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

Display in: French - Spanish

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imprisonment involving compulsory labour as a penalty for expressing political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. 1. Ordinance implementing the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. The Committee notes that section 46 of Ordinance No. 06-01 of 27 February 2006 implementing the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation establishes a penalty of three to five years’ imprisonment and a fine for any person who, through their statements, writings or any other action, uses or exploits the wounds of the national tragedy to attack the institutions of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, to weaken the State, to dishonour its officers who have served it with dignity, or to tarnish the image of Algeria at the international level. The Committee notes that under the legislation in force prison labour may be imposed further to a conviction resulting in imprisonment (section 2 of the Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983 establishing arrangements for the use of prison labour by the National Office of Educational Works and section 96 of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 establishing the Prison Code and regulations on the social reintegration of prisoners). Furthermore, the Committee notes that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of 2018, expressed concern at reports of the use or threat of use of section 46 referred to above (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paragraph 13). In order to be able to evaluate the range and scope of application of section 46 of Ordinance No. 06-01 of 27 February 2006, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it is used and applied in practice, indicating the number of judicial proceedings instituted on this basis, the nature of the penalties imposed and the facts on which the convictions are based.
2. Penal Code. The Committee notes that certain activities defined as criminal offences in the Penal Code may incur the penalty of imprisonment (with the possible imposition of prison labour) under circumstances which may come within the scope of Article 1(a) of the Convention. These offences are defined in the following provisions of the Penal Code:
  • ■ section 95: receipt of propaganda funds of foreign origin and involvement in political propaganda;
  • ■ section 95bis (introduced into the Penal Code by Act No. 20-06 of 28 April 2020): receipt of funds, gifts or advantages for the purpose of performing or inciting to perform acts likely to undermine the fundamental interests of Algeria or public security and order;
  • ■ section 96: distribution, putting on sale, public display or possession of publications capable of harming the national interest;
  • ■ section 98: participation in an unarmed gathering;
  • ■ section 100: incitement to participate in an unarmed gathering;
  • ■ section 144: insulting a judge, civil servant, public official, or law enforcement commander or officer (the applicable penalties have been made more severe by Act No. 20-06 of 28 April 2020);
  • ■ section 144bis(2): insulting the prophet and envoys of God, and denigration of the dogma and precepts of Islam;
  • ■ section 196bis (introduced into the Penal Code by Act No. 20-06 of 28 April 2020): dissemination or spreading of false information, likely to undermine security or public order;
  • ■ section 298: defamation;
  • ■ section 299: expression of abuse;
  • ■ section 440: insulting any citizen responsible for a public service ministry.
The Committee notes that the Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of 2018, expressed concern at reports of the use of sections 96 (publications capable of harming the national interest), 144 (insults), 144bis(2) (insults against the prophet) and 298 (defamation) to impede the work of journalists and human rights defenders (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paragraph 43). Moreover, the Committee notes that the spokesperson of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a press release of 11 May 2021, expressed growing concern at the situation in Algeria, where the rights of freedom of opinion and expression, and freedom of peaceful assembly and participation in public affairs continue to be attacked. The press release emphasizes that during the last two months activists, human rights defenders, students, journalists, bloggers and ordinary citizens peacefully expressing their disagreement have continued to be the subject of criminal prosecutions. In a press release dated 5 March 2021, the spokesperson of the High Commissioner for Human Rights emphasized the fact that in 2019-20 at least 2,500 people were arrested or detained in connection with their peaceful activism. Furthermore, in a press release of 16 September 2020, United Nations human rights experts condemned the handing down of a two-year prison sentence for an Algerian journalist and rights defender, on the basis of accusations officially described as “incitement to illegal assembly and endangering national unity”, for filming police officers who were attacking demonstrators in Algiers.
The Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 1(a) of the Convention, no penalty involving compulsory labour may be imposed on persons for holding or expressing political views or for peacefully expressing their ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system. In this regard, the Committee refers to the developments described in its observation and reiterates that the activities which, under Article 1(a) of the Convention, must not be subject to any penalty involving compulsory labour include those undertaken in the context of the freedom to express political or ideological views (orally, in the press or by other means of communication), and also in the context of the rights of association and of assembly, whereby citizens seek the dissemination and acceptance of their views. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the judicial authorities make use of the sections of the Penal Code referred to above, indicating the frequency with which these provisions are invoked, the facts which have given rise to convictions, and the nature of the penalties imposed.
3. Definition of terrorism. The Committee previously noted that, under section 87bis of the Penal Code, a “terrorist or subversive act” includes any act which undermines the security of the State, the integrity of the territory, or the stability and normal functioning of institutions, including obstruction of traffic or freedom of movement on thoroughfares and occupying public places with gatherings; damaging means of communication and transport, and public and private property, taking possession thereof or unduly occupying it; obstructing the actions of the public authorities or the free exercise of worship or of public freedoms and also the functioning of public service establishments; and hindering the operation of public institutions. The Committee noted that the abovementioned acts are liable to imprisonment, including the possibility of compulsory labour. The Committee emphasized that where anti-terrorist legislation is couched in vague and general terms, it may have an impact on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association, and the Committee therefore asked the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 87bis of the Penal Code.
The Government indicates that the requisite conditions for applying section 87bis of the Penal Code include the fact that these acts must be directed against the security of the State, must create terror and insecurity among the population and in particular must obstruct the functioning of public institutions or endanger human life or property. The Government explains that there are consequently no grounds for applying the provisions of section 87bis in cases involving the peaceful expression of opinions, either by workers or by any other persons. The Committee duly notes this information. In addition, it observes that the Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of 2018, reported allegations of undue recourse to anti-terrorist provisions against human rights defenders or journalists (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paragraph 17). The Committee therefore requests the Government to continue to ensure that the scope of application of section 87bis of the Penal Code is interpreted in the manner indicated by the Government, so that these provisions are not used to impose imprisonment, including the possibility of compulsory labour, on persons who peacefully express opposition to the established political, social or economic system.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imprisonment involving compulsory labour as a penalty for expressing political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. Associations Act. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the legislation in force prison labour may be imposed as part of a prison sentence (section 2 of the Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983 establishing arrangements for the use of prison labour by the National Office of Educational Works and section 96 of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 issuing the Prison Code and regulations on the social reintegration of prisoners). The Committee noted that section 39 of the Associations Act (No. 12-06 of 12 January 2012) provides that an association may be suspended or dissolved “in the event of interference in the internal affairs of the country or an attack on national sovereignty” and that section 46 provides that “any member or leader who continues to act on behalf of an association which is neither registered nor approved, or is suspended or dissolved” shall be liable to a fine and imprisonment of three to six months. The Committee also noted the indications of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in 2017 that civil society organizations faced severe restrictions following the adoption of the Associations Act (Act No. 12-06). The Committee asked the Government to take steps to ensure that Act No. 12-06 cannot be used to impose prison sentences (including compulsory labour) on persons who, through exercising their right of association, express political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system.
The Government indicates in its report that section 39 of the Associations Act (Act No. 12-06) provides for a non-penal administrative penalty in the event of interference in the internal affairs of the country and that punishable acts have no connection with political orientation or views. Similarly, the penalties et forth in section 46 are imposed when the persons concerned continue to be active in an association that has not been registered or has been dissolved or suspended, and this also has no connection with the expression of political views or political orientation. Moreover, the Government emphasizes that what is imposed on offenders is imprisonment (in addition to a fine) and not compulsory or forced labour. It adds that forced or compulsory labour is not on the list of penalties provided for by Algerian legislation as a penalty for offences in general. The Government also indicates that work done by prisoners is subject to their prior consent and that any prisoner wishing to work must submit a request to the judge responsible for the enforcement of sentences.
The Committee notes this information. However, it notes that under the provisions of section 2 of the Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983, in the context of the rehabilitation, training and social promotion of prisoners, “prisoners are required to do useful work”, compatible with their health, order, discipline and security. Furthermore, section 96 of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 issuing the Prison Code and regulations on the social reintegration of prisoners, provides that “prisoners may be assigned useful work by the prison director”. As it indicated previously, the Committee considers that the voluntary nature of prison work is not apparent in the wording of these provisions, which, on the contrary, allow work to be imposed on persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment. The Committee also considers that even if prison work is voluntary in practice, amendments should be made accordingly in the legislation in order to avoid any legal ambiguity.
The Committee further notes that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of 2018, expresses concern at numerous reports of the Government rejecting the by-laws of existing organizations that had been brought into line with the legislation, as that practice limits the freedoms of associations and exposes their members to heavy penalties for unauthorized activity (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paragraph 47). The Committee points out that section 46 of Act No. 12-06 of 12 January 2012 provides that if a member of an organization which has not yet been registered or approved or has been suspended or dissolved (for example, under section 39 of the Act) continues to be active, that person shall be liable to imprisonment of three to six months. The Committee recalls that, under Article 1(a) of the Convention, the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving compulsory labour includes those performed as part of the freedom to express political or ideological views, as well as various other generally recognized rights. These include the rights of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 302).
The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that persons who, through exercising their right of association, express political views or peaceful opposition to the established political, social or economic system cannot be subjected to imprisonment on the basis of section 46 of the Associations Act (No. 12-06). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 46 of Act No. 12-06, indicating the number of prosecutions initiated under this provision, the nature of the offences recorded and the type of penalties imposed.
Article 1(d). Penalties for participating in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to Act No. 90-02 of 6 February 1990, as amended and supplemented, concerning the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike, which imposes restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike. It noted that sections 37 and 38 of this Act establish the list of essential services in which a compulsory minimum service must be maintained, and that section 55(1) of this Act provides that anyone who causes or seeks to cause, or maintains or seeks to maintain, a strike contrary to the provisions of the Act, even without violence or assault against persons or property, shall be liable to imprisonment (involving the possibility of compulsory labour) ranging from eight days to two months and/or a fine. The Committee asked the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that no worker may be sentenced to imprisonment for participating peacefully in a strike, and also to supply information on the application in practice of section 55(1) of Act No. 90-02.
The Government indicates that workers who participate peacefully in a strike while observing legal procedures are not the target of section 55(1) of Act No. 90-02. It explains that the aim of section 55(1) is to ensure collective consultation between the employer and the workers’ representatives. Consultation is compulsory when a collective labour dispute arises between the employer and the workers’ representatives. The Committee notes this information. In this regard, the Committee emphasizes that, regardless of the legal status of the strike, any penalty imposed should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed, and the authorities should avoid recourse to imprisonment involving compulsory labour for those who organize a strike or participate in it peacefully. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures in law and in practice to ensure that no worker who participates peacefully in a strike can be sentenced to imprisonment involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imprisonment involving compulsory labour as a penalty for expressing political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. Definition of terrorism. The Committee previously noted that section 87 bis of the Penal Code concerning “terrorist or subversive acts” provides for the imposition of prison sentences on persons found guilty of a number of very broadly defined acts, including: hindering traffic or freedom of movement on thoroughfares and occupying public places with gatherings; damaging means of communication and transport, and public and private property, taking possession thereof or unduly occupying it; obstructing the actions of the public authorities or the free exercise of worship or of public freedoms and also the functioning of public service establishments; and hindering the operation of public institutions. The Committee noted that the abovementioned acts are liable to imprisonment of ten to 20 years involving compulsory labour under the legislation in force (section 2 of the Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983 establishing arrangements for the use of prison labour by the National Office of Educational Works and section 96 of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 establishing the Prison Code and regulations on the social reintegration of prisoners). The Committee emphasized that compulsory prison labour may have a bearing on the application of the Convention. It also recalled that even though anti-terrorist legislation responds to the legitimate need to protect the safety of the population against the use of violence, it may nevertheless become a means of suppressing the peaceful exercise of civil rights and liberties, such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association, particularly where it is couched in vague and general terms. The Committee asked the Government to ensure that the scope of section 87 bis is restricted in such a way that it cannot be used to impose imprisonment involving compulsory labour on persons who peacefully express ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the legislature has carefully framed the definition of terrorism to take account of the specific political, economic and social features of Algerian society. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how section 87 bis of the Penal Code is applied in practice, sending copies of any court decisions that refer to it, so that it can assess how far these provisions are compatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention.
Article 1(d). Penalties for participating in strikes. The Committee previously referred to certain provisions of Act No. 90-02, concerning the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike, which imposed restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike, particularly sections 37 and 38, which establish the list of essential services in which the right to strike is limited and for which a compulsory minimum service must be organized. It further observed that section 55(1) of this Act provides that anyone who causes or seeks to cause, or maintains or seeks to maintain, a concerted collective stoppage of work contrary to the provisions of the Act, even without violence or assault against persons or property, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from eight days to two months and/or a fine. The Committee asked the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure, in law and in practice, that no worker may be sentenced to imprisonment for participating peacefully in a strike, and also to supply information on the application in practice of section 55(1) of Act No. 90-02.
The Committee notes that the Government, in referring to section 71 of Act No. 16-01 of 2016 revising the Constitution, which recognizes the right to strike, indicates that persons who have taken part in strikes cannot incur any legal penalty involving compulsory labour. Since the provisions of section 55(1) of Act No. 90-02 allow for the possibility of strikers being subject to criminal prosecution, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure, in law and in practice, that no worker can be sentenced to imprisonment for participating peacefully in a strike, and also to supply information on the application in practice of the aforementioned section 55(1).

