ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments > All Comments

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Bolivia (Plurinational State of) (Ratification: 1990)

Display in: French - Spanish

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of forced labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the effect given in practice to the following provisions of the Penal Code, under which sentences of imprisonment may be imposed involving compulsory labour (in accordance with section 48 of the Penal Code) in circumstances which may fall within the scope of application of Article 1(a) of the Convention:
  • section 123 (sedition), under which persons who take up positions publicly and in open hostility with a view to undermining or disturbing public order in any way shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from one to three years;
  • section 126 (conspiracy), under which any person who engages in a conspiracy involving three or more person with a view to committing crimes of sedition shall be liable to half of the penalty for that crime;
  • section 134 (public disorder and disturbances), which provides that any persons who for the purpose of preventing or disturbing a public meeting cause riotous behaviour, disturbances or other disorders shall be liable to a sentence of the performance of work for between one month and one year.
The Government indicates in its report that it does not have data on the numbers of persons given a prison sentence as a consequence of expressing political views or under the provisions indicated above. In response to the Committee’s request for information on the judicial action taken against journalists, the Government indicates that there have been no cases of prison sentences imposed in the context of judicial procedures against journalists on the basis of political opinions.
The Committee notes that, in his 2021 annual report, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights indicates that in 2021, he received reports of attacks on the press by police officers and complaints about illegitimate detentions of journalists during coverage in an alleged context of violence against the press. The Special Rapporteur also refers to criminal prosecutions initiated against journalists in various media for alleged defamation offences. Moreover, in its 2022 concluding observations, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed concern at allegations of harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders and journalists, including the arbitrary detention of some journalists who were covering protests between 2019 and 2021 (CCPR/C/BOL/CO/4).
The Committee notes this information, which indicates the existence of a context of intimidation and detention of persons engaged in journalism on the basis of the offence of defamation. In this regard, the Committee observes that, although the offence of defamation against public servants set out in section 162 of the Penal Code was found to be unconstitutional in 2021 and was therefore repealed, section 282 of the Penal Code provides that any person who in public, in a biased manner and repeatedly reveals or divulges a fact, a quality or conduct liable to prejudice the reputation of an individual or group, shall be liable to a sentence of performing compulsory labour of from one month to one year or a fine. In this regard, the Committee observes that, under the terms of section 28 of the Penal Code, a sentence of compulsory labour cannot be imposed without the consent of the convicted person. However, the same provision provides that in the event that the convicted person does not give his or her consent, the penalty shall be converted into a sentence of imprisonment (which, under section 48 of the Penal Code, involves the obligation to work).
The Committee recalls in this respect that the Convention protects persons who express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system by providing that they cannot be punished for these activities by penalties which involve the obligation to work. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure, in both law and practice, that persons who express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, including through their work in journalism, cannot be subjected to penal sanctions involving compulsory labour and, in this context, to revise the provisions of section 282 of the Penal Code. In the meantime, the Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number of legal actions initiated under this provision, and on the penalties imposed and the acts that gave rise to the convictions.
Article 1(d). Penalties for having participated in strikes. For a number of years, the Committee has been observing that section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951 establishes penalties of imprisonment which involve the obligation to work for participation in general and sympathy strikes and acts of solidarity. Recalling that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the imposition of sentences involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes, the Committee has requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend or repeal this legal provision in the light of this principle.
The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated indication that section 2 of the Legislative Decree is not applied in practice and that the Constitution guarantees the right to strike. Taking into account the Government’s indication, and with reference to its commentson the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention and the practice indicated, by explicitly amending or repealing section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951, and to provide information on any progress achieved in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing certain political views. For a number of years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to provide information on the practical application of sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association), and 134 (public disorder and disturbances) of the Penal Code under which sentences of imprisonment could be imposed in cases which fall within the scope of the application of Article 1(a) of the Convention. These provisions may be used to punish, with compulsory labour, acts through which persons express political views or peacefully express views opposed to the established political economic or social system, as sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work under section 48 of the Penal Code and sections 181 et seq. of Act No. 2298 of 2001 on the enforcement of sentences. The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not provide any information in this regard. The Committee again requests the Government to provide updated information on the application of sections 123, 126, 132 and 134 of the Penal Code in practice, including on the number of persons convicted on the basis of the abovementioned provisions, as well as copies of any relevant judicial decisions handed down.
The Committee previously noted the 2012 decision of the Constitutional Court of the Plurinational State of Bolivia declaring unconstitutional section 162 of the Penal Code, which punishes by imprisonment the slander, affront or defamation of a public servant in the exercise of their duties, with an increase in the sentence where the individual targeted is the President or Vice-President of the Republic, officials of the State or of the Supreme Court, or members of Congress. The Committee also noted the increasing number of criminal proceedings being brought against journalists and requested the Government to provide information on the ongoing criminal proceedings. While observing that the Government does not provide any information in this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its report, that the Constitution provides for freedom of opinion and expression, including of the press which is also regulated by the Press Act of 19 January 1925. The Committee notes however that, in its 2017 annual report, the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter American Commission on Human Rights enumerated several limitations the Government placed on the media, including the use by some public officials of the term “the cartel of lies” to discredit independent journalists and news outlets expressing dissenting opinions; the situation of journalists who were forced to leave the country in 2016; and pressure against notable journalists who criticized the Government. The Committee notes that, in September 2018, the Government announced that a draft “law against lies” would be submitted to the Congress to “punish liars” in the media and “moralize” independent news organizations. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that no prison sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. It also requests the Government to provide information on the criminal proceedings under way against journalists, indicating the number of proceedings initiated, the legislative provisions under which they were initiated and the sentences imposed. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the status of the draft “law against lies”, and to provide a copy of the new legislation once adopted.
Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that section 234 of the Penal Code under which prison sentences could be imposed for participation in strike was repealed, but that sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951 establishing criminal sanctions for participation in general strikes and acts of solidarity remained in force. While noting the Government’s indication that such provisions are not applied in practice, the Committee requested the Government to amend or repeal these provisions. It notes that the Government merely states that it takes note of the request of the Committee. The Committee recalls that compelling a person to work, including in the form of prison labour, for peacefully participating in a strike is prohibited under the Convention. Accordingly, prison sentences, when they involve compulsory labour, as is the case in the Plurinational State of Bolivia under the terms of section 48 of the Criminal Code and sections 181 et seq. of Act No. 2298 of 2001, lie within the scope of the Convention when they are imposed for a participation in a strike. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated information on the application of sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951. It again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to align its national legislation with the Convention and the existing practice in the very near future, by amending or repealing the abovementioned provisions, and to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing certain political views. In its previous direct request, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of certain provisions of the Criminal Code under which sentences of imprisonment could be imposed in cases which fall within the scope of the application of Article 1(a) of the Convention, namely, sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association), 134 (public disorder and disturbances). These provisions may be used to punish, with forced labour, acts through which persons express political views or peacefully express views opposed to the established political economic or social system, as sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work under section 48 of the Criminal Code and sections 181 et seq. of Act No. 2298 of 2001 on the enforcement of sentences. The Committee notes that the latest information received on the manner in which these provisions of the Criminal Code are applied in practice by the courts is from 2007. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide copies of court decisions handed down under the above provisions of the Criminal Code so that it can assess the scope.
The Committee also duly notes the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, of 20 September 2012, declaring unconstitutional section 162 of the Criminal Code, which punishes by imprisonment the slander, affront or defamation of a public servant in the exercise of their duties, with an increase in the sentence where the individual targeted is the President or Vice President of the Republic, officials of the State or of the Supreme Court, or members of Congress (Decision No. 1250/2012). The Committee also notes that, in its concluding observations concerning the third report of the Plurinational State of Bolivia on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee expresses its concern at “reports of verbal and physical violence against journalists and the increasing number of criminal proceedings being brought against them” (document CCPR/C/BOL/CO/3 of 6 December 2013). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the criminal proceedings under way against journalists, indicating the legislative provisions under which they were initiated and, where relevant, the sentences which have been imposed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend or repeal sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951 and section 234 of the Criminal Code under which prison sentences could be imposed for participation in strikes. The Committee notes with interest that section 234 of the Criminal Code has been repealed through Act No. 316 of 11 December 2012 on the decriminalization of the right to strike and the protection of the right to organize relating to criminal matters.
The Committee notes however that Act No. 316 has not repealed sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951 establishing criminal sentences for participation in general strikes and acts of solidarity. It recalls that compelling a person to work, including in the form of prison labour, for peacefully participating in a strike is prohibited under the Convention. Accordingly, prison sentences, when they involve compulsory labour, as is the case in the Plurinational State of Bolivia under the terms of section 48 of the Criminal Code and sections 181 et seq. of Act No. 2298 of 2001, lie within the scope of the Convention when they are imposed for a participation in a strike. Noting the Government’s previous indication that the provisions of sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951 are not applied in practice, the Committee trusts that the Government will continue to align its legislation with the Convention and accordingly requests it to take the necessary measures to amend or repeal the above provisions.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. In its previous direct request the Committee referred to the following provisions of the Penal Code which allow sentences of imprisonment to be imposed in cases which fall within the scope of the Convention. Indeed, sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association), 134 (public disorder and disturbances) could be used to impose sentences of imprisonment for acts through which persons express political views or views opposed to the established political, economic or social system. The Committee observed that sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work under section 48 of the Penal Code and sections 181 et seq. of Act No. 2298 of 2001 on the enforcement of sentences. The Committee previously noted the information provided by the Government that, under the terms of section 132 of the Penal Code (criminal association), 11 persons were tried and convicted in 2005, 28 in 2006 and 14 in 2007, with criminal association being one of the charges.
The Committee notes that the Government did not provide any information in its last report on the application in practice of these provisions. With reference to the explanations provided in its observation concerning the incidence that the imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work may have on the application of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide copies of court decisions handed down under the above provisions of the Penal Code so that it can assess their scope. Please also indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that sentences involving the obligation to work are not imposed for the expression of political views.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Incidence of compulsory prison labour on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that the information provided by the Government in its report only concerns the arrangements for the performance of work undertaken by convicts, whether in the context of sentences of imprisonment (“presidio” or “reclusión”) or in the framework of sentences to work of general interest. The Committee wishes to recall that work imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law does not in most cases have an incidence on the application of this Convention. However, if a person is compelled to work, for example in the form of prison labour, for expressing certain political views, opposing the established political, social or economic system or participating in a strike, such compulsory labour falls within the scope of the Convention. Accordingly, prison sentences, when they involve compulsory labour, as is the case in the Plurinational State of Bolivia under the terms of section 48 of the Penal Code and sections 181 et seq. of Act No. 2298 of 2001 on the enforcement of sentences, lie within the scope of the Convention when they are imposed as punishment for violating the prohibition to express views or opposition or participate in a strike.
Article 1(d) of the Convention. Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments the Committee referred to section 234 of the Penal Code, under which advocacy of lockouts, strikes or stoppages declared illegal by the labour authorities is punishable by imprisonment of from one to five years, as well as sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951 establishing penal sanctions for participation in general strikes and sympathy strikes. The Committee also observed that the legislation respecting strikes establishes a number of restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike, including the requirement for a majority of three-quarters of the workers of the enterprise to call a strike (section 114 of the General Labour Act and section 159 of its Regulations), and the possibility to impose compulsory arbitration by decision of the executive authorities (section 113 of the General Labour Act). The Committee emphasized that excessive restrictions imposed on the exercise of the right to strike have an impact on the application of the Convention insofar as they result in a strike being declared illegal and those who participate in a strike that has been declared illegal being liable to penal sanctions, under which they are subject to compulsory labour.
The Committee once again hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that penalties involving compulsory labour cannot be imposed for participation in strikes and that, for that purpose, the provisions referred to above of Legislative Decree No. 2565 and section 234 of the Penal Code, which provide for this type of penal sanction, will be amended or repealed. As the Government indicated previously that these provisions are not applied in practice, the Committee trusts that the legislation will be brought into conformity with the Convention and with existing practice in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Article 1 (a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. In its previous direct request, the Committee referred to the following provisions of the Penal Code which allow sentences of imprisonment to be imposed in cases covered by the scope of the Convention: sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association) and 134 (public disorder and disturbances), which provide for sentences of imprisonment for the expression of political views or views opposed to the established political system. Sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work under sections 48 and 50 of the Labour Code. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above sections of the Penal Code, and particularly on the number of convictions made and copies of the decisions handed down so that it can determine the scope of these provisions.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that 11 persons were tried in 2005, 28 in 2006 and 14 in 2007 under section 132 for criminal association, and one sentence was imposed. The Government indicates that criminal association is one of the offences tried by the courts.

