Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

1. The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous direct request. It is therefore bound to repeat its request, which concerned the following point.

In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 6(5) of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 declaring a state of emergency and conferring on the Minister of the Interior and Local Communities the power to requisition workers to carry out their usual occupational activities in the event of an unauthorized or unlawful strike. Section 5 of the Decree allows the Minister of the Interior to order the detention in a security centre of any person whose activities endanger public order, public security or the proper functioning of public services.

The Committee noted that the state of emergency declared for a period of 12 months from 9 February 1992, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 92-44, had been prolonged indefinitely by Legislative Decree No. 93-02 of 6 February 1993 extending the duration of the state of emergency, and that it was still in force.

The Committee noted that in its report of October 1999, the Government stated that orders issued by the Minister of the Interior, who was responsible for administering the state of emergency (detention measures, security centres), had been repealed and that the detention centres were closed while the state of emergency was still in force.

Noting the information in the Government’s report that the state of emergency was still in force, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 and Executive Decree No. 92-75.

The Committee hopes that the Government’s next report will contain information on this subject.

2. Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imprisonment involving compulsory labour as penalty for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee notes certain provisions of Ordinance No. 97-09 of 6 March 1997 issuing the Organic Law on political parties. Under section 38 of the Ordinance, without prejudice to the other provisions of the legislation in force, anyone who founds, directs or administers a political party, irrespective of its form or name, in breach of the provisions of the present Law is liable to a term of imprisonment ranging from one to five years and/or a fine. The same penalties apply to anyone who directs, administers or belongs to a political party which is maintained or reconstituted while it is suspended or after being dissolved. Section 39 of the Ordinance states that anyone who infringes the provisions of sections 3, 5 and 7 of the present Law is liable to the penalties laid down by section 79 of the Penal Code, i.e. imprisonment of one to ten years. Finally, section 41 of the Ordinance states that anyone who infringes the provisions of sections 28–32, 34 and 35 of the present Law is liable to imprisonment of one to five years and/or a fine. The sentence may be as much as ten years’ imprisonment when the offender is responsible for the finances of the political party. Recalling that the imposition of a term of imprisonment involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system is contrary to the provisions of the Convention, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply information on the practical application of the abovementioned provisions, including copies of relevant court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.