Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1993, publiée 80ème session CIT (1993)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its reports.

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted that Legislative Decree No. 65 of 1979 respecting public meetings and gatherings establishes a system of prior authorization, providing in the event of violations for the penalty of imprisonment which involves, by virtue of the Penal Code, the obligation to work. The Committee notes that under section 6 of the above Decree, authorization may be tacitly refused without giving reasons, and appeals against a refusal can be lodged only with the Minister of the Interior, whose decision is final. The Committee notes the Government's reiterated statement that the rules of law established by the State in different areas in the form of laws, decrees, orders, or regulations, respond to the need for public order and that infractions of these provisions are punishable by a penalty so as to ensure their strict and effective application. This system is based on the sovereign right of States to govern throughout their territory. In the Government's opinion, asking for the amendment of these rules of law represents an interference in the internal affairs of the country; such a request is therefore not permissible and must be rejected.

The Committee notes the Government's indications. It must point out once again that in ratifying the Convention, the Government has undertaken to suppress, in its internal law, any sanctions involving compulsory labour, which would be imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing certain political views, or expressing their ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system. As the Committee pointed out in paragraphs 138 and 139 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, observance of the Convention is in jeopardy where the Government may prohibit, subject to sanctions involving compulsory labour, specified persons from attending or addressing meetings or gatherings, or generally from taking part in any political activities. Since opinions and views ideologically opposed to the established system are often expressed at various kinds of meetings, the prohibition of specific categories of meetings may give rise to political coercion involving sanctions which are contrary to the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government re-examine the situation and to indicate the measures which it envisages taking to ensure the full conformity of the legislation with the provisions of the Convention.

2. Article 1(c). In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under Legislative Decree No. 31 of 1980 regarding security, order and discipline on board ship, certain breaches of discipline (including unauthorized absence, repeated disobedience or failure to return to the vessel) committed by common agreement by three persons may be punished by imprisonment including the obligation to work. The Committee observed that penalties inflicted as labour discipline or punishment for having participated in a strike involving acts endangering the safety of the vessel or the life or health of the persons on board do not come within the scope of the Convention. However, sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Decree do not limit the application of these sanctions to the above acts. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to re-examine the Legislative Decree in the light of the Convention and the Committee's comments in paragraphs 117 and 125 of the above General Survey, and to indicate in its next report any measures which have been taken or are envisaged to bring the legislation on merchant shipping into conformity with the Convention on this point.