Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Chad (Ratification: 1961)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who express certain political views or views opposed to the political, social or economic system by establishing that in the context of activities they carry on for these purposes they may not be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The Committee noted in this connection that section 57 of Decree No. 371/77/CSM/MJ of 9 November 1977 issuing the prison regulations of Chad specifies that labour is compulsory for all ordinary law prisoners. To the extent that this provision refers to ordinary law prisoners, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in an unequivocal manner whether persons sentenced for political offences are exempt from the obligation to perform prison labour. Please provide information on offences deemed to be political in nature.

In its previous direct request the Committee took note of several texts regulating the exercise of civil liberties which the Committee had not as yet examined. It noted that breach of certain provisions of these texts is punishable by penalties of imprisonment which as indicated above, involve an obligation to work. The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether the texts below, some of which are fairly old, are still in force. Furthermore, so that it can assess the scope of the provisions mentioned below, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts rely on these provisions (frequency with which they apply them, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the sentences imposed). The Committee has to satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work are imposed under these provisions, on persons who, without resorting to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Please provide copies of any court decisions handed down under these provisions.

• – Ordinance No. 27 of 28 July 1962 regulating associations: under section 6, members of an association which has not been declared are liable to prison sentence ranging from one month to one year; the same penalty may be imposed on the founders, directors, or administrators of an association which has been dissolved (section 8); the penalties established in section 6 are doubled in the case of unlawful reestablishment of an association that has been dissolved (section 9).
• – Ordinance No. 45 of 27 October 1962 on public meetings: section 6 establishes penalties of imprisonment for failure to notify the holding of meetings (two weeks); the holding of a meeting on the public thoroughfare (from one month to three months); the holding of a meeting beyond the time normally determined for its closure (from two weeks to one month); the holding of a meeting without appointment of officers (from two weeks to two months); the organization of a prohibited meeting (from one month to three months).
• – Ordinance No. 46 of 28 October 1962 on unlawful assembly: section 5(1) establishes a penalty of between two month and one year for any unarmed person who, as a participant in an unarmed unlawful assembly, does not leave following the first order to do so; and section 7(1) for any direct provocation of an unarmed unlawful assembly through speeches delivered in public or in writing, or through the posting or distribution of printed tracts.
• – Decree No. 193/INT.-SUR of 6 November 1962 regulating demonstrations on the public thoroughfare: section 4 establishes various penalties of imprisonment for incomplete or inaccurate notification of the conditions relating to the planned demonstration; the organization of the demonstration prior to the submission or following its prohibition; participation in the organization of a demonstration that has not been notified or is prohibited, or participation therein in full knowledge of the situation.
• – Act No. 45/PR/94 of 14 December 1994 issuing the charter of political parties: under section 41, whosoever founds, directs or administers a political party in breach of the law is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two and 18 months and whosoever directs, administers or is a member of a political party which is maintained during its suspension or which is re-established after it has been dissolved is liable to a penalty of between three months and three years.

The Committee further notes that Act No. 029 of 12 August 1994 on provisions governing the press in Chad has been repealed by Ordinance No. 005/PR/2008 of 26 February 2008 of the same name. The Committee notes that this ordinance was adopted under the emergency powers granted to the President of the Republic by Decree No. 194/PR/2008 of 14 February 2008. It notes with regret that the Ordinance has increased certain penalties and imposed restrictions on the exercise of freedom of the press by introducing new offences, including contempt of the President of the Republic and contempt of foreign Heads of State or Government, these offences being punishable by a prison term of from one to five years (section 48). Consequently, the Committee likewise asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 48 of the Ordinance (contempt), as well as sections 41 (dissemination of false information) and 43 and 44 (libel and slander); frequency with which these provisions are invoked by the courts, circumstances allowing characterization of the offences and nature of the penalties imposed.

Furthermore, the Committee had the opportunity to become acquainted with the text of the Penal Code adopted in 1967 (Ordinance No. 12-67-PR-MJ). The Committee notes that the Penal Code has repealed Act No. 15 of 13 November 1959 punishing acts of resistance, disobedience and misdemeanours towards members of the Government, deputies and the administrative and judicial authorities, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years. Having examined the Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the courts apply section 100, under which any unarmed person participating in an unarmed unlawful assembly who fails to leave it following the first order to do so is liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between two months and one year, and section 118 which establishes a prison sentence of between two weeks and two years for contempt of a member of the Government or the National Assembly or a magistrate in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance.

Article 1(d). Imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 131 of the Penal Code, public employees who have decided by deliberation to resign in order to prevent or suspend either the administration of justice or the administration of a service, shall be punished by a penalty of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. According to section 157, the use of deception (manœuvres frauduleuses) to bring about or maintain, or to attempt to bring about or maintain, a concerted work stoppage for the purpose of forcing an increase or a decrease in wages, or to impede the free performance of industry or of work, shall be punished by a prison term of from six days to three years. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the courts have applied these provisions recently in the context of strike action and to specify the actions that were punished and the penalties imposed. Please provide copies of court decisions handed down so as to allow the Committee to assess the scope of these provisions and so satisfy itself that no penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work may be imposed on workers exercising their right to peaceful strike action.