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imprisonment involving compulsory labour as a penalty for expressing political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. Associations Act. For a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the provisions of the Associations Act (No. 12-06 of 12 January 2012). It observed that section 39 of the Act provides that an association may be suspended or dissolved “in the event of interference in the internal affairs of the country or an attack on national sovereignty” and that section 46 provides that “any member or leader who continues to act on behalf of an association which is neither registered nor approved, or is suspended or dissolved” shall be liable to a fine and imprisonment of three to six months. The Committee emphasized that, on the basis of the above-mentioned provisions of Act No. 12-06, persons could be liable to imprisonment and hence be subjected to prison labour for the reason that, in expressing certain political views or ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system, they did not observe the restrictions on the right of association established in the Act.
The Committee notes the detailed explanations provided by the Government in its report on the procedure for the dissolution of associations. It notes the Government’s indications that the penalties established by section 46 of Act No. 12-06 have a preventive purpose, seeking to dissuade any person who might wish to be active in associations that are not legally constituted or have been suspended or dissolved. Moreover, refusal to accept the founding declaration of an association whose documentation is not in conformity with the law does not deprive its founding members of their rights, including the right to hold peaceful meetings, which are simply subject to notification to the competent administrative authority. Moreover, the Committee notes that the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in its 2017 “Compilation on Algeria”, noted that civil society organizations faced several restrictions following the adoption of the Associations Act (Act No. 12-06 of 12 January 2012). The Act provides the authorities with broad leeway to refuse to register an association (A/HRC/WG.6/27/DZA/2, paragraph 27). Referring to its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee recalls that the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The activities which must be protected from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour include the rights of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion (paragraph 302). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that sections 39 and 46 of the Associations Act (No. 12-06 of 12 January 2012) cannot be used to penalize persons who, through exercising their right of association, express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above-mentioned provisions, to send copies of any relevant court decisions and to indicate the nature of any offences recorded and the penalties imposed.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Impact of compulsory prison labour on the application of the Convention. In its previous comments the Committee noted that despite the Government’s indication that prison labour was a voluntary activity, its voluntary nature did not follow from the legislation (section 2 of the Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983 establishing procedures for the use of prison labour by the National Office for Educational Work, and section 96 of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 issuing the Code on the prison system and the social rehabilitation of prisoners). The Committee emphasized that compulsory prison labour may affect the application of the Convention in so far as it is imposed as a penalty for the expression of political views or for participation in strikes. In the absence of information from the Government on this point, the Committee emphasizes once again that, even though prison labour is voluntary in practice, the legislation needs to be amended accordingly to avoid any legal ambiguity.
Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penalties for expressing political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. 1. Political Parties Act and Information Act. The Committee notes the adoption on 12 January 2012 of the Political Parties Act (No. 12-04), which repeals Ordinance No. 97-09 of 6 March 1997 issuing the basic Act on political parties, that was the subject of its previous comments, and also the Information Act (No. 12-05). The Committee notes with interest that both laws make no reference to imprisonment as one of the penalties applicable to the offences concerned.
2. Definition of terrorism. The Committee previously noted that section 87bis of the Penal Code concerning “terrorist or subversive acts” provides for the imposition of prison sentences on persons found guilty of a number of very broadly defined acts. While noting the Government’s indication that section 87bis dealt only with acts which, through the use of violence, affect the security of the State, territorial integrity, national unity, and the stability and normal functioning of institutions, the Committee noted that in view of the wording of its provisions, this section might be used to penalize peaceful acts of political or social opposition. The Committee referred in particular to: actions hindering traffic or freedom of movement on thoroughfares and occupying public places with gatherings; damaging means of communication and transport, public and private property, taking possession thereof or unduly occupying it; obstructing the actions of the public authorities or the free exercise of worship or public freedoms and also the functioning of public service establishments; and hindering the operation of public institutions.
The Committee observes that the Government has not provided any information on how these provisions are used in practice. It recalls that even though anti-terrorist legislation responds to the legitimate need to protect the safety of the population against the use of violence, it may nevertheless become a means of suppressing the peaceful exercise of civil rights and liberties, such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association, particularly where it is couched in vague and general terms. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that the scope of section 87bis is defined in such a way that it cannot be used to impose imprisonment entailing the obligation to work on persons who peacefully express ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system.
3. Associations Act. The Committee notes the adoption on 12 January 2012 of the Associations Act (No. 12-06). It observes that section 39 of the Act provides that an association may be suspended or dissolved “in the event of interference in the internal affairs of the country or an attack on national sovereignty” and that section 46 provides that any member or leader who continues to act on behalf of an association which is neither registered nor approved, or is suspended or dissolved, shall be liable to a fine and imprisonment of three to six months. The Committee observes that, as was the case under the previous legislation, persons could be sentenced to imprisonment on the basis of the abovementioned provisions of Act No. 12-06 and hence be subjected to prison labour because, in expressing certain political views or ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system, they did not observe the restrictions on the right of association provided for in the Act. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps, through legislation or other measures, to ensure that sections 39 and 46 of the Associations Act (No. 12-06) of 12 January 2012 cannot be used to penalize persons who, through exercising their right of association, express political views which are opposed to the established political, social or economic system.
Article 1(d). Penalties for participating in strikes. 1. The Committee notes with interest that Ordinance No. 11-01 of 23 February 2011 lifting the state of emergency repealed Decree No. 93-02 of 6 February 1993 extending the duration of the state of emergency established by Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992, which conferred powers to requisition workers to perform their usual occupational activities in the event of an unauthorized or illegal strike.
2. The Committee previously referred to certain provisions of Act No. 90 02, concerning the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike, which established restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike, particularly sections 37 and 38, which establish a list of essential services in which the right to strike is limited and for which a compulsory minimum service must be organized. It further observed that section 55(1) of this Act provides that anyone who causes or seeks to cause, or maintains or seeks to maintain, a concerted collective stoppage of work contrary to the provisions of the Act, even without violence or assault against persons or property, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from eight days to two months and/or a fine.
The Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the imposition of imprisonment sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for participation in a strike. The Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure, in law and in practice, that no worker may be sentenced to imprisonment for participating peacefully in a strike, and also to supply information on the application in practice of section 55(1) of Act No. 90 02.

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

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

The Committee refers to its observation under this Convention and, while awaiting the Government’s response on the issue of compulsory prison labour, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the following points.

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

Article 1(d). Requisitioning of workers in the event of an unauthorized or illegal strike. The Committee previously referred to section 6(5) of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992 declaring a state of emergency and conferring on the Minister of the Interior and Local Communities the power to requisition workers to carry out their usual occupational activities in the event of an unauthorized or illegal strike. Section 5 of the Decree and also sections 2 and 3 of Executive Decree No. 92-75 of 20 February 1992 establishing the conditions for the application of certain provisions of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 allow the Minister of the Interior to order the detention in a security centre of any person whose activities endanger public order, public security or the proper functioning of public services.

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

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

Noting the information in the Government’s report that the state of emergency was still in force, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 and Executive Decree No. 92-75. The Committee expresses the strong hope that the Government will supply the requested information in its next report.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

In the communication received in November 2009, the Government indicates that, according to the national legislation, prison labour is a voluntary activity based on the prisoners’ consent and performed in accordance with the prisoners’ state of health and their physical and psychological abilities. According to the Government, a personal file shall be constituted in regard to each prisoner called on to perform prison work, which necessarily contains a medical certificate and a document confirming the prisoner’s explicit acceptance to work. The Committee takes note of this information, but observes, however, that voluntary character of prison labour does not follow from the legislation, which stipulates that “prisoners shall be given useful work” (section 2 of Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983 on the modalities of the use of a prison workforce by the National Office of Educational Works) and that “a prisoner may be assigned useful work by the director of the penitentiary establishment” (section 96 of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 establishing the Code on Penal Institutions and Social Integration of Inmates).

