Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2022, Publication: 110th ILC session (2022)

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative – The Fijian Government acknowledges the advice of the Committee of Experts. The Public Order Act, 1969, has been in force in Fiji since its independence in 1970 and is in place to ensure that order is maintained in the country and that the safety of the people is not compromised.

Globally, acts of terrorism, racial riots and religious and ethnic vilification have led to countries putting in place legal safeguards. Fiji is no different as we also experienced acts of terrorism in 2000; however, our law did not have the safeguards in place to counter such acts. The Public Order Amendment Act of 2012 remedied this by modernizing the Public Order Act, 1969, to include provisions that effectively counter terrorism, offences against public order and safety, racial and religious vilification, hate speech and economic sabotage.

Employer members – The Convention is a fundamental Convention of the ILO, which deals with the abolition of forced labour. It is a very serious subject that deserves our full attention. The Convention was designed to supplement the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), which Fiji has also ratified. The Convention requires the abolition of the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour in five specific cases. Three of these relate to the use of forced or compulsory labour as political coercion, labour discipline or as punishment for having participated in strike action.

By way of background, Fiji ratified the Convention in 1974. The Committee of Experts has issued five observations on Fiji’s application of this instrument in law and practice since 1996. More recently, the Committee of Experts issued observations in 2014, 2017 and 2021.

Turning now to the Committee of Experts’ observations regarding Fiji’s application of the Convention, the Employer members note the main issue in this case concerns various legislative provisions which may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour for activities linked to the expression of political views that are opposed to the established political, social and economic order.

The legislative provisions concerned are:

- section 14 of the Public Order Act, which provides for sanctions of imprisonment for up to three years for using threating, abusive or insulting words in any public meeting space, or behaving with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or in such a way that a breach is likely to occur, and provides for the same sanction when a police officer has given directions to disperse or prevent obstruction for the purpose of keeping order in any public space, and an individual contravenes or fails to obey such direction without lawful excuse;

- section 17 of the Public Order Act provides for sanctions of imprisonment of up to ten years for spreading any report or making any statement which is likely to undermine or sabotage, or attempt to undermine or sabotage, the economy or financial integrity of Fiji;

- section 67(b), (c) and (d) of the Crimes Decree, 2009, provides for sanctions of imprisonment of up to seven years for uttering seditious words, printing, publishing selling, offering for sale, distributing or reproducing a seditious publication or importing seditious publications.

The Employer members note that the Government has indicated that the Public Order Act is in place to ensure the safety of people from acts of terrorism, racial riots, religious and ethnic vilification, hate speech and economic sabotage. The Employer members note that Article 1(a) of the Convention provides for a prohibition of using any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

We also recall that in the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee of Experts observed that national constitutions and other legislative texts in force in almost all countries of the world contain provisions which recognize freedom of thought and expression, the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of association, the right not to be arbitrarily arrested and the right to a fair trial.

The 2012 General Survey goes on to state that, in this respect, the Convention does not prohibit the application of sanctions involving compulsory labour to persons who use violence, incite to violence or perpetrate acts of violence.

The Committee of Experts specified in the 2012 General Survey that only in exceptional circumstances of extreme gravity and for a limited time can a country derogate from this general principle. The General Survey also recalled that when examining the compatibility of national law and practice with the Convention, the offences provided for in the laws against defamation, sedition and subversion are not defined in terms so broad as to give rise to the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour as measures of political coercion or as a sanction against persons who have expressed political or ideological opinions.

The Employer members support the Committee of Experts’ observations in this regard in relation to Fiji’s application of the Convention and we urge the Government of Fiji to bring its criminal law and practice into line with the Convention to ensure that no one is liable for penal sanctions involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, solely for peacefully expressing political views or views opposed to the established political, social and economic system, including through the exercise of freedom of expression or assembly.

The Employer members also support the request that the Fijian Government provide information on the manner in which the above-mentioned legislative provisions are applied in law and practice.

Worker members – We take note of the last-minute registration of the Government of Fiji, only hours before the examination of the case. We note, with regret, that this late registration has the effect of preventing the members of the Committee from adequately preparing for a full examination of the case today. This will inevitably complicate our discussion today. The Worker members recall the importance of the Committee’s mandate which is to provide a tripartite forum for dialogue on outstanding issues relating to the application of ratified international labour Conventions. A refusal by a government to participate in the work of this Committee is a significant obstacle to the attainment of the core objectives of the ILO.

After these preliminary remarks, let us turn to the issue raised by the Committee of Experts.

As already observed by the Committee of Experts in 2014 and in 2017, the legislation in Fiji contains provisions allowing for the imposition of sanctions 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 order.

More precisely, the Public Order Act, as amended in 2012, and the Crimes Decree of 2009 criminalize a number of activities related to the exercise of freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of assembly, and provide for sanctions of imprisonment, while section 43(1) of the Prison and Corrections Act, 2006, provides that every convicted prisoner may be required to undertake labour within or outside the prison, in any activity that may be prescribed by the regulations or by order of the commissioner. With such a penal framework, exercising the most fundamental freedoms constitutes a high risk for workers and their representatives. The list of freedoms criminalized under Fijian law is long and sanctions are disproportionately severe.

Section 14 of the Public Order Act criminalizes the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words in any public place or meeting with a sanction of imprisonment of up to three years. The same sanction can be given for behaving with intent to provoke a breach of peace, or for failing to obey a police officer’s direction to disperse.

