Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Chad (RATIFICATION: 1961)

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2023, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express certain political views or views opposed to the political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of activities they carry on for these purposes they may not be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The Committee noted in this connection that section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the prison regulations of Chad specifies that labour is compulsory for all ordinary law prisoners.To the extent that this provision refers to ordinary law prisoners, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in an unequivocal manner whether persons sentenced for political offences are exempt from the obligation to perform prison labour. Please provide information on offences deemed to be political in nature.

In its previous direct request the Committee took note of several texts regulating the exercise of civil liberties which the Committee had not as yet examined. It noted that breach of certain provisions of these texts is punishable by penalties of imprisonment which as indicated above, involve an obligation to work.The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether the texts below, some of which are fairly old, are still in force. Furthermore, so that it can assess the scope of the provisions mentioned below, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts rely on these provisions (frequency with which they apply them, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the sentences imposed). The Committee has to satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work are imposed under these provisions, on persons who, without resorting to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions.

• – Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 regulating associations: under section 6, members of an association which has not been declared are liable to prison sentence ranging from one month to one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors, or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of unlawful reestablishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).
• – Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on the public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding of a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointment of officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one month to three months).
• – Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of between two month and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so; and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered in public or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.
• – Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 regulating demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or inaccurate notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.
• – Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, whosoever founds, directs or administers a political party in breach of the law is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and whosoever directs, administers or is a member of a political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

The Committee further notes that Act No. 029 of 12 August 1994 on provisions governing the press in Chad has been repealed by Ordinance No. 005/PR/2008 of 26 February 2008 of the same name. The Committee notes that this ordinance was adopted under the emergency powers granted to the President of the Republic by Decree No. 194/PR/2008 of 14 February 2008. It notes with regret that the Ordinance has increased certain penalties and imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of the press by introducing new offences, including contempt of the President of the Republic and contempt of foreign Heads of State or Government, these offences being punishable by a prison term of from one to five years (section 48).Consequently, the Committee likewise asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 48 of the Ordinance (contempt), as well as sections 41 (dissemination of false information) and 43 and 44 (libel and slander); frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the penalties imposed.

Furthermore, the Committee had the opportunity to become acquainted with the text of the Penal Code adopted in 1967 (Ordinance No. 12-67-PR-MJ). The Committee notes that the Penal Code has repealed Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 punishing acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years.Having examined the Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 100, under which any unarmed person participating in an unarmed unlawful assembly who fails to leave it following the first order to do so is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two months and one year, and section 118 which establishes a prison sentence of between two weeks and two years for contempt of a member of the Government or the National Assembly or a magistrate in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance.

Article 1(d). Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 131 of the Penal Code, public employees who have decided by deliberation to resign in order to prevent or suspend either the administration of justice or the administration of a service, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. According to section 157, the use of deception (manœuvres frauduleuses) to bring about or maintain, or to attempt to bring about or maintain, a concerted work stoppage for the purpose of forcing an increase or a decrease in wages, or to impede the free performance of industry or of work, shall be punished by a prison term of from six days to three years.The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the courts have applied these provisions recently in the context of strike action and to specify the actions that were punished and the penalties imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down so as to allow the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and so satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work may be imposed on workers exercising their right to peaceful strike action.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express certain political views or views opposed to the political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of activities they carry on for these purposes they may not be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The Committee noted in this connection that section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the prison regulations of Chad specifies that labour is compulsory for all ordinary law prisoners. To the extent that this provision refers to ordinary law prisoners, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in an unequivocal manner whether persons sentenced for political offences are exempt from the obligation to perform prison labour. Please provide information on offences deemed to be political in nature.

In its previous direct request the Committee took note of several texts regulating the exercise of civil liberties which the Committee had not as yet examined. It noted that breach of certain provisions of these texts is punishable by penalties of imprisonment which as indicated above, involve an obligation to work. The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether the texts below, some of which are fairly old, are still in force. Furthermore, so that it can assess the scope of the provisions mentioned below, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts rely on these provisions (frequency with which they apply them, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the sentences imposed). The Committee has to satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work are imposed under these provisions, on persons who, without resorting to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions.

– Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 regulating associations: under section 6, members of an association which has not been declared are liable to prison sentence ranging from one month to one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors, or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of unlawful reestablishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).

– Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on the public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding of a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointment of officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one month to three months).

– Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of between two month and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so; and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered in public or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.

– Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 regulating demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or inaccurate notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.

– Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, whosoever founds, directs or administers a political party in breach of the law is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and whosoever directs, administers or is a member of a political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

The Committee further notes that Act No. 029 of 12 August 1994 on provisions governing the press in Chad has been repealed by Ordinance No. 005/PR/2008 of 26 February 2008 of the same name. The Committee notes that this ordinance was adopted under the emergency powers granted to the President of the Republic by Decree No. 194/PR/2008 of 14 February 2008. It notes with regret that the Ordinance has increased certain penalties and imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of the press by introducing new offences, including contempt of the President of the Republic and contempt of foreign Heads of State or Government, these offences being punishable by a prison term of from one to five years (section 48). Consequently, the Committee likewise asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 48 of the Ordinance (contempt), as well as sections 41 (dissemination of false information) and 43 and 44 (libel and slander); frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the penalties imposed.

Furthermore, the Committee had the opportunity to become acquainted with the text of the Penal Code adopted in 1967 (Ordinance No. 12-67-PR-MJ). The Committee notes that the Penal Code has repealed Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 punishing acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years. Having examined the Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 100, under which any unarmed person participating in an unarmed unlawful assembly who fails to leave it following the first order to do so is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two months and one year, and section 118 which establishes a prison sentence of between two weeks and two years for contempt of a member of the Government or the National Assembly or a magistrate in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance.

Article 1(d). Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 131 of the Penal Code, public employees who have decided by deliberation to resign in order to prevent or suspend either the administration of justice or the administration of a service, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. According to section 157, the use of deception (manœuvres frauduleuses) to bring about or maintain, or to attempt to bring about or maintain, a concerted work stoppage for the purpose of forcing an increase or a decrease in wages, or to impede the free performance of industry or of work, shall be punished by a prison term of from six days to three years. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the courts have applied these provisions recently in the context of strike action and to specify the actions that were punished and the penalties imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down so as to allow the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and so satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work may be imposed on workers exercising their right to peaceful strike action.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express certain political views or views opposed to the political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of activities they carry on for these purposes they may not be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The Committee noted in this connection that section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the prison regulations of Chad specifies that labour is compulsory for all ordinary law prisoners. To the extent that this provision refers to ordinary law prisoners, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in an unequivocal manner whether persons sentenced for political offences are exempt from the obligation to perform prison labour. Please provide information on offences deemed to be political in nature.

In its previous direct request the Committee took note of several texts regulating the exercise of civil liberties which the Committee had not as yet examined. It noted that breach of certain provisions of these texts is punishable by penalties of imprisonment which as indicated above, involve an obligation to work. The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether the texts below, some of which are fairly old, are still in force. Furthermore, so that it can assess the scope of the provisions mentioned below, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts rely on these provisions (frequency with which they apply them, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the sentences imposed). The Committee has to satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work are imposed under these provisions, on persons who, without resorting to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions.

• – Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 regulating associations: under section 6, members of an association which has not been declared are liable to prison sentence ranging from one month to one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors, or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of unlawful reestablishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).
• – Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on the public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding of a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointment of officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one month to three months).
• – Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of between two month and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so; and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered in public or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.
• – Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 regulating demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or inaccurate notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.
• – Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, whosoever founds, directs or administers a political party in breach of the law is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and whosoever directs, administers or is a member of a political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

The Committee further notes that Act No. 029 of 12 August 1994 on provisions governing the press in Chad has been repealed by Ordinance No. 005/PR/2008 of 26 February 2008 of the same name. The Committee notes that this ordinance was adopted under the emergency powers granted to the President of the Republic by Decree No. 194/PR/2008 of 14 February 2008. It notes with regret that the Ordinance has increased certain penalties and imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of the press by introducing new offences, including contempt of the President of the Republic and contempt of foreign Heads of State or Government, these offences being punishable by a prison term of from one to five years (section 48). Consequently, the Committee likewise asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 48 of the Ordinance (contempt), as well as sections 41 (dissemination of false information) and 43 and 44 (libel and slander); frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the penalties imposed.

Furthermore, the Committee had the opportunity to become acquainted with the text of the Penal Code adopted in 1967 (Ordinance No. 12-67-PR-MJ). The Committee notes that the Penal Code has repealed Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 punishing acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years. Having examined the Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 100, under which any unarmed person participating in an unarmed unlawful assembly who fails to leave it following the first order to do so is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two months and one year, and section 118 which establishes a prison sentence of between two weeks and two years for contempt of a member of the Government or the National Assembly or a magistrate in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance.

Article 1(d). Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 131 of the Penal Code, public employees who have decided by deliberation to resign in order to prevent or suspend either the administration of justice or the administration of a service, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. According to section 157, the use of deception (manœuvres frauduleuses) to bring about or maintain, or to attempt to bring about or maintain, a concerted work stoppage for the purpose of forcing an increase or a decrease in wages, or to impede the free performance of industry or of work, shall be punished by a prison term of from six days to three years. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the courts have applied these provisions recently in the context of strike action and to specify the actions that were punished and the penalties imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down so as to allow the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and so satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work may be imposed on workers exercising their right to peaceful strike action.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express certain political views or views opposed to the political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of activities they carry on for these purposes they may not be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The Committee noted in this connection that section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the prison regulations of Chad specifies that labour is compulsory for all ordinary law prisoners. To the extent that this provision refers to ordinary law prisoners, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in an unequivocal manner whether persons sentenced for political offences are exempt from the obligation to perform prison labour. Please provide information on offences deemed to be political in nature.

In its previous direct request the Committee took note of several texts regulating the exercise of civil liberties which the Committee had not as yet examined. It noted that breach of certain provisions of these texts is punishable by penalties of imprisonment which as indicated above, involve an obligation to work. The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether the texts below, some of which are fairly old, are still in force. Furthermore, so that it can assess the scope of the provisions mentioned below, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts rely on these provisions (frequency with which they apply them, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the sentences imposed). The Committee has to satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work are imposed under these provisions, on persons who, without resorting to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions.

• – Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 regulating associations: under section 6, members of an association which has not been declared are liable to prison sentence ranging from one month to one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors, or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of unlawful reestablishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).
• – Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on the public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding of a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointment of officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one month to three months).
• – Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of between two month and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so; and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered in public or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.
• – Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 regulating demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or inaccurate notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.
• – Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, whosoever founds, directs or administers a political party in breach of the law is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and whosoever directs, administers or is a member of a political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

The Committee further notes that Act No. 029 of 12 August 1994 on provisions governing the press in Chad has been repealed by Ordinance No. 005/PR/2008 of 26 February 2008 of the same name. The Committee notes that this ordinance was adopted under the emergency powers granted to the President of the Republic by Decree No. 194/PR/2008 of 14 February 2008. It notes with regret that the Ordinance has increased certain penalties and imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of the press by introducing new offences, including contempt of the President of the Republic and contempt of foreign Heads of State or Government, these offences being punishable by a prison term of from one to five years (section 48). Consequently, the Committee likewise asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 48 of the Ordinance (contempt), as well as sections 41 (dissemination of false information) and 43 and 44 (libel and slander); frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the penalties imposed.

Furthermore, the Committee had the opportunity to become acquainted with the text of the Penal Code adopted in 1967 (Ordinance No. 12-67-PR-MJ). The Committee notes that the Penal Code has repealed Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 punishing acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years. Having examined the Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 100, under which any unarmed person participating in an unarmed unlawful assembly who fails to leave it following the first order to do so is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two months and one year, and section 118 which establishes a prison sentence of between two weeks and two years for contempt of a member of the Government or the National Assembly or a magistrate in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance.

Article 1(d). Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 131 of the Penal Code, public employees who have decided by deliberation to resign in order to prevent or suspend either the administration of justice or the administration of a service, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. According to section 157, the use of deception (manœuvres frauduleuses) to bring about or maintain, or to attempt to bring about or maintain, a concerted work stoppage for the purpose of forcing an increase or a decrease in wages, or to impede the free performance of industry or of work, shall be punished by a prison term of from six days to three years. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the courts have applied these provisions recently in the context of strike action and to specify the actions that were punished and the penalties imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down so as to allow the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and so satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work may be imposed on workers exercising their right to peaceful strike action.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments initially made in 2009.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express certain political views or views opposed to the political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of activities they carry on for these purposes they may not be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The Committee noted in this connection that section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the prison regulations of Chad specifies that labour is compulsory for all ordinary law prisoners. To the extent that this provision refers to ordinary law prisoners, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in an unequivocal manner whether persons sentenced for political offences are exempt from the obligation to perform prison labour. Please provide information on offences deemed to be political in nature.

