Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Cameroon (Ratification: 1962)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving the obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. For a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to certain provisions of the national legislation, under which criminal penalties involving compulsory prison labour (pursuant to section 24 of the Penal Code and section 49 of Decree No. 92-052, of 27 March 1992, issuing the prison regulations) may be imposed in situations covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee emphasized that where an individual is, in any manner whatsoever, compelled to perform prison labour as punishment for expressing certain political views or opposing the established political, social or economic system, this is not in conformity with the Convention. More particularly, the Committee referred to the following legal provisions:

• – section 113 of the Penal Code, under which any person issuing or propagating false information that may be detrimental to the public authorities or national unity shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to three years;
• – section 153 of the Penal Code, under which any person who insults the President or a foreign head of State shall be liable to imprisonment of six months to five years;
• – section 154(2) of the Penal Code, under which any person guilty of incitement, whether in speech or in writings intended for the public, to revolt against the Government and the institutions of the Republic shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to three years;
• – section 157(1)(a) of the Penal Code, under which any person guilty of incitement to obstruct the enforcement of any law, regulation or lawfully issued order of the public authority shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to four years;
• – section 33(1) and (3) of Law No. 90-53, of 19 December 1990, concerning freedom of association, under which board members or founders of an association which continues operations or which is re-established unlawfully after a judgment or decision has been issued for its dissolution, and persons who have encouraged the assembly of members of the dissolved association by allowing continued use of the association’s premises, shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to one year. Section 4 of the Law provides that associations founded in support of a cause or for a purpose contrary to the Constitution, or associations whose purpose is to undermine, inter alia, security, territorial integrity, national unity, national integration or the republican nature of the State, shall be null and void. Furthermore, section 14 provides that the dissolution of an association does not prevent any legal proceedings from being instituted against the officials of such an association.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in practice, prison labour is subject to the consent of the prisoners and focuses on the preparation of their social reintegration. The Committee observes in this regard that section 24 of the Penal Code specifically provides that persons serving a prison sentence are obliged to work. It notes with deep concern that, despite the adoption of Law No. 2019/20, of 24 December 2019, to amend and supplement certain provisions of the Penal Code, and Law No. 2020/9 of 20 July 2020, to amend and supplement Law No. 90-53, the Government did not make use of this opportunity to review the above-mentioned legislative provisions, taking into account the explanations provided regarding the scope of the protection afforded by the Convention.

The Committee observes that in its 2020 observation under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Rights to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), it noted with deep concern that some of the situations covered under the definition of terrorism, as provided for in section 2 of the Law on the suppression of terrorism (Law No. 2014/028 of 23 December 2014), could apply to acts related to the legitimate exercise of activities by trade unions or employers’ representatives. The Committee recalls that section 2 of the Law refers to acts committed with the intention of “disrupting the normal operation of public services or the delivery of essential public services, or creating a public crisis” and provides for penalties of imprisonment from 15 to 20 years. The Committee also notes that, in its 2019 concluding observations, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed specific concern about reports that human rights defenders, including those working to defend economic, social and cultural rights, operate under restrictive conditions and are often subjected to various forms of harassment or reprisal (E/C.12/CMR/CO/4, 25 March 2019, paragraphs 10 and 38).

The Committee wishes once again to draw the Government’s attention to Article 1(a) of the Convention which prohibits the use of compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for persons who hold or express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee emphasizes that the range of activities which must be protected, under this provision, from punishment involving compulsory labour includes the freedom to express political or ideological views, which may be exercised orally or through the press or other communications media, as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views (see General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 302). The Committee therefore strongly urges the Government to take the necessary steps to review the above mentioned provisions of the Penal Code, the Law No. 90-53 concerning freedom of association, and the Law No. 2014/028 on the suppression of terrorism, in such a way that, both in law and practice, no penalty of imprisonment (which entails compulsory labour) can be imposed on persons who peacefully express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of the provisions in question, including the number of convictions for violations thereof, and the facts that led to the convictions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Since 1996, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to certain provisions of the legislation (Penal Code and Act No. 90-53 concerning freedom of association) by virtue of which criminal penalties that include compulsory prison labour may be imposed. Specifically, under section 24 of the Penal Code and section 49 of Decree No. 92-052 establishing the prison system, prison sentences entail the obligation to work. The Committee emphasized that where an individual is, in any manner whatsoever, compelled to perform prison labour as punishment for expressing certain political views or opposing the established political, social or economic system, this is not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee referred to the following legal provisions:

• -section 113 of the Penal Code, under which any person issuing or propagating false information that may be detrimental to the public authorities or national unity shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to three years;
• -section 154(2) of the Penal Code, under which any person guilty of incitement, whether in speech or in writings intended for the public, to revolt against the Government and the institutions of the Republic shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to three years;
• -section 157(1)(a) of the Penal Code, under which any person guilty of incitement to obstruct the enforcement of any law, regulation or lawfully issued order of the public authority shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to four years;
• -section 33(1) and (3) of Act No. 90-53 concerning freedom of association, under which board members or founders of an association which continues operations or which is re-established unlawfully after a judgment or decision has been issued for its dissolution, and persons who have encouraged the assembly of members of the dissolved association by allowing continued use of the association’s premises, shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to one year. Section 4 of the Act provides that associations founded in support of a cause or for a purpose contrary to the Constitution, or associations whose purpose is to undermine, inter alia, security, territorial integrity, national unity, national integration or the republican nature of the State, shall be null and void. Furthermore, section 14 provides that the dissolution of an association does not prevent any legal proceedings from being instituted against the officials of such an association.