Section 17 allows for sanctions of imprisonment of up to ten years for spreading any report or making any statement which is likely to undermine or sabotage or attempt to undermine or sabotage the economy or financial integrity of Fiji.

Section 67(b), (c) and (d) of the Crimes Decree, 2009, provides for sanctions of imprisonment of up to seven years for uttering any seditious words, printing, publishing, selling, offering for sale, distributing or reproducing any seditious publication, or importing any seditious publication. The term seditious is not defined and can therefore be applied widely to sanction legitimate activities.

We support the Committee of Experts’ concern that these provisions are worded in such general terms that they could lead to the violation of Article 1(a) of the Convention, which mandates Member States to suppress or not make use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of a political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social, or economic system. The mere fact of maintaining this penal framework is all the more concerning as the Public Order Act is regularly being used to arbitrarily refuse permission for union meetings and public gatherings. We also recall that section 13 of this Act provides for sanctions of imprisonment for up to six months involving the possibility of compulsory labour for merely taking part in an unauthorized trade union meeting or demonstration.

The Worker members emphasize, once more, that the Convention protects persons who express political views, or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social and economic system, by establishing that in the context of these activities, they cannot be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work.

The range of activities protected include the right to freedom of expression, exercised orally or through the press or other communication media, as well as the right of association and of assembly through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views. The threats and sanctions of imprisonment and forced labour hang over workers and their representatives whenever they express views contrary to the official position of the Government.

The laws of Fiji severely undermine the exercise of these freedoms and contravene the Convention. This situation calls for urgent action to restore fundamental rights and freedoms and the Worker members call for the revision of the penal provisions, without delay, and in line with the recommendations of the Committee of Experts.

Worker member, Fiji – The Convention puts a spotlight on the law and practice in Fiji through which it can be imposed on any trade union official or any ordinary citizen to carry out compulsory labour in prison. Currently, the law and practice remain unchanged despite several requests over the past years by the Committee of Experts to the Fijian Government. The law, particularly the Public Order Act, which was amended in 2012, and the Crimes Decree together with the Political Parties’ Decree, 2013, in various parts, as reported to the Committee of Experts, vigorously attack trade unions and their officials.

In 2019, I, as National Secretary of the Fiji Trades Union Congress (FTUC), along with ten other trade union officials around the country, was arrested and imprisoned. Similarly, 29 other National Union of Workers’ members were put in prison on May Day in 2019. About 2,000 workers were threatened with arrest around the country during the same time by the police. I, as the head of the FTUC, am still appearing in court and have been charged with causing public anxiety when I spoke to the media about the termination of 2,000 workers from the water authority of Fiji.

There are also concerns about police interference in industrial matters and the intimidation tactics that are being used by the police on workers. Let me say that the Public Order Amendment Act gives unlimited powers to the Police Commissioner under section 11(a) of the Decree and gives them control and influence which are generally bestowed upon members of the judiciary in a court of justice. It also gives unlimited powers to police officers to disrupt public or private gatherings and the officer, if the officer considers it a threat to public safety, can use this to intimidate workers at the workplace.

The Government’s claim that the purpose of this is to ensure public safety from acts of terrorism, racial riots, religious and ethnic vilification and economic sabotage is a red herring. There has been absolutely no need for such draconian laws in Fiji because there is absolutely no threat that the Government appears to demonstrate. This is all about intimidation and to instil fear in people, and also the part on public sabotage, or sabotage of the economy, is to ensure that unions do not go on strike or protest at all, in any form.

On at least six occasions, the FTUC has applied for permits to protest against the imposition of labour laws that are not in compliance with ILO core Conventions. All such applications have been denied with absolutely no reason given for the denial. My appearances in the courts have been many over the three years and I am on bail. The case is set to be heard in late October. If convicted, there could be a sentence in prison of up to three years, which includes compulsory prison labour.

The Committee of Experts has made repeated requests for the Government to review sections 10, 14 and 17 of the Public Order Amendment Decree and section 67 of the Crimes Decree and to ensure that, in law and practice, fundamental rights are respected. No action has been taken by the Government regarding any of these requests apart from the assurances they have given that they would respect them, which really hold no water anymore.

We recall that the Governing Body of the ILO had decided that a direct contacts mission should visit Fiji in 2019. We are still awaiting the visit from the contacts mission, and I urge this mission to visit Fiji without any further delay.

Government member, France – I have the honour of speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The candidate countries Montenegro and Albania, and the European Free Trade Association country Norway, Member of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine align themselves with this statement.

The EU and its Member States are committed to the promotion, protection, respect and fulfilment of human rights, including labour rights. We actively promote the universal ratification and implementation of fundamental international labour standards, including the Convention and we support the ILO in its indispensable role to develop, promote and supervise the application of international labour standards and of fundamental Conventions in particular.

As signatories to the Cotonou Agreement, the EU and Fiji have engaged in a comprehensive, balanced and deep political dialogue, covering human rights, including labour rights, as a precondition for sustainable development, economic growth and poverty reduction.

Fiji and the EU also cooperate through the Economic Partnership Agreement applied since July 2014, which commits parties to supporting social rights.

We thank the Office and give our full support for its constant engagement in promoting labour rights in Fiji. We thank the Committee of Experts for the report on the implementation of the Convention in Fiji.

The EU and its Member States are gravely concerned by the reports of sanctions 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, which is a violation of the provisions of the Convention.

Both the Public Order Act, as amended in 2012 by the Public Order (Amendment) Decree, as well as the Crimes Decree of 2009 are worded in such general terms that may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour for peaceful activities, protected under the Convention.

