Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2018, publiée 108ème session CIT (2019)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Iraq (Ratification: 1962)

Autre commentaire sur C029

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Restrictions on the freedom to resign of persons in the service of the State. Over a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the incompatibility of various legislative provisions, which restrict the freedom to resign of persons in the service of the State. It noted in particular section 40(1) and (2) of Act No. 201 of 1975 on civil maritime service, under the terms of which an application to resign filed by a civil officer or seafarer in the merchant navy may be refused and that such refusal is final. It also noted Resolutions Nos 917 of 1988 and 550 of 1989, which establish similar restrictions with regard to various categories of state officials; and section 35 of Civil Service Act No. 24 of 1960, under which the resignation of an official is not valid unless accepted by the competent authority. Finally, the Committee noted that under section 364 of the Penal Code, any official or any person entrusted with public office may be punished with imprisonment if their absence from work may result in the paralysis of a public service. The Committee asked the Government to take the necessary measures in order to bring the above provisions into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that according to section 35 of Civil Service Act No. 24 of 1960, any official may apply for resignation to the competent body; and, in the absence of reply within three months, the application to resign is considered as accepted. The Committee observes however that, under the same section, the request to resign can be either accepted or rejected, and therefore the service is not automatically terminated after the expiration of the notice period. Moreover, the Committee, once again refers to a certain number of provisions which are not in conformity with the Convention, including: (i) section 40(1) and (2) of Act No. 201 of 1975 on civil maritime service, under the terms of which an application to resign filed by a civil officer or seafarer in the merchant navy may be refused and that such refusal is final; (ii) Resolutions Nos 917 of 1988 and 550 of 1989, which establish similar restrictions with regard to various categories of state officials; and (iii) section 364 of the Penal Code, under which any official or any person entrusted with public office may be punished with imprisonment if their absence from work may result in the paralysis of a public service.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length are incompatible with the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend or repeal the abovementioned provisions, either by eliminating the possibility to reject a resignation submitted through notice of reasonable length, or by limiting provisions preventing workers from leaving their employment to emergency situations.

Article 2(c). Obligation to work as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, by virtue of section 87 of the Penal Code of 1969, any prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life or a shorter period is obliged to perform the work envisaged by the Act respecting prison establishments. It also noted that sections 88 and 89 specify that severe and shorter sentences are combined with the obligation to work. The Committee requested the Government to provide a copy of any text regulating the conditions of work of convicted persons.

The Committee notes Prison Act No. 104 of 1981 annexed to the Government’s report. It notes that under section 18, prisoners perform work either inside or outside the premises of the prison. It also notes that section 20 (amended by Law No. 22 of 2002) provides that prisoners may perform work outside the prison under certain conditions: (i) the prison institution concludes an agreement with the government authorities; and (ii) sections 4 and 5 of the Labour Code on wages, working time, rest periods and public holidays are applied. Moreover, under section 20, prisoners who perform labour shall benefit from the social security coverage in accordance with section 8 of Law No. 39 of 1981 on Retirement and Social Security. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether prisoners are allowed to carry out work for private entities and under which conditions.

Article 25. Penal sanctions for the exaction of forced labour. Over a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to section 325 of the Penal Code, under which any public servant or person entrusted with a public service who exacts forced labour from individuals in circumstances other than those relating to the public interest, as set out in laws and regulations, or as required by a state of necessity, or who require them to work in cases other than those envisaged by the law, is liable to a sentence of imprisonment. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to complete the legislation to ensure that both public officials and private entities which exact forced labour are liable to the penal sanctions, as envisaged in Article 25 of the Convention.

The Committee notes that under section 11(2) of Labour Code No. 35 of 2015, a sanction of imprisonment for a minimum period of six months may be imposed for violation of the provisions on forced labour. The Committee further notes that Anti-Trafficking Law No. 28 of 2012 criminalizes trafficking in persons for sexual exploitation and forced labour, and establishes prison sentences of up to 15 years.