Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Algeria (Ratification: 1962)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. 1. Trafficking in persons. The Committee previously noted the measures taken to strengthen the legislative and institutional framework against trafficking in persons, such as the inclusion in 2009 of provisions in the Criminal Code criminalizing trafficking in persons and providing for applicable prison sentences (section 303 bis(4) and (5)), and the establishment of the National Committee for the Prevention and Elimination of Trafficking in Persons, mandated with, inter alia, establishing a national policy and an action plan in the area of prevention and elimination of trafficking in persons and the protection of victims. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the adoption of a national policy and action plan to combat trafficking in persons, on court decisions issued and on measures taken for the identification and protection of victims.

In its report, the Government indicates that a three-year programme for the implementation of the action plan to prevent and combat trafficking in persons 2019–2021, developed by the National Committee on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Persons, was adopted. This three-year programme, which incorporates the main pillars of the National Committee’s action plan adopted in 2015, provides for the implementation of measures for the prevention of trafficking in persons; prosecution of perpetrators of trafficking; protection and assistance for victims; and establishment of partnerships and cooperation with a view to effectively combating trafficking in persons. The Government also indicates that the formalization of a national referral mechanism for victims of trafficking is under way, in order to harmonize referral and care for victims in the country.

In addition, the Government refers to a decision of the criminal tribunal of the Court of Justice of Ouargla dated 10 March 2019, sentencing the perpetrator (a foreign national) for the crime of trafficking in persons to three years’ imprisonment, two of which are suspended with a complete ban on entry into the country, pursuant to section 303 bis 4 of the Criminal Code. The Government also indicates in its report relating to the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182) that several training activities have been implemented by the General Department of National Security for officials responsible for combating trafficking in persons, including investigators and police officers.

The Committee also notes that in its concluding observations of 2018, the United Nations Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW) expressed its concern at information received concerning Algerian nationals who have been victims of trafficking and forced labour in agriculture, construction and domestic work in countries in the region, and victims of domestic servitude in European countries, the United States of America and the Middle East. The CMW also expressed its concern at the inadequate application of the provisions of the Criminal Code on trafficking in persons (CMW/C/DZA/CO/2, para. 59). The Committee welcomes the measures taken to combat trafficking in persons and encourages the Government to continue its efforts, including building the capacities of the law enforcement bodies, to ensure that all cases of trafficking are investigated and prosecuted and that the perpetrators are effectively punished. The Committee further encourages the Government to continue its efforts in the area of referral and care of victims of trafficking, and requests it to provide information on the measures taken to identify and protect victims of trafficking, including through the national referral mechanism. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the evaluation of the implementation of the objectives set out in the three-year programme 2019-2021, specifying in particular the results achieved, the difficulties identified and the measures envisaged to address them. It requests the Government to indicate whether the National Committee on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Persons has formulated a new action plan and, if so, to provide a copy.

2. Vulnerable situation of migrant workers to the exaction of forced labour. The Committee notes that, under section 4 of Act No. 81-10 of 11 July 1981 concerning conditions of employment for foreign workers, the work permit or temporary work authorization entitles the beneficiary to carry out a specific salaried activity, valid for a determined period of time, with one and the same employer. The Committee notes that, as a result, migrant workers have a legal status that binds them to a particular employer. The Committee further notes that the CMW, in its concluding observations of 2018, remains concerned about the continuation and persistence of forced labour, in particular in the case of migrant workers, especially those in an irregular situation, who are often victims of forced labour, abuse and other forms of exploitation. The CMW also notes with concern the situation of migrant women in an irregular situation employed as domestic workers, who are vulnerable to economic and sexual exploitation. (CMW/C/DZA/CO/2, para. 33). Recalling the importance of taking effective measures to guarantee that the employment scheme for migrant workers does not risk placing those workers in a situation of increased vulnerability, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to protect migrant workers against abusive practices and working conditions that may resemble the exaction of forced labour. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on actions developed to ensure migrant workers are familiar with their rights and can assert them in the event that they are victims of abusive practices.

3. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 196 of the Criminal Code sets out that any person who, having no fixed abode or means of livelihood and ordinarily exercising no trade or occupation despite being fit for work, is unable to justify that he or she has sought work or has refused an offer of paid work shall be deemed guilty of vagrancy and shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to six months. The Committee noted in this regard that section 196 is not limited to punishment for activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order, but is tantamount to an indirect constraint to work, and it therefore requested the Government to limit the scope of this provision.

The Government indicates that convictions under section 196 of the Criminal Code are imposed when the accused does not justify having sought employment or when there is evidence of refusal of paid work. The Government states that vagrancy can be linked to the use of begging or other illegal activities as a means of subsistence.

The Committee thus notes that section 196 of the Criminal Code allows for punishment of the mere act of not justifying having sought work or of refusing paid work. The Committee recalls that provisions regarding vagrancy that are based on an unduly extensive definition of this notion risk being used to constrain individuals to work, which could create a situation comparable to that which prevails when the law imposes a general obligation to work. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend section 196 of the Criminal Code, so as to limit the scope of application of this provision to persons who disturb public order or have acquired income through illegal activities. To this end, it requests the Government to provide information on any prosecutions or penalties imposed under section 196 of the Criminal Code.

4. Freedom of seafarers to leave their employment. The Committee previously noted that, pursuant to section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 establishing the conditions of employment of seafarers in merchant shipping and fisheries, the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory. In addition, any seafarer wishing to terminate an employment relationship must inform the shipowner in writing, and the latter has 15 days following receipt of the letter to accept or refuse the resignation request (sections 53 and 55). The Committee therefore requested the Government to repeal or amend the provisions of section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 so that a seafarer can leave his or her employment after expiry of the statutory notice period even if he or she is outside the national territory.

The Government indicates that the provisions of section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 will be amended or repealed as part of the revision and alignment of the Decree with international standards, initiated by the Ministry of Transport. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures, as part of the revision of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005, so as to enable a seafarer to leave his or her employment after expiry of the notice period if he or she is not on national territory at that time. It requests the Government to provide information on this matter and to transmit a copy of the revised Decree, once it has been adopted.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. Hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. The Committee previously noted that section 100(2) of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005, issuing the Code on the organization of prisons and the social rehabilitation of prisoners, permits the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises involved in the performance of work of public interest. It also noted the Government’s indication that, in practice, work done by a prisoner can only be on a voluntary basis and that no penalty whatsoever may be imposed on any prisoners who refuse to work for private enterprises. The Committee therefore requested the Government to ensure that, in accordance with the practice indicated, national legislation set forth the voluntary basis on which prisoners work for private enterprises.

The Government indicates that the working conditions in prisons are provided for in sections 160 (requirement of compliance with current labour and social protection legislation) and 162 (requirement of remuneration for all work) of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005. The Government also refers to section 103 of that, which provides that requests for the hiring out of prison labour be addressed to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences and the Committee for the Execution of Sentences. The Committee takes due note of this information but notes that none of these provisions require the prisoner’s consent in the case of work performed within the framework of the hiring out of prison labour. The Committee recalls that, to be compatible with the Convention, prisoners working for private enterprises must have given their formal consent. This implies that the person concerned has given his or her formal, free and informed consent to the work and that conditions are in place approximating a free labour relationship, including with regard to wages, social security and occupational safety and health. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures so that, in conformity with the practice indicated, the legislation provides for the voluntary nature of prison labour performed by prisoners for private enterprises. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number of prisoners who work for private enterprises within the framework of the hiring out of prison labour, and the guarantees given to them in practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Article 2(1) of the Convention. Civic service. For several years, the Committee has been noting the incompatibility with the Convention of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civic service, as amended in 1986 and 2006. Under the aforementioned provisions, it is possible to require persons who have completed a course of higher education or training in branches or specializations considered a priority for the economic and social development of the country to perform a period of civic service ranging from one to four years before being able to exercise an occupation or obtain employment. The Committee noted that currently the only category concerned is that of doctors specializing in public health. Civic service may also be performed in private sector health establishments (section 2 of Ordinance No. 06-06 of 15 July 2006).

The Committee noted the Government’s indication that civic service is a national and moral duty of specialized doctors vis-à-vis the population groups living in the regions of the far south, the south and the High Plateau. The Government also stated that the medical specialists concerned enjoyed an attractive system of compensation ranging from 100 to 150 per cent of their principal remuneration along with other advantages. Under Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984, any refusal to perform civic service and the resignation of the person concerned without a valid reason results in that person being banned from self-employment, from setting up business as a trader, artisan or promoter of private economic investment, any offence being punishable under section 243 of the Criminal Code (imprisonment of between three months and two years and/or a fine). In addition, private employers are required to ensure, prior to engaging any workers, that applicants are not subject to civic service or that they can produce documentation proving that they have completed it, and are liable to imprisonment and a fine if they knowingly employ a citizen who has evaded civic service. The Committee therefore urged the Government to take the necessary steps to repeal or amend Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes with regret that, once again, the Government has not provided any information on this matter in its report. The Committee recalls that Article 2(1) of the Convention defines “forced or compulsory labour” 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”. Referring to the 2007 General Survey concerning the elimination of forced labour, the Committee specifies that the penalty in question might take the form of a loss of a right, such as access to new employment (paragraph 37). The Committee notes that the provisions contained in Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civic service, require specialized doctors to perform their activity within a period of one to four years in remote regions, and punish any refusal with a penalty consisting of a ban against self-employment and private sector employment. Furthermore, as regards obligations of service in relation to training received, which sometimes apply to a narrow range of professions, in particular young doctors, dentists and pharmacists, who may be required to exercise their profession for a certain period in a post assigned to them by the authorities, the Committee has pointed out in this connection that, where such service obligations are enforced by the menace of any penalty, they may have a bearing on the observance of the forced labour Conventions (paragraphs 94 and 95). The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary steps without delay to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention by repealing or amending sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civic service in order to remove the requirement of civic service and the penalties that correspond with a refusal to perform this service.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. 1. Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the Government’s reference in its report to the provisions of the Penal Code (as amended in 2009), which prohibit trafficking in persons and punish that offence with imprisonment of five to ten years (sections 303 bis(4), 303 bis(5), 334, 335 and 342). It also notes the adoption of Presidential Decree No. 16-249 of 26 September 2016 establishing the structure and operation of the National Committee for the Prevention and Elimination of Trafficking in Persons. The core mandate of this committee is to establish a national policy and an action plan in the area of prevention and elimination of trafficking in persons and the protection of victims. It is also responsible for: (i) organizing awareness-raising and mobilization activities; (ii) setting up a national database; and (iii) preparing an annual report on the situation of trafficking in persons in the country. The Committee further notes that training sessions on combating trafficking in persons, including for judges, have been organized in cooperation with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

As regards protection given to victims of trafficking, the Committee notes that the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in its 2017 report entitled “Compilation on Algeria”, emphasized that the Human Rights Council (HRC), in the context of the universal periodic review, considered that the current mechanisms related to the protection of victims of trafficking were inadequate since the country did not have appropriate facilities to cater for them or mechanisms for referral (A/HRC/WG.6/27/DZA/2, paragraph 27). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether a national policy and action plan to combat trafficking in persons have been adopted and, if so, to indicate the actions taken in this context. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the steps taken for the identification and protection of trafficking victims, including the assistance services provided, and to send statistical data in this regard. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on any court decisions issued and penalties imposed on the basis of the provisions of the Penal Code.

2. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the broad definition of vagrancy laid down in section 196 of the Penal Code, whereby any person who, having no fixed abode or means of livelihood and ordinarily exercising no trade or occupation despite being fit for work, is unable to justify that he or she has sought work or has refused an offer of paid work shall be deemed guilty of vagrancy and shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to six months. Such a definition, which is not limited to activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order, is tantamount to an indirect constraint to work, which is contrary to the provisions of the Convention. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 196 of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes with regret that there is no information on this matter in the Government’s report. Since the terms of section 196 of the Penal Code can punish with imprisonment the simple fact of having no fixed abode or means of livelihood, ordinarily exercising no trade or occupation despite being fit for work, and being unable to demonstrate efforts to seek work or refusing paid work, the Committee requests the Government once again to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 of the Penal Code solely to persons who engage in unlawful activity or in activities likely to disturb public order. In the meantime, the Government is requested to provide information on the application in practice of section 196 by the courts and, if applicable, to supply copies of any relevant court decisions.

3. Freedom of seafarers to leave their employment. The Committee previously drew the Government’s attention to section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 establishing the conditions of employment of seafarers in merchant shipping and fisheries. Under section 56, the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory. Furthermore, under sections 53 and 55, any seafarer wishing to terminate an employment relationship must inform the shipowner in writing, and the latter has 15 days following receipt of the letter to accept or refuse the resignation request. Referring to the explanations given by the Government, the Committee emphasized that even though section 56 protects seafarers against dismissal which could result in forcible disembarkation outside the national territory, this provision does not enable a seafarer to leave his employment after expiry of the notice period if he is not on national territory at that time.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that consideration will be given to amending Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005, especially in the wake of the ratification in July 2016 of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). While noting this indication, the Committee would like to remind the Government that the MLC, 2006, does not cover fishing vessels and is restricted to merchant shipping. In this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to repeal or amend the provisions of section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 so that a seafarer can leave his employment after expiry of the statutory notice period even if he is outside the national territory.

Article 2(2)(a). Civil defence groups. Non-military work. The Committee previously noted that, under the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 establishing and determining the functions and structure of civil defence, citizens between 18 and 60 years of age are subject to the obligations of civil defence as part of national defence, and that they may be required in this context to participate in the protection of units of production and in the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country. The Government previously explained that Act No. 87-16 had become obsolete since it had never been applied in practice since its enactment.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 4 of Act No. 14-06 of 9 August 2014 concerning national service clearly stipulates that national service shall be purely military in character and take just one form within the structures of the national army. Hence the civil form of national service is abolished.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. Hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005, issuing the Code on the organization of prisons and the social rehabilitation of prisoners, permits the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises involved in the performance of work of public interest (section 100(2)). It noted the detailed information provided by the Government on the manner in which prisoners express their consent in practice to work on external sites or in open establishments, for either public or private enterprises, and on the organization of such work, the guarantees that apply to it, and the absence of any penalty for refusal to work for private enterprises. The Committee asked the Government to indicate whether, in practice, prisoners have been made to work for private enterprises, either in the context of the hiring out of labour or under any other arrangements.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the national legislation does not provide for any possibility of mobilizing prison labour and making it available to the private sector, since the country has substantial human resources capable of meeting the needs of the national labour market. However, the Committee notes that according to the provisions of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005, prison labour could be hired out to private enterprises to perform public works. The Committee recalls that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention expressly provides that persons shall not be hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. However, referring to its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee recalls that work done by convicted persons for private enterprises may be compatible with the Convention if the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that the persons concerned agree voluntarily to work, by giving their free and informed formal consent and without being subjected to pressure or the threat of any penalty. In such a situation, prison labour for private entities does not constitute a violation of the Convention, since no coercion occurs. Moreover, the Committee has considered that, in the prison context, the most reliable indicator of the voluntariness of labour is that the work is performed under conditions which approximate to a free labour relationship, including wages, social security, and occupational safety and health. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to amend Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention and with the practice indicated.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Article 2(1) of the Convention. Civic service. For several years the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the incompatibility with the Convention of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civic service, as amended in 1986 and 2006. Under the aforementioned provisions, it is possible to require persons who have completed a course of higher education or training in branches or specializations considered a priority for the economic and social development of the country to perform a period of civic service ranging from one to four years before being able to exercise an occupation or obtain employment. The branches in question were at first limited to medicine, pharmacy and dental surgery but now the only category concerned is that of doctors specializing in public health as a response to the need to bring essential specialist care to the population of isolated regions. Under section 2 of Ordinance No. 06-06 of 15 July 2006, civic service may also be performed in private sector health establishments. The Government previously indicated that civic service represents the contribution of the persons on whom it is imposed to the economic, social and cultural development of the country, adding that it is a national and moral duty of specialized doctors vis-à-vis the population groups living in the regions of the far south, the south and the High Plateau. These specialists enjoy an attractive system of compensation ranging from 100 to 150 per cent of their principal remuneration along with other advantages and, as a result, many specialists volunteer to work in these regions.

The Committee also noted the Government’s indication that specialist doctors help to ensure the health protection of remote population groups, a mission that may be regarded as equivalent to responding to emergencies. It added that the question of civic service was examined at the national health meetings in June 2014, which brought together health sector stakeholders and the social partners. The Committee observed that, under sections 32 and 38 of Act No. 84 10, any refusal to perform civic service and the resignation of the person concerned without a valid reason results in that person being banned from self-employment, from setting up business as a trader, artisan or promoter of private economic investment, any offence being punishable under section 243 of the Penal Code. Similarly, under sections 33 and 34 of the Act, all private employers are required to ensure, prior to engaging any workers, that applicants are not subject to civic service or that they can produce documentation proving that they have completed it. Furthermore, any private employer who knowingly employs a citizen who has evaded civic service is liable to imprisonment and a fine. Hence, the Committee observed that although the persons required to perform civic service enjoy working conditions that are comparable to those of regular workers in the public sector (remuneration, seniority, promotion, retirement, etc.), they engage in this service under the threat of being denied access to any independent professional activity or to any form of employment in the private sector in the event of their refusal. Therefore the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary steps to repeal or amend the Act concerning civic service.

The Committee notes the lack of information on this matter in the Government’s report. The Committee recalls that the Convention defines “forced or compulsory labour” 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. Referring to its 2007 General Survey, Eradication of Forced Labour, the Committee emphasizes that compulsory civic service activities and other non-military national service activities should be restricted to cases of emergency or be solely performed by volunteers. As regards obligations of service in relation to training received, which sometimes apply to a narrow range of professions, in particular young doctors, dentists and pharmacists, who may be required to exercise their profession for a certain period in a post assigned to them by the authorities, the Committee has pointed out in this connection that, where such service obligations are enforced by the menace of any penalty, they may have a bearing on the observance of the forced labour Conventions (paragraph 94 and 95). Hence, by obliging specialist doctors to exercise their profession for a period of one to four years in remote regions or otherwise face the penalty of being denied access to self-employment, the provisions of Act No. 84-10 of 1984 are incompatible with the Convention. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps to repeal or amend Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civic service in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the steps taken or contemplated to abolish the compulsory character of civic service and the penalties that accompany it.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Trafficking in persons. In view of the lack of a response from the Government on this matter, the Committee again requests it to provide information on the application of the provisions of the Penal Code that criminalize and penalize trafficking in persons (sections 303bis(3) ff.), indicating in particular whether court proceedings have been initiated and whether cases are pending before the criminal courts on the basis of these provisions. The Government is also requested to indicate the measures taken to raise the awareness of potential migrant workers regarding the risks connected with trafficking in persons and to build the capacity of the competent authorities with respect to identification and protection of trafficking victims. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether studies have been undertaken to evaluate the characteristics of trafficking in persons in Algeria.

2. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the broad definition of vagrancy laid down in section 196 of the Penal Code, whereby any person who, having no fixed abode or means of livelihood and ordinarily exercising no trade or occupation despite being fit for work, is unable to show that he or she has sought work or has refused an offer of paid work shall be deemed guilty of vagrancy and shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to six months. Such a definition, which is not limited to activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order, is tantamount to an indirect constraint to work, which is contrary to the provisions of the Convention. It appears from the information previously supplied by the Government that section 196 of the Penal Code is used solely for the purpose of preventing offences disturbing public order or endangering the safety of persons. Since the terms of section 196 go beyond this objective and can punish with imprisonment the simple fact of being unable to demonstrate efforts to seek work, or refusing paid work when having no fixed abode or means of livelihood and ordinarily exercising no trade or occupation despite being fit for work, the Committee requests the Government once again to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 of the Penal Code solely to persons who engage in unlawful activity or in activities likely to disturb public order. In the meantime, the Government is requested to provide information on the application in practice of section 196 and to supply copies of any relevant court decisions. In this regard, the Committee notes with regret that the Government has not taken the opportunity afforded by the various reforms of the Penal Code – in particular that of February 2014, which revised the provisions relating to begging – to amend the provisions concerning vagrancy.

3. Freedom of seafarers to leave their employment. The Committee previously drew the Government’s attention to section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 establishing the conditions of employment of seafarers in merchant shipping and fisheries. Under section 56, the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory. Furthermore, under sections 53 and 55, any seafarer wishing to terminate an employment relationship must inform the shipowner in writing, and the latter has 15 days following receipt of the letter to accept or refuse the resignation request. Referring to the explanations given by the Government, the Committee emphasized that even though section 56 protects seafarers against dismissal which could result in forcibly disembarking the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not enable a seafarer to leave his employment after expiry of the notice period if he is not on national territory at that time.

Since section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 has the effect of turning a contractual relationship voluntarily entered into by the parties into service imposed by law for an indefinite period, by prohibiting seafarers from terminating their employment, even after the completion of the statutory period of notice, while they are outside the national territory, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary steps to repeal or amend this provision.

Article 2(2)(a). Defence forces. Non-military work. The Committee previously noted that, under the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 establishing and determining the functions and structure of the defence of the people, citizens between 18 and 60 years of age are subject to the obligations of defence of the people, set up within the framework of national defence, and that they may be required in this context to participate in the protection of units of production and the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country. The Government previously explained that Act No. 87-16 had become obsolete since it had never been applied in practice since its enactment. The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will have no difficulty in adopting the necessary measures to formally repeal Act No. 87-16 and thereby ensure the conformity of the national legislation with Article 2(2)(a) of the Convention, according to which any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws must be of a purely military nature if it is not to be regarded as forced or compulsory labour.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. Hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. In its previous comments the Committee noted that Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005, issuing the Code on the organization of prisons and the social rehabilitation of prisoners, permits the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises involved in the performance of work of public interest (section 100(2)). It noted the detailed information provided by the Government on the manner in which prisoners express their consent in practice to work on external sites or in open establishments, for either public or private enterprises, and on the organization of such work, the guarantees that apply to it, and the absence of any penalty for refusal to work for private enterprises.

In view of the lack of information on this subject, the Committee again requests the Government to indicate the provisions of the national legislation which require the prior formal consent of prisoners for any work done for private entities. The Government is also requested to indicate whether, in practice, prisoners have been made to work for private enterprises, either in the context of the hiring out of labour or under any other arrangements.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 2(1) of the Convention. Civic service. For several years the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the incompatibility with the Convention of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civic service, as amended in 1986 and 2006. Under the aforementioned provisions, it is possible to require persons who have completed a course of higher education or training in branches or specializations considered a priority for the economic and social development of the country to perform a period of civic service ranging from one to four years before being able to exercise an occupation or obtain employment. The branches in question were at first limited to medicine, pharmacy and dental surgery but now the only category concerned is that of doctors specializing in public health as a response to the need to bring essential specialist care to the population of isolated regions. Under section 2 of Ordinance No. 06-06 of 15 July 2006, civic service may also be performed in private sector health establishments. The Government previously indicated that civic service represents the contribution of the persons on whom it is imposed to the economic, social and cultural development of the country, adding that it is a national and moral duty of specialized doctors vis-à-vis the population groups living in the regions of the far south, the south and the High Plateau. These specialists enjoy an attractive system of compensation ranging from 100 to 150 per cent of their principal remuneration along with other advantages and, as a result, many specialists volunteer to work in these regions.

