Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2012, publiée 102ème session CIT (2013)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Venezuela (République bolivarienne du) (Ratification: 1964)

Autre commentaire sur C105

Observation

2023
2020
2016
2013
2012

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 1(a) and (d) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political opinions or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system or as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee notes the comments submitted on 31 August 2011 by the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) on the application by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of a number of Conventions. The Committee observes that the CTV refers to several provisions of the national legislation (the Penal Code and the Framework Act on national security and defence) as restricting the exercise of the right to strike and serving as a basis for criminalizing social protest in the country, and accordingly constituting a form of blackmail and coercion to prevent workers from defending their interests legitimately. According to the union, these provisions can be used to penalize, through high fines as well as sentences of imprisonment, persons who, in the exercise of their right to strike, paralyse the activities of an enterprise.

The Committee observes that, in the context of the supervision of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), both the Committee of Experts and the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference have expressed concern at the criminalization of legitimate trade union activities, at restrictions on the public freedoms that are necessary for the exercise of trade union rights and at allegations that a climate of intimidation prevails around trade union organizations, employers’ organizations and heads of enterprises that are not sympathetic to the Government.

The Committee notes the report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) entitled “Democracy and human rights in Venezuela” (OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc.54, of 30 December 2009) and its 2010 Annual Report (OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc.5 corr.1, of 7 March 2011), and in particular paragraphs 608–837 covering the situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In its 2009 report, the IACHR examined with concern the situation with regard to freedom of thought and expression in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It considered that the lack of independence and autonomy of the judicial authorities in relation to the political authorities is a fragile aspect of democracy. It analysed the serious obstacles faced by human rights defenders and it expressed concern at the information attesting to a trend of acts of reprisal against individuals who express public disapproval of Government policies, which affect both opposition bodies and citizens who exercise their right to express their disagreement with the policies adopted. In its 2010 report, the IACHR indicates that this worrying trend has continued and also notes a trend to take disciplinary, administrative and penal action against the media and journalists. The IACHR recommended the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to refrain from carrying out reprisals or using the punitive power of the State to intimidate or sanction individuals on the basis of their political opinions and to guarantee the plurality of spaces for democratic activity, including respect for demonstrations and protests that are carried out in exercise of the right of assembly and peaceful demonstration. In its press releases Nos 36/10 and 61/10, the IACHR also expressed its deep concern at the use of the punitive power of the State to criminalize human rights defenders, judicialize peaceful social protests and bring criminal prosecutions against persons the authorities considered to be political opponents.

The Committee also notes that, in the context of the Universal Periodic Review carried out in October 2011 by the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) stated that the situation with regard to the right to freedom of expression had deteriorated in recent years and referred to a series of provisions of the national legislation that were also likely to restrict the right to freedom of expression (A/HRC/WG.6/12/VEN/2, paragraphs 44 and 46).

The Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 1(a) and (d) of the Convention, persons who express political views, or who express opposition to the established political, social or economic system, or who participate in a strike, cannot be the subject of sanctions under the terms of which work is imposed upon them. The Committee notes that, under the terms of sections 12 and 15 of the Penal Code, persons sentenced to a penalty of presidio or of prisión are subject to the obligation to work. Only persons sentenced to a penalty of arresto are excluded from the obligation to work (section 17). The Committee draws attention to the following provisions of the Penal Code which establish penalties of prisión for certain forms of behaviour:

-offending or showing a lack of respect for the President of the Republic or for a number of public authorities (sections 147 and 148);
-public denigration of the National Assembly, the Supreme Court of Justice, etc. (section 149);
-offending the honour, reputation or prestige of a member of the National Assembly or a public servant, or of a judicial or political body (sections 222 and 225); proof of the truth of the facts is not admitted (section 226);
-defamation (sections 242 and 244).

In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that no one who expresses political views, who peacefully opposes the established political, social or economic system or who participates peacefully in a strike can be sentenced to imprisonment under the terms of which compulsory labour would be imposed. It also requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above provisions, with a copy of court decisions based thereon and an indication of the facts that gave rise to the convictions.