In its previous direct request the Committee took note of several texts regulating the exercise of civil liberties which the Committee had not as yet examined. It noted that breach of certain provisions of these texts is punishable by penalties of imprisonment which as indicated above, involve an obligation to work. The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether the texts below, some of which are fairly old, are still in force. Furthermore, so that it can assess the scope of the provisions mentioned below, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts rely on these provisions (frequency with which they apply them, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the sentences imposed). The Committee has to satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work are imposed under these provisions, on persons who, without resorting to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions.

• – Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 regulating associations: under section 6, members of an association which has not been declared are liable to prison sentence ranging from one month to one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors, or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of unlawful reestablishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).
• – Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on the public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding of a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointment of officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one month to three months).
• – Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of between two month and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so; and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered in public or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.
• – Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 regulating demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or inaccurate notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.
• – Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, whosoever founds, directs or administers a political party in breach of the law is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and whosoever directs, administers or is a member of a political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

The Committee further notes that Act No. 029 of 12 August 1994 on provisions governing the press in Chad has been repealed by Ordinance No. 005/PR/2008 of 26 February 2008 of the same name. The Committee notes that this ordinance was adopted under the emergency powers granted to the President of the Republic by Decree No. 194/PR/2008 of 14 February 2008. It notes with regret that the Ordinance has increased certain penalties and imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of the press by introducing new offences, including contempt of the President of the Republic and contempt of foreign Heads of State or Government, these offences being punishable by a prison term of from one to five years (section 48). Consequently, the Committee likewise asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 48 of the Ordinance (contempt), as well as sections 41 (dissemination of false information) and 43 and 44 (libel and slander); frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the penalties imposed.

Furthermore, the Committee had the opportunity to become acquainted with the text of the Penal Code adopted in 1967 (Ordinance No. 12-67-PR-MJ). The Committee notes that the Penal Code has repealed Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 punishing acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years. Having examined the Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 100, under which any unarmed person participating in an unarmed unlawful assembly who fails to leave it following the first order to do so is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two months and one year, and section 118 which establishes a prison sentence of between two weeks and two years for contempt of a member of the Government or the National Assembly or a magistrate in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance.

Article 1(d). Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 131 of the Penal Code, public employees who have decided by deliberation to resign in order to prevent or suspend either the administration of justice or the administration of a service, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. According to section 157, the use of deception (manœuvres frauduleuses) to bring about or maintain, or to attempt to bring about or maintain, a concerted work stoppage for the purpose of forcing an increase or a decrease in wages, or to impede the free performance of industry or of work, shall be punished by a prison term of from six days to three years. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the courts have applied these provisions recently in the context of strike action and to specify the actions that were punished and the penalties imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down so as to allow the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and so satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work may be imposed on workers exercising their right to peaceful strike action.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments initially made in 2009.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express certain political views or views opposed to the political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of activities they carry on for these purposes they may not be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The Committee noted in this connection that section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the prison regulations of Chad specifies that labour is compulsory for all ordinary law prisoners. To the extent that this provision refers to ordinary law prisoners, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in an unequivocal manner whether persons sentenced for political offences are exempt from the obligation to perform prison labour. Please provide information on offences deemed to be political in nature.

In its previous direct request the Committee took note of several texts regulating the exercise of civil liberties which the Committee had not as yet examined. It noted that breach of certain provisions of these texts is punishable by penalties of imprisonment which as indicated above, involve an obligation to work. The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether the texts below, some of which are fairly old, are still in force. Furthermore, so that it can assess the scope of the provisions mentioned below, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts rely on these provisions (frequency with which they apply them, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the sentences imposed). The Committee has to satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work are imposed under these provisions, on persons who, without resorting to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions.

• – Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 regulating associations: under section 6, members of an association which has not been declared are liable to prison sentence ranging from one month to one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors, or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of unlawful reestablishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).
• – Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on the public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding of a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointment of officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one month to three months).
• – Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of between two month and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so; and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered in public or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.
• – Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 regulating demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or inaccurate notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.
• – Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, whosoever founds, directs or administers a political party in breach of the law is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and whosoever directs, administers or is a member of a political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

The Committee further notes that Act No. 029 of 12 August 1994 on provisions governing the press in Chad has been repealed by Ordinance No. 005/PR/2008 of 26 February 2008 of the same name. The Committee notes that this ordinance was adopted under the emergency powers granted to the President of the Republic by Decree No. 194/PR/2008 of 14 February 2008. It notes with regret that the Ordinance has increased certain penalties and imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of the press by introducing new offences, including contempt of the President of the Republic and contempt of foreign Heads of State or Government, these offences being punishable by a prison term of from one to five years (section 48). Consequently, the Committee likewise asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 48 of the Ordinance (contempt), as well as sections 41 (dissemination of false information) and 43 and 44 (libel and slander); frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the penalties imposed.

Furthermore, the Committee had the opportunity to become acquainted with the text of the Penal Code adopted in 1967 (Ordinance No. 12-67-PR-MJ). The Committee notes that the Penal Code has repealed Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 punishing acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years. Having examined the Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 100, under which any unarmed person participating in an unarmed unlawful assembly who fails to leave it following the first order to do so is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two months and one year, and section 118 which establishes a prison sentence of between two weeks and two years for contempt of a member of the Government or the National Assembly or a magistrate in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance.

Article 1(d). Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 131 of the Penal Code, public employees who have decided by deliberation to resign in order to prevent or suspend either the administration of justice or the administration of a service, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. According to section 157, the use of deception (manœuvres frauduleuses) to bring about or maintain, or to attempt to bring about or maintain, a concerted work stoppage for the purpose of forcing an increase or a decrease in wages, or to impede the free performance of industry or of work, shall be punished by a prison term of from six days to three years. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the courts have applied these provisions recently in the context of strike action and to specify the actions that were punished and the penalties imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down so as to allow the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and so satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work may be imposed on workers exercising their right to peaceful strike action.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express certain political views or views opposed to the political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of activities they carry on for these purposes they may not be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The Committee noted in this connection that section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the prison regulations of Chad specifies that labour is compulsory for all ordinary law prisoners. To the extent that this provision refers to ordinary law prisoners, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in an unequivocal manner whether persons sentenced for political offences are exempt from the obligation to perform prison labour. Please provide information on offences deemed to be political in nature.