The Committee notes that the Government stresses in its last report that specialized doctors help to ensure the health protection of remote population groups, a mission that may be regarded as the equivalent to responding to situations of force majeure. It adds that the question of civic service was examined at the national health meetings in June 2014, which brought together health sector stakeholders and the social partners. Discussions were held on the reform of the national health system, particularly through revision of the arrangements for health coverage in the regions of the south and the High Plateau.

The Committee recalls that, under sections 32 and 38 of Act No. 84-10, any refusal to perform civic service and the resignation of the person concerned without a valid reason results in that person being banned from self-employment, from setting up business as a trader, artisan or promoter of private economic investment, any offence being punishable under section 243 of the Penal Code. Similarly, under sections 33 and 34 of the Act, all private employers are required to ensure, prior to engaging any workers, that applicants are not subject to civic service or that they can produce documentation proving that they have completed it. Furthermore, any private employer who knowingly employs a citizen who has evaded civic service is liable to imprisonment and a fine. Hence, although the persons required to perform civic service enjoy working conditions that are comparable to those of regular workers in the public sector (remuneration, seniority, promotion, retirement, etc.), they engage in this service under the threat of being denied access to any independent professional activity or to any form of employment in the private sector in the event of their refusal, which means that civic service falls within the concept of compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Convention. The Committee trusts that the discussions regarding civic service, to which the Government already referred in the past, and the discussions on the reform of the health system will result in the adoption of effective incentives that will enable the compulsory nature of civic service – which now only concerns doctors specializing in public health – and the accompanying penalties to be removed. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will be in a position to announce in its next report that Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civic service has been repealed or amended, in order to ensure its conformity with the Convention.

Article 2(2)(a). National service. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes the adoption of the National Service Act (No. 14-06 of 9 August 2014), which repeals Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 November 1974 issuing the Code on national service. The Committee notes with interest that, under section 4 of the abovementioned Act, compulsory national service “is undertaken in military form within the structures of the People’s National Army” and that the new law makes no reference to citizens’ participation in the functioning of various sectors of the economy and administration. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the regulations for the implementation of the National Service Act have been adopted. It hopes that on this occasion the provisions of the Order of 1 July 1987, under which university conscripts serve in priority sectors of national activity after three months of military training, will be formally repealed.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Freedom of seafarers to leave their employment. In its previous comments the Committee noted that section 67 of the standard conditions of service of seafarers (Decree No. 88-171 of 13 September 1988) provides that the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory. It noted that section 65 of the conditions of service provided for a six-month period of notice for officers and three months’ notice for other ranks. The Committee notes that Decree No. 88-171 of 13 September 1988 was repealed by Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 establishing the conditions of employment of seafarers in merchant shipping and fisheries. It notes with regret that section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 reproduces the provisions of section 67 of Decree No. 88-171. Moreover, it notes that section 53 provides that any seafarer wishing to terminate an employment relationship must inform the shipowner in writing, and the latter has 15 days following receipt of the letter to accept or refuse the resignation request. If there is no reply from the shipowner during the 15-day period, the resignation request is deemed to have been accepted (section 55(3)).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement, in its supplementary reports received in November 2008 and January 2009, that the provision establishing that the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory has been maintained with a view to protecting both the interests of seafarers, by removing the possibility of arbitrary dismissal, and those of the shipowner, by preventing the latter from having to bear undue costs connected with repatriation and replacement of the seafarer. However, the Government explains that, if the contract expires during a stopover in a foreign port, the seafarer retains the possibility of leaving the vessel with the shipowner then being responsible for all necessary measures for the seafarer’s repatriation.

While noting these explanations, the Committee is bound to make the same comment as it did with regard to the former provisions, namely that, even though section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 protects seafarers against dismissal which could result in being put off the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not enable a seafarer to leave his employment after expiry of the notice period if he is not on national territory at that time. The Committee emphasizes once again that the provision prohibiting seafarers from terminating their employment, even after the completion of the statutory period of notice, while they are outside the national territory has the effect of turning a contractual relationship voluntarily entered into by the parties into service imposed by law for an indefinite period. The Committee therefore requests the Government to repeal or amend section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005. Moreover, it asks the Government to indicate the nature and content of the commitments undertaken by officers at the time of recruitment, given that section 53(2) of Executive Decree No. 05-102 states that officers can only leave their employment after fulfilling all the commitments which they undertook at the time of their recruitment.

Article 2(2)(a). Defence forces. Military work. In its previous comments the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 establishing and determining the functions and structure of the people’s defence. The Committee noted that, under sections 1 and 3 of the Act, citizens between 18 and 60 years of age are subject to the obligations of the people’s defence, set up within the framework of the national defence; under section 8, the conditions for the deployment of the people’s defence forces in peace time are set out in regulations; and, by virtue of section 9, with respect to economic defence, the people’s defence forces participate in the protection of the units of production and the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country. The application of section 9 of the Act is determined by means of regulations.

The Committee noted the Government’s repeated indications that the regulations concerning the application of section 9 of Act No. 87-16 had not yet been adopted. It also requested information on the application of section 9 in practice. It noted the information sent by the Government to the effect that Act No. 87-16 had become obsolete since it had never been applied in practice since its enactment.

Noting that the Government has once again omitted to supply the requested information, the Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to bring its legislation into conformity with practice and consequently with the present provisions of the Convention. It trusts that the Government will be in a position to provide information on this point in its next report.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. Hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. In its previous comments the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 issuing the Code on the organization of prisons and the social rehabilitation of prisoners, particularly those of section 100(2), permitting the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises involved in the performance of work of public interest. The Committee noted that no provision of the Prison Code stated that there was any need to obtain the consent of the prisoners concerned to work for private persons.

The Committee notes the information sent by the Government in its reports received in 2008 and 2009, in reply to its previous comments on this point. It notes that work done by a prisoner can only be on a voluntary basis, in the context of training and learning, and primarily at the request of the prisoner himself following the submission of his request to the Committee for the Enforcement of Sentences and with the agreement of the latter. The prisoner’s file contains either the prisoner’s request to work under the external worksite scheme or in open establishments, or a document containing the explicit consent of the prisoner to work. The Government explains that this scheme is applicable to both public and private enterprises. Moreover, the Government states that no penalty whatsoever may be imposed on any prisoners who refuse to work for private enterprises. According to the Government, such refusal would in no way deprive them of the benefit of one of the rehabilitation or reintegration schemes, particularly conditional release, “semi freedom” and prison leave. As regards the supervision of prisoners performing prison work, the Government states that this is still the responsibility of prison officers and cannot be assigned to the employing enterprise. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Inter-Ministerial Order of 12 December 2005 fixing the pay scale for prison labour. Under the terms of this scale, the rate of pay varies from 20 per cent to 60 per cent of the guaranteed national minimum wage according to the level of skills, namely 20 per cent for unskilled labour, 40 per cent for skilled labour and 60 per cent for specialized labour. The Government explains that prisoners also have social security coverage. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that in practice no prisoner has been employed by a private enterprise.

The Committee duly notes this information. It requests the Government to continue to supply information on the application in practice of the provisions of the Code on the organization of prisons permitting the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. It also requests the Government to indicate provisions of the national legislation requiring the consent of prisoners to work for private persons, as indicated by the Government in its report. Finally, it requests the Government to indicate provisions of the national legislation establishing the guarantees mentioned by the Government in its report.

Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, according to section 196 of the Penal Code, any person of no fixed abode and no means of livelihood who ordinarily exercises no trade or occupation although fit for work and is unable to show that he or she has sought work or has refused an offer of paid work shall be deemed guilty of vagrancy and shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to six months. The Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the above definition of vagrancy is not limited to activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order and is therefore tantamount to an indirect constraint to work, which is contrary to the provisions of the Convention. It also noted that section 195 of the Penal Code prescribes the same penalty for anyone regularly engaging in begging. The Committee asked the Government to supply information on the application in practice of section 196 of the Penal Code and to supply copies of relevant court decisions. It also asked the Government to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 solely to persons engaging in activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order.

In its reply the Government indicates that the magistrates, in handling vagrancy issues, do not take account of the possibility for a person to work or of the fact that a person exercises no trade or occupation. In the light of the information supplied by the Government, the Committee understands that section 196 of the Penal Code is used solely for the purpose of preventing offences disturbing public order or endangering the safety of persons. Reiterating the terms of section 196, the Committee observes, however, that these provisions punish with imprisonment the simple fact of having no fixed abode or means of livelihood and of having no regular trade or occupation in spite of being fit for work and unable to demonstrate efforts to seek work, or of having has refused paid work, and not the fact of having done anything to disturb public order or endanger the safety of persons. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 of the Penal Code solely to persons who engage in unlawful activity or in activities likely to disturb public order. It also requests the Government once again to provide information on the application in practice of section 196 and supply copies of relevant court decisions to enable the Committee to examine the scope of these provisions.

Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 09 01 of 25 February 2009 amending and supplementing Ordinance No. 66 156 of 8 June 1966 issuing the Penal Code. The Committee notes that this Act adds a section 5bis to Title 2, Chapter 1 in Volume 3 of Part Two of the Penal Code, concerning the trafficking in persons. It notes that the provisions of this section criminalize trafficking for the purposes of exploitation, including forced labour or service, slavery or slave-like practices, and also servitude. Under the terms of section 303bis 4(2) of the Penal Code as amended by Act No. 09-01, any person convicted of trafficking in persons shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from three to ten years and a fine ranging from DA300,000 to 1 million. The term of imprisonment may be increased to up to 20 years in cases where trafficking is accompanied by various aggravating circumstances. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of these provisions, indicating, in particular, whether any persons have been prosecuted or convicted for engaging in trafficking in persons, as well as the number of cases in progress in the criminal courts and sentences handed down. Please also send copies of the relevant court decisions with the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Article 2(1) of the Convention. Civil service. For several years the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the incompatibility with the Convention of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civil service, as amended and supplemented by Act No. 86-11 of 19 August 1986 and by Act No. 06-15 of 14 November 2006, under which it is possible to require persons who have completed a course of higher education or training to perform a period of civil service ranging from one to four years before being able to exercise an occupation or obtain employment. The Government indicated that civil service is a statutory period of work performed for a public administration, body or enterprise in local communities by persons to whom such an obligation applies. It represents a contribution of such persons to the economic, social and cultural development of the country.

The Committee also previously noted that, under sections 32 and 38 of the Act, any refusal to perform civil service and the resignation of the person concerned without a valid reason results in their being banned from exercising an activity on their own account, and that any infringement incurs the penalties laid down in section 243 of the Penal Code (imprisonment ranging from three months to two years and/or a fine of between 500 and 5,000 dinars). Similarly, under sections 33 and 34 of the Act, all private employers are required to ensure prior to engaging any workers, that applicants are not subject to civil service or that they can produce documentation proving that they have completed it. Furthermore, any private employer who knowingly employs a citizen who has evaded civil service is liable to imprisonment and a fine.