The Committee notes that there is no information on this point in the Government’s report. The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 2016-007 of 12 July 2016 issuing the Penal Code. However, it observes with concern that sections 113, 154(2) and 157(1)(a) of the Penal Code remain unchanged and that any person who propagates false information, who is guilty of incitement whether in speech or in writings intended for the public, to revolt against the Government and the institutions of the Republic, or who is guilty of incitement to obstruct the enforcement of any law, regulation or lawfully issued order of the public authority, is still liable to imprisonment that includes compulsory prison labour. Moreover, the Committee notes that, under section 153, any person who insults the President or a foreign head of State shall be liable to imprisonment of six months to five years.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour, especially compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for persons who, without recourse to violence, hold or express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee emphasizes that the range of activities which must be protected, under this provision, from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour thus includes the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press or other communications media) (see General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 302). The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary steps without delay to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code and those of Act No. 90-53 concerning freedom of association into conformity with the Convention, in such a way that no penalty of imprisonment entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to send information on all progress made in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments the Committee asked the Government to ensure that certain provisions of national law (referred to below) are not used as the basis for imposing prison sentences (and hence compulsory prison labour) on persons who express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. Since sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work (section 24 of the Penal Code and section 49 of Decree No. 92-052 establishing the prison system), the provisions of national law which provide for imprisonment as a punishment for activities through which persons express political views may affect the application of the Convention. The following provisions are concerned:

• -section 113 of the Penal Code, under which any person issuing or propagating false information that may be detrimental to the public authorities or national unity shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to three years;
• -section 154(2) of the Penal Code, under which any person guilty of incitement, whether in speech or in writings intended for the public, to revolt against the Government and the institutions of the Republic shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to three years;
• -section 157(1)(a) of the Penal Code, under which any person guilty of incitement to obstruct the enforcement of any law, regulation or lawfully issued order of the public authority shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to four years;
• -section 33(1) and (3) of Act No. 90-53 concerning freedom of association, under which board members or founders of an association which continues operations or which is re-established unlawfully after a judgment or decision has been issued for its dissolution, and persons who have encouraged the assembly of members of the dissolved association by allowing continued use of the association’s premises, shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to one year. Section 4 of the Act declares that associations founded in support of a cause or for a purpose contrary to the Constitution, or associations whose purpose is to undermine, inter alia, security, territorial integrity, national unity, national integration or the republican nature of the State, shall be null and void. Furthermore, section 14 provides that the dissolution of an association does not prevent any legal proceedings from being instituted against the officials of such an association.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that it respects the principle of freedom of association and expression, as evidenced by the large number of associations, newspapers and accredited media. The Government adds that it does not have any data relating to journalists who have been imprisoned for propagating false information and are subjected to compulsory labour. The Committee observes that, in the report of the Ministry of Justice on the situation of human rights in Cameroon in 2012, one section covers the prosecution of journalists. This information reveals that there are many cases before the criminal courts concerning journalists who are being prosecuted for defamation or propagation of false news. The Committee also observes that, in its concluding observations on the third periodic report of the Republic of Cameroon, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights of the African Union expressed serious concern at “the maintenance of legal provisions penalizing press offences” and recommended that the Government should “amend the provisions of the Penal Code with the aim to decriminalize press offences” (15th Extraordinary Session, March 2014).

The Committee notes this information with concern and recalls that where an individual is, in any manner whatsoever, compelled to perform prison labour as punishment for expressing certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system, this falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the Government will review the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code and Act No. 90-53 concerning freedom of association, taking account of the explanations provided regarding the scope of the protection afforded by the Convention, in such a way that no prison sentence, which in Cameroon entails compulsory labour, can be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any court decisions issued on the basis of the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code and of the Act concerning freedom of association.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under section 24 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 90-61 of 19 December 1990, and section 49 of Decree No. 92-052 establishing the prison system, sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work. It emphasized that where an individual is, in any manner whatsoever, compelled to perform prison labour as punishment for expressing certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system, this falls within the scope of the Convention. In order to be sure that certain provisions of national law are not used as the basis for imposing prison sentences on persons who, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, including copies of court decisions issued on the basis thereof. The following provisions are concerned:

• -section 113 of the Penal Code, under which any person issuing or propagating false information that may be detrimental to the public authorities or national unity shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to three years;
• -section 154(2) of the Penal Code, under which any person guilty of incitement, whether in speech or in writings intended for the public, to revolt against the Government and the institutions of the Republic shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to three years;
• -section 157(1)(a) of the Penal Code, under which any person guilty of incitement to obstruct the enforcement of any law, regulation or lawfully issued order of the public authority shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to four years;
• -section 33(1) and (3) of Act No. 90-53 concerning freedom of association, under which board members or founders of an association which continues operations or which is re-established unlawfully after a judgment or decision has been issued for its dissolution, and persons who have encouraged the assembly of members of the dissolved association by allowing continued use of the association’s premises, shall be liable to imprisonment of three months to one year. Section 4 of the Act declares that associations founded in support of a cause or for a purpose contrary to the Constitution, or associations whose purpose is to undermine, inter alia, security, territorial integrity, national unity, national integration or the republican nature of the State, shall be null and void. Furthermore, section 14 provides that the dissolution of an association does not prevent any legal proceedings from being instituted against the officials of such an association.

The Government indicates in its latest report that the Penal Code is being reformed and that, since the adoption of the Freedom of Association Act in 1990, cases involving offences relating to the expression of certain views are no longer taken to court. The Committee duly notes this information. It also points out that both the Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the Committee against Torture (CAT), in their concluding observations in 2010 with respect to Cameroon, express their concern regarding the large number of journalists who have been imprisoned or are facing prosecution. The HRC “reiterates its concern about provisions in the Penal Code which render it a criminal offence to spread false news and about how journalists in a number of cases have been prosecuted for this or related crimes, such as the crime of defamation, as a consequence of their reporting”. The HRC also expresses its concern at the low number of accredited NGOs and asks Cameroon to ensure that any restriction on freedom of association is strictly compatible with international standards (CCPR/C/CMR/CO/4, paragraphs 25–26, and CAT/C/CMR/CO/4, paragraph 18).

In view of the above, the Committee once again requests the Government to send copies of any court decisions issued on the basis of the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code and the Freedom of Association Act. The Committee hopes that during the revision of the Penal Code, to which the Government refers in its report, the explanations provided by the Committee on the scope of the protection afforded by the Convention will be taken into account in such a way that no prison sentence (which in Cameroon entails compulsory labour) can be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee understands that the Merchant Shipping Code of the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC), adopted by Regulation No. 03/01-UEAC-088-CM-06 of the Council of Ministers of the CEMAC of 3 August 2001, is being revised. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the revised Code once it has been adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In the comments that it has been making for many years, the Committee has drawn the Government’s attention to certain provisions of the Penal Code and of Act No. 90-53 of 19 December 1990 on freedom of association, which provide for sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work in situations covered by these provisions of the Convention.