These legislative provisions have also been increasingly used to interfere in, prevent and frustrate trade union meetings and assemblies, as reported by International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Fiji Trade Union Congress (FTUC).

We fully echo the Committee’s call and request the Government to review the Public Order Act and the Crimes Decree to ensure that, both in law and practice, persons who express political views or views opposed to the established political, social and economic system, including through the exercise of their right to freedom of expression or assembly, are not liable to penal sanctions involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour.

We also reiterate the Committee’s previous requests to provide information on the manner in which these legal provisions are applied in practice.

The EU and its Member States stand ready to assist Fiji in meeting its obligations and will continue to closely follow the situation in the country.

Worker member, Australia – Sections 14, 15 and 17 of the Public Order Amendment Decree, 2012 and section 67 of the Crimes Decree provide for sanctions of imprisonment for the exercise of civil liberties including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. Section 43(10) of the Prisons and Corrections Act, 2006, provides that every prisoner may be required to undertake labour within or outside a prison. The effect of these provisions is that trade unionists and others expressing political views and exercising freedom of association, freedom of speech or assembly could be imprisoned and subject to forced labour.

We recall the discussion in 2019 in the Committee which detailed the violations of basic civil liberties including arrests, detentions, assaults and restrictions on freedom of association and the Fijian authority’s reliance on the Public Order Act to criminalize legitimate and peaceful trade union activities. Indeed, as this Committee has just heard, the leader of the Fijian Trade Union movement, Mr Felix Anthony, has been arrested and imprisoned numerous times under the provisions of the Public Order Amendment Decree. This Act is being weaponized by the authorities to crack down on any form of dissent.

We also recall the conclusions from the discussion of Fiji at the Committee in 2019 where the Committee called upon the Government to refrain from anti-union practices, including arrests, detentions, violence, intimidation, harassment and interference and ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations are able to exercise their rights to freedom of association, freedom of assembly and speech without undue interference by the public authorities.

We regret that the Government of Fiji, despite these calls from this Committee, has done nothing to reform the Public Order Amendment Decree and ensure that workers can exercise their rights to freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

We urge the Government of Fiji to immediately accept an ILO direct contacts mission, stop the harassment and attacks of trade unionists, uphold fundamental labour standards and reform the laws to ensure that workers are not subject to sanctions involving compulsory prison labour for exercising their fundamental rights.

Worker member, Italy – I am speaking on behalf of the Italian General Confederation of Labour (CGIL) and on behalf of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). As the Committee of Experts has noted in their observations, permission for union meetings and public gatherings continue to be arbitrarily refused in Fiji. Section 8 of the Public Order Act, as amended by the 2012 Decree, continues to be used to interfere in, prevent and frustrate trade union meetings and assemblies. While this itself amounts to a gross violation of the right to freedom of association, section 10 of the Public Order Act stipulates that a person who takes part in a meeting or procession for which no permit has been issued or in contravention of the provisions of the Public Order Act is liable to a prison sentence involving compulsory prison labour. We have just heard this from Mr Anthony actually.

This is where the intersection between the right to freedom of association and the protection of civil liberties becomes critical. The simple fact that attending a trade union meeting could possibly result in compulsory prison labour is an egregious violation of several fundamental human rights.

Given how sections of the Public Order Act have a direct impact on the right to freedom of association, we wish to highlight that freedom of association, as a principle, has implications that go well beyond the mere framework of labour law. As the ILO’s supervisory bodies have maintained, in the absence of a system in which fundamental rights and civil liberties are respected, the exercise of freedom of association cannot be fully developed.

Indeed, the common understanding that freedom of association is wholly ineffective without the protection of trade unionists’ fundamental civil liberties, was enshrined in a resolution of the International Labour Conference of 1970. This resolution reaffirmed the link between civil liberties and trade union rights, which was already emphasized in the Declaration of Philadelphia, and listed the fundamental rights that are necessary for the exercise of freedom of association.

The Conference resolution from 1970 recognizes that “the rights conferred upon workers’ and employers’ organizations must be based on respect for those civil liberties which have been enunciated in particular in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and that the absence of these civil liberties removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights”.

On this basis, we contend that criminal sanctions carrying penalties of compulsory labour not only amount to gross violations of the Convention that we are discussing today, but also of Convention No. 87, the principles of freedom of association, and wider international human rights law.

To conclude, we urge the Government to amend and repeal the relevant sections of the Public Order Act so as to bring this legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Worker member, United States of America – It is well established by the Committee of Experts and this body, that legislation which provides for imprisonment with compulsory labour for expressing different opinions other than those of the established order is a threat to the free exercise of trade union rights.

The Fijian Government must amend the Public Order Act, particularly section 14, which provides for sanctions of imprisonment for up to three years for using threatening, abusive or insulting words in any public place or any meeting. The Committee of Experts has correctly found that this law is worded in such vague and general terms that it represents an unacceptable threat to the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social and economic order.

The FTUC has demonstrated that the Public Order Act has been used by the Government to arbitrarily deny permissions for union meetings and public gatherings and, more generally, to interfere in trade union affairs.

The Government claims that the Public Order Act is in place to ensure the safety of people from acts of terrorism, racial riots, religious and ethnic vilification, hate speech and economic sabotage. However, it is clear the Government can achieve these goals without trampling on the fundamental rights of workers and others to express political views opposed to the established political order.

We call on the Government of Fiji to revise the Public Order Act in line with the recommendations in the Committee of Experts’ report.