In its previous direct request the Committee took note of several texts regulating the exercise of civil liberties which the Committee had not as yet examined. It noted that breach of certain provisions of these texts is punishable by penalties of imprisonment which as indicated above, involve an obligation to work. The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether the texts below, some of which are fairly old, are still in force. Furthermore, so that it can assess the scope of the provisions mentioned below, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts rely on these provisions (frequency with which they apply them, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the sentences imposed). The Committee has to satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work are imposed under these provisions, on persons who, without resorting to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions.

• – Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 regulating associations: under section 6, members of an association which has not been declared are liable to prison sentence ranging from one month to one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors, or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of unlawful reestablishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).
• – Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on the public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding of a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointment of officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one month to three months).
• – Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of between two month and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so; and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered in public or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.
• – Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 regulating demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or inaccurate notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.
• – Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, whosoever founds, directs or administers a political party in breach of the law is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and whosoever directs, administers or is a member of a political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

The Committee further notes that Act No. 029 of 12 August 1994 on provisions governing the press in Chad has been repealed by Ordinance No. 005/PR/2008 of 26 February 2008 of the same name. The Committee notes that this ordinance was adopted under the emergency powers granted to the President of the Republic by Decree No. 194/PR/2008 of 14 February 2008. It notes with regret that the Ordinance has increased certain penalties and imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of the press by introducing new offences, including contempt of the President of the Republic and contempt of foreign Heads of State or Government, these offences being punishable by a prison term of from one to five years (section 48). Consequently, the Committee likewise asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 48 of the Ordinance (contempt), as well as sections 41 (dissemination of false information) and 43 and 44 (libel and slander); frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the penalties imposed.

Furthermore, the Committee had the opportunity to become acquainted with the text of the Penal Code adopted in 1967 (Ordinance No. 12-67-PR-MJ). The Committee notes that the Penal Code has repealed Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 punishing acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years. Having examined the Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 100, under which any unarmed person participating in an unarmed unlawful assembly who fails to leave it following the first order to do so is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two months and one year, and section 118 which establishes a prison sentence of between two weeks and two years for contempt of a member of the Government or the National Assembly or a magistrate in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance.

Article 1(d). Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 131 of the Penal Code, public employees who have decided by deliberation to resign in order to prevent or suspend either the administration of justice or the administration of a service, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. According to section 157, the use of deception (manœuvres frauduleuses) to bring about or maintain, or to attempt to bring about or maintain, a concerted work stoppage for the purpose of forcing an increase or a decrease in wages, or to impede the free performance of industry or of work, shall be punished by a prison term of from six days to three years. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the courts have applied these provisions recently in the context of strike action and to specify the actions that were punished and the penalties imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down so as to allow the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and so satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work may be imposed on workers exercising their right to peaceful strike action.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express certain political views or views opposed to the political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of activities they carry on for these purposes they may not be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The Committee noted in this connection that section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the prison regulations of Chad specifies that labour is compulsory for all ordinary law prisoners. To the extent that this provision refers to ordinary law prisoners, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in an unequivocal manner whether persons sentenced for political offences are exempt from the obligation to perform prison labour. Please provide information on offences deemed to be political in nature.

In its previous direct request the Committee took note of several texts regulating the exercise of civil liberties which the Committee had not as yet examined. It noted that breach of certain provisions of these texts is punishable by penalties of imprisonment which as indicated above, involve an obligation to work. The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether the texts below, some of which are fairly old, are still in force. Furthermore, so that it can assess the scope of the provisions mentioned below, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts rely on these provisions (frequency with which they apply them, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the sentences imposed). The Committee has to satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work are imposed under these provisions, on persons who, without resorting to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions.

• – Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 regulating associations: under section 6, members of an association which has not been declared are liable to prison sentence ranging from one month to one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors, or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of unlawful reestablishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).
• – Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on the public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding of a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointment of officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one month to three months).
• – Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of between two month and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so; and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered in public or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.
• – Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 regulating demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or inaccurate notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.
• – Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, whosoever founds, directs or administers a political party in breach of the law is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and whosoever directs, administers or is a member of a political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

The Committee further notes that Act No. 029 of 12 August 1994 on provisions governing the press in Chad has been repealed by Ordinance No. 005/PR/2008 of 26 February 2008 of the same name. The Committee notes that this ordinance was adopted under the emergency powers granted to the President of the Republic by Decree No. 194/PR/2008 of 14 February 2008. It notes with regret that the Ordinance has increased certain penalties and imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of the press by introducing new offences, including contempt of the President of the Republic and contempt of foreign Heads of State or Government, these offences being punishable by a prison term of from one to five years (section 48). Consequently, the Committee likewise asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 48 of the Ordinance (contempt), as well as sections 41 (dissemination of false information) and 43 and 44 (libel and slander); frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the penalties imposed.

Furthermore, the Committee had the opportunity to become acquainted with the text of the Penal Code adopted in 1967 (Ordinance No. 12-67-PR-MJ). The Committee notes that the Penal Code has repealed Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 punishing acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years. Having examined the Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 100, under which any unarmed person participating in an unarmed unlawful assembly who fails to leave it following the first order to do so is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two months and one year, and section 118 which establishes a prison sentence of between two weeks and two years for contempt of a member of the Government or the National Assembly or a magistrate in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance.

Article 1(d). Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 131 of the Penal Code, public employees who have decided by deliberation to resign in order to prevent or suspend either the administration of justice or the administration of a service, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. According to section 157, the use of deception (manœuvres frauduleuses) to bring about or maintain, or to attempt to bring about or maintain, a concerted work stoppage for the purpose of forcing an increase or a decrease in wages, or to impede the free performance of industry or of work, shall be punished by a prison term of from six days to three years. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the courts have applied these provisions recently in the context of strike action and to specify the actions that were punished and the penalties imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down so as to allow the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and so satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work may be imposed on workers exercising their right to peaceful strike action.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express certain political views or views opposed to the political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of activities they carry on for these purposes they may not be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The Committee noted in this connection that section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the prison regulations of Chad specifies that labour is compulsory for all ordinary law prisoners. To the extent that this provision refers to ordinary law prisoners, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in an unequivocal manner whether persons sentenced for political offences are exempt from the obligation to perform prison labour. Please provide information on offences deemed to be political in nature.