The Committee asks the Government to supply sample copies of personal files of prisoners called on to perform prison work, and in particular, copies of documents confirming the prisoner’s explicit acceptance to work. The Committee also considers that, if in practice prison labour is voluntary, it would be appropriate to amend legislation accordingly, in order to avoid any legal ambiguity. It hopes that the Government will supply, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard. The Committee also repeats its previous comments, to which the Government has not replied in its report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penalties for expressing political views. For many years the Committee has referred to Act No. 90-31 of 4 December 1990 concerning associations, certain provisions of which allow the imposition of prison sentences involving the obligation to work in circumstances which are covered by the Convention. The Committee previously noted that, under section 5 of the Act, an association’s legal status is automatically invalidated if its objectives are contrary to the established institutional system or public order or offend morals or the laws and regulations in force. It further noted that, under section 45 of the Act, anyone who manages, administers or actively participates in an association that has not been approved or which has been suspended or dissolved, or facilitates meetings of the members of such an association, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from three months to two years involving the obligation to work.

The Committee noted the information sent by the Government to the effect that the penalty laid down by section 45 of Act No. 90-31 of 4 December 1990 concerns persons breaching the legal provisions regarding the establishment of associations and not persons holding certain political views, which could be expressed in full freedom subject to the legislation in force. In its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee indicated that the range of activities which must be protected, under the present provisions of the Convention, from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour, includes the freedom to express political or ideological views, and also various other generally recognized rights. The latter include the rights of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and the adoption of policies and laws reflecting them, and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion (see paragraph 152 of the General Survey). The provisions imposing the penalty of imprisonment involving the obligation to work on any infringement of the rules governing the establishment, dissolution or approval of an association are therefore contrary to the Convention. The Committee therefore again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to bring its legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention, either by amending section 45 of Act No. 90-31 of 4 December 1990 or by explicitly exempting the persons convicted under this section from the obligation to work.

The Committee previously asked the Government to supply information on the practical application of section 87bis of the Penal Code (Ordinance
No. 95-11 of 25 February 1995) on “terrorist or subversive acts”, which permits imprisonment involving compulsory labour for anyone convicted of committing a number of very broadly defined acts. It noted the information sent by the Government to the effect that section 87bis of the Penal Code deals with acts affecting the security of the State, territorial integrity, national unity, stability and the normal working of institutions, through use of violence. The Government indicated that acts having a peaceful objective do not come under the scope of section 87bis.

The Committee observed, however, that the very general terms of section 87bis of the Penal Code – obstructing traffic or freedom of movement on public thoroughfares and occupying public places with gatherings, damaging means of communication and transport, public and private property, taking possession thereof or unduly occupying it, obstructing the actions of the public authorities or the free exercise of worship or public freedoms and also the functioning of public service establishments, hindering the operation of public institutions – might enable peaceful acts to be penalized. The Committee underlines the fact that, although anti-terrorist legislation responds to the legitimate need to protect the safety of the population against the use of violence, it can still become a means of political coercion and of repression of the peaceful exercise of civil rights and liberties, such as freedom of expression and freedom of association. The Convention protects these rights and liberties against repression which is exercised by means of penalties involving an obligation to work, and the limits which the law may impose on them must be strictly defined.

The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will soon take the necessary steps to limit the scope of section 87bis of the Penal Code so that persons who peacefully express ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system cannot be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which includes the obligation to work.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participating in strikes. For a number of years the Committee has referred to section 41 of Act No. 90-02 of 6 February 1990 on the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike, which states that requisition orders may be issued pursuant to the legislation in force for workers on strike who hold posts in public institutions or administrations, or in enterprises, that are essential for the safety of persons, plant and property and for the continuity of public services which are essential to the vital needs of the country, or who carry on activities essential to supplying the public. Section 42 states that, without prejudice to the penalties laid down in the Penal Code, refusal to execute a requisition order constitutes serious professional misconduct.

The Committee previously noted that sections 37 and 38 of Act No. 90-02 establish a list of essential services in which the right to strike is limited and for which a compulsory minimum service must be organized. It observed that the list is very broad and includes services such as banking and radio/television services, which, according to the Committee on Freedom of Association, do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 2006, paragraph 587, and also the General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 159–160). The list in sections 37 and 38 of Act No. 90-02 also includes court registry services.

The Committee also referred to section 43 of Act No. 90-02 prohibiting strikes in certain sectors of public institutions and administrations, such as the judiciary and customs. Furthermore, section 55(1) of Act No. 90-02 provides that anyone who causes or seeks to cause, or maintains or seeks to maintain, a concerted collective stoppage of work in conflict with the provisions of this Act, but without violence or assault against persons or property, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from eight days to two months and/or a fine.

The Committee noted the Government’s information in a previous report that the imposition of any penalty on workers taking part in a strike is prohibited. It also noted the Government’s statement that the organization of a minimum service provided for by Act No. 90-02 does not constitute forced labour, the objective being to ensure the functioning of public institutions. While noting these indications, the Committee recalled that penalizing participation in strikes through imprisonment including the obligation to work is contrary to the present provisions of the Convention. It also recalled that as an exception to the general principle of the right to strike, the essential services in which this principle may be entirely or partly waived should be defined restrictively, and therefore should include only those services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see General Surveys on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 159, and on the eradication of forced labour, paragraph 185). The Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that no worker may be sentenced to imprisonment including the obligation to work for going on strike and also to supply information on the practical application of sections 41, 43 and 55(1) of Act No. 90-02, stating in particular the number of persons convicted and supplying copies of any court decisions issued.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

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

The Committee refers to its observation under this Convention and, while awaiting the Government’s response on the issue of compulsory prison labour, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the following points.

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

Article 1(d). Requisitioning of workers in the event of an unauthorized or illegal strike. The Committee previously referred to section 6(5) of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992 declaring a state of emergency and conferring on the Minister of the Interior and Local Communities the power to requisition workers to carry out their usual occupational activities in the event of an unauthorized or illegal strike. Section 5 of the Decree and also sections 2 and 3 of Executive Decree No. 92-75 of 20 February 1992 establishing the conditions for the application of certain provisions of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 allow the Minister of the Interior to order the detention in a security centre of any person whose activities endanger public order, public security or the proper functioning of public services.

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

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

Noting the information in the Government’s report that the state of emergency was still in force, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 and Executive Decree No. 92-75. The Committee expresses the strong hope that the Government will supply the requested information in its next report.

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

In the communication received in November 2009, the Government indicates that, according to the national legislation, prison labour is a voluntary activity based on the prisoners’ consent and performed in accordance with the prisoners’ state of health and their physical and psychological abilities. According to the Government, a personal file shall be constituted in regard to each prisoner called on to perform prison work, which necessarily contains a medical certificate and a document confirming the prisoner’s explicit acceptance to work. The Committee takes note of this information, but observes, however, that voluntary character of prison labour does not follow from the legislation, which stipulates that “prisoners shall be given useful work” (section 2 of Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983 on the modalities of the use of a prison workforce by the National Office of Educational Works) and that “a prisoner may be assigned useful work by the director of the penitentiary establishment” (section 96 of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 establishing the Code on Penal Institutions and Social Integration of Inmates).

The Committee asks the Government to supply sample copies of personal files of prisoners called on to perform prison work, and in particular, copies of documents confirming the prisoner’s explicit acceptance to work. The Committee also considers that, if in practice prison labour is voluntary, it would be appropriate to amend legislation accordingly, in order to avoid any legal ambiguity. It hopes that the Government will supply, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard. The Committee also repeats its previous comments, to which the Government has not replied in its report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penalties for expressing political views. For many years the Committee has referred to Act No. 90-31 of 4 December 1990 concerning associations, certain provisions of which allow the imposition of prison sentences involving the obligation to work in circumstances which are covered by the Convention. The Committee previously noted that, under section 5 of the Act, an association’s legal status is automatically invalidated if its objectives are contrary to the established institutional system or public order or offend morals or the laws and regulations in force. It further noted that, under section 45 of the Act, anyone who manages, administers or actively participates in an association that has not been approved or which has been suspended or dissolved, or facilitates meetings of the members of such an association, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from three months to two years involving the obligation to work.

The Committee noted the information sent by the Government to the effect that the penalty laid down by section 45 of Act No. 90-31 of 4 December 1990 concerns persons breaching the legal provisions regarding the establishment of associations and not persons holding certain political views, which could be expressed in full freedom subject to the legislation in force. In its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee indicated that the range of activities which must be protected, under the present provisions of the Convention, from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour, includes the freedom to express political or ideological views, and also various other generally recognized rights. The latter include the rights of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and the adoption of policies and laws reflecting them, and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion (see paragraph 152 of the General Survey). The provisions imposing the penalty of imprisonment involving the obligation to work on any infringement of the rules governing the establishment, dissolution or approval of an association are therefore contrary to the Convention. The Committee therefore again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to bring its legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention, either by amending section 45 of Act No. 90-31 of 4 December 1990 or by explicitly exempting the persons convicted under this section from the obligation to work.

The Committee previously asked the Government to supply information on the practical application of section 87bis of the Penal Code (Ordinance
No. 95-11 of 25 February 1995) on “terrorist or subversive acts”, which permits imprisonment involving compulsory labour for anyone convicted of committing a number of very broadly defined acts. It noted the information sent by the Government to the effect that section 87bis of the Penal Code deals with acts affecting the security of the State, territorial integrity, national unity, stability and the normal working of institutions, through use of violence. The Government indicated that acts having a peaceful objective do not come under the scope of section 87bis.

The Committee observed, however, that the very general terms of section 87bis of the Penal Code – obstructing traffic or freedom of movement on public thoroughfares and occupying public places with gatherings, damaging means of communication and transport, public and private property, taking possession thereof or unduly occupying it, obstructing the actions of the public authorities or the free exercise of worship or public freedoms and also the functioning of public service establishments, hindering the operation of public institutions – might enable peaceful acts to be penalized. The Committee underlines the fact that, although anti-terrorist legislation responds to the legitimate need to protect the safety of the population against the use of violence, it can still become a means of political coercion and of repression of the peaceful exercise of civil rights and liberties, such as freedom of expression and freedom of association. The Convention protects these rights and liberties against repression which is exercised by means of penalties involving an obligation to work, and the limits which the law may impose on them must be strictly defined.