Observer, Public Services International (PSI) – One of the issues examined by the Committee of Experts under the Convention is the application of the Public Order Act, as amended in 2012 by the Government’s Decree.

The Committee of Experts, for instance, noted that according to section 10 of the Public Order Act, a person who takes part in a meeting or procession for which no permit has been issued or in contravention of the provisions of the Public Order Act is liable to a prison sentence involving compulsory prison labour.

The provision is so broadly drafted and interpreted that it is used against whoever the Government dislikes. Obviously, this has had chilling effects on any fundamental freedom, but mostly the right to peaceful assembly has been arbitrarily restricted with the use of the Public Order (Amendment) Decree 2014, particularly against trade unions.

For instance, the Fijian Government marked May Day in 2019 with the arrest and detention of trade unionists, including the General Secretary of our affiliate, the Fiji Nursing Association, Ms Salanieta Matiavi, other leaders of one of the teachers’ unions, and an officer from the National Union of Workers.

The Government has also used this law to harass unionists representing water workers who, at the time, were facing large-scale job losses, having been laid off at the end of temporary contracts.

Previously, the Government cracked down on air traffic controllers who took action after stalled negotiations for pay rises; these workers’ jobs were later advertised internationally by the Government.

There is other questionable legislation in Fiji which merges this issue of forced labour and restricting fundamental freedoms. With this, Fiji has perhaps established a world record. It is the only country violating two or more fundamental Conventions with a single set of legislation.

We are disappointed that specific recommendations to amend or repeal these repressive laws by other United Nations bodies as well, were not yet accepted, many of which are based on draconian decrees enacted after the 2006 military coup and are not fit for purpose anymore.

We encourage Fiji to genuinely support basic rights and to bring national legislation into line with international law and fundamental labour standards.

Government representative – I take note of the comments made and I have no further comments on this.

Employer members – The Employers members begin by noting our deep concern regarding the allegations that we have heard today about imprisonment including forced labour while imprisoned over incidents that allegedly involved peaceful activities. As we know, this case appears against the backdrop of the Committee of Experts making repeated requests for the amendment of sections 14 and 17 of the Public Order Act and section 67 of the Crimes Decree. We also note this case takes place against the backdrop of this legislation not being amended and no action being taken in this regard by the Government to remedy the potential sanction of forced labour. We expect this situation to be resolved without further delay. We have listened carefully to the Government representative and the Worker members’ views on this case. We believe it bears repeating that forced labour is a serious matter that violates fundamental human rights. While the Convention is not an instrument to guarantee freedom of thought or expression or to regulate questions of labour discipline or strikes; it does prohibit the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion, education, or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

After listening carefully to the views expressed by the members in the Committee today, the Employer members also wish to take special note of certain speakers’ firm commitment to social partners’ ability to peacefully express views related to established political, social and economic systems without penalty, including without penalty of imprisonment and the imposition of forced labour as a key aspect of fundamental rights, including fundamental rights surrounding freedom of association. We expect this position of the speakers will remain consistent throughout our discussion of all of the cases before the Committee on this fundamental issue of the protection of freedom of association.

In terms of the recommendations in this case, the Employer members are of the view that we must urge the Government, without further delay, to amend sections 10, 14 and 17 of the Public Order Act and immediately amend section 67(b), (c) and (d) of the Crimes Decree to ensure that persons who express political views or views opposed to the established political, social and economic system, including through the right of freedom of expression or assembly, are not liable to penal sanctions involving compulsory labour including compulsory prison labour.

The Employer members must urge the Government immediately to provide information on the manner in which these legislative provisions are applied in practice and urge the Government to submit a report in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations to the Committee of Experts no later than 1 September 2022.

Worker members – The Worker members thank the Government of Fiji for its extensive response. We also thank the other speakers for their interventions. In view of the last-minute registration for the Government of Fiji and its consequences on our discussion today, the Worker members recall once again the importance of our Committee’s mandate to provide a tripartite forum for dialogue on outstanding issues relating to the application of ratified international labour Conventions. It also recalls that the refusal by the Government to participate in the work of this Committee is a significant obstacle to the attainment of the core objectives of the ILO.

Turning to the issue examined in this discussion, the Worker members express their deep concern at the penal framework enforced in Fiji which sanctions with compulsory prison labour, the exercise of freedom of opinion, expression and assembly of workers and their representatives and thus severely tramples these most fundamental freedoms.

As we emphasized in our opening speech, the Public Order Act and the Crimes Decree contravene the Convention and create a climate which is not conducive to the full enjoyment of individual and worker freedoms. The situation calls for urgent action and we support the Committee of Experts in its analysis and recommendations regarding the need to review sections 10, 14 and 17 of the Public Order Act and section 67(b),(c) and (d) of the Crimes Decree to ensure that, both in law and practice, persons who express political views or views opposed to the established political, social and economic system, including through the exercise of their right to freedom of expression or assembly are not liable to penalties involving compulsory labour.

We call on the Government to request the technical assistance of the ILO to resolve this issue swiftly and in conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee noted with deep regret that the Government did not provide any written or oral information to the Committee. The Committee took note of the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted with deep concern the repeated failure of the Government to bring its national legislative framework into conformity with the Convention so as to allow trade unionists to exercise their rights to free assembly and free speech without the threat of penal sanctions involving compulsory labour.