In its previous direct request the Committee took note of several texts regulating the exercise of civil liberties which the Committee had not as yet examined. It noted that breach of certain provisions of these texts is punishable by penalties of imprisonment which as indicated above, involve an obligation to work. The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether the texts below, some of which are fairly old, are still in force. Furthermore, so that it can assess the scope of the provisions mentioned below, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts rely on these provisions (frequency with which they apply them, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the sentences imposed). The Committee has to satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work are imposed under these provisions, on persons who, without resorting to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions.

• – Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 regulating associations: under section 6, members of an association which has not been declared are liable to prison sentence ranging from one month to one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors, or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of unlawful reestablishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).
• – Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on the public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding of a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointment of officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one month to three months).
• – Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of between two month and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so; and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered in public or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.
• – Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 regulating demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or inaccurate notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.
• – Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, whosoever founds, directs or administers a political party in breach of the law is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and whosoever directs, administers or is a member of a political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

The Committee further notes that Act No. 029 of 12 August 1994 on provisions governing the press in Chad has been repealed by Ordinance No. 005/PR/2008 of 26 February 2008 of the same name. The Committee notes that this ordinance was adopted under the emergency powers granted to the President of the Republic by Decree No. 194/PR/2008 of 14 February 2008. It notes with regret that the Ordinance has increased certain penalties and imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of the press by introducing new offences, including contempt of the President of the Republic and contempt of foreign Heads of State or Government, these offences being punishable by a prison term of from one to five years (section 48). Consequently, the Committee likewise asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 48 of the Ordinance (contempt), as well as sections 41 (dissemination of false information) and 43 and 44 (libel and slander); frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the penalties imposed.

Furthermore, the Committee had the opportunity to become acquainted with the text of the Penal Code adopted in 1967 (Ordinance No. 12-67-PR-MJ). The Committee notes that the Penal Code has repealed Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 punishing acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years. Having examined the Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 100, under which any unarmed person participating in an unarmed unlawful assembly who fails to leave it following the first order to do so is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two months and one year, and section 118 which establishes a prison sentence of between two weeks and two years for contempt of a member of the Government or the National Assembly or a magistrate in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance.

Article 1(d). Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 131 of the Penal Code, public employees who have decided by deliberation to resign in order to prevent or suspend either the administration of justice or the administration of a service, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. According to section 157, the use of deception (manœuvres frauduleuses) to bring about or maintain, or to attempt to bring about or maintain, a concerted work stoppage for the purpose of forcing an increase or a decrease in wages, or to impede the free performance of industry or of work, shall be punished by a prison term of from six days to three years. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the courts have applied these provisions recently in the context of strike action and to specify the actions that were punished and the penalties imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down so as to allow the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and so satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work may be imposed on workers exercising their right to peaceful strike action.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express certain political views or views opposed to the political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of activities they carry on for these purposes they may not be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The Committee noted in this connection that section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the prison regulations of Chad specifies that labour is compulsory for all ordinary law prisoners. To the extent that this provision refers to ordinary law prisoners, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in an unequivocal manner whether persons sentenced for political offences are exempt from the obligation to perform prison labour. Please provide information on offences deemed to be political in nature.

In its previous direct request the Committee took note of several texts regulating the exercise of civil liberties which the Committee had not as yet examined. It noted that breach of certain provisions of these texts is punishable by penalties of imprisonment which as indicated above, involve an obligation to work. The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether the texts below, some of which are fairly old, are still in force. Furthermore, so that it can assess the scope of the provisions mentioned below, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts rely on these provisions (frequency with which they apply them, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the sentences imposed). The Committee has to satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work are imposed under these provisions, on persons who, without resorting to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions.

• – Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 regulating associations: under section 6, members of an association which has not been declared are liable to prison sentence ranging from one month to one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors, or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of unlawful reestablishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).
• – Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on the public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding of a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointment of officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one month to three months).
• – Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of between two month and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so; and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered in public or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.
• – Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 regulating demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or inaccurate notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.
• – Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, whosoever founds, directs or administers a political party in breach of the law is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and whosoever directs, administers or is a member of a political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

The Committee further notes that Act No. 029 of 12 August 1994 on provisions governing the press in Chad has been repealed by Ordinance No. 005/PR/2008 of 26 February 2008 of the same name. The Committee notes that this ordinance was adopted under the emergency powers granted to the President of the Republic by Decree No. 194/PR/2008 of 14 February 2008. It notes with regret that the Ordinance has increased certain penalties and imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of the press by introducing new offences, including contempt of the President of the Republic and contempt of foreign Heads of State or Government, these offences being punishable by a prison term of from one to five years (section 48). Consequently, the Committee likewise asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 48 of the Ordinance (contempt), as well as sections 41 (dissemination of false information) and 43 and 44 (libel and slander); frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the penalties imposed.

Furthermore, the Committee had the opportunity to become acquainted with the text of the Penal Code adopted in 1967 (Ordinance No. 12-67-PR-MJ). The Committee notes that the Penal Code has repealed Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 punishing acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years. Having examined the Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 100, under which any unarmed person participating in an unarmed unlawful assembly who fails to leave it following the first order to do so is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two months and one year, and section 118 which establishes a prison sentence of between two weeks and two years for contempt of a member of the Government or the National Assembly or a magistrate in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance.

Article 1(d). Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 131 of the Penal Code, public employees who have decided by deliberation to resign in order to prevent or suspend either the administration of justice or the administration of a service, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. According to section 157, the use of deception (manœuvres frauduleuses) to bring about or maintain, or to attempt to bring about or maintain, a concerted work stoppage for the purpose of forcing an increase or a decrease in wages, or to impede the free performance of industry or of work, shall be punished by a prison term of from six days to three years. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the courts have applied these provisions recently in the context of strike action and to specify the actions that were punished and the penalties imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down so as to allow the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and so satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work may be imposed on workers exercising their right to peaceful strike action.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express certain political views or views opposed to the political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of activities they carry on for these purposes they may not be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The Committee noted in this connection that section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the prison regulations of Chad specifies that labour is compulsory for all ordinary law prisoners. To the extent that this provision refers to ordinary law prisoners, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in an unequivocal manner whether persons sentenced for political offences are exempt from the obligation to perform prison labour. Please provide information on offences deemed to be political in nature.