Moreover, the Committee noted that the list of branches concerned had first been limited to medicine, pharmacy and dental surgery and now only concerned doctors specializing in public health as a response to the need to bring essential specialists’ care to the populations of isolated regions. The Committee also noted that under section 2 of Ordinance No. 06-06 of 15 July 2006, civil service may be performed in private-sector health establishments in accordance with arrangements set forth by the regulation.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the service imposed under Act No. 84-10 concerning civil service, as amended, cannot be equated to forced labour, but is a national and moral duty of specialized doctors vis-à-vis the populations living in the regions of the far south, the south and in the High Plateaus. The Government adds that the sanctions provided for in sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 are more dissuasive than repressive and that, since the Acts were promulgated, not a single specialist has been prosecuted pursuant to those provisions. The Government further adds that specialized doctors and higher education teachers assigned to certain regions benefit from an attractive system of compensation ranging from 100 to 150 per cent of their principal remuneration, along with other advantages such as a housing allowance, a first installation allowance, the reimbursement of domestic consumption of gas and electricity, a 50 per cent reduction of their global income tax and special seniority and holiday arrangements. Given these advantages, a lot of specialists volunteer to work in those regions. Finally, the Government states that the whole issue of civil service for specialized doctors is still under discussion and is the subject of consultations among stakeholders.

Taking note of these indications, the Committee recalls that, although the persons required to perform civil service benefit from working conditions that are comparable to those of regular workers in the public sector (remuneration, seniority, promotion, retirement, etc.), they engage in this service under the threat of being denied access to any independent professional activity and to any form of employment in the private sector in the event of their refusal, which means that civil service falls within the concept of compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Convention. Moreover, in so far as it consists of a contribution to the country’s economic development, such compulsory service also violates Article 1(b) of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), also ratified by Algeria.

The Committee once again expresses the strong hope that the necessary measures will be taken to repeal or amend the provisions of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civil service in the light of the Convention and Convention No. 105, and that the Government will soon be in a position to report on the measures adopted in this respect. Referring to Ordinance No. 06 06 of 15 July 2006 amending and complementing Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civil service, the Committee reiterates the hope that the necessary measures will be taken to repeal or amend the provisions imposing civil service on specialized doctors. Pending such legislative amendments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of people and establishments concerned by this civil service, the length of service and the conditions of work of the people concerned.

Article 2(2)(a). National service. For a number of years the Committee has been referring to Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 November 1974 issuing the National Service Code and the Order of 1 July 1987, under which conscripts are required to take part in the running of various sectors of the economy and administration. The Committee observed that they are further required to perform civilian service for a period ranging from one to four years, as referred to above. The Committee recalled that, under the terms of Article 2(2)(a) of the Convention, compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only where conscripts are assigned to work of a purely military character.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its previous report that, since 2001, there had no longer been recourse to the civilian modality of national service. The Government explained that this de facto suspension would be reflected in law as soon as the reform of the National Service Code was placed on the agenda. Noting an absence of new information regarding the reform of the National Service Code of 1974, the Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, any developments in this regard that would bring national law into line with practice, as well as with the provisions of the Convention, and to provide copies of the relevant texts.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Freedom of seafarers to leave their employment. In its previous comments the Committee noted that section 67 of the standard conditions of service of seafarers (Decree No. 88-171 of 13 September 1988) provides that the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory. It noted that section 65 of the conditions of service provided for a six-month period of notice for officers and three months’ notice for other ranks. The Committee notes that Decree No. 88-171 of 13 September 1988 was repealed by Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 establishing the conditions of employment of seafarers in merchant shipping and fisheries. It notes with regret that section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 reproduces the provisions of section 67 of Decree No. 88-171. Moreover, it notes that section 53 provides that any seafarer wishing to terminate an employment relationship must inform the shipowner in writing, and the latter has 15 days following receipt of the letter to accept or refuse the resignation request. If there is no reply from the shipowner during the 15-day period, the resignation request is deemed to have been accepted (section 55(3)).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement, in its supplementary reports received in November 2008 and January 2009, that the provision establishing that the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory has been maintained with a view to protecting both the interests of seafarers, by removing the possibility of arbitrary dismissal, and those of the shipowner, by preventing the latter from having to bear undue costs connected with repatriation and replacement of the seafarer. However, the Government explains that, if the contract expires during a stopover in a foreign port, the seafarer retains the possibility of leaving the vessel with the shipowner then being responsible for all necessary measures for the seafarer’s repatriation.

While noting these explanations, the Committee is bound to make the same comment as it did with regard to the former provisions, namely that, even though section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 protects seafarers against dismissal which could result in being put off the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not enable a seafarer to leave his employment after expiry of the notice period if he is not on national territory at that time. The Committee emphasizes once again that the provision prohibiting seafarers from terminating their employment, even after the completion of the statutory period of notice, while they are outside the national territory has the effect of turning a contractual relationship voluntarily entered into by the parties into service imposed by law for an indefinite period. The Committee therefore requests the Government to repeal or amend section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005. Moreover, it asks the Government to indicate the nature and content of the commitments undertaken by officers at the time of recruitment, given that section 53(2) of Executive Decree No. 05-102 states that officers can only leave their employment after fulfilling all the commitments which they undertook at the time of their recruitment.

Article 2(2)(a). Defence forces. Military work. In its previous comments the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 establishing and determining the functions and structure of the people’s defence. The Committee noted that, under sections 1 and 3 of the Act, citizens between 18 and 60 years of age are subject to the obligations of the people’s defence, set up within the framework of the national defence; under section 8, the conditions for the deployment of the people’s defence forces in peace time are set out in regulations; and, by virtue of section 9, with respect to economic defence, the people’s defence forces participate in the protection of the units of production and the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country. The application of section 9 of the Act is determined by means of regulations.

The Committee noted the Government’s repeated indications that the regulations concerning the application of section 9 of Act No. 87-16 had not yet been adopted. It also requested information on the application of section 9 in practice. It noted the information sent by the Government to the effect that Act No. 87-16 had become obsolete since it had never been applied in practice since its enactment.

Noting that the Government has once again omitted to supply the requested information, the Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to bring its legislation into conformity with practice and consequently with the present provisions of the Convention. It trusts that the Government will be in a position to provide information on this point in its next report.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. Hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. In its previous comments the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 issuing the Code on the organization of prisons and the social rehabilitation of prisoners, particularly those of section 100(2), permitting the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises involved in the performance of work of public interest. The Committee noted that no provision of the Prison Code stated that there was any need to obtain the consent of the prisoners concerned to work for private persons.

The Committee notes the information sent by the Government in its reports received in 2008 and 2009, in reply to its previous comments on this point. It notes that work done by a prisoner can only be on a voluntary basis, in the context of training and learning, and primarily at the request of the prisoner himself following the submission of his request to the Committee for the Enforcement of Sentences and with the agreement of the latter. The prisoner’s file contains either the prisoner’s request to work under the external worksite scheme or in open establishments, or a document containing the explicit consent of the prisoner to work. The Government explains that this scheme is applicable to both public and private enterprises. Moreover, the Government states that no penalty whatsoever may be imposed on any prisoners who refuse to work for private enterprises. According to the Government, such refusal would in no way deprive them of the benefit of one of the rehabilitation or reintegration schemes, particularly conditional release, “semi freedom” and prison leave. As regards the supervision of prisoners performing prison work, the Government states that this is still the responsibility of prison officers and cannot be assigned to the employing enterprise. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Inter-Ministerial Order of 12 December 2005 fixing the pay scale for prison labour. Under the terms of this scale, the rate of pay varies from 20 per cent to 60 per cent of the guaranteed national minimum wage according to the level of skills, namely 20 per cent for unskilled labour, 40 per cent for skilled labour and 60 per cent for specialized labour. The Government explains that prisoners also have social security coverage. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that in practice no prisoner has been employed by a private enterprise.

The Committee duly notes this information. It requests the Government to continue to supply information on the application in practice of the provisions of the Code on the organization of prisons permitting the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. It also requests the Government to indicate provisions of the national legislation requiring the consent of prisoners to work for private persons, as indicated by the Government in its report. Finally, it requests the Government to indicate provisions of the national legislation establishing the guarantees mentioned by the Government in its report.

Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, according to section 196 of the Penal Code, any person of no fixed abode and no means of livelihood who ordinarily exercises no trade or occupation although fit for work and is unable to show that he or she has sought work or has refused an offer of paid work shall be deemed guilty of vagrancy and shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to six months. The Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the above definition of vagrancy is not limited to activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order and is therefore tantamount to an indirect constraint to work, which is contrary to the provisions of the Convention. It also noted that section 195 of the Penal Code prescribes the same penalty for anyone regularly engaging in begging. The Committee asked the Government to supply information on the application in practice of section 196 of the Penal Code and to supply copies of relevant court decisions. It also asked the Government to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 solely to persons engaging in activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order.

In its reply the Government indicates that the magistrates, in handling vagrancy issues, do not take account of the possibility for a person to work or of the fact that a person exercises no trade or occupation. In the light of the information supplied by the Government, the Committee understands that section 196 of the Penal Code is used solely for the purpose of preventing offences disturbing public order or endangering the safety of persons. Reiterating the terms of section 196, the Committee observes, however, that these provisions punish with imprisonment the simple fact of having no fixed abode or means of livelihood and of having no regular trade or occupation in spite of being fit for work and unable to demonstrate efforts to seek work, or of having has refused paid work, and not the fact of having done anything to disturb public order or endanger the safety of persons. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 of the Penal Code solely to persons who engage in unlawful activity or in activities likely to disturb public order. It also requests the Government once again to provide information on the application in practice of section 196 and supply copies of relevant court decisions to enable the Committee to examine the scope of these provisions.

Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 09 01 of 25 February 2009 amending and supplementing Ordinance No. 66 156 of 8 June 1966 issuing the Penal Code. The Committee notes that this Act adds a section 5bis to Title 2, Chapter 1 in Volume 3 of Part Two of the Penal Code, concerning the trafficking in persons. It notes that the provisions of this section criminalize trafficking for the purposes of exploitation, including forced labour or service, slavery or slave-like practices, and also servitude. Under the terms of section 303bis 4(2) of the Penal Code as amended by Act No. 09-01, any person convicted of trafficking in persons shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from three to ten years and a fine ranging from DA300,000 to 1 million. The term of imprisonment may be increased to up to 20 years in cases where trafficking is accompanied by various aggravating circumstances. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of these provisions, indicating, in particular, whether any persons have been prosecuted or convicted for engaging in trafficking in persons, as well as the number of cases in progress in the criminal courts and sentences handed down. Please also send copies of the relevant court decisions with the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 2(1) of the Convention. Civil service. For a number of years the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the incompatibility with the Convention of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civil service, as amended and supplemented by Act No. 86-11 of 19 August 1986 and by Act No. 06-15 of 14 November 2006, under which it is possible to require persons who have completed a course of higher education or training to perform a period of civil service ranging from one to four years before being able to exercise an occupation or obtain employment.

The Committee also previously noted that, under sections 32 and 38 of the Act, any refusal to perform civil service and the resignation of the person concerned without valid reason results in the prohibition on their exercising an activity on their own account, and that any infringement will incur the penalties laid down in section 243 of the Penal Code (imprisonment ranging from three months to two years and/or a fine of between 500 and 5,000 dinars). Similarly, under sections 33 and 34 of the Act, all private employers are required to satisfy themselves before engaging any workers that applicants are not subject to civil service or can produce documentation proving that they have completed it. Furthermore, any private employer who knowingly employs a citizen who has evaded civil service is liable to imprisonment and a fine. Hence, even though persons liable to civil service enjoy conditions of work (remuneration, seniority, promotion, retirement, etc.) similar to those of regular public sector workers, they perform this service under threat since, in the event of any refusal, they are denied access to any self-employed occupational activity or employment in the private sector. This means that civil service falls within the concept of compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Convention. Moreover, since it consists of a contribution by the persons concerned to the economic development of the country, this compulsory service is also incompatible with Article 1(b) of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), which has also been ratified by Algeria.