The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the sentences imposed so that it can determine the scope of the above provisions and to supply information on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure that sentences involving the obligation to work are not imposed for the expression of political views.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 234 of the Penal Code, under which advocacy of lockouts, strikes or stoppages declared illegal by the labour authorities is punishable by imprisonment of from one to five years. Sentences of imprisonment involve an obligation to work under sections 48 and 50 of the Penal Code. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the effect given in practice of these provisions in order to enable it to evaluate their scope and to provide copies of court decisions made under them, with an indication of the number of convictions. The Committee also referred to sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951 establishing penal sanctions for participation in general strikes and sympathy strikes, and to other restrictions set out in the legislation in relation to strikes, including the requirement for a majority of three-quarters of the workers of the enterprise to call a strike (section 114 of the General Labour Act and section 159 of its Regulations), and the possibility to impose compulsory arbitration by decision of the executive authorities (section 113 of the General Labour Act).

The Committee emphasizes that no worker on strike who has acted peacefully should be subject to criminal sanctions and observes once again that the excessive restrictions imposed on the exercise of the right to strike have an impact on the application of the Convention. This is the case with the requirement of a qualified majority to call a strike and the existence of compulsory arbitration systems when such restrictions result in a declaration that the strike is illegal with the consequent penal sanctions and the imposition of compulsory prison labour.

The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the draft text drawn up on the basis of a tripartite agreement resulting from negotiations between the representatives of the Bolivian Central Workers’ Organization (COB), the Bolivian National Confederation of Private Sector Employers (CEPB) and the Ministry of Labour, who agreed on the amendment of various legal provisions, including sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951 establishing penal sanctions for sympathy strikes and section 234 of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s indications in its report, during the period 2005–07 there were no cases of the application of section 234 of the Labour Code nor of Legislative Decree No. 2565. It further notes that the Government is taking measures with a view to amending the penal legislation and giving effect to the tripartite agreement that was concluded on the need to amend the provisions referred to above.

The Committee once again expresses the hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that penalties involving compulsory labour cannot be imposed for participation in strikes by amending or repealing the legislative provisions which establish such penalties and since, according to the Government’s indications, these provisions are not applied in practice, the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and with existing practice, as described by the Government.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. In previous comments, the Committee referred to the following provisions of the Penal Code which allow sentences of imprisonment to be imposed in cases covered by the scope of the Convention: sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association) and 134 (public disorder and disturbances), which provide imprisonment sentences for the expression of political views or views opposed to the established political system.

Sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work under sections 48 and 50 of the Penal Code. The Committee takes note of Supreme Decree No. 26715 of 26 July 2002, communicated by the Government, in particular its article 52 according to which work, as a fundamental element of prison treatment, is considered a right and a duty of the prisoner.

The Committee had requested the Government to supply information on the practical application of the abovementioned sections of the Penal Code, particularly in regard to the number of convictions made and copies of the decisions handed down so that it can determine the scope of these provisions. In its report, the Government indicates that very few cases have reached enforceable sentences pronounced on the basis of these provisions.