In its previous direct request the Committee took note of several texts regulating the exercise of civil liberties which the Committee had not as yet examined. It noted that breach of certain provisions of these texts is punishable by penalties of imprisonment which as indicated above, involve an obligation to work. The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether the texts below, some of which are fairly old, are still in force. Furthermore, so that it can assess the scope of the provisions mentioned below, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts rely on these provisions (frequency with which they apply them, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the sentences imposed). The Committee has to satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work are imposed under these provisions, on persons who, without resorting to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions.

–      Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 regulating associations: under section 6, members of an association which has not been declared are liable to prison sentence ranging from one month to one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors, or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of unlawful reestablishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).

–      Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on the public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding of a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointment of officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one month to three months).

–      Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of between two month and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so; and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered in public or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.

–      Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 regulating demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or inaccurate notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.

–      Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, whosoever founds, directs or administers a political party in breach of the law is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and whosoever directs, administers or is a member of a political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

The Committee further notes that Act No. 029 of 12 August 1994 on provisions governing the press in Chad has been repealed by Ordinance No. 005/PR/2008 of
26 February 2008 of the same name. The Committee notes that this ordinance was adopted under the emergency powers granted to the President of the Republic by Decree No. 194/PR/2008 of 14 February 2008. It notes with regret that the Ordinance has increased certain penalties and imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of the press by introducing new offences, including contempt of the President of the Republic and contempt of foreign Heads of State or Government, these offences being punishable by a prison term of from one to five years
(section 48). Consequently, the Committee likewise asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 48 of the Ordinance (contempt), as well as sections 41 (dissemination of false information) and 43 and 44 (libel and slander); frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the penalties imposed.

Furthermore, the Committee had the opportunity to become acquainted with the text of the Penal Code adopted in 1967 (Ordinance
No. 12-67-PR-MJ). The Committee notes that the Penal Code has repealed Act
No. 15 of 13 November 1959 punishing acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years. Having examined the Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 100, under which any unarmed person participating in an unarmed unlawful assembly who fails to leave it following the first order to do so is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two months and one year, and section 118 which establishes a prison sentence of between two weeks and two years for contempt of a member of the Government or the National Assembly or a magistrate in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance.

Article 1(d). Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee notes that, according to section 131 of the Penal Code, public employees who have decided by deliberation to resign in order to prevent or suspend either the administration of justice or the administration of a service, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. According to section 157, the use of deception (manœuvres frauduleuses) to bring about or maintain, or to attempt to bring about or maintain, a concerted work stoppage for the purpose of forcing an increase or a decrease in wages, or to impede the free performance of industry or of work, shall be punished by a prison term of from six days to three years. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the courts have applied these provisions recently in the context of strike action and to specify the actions that were punished and the penalties imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down so as to allow the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and so satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work may be imposed on workers exercising their right to peaceful strike action.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1, subparagraph a, of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 
1. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express certain political views or views opposed to the political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of activities they carry on for these purposes they may not be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The Committee noted in this connection that section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the prison regulations of Chad specifies that labour is compulsory for all ordinary law prisoners. To the extent that this provision refers to ordinary law prisoners, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in an unequivocal manner whether persons sentenced for political offences are exempt from the obligation to perform prison labour. Please provide information on offences deemed to be political in nature.

2. In its previous direct request the Committee took note of several texts regulating the exercise of civil liberties which the Committee had not as yet examined. It noted that breach of certain provisions of these texts is punishable by penalties of imprisonment which as indicated above, involve an obligation to work. The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether the texts below, some of which are fairly old, are still in force. Furthermore, so that it can assess the scope of the provisions mentioned below, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts rely on these provisions (frequency with which they apply them, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the sentences imposed). The Committee has to satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work are imposed under these provisions, on persons who, without resorting to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions.

–      Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 regulating associations: under section 6, members of an association which has not been declared are liable to prison sentence ranging from one month to one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors, or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of unlawful reestablishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).

–      Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on the public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding of a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointment of officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one month to three months).

–      Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of between two month and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so; and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered in public or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.

–      Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 regulating demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or inaccurate notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.

–      Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, whosoever founds, directs or administers a political party in breach of the law is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and whosoever directs, administers or is a member of a political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

3. The Committee further notes that Act No. 029 of 12 August 1994 on provisions governing the press in Chad has been repealed by Ordinance No. 005/PR/2008 of 26 February 2008 of the same name. The Committee notes that this ordinance was adopted under the emergency powers granted to the President of the Republic by Decree No. 194/PR/2008 of 14 February 2008. It notes with regret that the Ordinance has increased certain penalties and imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of the press by introducing new offences, including contempt of the President of the Republic and contempt of foreign Heads of State or Government, these offences being punishable by a prison term of from one to five years (section 48). Consequently, the Committee likewise asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 48 of the Ordinance (contempt), as well as sections 41 (dissemination of false information) and 43 and 44 (libel and slander); frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the penalties imposed.

4. Furthermore, this year the Committee has had the opportunity to become acquainted with the text of the Penal Code adopted in 1967 (Ordinance No. 12-67-PR-MJ). The Committee notes that the Penal Code has repealed Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 punishing acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years. Having examined the Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 100, under which any unarmed person participating in an unarmed unlawful assembly who fails to leave it following the first order to do so is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two months and one year, and section 118 which establishes a prison sentence of between two weeks and two years for contempt of a member of the Government or the National Assembly or a magistrate in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance.

Article 1, subparagraph d. Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee notes that, according to section 131 of the Penal Code, public employees who have decided by deliberation to resign in order to prevent or suspend either the administration of justice or the administration of a service, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. According to section 157, the use of deception (manœuvres frauduleuses) to bring about or maintain, or to attempt to bring about or maintain, a concerted work stoppage for the purpose of forcing an increase or a decrease in wages, or to impede the free performance of industry or of work, shall be punished by a prison term of from six days to three years. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the courts have applied these provisions recently in the context of strike action and to specify the actions that were punished and the penalties imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down so as to allow the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and so satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work may be imposed on workers exercising their right to peaceful strike action.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 

1. The Committee wishes to recall in the first place that work exacted from persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law does not, in most cases, have any effect on the application of this Convention. However, if a person is compelled to work in any manner, including prison work, on the grounds that he or she has expressed political views or has opposed the established political, social or economic system, such cases are covered by the Convention. For example, sentences of imprisonment, when they involve the obligation to work, lie within the scope of the Convention where they are imposed to penalize violations of the prohibition to express political opinions or opposition to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee notes that, under section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the regulations governing prisons in Chad, work is compulsory for all persons convicted under the general legal provisions. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether persons convicted of a political offence are subject to the obligation to work in prison.

