recall, further to the observations made by the Government in reply to the Committee’s comments, that the imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation of prison labour may fall within the scope of the Convention. The Convention prohibits the imposition of compulsory prison labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system or for participating in a strike. If national legislation provides for penalties of imprisonment in such circumstances, the Committee examines first of all whether, under the terms of those sentences of imprisonment, the convicted person is obliged to engage in compulsory labour. Under the terms of Moroccan national legislation, persons convicted to a sentence of imprisonment (life sentence, imprisonment or detention) are subject to the obligation to work (sections 24, 28 and 29 of the Penal Code and section 35 of Act No. 23-98 on the organization and operation of prison establishments). In this context, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the provisions of the legislation, which places limits on the exercise of certain civil rights or public freedoms, the violation of which gives rise to liability to prison sentences. Persons who, through failure to comply with these limits, are convicted to a sentence of imprisonment are also subject to the obligation to work, in accordance with the system for serving penalties.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views. The Committee noted previously that the Press Code (Dahir No. 1-58-378 of 15 November 1958, as amended by Act No. 77-00 of 3 October 2002) provided for sentences of imprisonment for several press-related offences. It noted in its last direct request the Government’s indication that a draft Press Code had been submitted to the Cabinet and that the innovations proposed included an easing of the penalties for offences committed by journalists and for press-related offences, and the abolition of custodial sentences or the reduction of their length. The Committee notes that the Government no longer refers in its latest report to the process of the revision of the Press Code. It simply indicates that the Press Code does not contain provisions which refer to the sections of the Penal Code that provide for compulsory labour.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the revision of the Press Code is still on the agenda and, if so, to indicate the progress achieved. The Committee recalls that, as the national legislation provides for the obligation to work in prison, the provisions of the Press Code penalizing peaceful activities with a custodial sentence may have an impact on the application of the Convention. Under these conditions, the Committee hopes that the Government will re-examine this matter and abolish sentences of imprisonment for press-related offences, such as insults towards the King or texts detrimental to the Islamic religion, the monarchy or territorial integrity (section 41) or the publication or dissemination of inaccurate facts or false reports (section 42), as such provisions are liable to be interpreted in extenso by the courts and serve as a basis for the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to provide examples of court rulings sentencing the persons concerned to imprisonment for the various offences set out in the Press Code.

The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that section 179 of the Penal Code, which punishes with a prison sentence and a fine any offence against the King, the heir to the throne or members of the royal family, is not used. In practice, those committing such offences are prosecuted under section 41 of the Press Code. The Committee notes this information and refers to its comments above on the Press Code. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information in future reports on the use of section 179 of the Penal Code by the courts and, where appropriate, to provide copies of the rulings handed down.

Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the scope of section 288 of the Penal Code, under which any person who, through the use of violence, force, threats or deception, causes or maintains, or endeavours to cause or maintain a concerted stoppage of work with the aim of forcing an increase or decrease in wages or jeopardizing the free exercise of industry or work is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from one month to two years. It noted that these provisions had been the subject of extensive interpretation by the courts, with the result that strikers engaged in peaceful action had been convicted to sentences of imprisonment. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the courts ascertain that all the constitute elements of an act of violence or an obstacle to the freedom of labour have been met so as to prevent any prejudice to the right to strike or to the interests of employees who have not engaged in the acts incriminated under section 288. The Government adds that the Supreme Court has also indicated that, where they have recourse to the provisions of section 288 of the Penal Code, the courts have to demonstrate the sense of threat and its impact on the freedom to work. The Committee notes this information which illustrates the scope accorded by the judicial authorities to the provisions of section 288 of the Penal Code. It requests the Government to continue to indicate in future reports whether the courts have recently made use of section 288 of the Penal Code and, if so, to provide copies of the court rulings. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would indicate the progress achieved in the adoption of the Bill to regulate the right to strike, to which it referred previously.