The Committee asks the Government to supply the information requested in order to examine the scope of the abovementioned provisions and, given that the Government has indicated that these provisions generally apply in the context of a social dispute, to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that no penalty involving compulsory work be imposed for expression of political views.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters:

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Punishment for having participated in strikes. In previous comments the Committee referred to section 234 of the Penal Code under which advocacy of lockouts, strikes or stoppages declared illegal by the labour authorities is punishable by imprisonment of one to five years. Sentences of imprisonment involve an obligation to work under sections 48 and 50 of the Penal Code. The Committee requested the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to these provisions in order to enable it to evaluate their scope, and to provide copies of court decisions made under them, indicating the number of convictions.

With reference to this matter, the Committee noted the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association regarding the complaint made by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), Case No. 2007 (GB.277/9/1). According to the complaint, arrest warrants had been issued against a number of striking workers on the basis of section 234 of the Penal Code. The WCL alleged that this case set an extremely serious precedent in criminalizing a strike (GB.277/9/1, paragraph 263).

In its conclusions the Committee on Freedom of Association stated that the Committee of Experts in its comments on the application of Convention No. 87 by Bolivia in 1999 and previous years criticized certain restrictions in respect of the right to strike, such as the requirement for a majority of three-quarters of the workers of the enterprise to call a strike (section 114 of the General Labour Act and section 159 of the Regulation), the unlawful nature of general and sympathy strikes which are liable to penal sanctions (Legislative Decree No. 02565 of 1951) and the recourse to compulsory arbitration by decision of the Executive Power (section 113 of the General Labour Act). In these circumstances the Committee on Freedom of Association urged the Government to adopt measures as a matter of urgency with a view to amending legislation concerning strikes in respect of all the points raised by the Committee of Experts and with regard to the need to ensure that strikes may be declared illegal only by an independent body, given that excessive requirements and restrictions in many cases make legal strike action impossible in practice (paragraph 282). In its recommendations, the Committee emphasized that no worker on strike who had acted peacefully should be subject to criminal sanctions, and asked the Government to reform the Penal Code with this principle in mind and to inform it of any rulings handed down in this regard (paragraph 285(c)).

The Committee referred to the explanations contained in paragraph 187 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour which indicate that excessive restrictions imposed on the exercise of the right to strike have an impact on application of the Convention. This is the case with the requirement for a qualified majority to call a strike and the existence of compulsory arbitration systems when such restrictions result in a declaration that the strike is illegal with the consequent penal sanctions and the imposition of compulsory prison labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to ensure that penalties involving compulsory labour would not be imposed for participation in strikes.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report to the effect that, with the assistance of the ILO technical advisory mission carried out in April 2004, a draft Act has been drawn up on the basis of a tripartite agreement resulting from negotiations between representatives of the Bolivian Central Workers’ Organization (COB), the Bolivian National Confederation of Private Sector Employers (CEPB) and the Ministry of Labour, who agreed on the amendment of various legal provisions, including sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951, establishing penal sanctions for sympathy strikes, and section 234 of the Penal Code, which classifies as an offence strikes or lockouts declared illegal by the Ministry of Labour, thereby abolishing the penalties which had previously been imposed on strikes.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide a copy of the amended legislation once it has been adopted.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee referred to the following provisions of the Penal Code which allow sentences of imprisonment to be imposed in cases covered by the scope of the Convention: sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association) and 134 (public disorder and disturbances), which provide imprisonment sentences for the expression of political views or views opposed to the established political system.

Sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work under sections 48 and 50 of the Penal Code. The Committee takes note of Supreme Decree No. 26715 of 26 July 2002, communicated by the Government, in particular its article 52 according to which work, as a fundamental element of prison treatment, is considered a right and a duty of the prisoner.

The Committee had requested the Government to supply information on the practical application of the abovementioned sections of the Penal Code, particularly in regard to the number of convictions made and copies of the decisions handed down so that it can determine the scope of these provisions. In its report, the Government indicates that very few cases have reached enforceable sentences pronounced on the basis of these provisions.

The Committee asks the Government to supply the information requested in order to examine the scope of the abovementioned provisions and, given that the Government has indicated that these provisions generally apply in the context of a social dispute, to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that no penalty involving compulsory work be imposed for expression of political views.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. In previous comments the Committee referred to section 234 of the Penal Code under which advocacy of lockouts, strikes or stoppages declared illegal by the labour authorities is punishable by imprisonment of one to five years. Sentences of imprisonment involve an obligation to work under sections 48 and 50 of the Penal Code. The Committee requested the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to these provisions in order to enable it to evaluate their scope, and to provide copies of court decisions made under them, indicating the number of convictions.

With reference to this matter, the Committee noted the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association regarding the complaint made by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), Case No. 2007 (GB.277/9/1). According to the complaint, arrest warrants had been issued against a number of striking workers on the basis of section 234 of the Penal Code. The WCL alleged that this case set an extremely serious precedent in criminalizing a strike (GB.277/9/1, paragraph 263).

In its conclusions the Committee on Freedom of Association stated that the Committee of Experts in its comments on the application of Convention No. 87 by Bolivia in 1999 and previous years criticized certain restrictions in respect of the right to strike, such as the requirement for a majority of three-quarters of the workers of the enterprise to call a strike (section 114 of the General Labour Act and section 159 of the Regulation), the unlawful nature of general and sympathy strikes which are liable to penal sanctions (Legislative Decree No. 02565 of 1951) and the recourse to compulsory arbitration by decision of the Executive Power (section 113 of the General Labour Act). In these circumstances the Committee on Freedom of Association urged the Government to adopt measures as a matter of urgency with a view to amending legislation concerning strikes in respect of all the points raised by the Committee of Experts and with regard to the need to ensure that strikes may be declared illegal only by an independent body, given that excessive requirements and restrictions in many cases make legal strike action impossible in practice (paragraph 282). In its recommendations, the Committee emphasized that no worker on strike who had acted peacefully should be subject to criminal sanctions, and asked the Government to reform the Penal Code with this principle in mind and to inform it of any rulings handed down in this regard (paragraph 285(c)).

