Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Syrian Arab Republic (Ratification: 1958)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline or as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee recalls the following provisions of: the Economic Penal Code (Legislative Decree No. 37 of May 1966): sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 22 (failure by a State employee to carry out public activities, and negligence in handling of public property); the Agricultural Labour Code (Act No. 134 of 1958): sections 160 and 262 (strikes organized by agricultural workers); and the Penal Code (Act No.148 of 1949): sections 331 and 334 (strikes organized by workers).

The Committee further recalls that the above-mentioned provisions are incompatible with the Convention, as they impose penal sanctions involving compulsory prison labour (pursuant to sections 46 and 51 of the Penal Code) in circumstances that may fall under Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that Economic Penal Code No. 37/1966 was repealed and replaced by Economic Penal Code No. 3 of 2013, which no longer contains provisions imposing penalties of imprisonment involving forced labour. While taking note of this information, the Committee observes that, several provisions of the Economic Penal Code (No. 3 of 2013), establish penalties of imprisonment, involving compulsory prison labour for non-performance of obligations/conduct resulting in damage to public funds, even where the conduct is unintentional (sections 4(b), 9(b), 10(b) and 11(b)). The Committee recalls in this respect that the imposition of a penalty of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline is incompatible with the Convention.

Regarding Agricultural Labour Code No. 132/1958, the Government further reports that the Code was repealed and replaced by Agricultural Labour Code No. 56 of 2004, which does not establish any penalties related to strike action. The Committee notes with interest that the Agricultural Labour Code contains no provisions imposing penal sanctions involving compulsory labour. It further notes that section 160 provides solely for the imposition of a fine in respect of infringements of the legislation.

With regard to sections 331 and 334 of the Penal Code, which impose prison sanctions, involving compulsory prison labour, in case of strike action, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a committee has been established within the Ministry of Justice, pursuant to Minister of Justice Decision No. 2679/L of 2 November 2023, with a mandate to examine possible amendments to the Penal Code currently in force.

The Committee recalls that sanctions involving compulsory labour cannot be imposed for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee hopes that sections 331 and 334 of the Penal Code will be amended to bring them into line with the Convention. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of sections 331 and 334, in practice, indicating the number of prosecutions, convictions and types of penalties applied and whether any of the convictions handed down involved participation in strike action. It also refers to its comments under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.87).

The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 4(b), 9(b), 10(b) and 11(b) of the Economic Penal Code, 2013, indicating the number of prosecutions brought and penalties imposed, as well as any court decisions illustrating the application of the above-mentioned sections.