The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will soon take the necessary steps to limit the scope of section 87bis of the Penal Code so that persons who peacefully express ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system cannot be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which includes the obligation to work.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participating in strikes. For a number of years the Committee has referred to section 41 of Act No. 90-02 of 6 February 1990 on the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike, which states that requisition orders may be issued pursuant to the legislation in force for workers on strike who hold posts in public institutions or administrations, or in enterprises, that are essential for the safety of persons, plant and property and for the continuity of public services which are essential to the vital needs of the country, or who carry on activities essential to supplying the public. Section 42 states that, without prejudice to the penalties laid down in the Penal Code, refusal to execute a requisition order constitutes serious professional misconduct.

The Committee previously noted that sections 37 and 38 of Act No. 90-02 establish a list of essential services in which the right to strike is limited and for which a compulsory minimum service must be organized. It observed that the list is very broad and includes services such as banking and radio/television services, which, according to the Committee on Freedom of Association, do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 2006, paragraph 587, and also the General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 159–160). The list in sections 37 and 38 of Act No. 90-02 also includes court registry services.

The Committee also referred to section 43 of Act No. 90-02 prohibiting strikes in certain sectors of public institutions and administrations, such as the judiciary and customs. Furthermore, section 55(1) of Act No. 90-02 provides that anyone who causes or seeks to cause, or maintains or seeks to maintain, a concerted collective stoppage of work in conflict with the provisions of this Act, but without violence or assault against persons or property, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from eight days to two months and/or a fine.

The Committee noted the Government’s information in a previous report that the imposition of any penalty on workers taking part in a strike is prohibited. It also noted the Government’s statement that the organization of a minimum service provided for by Act No. 90-02 does not constitute forced labour, the objective being to ensure the functioning of public institutions. While noting these indications, the Committee recalled that penalizing participation in strikes through imprisonment including the obligation to work is contrary to the present provisions of the Convention. It also recalled that as an exception to the general principle of the right to strike, the essential services in which this principle may be entirely or partly waived should be defined restrictively, and therefore should include only those services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see General Surveys on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 159, and on the eradication of forced labour, paragraph 185). The Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that no worker may be sentenced to imprisonment including the obligation to work for going on strike and also to supply information on the practical application of sections 41, 43 and 55(1) of Act No. 90-02, stating in particular the number of persons convicted and supplying copies of any court decisions issued.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. 
1. For a number of years the Committee has referred to two provisions of the Associations Act, No. 90-31 of 4 December 1990, that allow the imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work in circumstances which are covered by the Convention.

–           Under section 5 of the Act, an association’s legal status is automatically invalidated if its objectives are contrary to the established institutional system, public order or offend against morals or the laws and regulations in force.

–           Section 45 provides that anyone who manages, administers or actively participates in an association that has not been approved or which has been suspended or dissolved, or facilitates meetings of the members of such an association, shall be liable to a prison term ranging from three months to two years involving the obligation to work pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of the Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983 issuing arrangements for the use of prison labour by the National Office for Educational Work.

The Committee notes that, pursuant to section 173 of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 issuing the Code on the prison system and the social integration of prisoners, the provisions implementing Ordinance No. 72-02 of 10 February 1972 remain in force on a transitional basis until the promulgation of the texts implementing Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate whether texts have been adopted under the said Act and whether the Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983 has been repealed. It asks the Government to send copies of the abovementioned implementing provisions.

The Committee also notes that some provisions of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 are likely to have consequences with regard to the application of the present Convention. Indeed, under the terms of section 96 of the Act, in the context of training and also rehabilitation and social integration, the prisoner may be required, by the director of the prison and further to an opinion from the Committee for the Enforcement of Sentences, to perform useful work compatible with his state of health and his physical and mental capacity. Under section 100 of the Act, persons whose convictions are definitive may be employed as part of a team on external worksites to do work for public institutions or establishments. This section also allows prison labour to be hired to private companies which take part in the execution of public interest works. Sections 109 to 111 state that prisoners may be placed in low security penal institutions which take the form of agricultural, industrial or handicraft establishments, centres providing services or performing work in the public interest, which entail convicts working and being lodged on site. Hence, pursuant to these provisions and the abovementioned provisions of Act No. 90-31 of 4 December 1990, compulsory labour may be imposed on persons convicted for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, which is contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report to the effect that the penalty laid down by section 45 of Act No. 90‑31 of 4 December 1990 concerns persons who contravene the legal provisions concerning the formation of associations, and not those who express political views, which may be expressed freely provided they comply with the legislation in force. It also notes the Government’s statement that there is no provision in Algerian law which obliges prisoners to work. The Committee notes, however, that section 45 of Act No. 90-31 of 4 December 1990 states that anyone who manages, administers or actively participates in an association which has not been approved or which has been suspended or dissolved, or facilitates meetings of the members of such an association, shall be liable to a prison term ranging from three months to two years. The Committee notes that section 2 of the Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983 provides that prisoners, in the context of their rehabilitation, training and social promotion, are required to perform useful work compatible with their health and with order, discipline and security. Moreover, prisoners may be required to work pursuant to the abovementioned provisions of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005. The Committee therefore expresses the hope once again that the Government will take the necessary steps in the near future to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention, either by amending section 45 of Act No. 90-31 of 4 December 1990 or by explicitly exempting persons convicted under this section from compulsory labour. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate whether any persons have been sentenced to imprisonment under section 45 of Act No. 90-31 of 4 December 1990, including the obligation to work pursuant to the abovementioned provisions of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 and the Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983. It asks the Government to send copies of any relevant judicial decisions.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice to section 87bis of the Penal Code (Ordinance No. 95-11 of 25 February 1995) on “terrorist or subversive acts”, which provides for the imposition of sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour. It noted the information supplied by the Government that section 87bis of the Penal Code deals with acts which, through the use of violence, target the security of the State, territorial integrity, national unity, stability and the normal working of institutions. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its latest report that acts having a peaceful objective do not come within the scope of section 87bis.

The Committee observes, however, that the very general terms of section 87bis of the Penal Code – hindering traffic or freedom of movement on thoroughfares and occupying public places with gatherings, damaging means of communication and transport, public and private property, taking possession thereof or unduly occupying it, obstructing the actions of the public authorities or the free exercise of worship or public freedoms and also the functioning of public service establishments, hindering the operation of public institutions – may enable peaceful acts to be punished. The Committee already observed in its previous comments that actions which are non-violent but express opposition to the established political system may therefore come under the scope of section 87bis, and the imposition of prison labour on persons convicted under such provisions is contrary to Article 1(a) of the Convention.

The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to limit the scope of section 87bis of the Penal Code so that persons who peacefully express ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system cannot be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which includes the obligation to work.

Article 1(d). Punishment for participating in strikes. For a number of years the Committee has referred to section 41 of Act No. 90-02 of 6 February 1990 on the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike, which states that requisition orders may be issued pursuant to the legislation in force for workers on strike who hold posts in public institutions or administrations, or in enterprises, that are essential for the safety of persons, plant and property and for the continuity of public services which are essential to the vital needs of the country, or who carry on activities essential to supplying the public. Section 42 states that, without prejudice to the penalties laid down in the Penal Code, refusal to execute a requisition order constitutes serious professional misconduct.

The Committee noted that sections 37 and 38 of Act No. 90-02 establish a list of essential services in which the right to strike is limited and for which a compulsory minimum service is to be organized. It observed that the list is very broad and includes services such as banking and radiocommunications/
broadcasting, which, according to the Committee on Freedom of Association, do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term (see paragraph 587 of the 2006 Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee. See also the Committee of Experts’ General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 159–160). The list in sections 37 and 38 of the Act also includes court registry services.

The Committee furthermore referred to section 43 of Act No. 90-02 prohibiting strikes in certain sectors of public institutions and administrations, such as the judiciary and customs.

It notes that section 55(1) of Act No. 90-02 provides that anyone who causes or seeks to cause, or maintains or seeks to maintain, a concerted collective stoppage of work in conflict with the provisions of this Act, but without violence or assault against persons or property, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment ranging from eight days to two months and/or a fine of 500 to 2,000 dinars.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that the imposition of any penalty on workers taking part in a strike is prohibited. It also notes the Government’s statement that the organisation of a minimum service provided for by Act No. 90-02 does not constitute forced labour, the objective being to ensure the functioning of public institutions. While noting these indications, the Committee recalls that penalizing participation in strikes through imprisonment including the obligation to work is contrary to the present provisions of the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no worker can be sentenced to a term of imprisonment including the obligation to work and to continue to provide information on the application in practice of sections 41, 43 and 51(1) of Act No. 90-02, specifying in particular the number of persons convicted and supplying copies of the relevant court decisions.

The Committee is also addressing a direct request to the Government concerning other points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. For a number of years the Committee has referred to two provisions of the Associations Act, No. 90-31 of 4 December 1990, that allow the imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work in circumstances which are covered by the Convention.

-  Under section 5 of the Act, an association’s legal status is automatically invalidated if its objectives are contrary to the established institutional system, breach the peace or offend against morals or the laws and regulations in force.

-  Section 45 provides that anyone who directs, administers or participates actively in an association that has not been approved or which has been suspended or dissolved, or facilitates meetings of the members of such an association, shall be liable to a prison term ranging from three months to two years involving the obligation to work pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of the Inter-ministerial Order of 26 June 1983 issuing arrangements for the use of prison labour by the National Office for Educational Work.

The Committee has recalled several times that the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing certain political views or expressing opposition to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee noted that, according to the Government, the legislation in force does not distinguish between a political and a civil offence and that the work performed by convicted prisoners under the Associations Act is considered to be corrective action. In its latest reports, the Government reiterates that prison work is an activity forming part of the rehabilitation, training and social promotion of prisoners.

The Committee observed that to impose prison labour on persons convicted under Act No. 90-31 with a view to their "rehabilitation" is contrary to the Convention because it is imposed on persons convicted for expressing certain political views or manifesting their ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee trusts that the Government will shortly take the necessary steps to ensure observance of the Convention, either by amending sections 5 and 45 of Act No. 90-31 or by exempting from prison labour persons convicted for expressing certain political opinions.

2. In its previous comments the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the practical effect given to section 87bis of the Penal Code (Ordinance No. 95-11 of 25 February 1995) on "terrorist or subversive acts".

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government that section 87bis of the Penal Code deals with acts which, through the use of violence, target the security of the State, territorial integrity, national unity, stability and the normal working of institutions.

However, as the Committee pointed out in its previous comments on this point, section 87bis of the Penal Code treats as a terrorist or subversive act any act targeting the stability and normal working of institutions that seeks "to hinder traffic and freedom of movement on thoroughfares and occupy public places with gatherings", "to damage means of communication and transport, public and private property, to take possession thereof or to occupy it improperly", or "to hinder the operation of public institutions ...". This means that acts in which violence is not used but which seek to express ideological opposition to the established political system may thus fall within section 87bis. The Committee recalls that the imposition of prison labour on persons convicted under such provisions is contrary to Article 1(a) of the Convention. It accordingly once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure compliance with the Convention in this matter and to provide information on the application in practice of section 87bis of the Penal Code, including copies of any court decisions clarifying the scope of this provision.

Article 1(d). For a number of years the Committee has referred to section 41 of Act No. 90-02 of 6 February 1990 on the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike. It has noted that under this provision "requisition orders may be issued pursuant to the legislation in force for workers on strike who hold posts in public institutions or administrations, or in enterprises, that are essential for the safety of persons, plant and property and for the continuity of public services which are essential to the vital needs of the country, or who carry on activities essential to supplying the public". According to section 42, "without prejudice to the penalties laid down in the Penal Code, refusal to execute a requisition order constitutes serious professional misconduct".

The Committee noted that sections 37 and 38 of Act No. 90-02 establish a list of essential services in which the right to strike is limited and for which a compulsory minimum service is to be organized. It observed that the list is very broad and includes services such as banking and telecommunications, which, according to the Committee on Freedom of Association, do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term (paragraph 545 of the Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee). The list in sections 37 and 38 of the Act also includes court registry services.

The Committee furthermore referred to section 43 of Act No. 90-02 prohibiting strikes in certain sectors of public institutions and administrations, such as the judiciary and customs.

The Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 41 and 43 of Act No. 90-02, specifying the number of persons convicted and supplying copies of the relevant court decisions.

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(d) of the Convention. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the terms of section 41 of Act No. 90-02, requisition orders may be issued, in accordance with the legislation in force, for striking workers who occupy, in public institutions or administrations, or in enterprises, posts which are essential for the safety of persons, plant and property, as well as for the continuity of public services which are essential to the vital needs of the country or to undertake essential activities for supplying the public. The Committee had noted that sections 37 and 38 of Act No. 90-02 determine the list of essential services in which the right to strike is restricted and in which it is necessary to organize a compulsory minimum service. It noted that this list is very broad and includes, among other sectors, services such as banking and telecommunications which, according to the Committee on Freedom of Association, do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term (paragraph 545 of the Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee). The list in sections 37 and 38 of Act No. 90-02 also includes court registry services.

The Committee also referred to section 43 of Act No. 90-02 prohibiting the exercise of the right to strike in certain sectors of public institutions and administrations, such as the judiciary and customs.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications in its report that the refusal to comply with a requisition order issued under the terms of sections 41 and 43 of Act No. 90-02 does not constitute an offence under penal law. The Committee notes that the refusal to implement a requisition order is punishable by the penalties set out in the Penal Code under section 42 of the same Act.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 41 and 43 of Act No. 90-02, with an indication in particular of the number of persons convicted and copies of the court decisions handed down in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the indications by the Government in its report in October 1999 that the orders issued by the Minister of the Interior responsible for administering the state of emergency (detention measures, security centres) have been repealed and that the detention centres were closed even when the state of emergency was still in force. The Committee notes, from the information contained in the document submitted by the Special Rapporteur of the Sub Commission of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/31), that the state of emergency was still in force on that date.

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the text which lifted the state of emergency and of the text which repealed Decree No. 92-75 of 20 February 1992 establishing the conditions for the implementation of certain provisions of the Decree declaring the state of emergency.

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether Presidential Decree No. 91-196 of 4 June 1991 declaring a state of emergency and Executive Decree No. 91-201 are still in force.

3. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 87bis of the Penal Code (Ordinance No. 95 11 of 25 February 1995) respecting subversive acts.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications that Ordinance No. 95-11 assimilates terrorist activities to a form of delinquency covered by the civil courts. Offenders "considered under Algerian law to be criminals under ordinary law, subject to the ordinary courts, are subject to ordinary legal procedures, such as those set out in the Code of Penal Procedure. As detainees, they are governed by the rules issued by the Prisons Reform Code, as well as by the texts governing the organization and operation of prisons".

The Committee also notes the Government’s statements concerning the Clemency Act, which contains a series of measures, ranging from exemption from charges to the substantial reduction of the scale of penalties.

The Committee nevertheless notes that, under the terms of section 87bis of the Penal Code, any act is considered to be a terrorist or subversive act which threatens the stability and normal functioning of institutions, or any action with the objective, among others, of "hindering traffic and freedom of movement on thoroughfares and occupying public places with gatherings", "prejudicing means of communication and transport, public and private property, taking possession thereof or unduly occupying it", and "hindering the operation of public institutions (…)". As a result, actions which do not have recourse to violence, but which are taken with the aim of manifesting ideological opposition to the established political system, may be covered by the scope of section 87bis, and the imposition of prison labour on persons convicted under such provisions is contrary to Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure compliance with the Convention in this respect and to provide information on the application in practice of section 87bis of the Labour Code, including copies of any court decisions clarifying the scope of the above provision.

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

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In the comments that it has been making for many years, the Committee has referred to the provisions respecting the right of association which permit the imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work in circumstances which are covered by the scope of the Convention.

The Committee referred to sections 5 and 45 of Act No. 90-31 respecting associations. Under the terms of section 5, an association’s legal status is invalidated if its objectives are contrary to the established institutional system, to public order, good morals or the laws and regulations in force. Section 45 provides that any individual who directs, administers or agitates in an association that has not been recognized, or which has been suspended or dissolved, or who facilitates meetings of the members of such an association, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment ranging from three months to two years, including the obligation to work, under the terms of sections 2 and 3 of the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983.

The Committee has recalled on several occasions that the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing certain political views or expressing opposition to the established political, social or economic system.

It notes the Government’s statement that the legislation in force does not distinguish between a political and a civil crime and that the work performed by convicted prisoners under the terms of the Act respecting associations is considered to be corrective action. In its last report, the Government reaffirms that prison work is an activity which forms part of the rehabilitation, training and social promotion of detainees.

The Committee observes that the fact of imposing prison labour on persons convicted under Act No. 90-31 with a view to their "rehabilitation" is contrary to the Convention, as it is imposed on persons convicted of having expressed certain political views or manifested their ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the Convention, either by amending sections 5 and 45 of Act No. 90-31, or by dispensing from prison labour persons who have been convicted for expressing certain political opinions.

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(d) of the Convention.  1.  In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the terms of section 41 of Act No. 90-02, requisition orders may be issued, in accordance with the legislation in force, for striking workers who occupy, in public institutions or administrations, or in enterprises, posts which are essential for the safety of persons, plant and property, as well as for the continuity of public services which are essential to the vital needs of the country or to undertake essential activities for supplying the public. The Committee had noted that sections 37 and 38 of Act No. 90-02 determine the list of essential services in which the right to strike is restricted and in which it is necessary to organize a compulsory minimum service. It noted that this list is very broad and includes, among other sectors, services such as banking and telecommunications which, according to the Committee on Freedom of Association, do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term (paragraph 545 of the Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee). The list in sections 37 and 38 of Act No. 90-02 also includes court registry services.

The Committee also referred to section 43 of Act No. 90-02 prohibiting the exercise of the right to strike in certain sectors of public institutions and administrations, such as the judiciary and customs.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications in its report that the refusal to comply with a requisition order issued under the terms of sections 41 and 43 of Act No. 90-02 does not constitute an offence under penal law. The Committee notes that the refusal to implement a requisition order is punishable by the penalties set out in the Penal Code under section 42 of the same Act.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 41 and 43 of Act No. 90-02, with an indication in particular of the number of persons convicted and copies of the court decisions handed down in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the indications by the Government in its report in October 1999 that the orders issued by the Minister of the Interior responsible for administering the state of emergency (detention measures, security centres) have been repealed and that the detention centres were closed even when the state of emergency was still in force. The Committee notes, from the information contained in the document submitted by the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/31), that the state of emergency was still in force on that date.

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the text which lifted the state of emergency and of the text which repealed Decree No. 92-75 of 20 February 1992 establishing the conditions for the implementation of certain provisions of the Decree declaring the state of emergency.

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether Presidential Decree No. 91-196 of 4 June 1991 declaring a state of emergency and Executive Decree No. 91-201 are still in force.

3.  The Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 87bis of the Penal Code (Ordinance No. 95-11 of 25 February 1995) respecting subversive acts.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications that Ordinance No. 95-11 assimilates terrorist activities to a form of delinquency covered by the civil courts. Offenders "considered under Algerian law to be criminals under ordinary law, subject to the ordinary courts, are subject to ordinary legal procedures, such as those set out in the Code of Penal Procedure. As detainees, they are governed by the rules issued by the Prisons Reform Code, as well as by the texts governing the organization and operation of prisons".

The Committee also notes the Government’s statements concerning the Clemency Act, which contains a series of measures, ranging from exemption from charges to the substantial reduction of the scale of penalties.

The Committee nevertheless notes that, under the terms of section 87bis of the Penal Code, any act is considered to be a terrorist or subversive act which threatens the stability and normal functioning of institutions, or any action with the objective, among others, of "hindering traffic and freedom of movement on thoroughfares and occupying public places with gatherings", "prejudicing means of communication and transport, public and private property, taking possession thereof or unduly occupying it", and "hindering the operation of public institutions (…)". As a result, actions which do not have recourse to violence, but which are taken with the aim of manifesting ideological opposition to the established political system, may be covered by the scope of section 87bis, and the imposition of prison labour on persons convicted under such provisions is contrary to Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure compliance with the Convention in this respect and to provide information on the application in practice of section 87bis of the Labour Code, including copies of any court decisions clarifying the scope of the above provision.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention.  In the comments that it has been making for many years, the Committee has referred to the provisions respecting the right of association which permit the imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work in circumstances which are covered by the scope of the Convention.

The Committee referred to sections 5 and 45 of Act No. 90-31 respecting associations. Under the terms of section 5, an association’s legal status is invalidated if its objectives are contrary to the established institutional system, to public order, good morals or the laws and regulations in force. Section 45 provides that any individual who directs, administers or agitates in an association that has not been recognized, or which has been suspended or dissolved, or who facilitates meetings of the members of such an association, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment ranging from three months to two years, including the obligation to work, under the terms of sections 2 and 3 of the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983.