The Committee further noted that under section 2 of Ordinance No. 06-06 of 15 July 2006, civil service may be performed in private-sector health establishments in accordance with arrangements set forth by regulation. The Committee reminds the Government that, according to Paragraph 3(3) of the Special Youth Schemes Recommendation, 1970 (No. 136), the services of participants should not be used for the advantage of private persons or enterprises.

In its last report the Government indicates that civil service concerns only doctors specializing in public health and that this was established in response to the need to bring essential specialists’ care to the populations of isolated regions who have no access to it. Moreover, the Government indicates that, at the National Conference on Hospital Reform Policy (February 2011), discussions were held concerning the abolition of civil service for these doctors, and that the ultimate goal would be to leave them free to choose whether to exercise their profession in the public, private or semi-public sector.

While noting this information, the Committee expresses the strong hope that the necessary measures will be taken to repeal or amend the provisions of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civil service in the light of Conventions Nos 29 and 105, and that the Government will soon be in a position to report on the measures adopted in this respect.

Referring to Ordinance No. 06-06 of 15 July 2006, amending and complementing Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civil service, the Committee reiterates the hope that the necessary measures will be taken to repeal or amend the provisions imposing civil service on specialized doctors. Pending such legislative amendments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of persons and establishments concerned with regard to civil service, the length of service, and the conditions of work of the persons concerned.

Article 2(2)(a). National service. For a number of years the Committee has been referring to Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 November 1974 issuing the National Service Code and the Order of 1 July 1987, under which conscripts are required to take part in the running of various sectors of the economy and administration. The Committee observed that they are further required to perform civil service for a period ranging from one to four years, as referred to above. The Committee recalled that, under the terms of Article 2(2)(a) of the Convention, compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only where conscripts are assigned to work of a purely military character.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its previous report that the civil modality of national service had not been used since 2001. The Government explained that this de facto suspension would be reflected in law as soon as the reform of the National Service Code was placed on the agenda. As the Government has not provided any information on this point, the Committee hopes that it will be in a position to send information in its next report on any developments in this matter showing that national law has been aligned with practice and hence with the provisions of the Convention, and to provide copies of the relevant texts.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Referring to its previous comments concerning the measures relating to detention in security centres established pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992, the Committee notes with interest that Ordinance No. 11-01 of 23 February 2011 lifting the state of emergency repeals Legislative Decree No. 93-02 of 6 February 1993 extending the duration of the state of emergency established by Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report does not contain any reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the points raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Freedom of seafarers to leave their employment. In its previous comments the Committee noted that section 67 of the standard conditions of service of seafarers (Decree No. 88-171 of 13 September 1988) provides that the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory. It noted that section 65 of the conditions of service provided for a six-month period of notice for officers and three months’ notice for other ranks. The Committee notes that Decree No. 88-171 of 13 September 1988 was repealed by Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 establishing the conditions of employment of seafarers in merchant shipping and fisheries. It notes with regret that section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 reproduces the provisions of section 67 of Decree No. 88-171. Moreover, it notes that section 53 provides that any seafarer wishing to terminate an employment relationship must inform the shipowner in writing, and the latter has 15 days following receipt of the letter to accept or refuse the resignation request. If there is no reply from the shipowner during the 15-day period, the resignation request is deemed to have been accepted (section 55(3)).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement, in its supplementary reports received in November 2008 and January 2009, that the provision establishing that the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory has been maintained with a view to protecting both the interests of seafarers, by removing the possibility of arbitrary dismissal, and those of the shipowner, by preventing the latter from having to bear undue costs connected with repatriation and replacement of the seafarer. However, the Government explains that, if the contract expires during a stopover in a foreign port, the seafarer retains the possibility of leaving the vessel with the shipowner then being responsible for all necessary measures for the seafarer’s repatriation.

While noting these explanations, the Committee is bound to make the same comment as it did with regard to the former provisions, namely that, even though section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 protects seafarers against dismissal which could result in being put off the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not enable a seafarer to leave his employment after expiry of the notice period if he is not on national territory at that time. The Committee emphasizes once again that the provision prohibiting seafarers from terminating their employment, even after the completion of the statutory period of notice, while they are outside the national territory has the effect of turning a contractual relationship voluntarily entered into by the parties into service imposed by law for an indefinite period. The Committee therefore requests the Government to repeal or amend section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005. Moreover, it asks the Government to indicate the nature and content of the commitments undertaken by officers at the time of recruitment, given that section 53(2) of Executive Decree No. 05-102 states that officers can only leave their employment after fulfilling all the commitments which they undertook at the time of their recruitment.

Article 2(2)(a). Defence forces. Military work. In its previous comments the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 establishing and determining the functions and structure of the people’s defence. The Committee noted that, under sections 1 and 3 of the Act, citizens between 18 and 60 years of age are subject to the obligations of the people’s defence, set up within the framework of the national defence; under section 8, the conditions for the deployment of the people’s defence forces in peace time are set out in regulations; and, by virtue of section 9, with respect to economic defence, the people’s defence forces participate in the protection of the units of production and the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country. The application of section 9 of the Act is determined by means of regulations.

The Committee noted the Government’s repeated indications that the regulations concerning the application of section 9 of Act No. 87-16 had not yet been adopted. It also requested information on the application of section 9 in practice. It noted the information sent by the Government to the effect that Act No. 87-16 had become obsolete since it had never been applied in practice since its enactment.

Noting that the Government has once again omitted to supply the requested information, the Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to bring its legislation into conformity with practice and consequently with the present provisions of the Convention. It trusts that the Government will be in a position to provide information on this point in its next report.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. Hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. In its previous comments the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 issuing the Code on the organization of prisons and the social rehabilitation of prisoners, particularly those of section 100(2), permitting the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises involved in the performance of work of public interest. The Committee noted that no provision of the Prison Code stated that there was any need to obtain the consent of the prisoners concerned to work for private persons.

The Committee notes the information sent by the Government in its reports received in 2008 and 2009, in reply to its previous comments on this point. It notes that work done by a prisoner can only be on a voluntary basis, in the context of training and learning, and primarily at the request of the prisoner himself following the submission of his request to the Committee for the Enforcement of Sentences and with the agreement of the latter. The prisoner’s file contains either the prisoner’s request to work under the external worksite scheme or in open establishments, or a document containing the explicit consent of the prisoner to work. The Government explains that this scheme is applicable to both public and private enterprises. Moreover, the Government states that no penalty whatsoever may be imposed on any prisoners who refuse to work for private enterprises. According to the Government, such refusal would in no way deprive them of the benefit of one of the rehabilitation or reintegration schemes, particularly conditional release, “semi freedom” and prison leave. As regards the supervision of prisoners performing prison work, the Government states that this is still the responsibility of prison officers and cannot be assigned to the employing enterprise. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Inter-Ministerial Order of 12 December 2005 fixing the pay scale for prison labour. Under the terms of this scale, the rate of pay varies from 20 per cent to 60 per cent of the guaranteed national minimum wage according to the level of skills, namely 20 per cent for unskilled labour, 40 per cent for skilled labour and 60 per cent for specialized labour. The Government explains that prisoners also have social security coverage. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that in practice no prisoner has been employed by a private enterprise.

The Committee duly notes this information. It requests the Government to continue to supply information on the application in practice of the provisions of the Code on the organization of prisons permitting the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. It also requests the Government to indicate provisions of the national legislation requiring the consent of prisoners to work for private persons, as indicated by the Government in its report. Finally, it requests the Government to indicate provisions of the national legislation establishing the guarantees mentioned by the Government in its report.

Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, according to section 196 of the Penal Code, any person of no fixed abode and no means of livelihood who ordinarily exercises no trade or occupation although fit for work and is unable to show that he or she has sought work or has refused an offer of paid work shall be deemed guilty of vagrancy and shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to six months. The Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the above definition of vagrancy is not limited to activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order and is therefore tantamount to an indirect constraint to work, which is contrary to the provisions of the Convention. It also noted that section 195 of the Penal Code prescribes the same penalty for anyone regularly engaging in begging. The Committee asked the Government to supply information on the application in practice of section 196 of the Penal Code and to supply copies of relevant court decisions. It also asked the Government to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 solely to persons engaging in activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order.

In its reply the Government indicates that the magistrates, in handling vagrancy issues, do not take account of the possibility for a person to work or of the fact that a person exercises no trade or occupation. In the light of the information supplied by the Government, the Committee understands that section 196 of the Penal Code is used solely for the purpose of preventing offences disturbing public order or endangering the safety of persons. Reiterating the terms of section 196, the Committee observes, however, that these provisions punish with imprisonment the simple fact of having no fixed abode or means of livelihood and of having no regular trade or occupation in spite of being fit for work and unable to demonstrate efforts to seek work, or of having has refused paid work, and not the fact of having done anything to disturb public order or endanger the safety of persons. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 of the Penal Code solely to persons who engage in unlawful activity or in activities likely to disturb public order. It also requests the Government once again to provide information on the application in practice of section 196 and supply copies of relevant court decisions to enable the Committee to examine the scope of these provisions.

Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 09 01 of 25 February 2009 amending and supplementing Ordinance No. 66 156 of 8 June 1966 issuing the Penal Code. The Committee notes that this Act adds a section 5bis to Title 2, Chapter 1 in Volume 3 of Part Two of the Penal Code, concerning the trafficking in persons. It notes that the provisions of this section criminalize trafficking for the purposes of exploitation, including forced labour or service, slavery or slave-like practices, and also servitude. Under the terms of section 303bis 4(2) of the Penal Code as amended by Act No. 09-01, any person convicted of trafficking in persons shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from three to ten years and a fine ranging from DA300,000 to 1 million. The term of imprisonment may be increased to up to 20 years in cases where trafficking is accompanied by various aggravating circumstances. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of these provisions, indicating, in particular, whether any persons have been prosecuted or convicted for engaging in trafficking in persons, as well as the number of cases in progress in the criminal courts and sentences handed down. Please also send copies of the relevant court decisions with the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 2(1) of the Convention. Civil service. For a number of years the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the incompatibility with the Convention of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civil service, as amended and supplemented by Act No. 86-11 of 19 August 1986 and by Act No. 06-15 of 14 November 2006, under which it is possible to require persons who have completed a course of higher education or training to perform a period of civil service ranging from one to four years before being able to exercise an occupation or obtain employment.

The Committee also previously noted that, under sections 32 and 38 of the Act, any refusal to perform civil service and the resignation of the person concerned without valid reason results in the prohibition on their exercising an activity on their own account, and that any infringement will incur the penalties laid down in section 243 of the Penal Code (imprisonment ranging from three months to two years and/or a fine of between 500 and 5,000 dinars). Similarly, under sections 33 and 34 of the Act, all private employers are required to satisfy themselves before engaging any workers that applicants are not subject to civil service or can produce documentation proving that they have completed it. Furthermore, any private employer who knowingly employs a citizen who has evaded civil service is liable to imprisonment and a fine. Hence, even though persons liable to civil service enjoy conditions of work (remuneration, seniority, promotion, retirement, etc.) similar to those of regular public sector workers, they perform this service under threat since, in the event of any refusal, they are denied access to any self-employed occupational activity or employment in the private sector. This means that civil service falls within the concept of compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Convention. Moreover, since it consists of a contribution by the persons concerned to the economic development of the country, this compulsory service is also incompatible with Article 1(b) of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), which has also been ratified by Algeria.