The Committee noted in its previous comments that the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 90-61 of 19 December 1990, no longer exempts from the obligation to work persons sentenced to imprisonment for political offences or crimes. Under section 24 of the Penal Code and section 49 of Decree No. 92-052 establishing the prison regime, sentences of imprisonment involve the obligation to work. The Committee emphasized that where an individual is, in any manner whatsoever, compelled to perform prison labour as punishment for expressing certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system, this falls within the scope of the Convention. Penalties of imprisonment that involve compulsory labour are covered by the Convention when imposed as punishment for the expression of views or opposition. To enable the Committee to ascertain that the application of the provisions mentioned below is restricted to activities falling outside the protection of the Convention, it requested the Government to provide all available information on their application in practice, including copies of court decisions handed down under these provisions which define or illustrate their scope. The Committee referred to the following provisions:

–           section 113 of the Penal Code, under which the issuing or propagation of false information liable to injure the public authorities or national unity is punishable by a prison term of from three months to three years;

–           section 154(2) of the Penal Code, under which incitement, whether in speech or in writings intended for the public, to revolt against the Government and the institutions of the Republic, is punishable by imprisonment of from three months to three years;

–           section 157(1)(a) of the Penal Code, under which incitement to obstruction of the execution of any law, regulation or lawfully issued order of the public authority is punishable by imprisonment of from three months to four years;

–           section 33(1) and (3) of Act No. 90-53 on freedom of association, which provides for a sentence of imprisonment from three months to one year for board members or founders of an association which continues operations or which is re-established unlawfully after a judgement or decision has been issued for its dissolution, and for persons who have encouraged the assembly of members of the dissolved association by allowing continued use of the association’s premises. Section 4 of the Act declares null and void associations founded in support of a cause or in view of a purpose contrary to the Constitution, and associations whose purpose is to undermine, inter alia, security, territorial integrity, national unity, national integration or the republican nature of the State. Furthermore, section 14 provides that the dissolution of an association does not bar any legal proceedings from being instituted against the officials of such an association.

The Committee notes that, in its last report received in September 2008, the Government indicates that it has not been notified of court rulings issued in relation to offences relating to the expression of opinions and adds that these cases are likely to be rare, or non-existent, in view of the multipartite system that has been in force in Cameroon for over 18 years, and the system of trade union pluralism. While taking due note of this information, the Committee emphasizes the need to examine the manner in which the above provisions are applied in practice. In the absence of any information on this subject, the Committee is bound once again to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that these provisions may give rise to violations of the Convention if they provide the basis for convictions to sentences of imprisonment as punishment for persons who express a political view or ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system, without having recourse to or calling for violent methods.

In view of the explanations provided above, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the judicial decisions handed down under the above provisions of the Penal Code and the Act on freedom of association (number of convictions and copies of the court decisions) that illustrate their scope. It once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention, the persons protected by the Convention may not be subjected to penalties involving an obligation to work.

Article 1(c) and (d). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report to the effect that, with reference to the disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers, the provisions of the new Merchant Shipping Code of the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) apply. It notes that section 554 of the Code, respecting the penalties applicable for faults relating to disciplinary matters, does not provide for sentences of imprisonment, as the penalties incurred for the most serious faults are dismissal and removal from the national seafarers’ register. Under the terms of section 607 of the Code, it replaces the Merchant Shipping Code of Custom and Economic Union of Central Africa (UDEAC) of 22 December 1994 and repeals any previous provisions that are contrary to it. The Committee understands that these provisions apply, inter alia, to Ordinance No. 62/DF/30 of 1962, on which it commented previously. The Committee notes that under the new provisions, breaches of labour discipline committed by seafarers are no longer punishable by sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Penal Code adopted in 1990 no longer exempts from the obligation to work persons sentenced to imprisonment for political offences. Under section 24 of the Penal Code and section 49 of Decree No. 92-052 establishing the prison regime, penalties of imprisonment involve the obligation to work. The Committee stressed that where an individual is, in any manner whatsoever, compelled to prison labour as punishment for expressing certain political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, this falls within the scope of the Convention. Penalties of imprisonment that involve compulsory labour are covered by the Convention when imposed as punishment for the expression of views or of opposition. To enable the Committee to ascertain that the application of the provisions mentioned below is restricted to activities falling outside the protection provided by the Convention, it requested the Government to provide all available information on their application in practice, including copies of court decisions handed down under these provisions, which define or illustrate their scope. The Committee referred to the following provisions:

–           Section 113 of the Penal Code, under which the issuing or propagation of false information liable to injure the public authorities or national unity is punishable by a prison term of from three months to three years.

–           Section 154(2) of the Penal Code, under which incitement, whether in speech or in writing intended for the public, to revolt against the Government and the institutions of the Republic, is punishable by imprisonment of from three months to three years.

–           Section 157(1)(a) of the Penal Code, under which incitement to obstruction of the execution of any law, regulation or lawfully issued order of the public authority is punishable by imprisonment of from three months to four years.

–           Section 33(1) and (3) of Act No. 90-53 on freedom of association which provides for imprisonment of three months to one year for board members or founders of an association which continues operations or which is re‑established unlawfully after a judgement or decision has been issued for its dissolution, and for persons who have encouraged the assembly of members of the dissolved association by allowing continued use of the association’s premises. Section 4 of the Act declares null and void associations founded in support of a cause or in view of a purpose contrary to the Constitution, and associations whose purpose is to undermine, inter alia, security, territorial integrity, national unity, national integration or the republican nature of the State. According to section 14 of the Act, the dissolution of an association does not bar any legal proceedings from being instituted against the officials of such an association.

The Committee notes that in its report the Government states that the aim of the prison policy is the social rehabilitation of convicts, including those found guilty of the offences referred to in the abovementioned provisions. In this context, all necessary measures are taken to prevent the exploitation of convicts. The Committee reminds the Government that under the Convention, persons who express, without using or inciting to violence, political views or views that are ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic order, may not be subjected to imprisonment involving compulsory labour, whatever the form of such labour. In view of the developments referred to above, the Committee again asks the Government to provide information on judicial decisions handed down under the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code and the Act on freedom of association (number of sentences and copies of the decisions) that illustrate their scope. It would also be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention, the persons protected by the Convention may not be subjected to penalties involving an obligation to work.