The Committee deplored the systematic use of penal sanctions against workers and their representatives.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to:

- take effective, urgent and time-bound measures to amend sections 10, 14 and 17 of the Public Order Act and section 67(b), (c) and (d) of the Crimes Decree; and

- ensure that, both in law and practice, persons, including trade unionists who express political views or views opposed to the established political, social and economic system, are not liable to penal sanctions involving compulsory labour in line with the Convention.

The Committee invites the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to effectively implement the Committee’s conclusions in consultation with the social partners.

The Committee requests the Government to submit a report to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2022 with information on the application of the Convention in law and practice, in consultation with the social partners.

Government representative – Fiji takes note of the report and would like to convey its sincere thanks to the Committee for the discussion and, likewise, the compilation of this report. It is rather unfortunate, given the time difference at this hour, for my colleagues in the capital to confirm the content of this report, in particular, the first paragraph.

We have taken note, however, of the elements of the report and be assured of our support, in line with our commitment to ILO Conventions. Fiji attaches great significance to the role of the ILO, and we will remain committed to the spirit of the Conventions that we have ascribed to, as well as the content of the report.

We have also taken note of the requests for the visit as well as of the request for the submission of a report, and please be assured of our commitment as well in that regard. We have also taken note of the technical assistance and we will be in touch with the secretariat as to how we can possibly pursue this in the spirt of the report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

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

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

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 matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour applicable to seafarers. For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 126 of the Marine Act No. 35, 1986, under which seafarers who, during an international voyage, wilfully and persistently neglect their duties or disobey lawful commands or combine with other seafarers for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel, are liable to imprisonment for up to two years (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee pointed out that the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention, except for offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s statement in its report that, although there was no vessel registered in Fiji that operated internationally, the Government shared the Committee’s view that measures should be taken to amend the above section, which did not specifically refer to offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons. The Government indicates in its latest report that it is undergoing a review of the Act through the Department of Marine for the amendment of section 126 in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that section 126 of the Marine Act will soon be amended so as to clearly limit its scope as explained above. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress achieved in this regard.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour for having participated in strikes. Referring to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Fiji, the Committee has noted that, under sections 250 and 256(a) of the Employment Relations Promulgation No. 36 of 2007, organizing and participating in unlawful strikes is punishable with sanctions of imprisonment for a term of up to two years (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken by the Government with a view to amending these provisions, so as to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour can be applied for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

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

Article 1, subparagraphs c and d, of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour applicable to seafarers. For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 126 of the Marine Act No. 35, 1986, under which seafarers who, during an international voyage, wilfully and persistently neglect their duties or disobey lawful commands or combine with other seafarers for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel, are liable to imprisonment for up to two years (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee pointed out that the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention, except for offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s statement in its report that, although there was no vessel registered in Fiji that operated internationally, the Government shared the Committee’s view that measures should be taken to amend the above section, which did not specifically refer to offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons. The Government indicates in its latest report that it is undergoing a review of the Act through the Department of Marine for the amendment of section 126 in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that section 126 of the Marine Act will soon be amended so as to clearly limit its scope as explained above. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress achieved in this regard.

Article 1, subparagraph d, of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour for having participated in strikes. Referring to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Fiji, the Committee has noted that, under sections 250 and 256(a) of the Employment Relations Promulgation No. 36 of 2007, organizing and participating in unlawful strikes is punishable with sanctions of imprisonment for a term of up to two years (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken by the Government with a view to amending these provisions, so as to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour can be applied for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following the matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its earlier comments the Committee referred to section 126 of the Marine Act No. 35, 1986, under which a seafarer who, during an international voyage, wilfully and persistently neglects his or her duty or disobeys lawful commands or combines with other seafarers for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel, is liable to imprisonment for up to two years (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee pointed out that the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention, except for offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

The Committee noted the Government’s statement in its 2005 report that, although there was no vessel registered in Fiji that operated internationally, the Government shared the Committee’s view that measures should be taken to amend the above section, which does not specifically refer to offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons. However, while the Government indicated in its previous report that all efforts were being made with the relevant Ministry to amend section 126 with a view to bringing it into conformity with the Convention, no information on the follow up has been communicated in its latest report. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken to amend this section so as to clearly limit its scope as explained above, and that the Government will soon be in a position to report the progress made in this regard.

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

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its earlier comments the Committee referred to section 126 of the Marine Act No. 35, 1986, under which a seafarer who, during an international voyage, wilfully and persistently neglects his or her duty or disobeys lawful commands or combines with other seafarers for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel, is liable to imprisonment for up to two years (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee pointed out that the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention, except for offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

The Committee noted the Government’s statement in its 2005 report that, although there was no vessel registered in Fiji that operated internationally, the Government shared the Committee’s view that measures should be taken to amend the above section, which does not specifically refer to offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons. However, while the Government indicated in its previous report that all efforts were being made with the relevant Ministry to amend section 126 with a view to bringing it into conformity with the Convention, no information on the follow up has been communicated in its latest report. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken to amend this section so as to clearly limit its scope as explained above, and that the Government will soon be in a position to report the progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 30(2), 31(2), 32(2) and 35(4) of the Constitution, under which certain rights and freedoms (such as the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of association and the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief) may be limited by law in the interests of national security, public safety, public order, public morality or the orderly conduct of national or municipal elections.

The Committee notes the Government’s repeated indication in its report that currently no laws have been adopted or are intended to be adopted to limit the rights and freedoms under these provisions of the Constitution. It requests the Government to continue to provide, in its future reports, information on the application of the above provisions and to supply copies of any laws adopted thereunder.