The Committee further noted that under section 2 of Ordinance No. 06-06 of 15 July 2006, civil service may be performed in private-sector health establishments in accordance with arrangements set forth by regulation. The Committee reminds the Government that, according to Paragraph 3(3) of the Special Youth Schemes Recommendation, 1970 (No. 136), the services of participants should not be used for the advantage of private persons or enterprises.

In its last report the Government indicates that civil service concerns only doctors specializing in public health and that this was established in response to the need to bring essential specialists’ care to the populations of isolated regions who have no access to it. Moreover, the Government indicates that, at the National Conference on Hospital Reform Policy (February 2011), discussions were held concerning the abolition of civil service for these doctors, and that the ultimate goal would be to leave them free to choose whether to exercise their profession in the public, private or semi-public sector.

While noting this information, the Committee expresses the strong hope that the necessary measures will be taken to repeal or amend the provisions of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civil service in the light of Conventions Nos 29 and 105, and that the Government will soon be in a position to report on the measures adopted in this respect.

Referring to Ordinance No. 06-06 of 15 July 2006, amending and complementing Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 concerning civil service, the Committee reiterates the hope that the necessary measures will be taken to repeal or amend the provisions imposing civil service on specialized doctors. Pending such legislative amendments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of persons and establishments concerned with regard to civil service, the length of service, and the conditions of work of the persons concerned.

Article 2(2)(a). National service. For a number of years the Committee has been referring to Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 November 1974 issuing the National Service Code and the Order of 1 July 1987, under which conscripts are required to take part in the running of various sectors of the economy and administration. The Committee observed that they are further required to perform civil service for a period ranging from one to four years, as referred to above. The Committee recalled that, under the terms of Article 2(2)(a) of the Convention, compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only where conscripts are assigned to work of a purely military character.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its previous report that the civil modality of national service had not been used since 2001. The Government explained that this de facto suspension would be reflected in law as soon as the reform of the National Service Code was placed on the agenda. As the Government has not provided any information on this point, the Committee hopes that it will be in a position to send information in its next report on any developments in this matter showing that national law has been aligned with practice and hence with the provisions of the Convention, and to provide copies of the relevant texts.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Freedom of seafarers to leave their employment. In its previous comments the Committee noted that section 67 of the standard conditions of service of seafarers (Decree No. 88-171 of 13 September 1988) provides that the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory. It noted that section 65 of the conditions of service provided for a six-month period of notice for officers and three months’ notice for other ranks. The Committee notes that Decree No. 88-171 of 13 September 1988 was repealed by Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 establishing the conditions of employment of seafarers in merchant shipping and fisheries. It notes with regret that section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 reproduces the provisions of section 67 of Decree No. 88-171. Moreover, it notes that section 53 provides that any seafarer wishing to terminate an employment relationship must inform the shipowner in writing, and the latter has 15 days following receipt of the letter to accept or refuse the resignation request. If there is no reply from the shipowner during the 15‑day period, the resignation request is deemed to have been accepted (section 55(3)).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement, in its supplementary reports received in November 2008 and January 2009, that the provision establishing that the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory has been maintained with a view to protecting both the interests of seafarers, by removing the possibility of arbitrary dismissal, and those of the shipowner, by preventing the latter from having to bear undue costs connected with repatriation and replacement of the seafarer. However, the Government explains that, if the contract expires during a stopover in a foreign port, the seafarer retains the possibility of leaving the vessel with the shipowner then being responsible for all necessary measures for the seafarer’s repatriation.

While noting these explanations, the Committee is bound to make the same comment as it did with regard to the former provisions, namely that, even though section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 protects seafarers against dismissal which could result in being put off the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not enable a seafarer to leave his employment after expiry of the notice period if he is not on national territory at that time. The Committee emphasizes once again that the provision prohibiting seafarers from terminating their employment, even after the completion of the statutory period of notice, while they are outside the national territory has the effect of turning a contractual relationship voluntarily entered into by the parties into service imposed by law for an indefinite period. The Committee therefore requests the Government to repeal or amend section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005. Moreover, it asks the Government to indicate the nature and content of the commitments undertaken by officers at the time of recruitment, given that section 53(2) of Executive Decree No. 05-102 states that officers can only leave their employment after fulfilling all the commitments which they undertook at the time of their recruitment.

Article 2(2)(a). Defence forces. Military work. In its previous comments the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 establishing and determining the functions and structure of the people’s defence. The Committee noted that, under sections 1 and 3 of the Act, citizens between 18 and 60 years of age are subject to the obligations of the people’s defence, set up within the framework of the national defence; under section 8, the conditions for the deployment of the people’s defence forces in peace time are set out in regulations; and, by virtue of section 9, with respect to economic defence, the people’s defence forces participate in the protection of the units of production and the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country. The application of section 9 of the Act is determined by means of regulations.

The Committee noted the Government’s repeated indications that the regulations concerning the application of section 9 of Act No. 87-16 had not yet been adopted. It also requested information on the application of section 9 in practice. It noted the information sent by the Government to the effect that Act No. 87-16 had become obsolete since it had never been applied in practice since its enactment.

Noting that the Government has once again omitted to supply the requested information, the Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to bring its legislation into conformity with practice and consequently with the present provisions of the Convention. It trusts that the Government will be in a position to provide information on this point in its next report.

Article 2(2)(d). Detention and work imposed under martial law or a state of emergency. In its previous comments the Committee referred to certain provisions of the national legislation concerning martial law on the one hand, and a state of emergency, on the other.

As regards the provisions of martial law, the Committee referred to Executive Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991 determining the limits and conditions of referral to a security centre pursuant to section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 91‑196 of 4 June 1991 proclaiming martial law. Under the abovementioned Executive Decree, adults whose activities endangered public order and safety or the normal operation of public services through their refusal to comply with a written requisition order issued by the authority exercising police powers and the power to maintain public order, thereby seriously affecting the functioning of the national economy, or by opposing the execution of a requisition order issued by reason of the emergency and the need for services to be provided by a public or private service, could be detained in a security centre for a period of 45 days, which could be renewed only once. The Committee noted the Government’s information to the effect that Executive Decree No. 91-201 was now ipso jure null and void, martial law having been lifted by Presidential Decree No. 91-336 of 22 September 1991.

As regards the legislation relating to the state of emergency, the Committee previously noted that security centres were established under Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992 declaring a state of emergency, and that detention in a security centre was imposed under section 3 of Executive Decree No. 92-75 of 20 February 1992 establishing the conditions for the implementation of certain provisions of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992. According to the Government, all the security centres which had been opened had since been closed.

While noting the Government’s statement in its supplementary report received in January 2009 that the state of emergency would be lifted when the conditions which had led to its introduction no longer existed, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on any changes that have occurred in practice with regard to measures concerning detention in security centres.

The Committee is making additional comments in a direct request concerning the application of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), which refer to other provisions of the legislation relating to the state of emergency and which are contrary to the latter Convention.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. Hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. In its previous comments the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 issuing the Code on the organization of prisons and the social rehabilitation of prisoners, particularly those of section 100(2), permitting the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises involved in the performance of work of public interest. The Committee noted that no provision of the Prison Code stated that there was any need to obtain the consent of the prisoners concerned to work for private persons.

The Committee notes the information sent by the Government in its reports received in 2008 and 2009, in reply to its previous comments on this point. It notes that work done by a prisoner can only be on a voluntary basis, in the context of training and learning, and primarily at the request of the prisoner himself following the submission of his request to the Committee for the Enforcement of Sentences and with the agreement of the latter. The prisoner’s file contains either the prisoner’s request to work under the external worksite scheme or in open establishments, or a document containing the explicit consent of the prisoner to work. The Government explains that this scheme is applicable to both public and private enterprises. Moreover, the Government states that no penalty whatsoever may be imposed on any prisoners who refuse to work for private enterprises. According to the Government, such refusal would in no way deprive them of the benefit of one of the rehabilitation or reintegration schemes, particularly conditional release, “semi-freedom” and prison leave. As regards the supervision of prisoners performing prison work, the Government states that this is still the responsibility of prison officers and cannot be assigned to the employing enterprise. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Inter-Ministerial Order of 12 December 2005 fixing the pay scale for prison labour. Under the terms of this scale, the rate of pay varies from 20 per cent to 60 per cent of the guaranteed national minimum wage according to the level of skills, namely 20 per cent for unskilled labour, 40 per cent for skilled labour and 60 per cent for specialized labour. The Government explains that prisoners also have social security coverage. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that in practice no prisoner has been employed by a private enterprise.

The Committee duly notes this information. It requests the Government to continue to supply information on the application in practice of the provisions of the Code on the organization of prisons permitting the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. It also requests the Government to indicate provisions of the national legislation requiring the consent of prisoners to work for private persons, as indicated by the Government in its report. Finally, it requests the Government to indicate provisions of the national legislation establishing the guarantees mentioned by the Government in its report.

Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, according to section 196 of the Penal Code, any person of no fixed abode and no means of livelihood who ordinarily exercises no trade or occupation although fit for work and is unable to show that he or she has sought work or has refused an offer of paid work shall be deemed guilty of vagrancy and shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to six months. The Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the above definition of vagrancy is not limited to activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order and is therefore tantamount to an indirect constraint to work, which is contrary to the provisions of the Convention. It also noted that section 195 of the Penal Code prescribes the same penalty for anyone regularly engaging in begging. The Committee asked the Government to supply information on the application in practice of section 196 of the Penal Code and to supply copies of relevant court decisions. It also asked the Government to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 solely to persons engaging in activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order.

In its reply the Government indicates that the magistrates, in handling vagrancy issues, do not take account of the possibility for a person to work or of the fact that a person exercises no trade or occupation. In the light of the information supplied by the Government, the Committee understands that section 196 of the Penal Code is used solely for the purpose of preventing offences disturbing public order or endangering the safety of persons. Reiterating the terms of section 196, the Committee observes, however, that these provisions punish with imprisonment the simple fact of having no fixed abode or means of livelihood and of having no regular trade or occupation in spite of being fit for work and unable to demonstrate efforts to seek work, or of having has refused paid work, and not the fact of having done anything to disturb public order or endanger the safety of persons. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 of the Penal Code solely to persons who engage in unlawful activity or in activities likely to disturb public order. It also requests the Government once again to provide information on the application in practice of section 196 and supply copies of relevant court decisions to enable the Committee to examine the scope of these provisions.

Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the adoption of Act
No. 09-01 of 25 February 2009 amending and supplementing Ordinance No. 66‑156 of 8 June 1966 issuing the Penal Code. The Committee notes that this Act adds a section 5bis to Title 2, Chapter 1 in Volume 3 of Part Two of the Penal Code, concerning the trafficking in persons. It notes that the provisions of this section criminalize trafficking for the purposes of exploitation, including forced labour or service, slavery or slave-like practices, and also servitude. Under the terms of section 303bis 4(2) of the Penal Code as amended by Act No. 09-01, any person convicted of trafficking in persons shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from three to ten years and a fine ranging from DA300,000 to 1 million. The term of imprisonment may be increased to up to 20 years in cases where trafficking is accompanied by various aggravating circumstances. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of these provisions, indicating, in particular, whether any persons have been prosecuted or convicted for engaging in trafficking in persons, as well as the number of cases in progress in the criminal courts and sentences handed down. Please also send copies of the relevant court decisions with the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 2(1) of the Convention. Civic service. Since 1986, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the incompatibility with the Convention of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 on civic service, as amended and supplemented by Act No. 86‑11 of 19 August 1986 and by Act No. 06‑15 of 14 November 2006, under which it is possible to require persons who have completed a course of higher education or training to perform a period of civic service ranging from one to four years before being able to exercise an occupation or obtain employment.