Article 1(c) and (d). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. For many years the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend sections 226, 229, 242, 259 and 261 of the Merchant Shipping Code (Ordinance No. 62/DF/30 of 1962), under which certain breaches of discipline committed by seafarers may be punished by imprisonment involving the obligation to work. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption of the revised Merchant Shipping Community Code by the Council of Ministers of the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa – CEMAC (Regulation No. 03/01-UEAC-088-CM-06 of 3 August 2001). Under the above Code, breaches of labour discipline by seafarers are not punishable by imprisonment. The Committee notes, that in its last report, referring to the legislation giving effect to the Convention, the Government cites the Cameroonian Merchant Shipping Code of 1962 and the CEMAC Code of 2001 and indicates that the text of the revised CEMAC Code will be sent as soon as it is adopted. The Committee requests the Government to provide more extensive information on the provisions that actually apply to the discipline of seafarers and to state which of the two Codes prevails should their provisions be contradictory.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. For a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to certain provisions of the Penal Code which provide for sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour:

(a)  Under section 113 of the Penal Code, any person who originates or propagates untrue information where such information is liable to prejudice the public authorities or national cohesion shall be liable to imprisonment of from three months to three years.

(b)  Under section 154(2) of the Penal Code, any person who, whether in speech or in writings intended for the public, incites a revolt against the Government and the institutions of the Republic shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to three years.

(c)  Under section 157(1)(a) of the Penal Code, any person who, by any means whatsoever, incites to obstruction of the execution of any law, regulation or lawful order of the public authority shall be liable to imprisonment of from three months to four years.

The Committee also referred to certain provisions of Act No. 90-53 concerning freedom of association:

-  Under section 12 of this Act, associations may be dissolved by judicial decision upon the proposal of the Legal Department or at the request of any interested party in case of nullity as provided for under section 4 of the Act.

-  Under section 4, associations founded in support of a cause or in view of a purpose contrary to the Constitution, and those whose purpose is to undermine the security, territorial integrity, national unity, national integration or the republican structure of the State shall be null and void.

-  Section 14 provides that the dissolution of an association shall not bar any legal proceedings which may be instituted against the officials of such association.

-  Section 33(1) provides for the imprisonment of from three months to one year of the board members or founders of an association which continues operations or which is re-established illegally after a judgement or decision has been issued for its dissolution. The same penalties apply to any persons who encourage meetings of the members of a dissolved association by allowing them the use of premises in their possession (section 33(3)).

In previous comments, the Committee noted that section 18 (new) of the Penal Code (Act No. 90-61 of 19 December 1990) no longer refers to the penalty of detention (a penalty depriving a person of her or his freedom for a political crime or lesser offence during which convicts are not required to work) and that sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour, under section 24 of the Penal Code, had replaced detention.

The Committee observed that, under the above provisions, sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work could be imposed on persons for the expression of certain political opinions or the manifestation of their ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic order.

It requested the Government to provide full particulars concerning the application in practice of these provisions, including the number of convictions for violating these provisions and copies of court decisions which define or illustrate their scope.

The Committee notes that, in its report received in October 2002, the Government indicates that in practice the persons protected by the Convention, particularly in relation to the expression of opinions, political activities and the exercise of the rights of association and assembly, cannot be subjected to penalties involving the obligation to work. Only those found guilty, inter alia, of the offences set out in sections 113 (the propagation of false information) and 157 (incitation to resist the execution of any law, regulation or lawful order of the public authority) of the Penal Code may be prosecuted.

While noting this information, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure, in conformity with Article 1(a) of the Convention, that the persons protected by the Convention, particularly with regard to the expression of opinions by the press and political activities, the right of association and assembly, may not be subjected to penalties involving compulsory labour. It also requests the Government to continue providing full particulars on the application of these provisions in practice, including the number of convictions for violations of these provisions and copies of judicial decisions which may define or illustrate their scope.

Article 1(c) and (d). In comments that it has been making for many years, the Committee has noted that under sections 226, 229, 242, 259 and 261 of the Merchant Shipping Code (Ordinance No. 62/DF/30 of 1962), certain breaches of discipline committed by seafarers may be punished by imprisonment involving the obligation to work.

The Government stated previously that studies were being conducted with a view to revising the Merchant Shipping Code and harmonizing national law and practice with the provisions of the Convention. In its last report, the Government indicates that the measures envisaged are those established in the community code of the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC), and that the revision of this code is under way.

The Committee takes note of Regulation No. 03/01-UEAC-088-CM-06 of 3 August 2001 of the Council of Ministers of the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa, issuing the community Merchant Shipping Code, revised. Under the new provisions of this code, breaches of discipline committed by seafarers may not be punished by imprisonment involving the obligation to work. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the progress of the adoption process of this Code.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. 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:

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that section 18 (new) of the Penal Code (Act No. 90-61 of 19 December 1990) no longer refers to the penalty of detention (a penalty depriving someone of his freedom for a political crime or lesser offence during which convicts were not required to work) and that sentences of imprisonment involving forced labour, under section 24 of the Code, may be imposed by virtue of the following provisions of the Penal Code:

(a)  Section 111: the penalty of life imprisonment may be imposed on "whoever attempts, in time of peace, by whatever means, to undermine the integrity of the territory";

(b)  Section 113: "whoever by any means whatsoever incites to the obstruction of the execution of any law, regulation or lawful order of the public authority is liable to imprisonment for from three months to four years";

(c)  Section 116: a penalty of imprisonment from 10 to 20 years may be imposed on "(a) whoever provokes or facilitates, during an insurrectionary movement, the assembling of the insurgents by whatever means; (b) prevents by whatever means the convening, meeting or exercise of the public authority or takes over such authority: (c) appropriates public or private buildings";

(d)  Section 154(2): "whoever, whether in speech or in writing intended for the public, incites to revolt against the Government and the institutions of the Republic shall be punished with imprisonment for from three months to three years";

(e)  Section 157: "whoever professes or propagates false information liable to injure public authorities or national unity is liable to imprisonment for from three months to four years".

