Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2003, Publicación: 92ª reunión CIT (2004)

Convenio sobre el trabajo forzoso, 1930 (núm. 29) - Mauritania (Ratificación : 1961)
Protocolo de 2014 relativo al Convenio sobre el trabajo forzoso, 1930 - Mauritania (Ratificación : 2016)

The Committee notes the report submitted by the Government on the application of the Convention in reply to its previous observation and the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the Free Confederation of Mauritanian Workers (CLTM). In addition the Committee notes the information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2003 and the subsequent discussions.

1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the repeated allegations made by the ICFTU and the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), according to which slave-like practices persisted in Mauritania despite the abolition in law of slavery in 1981 (Ordinance No. 81-234). According to these trade union organizations and certain non-governmental organizations, birth continues to impose an inferior status on the descendants of slaves. These persons generally work as farm labourers, shepherds or servants and are entirely dependent on their master, to whom they give the money that they earn or for whom they work directly in exchange for food and lodging.

The ICFTU comments received in the Office in September 2002 and forwarded to the Government on 31 October 2002 indicate that, while the incidence of slavery has fallen sharply since the beginning of the 1980s, its consequences have nevertheless left many Mauritanians in destitution and in conditions close to slavery. The legal prohibition of slavery has not resulted in the liberation of many persons from the domination that is characteristic of slavery. The ICFTU considers that no measures have been taken to promote the integration of these persons.

The CLTM, in its comments received in February 2003 and forwarded to the Government in March 2003, indicates that the State protects practices of slavery through its feudal system. A significant section of society is accordingly confined to serfdom, poverty and exclusion, and denied any economic, social and human rights. The trade union denounces the Government’s refusal to take measures to free slaves and integrate them into active life, such as the establishment of specific economic and social programmes and the formulation of legal instruments to protect slaves and punish offenders. The trade union organization illustrates its allegations with a number of examples in practice.

In reply to these comments, the Government indicates in its last report that it has undertaken legal reforms and developed economic, social and cultural programmes over the past 20 years which have made an important contribution to eliminating the consequences of the former stratification of society and to improving the status of previously underprivileged social groups. The Government states that ascendancy to the position of Prime Minister in July 2002 of a person whose origins are among the descendants of former slaves, shows that Mauritanian society has definitively broken with the former social stratification. This illustrates, according to the Government, the lack of credibility of the CLTM’s allegations. It also emphasizes that, in the examples that it provides, the CLTM only refers to the first names of individuals, without giving relevant information that would make it possible to carry out an investigation. The Government questions why the trade union organization has not brought these cases to the relevant jurisdictions.

During the discussion in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2003, the Government representative stated that "The Government had never recognized the persistence of slave-like practices in the country. It was true that Mauritania had had castes, but the descendants of former slaves were no longer considered as slaves today, and the fact that a person belonged to a particular historical social category today had no consequences for their rights."

The Committee notes all of the above information. It is bound once again to assess the application of the Convention in practice in view of, on the one hand, the serious and concordant allegations made by trade union organizations of the persistence of practices of forced labour inherited from slavery and, on the other, the denial of these practices by the Government. In this respect, the Committee regrets that it was not possible to conduct the technical mission that the Government had previously accepted. It also notes that, during the discussion of the application of the Convention in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (June 2003), the Conference Committee expressed its deep concern at the persistence of situations which constitute grave violations of the prohibition of forced labour and that it urged the Government to accept a direct contacts mission to the country to assist the Government and the social partners with the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that in August 2003 the Office sent a communication to the Government for this purpose, to which effect has not yet been given. The Committee hopes that the direct contacts mission can be carried out as soon as possible and that it will make it possible to assess the situation in practice and will promote the application of the Convention in full.

2. Article 25 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Labour Code prohibits forced or compulsory labour, defined as all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered her or himself voluntarily (section 3 of Book I). Further, that under section 56 of Book V of the Labour Code, persons who contravene section 3 are liable to a sentence of imprisonment and/or a fine. The Committee notes that under the terms of this provision the exaction of forced labour may be punished only by the imposition of a fine. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the penal nature of the sanctions required by Article 25 of the Convention.

The Committee has previously drawn the Government’s attention to the fact that the Labour Code only applies to relations between employers and workers. The Government indicated in this respect that section 5 of the draft Labour Code, which was in the process of being adopted, would extend the prohibition of forced labour to any work situation, even to one not based on a contract, and that any contravention of this provision would be punishable by the sanctions set out in the regulations in force. In its last report, the Government indicates that the draft Labour Code was approved by the Government on 29 May 2003, after amendments of a purely formal nature and that it will be formally adopted as a priority following the presidential elections. The Committee notes this information. It hopes that the new Labour Code will be adopted in the very near future and once again requests the Government to indicate the sanctions that will be applicable in the event of violations of section 5 of the draft Labour Code.

Finally, in considering Article 25 of the Convention, the Committee notes with interest the adoption of Act No. 025/2003 of 17 July 2003 punishing the trafficking of persons. It notes that, under the terms of section 5, persons committing the crime of the trafficking of persons are liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from five to ten years and a fine. The Committee requests the Government to provide information, where appropriate, on the application of this legislation in practice.

3. Article 2, paragraph 2(d). The Committee noted previously that Act No. 71-059 of 25 February 1971, issuing rules to organize civil protection, limits the powers to requisition labour to specific exceptional circumstances corresponding to the definition of cases of emergency set out in Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention. However, the Ordinance of 1962, which confers very wide powers on local leaders to requisition labour, remains in force. Further to the Committee’s request to repeal the above Ordinance, the Government indicates in its last report that the delay that has occurred in repealing this text is due to the significant workload of the Government and Parliament as a result of the need to reform and even formulate new legislative texts. The Committee notes that the Government representative reiterated the Government’s intention to formally repeal this Ordinance during the discussion of the application of the Convention in the Conference in June 2003. It hopes that the Government will take all the necessary measures for this purpose.

A further matter concerns the terms of sections 1 and 2 of Act No. 70-029 of 23 January 1970, pursuant to which various categories of persons, in both the public and private sectors, may be required to discharge their functions when circumstances so require, particularly to ensure the functioning of a service considered to be indispensable to meet an essential need of the country or the population. Under the terms of section 5 of this Act, persons who have not obeyed a requisition order issued by the public authorities shall be liable to imprisonment of from one month to one year and to a fine. The Government indicates that the forms of requisition envisaged by the above Act are in accordance with the Convention and that the term "a service considered to be indispensable to meet an essential need of the country or the population" corresponds to the cases of emergency envisaged in Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention. These provisions concern public establishments, in which employees may be requisitioned, among other cases, in the event of a strike. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide a complete list of establishments considered as services that are essential for the population and which could be affected by the requisition orders envisaged in Act No. 70-029. As the Government has not provided any information in reply, the Committee trusts that it will provide the information requested in its next report.

4. Article 2, paragraph 2(c). For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to Decree No. 70-153 of 23 May 1970 issuing the internal rules of prison establishments, of which certain provisions would allow for the possibility of hiring prison labour to private individuals. In its report in 2001, the Government indicated its intention to amend this Decree. Noting that since then no information has been provided on this subject, the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

5. Finally, the Committee notes the comments of the WCL, received by the Office on 5 September 2003 and forwarded to the Government on 3 November 2003, containing observations on the application of Convention No. 29 in Mauritania. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the WCL’s communication.