The Committee referred to the explanations contained in paragraphs 126 et seq. of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour which indicate that excessive restrictions imposed on the exercise of the right to strike have an impact on application of the Convention. This is the case with the requirement for a qualified majority to call a strike and the existence of compulsory arbitration systems when such restrictions result in a declaration that the strike is illegal with the consequent penal sanctions and the imposition of compulsory prison labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to ensure that penalties involving compulsory labour would not be imposed for participation in strikes.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report to the effect that, with the assistance of the ILO technical advisory mission carried out in April 2004, a draft Act has been drawn up on the basis of a tripartite agreement resulting from negotiations between representatives of the Bolivian Central Workers’ Organization (COB), the Bolivian National Confederation of Private Sector Employers (CEPB) and the Ministry of Labour, who agreed on the amendment of various legal provisions, including sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951, establishing penal sanctions for sympathy strikes, and section 234 of the Penal Code, which classifies as an offence strikes or lockouts declared illegal by the Ministry of Labour, thereby abolishing the penalties which had previously been imposed on strikes.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide a copy of the amended legislation once it has been adopted.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee referred to the following provisions of the Penal Code which allow sentences of imprisonment to be imposed in cases covered by the scope of the Convention: sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association) and 134 (public disorder and disturbances), which provide imprisonment sentences for the expression of political views or views opposed to the established political system.

Sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work under sections 48 and 50 of the Penal Code. The Committee takes note of Supreme Decree No. 26715 of 26 July 2002, communicated by the Government, in particular its article 52 according to which work, as a fundamental element of prison treatment, is considered a right and a duty of the prisoner.

The Committee had requested the Government to supply information on the practical application of the abovementioned sections of the Penal Code, particularly in regard to the number of convictions made and copies of the decisions handed down so that it can determine the scope of these provisions. In its report, the Government indicates that very few cases have reached enforceable sentences pronounced on the basis of these provisions.

The Committee asks the Government to supply the information requested in order to examine the scope of the abovementioned provisions and, given that the Government has indicated that these provisions generally apply in the context of a social dispute, to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that no penalty involving compulsory work be imposed for expression of political views.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Article 1(d) of the Convention. In previous comments the Committee referred to section 234 of the Penal Code under which advocacy of lockouts, strikes or stoppages declared illegal by the labour authorities is punishable by imprisonment of one to five years. The Committee requested the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to these provisions in order to enable it to evaluate their scope, and to provide copies of court decisions made under them, indicating the number of convictions.

With reference to this matter, the Committee noted the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association regarding the complaint made by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), Case No. 2007 (GB.277/9/1). According to the complaint, arrest warrants had been issued against a number of striking workers on the basis of section 234 of the Penal Code. The WCL alleged that this case set an extremely serious precedent in criminalizing a strike (GB.277/9/1, paragraph 263).

In its conclusions the Committee on Freedom of Association stated that the Committee of Experts in its comments on the application of Convention No. 87 by Bolivia in 1999 and previous years criticized certain restrictions in respect of the right to strike, such as the requirement for a majority of three-quarters of the workers of the enterprise to call a strike (section 114 of the General Labour Act and section 159 of the Regulation), the unlawful nature of general and sympathy strikes which are liable to penal sanctions (Legislative Decree No. 02565 of 1951) and the recourse to compulsory arbitration by decision of the Executive Power (section 113 of the General Labour Act). In these circumstances the Committee on Freedom of Association urged the Government to adopt measures as a matter of urgency with a view to amending legislation concerning strikes in respect of all the points raised by the Committee of Experts and with regard to the need to ensure that strikes may be declared illegal only by an independent body, given that excessive requirements and restrictions in many cases make legal strike action impossible in practice (paragraph 282). In its recommendations, the Committee emphasized that no worker on strike who had acted peacefully should be subject to criminal sanctions, and asked the Government to reform the Penal Code with this principle in mind and to inform it of any rulings handed down in this regard (paragraph 285(c)).

The Committee referred to the explanations contained in paragraphs 126 et seq. of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour which indicate that excessive restrictions imposed on the exercise of the right to strike have an impact on application of the Convention. This is the case with the requirement for a qualified majority to call a strike and the existence of compulsory arbitration systems when such restrictions result in a declaration that the strike is illegal with the consequent penal sanctions and the imposition of compulsory prison labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to ensure that penalties involving compulsory labour would not be imposed for participation in strikes.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report to the effect that, with the assistance of the ILO technical advisory mission carried out in April 2004, a draft Act has been drawn up on the basis of a tripartite agreement resulting from negotiations between representatives of the Bolivian Central Workers’ Organization (COB), the Bolivian National Confederation of Private Sector Employers (CEPB) and the Ministry of Labour, who agreed on the amendment of various legal provisions, including sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951, establishing penal sanctions for sympathy strikes, and section 234 of the Penal Code, which classifies as an offence strikes or lockouts declared illegal by the Ministry of Labour, thereby abolishing the penalties which had previously been imposed on strikes.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide a copy of the amended legislation once it has been adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

  Article 1(a) of the Convention. In previous comments the Committee referred to the following provisions of the Penal Code which allow sentences of imprisonment to be imposed in cases including those within the scope of the Convention: sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association) and 134 (public disorder and disturbances) which provide sentences for the expression of political views or views opposed to the established political system.

Sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work under sections 48 and 50 of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes the summary record of the 1563rd meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (Bolivia, 24/10/2000, CCPR/C/SR.1563) which indicates that in Bolivia the important link between the right of peaceful demonstration, the right to freedom of expression and opinion and the right to freedom of association is not recognized.

The Committee requested the Government to supply information on the practical application of the abovementioned sections of the Penal Code, particularly in regard to the number of convictions made and copies of the decisions handed down so that it can determine the scope of these provisions and to inform it of the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that sentences involving compulsory labour for the expression of political views will not be imposed.

Compulsory prison labour. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that prisoners are allowed to carry out skilled craft work for their own benefit and that in prisons there are work training centres for inmates.

The Committee observes, however, that sections 48 and 50 of the Penal Code provide for compulsory labour for prisoners under the progressive system of serving their sentence.

The Committee again asks the Government to supply a copy of the Act on the prison system and the Act on compulsory civic service.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes with regret that no report has been received from the Government. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters:

  Article 1(d) of the Convention. In previous comments the Committee referred to section 234 of the Penal Code under which advocacy of lockouts, strikes or stoppages declared illegal by the labour authorities is punishable by imprisonment for a term of between one and five years. The Committee requested the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to these provisions in order to enable it to evaluate their scope, and to provide copies of court decisions made under them, and the number of convictions made.

With reference to this matter, the Committee notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the complaint made by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), Case No. 2007 (GB.277/9/1 of March 2000).

According to the complainant organization, the Ministry of Labour declared the strike illegal in resolution No. 178/97 of 14 April 1997. "The company initiated legal proceedings against union officials and members for participation in an illegal strike, sabotage and incitement in Criminal Investigations Tribunal No. 8. The judge issued arrest warrants against the workers (these have still not been carried out), basing the decision on section 234 of the Penal Code. … The WCL alleges that this case sets an extremely serious precedent in criminalizing a strike …" (GB.277/9/1, paragraph 263).

In its conclusions the Committee on Freedom of Association states that "the Committee of Experts in its comments on the application of Convention No. 87 by Bolivia in 1999 and previous years criticized certain restrictions in respect of the right to strike, such as the requirement for a majority of three-quarters of the workers of the enterprise to call a strike (section 114 of the Act and section 159 of the Regulation), the unlawful nature of general and sympathy strikes which are liable to penal sanctions (Legislative Decree No. 02565 of 1951) and the recourse to compulsory arbitration by decision of the Executive Power to put an end to the strike (section 113 of the General Labour Act). In these circumstances the Committee urges the Government to adopt measures as a matter of urgency with a view to amending legislation concerning strikes in respect of all the points raised by the Committee of Experts and with regard to the need to ensure that strikes may be declared illegal only by an independent body, given that excessive requirements and restrictions in many cases make legal strike action impossible in practice" (paragraph 282). In its recommendations, the Committee "emphasizes that no worker on strike who has acted peacefully should be subject to criminal sanctions, and asks the Government to reform the Penal Code with this principle in mind and to inform it of any rulings that are handed down in this regard" (paragraph 285(c)).

The Committee refers to the explanations contained in paragraphs 126 et seq. of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour which indicate that excessive restrictions imposed on exercise of the right to strike have an impact on application of the Convention. This is the case of the requirement for a qualified majority to call a strike and the existence of compulsory arbitration systems when such restrictions result in a declaration that the strike is illegal with the consequent penal sanctions and the imposition of compulsory prison labour.

The Committee notes that the Government is disposed to amend the provisions of the Penal Code which make illegal strikes punishable by imprisonment (GB.277/9/1, paragraph 280).

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that penalties involving compulsory labour will not be imposed for participation in strikes and will provide information on progress made to that end.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

Article 1(a) of the Convention.  In previous comments the Committee referred to the following provisions of the Penal Code which allow sentences of imprisonment to be imposed in cases including those within the scope of the Convention: sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association) and 134 (public disorder and disturbances) which provide sentences for the expression of political views or views opposed to the established political system.

Sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work under sections 48 and 50 of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes the summary record of the 1563rd meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (Bolivia, 24/10/2000, CCPR/C/SR.1563) which indicates that in Bolivia the important link between the right of peaceful demonstration, the right to freedom of expression and opinion and the right to freedom of association is not recognized.

The Committee requested the Government to supply information on the practical application of the abovementioned sections of the Penal Code, particularly in regard to the number of convictions made and copies of the decisions handed down so that it can determine the scope of these provisions and to inform it of the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that sentences involving compulsory labour for the expression of political views will not be imposed.

Compulsory prison labour.  The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that prisoners are allowed to carry out skilled craft work for their own benefit and that in prisons there are work training centres for inmates.

The Committee observes, however, that sections 48 and 50 of the Penal Code provide for compulsory labour for prisoners under the progressive system of serving their sentence.