The Committeefurther noted that, under section 12 of Act No. 90-53 concerning freedom of association, associations may be dissolved by judicial decision on the initiative of the Legal Department or at the request of any interested party in case of nullity as provided for under section 4 of the same Act. Section 4 declares "null and void associations founded in support of a cause or in view of a purpose contrary to the Constitution, and associations whose purpose is to undermine, especially security, the integrity of the national territory, national unity, national integration or the republican character of the State". Section 14 of the same Act provides that "the dissolution of an association shall not bar any legal proceedings which may be instituted against the officials of such association", and section 33 provides for imprisonment for from three months to one year for the board members or founders of an association which continues operations or which is re-established illegally after a judgement or decision has been issued for its dissolution. The same penalties apply to anyone who encourages meetings of members of a dissolved association by allowing them the use of his premises (section 34).

To enable the Committee to ascertain that the application in practice of the provisions mentioned above remains restricted to activities which do not fall within the scope of protection of the Convention, the Committee again requests the Government to provide all information on the practical application of the provisions in question, including the number of convictions for violations thereof, and copies of any judicial decisions which define or illustrate their scope. It also requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged to ensure, in conformity with Article 1(a) of the Convention, that the persons protected by the Convention, particularly as regards the expression of opinions, political activities and the right of association and assembly, may not be subjected to penalties involving compulsory labour.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

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) of the Convention. The Committee has been commenting for a number of years on sections 111, 113, 116, 154 and 157 of the Penal Code which provide for sentences involving compulsory labour in cases, inter alia, of expression of opinions directed against the public authorities, and also to sections 4, 12, 19, 33 and 34 of Act No. 90-53 on freedom of association, which provides the same sentences for activities connected to the maintenance of an association which has been dissolved.

In its last report, the Government indicates that the overall question is one of sovereignty, that no State can allow disturbance of national cohesion and that the relationship to the Convention of the sections in question does not appear clear. The Committee takes due note of these indications. It recalls that the Convention protects neither slander nor violence or inciting to violence. However, as the Committee indicated in paragraphs 133-140 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the protection provided by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or demonstrating dissent within the framework of established principles. Consequently, the fact that some activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in the institutions of the State, does not provide grounds for considering them to be outside the scope of the Convention, provided that, in the pursuit of the objective sought, violent methods are neither used nor advocated.

It is to ascertain that the application in practice of the abovementioned penal provisions is limited to activities falling outside the scope of the Convention, that the Committee has repeatedly requested the Government to supply, in particular, copies of any judicial decisions which define or illustrate their scope, as well as information on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention in this connection. Since this information is still lacking, the Committee is renewing its request in a more detailed request addressed directly to the Government.

Article 1(c) and (d). In its comments for a number of years, the Committee has noted that under section 226, 229, 242, 259 and 261 of Merchant Shipping Code (Ordinance No. 62/DF/30 of 1962), certain breaches of discipline committed by seamen may be punished by imprisonment involving the obligation to work.

The Government had stated that studies were being conducted with a view to revising the Merchant Shipping Code and harmonizing national legislation and practice with the provisions of the Convention. Since no information on this subject was included in the Government’s last report, the Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will report the results of these studies and on progress in the revision of the Merchant Shipping Code and indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that sentences of imprisonment involving forced labour can no longer be incurred by seamen for breaches of discipline that do not endanger the vessel or human life or health.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

With reference to its observation under the Convention, the Committee hopes that the Government will supply full information on the following points.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that section 18 (new) of the Penal Code (Act No. 90-61 of 19 December 1990) no longer refers to the penalty of detention (a penalty depriving someone of his freedom for a political crime or lesser offence during which convicts were not required to work) and that sentences of imprisonment involving forced labour, under section 24 of the Code, may be imposed by virtue of the following provisions of the Penal Code:

(a) Section 111: the penalty of life imprisonment may be imposed on "whoever attempts, in time of peace, by whatever means, to undermine the integrity of the territory";

(b) Section 113: "whoever by any means whatsoever incites to the obstruction of the execution of any law, regulation or lawful order of the public authority is liable to imprisonment for from three months to four years";

(c) Section 116: a penalty of imprisonment from 10 to 20 years may be imposed on "(a) whoever provokes or facilitates, during an insurrectionary movement, the assembling of the insurgents by whatever means; (b) prevents by whatever means the convening, meeting or exercise of the public authority or takes over such authority: (c) appropriates public or private buildings";

(d) Section 152(2): "whoever, whether in speech or in writing intended for the public, incites to revolt against the Government and the institutions of the Republic shall be punished with imprisonment for from three months to three years";

(e) Section 157: "whoever professes or propagates false information liable to injure public authorities or national unity is liable to imprisonment for from three months to four years".

The Committee further noted that, under section 12 of Act No. 90-53 concerning freedom of association, associations may be dissolved by judicial decision on the initiative of the Legal Department or at the request of any interested party in case of nullity as provided for under section 4 of the same Act. Section 4 declares "null and void associations founded in support of a cause or in view of a purpose contrary to the Constitution, and associations whose purpose is to undermine, especially security, the integrity of the national territory, national unity, national integration or the republican character of the State". Section 14 of the same Act provides that "the dissolution of an association shall not bar any legal proceedings which may be instituted against the officials of such association", and section 33 provides for imprisonment for from three months to one year for the board members or founders of an association which continues operations or which is re-established illegally after a judgement or decision has been issued for its dissolution. The same penalties apply to anyone who encourages meetings of members of a dissolved association by allowing them the use of his premises (section 34).

To enable the Committee to ascertain that the application in practice of the provisions mentioned above remains restricted to activities which do not fall within the scope of protection of the Convention, the Committee again requests the Government to provide all information on the practical application of the provisions in question, including the number of convictions for violations thereof, and copies of any judicial decisions which define or illustrate their scope. It also requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged to ensure, in conformity with Article 1(a) of the Convention, that the persons protected by the Convention, particularly as regards the expression of opinions, political activities and the right of association and assembly, may not be subjected to penalties involving compulsory labour.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee has been commenting for a number of years on sections 111, 113, 116, 154 and 157 of the Penal Code which provide for sentences involving compulsory labour in cases, inter alia, of expression of opinions directed against the public authorities, and also to sections 4, 12, 19, 33 and 34 of Act No. 90-53 on freedom of association, which provides the same sentences for activities connected to the maintenance of an association which has been dissolved.

In its last report, the Government indicates that the overall question is one of sovereignty, that no State can allow disturbance of national cohesion and that the relationship to the Convention of the sections in question does not appear clear. The Committee takes due note of these indications. It recalls that the Convention protects neither slander nor violence or inciting to violence. However, as the Committee indicated in paragraphs 133-140 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the protection provided by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or demonstrating dissent within the framework of established principles. Consequently, the fact that some activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in the institutions of the State, does not provide grounds for considering them to be outside the scope of the Convention, provided that, in the pursuit of the objective sought, violent methods are neither used nor advocated.

