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

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Bolivie (Etat plurinational de) (Ratification: 1990)

Autre commentaire sur C105

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing certain political views. For a number of years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to provide information on the practical application of sections 123 (sedition), 126 (conspiracy), 132 (criminal association), and 134 (public disorder and disturbances) of the Penal Code under which sentences of imprisonment could be imposed in cases which fall within the scope of the application of Article 1(a) of the Convention. These provisions may be used to punish, with compulsory labour, acts through which persons express political views or peacefully express views opposed to the established political economic or social system, as sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work under section 48 of the Penal Code and sections 181 et seq. of Act No. 2298 of 2001 on the enforcement of sentences. The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not provide any information in this regard. The Committee again requests the Government to provide updated information on the application of sections 123, 126, 132 and 134 of the Penal Code in practice, including on the number of persons convicted on the basis of the abovementioned provisions, as well as copies of any relevant judicial decisions handed down.

The Committee previously noted the 2012 decision of the Constitutional Court of the Plurinational State of Bolivia declaring unconstitutional section 162 of the Penal Code, which punishes by imprisonment the slander, affront or defamation of a public servant in the exercise of their duties, with an increase in the sentence where the individual targeted is the President or Vice-President of the Republic, officials of the State or of the Supreme Court, or members of Congress. The Committee also noted the increasing number of criminal proceedings being brought against journalists and requested the Government to provide information on the ongoing criminal proceedings. While observing that the Government does not provide any information in this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its report, that the Constitution provides for freedom of opinion and expression, including of the press which is also regulated by the Press Act of 19 January 1925. The Committee notes however that, in its 2017 annual report, the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter American Commission on Human Rights enumerated several limitations the Government placed on the media, including the use by some public officials of the term “the cartel of lies” to discredit independent journalists and news outlets expressing dissenting opinions; the situation of journalists who were forced to leave the country in 2016; and pressure against notable journalists who criticized the Government. The Committee notes that, in September 2018, the Government announced that a draft “law against lies” would be submitted to the Congress to “punish liars” in the media and “moralize” independent news organizations. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that no prison sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. It also requests the Government to provide information on the criminal proceedings under way against journalists, indicating the number of proceedings initiated, the legislative provisions under which they were initiated and the sentences imposed. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the status of the draft “law against lies”, and to provide a copy of the new legislation once adopted.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that section 234 of the Penal Code under which prison sentences could be imposed for participation in strike was repealed, but that sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951 establishing criminal sanctions for participation in general strikes and acts of solidarity remained in force. While noting the Government’s indication that such provisions are not applied in practice, the Committee requested the Government to amend or repeal these provisions. It notes that the Government merely states that it takes note of the request of the Committee. The Committee recalls that compelling a person to work, including in the form of prison labour, for peacefully participating in a strike is prohibited under the Convention. Accordingly, prison sentences, when they involve compulsory labour, as is the case in the Plurinational State of Bolivia under the terms of section 48 of the Criminal Code and sections 181 et seq. of Act No. 2298 of 2001, lie within the scope of the Convention when they are imposed for a participation in a strike. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated information on the application of sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951. It again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to align its national legislation with the Convention and the existing practice in the very near future, by amending or repealing the abovementioned provisions, and to provide information on any progress made in this regard.