The Committee again asks the Government to supply a copy of the Act on the prison system and the Act on compulsory civic service.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

Article 1(d) of the Convention.  In previous comments the Committee referred to section 234 of the Penal Code under which advocacy of lockouts, strikes or stoppages declared illegal by the labour authorities is punishable by imprisonment for a term of between one and five years. The Committee requested the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to these provisions in order to enable it to evaluate their scope, and to provide copies of court decisions made under them, and the number of convictions made.

With reference to this matter, the Committee notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the complaint made by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), Case No. 2007 (GB.277/9/1 of March 2000).

According to the complainant organization, the Ministry of Labour declared the strike illegal in resolution No. 178/97 of 14 April 1997. "The company initiated legal proceedings against union officials and members for participation in an illegal strike, sabotage and incitement in Criminal Investigations Tribunal No. 8. The judge issued arrest warrants against the workers (these have still not been carried out), basing the decision on section 234 of the Penal Code. … The WCL alleges that this case sets an extremely serious precedent in criminalizing a strike …" (GB.277/9/1, paragraph 263).

In its conclusions the Committee on Freedom of Association states that "the Committee of Experts in its comments on the application of Convention No. 87 by Bolivia in 1999 and previous years criticized certain restrictions in respect of the right to strike, such as the requirement for a majority of three-quarters of the workers of the enterprise to call a strike (section 114 of the Act and section 159 of the Regulation), the unlawful nature of general and sympathy strikes which are liable to penal sanctions (Legislative Decree No. 02565 of 1951) and the recourse to compulsory arbitration by decision of the Executive Power to put an end to the strike (section 113 of the General Labour Act). In these circumstances the Committee urges the Government to adopt measures as a matter of urgency with a view to amending legislation concerning strikes in respect of all the points raised by the Committee of Experts and with regard to the need to ensure that strikes may be declared illegal only by an independent body, given that excessive requirements and restrictions in many cases make legal strike action impossible in practice" (paragraph 282). In its recommendations, the Committee "emphasizes that no worker on strike who has acted peacefully should be subject to criminal sanctions, and asks the Government to reform the Penal Code with this principle in mind and to inform it of any rulings that are handed down in this regard" (paragraph 285(c)).

The Committee refers to the explanations contained in paragraphs 126 et seq. of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour which indicate that excessive restrictions imposed on exercise of the right to strike have an impact on application of the Convention. This is the case of the requirement for a qualified majority to call a strike and the existence of compulsory arbitration systems when such restrictions result in a declaration that the strike is illegal with the consequent penal sanctions and the imposition of compulsory prison labour.

The Committee notes that the Government is disposed to amend the provisions of the Penal Code which make illegal strikes punishable by imprisonment (GB.277/9/1, paragraph 280).

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that penalties involving compulsory labour will not be imposed for participation in strikes and will provide information on progress made to that end.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments.

1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted article 5 of the National Constitution, in accordance with which "no type of servitude is recognized and no one shall be compelled to render personal services without his full consent and due compensation. Personal services may be demanded only when so established by the law", as well as article 8, under which every person has the duty to work, according to capacity and possibilities, in socially useful activities. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the legislation under which personal services can be exacted and to supply the text of such legislation. Since the Government's report contains no information on the subject, the Committee expresses the hope that such information will be supplied by the Government in its next report.

2. The Committee previously noted the provisions of the Penal Code relating to sanctions, and in particular section 47 of the Penal Code, under which penalties are applied in the form established by the Code and by the special Act for the application of the prison system. The Committee reiterates its request to the Government to supply a copy of this Act with its next report.

3. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that the following provisions of the Penal Code permit the imposition of sentences involving the obligation to work in cases that come within the scope of the Convention:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association), 134 (public disorder and disturbances) of the Penal Code make it possible to impose sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work and sentences for the performance of work in cases of the expression of political views or views opposed to the established political system.

Article 1(d). Under section 234 of the Penal Code, advocacy of lockouts, strikes or stoppages declared illegal by the labour authorities is punishable by imprisonment for a term of one to three years.

The Committee requested the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to these provisions in order to enable it to evaluate their scope, and to provide copies of court decisions made under them. It also requested the Government to indicate whether the legislation provides for the exemption from prison work of persons convicted in the cases that fall within the scope of the Convention. Since the Government's report states only that there has been no change in regard to sections 123 and 126 and contains none of the information requested, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will not fail to supply such information in its next report.

4. Article 1(b). In its earlier comments the Committee noted article 8(f) of the Constitution, under which every person has the fundamental duty to perform civic and military services which the nation requires for its development, defence and preservation, and article 208 of the Constitution, which provides that the armed forces have the fundamental mission of cooperating in the integral development of the country. The Committee notes that sections 1(e) and 6 of the Organic Act of 1993 respecting the armed forces contain similar provisions, and sections 13 and 14 of the same Act provide for participation of the armed forces in social, productive and other infrastructure works, as well as in basic and strategic industries of the country. With reference to paragraphs 49 to 54 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it pointed out that the Conference had rejected the practice of making young people participate in development activities as part of their compulsory military service or instead of it, as being incompatible with the forced labour Conventions, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above provisions, so that it may assess their compatibility with the Convention. It also reiterates its request for a copy of the Act respecting compulsory military service and the Legislative Decree respecting civil service, which have been mentioned by the Government as enclosed with the report but have not been received in the ILO.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes article 5 of the National Constitution, in accordance with which "no type of servitude is recognized and no one shall be compelled to render personal services without his full consent and due compensation. Personal services may be demanded only when so established by the law", as well as article 8, under which every person has the duty to work, according to his capacity and possibilities, in socially useful activities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the legislation under which personal services can be exacted and to supply the text of such legislation.