It is to ascertain that the application in practice of the abovementioned penal provisions is limited to activities falling outside the scope of the Convention, that the Committee has repeatedly requested the Government to supply, in particular, copies of any judicial decisions which define or illustrate their scope, as well as information on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention in this connection. Since this information is still lacking, the Committee is renewing its request in a more detailed request addressed directly to the Government.

Article 1(c) and (d). In its comments for a number of years, the Committee has noted that under section 226, 229, 242, 259 and 261 of Merchant Shipping Code (Ordinance No. 62/DF/30 of 1962), certain breaches of discipline committed by seamen may be punished by imprisonment involving the obligation to work.

The Government had stated that studies were being conducted with a view to revising the Merchant Shipping Code and harmonizing national legislation and practice with the provisions of the Convention. Since no information on this subject was included in the Government's last report, the Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will report the results of these studies and on progress in the revision of the Merchant Shipping Code and indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that sentences of imprisonment involving forced labour can no longer be incurred by seamen for breaches of discipline that do not endanger the vessel or human life or health.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Further to its observation, the Committee notes the Government's reply to its earlier comments regarding the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code allowing imprisonment with compulsory work in certain cases of breach of discipline. It hopes the next report will include information on the outcome of the studies of a revision of the Code, as well as practical details of any use made of those provisions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee has noted the Government's brief reply to its last observation. The matters raised concerned sections 111, 113, 116, 154 and 157 of the Penal Code, and Act No. 90-53 relating to freedom of association: those provisions define offences connected with the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, and under sections 18 and 24 of the Penal Code they may give rise to sentences of imprisonment with compulsory labour. The Committee referred to the explanations in paragraphs 102 to 109 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, as to the incompatibility with the Convention which results from these provisions.

The Committee notes the Government's indication that there has been no use of forced labour for the expression of ideological opposition to the political system, and that many political parties now operate in Cameroon. It would nevertheless refer further to paragraphs 133 to 140 of the General Survey, regarding the politically coercive effect of the mere possibility of forced labour being imposed in cases such as those mentioned here. It would be glad if the Government would take early steps to ensure the Convention is observed on this point, pending which the Government will no doubt wish to continue indicating whether any use has been made of the provisions cited.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

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

1. In earlier comments the Committee referred to the provisions of sections 113 and 157 (new) of the Penal Code under which "whoever by any means whatsoever incites to the obstruction of the execution of any law, regulation or lawful order of the public authority is liable to imprisonment for from three months to four years" (157); "whoever professes or propagates false information liable to injure public authorities or national unity is liable to imprisonment for from three months to three years" (113). Under section 154(2) "whoever, whether in speech or in writing intended for the public, incites to revolt against the Government and the Institutions of the Republic shall be punished with imprisonment for from three months to three years". The Committee noted that section 18 (new) of the Penal Code (Act No. 90-61 of 19 November 1990) no longer refers to the penalty of detention (a penalty depriving someone of his freedom for a political crime or lesser offence during which convicts were not required to work) and that imprisonment with compulsory labour had replaced detention. The Committee notes that in its report the Government indicates that section 157 of the Penal Code punishes any disturbance of the public order. The Committee observes that, under the provisions of section 113, 154(2) and 157, penalties of imprisonment with compulsory labour under section 24 of the Penal Code may be imposed on persons who express certain political opinions or demonstrate their ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic order. It also notes that section 111 of the same Penal Code allows a penalty of life imprisonment to be imposed on "whoever attempts, in time of peace, by whatever means, to undermine the integrity of the territory" and that section 116 allows a penalty of imprisonment of from 10 to 20 years to be imposed on "whoever provokes or facilitates, during an insurrectionary movement, the assembling of the insurgents by whatever means (a); prevents by whatever means the convening, meeting or exercise of the authority responsible for public order or takes over such authority (b); appropriates public or private buildings (c)". The Committee notes that under section 12 of Act No. 90-53 concerning freedom of association, associations may be dissolved by judicial decision on the initiative of the Legal Department or at the request of any interested party in case of nullity as provided for under section 4 of the same Act. Section 4 declares null and void associations founded in support of a cause or in view of a purpose contrary to the Constitution, and associations whose purpose is to undermine, especially security, the integrity of the national territory, national unity, national integration or the republican character of the State. Section 14 of the same Act provides that "the dissolution of an association shall not bar any legal proceedings which may be instituted against the officials of such association" and section 33 provides for imprisonment for from three months to one year for the board members or founders of an association which continues operations or which is re-established illegally after a judgement or decision has been issued for its dissolution. The same penalties apply to anyone who encourages meetings of members of a dissolved association by allowing them the use of his premises (section 34). The Committee recalls that, as indicated in paragraphs 102 to 109 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, States which have ratified the Convention must abolish all forms of forced labour, including labour imposed as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, in the cases provided for in the Convention. The Committee also recalls that the protection provided by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or demonstrating dissent within the framework of established principles. Consequently, the fact that some activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in the institutions of the State does not afford grounds for considering them to be outside the scope of the Convention, provided that violent methods are not used or advocated in the pursuit of the objective sought. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention, the persons protected by the Convention, particularly as regards the expression of opinions in the press, political activities, and the right of association and assembly, may not be subjected to penalties involving compulsory labour. It also asks the Government to provide all information relevant to the application in practice of the above-mentioned provisions, including the number of convictions for violations of them, and copies of any judicial decisions which define or illustrate their scope. 2. In the comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has noted that under sections 226, 229, 242, 259 and 261 of the Merchant Shipping Code (Ordinance No. 62/DF/30 of 1962), certain breaches of discipline committed by seamen may be punished by imprisonment involving the obligation to work. The Government had stated that studies were being conducted with a view to revising the Merchant Shipping Code and harmonizing national legislation and practice with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the outcome of these studies, report on the progress made in revising the Merchant Shipping Code and supply information on the measures taken or contemplated to ensure that penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may not be imposed on seamen for breaches of discipline that do not endanger the vessel or human life or health.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

1. In earlier comments the Committee referred to the provisions of sections 113 and 157 (new) of the Penal Code under which "whoever by any means whatsoever incites to the obstruction of the execution of any law, regulation or lawful order of the public authority is liable to imprisonment for from three months to four years" (157); "whoever professes or propagates false information liable to injure public authorities or national unity is liable to imprisonment for from three months to three years" (113). Under section 154(2) "whoever, whether in speech or in writing intended for the public, incites to revolt against the Government and the Institutions of the Republic shall be punished with imprisonment for from three months to three years".

The Committee noted that section 18 (new) of the Penal Code (Act No. 90-61 of 19 November 1990) no longer refers to the penalty of detention (a penalty depriving someone of his freedom for a political crime or lesser offence during which convicts were not required to work) and that imprisonment with compulsory labour had replaced detention.

The Committee notes that in its report the Government indicates that section 157 of the Penal Code punishes any disturbance of the public order.

The Committee observes that, under the provisions of section 113, 154(2) and 157, penalties of imprisonment with compulsory labour under section 24 of the Penal Code may be imposed on persons who express certain political opinions or demonstrate their ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic order. It also notes that section 111 of the same Penal Code allows a penalty of life imprisonment to be imposed on "whoever attempts, in time of peace, by whatever means, to undermine the integrity of the territory" and that section 116 allows a penalty of imprisonment of from 10 to 20 years to be imposed on "whoever provokes or facilitates, during an insurrectionary movement, the assembling of the insurgents by whatever means (a); prevents by whatever means the convening, meeting or exercise of the authority responsible for public order or takes over such authority (b); appropriates public or private buildings (c)".

The Committee notes that under section 12 of Act No. 90-53 concerning freedom of association, associations may be dissolved by judicial decision on the initiative of the Legal Department or at the request of any interested party in case of nullity as provided for under section 4 of the same Act. Section 4 declares null and void associations founded in support of a cause or in view of a purpose contrary to the Constitution, and associations whose purpose is to undermine, especially security, the integrity of the national territory, national unity, national integration or the republican character of the State. Section 14 of the same Act provides that "the dissolution of an association shall not bar any legal proceedings which may be instituted against the officials of such association" and section 33 provides for imprisonment for from three months to one year for the board members or founders of an association which continues operations or which is re-established illegally after a judgement or decision has been issued for its dissolution. The same penalties apply to anyone who encourages meetings of members of a dissolved association by allowing them the use of his premises (section 34).

The Committee recalls that, as indicated in paragraphs 102 to 109 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, States which have ratified the Convention must abolish all forms of forced labour, including labour imposed as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, in the cases provided for in the Convention.

The Committee also recalls that the protection provided by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or demonstrating dissent within the framework of established principles. Consequently, the fact that some activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in the institutions of the State does not afford grounds for considering them to be outside the scope of the Convention, provided that violent methods are not used or advocated in the pursuit of the objective sought.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention, the persons protected by the Convention, particularly as regards the expression of opinions in the press, political activities, and the right of association and assembly, may not be subjected to penalties involving compulsory labour. It also asks the Government to provide all information relevant to the application in practice of the above-mentioned provisions, including the number of convictions for violations of them, and copies of any judicial decisions which define or illustrate their scope.

2. In the comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has noted that under sections 226, 229, 242, 259 and 261 of the Merchant Shipping Code (Ordinance No. 62/DF/30 of 1962), certain breaches of discipline committed by seamen may be punished by imprisonment involving the obligation to work.

The Government had stated that studies were being conducted with a view to revising the Merchant Shipping Code and harmonizing national legislation and practice with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate the outcome of these studies, report on the progress made in revising the Merchant Shipping Code and supply information on the measures taken or contemplated to ensure that penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may not be imposed on seamen for breaches of discipline that do not endanger the vessel or human life or health.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. 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:

Prison work. 1. The Committee has noted that, under section 18 (new) of the Penal Code as introduced by Law No. 90-61 of 19 December 1990 to amend certain provisions of the Penal Code, the following are principal penalties: death, imprisonment and a fine. The Committee has observed that section 18 no longer refers to the penalty of detention prescribed by the Penal Code as adopted in 1967. The Committee had also noted that section 26 of the Code provided that detention was a penalty of deprivation of freedom for a political crime or lesser offence, during which convicts were not required to work and served their sentences in special establishments or, failing such establishments, separate from ordinary prisoners.

The Committee had further noted that under section 2 of the aforementioned Law No. 90-61 certain penalties of detention are replaced by penalties of imprisonment.

The Committee again requests the Government to state whether the penalty of detention has been eliminated from the Penal Code and whether, as a result, section 26 of the Code can no longer be applied or whether on the contrary, notwithstanding the present wording of section 113, the penalty of detention remains applicable. If that should be the case, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would specify the offences mentioned in the Penal Code and punishable by detention and would communicate a copy of the provisions as they now read.

2. The Committee again requests the Government to communicate a copy of all provisions adopted pursuant to section 9 of Decree No. 73-774 of 11 December 1973 laying down penitentiary regulations and applicable to political detainees.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 3. Referring also to its observation on the Convention, the Committee had noted that the offences defined in sections 1 and 3 of Ordinance No. 62-OF-18 of 12 March 1962 to repress subversive activities, repealed by Law No. 90-46 of 19 December 1990, were embodied in the Penal Code in sections 113 (new) and 157 (new) by the aforementioned Law No. 90-61. The Committee has noted that, under section 113 (new) of the Penal Code, whoever professes or propagates false information liable to injure public authorities or national unity is liable to imprisonment for from three months to three years; under section 157 (new) of the Penal Code, whoever by any means whatever incites to the obstruction of the execution of any law, regulation, or lawful order of the public authority is liable to imprisonment for from three months to four years.

