ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2022, publiée 111ème session CIT (2023)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Mozambique (Ratification: 2003)
Protocole de 2014 relatif à la convention sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Mozambique (Ratification: 2018)

Autre commentaire sur C029

Observation
  1. 2022
  2. 2020
Demande directe
  1. 2022
  2. 2020
  3. 2018
  4. 2016
  5. 2012
  6. 2009
  7. 2008
  8. 2006

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee welcomes the ratification by Mozambique of the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930. Noting that the first report of the Government has not been received, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide detailed information on the application of the Protocol, in accordance with the report form adopted by the Governing Body.
Article 2(2)(a) of the Convention. Work exacted by virtue of compulsory military service laws. Civic service. The Committee notes that, pursuant to article 263(3) of the Constitution, the law shall establish a civic service to replace or supplement military service for citizens who are not subject to military duties. It notes the adoption of Act No. 14/2019 of 23 September 2019, revising and abrogating Act No. 6/2009 of 10 September 2009 on the principles and basic rules governing civic service. The Committee notes, more particularly, that Act No. 14/2019 provides that: (1) citizens between the ages of 18 and 35 years who are not subject to military duties shall perform civic service which consists of activities of an administrative, cultural or economic nature or the provision of assistance to replace or supplement military service; (2) civic service can be performed for the benefit of public or private institutions; (3) the minimum period of civic service is two years which can be extended for three additional years on a voluntary basis; and (4) the Government shall determine annual contingents who are to be covered by civic service. The Committee notes that section 2(2) of Act No. 14/2019 defines “persons who are not subject to military obligations” and are therefore subject to the obligation to perform civic service as those who have not been called to perform military service. It notes the Government’s indication, in its report, that such persons are: individuals who do not meet the psychological and physical criteria to perform military service; individuals who have postponed their military obligations; and enlisted individuals who have not been called up for service as a result of all military vacancies being filled. The Government adds that around 1,200 individuals are required to perform civic service each year.
The Committee notes with concern that the Government did not seize the opportunity of the revision of the legislation governing civic service to take into consideration the concerns previously raised by the Committee in that regard. Observing that civic service can be used for carrying activities of an economic nature, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that to be excluded from the scope of application of the Convention, and therefore to not constitute forced labour, any work exacted by virtue of compulsory military service laws must be of a purely military character. That is not the case of work performed by persons within the framework of civic service which replaces or supplements compulsory military service. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the manner in which persons who are required annually to perform civic service are selected; (ii) whether such persons may refuse to perform civic service; and (iii) the consequences of such refusal. It further requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of persons who are required annually to perform civic service, as determined by the Governmentas well as concrete examples of the work performed.
Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. 1. Prison labour performed for the benefit of private entities. The Committee notes that, pursuant to section 53 of the Code for the Implementation of Sentences, approved through Act No. 26/2019 of 27 December, prisoners who have completed one third of their sentence and have a record of good behaviour may be authorized to work for public or private entities within the framework of a contract concluded between such entities and the prison management. It further notes that, pursuant to section 54 of the Code for the Implementation of Sentences, prisoners may also conclude an individual contract with a private entity, after authorization of the prison management, and shall enjoy the same level of protection as other workers who are not prisoners regarding safety, health and other conditions of work. As regards remuneration, 50 per cent of the salary received by the prisoner is for family expenses, reserve savings and personal use; 30 per cent is reverted to the General Penitentiary Services Fund; 10 per cent is reverted to a fund established to support prisoner’s social reintegration when released; and 10 per cent is for the payment of maintenance obligations or compensation for the victim of the crime for which the prisoner was sanctioned (sections 51-56 of the Code). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that 41 labour contracts have been signed by the National Penitentiary Service with the consent of prisoners. It observes, however, from the copy of labour contracts forwarded by the Government, that when the contract is concluded between the private entity and the prison management, in the framework of section 53 of the Code for the Implementation of Sentences, such contract is not signed by the prisoner. The Committee recalls that to be compatible with the Convention, work performed by prisoners for private entities must be carried out under conditions close to a free labour relationship, that is with the free, formal and informed consent of prisoners, and with certain guarantees and safeguards to ensure that the work is performed under conditions approximating a free labour relationship. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it is ensured, both in law and practice, that prisoners performing work for private entities, in the framework of a contract concluded between a private entity and the prison management, pursuant to section 53 of the Code for the Implementation of Sentences, give their consent to work for private entities. It further requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of authorizations granted for prisoners to work for private entities, in the framework of contracts concluded between a private entity and the prison management or between a private entity and a prisoner.
2. Community work. The Committee notes that section 75 of the Penal Code provides that community work can be imposed by court order, as an alternative penalty to imprisonment, on offenders liable to a sentence of imprisonment of up to three years. Community work consists of undertaking an activity, service or task, without pay, for the community in public or private entities pursuing public or community interest aims, such as services provided in hospitals, orphanages and schools, the construction, conservation or maintenance of public thoroughfares and infrastructure, activities related to the conservation and protection of the environment and intellectual activities. The Committee observes that community work is further regulated by sections 138 to 172 of the Code for the Implementation of Sentences and that, pursuant to section 139, the order of community work is issued by a court and after receipt of such order the convicted person shall immediately appear before the Alternative Penalty to Imprisonment Service. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that courts are responsible for determining penalties and any additional measures to be applied to a convicted person. Furthermore, pursuant to section 2(1) of Act No. 3/2013 of 16 January 2013, the National Penitentiary Service (SERNAP) is responsible for the execution of alternative penalties to imprisonment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that 19 private entities have been authorised to receive persons convicted to community work, so far.
The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that community work can only be carried out for the State in the public interest or for non-profit-making entities. Where community work may be performed for private bodies such as charitable associations or institutions, the Committee seeks assurance that practical arrangements for such work are sufficiently closely supervised to ensure that the work performed is of real benefit to the community and that the body for which the work is carried out is a non-profit-making organization (see 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, paragraphs 125–128 and 204). Observing that the legislation authorizes community work to be performed for private entities, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it is ensured, both in law and practice, that the penalty of community work may not be imposed without the consent of the convicted person. It also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which the sentence of community work is applied, with an indication of the nature of the supervision carried out by the competent public authority to ensure that the work undertaken is effectively work of general interest and that the entities for which it is carried out are non-profit-making. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number and nature of private entities authorized to receive persons convicted to this penalty and examples of the work performed.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer