Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2012, publiée 102ème session CIT (2013)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Iraq (Ratification: 1962)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Restrictions on the freedom to resign of persons in the service of the State. Over a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the incompatibility of various legislative provisions, which restrict the freedom to resign of persons in the service of the State. It noted in particular section 40(1) and (2) of Act No. 201 of 1975 on civil maritime service, under the terms of which an application to resign filed by a civil officer or seafarer in the merchant navy may be refused and that such refusal is final: it also noted resolutions Nos 917 of 1988 and 550 of 1989, which establish similar restrictions with regard to various categories of state officials; and section 35 of the Civil Service Act No. 24 of 1960, under which the resignation of an official is not valid unless accepted by the competent authority. Finally, the Committee noted that under section 364 of the Penal Code, any official or any person entrusted with public office may be punished with imprisonment if their absence from work may result in the paralysis of a public service. The Committee asked the Government to take the necessary measures in order to bring the above provisions into conformity with the Convention.

While noting the absence of information in this regard, the Committee recalls once again that the Civil Service Act empowers the competent authority to refuse an application for resignation and, with regard to officers, under the terms of the Act on the civil maritime service, such a refusal is considered as being final. The Committee considers that such provisions prevent the persons concerned from leaving their employment by giving notice of reasonable length and have the effect of transforming a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service imposed by law.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the above provisions will soon be amended or repealed, so as to ensure the right of public officials and seafarers to leave service on their own initiative by giving notice of reasonable length. In the meantime, please provide statistical data on the number of applications made to resign and the number of such applications which have been refused, with an indication of the reasons given for such refusals.

2. Freedom of career members of the armed forces to leave the service. Regarding career members of the armed forces and their right to leave the service, in times of peace, the Committee noted in its previous comments that pursuant to sections 33 and 35 of Act No. 3 of 2010, members of the armed forces are engaged for a specified period of service (including training and studies) which may be up to 20 years. Members of the armed services may not leave the service before the end of this period of service, and the Ministry of Defence may postpone requests for the termination of contracts for reasons of public order. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the abovementioned provisions.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that compulsory military service has been frozen since 2003. It underlines however that the abovementioned provisions are related to military officers and other career members of the armed forces, who seem not to be allowed to resign even after a specified period of service, which may be up to 20 years. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the provisions of the Convention relating to compulsory military service cannot be invoked to deprive career military personnel of the right to leave the service in peacetime within a reasonable period, e.g. by means of notice of reasonable length.

In the light of the above considerations, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the manner in which career military personnel are guaranteed in practice the possibility to leave the service during peacetime before the completion of the specified period of service (which may be up to 20 years), either at specified intervals or by giving a reasonable period of notice, or by reimbursing part of the training costs borne by the State.

Article 2(c). Obligation to work as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, by virtue of section 87 of the Penal Code of 1969, any prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life or a shorter period is obliged to perform the work envisaged by the Act respecting prison establishments. It also noted that sections 88 and 89 specify that severe and shorter sentences are combined with the obligation to work. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Committee again requests it to provide a copy of the Act on prison establishments and any text regulating the conditions of work of persons convicted to a prison sentence who are subject to the obligation to work. Please indicate whether work imposed upon convicted persons may be performed for the benefit of private entities.

Article 25. Penal sanctions for the exaction of forced or compulsory labour. Over a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to section 325 of the Penal Code, under which any public servant or person entrusted with a public service who exacts forced labour from individuals in circumstances other than those relating to the public interest, as set out in laws and regulations, or as required by a state of necessity, or who require them to work in cases other than those envisaged by the law, is liable to a sentence of imprisonment.

The Committee recalled that this provision does not give full effect to Article 25 of the Convention, under the terms of which the illegal exaction of forced labour shall be punishable as a penal offence, this provision being applicable if forced labour is exacted by any person of whatever status, irrespective of whether the work is exacted for public or private purposes.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a draft amendment of the Labour Code is ongoing, and that it is making efforts to ensure the application of the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to complete the legislation to ensure that both public officials and private entities which exact forced labour are liable to the penal sanctions, as envisaged in Article 25 of the Convention.