The Committee asks the Government to communicate all available information concerning the practical application of the provisions mentioned above, including the number of sentence imposed for breach of those provisions, and copies of any judicial decisions which may define or illustrate their scope.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

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

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes Decree No. 90-1459 of 8 November 1990 to set up the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms. The Committee also notes the following Laws adopted on 19 December 1990: Law No. 90-46 to repeal Ordinance No. 62-OF-18 of 12 March 1962 to repress subversive activities; Law No. 90-52 relating to freedom of mass communication; Law No. 90-53 relating to freedom of association; Law No. 90-55 to lay down regulations governing public meetings and processions; and Law No. 90-56 relating to political parties (instituting political pluralism). The Committee has also taken note of Law No. 90-47 relating to the state emergency, Law No. 90-54 relating to the maintenance of law and order, Law No. 90-60 to set up and organize the State Security Court and Law No. 90-61 to amend certain provisions of the Penal Code, all adopted on 19 December 1990. The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government concerning certain provisions of the aforementioned Laws in relation to the application of the Convention. 2. Article 1(c) and (d). In the comments it has been making for many years the Committee has noted that, by virtue of sections 226, 229, 242, 259 and 261 of the Merchant Shipping Code (Ordinance No. 62/DF/30 of 1962), certain breaches of discipline committed by seamen may be punished by penalties of imprisonment involving the obligation to work. The Government has previously stated that it would take the Committee's observations into account when the revision of the Merchant Shipping Code was undertaken. The Committee has noted that the information given by the Government in its report for the period ending in 1991 to the effect that the Merchant Shipping Code has not been revised and that no change can be made in the law until that has been done. The Committee observes once again that the Government has been referring to the envisaged repeal of the provisions in question since its report for 1972-73 and that the Government had stated that studies were being made with a view to harmonising national legislation and practice with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to state the outcome of those studies, to report on the progress made in revising the Merchant Shipping Code and to supply information about the measures taken or contemplated to ensure that penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour cannot be imposed on seamen for breaches of discipline that do not endanger the vessel or human life or health.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

Prison work. 1. The Committee notes that, under section 18 (new) of the Penal Code as introduced by Law No. 90-61 of 19 December 1990 to amend certain provisions of the Penal Code, the following are principal penalties: death, imprisonment and a fine. The Committee observes that section 18 no longer refers to the penalty of detention prescribed by the Penal Code as adopted in 1967. The Committee points out that section 26 of the Code provided that detention was a penalty of deprivation of freedom for a political crime or lesser offence, during which convicts were not required to work and served their sentences in special establishments or, failing such establishments, separate from ordinary prisoners.

The Committee notes further that under section 2 of the aforementioned Law No. 90-61 certain penalties of detention are replaced by penalties of imprisonment.

The Committee asks the Government to state whether the penalty of detention has been eliminated from the Penal Code and whether, as a result, section 26 of the Code can no longer be applied or whether on the contrary, notwithstanding the present wording of section 113, the penalty of detention remains applicable. If that should be the case, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would specify the offences mentioned in the Penal Code and punishable by detention and would communicate a copy of the provisions as they now read.

2. The Committee asks the Government to communicate a copy of all provisions adopted pursuant to section 9 of Decree No. 73-774 of 11 December 1973 laying down penitentiary regulations and applicable to political detainees.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 3. Referring also to its observation on the Convention, the Committee notes that the offences defined in sections 1 and 3 of Ordinance No. 62-OF-18 of 12 March 1962 to repress subversive activities, repealed by Law No. 90-46 of 19 December 1990, were embodied in the Penal Code in sections 113 (new) and 157 (new) by the aforementioned Law No. 90-61. The Committee notes that, under section 113 (new) of the Penal Code, whoever sends out or propagates false information liable to injure public authorities or national unity is liable to imprisonment for from three months to three years; under section 157 (new) of the Penal Code, whoever by any means whatever incites to the obstruction of the execution of any law, regulation, or lawful order of the public authority is liable to imprisonment for from three months to four years.

The Committee asks the Government to communicate all available information concerning the practical application of the provisions mentioned above, including the number of sentence imposed for breach of those provisions, and copies of any judicial decisions which may define or illustrate their scope.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the information communicated by the Government in its report.

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest Decree No. 90-1459 of 8 November 1990 to set up the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms. The Committee also notes the following Laws adopted on 19 December 1990: Law No. 90-46 to repeal Ordinance No. 62-OF-18 of 12 March 1962 to repress subversive activities; Law No. 90-52 relating to freedom of mass communication; Law No. 90-53 relating to freedom of association; Law No. 90-55 to lay down regulations governing public meetings and processions; and Law No. 90-56 relating to political parties (instituting political pluralism). The Committee has also taken note of Law No. 90-47 relating to the state emergency, Law No. 90-54 relating to the maintenance of law and order, Law No. 90-60 to set up and organize the State Security Court and Law No. 90-61 to amend certain provisions of the Penal Code, all adopted on 19 December 1990.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government concerning certain provisions of the aforementioned Laws in relation to the application of the Convention.

2. Article 1(c) and (d). In the comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has noted that, by virtue of sections 226, 229, 242, 259 and 261 of the Merchant Shipping Code (Ordinance No. 62/DF/30 of 1962), certain breaches of discipline committed by seamen may be punished by penalties of imprisonment involving the obligation to work.

The Government has previously stated that it would take the Committee's observations into account when the revision of the Merchant Shipping Code was undertaken. The Committee notes that the information given by the Government in its latest report to the effect that the Merchant Shipping Code has not yet been revised and that no change can be made in the law on the subject until that has been done.

The Committee observes once again that the Government has been referring to the envisaged repeal of the provisions in question since its report for 1972-73 and that the Government had stated that studies were being made with a view to harmonising national legislation and practice with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee asks the Government to state the outcome of those studies, to report on the progress made in revising the Merchant Shipping Code and to supply information about the measures taken or contemplated to ensure that penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour cannot be imposed on seamen for breaches of discipline that do not endanger the vessel or human life or health.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on the recent application, in practice, of Ordinance No. 62-OF-18 of 12 March 1962 to suppress subversive activities.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, by virtue of sections 226, 229, 242, 259 and 261 of the Merchant Shipping Code, various forms of breach of discipline may be punished by penalties of imprisonment, involving the obligation to work, even where these breaches have not endangered the safety of the vessel or of persons. The Government indicated that it would take the Committee's observations into account when the revision of the Merchant Shipping Code was undertaken.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its latest report that no new legislative or regulatory provisions have been adopted, but that studies are being conducted with a view to harmonising national legislation and practice with the provisions of the Convention. In view of the fact that the Government has been referring to the envisaged repeal of the provisions in question since its report for 1972-73, the Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken rapidly to ensure that, in accordance with the Convention, no penalty involving compulsory labour can be inflicted on a seaman for breaches of discipline or participation in a strike, except for offences which are likely to endanger the safety of the vessel or of persons.