The Committee notes the provisions of the Penal Code relating to sanctions, and in particular section 47 of the Penal Code, under which penalties shall be carried out in the form established by the Code and by the special Act for the application of the prison system. The Committee requests the Government to provide the text of the above Act.

The Committee notes that jail and prison sentences involve the obligation to work (sections 39, 48 and 50 of the Penal Code) and that the penalty of performing work shall be undertaken in public state works (sections 39 and 55 of the Penal Code).

The Committee notes that the following provisions of the Labour Code permit the imposition of sentences involving the obligation to work in cases that come within the scope of the Convention:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association), 134 (public disorder and disturbances) of the Penal Code make it possible to impose sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work and sentences for the performance of work in cases of the expression of political opinions or opinions in opposition to the established political order.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Under section 234 of the Penal Code, any person who promotes lockouts, strikes or stoppages declared illegal by the labour authorities shall be punished by imprisonment for between one and three years.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to the above provisions in order to enable it to determine their scope, and to provide copies of judgements made under these provisions. It also requests it to indicate whether the legislation provides for the exemption from prison work of persons convicted in the cases that lie within the scope of the Convention.

Article 1(b) of the Convention. The Committee notes article 8(f) of the Constitution, under which every person has the fundamental duty to perform civic and military services which the nation requires for its development, defence and preservation, and article 208, which provides that the armed forces have the fundamental mission of cooperating in the integral development of the country. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Organic Act of 1992 respecting the armed forces, the Act respecting compulsory military service and the Legislative Decree respecting military service.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee notes article 5 of the National Constitution, in accordance with which "no type of servitude is recognized and no one shall be compelled to render personal services without his full consent and due compensation. Personal services may be demanded only when so established by the law", as well as article 8, under which every person has the duty to work, according to his capacity and possibilities, in socially useful activities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the legislation under which personal services can be exacted and to supply the text of such legislation.

The Committee notes the provisions of the Penal Code relating to sanctions, and in particular section 47 of the Penal Code, under which penalties shall be carried out in the form established by the Code and by the special Act for the application of the prison system. The Committee requests the Government to provide the text of the above Act.

The Committee notes that jail and prison sentences involve the obligation to work (sections 39, 48 and 50 of the Penal Code) and that the penalty of performing work shall be undertaken in public state works (sections 39 and 55 of the Penal Code).

The Committee notes that the following provisions of the Labour Code permit the imposition of sentences involving the obligation to work in cases that come within the scope of the Convention:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association), 134 (public disorder and disturbances) of the Penal Code make it possible to impose sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work and sentences for the performance of work in cases of the expression of political opinions or opinions in opposition to the established political order.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Under section 234 of the Penal Code, any person who promotes lockouts, strikes or stoppages declared illegal by the labour authorities shall be punished by imprisonment for between one and three years.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to the above provisions in order to enable it to determine their scope, and to provide copies of judgements made under these provisions. It also requests it to indicate whether the legislation provides for the exemption from prison work of persons convicted in the cases that lie within the scope of the Convention.

Article 1(b) of the Convention. The Committee notes article 8(f) of the Constitution, under which every person has the fundamental duty to perform civic and military services which the nation requires for its development, defence and preservation, and article 208, which provides that the armed forces have the fundamental mission of cooperating in the integral development of the country. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Organic Act of 1992 respecting the armed forces, the Act respecting compulsory military service and the Legislative Decree respecting military service.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes article 5 of the National Constitution, in accordance with which "no type of servitude is recognized and no one shall be compelled to render personal services without his full consent and due compensation. Personal services may be demanded only when so established by the law", as well as article 8, under which every person has the duty to work, according to his capacity and possibilities, in socially useful activities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the legislation under which personal services can be exacted and to supply the text of such legislation.

The Committee notes the provisions of the Penal Code relating to sanctions, and in particular section 47 of the Penal Code, under which penalties shall be carried out in the form established by the Code and by the special Act for the application of the prison system. The Committee requests the Government to provide the text of the above Act.

The Committee notes that jail and prison sentences involve the obligation to work (sections 39, 48 and 50 of the Penal Code) and that the penalty of performing work shall be undertaken in public state works (sections 39 and 55 of the Penal Code).

The Committee notes that the following provisions of the Labour Code permit the imposition of sentences involving the obligation to work in cases that come within the scope of the Convention:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association), 134 (public disorder and disturbances) of the Penal Code make it possible to impose sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work and sentences for the performance of work in cases of the expression of political opinions or opinions in opposition to the established political order.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Under section 234 of the Penal Code, any person who promotes lockouts, strikes or stoppages declared illegal by the labour authorities shall be punished by imprisonment for between one and three years.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to the above provisions in order to enable it to determine their scope, and to provide copies of judgements made under these provisions. It also requests it to indicate whether the legislation provides for the exemption from prison work of persons convicted in the cases that lie within the scope of the Convention.

Article 1(b) of the Convention. The Committee notes article 8(f) of the Constitution, under which every person has the fundamental duty to perform civic and military services which the nation requires for its development, defence and preservation, and article 208, which provides that the armed forces have the fundamental mission of cooperating in the integral development of the country. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Organic Act of 1992 respecting the armed forces, the Act respecting compulsory military service and the Legislative Decree respecting military service.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer