Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2004, Publicación: 93ª reunión CIT (2005)

In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to communicate certain legislative texts in order to ascertain that there were no provisions in the national legislation under which any form of forced or compulsory labour might be imposed in any of the cases listed in the Convention. With its last report, the Government communicated copies of Act No. 2002-027 of 25 September 2002 regarding press cards, the French Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association, which the Government indicates is applicable in Togo, as well as Decree No. 91-167 of 31 May 1991, organizing the right to strike in public services.

In its comments relating to the application of Convention No. 29, the Committee has been asking the Government for a number of years to provide copies of any texts setting out practical arrangements and regulations for prison labour which may have been adopted pursuant to sections 22(2), 26(2) and 35(3) of the Penal Code. The Government has constantly replied that no such texts have been adopted. The Committee notes, however, that the above sections of the Penal Code provide for the possibility for persons sentenced to reclusion and imprisonment to work. In addition, the Committee notes from the Government’s report under Convention No. 29, received in October 2000, that in practice, pretrial and other prisoners not convicted by a court of law are not compelled to perform any work other than the cleaning of cells and of their immediate surroundings. The Committee is therefore bound to consider that, even though the texts which are to give application to the above sections of the Penal Code have not been adopted, work may be imposed in practice on prisoners sentenced to reclusion or imprisonment. In such conditions, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practice of prison labour and draws its attention to the following provisions of the legislation of Togo, which may fall under the scope of Article 1(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention.

Penal Code:

-  section 182(1), which provides that "whoever participates on the public highway in a procession, gathering, or in any other demonstration impeding the public circulation, without having received prior administrative authorization shall be punished with a fine of 2,000 to 30,000 francs", read together with section 36, according to which "in case of failure to pay the police fine within the allotted time, the fine may be replaced by penal labour at the rate of one day’s work for a 500 franc fine";

-  section 182(2), which provides that "the organizers of the unauthorized demonstrations on the public highway, even if they have not themselves participated in the demonstrations, shall be punished with one to six months imprisonment and a 20,000 to 100,000 francs fine, or one of these two penalties only", also read together with section 36;

-  section 217, which provides that "whoever has participated in a concerted work stoppage outside the current regulations shall be punished with one to 20 days penal labour or a 2,000 to 30,000 franc fine" (paragraph 1), and that "the organizers of the concerted work stoppage shall be punished with one to six months imprisonment" (paragraph 2).

Act of 1 July 1901 regarding contracts of association:

-  section 8(1), which provides that "any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a 16 to 200 franc fine and, in the event of a second offence, with a double fine", read together with section 36 of the Penal Code. Section 5 concerns the formalities with respect to the requirement of a preliminary declaration, changes which have occurred in the association’s administration or management, and modifications which have been made to their statutes;

-  section 8(2), which provides that "the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgement of dissolution shall be punished with a 16 to 5,000 franc fine and six days to one year of imprisonment", while section 8(3) provides that "any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty";

-  section 15, which makes the penalties established in section 8(2) applicable to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such list at the request of the prefect.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate how these various provisions are applied in practice.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted the Media and Communication Code (Act No. 4 of 11 February 1998), sections 86 et seq. of which establish penalties of imprisonment. In its report, the Government indicates that this Act was repealed by Act No. 2000-06 of 23 February 2000, which was itself modified by Act No. 2002-026 of 25 September 2002, and that the last text adopted in August 2004 has not yet entered into force. The Committee understands that the Bill adopted by the Council of Ministers on 21 July 2004, modifying the Media and Communication Code, was adopted in Parliament in August 2004. It notes that the Bill, as adopted by the Government, still provides for prison sentences and heavy fines in case of violation of the press laws and offences which may be related to freedom of expression. The Committee asks the Government to communicate a copy of the Media and Communication Code, as amended in August 2004, and to specify whether it has entered into force.

The Committee also referred previously to section 25 of the Charter of Political Parties (Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991), according to which "any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter is liable to imprisonment of from three to 12 months and a 100,000 to 500,000 CFA franc fine, or one of these two penalties only. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report that the above provisions have not been applied up to now. In such conditions, the Committee trusts that the Government will see no inconvenience in taking measures to repeal this section.

Article 1(c). In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to indicate whether disciplinary detention under section 79 of Ordinance No. 29 of 12 August 1971, issuing the Merchant Shipping Code for breach of discipline, involves the obligation to work. The Committee notes the information communicated by the Government in its report that disciplinary detention does not involve the obligation to work.