2. The Committee notes several legal texts which are now accessible on the Internet through various legal web sites. The Committee had not hitherto been able to examine these texts, which govern the exercise of public freedoms. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether the texts cited below, some of which are relatively old, are still in force. Furthermore, the Committee notes that these texts govern the exercise of several of the rights protected by the Convention and that the violation of certain of their provisions is punishable by sentences of imprisonment which, as indicated above, include an obligation to work. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide the relevant information on the effect given in practice to the provisions referred to below so as to specify their scope of application. Please indicate the frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, the circumstances which constitute such offences and the nature of the penalties imposed and, where appropriate, please provide copies of relevant court decisions.

–      Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 issuing regulations governing associations: under section 6, the members of an undeclared association are liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between one month and one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of the unlawful re-establishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).

–      Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on a public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointing the officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one to three months).

–      Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of imprisonment of between two months and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so, and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered publicly or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.

–      Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 issuing regulations respecting demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or imprecise notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission of the notification or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.

–      Act No. 029 of 12 August of 1994 on the provisions governing the press in Chad: the Committee notes with interest that this Act repeals Ordinance No. 35/INT/DG/60 of 8 January 1960 on the repression of subversive texts, on which the Committee had been commenting for very many years. It would nevertheless be grateful if the Government would provide information on the effect given in practice to sections 45 and 46 of the Act on provisions governing the press, which establish a sentence of imprisonment of from six months to two years for defamation of the courts, tribunals, armed forces, internal security forces, public authorities or administrations, or of any person by reason of his or her function or capacity.

–      Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, any person who founds, directs or administers a political party, in violation of the law, is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and any person who directs, administers or is a member of political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

3. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend or repeal Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959, which establishes a penalty of imprisonment of between five days and 13 months for certain acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours (offensive, insulting or defamatory statements) towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities. The Government indicates in its last report that this text is no longer applied. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures very rapidly to formally repeal Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 

1. The Committee wishes to recall in the first place that work exacted from persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law does not, in most cases, have any effect on the application of this Convention. However, if a person is compelled to work in any manner, including prison work, on the grounds that he or she has expressed political views or has opposed the established political, social or economic system, such cases are covered by the Convention. For example, sentences of imprisonment, when they involve the obligation to work, lie within the scope of the Convention where they are imposed to penalize violations of the prohibition to express political opinions or opposition to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee notes that, under section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the regulations governing prisons in Chad, work is compulsory for all persons convicted under the general legal provisions. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether persons convicted of a political offence are subject to the obligation to work in prison.

2. The Committee notes several legal texts which are now accessible on the Internet through various legal web sites. The Committee had not hitherto been able to examine these texts, which govern the exercise of public freedoms. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether the texts cited below, some of which are relatively old, are still in force. Furthermore, the Committee notes that these texts govern the exercise of several of the rights protected by the Convention and that the violation of certain of their provisions is punishable by sentences of imprisonment which, as indicated above, include an obligation to work. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide the relevant information on the effect given in practice to the provisions referred to below so as to specify their scope of application. Please indicate the frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, the circumstances which constitute such offences and the nature of the penalties imposed and, where appropriate, please provide copies of relevant court decisions.

–      Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 issuing regulations governing associations: under section 6, the members of an undeclared association are liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between one month and one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of the unlawful re-establishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).

–      Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on a public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointing the officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one to three months).

–      Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of imprisonment of between two months and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so, and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered publicly or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.

–      Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 issuing regulations respecting demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or imprecise notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission of the notification or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.

–      Act No. 029 of 12 August of 1994 on the provisions governing the press in Chad: the Committee notes with interest that this Act repeals Ordinance No. 35/INT/DG/60 of 8 January 1960 on the repression of subversive texts, on which the Committee had been commenting for very many years. It would nevertheless be grateful if the Government would provide information on the effect given in practice to sections 45 and 46 of the Act on provisions governing the press, which establish a sentence of imprisonment of from six months to two years for defamation of the courts, tribunals, armed forces, internal security forces, public authorities or administrations, or of any person by reason of his or her function or capacity.

–      Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, any person who founds, directs or administers a political party, in violation of the law, is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and any person who directs, administers or is a member of political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

3. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend or repeal Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959, which establishes a penalty of imprisonment of between five days and 13 months for certain acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours (offensive, insulting or defamatory statements) towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities. The Government indicates in its last report that this text is no longer applied. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures very rapidly to formally repeal Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee requested the Government to provide a copy of the Decree of 1 May 1994 respecting the right to strike. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether this Decree has been repealed and, if so, to provide a copy of the text repealing it.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters:

Article 1(a) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee has been referring for many years to Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 which represses acts of resistance, disobedience and failings towards members of the Government, members of Parliament and the administrative and judicial authorities, and under which participation in a strike is punishable by imprisonment involving forced labour. In addition, the Committee has also referred to Act No. 35 of 8 January 1960 respecting subversive texts, under the terms of which persons who have expressed political ideas may be punished in a manner which is not compatible with the Convention. The Committee has previously requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend these texts so as to ensure that forced labour is not exacted in a manner that is incompatible with the Convention and being used as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, or as a punishment for having participated in strikes.

The Committee notes that the Constitution of 31 March 1996 includes provisions on the freedoms of opinion and expression, communication, conscience, religion, the press, association, assembly, movement, demonstration and procession (article 27), trade union freedom (article 28) and the right to strike (article 29). It notes that sections 456 to 461 of Act No. 38/PR/96 of 11 December 1996, issuing the Labour Code, regulates the exercise of the right to strike: section 456 provides that the exercise of the right to strike is recognized for all employees; section 459 provides for the freedom of employees not to participate in a strike; and section 460(2) provides that employees may not be penalized for participation in a strike.

The Committee recalls that in its previous report the Government reaffirmed its determination to conduct inter-ministerial negotiations so that the texts referred to in the first paragraph above are repealed in the future. It therefore once again urges the Government to provide information in the near future on the measures taken in this respect.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action.