The Committee has recalled on several occasions that the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing certain political views or expressing opposition to the established political, social or economic system.

It notes the Government’s statement that the legislation in force does not distinguish between a political and a civil crime and that the work performed by convicted prisoners under the terms of the Act respecting associations is considered to be corrective action. In its last report, the Government reaffirms that prison work is an activity which forms part of the rehabilitation, training and social promotion of detainees.

The Committee observes that the fact of imposing prison labour on persons convicted under Act No. 90-31 with a view to their "rehabilitation" is contrary to the Convention, as it is imposed on persons convicted of having expressed certain political views or manifested their ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the Convention, either by amending sections 5 and 45 of Act No. 90-31, or by dispensing from prison labour persons who have been convicted for expressing certain political opinions.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 1(a) and (d) of the Convention. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that section 41 of Act No. 90-02 allows the conscription of striking workers who occupy, in public institutions or administrations, or in enterprises, posts essential to the safety of persons, plant and capital equipment, as well as the continuity of public services which are essential to the vital needs of the country or to undertake essential activities for supplying the public. The Committee had noted that the refusal to carry out a conscription order is liable to penalties provided for in the Penal Code (section 42). The Committee had considered that section 41, together with section 43 respecting the prohibition on the right to strike, could result in the imposition of sanctions for refusing to carry out a conscription order, in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of the provisions in question and any decisions taken in this respect.

2. The Committee had also commented on Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992 declaring a state of emergency, which was extended in 1993 and remains in force. The Committee had noted that section 6(5) of the Presidential Decree empowers the Ministry of the Interior and Local Communities to order the conscription of workers to carry out their usual occupational activities in the event of an unauthorized or unlawful strike. This includes conscription in public or private enterprises for the purpose of obtaining the performance of services in the public interest. Under section 5 of the same Decree, any person whose activity is found to endanger the public order, public security or the proper working of the public services may be placed in a security centre by order of the Minister of the Interior and Local Communities. The Committee again requests the Government to provide the texts of Decrees of the Ministry of the Interior which establishes security centres and to provide information on the functioning of these centres. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application of sections 5 and 6(5) of Decree No. 92-44, including the texts of the conscription decrees and applicable sanctions.

3. The Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application, in practice, of section 87bis of the Penal Code (Ordinance No. 95-11 of 25 February 1995) on subversive acts and to attach copies of any court decision defining or illustrating its scope.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's report.

1. The Committee refers to its previous comments and notes that section 5 of Act No. 90-31 respecting associations invalidates the legal status of an association whose objectives are contrary to the established system, to public order, good morals or the laws and regulations in force. Section 45 provides that any individual who directs, administers or agitates in an association that has not been recognized, or that has been suspended or dissolved, or who facilitates meetings of the members of such an association shall be punished by a term of imprisonment ranging from three months to two years, including the obligation to work, under sections 2 and 3 of the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983. The Committee recalls that the Convention prohibits the use of 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.

2. The Committee notes the Government's statement to the effect that the legislation in force makes no distinction between a crime that is political or civil, and that all prisoners who are incarcerated have been sentenced and punished for crimes committed under the criminal law. The Committee emphasizes that, where there is an obligation to prison labour such as provided for by the Ministerial Decree for a person sentenced under Act No. 90-31, concerning an association whose objectives are to express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established order, and would in this respect be considered as contrary to the established system, public order, good morals, or the laws and regulations in force as provided for by the provisions of the Act, such work would be prohibited by the Convention and therefore inadmissible. The Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure observance of the Convention, by amending the effects of the legislation, for example, by exempting from prison labour persons who are sentenced for offences in respect of freedom of opinion or expression or for political offences.

3. The Committee had also requested the Government to provide information on the application, in practice, of Act No. 89-11 respecting political associations, in particular, sections 3, 5 and 6, as well as sections 5 and 45 of Act No. 90-31 respecting associations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any judgements handed down in application of the above provisions and to provide a copy of the texts.

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

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:

1. Prison labour. The Committee referred previously to the provisions of Ordinance No. 72-02 of 10 February 1972 and those of sections 2 and 3 of the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983, prescribing the procedure for the utilization of prison labour by the National Agency for Educational Work, under which convicted prisoners are required to perform useful work.

The Committee observed that the above texts did not establish any distinction as to the nature of the conviction, in connection with the obligation to perform prison labour, and asked the Government to indicate which texts establish such a distinction and/or lay down exemption from prison labour for persons sentenced for political offences.

The Committee noted the information supplied by the Government on the work in process to harmonize the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983 with the principles of international Conventions. The Committee hopes that the Government will shortly be able to report on the measures that have been taken to ensure that persons sentenced for political offences are not subjected to compulsory prison labour.

2. Article 1(d) and 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee had noted the promulgation of Act No. 90-02 of 6 February 1990 respecting the prevention and settlement of collective labour conflicts and the exercise of the right to strike, and Act No. 90-14 of 2 June 1990 prescribing the procedure for the exercise of trade union rights which repeals Ordinance No. 71-75 of 16 November 1971 concerning collective labour relations in the private sector, on which the Committee has been commenting for several years.

The Committee noted that under section 41 of Act No. 90-02 a conscription may be ordered, in accordance with existing legislation, of striking workers who occupy, in public institutions or administrations, or in enterprises, posts essential to the safety of persons, plant and capital equipment, as well as the continuity of public services which are essential to the vital needs of the country or to undertake essential activities for supplying the public.

The Committee noted that the list of essential services in section 37 of Act No. 90-02 is very long and includes services such as banks, telecommunications and the services of clerks of courts and tribunals.

The Committee also noted that refusal to carry out a conscription order is liable to penalties provided for in the Penal Code (section 42). The Committee has observed that sections 41 and 43 of Act No. 90-02 allow penalties to be imposed on workers who refuse to carry out a conscription order in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term. In order that it may ascertain the scope of the above-mentioned provisions, the Committee again requests that the Government provide information on their application in practice stating, in particular, the number of persons sentenced, and to supply a copy of the judicial decisions handed down in this respect.

The Committee noted that section 6(5) of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992 declaring a state of emergency empowers the Ministry of the Interior and Local Communities to order the conscription of workers to carry out their usual occupational activities in the event of an unauthorized or unlawful strike. This includes conscription in public or private enterprises for the purpose of obtaining the performance of services in the public interest. Under section 5 of the same Decree, any person whose activity is found to endanger the public order, public security or the proper working of the public services may be placed in a security centre by order of the Minister of the Interior and Local Communities. Section 11 of the same Decree provides that any judicial proceedings initiated shall continue when the state of emergency is over.

The Committee notes that the state of emergency, declared in February 1992, was extended in 1993 and remains in force.

The Committee again requests the Government to provide the Orders setting up the security centres along with information on their operation, as well as information on the application of sections 5 and 6(5) of Decree No. 9244, including the text of the conscription decrees, on any penalties prescribed for non-observance and on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure observance of the Convention in this respect.

The Committee also requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of section 87bis of the Penal Code (Ordinance No. 95-11 of 25 February 1995) on subversive acts, and to attach a copy of any court decision defining or illustrating its scope.

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has referred to the provisions concerning the right of association, under which sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed in circumstances covered by the Convention. The Committee noted that under section 5 of Act No. 90-31 concerning associations, any association whose objectives are contrary to the established institutional system, the public order, morals or existing laws or regulations shall be legally non-existent and, under section 45 of the same Act, any person who directs, administers or agitates in an association that is not recognized or that has been suspended or dissolved, or who facilitates the meetings of members of an association that is not recognized or has been suspended or dissolved, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment of from three months to two years. The Committee observed that sections 2 and 3 of the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983 prescribing the procedure for the utilization of prison labour by the National Agency for Educational Work, provide that, unless exempted on medical grounds, convicted prisoners (without distinction as to the nature of the conviction) shall be required to perform useful work as part of their re-education, training and social development. The Committee observes that, despite the adoption of new legislation on associations, the discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention, to which the Committee has been referring for several years, have not been eliminated. The Committee recalls once again that the Convention prohibits the use of 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. The Committee also recalls that the protection afforded by the Convention is not confined to activities expressing or manifesting divergent opinions in the framework of established principles. Consequently, if certain activities are aimed at making fundamental changes in the institutions of the State, this does not constitute a reason for considering that such activities are outside the protection afforded by the Convention, provided that they do not involve the use of, or incitement to, violent efforts to bring about that result. The Committee has requested the Government on several occasions to take the necessary steps to ensure observance of the Convention either by lifting the restrictions on the right of association or by exempting from prison labour persons who are sentenced for breach of the laws on associations or, more generally, for political offences, and who have not committed acts of violence. The Committee has noted from the information in the Government's report that work was in progress at the Ministry of Justice to harmonize the above-mentioned Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983 with international Conventions. It notes that according to the Government's latest report the amendment procedure is not yet complete. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be adopted in the near future to ensure observance of the Convention and asks the Government to report on progress in this matter. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the practical effect given to sections 3, 5, 6 and 36 of Act No. 89-11 and sections 5 and 45 of Act No. 90-31, particularly with regard to convictions handed down under these provisions, and to provide copies of the corresponding court decisions.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

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:

1. Prison labour. The Committee referred previously to the provisions of Ordinance No. 72-02 of 10 February 1972 and those of sections 2 and 3 of the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983, prescribing the procedure for the utilization of prison labour by the National Agency for Educational Work, under which convicted prisoners are required to perform useful work.

The Committee observed that the above texts did not establish any distinction as to the nature of the conviction, in connection with the obligation to perform prison labour, and asked the Government to indicate which texts establish such a distinction and/or lay down exemption from prison labour for persons sentenced for political offences.

The Committee noted the information supplied by the Government on the work in process to harmonize the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983 with the principles of international Conventions. The Committee hopes that the Government will shortly be able to report on the measures that have been taken to ensure that persons sentenced for political offences are not subjected to compulsory prison labour.

2. Article 1(d) and 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee had noted the promulgation of Act No. 90-02 of 6 February 1990 respecting the prevention and settlement of collective labour conflicts and the exercise of the right to strike, and Act No. 90-14 of 2 June 1990 prescribing the procedure for the exercise of trade union rights which repeals Ordinance No. 71-75 of 16 November 1971 concerning collective labour relations in the private sector, on which the Committee has been commenting for several years.