The Government indicated that civic service is a statutory period of work performed for a public administration, body or enterprise in local communities by persons to whom such an obligation applies. It represents a contribution of such persons to the economic, social and cultural development of the country. According to the Government, persons liable to perform civic service have the same rights and obligations as the workers governed by the legislation respecting the general conditions of service of workers, including the right to receive remuneration from the employing entity in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the years of civic service performed are taken into account for purposes of seniority, promotion and retirement, and also in the contract period during which the person concerned is bound to a public body by a training contract. The Government further indicated that persons obliged to perform civic service are assigned exclusively to the specialized branch or discipline in which they were trained.

The Committee noted these explanations. However, it also pointed out that, under sections 32 and 38 of the Act, any refusal to perform civic service and the resignation of the person concerned without valid reason results in the prohibition on their exercising an activity on their own account, and that any infringement will incur the penalties laid down in section 243 of the Penal Code (imprisonment ranging from three months to two years and/or a fine of between 500 and 5,000 DA). Similarly, under sections 33 and 34 of the Act, all private employers are required to satisfy themselves before engaging any workers that applicants are not subject to civic service or can produce documentation proving that they have completed it. Furthermore, any private employer knowingly employing a citizen who has evaded civic service is liable to imprisonment and a fine. Hence, even though persons liable to civic service benefit from conditions of work (remuneration, seniority, promotion, retirement, etc.) similar to those of regular public sector workers, they discharge this service under threat because, in the event of any refusal, they are denied access to any self-employed occupational activity or employment in the private sector. This means that civic service falls within the concept of compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Convention. Furthermore, since it consists of a contribution by the persons concerned to the economic development of the country, this compulsory service violates Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, which has also been ratified by Algeria.

In its report of 2008, the Government explains that civic service currently in force in Algeria may be regarded as an opportunity, given in particular to persons who have completed higher education, to familiarize themselves with the world of work and facilitate their integration into working life. While noting the willingness expressed by the Government in its report to take account of the Committee’s comments, until the removal of the ambiguities resulting from the application of the law has been achieved, the Committee reiterates the hope that the Government will take the necessary steps to repeal or amend the provisions concerned in the light of Conventions Nos 29 and 105 and that the Government will soon be in a position to report on the measures adopted in this respect.

The Committee further noted that under section 2 of Ordinance No. 06‑06 of 15 July 2006, civic service may be performed in private-sector health establishments in accordance with arrangements set forth by regulation. The Committee reminds the Government that, according to Paragraph 3(3) of the Special Youth Schemes Recommendation, 1970 (No. 136), the services of participants should not be used for the advantage of private persons or undertakings. Since the Government has not supplied any information on this point, the Committee reaffirms the hope that the Government will take this into account and again requests it to indicate whether regulations have been adopted to specify arrangements under which civic service may be performed in private-sector health establishments and, if so, to provide a copy. It also again requests the Government to indicate whether, in practice, persons subject to the civic service obligation perform such service in private-sector health establishments, and to supply any other information allowing the extent of this practice to be assessed (number of persons and establishments concerned, length of service, etc.), together with information on the conditions of work of the persons concerned.

Article 2(2)(a). National service. The Committee has been referring for a number of years to Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 November 1974 issuing the National Service Code and the Order of 1 July 1987, under which conscripts are required to take part in the running of various sectors of the economy and administration. The Committee noted that they are further required to perform civic service for a period ranging from one to four years, as referred to above. The Committee recalled that, under the terms of Article 2(2)(a), of the Convention, compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only where conscripts are assigned to work of a purely military character.

The Government indicated in a previous report that the civic form of national service had not been used since 2001. The Government explained that this de facto suspension would be reflected in law as soon as the reform of the National Service Code was placed on the agenda. As the Government has not provided any information on this point, the Committee again requests it to provide information on any developments in this matter showing that the national legislation has been aligned with practice and hence with the provisions of the Convention, and to provide copies of the relevant texts.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

1. Articles 1 (paragraph 1), and 2 (paragraph 1), of the Convention. Freedom of seafarers to leave their employment. In its previous comments the Committee noted that section 67 of the standard conditions of service of seafarers (Decree No. 88-171 of 13 September 1988) provides that the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory. It noted that section 65 of the conditions of service provided for a six-month period of notice for officers and three months’ notice for other ranks. The Committee notes that Decree No. 88-171 of 13 September 1988 was repealed by Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005 establishing the conditions of employment of seafarers in merchant shipping and fisheries. It notes with regret that section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 reproduces the provisions of section 67 of Decree No. 88-171. Moreover, it notes that section 53 provides that any seafarer wishing to terminate an employment relationship must inform the shipowner in writing, and the latter has 15 days following receipt of the letter to accept or refuse the resignation request. If there is no reply from the shipowner during the 15‑day period, the resignation request is deemed to have been accepted (section 55(3)).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement, in its supplementary reports received in November 2008 and January 2009, that the provision establishing that the employment relationship may on no account be terminated outside the national territory has been maintained with a view to protecting both the interests of seafarers, by removing the possibility of arbitrary dismissal, and those of the shipowner, by preventing the latter from having to bear undue costs connected with repatriation and replacement of the seafarer. However, the Government explains that, if the contract expires during a stopover in a foreign port, the seafarer retains the possibility of leaving the vessel with the shipowner then being responsible for all necessary measures for the seafarer’s repatriation.

While noting these explanations, the Committee is bound to make the same comment as it did with regard to the former provisions, namely that, even though section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 protects seafarers against dismissal which could result in being put off the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not enable a seafarer to leave his employment after expiry of the notice period if he is not on national territory at that time. The Committee emphasizes once again that the provision prohibiting seafarers from terminating their employment, even after the completion of the statutory period of notice, while they are outside the national territory has the effect of turning a contractual relationship voluntarily entered into by the parties into service imposed by law for an indefinite period. The Committee therefore requests the Government to repeal or amend section 56 of Executive Decree No. 05-102 of 26 March 2005. Moreover, it asks the Government to indicate the nature and content of the commitments undertaken by officers at the time of recruitment, given that section 53(2) of Executive Decree No. 05-102 states that officers can only leave their employment after fulfilling all the commitments which they undertook at the time of their recruitment.

2. Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a). Defence forces. Military work. In its previous comments the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 establishing and determining the functions and structure of the people’s defence. The Committee noted that, under sections 1 and 3 of the Act, citizens between 18 and 60 years of age are subject to the obligations of the people’s defence, set up within the framework of the national defence; under section 8, the conditions for the deployment of the people’s defence forces in peace time are set out in regulations; and, by virtue of section 9, with respect to economic defence, the people’s defence forces participate in the protection of the units of production and the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country. The application of section 9 of the Act is determined by means of regulations.

The Committee noted the Government’s repeated indications that the regulations concerning the application of section 9 of Act No. 87-16 had not yet been adopted. It also requested information on the application of section 9 in practice. It noted the information sent by the Government to the effect that Act No. 87-16 had become obsolete since it had never been applied in practice since its enactment.

Noting that the Government has once again omitted to supply the requested information, the Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to bring its legislation into conformity with practice and consequently with the present provisions of the Convention. It trusts that the Government will be in a position to provide information on this point in its next report.

3. Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (d). Detention and work imposed under martial law or a state of emergency. In its previous comments the Committee referred to certain provisions of the national legislation concerning martial law on the one hand, and a state of emergency, on the other.

As regards the provisions of martial law, the Committee referred to Executive Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991 determining the limits and conditions of referral to a security centre pursuant to section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 91‑196 of 4 June 1991 proclaiming martial law. Under the abovementioned Executive Decree, adults whose activities endangered public order and safety or the normal operation of public services through their refusal to comply with a written requisition order issued by the authority exercising police powers and the power to maintain public order, thereby seriously affecting the functioning of the national economy, or by opposing the execution of a requisition order issued by reason of the emergency and the need for services to be provided by a public or private service, could be detained in a security centre for a period of 45 days, which could be renewed only once. The Committee noted the Government’s information to the effect that Executive Decree No. 91-201 was now ipso jure null and void, martial law having been lifted by Presidential Decree No. 91-336 of 22 September 1991.

As regards the legislation relating to the state of emergency, the Committee previously noted that security centres were established under Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992 declaring a state of emergency, and that detention in a security centre was imposed under section 3 of Executive Decree No. 92-75 of 20 February 1992 establishing the conditions for the implementation of certain provisions of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992. According to the Government, all the security centres which had been opened had since been closed.

While noting the Government’s statement in its supplementary report received in January 2009 that the state of emergency would be lifted when the conditions which had led to its introduction no longer existed, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on any changes that have occurred in practice with regard to measures concerning detention in security centres.

The Committee is making additional comments in a direct request concerning the application of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), which refer to other provisions of the legislation relating to the state of emergency and which are contrary to the latter Convention.

4. Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (c). Prison labour. Hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. In its previous comments the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 issuing the Code on the organization of prisons and the social rehabilitation of prisoners, particularly those of section 100(2), permitting the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises involved in the performance of work of public interest. The Committee noted that no provision of the Prison Code stated that there was any need to obtain the consent of the prisoners concerned to work for private persons.

The Committee notes the information sent by the Government in its reports received in 2008 and 2009, in reply to its previous comments on this point. It notes that work done by a prisoner can only be on a voluntary basis, in the context of training and learning, and primarily at the request of the prisoner himself following the submission of his request to the Committee for the Enforcement of Sentences and with the agreement of the latter. The prisoner’s file contains either the prisoner’s request to work under the external worksite scheme or in open establishments, or a document containing the explicit consent of the prisoner to work. The Government explains that this scheme is applicable to both public and private enterprises. Moreover, the Government states that no penalty whatsoever may be imposed on any prisoners who refuse to work for private enterprises. According to the Government, such refusal would in no way deprive them of the benefit of one of the rehabilitation or reintegration schemes, particularly conditional release, “semi-freedom” and prison leave. As regards the supervision of prisoners performing prison work, the Government states that this is still the responsibility of prison officers and cannot be assigned to the employing enterprise. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Inter-Ministerial Order of 12 December 2005 fixing the pay scale for prison labour. Under the terms of this scale, the rate of pay varies from 20 per cent to 60 per cent of the guaranteed national minimum wage according to the level of skills, namely 20 per cent for unskilled labour, 40 per cent for skilled labour and 60 per cent for specialized labour. The Government explains that prisoners also have social security coverage. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that in practice no prisoner has been employed by a private enterprise.

The Committee duly notes this information. It requests the Government to continue to supply information on the application in practice of the provisions of the Code on the organization of prisons permitting the hiring out of prison labour to private enterprises. It also requests the Government to indicate provisions of the national legislation requiring the consent of prisoners to work for private persons, as indicated by the Government in its report. Finally, it requests the Government to indicate provisions of the national legislation establishing the guarantees mentioned by the Government in its report.

5. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, according to section 196 of the Penal Code, any person of no fixed abode and no means of livelihood who ordinarily exercises no trade or occupation although fit for work and is unable to show that he or she has sought work or has refused an offer of paid work shall be deemed guilty of vagrancy and shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to six months. The Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the above definition of vagrancy is not limited to activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order and is therefore tantamount to an indirect constraint to work, which is contrary to the provisions of the Convention. It also noted that section 195 of the Penal Code prescribes the same penalty for anyone regularly engaging in begging. The Committee asked the Government to supply information on the application in practice of section 196 of the Penal Code and to supply copies of relevant court decisions. It also asked the Government to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 solely to persons engaging in activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb public order.

