Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2000, Publicación: 89ª reunión CIT (2001)

Article 1(d) of the Convention.  For several years the Committee has been referring in its observations to section 288 of the Penal Code (violation of the freedom of work) which provides for prison sentences of from one month to two years, involving compulsory labour, for acts of violence, the use of force, threats or fraudulent activities during certain types of work stoppage.

The Committee had previously noted the request submitted by the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) to the Government to repeal this provision which, according to the UMT, is frequently used by the courts to imprison UMT militants because of their peaceful participation in strikes. The Committee also noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association had concluded, when examining a complaint from the UMT, that "the authorities should not resort to arrests and imprisonment in connection with the organization of or participation in a peaceful strike: such measures entail serious risks of abuse and are a grave threat to freedom of association" (GB.267/7, paragraph 409, 267th Session).

The Committee asked the Government to supply copies of any rulings handed down in this connection. It notes that a certain number of judgements were attached to the Government’s report and that in its report the Government indicates, once again, that the acts sanctioned under section 288 are acts of violence, the use of force, threats or fraudulent activities, as well as violations of the freedom of work.

The Committee notes that, in one of the rulings handed down under section 288, the element constituting violation of the freedom of work was the fact of having placed stones on the access road to the workplace, without any mention of violence or of any consequences giving rise to injury. The Committee also observes that in four out of the nine judgements communicated by the Government, the Court acquitted the accused of the charges made against them, which may suggest a certain abuse of this procedure. This impression is reinforced by the Government’s indication in its report that "an abundance of rulings are handed down under this section". The Committee notes the complaint against the Government of Morocco to the Committee on Freedom of Association presented by the Moroccan Labour Union (UMT) on 4 September 1999, alleging the arrest of trade union officers and members following strikes. According to the UMT, the workers of the AVITEMA factory were participating in a peaceful, legal strike within the factory when the forces of order intervened violently on 2 September 1999, arresting 21 militant trade union members who were brought before the Court of First Instance of Rabat and charged under the "sinister section 288 of the Penal Code which represses trade union members exercising their right to strike".

The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association, in its conclusions on this complaint (Case No. 2048), reminds the Government that "no one should be deprived of their freedom or be subject to penal sanctions for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike" (GB.279/8, 279th Session, November 2000). This complaint was also presented by the Arab Maghreb Worker’s Union (USTMA) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU).

The Committee requests the Government to examine section 288 of the Penal Code in the light of the Convention and the restrictions that application of this penal provision causes to the free exercise of freedom of association and the right to strike, which are in fact guaranteed in the national Constitution. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that sanctions, including compulsory labour, cannot be imposed for participating in strikes.

The Committee asked the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to section 5 of Decree No. 2-57-1465 of 8 February 1958 respecting the exercise of the right to organize by public servants. The Committee noted, from the observations formulated by the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) and the General Union of Moroccan Workers (UGTM) that the Government had recourse to this Decree to threaten public servants and oblige them to work during strikes and that in certain cases it had arrested teachers and health-care personnel.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the only risk run by public employees, who contravene the rules of conduct stipulated under section 5, is the suspension of the right to defend themselves before the Disciplinary Council, and in no case is there a risk of forced labour.

Article 1(a).  The Committee notes the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/79Add.113 of 1 November 1999) after consideration of the fourth periodic report of Morocco, in which the Committee "continues to be concerned that the Moroccan Press Code includes provisions which severely restrict freedom of expression by authorizing seizure of publications and by imposing penalties for broadly defined offences (such as publishing inaccurate information or undermining the political or religious establishment). It is deeply concerned that 44 persons have been imprisoned for offences under these laws. In addition, the Committee is particularly concerned that persons expressing political views opposing the Government or calling for a republican form of government have been sentenced to imprisonment under section 179 of the Penal Code for the offence of insulting members of the royal family" (paragraph 23). "The Committee is concerned at the breadth of the requirement of notification for assemblies and that the requirement of a receipt of notification of an assembly is often abused, resulting in de facto limits of the right of assembly" (paragraph 24).

The Committee recalls that the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison 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 provided by the Convention is not restricted to activities expressing or displaying opinions different from established principles. Consequently, if certain activities are directed towards the introduction of fundamental changes to the institutions of the State, this does not constitute a reason for considering them to fall outside the protection provided by the Convention, as long as the use of, or incitation to, violence is not made in arriving at the desired result.

The Committee also observes the importance, for the effective respect of the Convention, of legal guarantees regarding the rights of assembly, of expression, to demonstration and association, and the direct incidence that restriction of these rights may have on the effect given to the Convention. It is in fact often in the exercise of these rights that political opposition to the established order may show itself.

The Committee requests the Government to supply the text of Dahir No. 1‑58-378 of 15 November 1958 enacting the Press Code and the texts regarding the rights of assembly and of association.