The Committee noted that under section 41 of Act No. 90-02 a conscription may be ordered, in accordance with existing legislation, of striking workers who occupy, in public institutions or administrations, or in enterprises, posts essential to the safety of persons, plant and capital equipment, as well as the continuity of public services which are essential to the vital needs of the country or to undertake essential activities for supplying the public.

The Committee noted that the list of essential services in section 37 of Act No. 90-02 is very long and includes services such as banks, telecommunications and the services of clerks of courts and tribunals.

The Committee also noted that refusal to carry out a conscription order is liable to penalties provided for in the Penal Code (section 42). The Committee has observed that sections 41 and 43 of Act No. 90-02 allow penalties to be imposed on workers who refuse to carry out a conscription order in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term. In order that it may ascertain the scope of the above-mentioned provisions, the Committee again requests that the Government provide information on their application in practice stating, in particular, the number of persons sentenced, and to supply a copy of the judicial decisions handed down in this respect.

The Committee noted that section 6(5) of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992 declaring a state of emergency for a period of 12 months empowers the Ministry of the Interior and Local Communities to order the conscription of workers to carry out their usual occupational activities in the event of an unauthorized or unlawful strike. This includes conscription in public or private enterprises for the purpose of obtaining the performance of services in the public interest. Under section 5 of the same Decree, any person whose activity is found to endanger the public order, public security or the proper working of the public services may be placed in a security centre by order of the Minister of the Interior and Local Communities. Section 11 of the same Decree provides that any judicial proceedings initiated shall continue when the state of emergency is over.

The Committee again requests that the Government provide the Orders setting up the security centres along with information on their operation. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the restrictions on the constitutional rights of assembly, demonstration, association and the right to strike, deriving from the declaration of the state of emergency, and on any penalties prescribed for the non-observance of provisions suspending or modifying fundamental rights, and on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure observance of the Convention in this respect.

3. The Committee hopes that the next report will contain the information requested on the measures that have been taken or are contemplated to repeal or amend section 437 of the Penal Code, under which any worker in a self-managing enterprise or undertaking who, knowingly and despite the opposition of the manager, acts or takes decisions that may reduce the initial value of the means of production may be punished by imprisonment (involving, by virtue of the prison legislation, the obligation to work), in order to ensure that breaches of labour discipline may not be punished by a penalty involving, by virtue of the prison legislation, the obligation to work.

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

1. Prison labour. The Committee referred previously to the provisions of Ordinance No. 72-02 of 10 February 1972 and those of sections 2 and 3 of the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983, prescribing the procedure for the utilization of prison labour by the National Agency for Educational Work, under which convicted prisoners are required to perform useful work.

The Committee observed that the above texts did not establish any distinction as to the nature of the conviction, in connection with the obligation to perform prison labour, and asked the Government to indicate which texts establish such a distinction and/or lay down exemption from prison labour for persons sentenced for political offences.

The Committee noted the information supplied by the Government on the work in process to harmonize the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983 with the principles of international Conventions. The Committee hopes that the Government will shortly be able to report on the measures that have been taken to ensure that persons sentenced for political offences are not subjected to compulsory prison labour.

2. Article 1(d) and 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee had noted the promulgation of Act No. 90-02 of 6 February 1990 respecting the prevention and settlement of collective labour conflicts and the exercise of the right to strike, and Act No. 90-14 of 2 June 1990 prescribing the procedure for the exercise of trade union rights which repeals Ordinance No. 71-75 of 16 November 1971 concerning collective labour relations in the private sector, on which the Committee has been commenting for several years.

The Committee noted that under section 41 of Act No. 90-02 a conscription may be ordered, in accordance with existing legislation, of striking workers who occupy, in public institutions or administrations, or in enterprises, posts essential to the safety of persons, plant and capital equipment, as well as the continuity of public services which are essential to the vital needs of the country or to undertake essential activities for supplying the public.

The Committee noted that the list of essential services in section 37 of Act No. 90-02 is very long and includes services such as banks, telecommunications and the services of clerks of courts and tribunals.

The Committee also noted that refusal to carry out a conscription order is liable to penalties provided for in the Penal Code (section 42). The Committee has observed that sections 41 and 43 of Act No. 90-02 allow penalties to be imposed on workers who refuse to carry out a conscription order in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term. In order that it may ascertain the scope of the above-mentioned provisions, the Committee again requests that the Government provide information on their application in practice stating, in particular, the number of persons sentenced, and to supply a copy of the judicial decisions handed down in this respect.

The Committee noted that section 6(5) of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992 declaring a state of emergency empowers the Ministry of the Interior and Local Communities to order the conscription of workers to carry out their usual occupational activities in the event of an unauthorized or unlawful strike. This includes conscription in public or private enterprises for the purpose of obtaining the performance of services in the public interest. Under section 5 of the same Decree, any person whose activity is found to endanger the public order, public security or the proper working of the public services may be placed in a security centre by order of the Minister of the Interior and Local Communities. Section 11 of the same Decree provides that any judicial proceedings initiated shall continue when the state of emergency is over.

The Committee notes that the state of emergency, declared in February 1992, was extended in 1993 and remains in force.

The Committee again requests the Government to provide the Orders setting up the security centres along with information on their operation, as well as information on the application of sections 5 and 6(5) of Decree No. 9244, including the text of the conscription decrees, on any penalties prescribed for non-observance and on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure observance of the Convention in this respect.

The Committee also requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of section 87bis of the Penal Code (Ordinance No. 95-11 of 25 February 1995) on subversive acts, and to attach a copy of any court decision defining or illustrating its scope.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It must, therefore, repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has referred to the provisions concerning the right of association, under which sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed in the circumstances covered by the Convention. The Committee has referred to Ordinance No. 71-79 of 3 December 1971 and Act No. 87-15 of 21 July 1987 which have been repealed, the former by Act No. 87-15 and the latter by Act No. 90-31 respecting associations, promulgated on 4 December 1990. In its previous observation the Committee referred to Act No. 89-11 of 5 July 1989 respecting associations of a political nature. The Committee noted that under section 5 of Act No. 90-31 any association whose objectives are contrary to the established institutional system, the public order, morals or existing laws or regulations shall be legally non-existent and, under section 45 of the same Act, any person who directs, administers or agitates in an association that is not recognized or that has been suspended or dissolved, or who facilitates the meetings of members of an association that is not recognized or has been suspended or dissolved, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment of from three months to two years. The Committee observes that sections 2 and 3 of the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983 prescribing the procedure for the utilization of prison labour by the National Agency for Educational Work, provide that, unless exempted on medical grounds, convicted prisoners (without distinction as to the nature of the conviction) shall be required to perform useful work as part of their re-education, training and social development. The Committee observes that, despite the adoption of new legislation on associations, the discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention, to which the Committee has been referring for several years, have not been eliminated. The Committee recalls once again that the Convention prohibits the use of 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. The Committee also recalls that the protection afforded by the Convention is not confined to activities expressing or manifesting divergent opinions in the framework of established principles. Consequently, if certain activities are aimed at making fundamental changes in the institutions of the State, this does not constitute a reason for considering that such activities are outside the protection afforded by the Convention, provided that they do not involve the use of, or incitement to, violent methods to bring about that result. The Committee has requested the Government on several occasions to take the necessary steps to ensure observance of the Convention either by lifting the restrictions on the right of association or by exempting from prison labour persons who are sentenced for breach of the laws on associations or, more generally, for political offences, and who have not committed acts of violence. The Committee has noted from the information in the Government's report for 1989-91 that work was in process at the Ministry of Justice to harmonize the above-mentioned Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983 with international Conventions. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be adopted in the near future to ensure observance of the Convention and asks the Government to report on progress in this matter. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the practical effect given to sections 3, 5, 6 and 36 of Act No. 89-11 and sections 5 and 45 of Act No. 90-31, particularly with regard to convictions handed down under these provisions, and to provide copies of the corresponding court decisions.

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

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has referred to the provisions concerning the right of association, under which sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed in circumstances covered by the Convention.

The Committee noted that under section 5 of Act No. 90-31 concerning associations, any association whose objectives are contrary to the established institutional system, the public order, morals or existing laws or regulations shall be legally non-existent and, under section 45 of the same Act, any person who directs, administers or agitates in an association that is not recognized or that has been suspended or dissolved, or who facilitates the meetings of members of an association that is not recognized or has been suspended or dissolved, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment of from three months to two years.

The Committee observed that sections 2 and 3 of the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983 prescribing the procedure for the utilization of prison labour by the National Agency for Educational Work, provide that, unless exempted on medical grounds, convicted prisoners (without distinction as to the nature of the conviction) shall be required to perform useful work as part of their re-education, training and social development.

The Committee observes that, despite the adoption of new legislation on associations, the discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention, to which the Committee has been referring for several years, have not been eliminated.

The Committee recalls once again that the Convention prohibits the use of 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.

The Committee also recalls that the protection afforded by the Convention is not confined to activities expressing or manifesting divergent opinions in the framework of established principles. Consequently, if certain activities are aimed at making fundamental changes in the institutions of the State, this does not constitute a reason for considering that such activities are outside the protection afforded by the Convention, provided that they do not involve the use of, or incitement to, violent efforts to bring about that result.

The Committee has requested the Government on several occasions to take the necessary steps to ensure observance of the Convention either by lifting the restrictions on the right of association or by exempting from prison labour persons who are sentenced for breach of the laws on associations or, more generally, for political offences, and who have not committed acts of violence.

The Committee has noted from the information in the Government's report that work was in progress at the Ministry of Justice to harmonize the above-mentioned Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983 with international Conventions. It notes that according to the Government's latest report the amendment procedure is not yet complete. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be adopted in the near future to ensure observance of the Convention and asks the Government to report on progress in this matter.

The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the practical effect given to sections 3, 5, 6 and 36 of Act No. 89-11 and sections 5 and 45 of Act No. 90-31, particularly with regard to convictions handed down under these provisions, and to provide copies of the corresponding court decisions.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

1. Prison labour. The Committee referred previously to the provisions of Ordinance No. 72-02 of 10 February 1972 and those of sections 2 and 3 of the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983, prescribing the procedure for the utilization of prison labour by the National Agency for Educational Work, under which convicted prisoners are required to perform useful work.