Article 1(c) and (d). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its earlier comments the Committee referred to section 126 of Marine Act No. 35, 1986, under which a seafarer who, during an international voyage, wilfully and persistently neglects his or her duty or disobeys lawful commands or combines with other seafarers for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel, is liable to imprisonment for up to two years. Referring to paragraphs 110 and 117-125 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for breaches of labour discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention, except for offences which endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that, at present, there is no vessel registered in Fiji that operates internationally. However, the Government shares the view that measures need to be taken to amend the above section, which does not specifically refer to offences which endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons. While noting the Government’s statement that all efforts are being made with the relevant Ministry to amend section 126 with a view to bringing it into conformity with the Convention, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken to amend this section so as to clearly limit its scope as explained above, and that the Government will soon be in a position to report the progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that, in accordance with the Constitution, a law may limit in certain cases the right to freedom of expression (section 30(2)), the right to freedom of assembly (section 31(2)), the right to freedom of association (section 32(2)) and the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief (section 35(4)). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that currently no laws have been adopted or are intended to be adopted to limit the rights and freedoms under these sections of the Constitution. It requests the Government to continue to provide, in its future reports, information on the application of the above provisions and to supply copies of any laws adopted thereunder.

Article 1(c) and (d). In its earlier comments the Committee referred to section 126 of the Marine Act No. 35, 1986, under which a seafarer who, during an international voyage, wilfully and persistently neglects his or her duty or disobeys lawful commands or combines with other seafarers for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel, is liable to imprisonment for up to two years. Referring to paragraphs 110 and 117-125 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment, involving compulsory labour, for breaches of discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention, except for offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

The Committee notes that the Government shares the view that the wording of section 126 does not specifically refer to offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons. It also notes the Government’s indication in its report that this particular aspect of section 126 has been referred to the Solicitor General, who at the time of the report has not advised on the progress made. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken to amend this section so as to limit clearly its scope, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on any progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that, in accordance with the Constitution, a law may limit in certain cases the right to freedom of expression (section 30(2)), the right to freedom of assembly (section 31(2)), the right to freedom of association (section 32(2)) and the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief (section 35(4)).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that currently no laws have been adopted or are intended to be adopted to limit the rights and freedoms under these sections of the Constitution. It requests the Government to continue to provide, in its future reports, information on the application of the above provisions and to supply copies of any laws adopted thereunder.

Article 1(c) and (d). In its earlier comments the Committee referred to section 126 of the Marine Act No. 35, 1986, under which a seafarer who, during an international voyage, wilfully and persistently neglects his or her duty or disobeys lawful commands or combines with other seafarers for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel, is liable to imprisonment for up to two years. Referring to paragraphs 110 and 117-125 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment, involving compulsory labour, for breaches of discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention, except for offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

The Committee notes that the Government shares the view that the wording of section 126 does not specifically refer to offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons. It also notes the Government’s indication in its report that this particular aspect of section 126 has been referred to the Solicitor General, who at the time of the report has not advised on the progress made. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken to amend this section so as to limit clearly its scope, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on any progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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:

1. The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in its report received in September 1997. It has noted, in particular, the adoption of the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1997, which, with effect from 27 July 1998, repeals the Constitution of 1990 (with the exception of certain provisions): section 21(2) provides that the rights and freedoms set out in Chapter 4 (Bill of Rights) are subject only to the limitations under laws of general application permitted by this chapter and to such derogations as are authorized under Chapter 14 (Emergency powers). Thus, a law may apparently in certain cases limit the right to freedom of expression (section 30(2)), the right to freedom of assembly (section 31(2)), the right to freedom of association (section 32(2)) and the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief (section 35(4)). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would, in its next report, confirm that no laws have been adopted or are intended to be adopted to limit the rights and freedoms under these sections of the Constitution in such a way as to conflict with the requirements of Article 1 of the Convention.

2. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee referred to section 126 of the Marine Act No. 35, 1986, under which a seafarer who, during an international voyage, wilfully and persistently neglects his or her duty or disobeys lawful commands or combines with other seafarers for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel is liable to imprisonment for up to two years. With reference to paragraphs 110 and 117 to 125 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment, involving compulsory labour, for breaches of discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention, except for offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Director of Marine, to whom the matter had been referred for consideration of changes in the light of the Committee’s comments, concurs with the Committee’s view that section 126 does not make any reference to endangering the vessel or persons on board. The Committee has noted that the Government has referred this particular aspect of section 126 to the State Law Office so that the necessary measures could be taken to amend this section to limit clearly its scope. The Committee therefore expresses the hope that such measures will be taken in the near future and asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on any progress made in this regard.

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

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:

1.  The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in its report received in September 1997. It has noted, in particular, the adoption of the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1997, which, with effect from 27 July 1998, repeals the Constitution of 1990 (with the exception of certain provisions): section 21(2) provides that the rights and freedoms set out in Chapter 4 (Bill of Rights) are subject only to the limitations under laws of general application permitted by this chapter and to such derogations as are authorized under Chapter 14 (Emergency powers). Thus, a law may apparently in certain cases limit the right to freedom of expression (section 30(2)), the right to freedom of assembly (section 31(2)), the right to freedom of association (section 32(2)) and the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief (section 35(4)). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would, in its next report, confirm that no laws have been adopted or are intended to be adopted to limit the rights and freedoms under these sections of the Constitution in such a way as to conflict with the requirements of Article 1 of the Convention.

