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

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Côte d'Ivoire (Ratification: 1961)

Autre commentaire sur C105

Demande directe

2021
2018
2017
2015
2010

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Impact of compulsory prison labour on the application of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that, with the exception of persons convicted of military offences, any individual sentenced to imprisonment is forced to work. Under section 46 of the Penal Code, sentences involve imprisonment in all cases but persons sentenced to detention are not compelled to work. Moreover, under section 68 of Decree No. 69-189 of 14 May 1969 issuing the prison regulations, convicted prisoners are required to work. Lastly, section 680 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the same obligation to work, stating that it applies to individuals sentenced to imprisonment for crimes or common law offences. The Committee drew the Government’s attention to the following provisions of the Penal Code which prescribe prison sentences for offences which could come within the scope of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention.

With respect to Article 1(a) (work imposed as a punishment for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system):

-section 172: possession, distribution, sale or public display, for propaganda purposes, of tracts or bulletins of foreign origin or inspiration, such as to harm the national interest;
-section 173: publication, dissemination, disclosure or reproduction by whatever means of false information which results in, or could result in, … the undermining of public morals or the discrediting of institutions or their functioning;
-section 183: participation in an unauthorized or prohibited demonstration; and
-sections 243–249: insults and abuse directed at Heads of State, representatives of foreign governments and national or foreign emblems, and also abuse directed at the public authorities.

With respect to Article 1(c) (work imposed as a means of labour discipline):

-section 271: negligence by a civil servant causing any delay, slowdown or disruption that seriously undermines the functioning of the public service to which he/she belongs.

With respect to Article 1(d) (work imposed as a punishment for having participated in strikes):

-section 318: threats or deception intended to cause or maintain a concerted work stoppage with a view to forcing an increase or decrease in wages or undermining the freedom of industry or work.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that section 680 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while establishing the compulsory nature of prison labour, stipulates that the revenue from the work of convicted persons goes, inter alia, towards the payment of fines for the public treasury and the prosecuting authority and towards a reserve fund and allowance for convicted persons at the time of their release. According to the Government, compulsory labour for any person serving a prison sentence cannot be considered as a penalty for expressing certain political views, for participating in a strike or as a disciplinary measure. While noting the advantages that the convicted persons could obtain from work, the Committee observes that it does not change the compulsory nature of prison labour.

Referring to its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions paragraphs 302 and 312, the Committee recalls that in most cases work imposed on persons as a result of a court conviction does not have an impact on the application of the Convention. However, if a person is obliged to do work, including work in prison, because of holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system or because of participating in strikes, such compulsory labour comes within the scope of application of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention, which prohibits the use of any form of compulsory labour in the above circumstances. Hence, where penalties of imprisonment involve compulsory labour, as is the case in Côte d’Ivoire, they come within the scope of the Convention if they are imposed for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system or for participating in strikes. In view of the foregoing explanations, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code, particularly information on the number of convictions handed down and the basis for the convictions. The Committee also requests the Government to provide, if applicable, copies of relevant court decisions so that it can assess the scope of the abovementioned provisions in the light of the Convention.