The Committee observed that the above texts did not establish any distinction as to the nature of the conviction, in connection with the obligation to perform prison labour, and asked the Government to indicate which texts establish such a distinction and/or lay down exemption from prison labour for persons sentenced for political offences.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government on the work currently in process to harmonize the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983 with the principles of international Conventions. The Committee hopes that the Government will shortly be able to report on the measures that have been taken to ensure that persons sentenced for political offences are not subjected to compulsory prison labour.

2. Article 1(d) and 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the promulgation of Act No. 90-02 of 6 February 1990 respecting the prevention and settlement of collective labour conflicts and the exercise of the right to strike, and Act No. 90-14 of 2 June 1990 prescribing the procedure for the exercise of trade union rights which repeals Ordinance No. 71-75 of 16 November 1971 concerning collective labour relations in the private sector, on which the Committee has been commenting for several years.

The Committee notes that under section 41 of Act No. 90-02 a conscription may be ordered, in accordance with existing legislation, of striking workers who occupy, in public institutions or administrations, or in enterprises, posts essential to the safety of persons, plant and capital equipment, as well as the continuity of public services which are essential to the vital needs of the country or to undertake essential activities for supplying the public.

The Committee notes that the list of essential services in section 37 of Act No. 90-02 is very long and includes services such as banks, telecommunications and the services of clerks of courts and tribunals.

The Committee also notes that refusal to carry out a conscription order is liable to penalties provided for in the Penal Code (section 42). The Committee observes that sections 41 and 43 of Act No. 90-02 allow penalties to be imposed on workers who refuse to carry out a conscription order in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term. In order that it may ascertain the scope of the above-mentioned provisions, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on their application in practice stating, in particular, the number of persons sentenced, and to supply a copy of the judicial decisions handed down in this respect.

The Committee notes that section 6(5) of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992 declaring a state of emergency for a period of 12 months empowers the Ministry of the Interior and Local Communities to order the conscription of workers to carry out their usual occupational activities in the event of an unauthorized or unlawful strike. This includes conscription in public or private enterprises for the purpose of obtaining the performance of services in the public interest. Under section 5 of the same Decree, any person whose activity is found to endanger the public order, public security or the proper working of the public services may be placed in a security centre by order of the Minister of the Interior and Local Communities. Section 11 of the same Decree provides that any judicial proceedings initiated shall continue when the state of emergency is over.

The Committee asks the Government to provide the Orders setting up the security centres along with information on their operation. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the restrictions on the constitutional rights of assembly, demonstration, association and the right to strike, deriving from the declaration of the state of emergency, and on any penalties prescribed for the non-observance of provisions suspending or modifying fundamental rights, and on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure observance of the Convention in this respect.

3. The Committee notes once again that the Government's report contains no information on the measures that have been taken or are contemplated to repeal or amend section 437 of the Penal Code, under which any worker in a self-managing enterprise or undertaking who, knowingly and despite the opposition of the manager, carries out acts or takes decisions that may reduce the initial value of the means of production may be punished by imprisonment (involving, by virtue of the prison legislation, the obligation to work), in order to ensure that breaches of labour discipline may not be punished by a penalty involving, by virtue of the prison legislation, the obligation to work.

The Committee hopes that the next report will contain the information requested.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has referred to the provisions concerning the right of association, under which sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed in the circumstances covered by the Convention.

The Committee has referred to Ordinance No. 71-79 of 3 December 1971 and Act No. 87-15 of 21 July 1987 which have been repealed, the former by Act No. 87-15 and the latter by Act No. 90-31 respecting associations, promulgated on 4 December 1990. In its previous observation the Committee referred to Act No. 89-11 of 5 July 1989 respecting associations of a political nature.

The Committee notes that under section 5 of Act No. 90-31 any association whose objectives are contrary to the established institutional system, the public order, morals or existing laws or regulations shall be legally non-existent and, under section 45 of the same Act, any person who directs, administers or agitates in an association that is not recognized or that has been suspended or dissolved, or who facilitates the meetings of members of an association that is not recognized or has been suspended or dissolved, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment of from three months to two years.

The Committee observes that sections 2 and 3 of the Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983 prescribing the procedure for the utilization of prison labour by the National Agency for Educational Work, provide that, unless exempted on medical grounds, convicted prisoners (without distinction as to the nature of the conviction) shall be required to perform useful work as part of their re-education, training and social development.

The Committee observes that, despite the adoption of new legislation on associations, the discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention, to which the Committee has been referring for several years, have not been eliminated.

The Committee recalls once again that the Convention prohibits the use of 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.

The Committee also recalls that the protection afforded by the Convention is not confined to activities expressing or manifesting divergent opinions in the framework of established principles. Consequently, if certain activities are aimed at making fundamental changes in the institutions of the State, this does not constitute a reason for considering that such activities are outside the protection afforded by the Convention, provided that they do not involve the use of, or incitement to, violent methods to bring about that result.

The Committee has requested the Government on several occasions to take the necessary steps to ensure observance of the Convention either by lifting the restrictions on the right of association or by exempting from prison labour persons who are sentenced for breach of the laws on associations or, more generally, for politcal offences, and who have not committed acts of violence.

The Committee notes from the information in the Government's report that work is in process at the Ministry of Justice to harmonize the above-mentioned Interministerial Order of 26 June 1983 with international Conventions. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be adopted in the near future to ensure observance of the Convention and asks the Government to report on progress in this matter.

The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the practical effect given to sections 3, 5, 6 and 36 of Act No. 89-11 and sections 5 and 45 of Act No. 90-31, particularly with regard to convictions handed down under these provisions, and to provide copies of the corresponding court decisions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. Prison labour. The Committee previously referred to the provisions of Ordinance No. 72-02 of 10 February 1972 and to those of sections 2 and 3 of the Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983, prescribing the procedure for the utilisation of prison labour by the National Agency for Educational Work, under which convicted prisoners are required to perform useful work. The Committee noted the Government's statement that only common criminals may be obliged to perform work with a view to their re-education and reintegration into society.

The Committee observes that the above texts do not establish any distinction as to the nature of the conviction, in connection with the obligation to perform prison labour.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate which texts establish such a distinction and/or lay down exemption from prison labour for persons sentenced for political offences.

2. Article 1(d). In its previous comments, the Committee referred to sections 15 and 21 of Ordinance No. 71-75 of 16 November 1971, respecting collective labour relations in the private sector, under which workers, even those who are not union members, are prohibited from resorting to a strike without the approval of the trade union authorities, and any infringement may be punished by a penalty of imprisonment involving, by virtue of the prison legislation, the obligation to work. The Committee noted the Government's statement that a Bill respecting the procedure for exercising the right of association was to be examined.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that two draft texts respecting the right to strike are being prepared. One will establish the procedures and restrictions and the other will deal essentially with the protection of the exercise of the right of association and will assure its autonomy.

The Committee hopes that, in this revision of the legislation concerning the right to strike, account will be taken of the requirements of the Convention, and asks the Government to provide copies of the new texts when adopted.

3. The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no information on the measures taken or under consideration to repeal or amend section 437 of the Labour Code, under which any worker in a self-managing enterprise or undertaking who, knowingly and despite the opposition of the manager, carries out acts or takes decisions that may reduce the initial value of the means of production may be punished by imprisonment (involving, by virtue of the prison legislation, the obligation to work), in order to ensure that breaches of labour discipline may not be punished by a penalty involving, by virtue of the prison legislation, the obligation to work.

The Committee hopes that the next report will contain the information requested.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In the comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has referred to the provisions concerning the right of association, under which sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed in circumstances covered by the Convention.

The Committee noted that by virtue of section 4 of Act No. 87-15 of 21 July 1987, any association whose objectives are contrary to the "established institutional system" or are "of such a nature as to threaten the fundamental options and choices of the country" is forbidden and shall be legally non-existent, and that by virtue of section 7 of the Act, any person who directs, administers or is a member of an association that has been dissolved, or any person who facilitates the meetings of members of an association that has been banned or dissolved is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from one to five years involving, under the Penal Administration and Re-education Code, the obligation to work.

In this connection, the Committee observed that sections 2 and 3 of the Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983, prescribing the procedure for the utilisation of prison labour by the National Agency for Educational Work, provide that, unless exempted on medical grounds, convicted prisoners (without distinction as to the nature of the conviction) shall be required to perform useful work as part of their re-education, training and social development.

The Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures taken in order to ensure compliance with the Convention either by removing the restrictions on the right of association or the penalties laid down in the Act of 21 July 1987, or by exempting from prison labour persons who are convicted of offences under the Act, or more generally, for offences of a political nature provided that they have not committed acts of violence.

The Committee notes the indications communicated in the Government's report, to the effect that the development and strengthening of democracy have led to the adoption of a new Constitution which, with regard to collective freedoms, guarantees freedom of expression, association and assembly. The Government specifies that the Constitution recognises the right to establish associations of a political nature (article 40). The Government states that, in view of these provisions, there can be no political prisoners.

The Committee notes the promulgation of Act No. 89-11 of 5 July 1989 respecting associations of a political nature. Section 3 of the Act stipulates that all associations of a political nature must, in pursuance of their aims, contribute "... to the protection of the republican form of the State and of the fundamental freedoms of citizens (subsection 3); to the protection and consolidation of the social and cultural development of the nation in the framework of national Arab and Islamic values (subsection 4); to ensuring respect for the democratic form of organisation (subsection 5)". Section 5 provides that the establishment and activities of associations of a political nature may not be founded on a basis and/or objectives involving "... conduct which is contrary to Islamic morals and to the values of the revolution of 1 November 1954". Under section 6 "the establishment, action and activities of all associations of a political nature must be fully in keeping with the Constitution and the laws in force." Under section 36, any person who, in violation of the provisions of the law, funds, directs or administers an association of a political nature, whatever its form or denomination, is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from one to five years involving, by virtue of the above-mentioned provisions, the obligation to work.

The Committee recalls once again that the Convention prohibits the use of 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.

The Committee also recalls that the protection afforded by the Convention is not confined to activities expressing or manifesting divergent opinions in the framework of established principles. Consequently, if certain activities are aimed at making fundamental changes in the institutions of the State, this does not constitute a reason for considering that such activities are outside the protection afforded by the Convention, provided that they do not involve the use of, or incitement to, violent methods to bring about that result.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the persons protected by the Convention may not be punished by penalties involving, by virtue of sections 2 and 3 of the Inter-Ministerial Order of 26 June 1983, the obligation to work. Furthermore, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical application of the above provisions of Acts Nos. 87-15 of 21 July 1987 and 89-11 of 5 July 1989, particularly with regard to convictions under these provisions, and to provide copies of the relevant judgements.

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