2.  Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention.  In its earlier comments the Committee referred to section 126 of the Marine Act No. 35, 1986, under which a seafarer who, during an international voyage, wilfully and persistently neglects his or her duty or disobeys lawful commands or combines with other seafarers for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel is liable to imprisonment for up to two years. With reference to paragraphs 110 and 117 to 125 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment, involving compulsory labour, for breaches of discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention, except for offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Director of Marine, to whom the matter had been referred for consideration of changes in the light of the Committee’s comments, concurs with the Committee’s view that section 126 does not make any reference to endangering the vessel or persons on board. The Committee has noted that the Government has referred this particular aspect of section 126 to the State Law Office so that the necessary measures could be taken to amend this section to limit clearly its scope. The Committee therefore expresses the hope that such measures will be taken in the near future and asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on any progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

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:

1. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report received in September 1997. It notes, in particular, the adoption of the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1997, which, with effect from 27 July 1998, repeals the Constitution of 1990 (with the exception of certain provisions): section 21(2) provides that the rights and freedoms set out in Chapter 4 (Bill of Rights) are subject only to the limitations under laws of general application permitted by this chapter and to such derogations as are authorized under Chapter 14 (Emergency powers). Thus, a law may apparently in certain cases limit the right to freedom of expression (section 30(2)), the right to freedom of assembly (section 31(2)), the right to freedom of association (section 32(2)) and the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief (section 35(4)). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would, in its next report, confirm that no laws have been adopted or are intended to be adopted to limit the rights and freedoms under these sections of the Constitution in such a way as to conflict with the requirements of Article 1 of the Convention.

2. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee referred to section 126 of the Marine Act No. 35, 1986, under which a seafarer who, during an international voyage, wilfully and persistently neglects his or her duty or disobeys lawful commands or combines with other seafarers for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel is liable to imprisonment for up to two years. With reference to paragraphs 110 and 117 to 125 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment, involving compulsory labour, for breaches of discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention, except for offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Director of Marine, to whom the matter had been referred for consideration of changes in the light of the Committee's comments, concurs with the Committee's view that section 126 does not make any reference to endangering the vessel or persons on board. The Committee notes that the Government has referred this particular aspect of section 126 to the State Law Office so that the necessary measures could be taken to amend this section to limit clearly its scope. The Committee therefore expresses the hope that such measures will be taken in the near future and asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on any progress made in this regard.

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

1. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report received in September 1997. It notes, in particular, the adoption of the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1997, which, with effect from 27 July 1998, repeals the Constitution of 1990 (with the exception of certain provisions): section 21(2) provides that the rights and freedoms set out in Chapter 4 (Bill of Rights) are subject only to the limitations under laws of general application permitted by this chapter and to such derogations as are authorized under Chapter 14 (Emergency powers). Thus, a law may apparently in certain cases limit the right to freedom of expression (section 30(2)), the right to freedom of assembly (section 31(2)), the right to freedom of association (section 32(2)) and the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief (section 35(4)). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would, in its next report, confirm that no laws have been adopted or are intended to be adopted to limit the rights and freedoms under these sections of the Constitution in such a way as to conflict with the requirements of Article 1 of the Convention.

2. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee referred to section 126 of the Marine Act No. 35, 1986, under which a seafarer who, during an international voyage, wilfully and persistently neglects his or her duty or disobeys lawful commands or combines with other seafarers for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel is liable to imprisonment for up to two years. With reference to paragraphs 110 and 117 to 125 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment, involving compulsory labour, for breaches of discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention, except for offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Director of Marine, to whom the matter had been referred for consideration of changes in the light of the Committee's comments, concurs with the Committee's view that section 126 does not make any reference to endangering the vessel or persons on board. The Committee notes that the Government has referred this particular aspect of section 126 to the State Law Office so that the necessary measures could be taken to amend this section to limit clearly its scope. The Committee therefore expresses the hope that such measures will be taken in the near future and asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on any progress made in this regard.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes with satisfaction that Act No. 20 of 1995 has repealed the Sunday Observance Decree, 1989, under which it was prohibited to convene, organize or take part in an assembly -- including one for the expression of views -- or procession in any public place on a Sunday, subject to penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to work).

The Committee refers also to certain points raised in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its reports received in 1994 and 1995.

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that under section 4 of the Sunday Observance Decree of 3 May 1989 it is prohibited, among other things, to convene, organize or take part in an assembly or procession in any public place on a Sunday; under section 9, a penalty of up to one month's imprisonment may be imposed for breaches of the Decree, the word "assembly" meaning a gathering of three or more persons for the purpose of discussion on matters of public interest or for the purpose of the expression of views on such matters.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report received in 1994 that there have been no prison sentences imposed on anyone breaching the said Decree, but those that had been charged, were merely warned and discharged by the Court.

The Committee hopes that accordingly, consideration will be given to amending section 9 of the Decree so as to ensure, in conformity with actual practice, that no penalty involving an obligation to work may be imposed for offences falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention, and that pending amendment of the Decree, the Government will continue supplying information on the application of section 9.

2. In its earlier comments the Committee noted the provision of section 162 of the Constitution, according to which all basic civil and political rights can be suspended by an Act of Parliament where action is taken or threatened whether inside or outside the country to excite disaffection against the President or the Government or to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population likely to cause violence.

The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report received in 1994 that no law has been enacted so far in this regard. It would be grateful if the Government would continue supplying information on any enactment adopted under section 162 of the Constitution.

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

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that under section 126 of the Marine Act No. 35 of 1986 a seaman who during an international voyage wilfully and persistently neglects his duty or disobeys lawful commands or combines with other seamen for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel is liable to imprisonment for up to two years. Referring to paragraphs 110 and 117 to 125 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour the Committee pointed out that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment, involving compulsory labour, for breaches of discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention, except for offences which endanger safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

In its latest report, received in 1995, the Government indicates that the Director of Marine, to whom the matter had been referred for consideration of changes in the light of the Committee's comments, expressed the view that "the interpretation of section 126 of the Marine Act clearly deals with offences which endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons"; in his view, wilful and persistent neglect of duty and impeding navigation of the vessel may only result in endangering the vessel and the lives of the people on board. The Committee takes due note of this view. It also notes that "misconduct endangering a vessel or persons on board" is the specific subject of section 125 of the Marine Act, which has not given rise to comments under the Convention, while section 126 deals with "continual or concerned disobedience", without any reference to endangering the vessel or persons; moreover, it is not apparent how disciplinary offences such as wilful and persistent neglect of a non-security relevant duty, or participation in a strike while the ship is safely lying in a foreign harbour, should endanger the vessel and the lives of the people on board. Since, however, the Government seems to share the view that penalties involving compulsory labour should only be applicable to offences endangering the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will now be taken to amend section 126 so as to clearly limit its scope, and that the Government will soon indicate the action taken.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

Further to its previous comments the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report for the period ending June 1991.

1. In its previous comments the Committee noted that under the Sunday Observance Decree of 3 May 1989, it is prohibited, among other things, to convene, organize or take part in an assembly or procession in any public place on a Sunday; a penalty of up to one month's imprisonment may be imposed for breaches of the Decree, the word "assembly" meaning a gathering of three or more persons for the purpose of discussion on matters of public interest or for the purpose of the expression of views on such matters (sections 2, 4 and 9 of the Decree).

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that prosecutions for breaches of the Decree, relating to trading on Sundays, have taken place, but that there have been no prosecutions for illegal assemblies or marches.

Referring to Article 1(a) of the Convention as well as to paragraphs 133-140 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, and recalling its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any prison sentences have been imposed since its last report of 1991 for breaches of the Decree in relation to assemblies or marches and to report on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention in this respect.

2. The Committee noted that under section 162 of the Constitution all basic civil and political rights can be suspended by an Act of Parliament where action is taken or threatened whether inside or outside the country to excite disaffection against the President or the Government or to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between differen races or classes of the population likely to cause violence.

The Committee notes the Goverment's statement in its report that no enactment has been made in this regard. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its future reports information on any enactment adopted.

3. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee noted that under section 126 of the Marine Act, No. 35 of 1986, a seaman who during an international voyage wilfully and persistently neglects his duty or disobeys lawful commands or combines with other seamen for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel is liable to imprisonment for up to two years. Referring to paragraphs 110 and 117-125 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee pointed out that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment, involving compulsory labour, for breaches of discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention except for offences which endanger the vessel or the life or health of persons.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that the matter has been referred to the Director of Marine for consideration of changes in the light of the Committee's comments.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on any progress in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report for the period ending June 1989. The Committee has also taken note of the Constitution (Promulgation) Decree of 25 July 1990; it notes with interest that the Constitution provides for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, in particular freedom from slavery and forced labour, freedom of conscience, of expression, of assembly and association, freedom of movement.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the following points:

1. The Committee notes that under the Sunday Observance Decree of 3 May 1989, it is prohibited, among other things, to convene, organise or take part in an assembly or procession in any public place on a Sunday; a penalty of up to one month imprisonment may be imposed for breaches of the Decree, the word "assembly" meaning a gathering of three or more persons for the purpose of discussion on matters of public interest or for the purpose of the expression of views on such matters (sections 2, 4 and 9 of the Decree).

Referring to Article 1(a) of the Convention as well as to paragraphs 133 to 140 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee points out that since opinions and views ideologically opposed to the established system are often expressed at various kinds of meetings the prohibition of such gatherings might give rise to political coercion involving sanctions contrary to the Convention. Recalling also that section 13 of the new Constitution protects freedom of assembly and association, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any steps taken to ensure observance of the Convention in this respect as well as information on the application in practice of the above provisions of the Decree in relation to the application of the Convention, including the number of sentences handed down and particulars of court decisions which might assist in defining their exact scope.

2. The Committee notes that under section 162 of the Constitution all basic civil and political rights can be suspended by an Act of Parliament where action is taken or threatened whether inside or outside the country to excite disaffection against the President or the Government or to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population likely to cause violence. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any enactment adopted under section 162.

3. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Referring to its previous comments, concerning the Draft Marine Act as well as the application in practice of sections 221 to 225 of the United Kingdom Shipping Act, 1894, the Committee notes the extracts of the Marine Act No. 35 of 1986 communicated by the Government with its report. The Committee notes that under section 126 of the Marine Act, a seaman who during an international voyage wilfully and persistently neglects his duty or disobeys lawful commands or combines with other seamen for the same purpose or for impeding the navigation of the vessel is liable to imprisonment for up to two years. Referring to paragraphs 110 and 117 to 125 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee points out that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment, involving compulsory labour, for breaches of discipline or participation in a strike is incompatible with the Convention except for offences which endanger the vessel or the life or health of persons.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures adopted or envisaged to bring section 126 into conformity with the Convention.