CMNT_TITLE

In its previous direct request, the Committee requested the Government to provide a copy of the Decree of 1 May 1994 respecting the right to strike. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether this Decree has been repealed and, if so, to provide a copy of the text repealing it.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee has been referring for many years to Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 which represses acts of resistance, disobedience and failings towards members of the Government, members of Parliament and the administrative and judicial authorities, and under which participation in a strike is punishable by imprisonment involving forced labour. In addition, the Committee has also referred to Act No. 35 of 8 January 1960 respecting subversive texts, under the terms of which persons who have expressed political ideas may be punished in a manner which is not compatible with the Convention. The Committee has previously requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend these texts so as to ensure that forced labour is not exacted in a manner that is incompatible with the Convention and being used as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, or as a punishment for having participated in strikes.

The Committee notes that the Constitution of 31 March 1996 includes provisions on the freedoms of opinion and expression, communication, conscience, religion, the press, association, assembly, movement, demonstration and procession (article 27), trade union freedom (article 28) and the right to strike (article 29). It notes that sections 456 to 461 of Act No. 38/PR/96 of 11 December 1996, issuing the Labour Code, regulates the exercise of the right to strike: section 456 provides that the exercise of the right to strike is recognized for all employees; section 459 provides for the freedom of employees not to participate in a strike; and section 460(2) provides that employees may not be penalized for participation in a strike.

The Committee recalls that in its previous report the Government reaffirmed its determination to conduct inter-ministerial negotiations so that the texts referred to in the first paragraph above are repealed in the future. It therefore once again urges the Government to provide information in the near future on the measures taken in this respect.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Decree of 1 May 1994 respecting the right to strike and any relevant information concerning, in particular, the application of section 5 of Act No. 038/PR/96 issuing the Labour Code.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 1(a) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee has been referring for many years to Ordinance No. 30/CSM of 26 November 1975 and to Act No. 15 of 13 December 1959, under which participation in strikes is punishable by imprisonment involving forced labour. The Committee also referred to Act No. 35 of 8 January 1960 respecting subversive texts, under the terms of which persons who have expressed political ideas may be punished in a manner which is not compatible with the Convention.

In its last report, the Government indicates that no specific text to repeal the above provisions has been adopted, but that the provisions in question are not applied anywhere on the national territory. The Government however reaffirms its determination to conduct inter-ministerial negotiations so that these texts are repealed in the future.

The Committee takes due note of these indications and the above commitment. It hopes that the Government will soon provide information on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to bring its legislation into conformity with the practice indicated and with the Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee takes note of the Government's brief report.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. In its comments since 1978, the Committee has referred to Ordinance No. 30/CSM of 26 November 1975, and Act No. 15 of 13 December 1959, under which participation in strikes is punishable by imprisonment involving forced labour. The Committee has also noted the adoption of the Decree of 1 May 1994 respecting the right to strike and the settlement of collective disputes. It reiterates its request to the Government to provide a copy of the Decree, and to provide full information on measures taken or proposed to amend the legislation as a whole so as to ensure that forced labour is not imposed as punishment for having participated in strikes in contravention of the Convention.

Article 1(a). The Committee recalls also its earlier observation on Act No. 35 of 8 January 1960 respecting subversive texts. It hopes the Government will indicate the measures taken or proposed to ensure that forced labour is not imposed in contravention of the Convention for expressing political views, and that it will provide full information in this regard.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

In the comments that it has been making since 1978, the Committee has referred to the provisions of Ordinance No. 30/CSM of 26 November 1975, and to Act No. 15 of 13 December 1959, under which any person who has participated in a strike is punishable by imprisonment involving forced labour, as well as Act No. 35 of 8 January 1960 respecting subversive texts. The Committee once again notes the Government's indications in its report that the competent ministries have again been requested to repeal or amend the texts that are contrary to the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will report the measures adopted for this purpose in the very near future. The Committee notes the adoption of the Decree of 1 May 1994 respecting the right to strike and the settlement of collective disputes. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the above Decree.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

CMNT_TITLE

In the comments that it has been making since 1978, the Committee has referred to the provisions of Ordinance No. 30/CSM of 26 November 1975, and to Act No. 15 of 13 December 1959, under which any person who has participated in a strike is punishable by imprisonment involving forced labour, as well as Act No. 35 of 8 January 1960 respecting subversive texts. The Committee once again notes the Government's indications in its report that the competent ministries have again been requested to repeal or amend the texts that are contrary to the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the Government will report the measures adopted for this purpose in the very near future.

The Committee notes the adoption of the Decree of 1 May 1994 respecting the right to strike and the settlement of collective disputes. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the above Decree.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It must, therefore, repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes that the Constitution, promulgated by Decree No. 1036/PR/89 of 16 December 1989, was suspended in December 1990. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the provisions of Ordinance No. 30/CSM of 26 November 1975 and to Act No. 15 of 13 December 1959, under which any person participating in strike action may be punished by imprisonment involving compulsory labour, and to Act No. 35 of 8 January 1960 concerning subversive writings. The Committee notes the indications in the Government's report that workers in certain enterprises went on strike but were not subjected to compulsory labour. The Committee also notes that the competent ministries have again been requested to repeal or amend the texts which are contrary to the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will report on any measures taken in this respect in the very near future.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the new Constitution, promulgated by Decree No. 1036/PR/89 of 16 December 1989, was suspended in December 1990.

In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the provisions of Ordinance No. 30/CSM of 26 November 1975 and to Act No. 15 of 13 December 1959, under which any person participating in strike action may be punished by imprisonment involving compulsory labour, and to Act No. 35 of 8 January 1960 concerning subversive writings. The Committee notes the indications in the Government's report that workers in certain enterprises went on strike but were not subjected to compulsory labour. The Committee also notes that the competent ministries have again been requested to repeal or amend the texts which are contrary to the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the Government will report on any measures taken in this respect in the near future.

CMNT_TITLE

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that Act No. 35 of 8 January 1960 respecting subversive publications is in the process of being repealed and that the Government also proposed to repeal Ordinance No. 30/CSM of 26 November 1975 and Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959, which permit the punishment by imprisonment involving compulsory labour of any person participating in strike action.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report, that these matters have recently been discussed in a number of meetings between the Ministries concerned and that it has been agreed that each department involved is to be responsible for amending or repealing the texts concerning forced labour falling within its competence.

The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will shortly be able to report that the provisions amending or repealing the texts have been adopted.