Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1990, publiée 77ème session CIT (1990)

1. Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's indication that no prison sentence was imposed during the period covered by its report under sections 134(a), (b) and (c), 145(2) and (5), 146 to 149, 151, 159(a) or 160 of the Penal Code, each of which have been the subject of comments by the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to continue including information on any cases of practical application of these provisions, including copies of relevant court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

In previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 160 of the Penal Code, participation, etc., in a strike prohibited under emergency legislation is liable to punishment including a penal sentence involving prison labour. It notes the Government's statement that during the period covered by its most recent report there has been no change in the Government's policy and practice as to the implementation of section 160. With reference to the Committee's earlier request that the Government might give consideration to amending the wording of the section at an appropriate occasion, the Government states that, as such a declaration of a state of emergency which would make section 160 applicable has never been made and is unlikely to be issued in the future, and, in view of general public consensus, no statutory prohibition should be imposed on participation in a strike unless the existence, well-being or security of the whole or part of the population is endangered. The Government thus considers that there is no immediate necessity to amend section 160 of the Penal Code.

The Committee once again expresses the hope that consideration will be given to its repeated suggestion to amend at an appropriate occasion the specific language of section 160 of the Penal Code so as to explicitly limit its scope to circumstances which would constitute a "state of emergency" in the strict sense of the term.