Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2002, publiée 91ème session CIT (2003)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Mauritanie (Ratification: 1961)
Protocole de 2014 relatif à la convention sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Mauritanie (Ratification: 2016)

Pursuant to its previous observation, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government to the Committee on the Application of Standards at the International Labour Conference in 2002 and the ensuing discussions. The Committee also takes note of the report on the application of the Convention submitted by the Government in response to its previous observation.

1. In its previous observation, the Committee noted the observations of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which were transmitted to the Government in October 2001. Those observations referred to the persistence of certain forms of slavery in Mauritania. The ICFTU alleged that in the eyes of certain persons, birth continued to impose an inferior status on descendants of slaves. Such persons of inferior status who typically work as agricultural workers, herders of livestock or domestic servants, remain completely dependent on their traditional masters to whom they give the money they earn or for whom they work directly in exchange for food and lodging. The Committee noted that, according to the ICFTU, "the central point of concern does not relate to the legal status of slavery in Mauritania, but to whether slavery and involuntary servitude (what the Government refers to as ‘the vestiges of slavery’) have been abolished in practice". 

The Committee notes that, in its statement to the Committee on the Application of Standards in 2002, the representative of the Government of Mauritania stated that the Government intended to revise its Labour Code with a view to reinforcing the prohibition of forced labour, while recalling that "the Government did not acknowledge the existence of forced labour practices in the country, even as isolated occurrences".

The Committee notes that in its latest report, the Government states that the Ordinance of 1980 was not necessary either from the point of view of law, since the Constitution of 20 May 1961 and specific laws such as Act No. 63-023 of 23 January 1963 issuing the Labour Code had abolished slavery, or in terms of practice, since slavery had already disappeared from Mauritanian society. According to the Government, present-day descendents of slaves are no longer regarded as slaves themselves, and the fact that an individual belongs to a particular social category originating in the past has no repercussions at all on his or her social rights. The Government also states that this social stratification no longer has any impact in real life, since there are no longer occupations reserved for one category of the population or inherent privileges reserved for others. The Government states that the legacy of the old social system may still linger in the form of attitudes and ways of thinking in some remoter areas, despite the measures that have been taken and the social and economic reforms that have taken place. The Government notes that such attitudes will disappear only with time, and their continued existence should not be equated with slavery as such.

The Committee notes that, as regards the case cited in the ICFTU report concerning a young man and a 13-year-old girl forced by their master to work as a shepherd and then as a camel herder before escaping and subsequently being recaptured with the help of the police, the Government states that the girl was in fact a married woman and mother of two children, and a local political leader had told the Wali of Adrar that she had been reduced to slavery, an allegation that was refuted by two inquiries ordered by the Walis of Adrar and Tagant. According to the Government, a hearing involving the parties during the first inquiry revealed that the woman had worked as an employee who had decided to end her employment.

The Committee also notes that the ILO’s technical mission, to which the Government agreed, was in the end unable to travel to the country to examine the situation of forced and child labour. The Committee hopes that this mission will be able to go to the country in the near future in order to investigate those factors which will allow the Committee to assess the situation and ensure that national law and practice comply fully with the Convention.

2. Article 25 of the Convention. In its previous observation, the Committee noted that there are no provisions in law imposing legal sanctions as required by Article 25 of the Convention. The Committee had noted in its previous reports that forced labour was prohibited by the Labour Code, but that the Code applied only to relations between employers and workers. The Committee had invited the Government to take measures to extend the prohibition of any form of forced labour to work relationships such as may result from after-effects of historical phenomena. The Committee notes that the Government refers in its latest report to section 56 of Book V of the Labour Code, which provides for a term of imprisonment and/or a fine for persons guilty of contravening section 3 in Book I of the Code prohibiting forced or compulsory labour, which is 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 himself voluntarily. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, according to which section 5 of the Labour Code, which is in the process of being adopted, will effectively extend the prohibition of forced labour to any work situation, even to one not based on a contract. The Committee notes that this section of the Code also provides that anyone guilty of contravening its provisions is liable to sanctions set out under the regulations in force. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, these sanctions are provided for in the draft Labour Code, and requests the Government to give details of the sanctions applicable in cases of contravention of section 5 of the draft Labour Code. The Committee notes that the draft text in question was adopted by the National Labour Council in May 2002 and will be presented to the Government with a view to its adoption during the next session of Parliament in November-December 2002. The Committee requests the Government to communicate information on the legislative process under way and to supply a copy of the Labour Code once it has been adopted.

3. In its previous comments over many years, the Committee had requested the Government, following the adoption of Act No. 71-059 of 25 February 1971 issuing rules to organize civil protection, which limits the powers to requisition labour to specific exceptional circumstances corresponding to the definition of cases of emergency set out in Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention, to take measures to repeal the Ordinance of 1962, which confers very wide powers on local leaders to requisition labour. The Committee noted the Government’s intention, as expressed in its previous report, to formally repeal the 1962 Ordinance, and requested the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to that end. Since no information has been communicated by the Government on this point, the Committee repeats its request, and urges the Government to take the necessary measures without delay.

4. The Committee had noted that sections 1 and 2 of Act No. 70-029 of 23 January 1970 provided for the possibility of requisitioning labour when circumstances so required, to ensure the functioning of a service considered to be essential for the country or the population. Under section 5 of the Act, persons who have not obeyed a requisition order can be subject to a penalty of imprisonment ranging from one month to one year, as well as to a fine. In its previous report, the Government stated that it considered the types of requisitioning provided by the abovementioned law to be in conformity with the Convention and that, in particular, the terms "a service considered to be absolutely necessary to meet an essential need of the country or the population" corresponded to the cases of emergency set out in Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to provide a complete list of establishments that could be considered as services that are essential for the population and which could be affected by a possible requisition order under Act No. 70-029. The Committee notes that the Government’s latest report contains no reply to its comments on this point, and urges the Government in its next report to provide the information requested.

5. In its previous comments over many years, the Committee had noted that Decree No. 70-153 of 23 May 1970 issuing the internal rules of prison establishments contained provisions providing for the possibility of hiring prison labour to private individuals, and had requested the Government to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Government has indicated in its previous report its intention to amend this Decree. Since the Government has not provided any information on this matter in its latest report, the Committee reiterates its hope that it will do everything in its power to ensure that the necessary measures are taken in the very near future.

6. The Committee takes note of the report of the ICFTU dated 9 September 2002, which was received by the Office on 10 September 2002 and transmitted to the Government on 31 October 2002, containing observations regarding the application of Convention No. 29 in Mauritania. The Committee requests the Government to communicate its comments on this report.