Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Israel (Ratification: 1958)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the Government’s repeated indication that no legal proceedings had been instituted and no penalties imposed for offences falling under sections 145(2) and (5), 146 – 149, 151 or 159(a) of Penal Law 5737-1977, concerning seditious statements and publications. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would provide, in its future reports, information on the application of these provisions in practice, if and when such information becomes available, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of these provisions, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that they are not applied in a manner incompatible with the Convention.

Article 1(d). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. In comments made since 1980, the Committee has been referring to section 160 of Penal Law 5737-1977, which stipulates that “if the Government is of the opinion that serious disturbances exist in labour relations, threatening or prejudicing the economy in Israel or trade with foreign States, it may by proclamation declare a state of emergency for the purposes of this section, and so long as such a proclamation is not revoked, a person who takes part in a lockout or strike in relation to the commercial transport of goods or conveyance of passengers in Israel or between Israel and foreign States or in the provision of a public service in Israel or incites to, aids or encourages such a lockout or strike or the continuance thereof is liable to imprisonment for one year”, which involves an obligation to perform labour in accordance with section 48(a) of the same Law.

The Committee pointed out that a suspension of the right to strike enforceable by sanctions involving compulsory labour may be considered as compatible with the Convention only in so far as it is necessary to cope with the cases of force majeure in the strict sense of the term, namely when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered, provided that the duration of the prohibition is limited to the period of immediate necessity. While noting the Government’s repeated statement that section 160 has never been enforced, the Committee expressed the hope that this section would be either repealed or amended so as to limit its scope to circumstances which would constitute a “state of emergency” in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its reports that the amendment of section 160 would be examined within the framework of an overall revision of the Penal Law. However, the Government indicates in its latest report that the solution to this question has not yet been formulated, though section 160 has not been enforced.

While noting these indications, the Committee reiterates the firm hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will soon be in a position to report the progress made in this regard.