Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2023, publiée 112ème session CIT (2024)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Bolivie (Etat plurinational de) (Ratification: 1990)

Previous comment

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of forced labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the effect given in practice to the following provisions of the Penal Code, under which sentences of imprisonment may be imposed involving compulsory labour (in accordance with section 48 of the Penal Code) in circumstances which may fall within the scope of application of Article 1(a) of the Convention:

• section 123 (sedition), under which persons who take up positions publicly and in open hostility with a view to undermining or disturbing public order in any way shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from one to three years;
• section 126 (conspiracy), under which any person who engages in a conspiracy involving three or more person with a view to committing crimes of sedition shall be liable to half of the penalty for that crime;
• section 134 (public disorder and disturbances), which provides that any persons who for the purpose of preventing or disturbing a public meeting cause riotous behaviour, disturbances or other disorders shall be liable to a sentence of the performance of work for between one month and one year.

The Government indicates in its report that it does not have data on the numbers of persons given a prison sentence as a consequence of expressing political views or under the provisions indicated above. In response to the Committee’s request for information on the judicial action taken against journalists, the Government indicates that there have been no cases of prison sentences imposed in the context of judicial procedures against journalists on the basis of political opinions.

The Committee notes that, in his 2021 annual report, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights indicates that in 2021, he received reports of attacks on the press by police officers and complaints about illegitimate detentions of journalists during coverage in an alleged context of violence against the press. The Special Rapporteur also refers to criminal prosecutions initiated against journalists in various media for alleged defamation offences. Moreover, in its 2022 concluding observations, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed concern at allegations of harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders and journalists, including the arbitrary detention of some journalists who were covering protests between 2019 and 2021 (CCPR/C/BOL/CO/4).

The Committee notes this information, which indicates the existence of a context of intimidation and detention of persons engaged in journalism on the basis of the offence of defamation. In this regard, the Committee observes that, although the offence of defamation against public servants set out in section 162 of the Penal Code was found to be unconstitutional in 2021 and was therefore repealed, section 282 of the Penal Code provides that any person who in public, in a biased manner and repeatedly reveals or divulges a fact, a quality or conduct liable to prejudice the reputation of an individual or group, shall be liable to a sentence of performing compulsory labour of from one month to one year or a fine. In this regard, the Committee observes that, under the terms of section 28 of the Penal Code, a sentence of compulsory labour cannot be imposed without the consent of the convicted person. However, the same provision provides that in the event that the convicted person does not give his or her consent, the penalty shall be converted into a sentence of imprisonment (which, under section 48 of the Penal Code, involves the obligation to work).

The Committee recalls in this respect that the Convention protects persons who express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system by providing that they cannot be punished for these activities by penalties which involve the obligation to work. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure, in both law and practice, that persons who express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, including through their work in journalism, cannot be subjected to penal sanctions involving compulsory labour and, in this context, to revise the provisions of section 282 of the Penal Code. In the meantime, the Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number of legal actions initiated under this provision, and on the penalties imposed and the acts that gave rise to the convictions.

Article 1(d). Penalties for having participated in strikes. For a number of years, the Committee has been observing that section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951 establishes penalties of imprisonment which involve the obligation to work for participation in general and sympathy strikes and acts of solidarity. Recalling that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the imposition of sentences involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes, the Committee has requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend or repeal this legal provision in the light of this principle.

The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated indication that section 2 of the Legislative Decree is not applied in practice and that the Constitution guarantees the right to strike. Taking into account the Government’s indication, and with reference to its commentson the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention and the practice indicated, by explicitly amending or repealing section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 6 June 1951, and to provide information on any progress achieved in this regard.