In its reply the Government indicates that the magistrates, in handling vagrancy issues, do not take account of the possibility for a person to work or of the fact that a person exercises no trade or occupation. In the light of the information supplied by the Government, the Committee understands that section 196 of the Penal Code is used solely for the purpose of preventing offences disturbing public order or endangering the safety of persons. Reiterating the terms of section 196, the Committee observes, however, that these provisions punish with imprisonment the simple fact of having no fixed abode or means of livelihood and of having no regular trade or occupation in spite of being fit for work and unable to demonstrate efforts to seek work, or of having has refused paid work, and not the fact of having done anything to disturb public order or endanger the safety of persons. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 of the Penal Code solely to persons who engage in unlawful activity or in activities likely to disturb public order. It also requests the Government once again to provide information on the application in practice of section 196 and supply copies of relevant court decisions to enable the Committee to examine the scope of these provisions.

6. Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 09-01 of 25 February 2009 amending and supplementing Ordinance No. 66‑156 of 8 June 1966 issuing the Penal Code. The Committee notes with interest that this Act adds a section 5bis to Title 2, Chapter 1 in Volume 3 of Part Two of the Penal Code, concerning the trafficking in persons. It notes that the provisions of this section criminalize trafficking for the purposes of exploitation, including forced labour or service, slavery or slave-like practices, and also servitude. Under the terms of section 303bis 4(2) of the Penal Code as amended by Act No. 09-01, any person convicted of trafficking in persons shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from three to ten years and a fine ranging from DA 300,000 to 1 million. The term of imprisonment may be increased to up to 20 years in cases where trafficking is accompanied by various aggravating circumstances. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of these provisions, indicating, in particular, whether any persons have been prosecuted or convicted for engaging in trafficking in persons, as well as the number of cases in progress in the criminal courts and sentences handed down. Please also send copies of the relevant court decisions with the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Civic service. Since 1986, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the incompatibility with the Convention of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 on civic service, as amended and supplemented by Act No. 86‑11 of 19 August 1986 and by Act No. 06‑15 of 14 November 2006, under which it is possible to require persons who have completed a course of higher education or training to perform a period of civic service ranging from one to four years before being able to exercise an occupation or obtain employment.

The Government indicated in a previous report that civic service is a statutory period of work performed for a public administration, body or enterprise in local communities by persons to whom such an obligation applies. It represents a contribution of such persons to the economic, social and cultural development of the country. According to the Government, persons liable to perform civic service have the same rights and obligations as the workers governed by the legislation respecting the general conditions of service of workers, including the right to receive remuneration from the employing entity in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the years of civic service performed are taken into account for purposes of seniority, promotion and retirement, and also in the contract period during which the person concerned is bound to a public body by a training contract. The Government further indicated that persons obliged to perform civic service are assigned exclusively to the specialized branch or discipline in which they were trained.

The Committee noted these explanations. However, it also pointed out that, under sections 32 and 38 of the Act, any refusal to perform civic service and the resignation of the person concerned without valid reason results in the prohibition on their exercising an activity on their own account, and that any infringement will incur the penalties laid down in section 243 of the Penal Code (imprisonment ranging from three months to two years and/or a fine of between 500 and 5,000 DA). Similarly, under sections 33 and 34 of the Act, all private employers are required to satisfy themselves before engaging any workers that applicants are not subject to civic service or can produce documentation proving that they have completed it. Furthermore, any private employer knowingly employing a citizen who has evaded civic service is liable to imprisonment and a fine. Hence, even though persons liable to civic service benefit from conditions of work (remuneration, seniority, promotion, retirement, etc.) similar to those of regular public sector workers, they discharge this service under threat because, in the event of any refusal, they are denied access to any self-employed occupational activity or employment in the private sector. This means that civic service falls within the concept of compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Convention. Furthermore, since it consists of a contribution by the persons concerned to the economic development of the country, this compulsory service violates Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, which has also been ratified by Algeria.

In its report of 2008, the Government explains that civic service currently in force in Algeria may be regarded as an opportunity, given in particular to persons who have completed higher education, to familiarize themselves with the world of work and facilitate their integration into working life. While noting the willingness expressed by the Government in its report to take account of the Committee’s comments, until the removal of the ambiguities resulting from the application of the law has been achieved, the Committee reiterates the hope that the Government will take the necessary steps to repeal or amend the provisions concerned in the light of Conventions Nos 29 and 105 and that the Government will soon be in a position to report on the measures adopted in this respect.

The Committee further noted that under section 2 of Ordinance No. 06‑06 of 15 July 2006, civic service may be performed in private-sector health establishments in accordance with arrangements set forth by regulation. The Committee reminds the Government that, according to Paragraph 3(3) of the Special Youth Schemes Recommendation, 1970 (No. 136), the services of participants should not be used for the advantage of private persons or undertakings. Since the Government has not supplied any information on this point, the Committee reaffirms the hope that the Government will take this into account and again requests it to indicate whether regulations have been adopted to specify arrangements under which civic service may be performed in private-sector health establishments and, if so, to provide a copy. It also again requests the Government to indicate whether, in practice, persons subject to the civic service obligation perform such service in private-sector health establishments, and to supply any other information allowing the extent of this practice to be assessed (number of persons and establishments concerned, length of service, etc.), together with information on the conditions of work of the persons concerned.

Article 2, paragraph 2(a). National service. The Committee has been referring for a number of years to Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 November 1974 issuing the National Service Code and the Order of 1 July 1987, under which conscripts are required to take part in the running of various sectors of the economy and administration. The Committee noted that they are further required to perform civic service for a period ranging from one to four years, as referred to above. The Committee recalled that, under the terms of Article 2(2)(a), of the Convention, compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only where conscripts are assigned to work of a purely military character.

The Government indicated in a previous report that the civic form of national service had not been used since 2001. The Government explained that this de facto suspension would be reflected in law as soon as the reform of the National Service Code was placed on the agenda. As the Government has not provided any information on this point, the Committee again requests it to provide information on any developments in this matter showing that the national legislation has been aligned with practice and hence with the provisions of the Convention, and to provide copies of the relevant texts.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes that the Government has sent no information in response to the first three points of its previous direct request. Consequently, it is bound to repeat its previous comments concerning these matters.

1. Articles (1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Freedom of seafarers to leave their employment. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 67 of the model conditions of service of seafarers (Decree No. 88-17 of 13 September 1988) provides that the employment relationship may in no event be terminated outside the national territory. Section 65 of the conditions of service provide for a three-month period of notice for hands and supervisors and six months for officers.

The Committee noted previously that, although section 67 of the conditions of service protects seafarers against dismissal which may result in their being put off the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not permit seafarers to leave their employment after completion of the period of notice if, at the time, they are not on national territory. After having requested the Government to re‑examine this provision and indicate the measures taken to bring it into conformity with the Convention, the Committee noted that Decree No. 88‑17 had been submitted for examination to the relevant department of the Ministry of Transport.

The Committee noted the explanations provided by the Government in its report which confirmed that the employment relationship cannot in any event be terminated outside the national territory.

The Committee considered that the provision prohibiting seafarers from terminating their employment, even after the completion of the statutory period of notice, while they are outside the national territory, has the effect of turning a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law for a period without limit of time.

As the Government has not provided any information on this subject in its latest report, the Committee once again requests it, first, to re-examine Decree No. 88-17 of 13 September 1988 in the light of the explanations provided in paragraphs 67–73 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour and to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that seafarers can terminate their employment by giving a reasonable period of notice. It would also be grateful if the Government would indicate the nature and provide a list of the commitments undertaken by officers at the time of recruitment, since officers can only leave their employment after fulfilling all the commitments which they have undertaken.

2. Article 2(2)(a). Defence forces. Non-military work. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 to set up and determine the functions and organization of the people’s defence. The Committee noted that, under sections 1 and 3 of the Act, citizens aged between 18 and 60 years inclusive are subject to the obligations of the people’s defence, set up within the framework of the national defence; under section 8, the conditions for the deployment of the people’s defence forces in peacetime are set out in regulations; and, by virtue of section 9 with respect to economic defence, the people’s defence forces participate in the protection of production units and the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country. The application of section 9 of the Act is determined by means of regulations.

The Committee noted the Government’s repeated indications that the regulations on the application of section 9 had not yet been adopted and it requested information on the effect given in practice to section 9 of Act No. 87‑16. It noted the information sent by the Government to the effect that Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 had fallen into abeyance, never having been applied since its enactment.

The Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention and with the indicated practice. Please also provide information on this matter in the next report.

3. Article 2(2)(c) and (d). Detention and work exacted in emergency under martial law. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under sections 4 and 5 of Executive Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991 determining the limits and conditions of referral to a security centre, issued under section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 91-196 proclaiming martial law, the military authorities, which were assigned police powers, can make detention orders against adults whose activities endanger public order and safety or the normal operation of public services (section 4(1)) through their refusal to comply with a written requisition order issued by the authority exercising the powers of the police and the maintenance of public order, thereby seriously affecting the functioning of the national economy (section 4(6)), or by opposing the execution of a requisition order issued by reason of the emergency and the need for services to be provided by a public or private service (section 4(7)). The period of detention in a security centre was set at 45 days, which could be renewed only once (section 5).

With reference to the explanations provided in paragraphs 63–66 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee indicated that it should be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour is to be limited to what is strictly required in order to cope with circumstances endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government in its last report to the effect that Executive Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991, issued under section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 91-196 of 4 June 1991 proclaiming martial law, was now officially null and void, even though it has not explicitly been repealed, as martial law was raised by Presidential Decree No. 91-336 of 22 September 1991. It noted that security centres were established under section 5(2) of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992 declaring a state of emergency, as supplemented, and that detention in a security centre was imposed under section 3 of Executive Decree No. 92-75 of 20 February 1992 establishing the conditions for the implementation of certain provisions of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992. According to the Government, all the security centres which were opened had since been closed.

The Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to bring its legislation into line with the practice and to provide information on this matter in its next report.

4. Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. Hiring of prison labour to private enterprises. In its previous direct request, the Committee recalled that, under these provisions of the Convention, the term “forced or compulsory labour” does not include any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The Committee has pointed out in its previous General Surveys, including its most recent General Survey of 2007, paragraphs 59–60, that, provided convicted prisoners voluntarily consent to such work without being subjected to pressure or menace, such work does not fall within the scope of the Convention. At the same time the Committee has indicated that, bearing in mind the captive circumstances of prisoners, there must be safeguards to ensure their consent is given freely and voluntarily. The Committee in paragraphs 114–122 of the General Survey of 2007 discussed the safeguards which include not only written formal consent but, further, that the most reliable indicator of voluntariness of the labour is if the work is performed under conditions which approximate a free labour relationship. Factors to be taken into account in such circumstances would include, for example, that there was a level of wages and social security provisions which approximate a free labour relationship. In addition, the Committee in the General Survey of 2007 indicated that other factors that can be regarded as objective and measurable advantages which the prisoner gains from the actual performance of the work could be considered in determining whether free and informed consent is given. The Committee gave examples such as learning new skills which could be deployed by prisoners when released; the offer of continuing the work of the same type upon their release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively in a controlled environment enabling them to develop team skills. The Committee indicated that all of these factors should be taken as a whole in determining whether consent was freely given and they should be considered and assessed by the public authorities.

The Committee notes the provisions of Act No. 05-04 of 6 February 2005 issuing the Code on the organization of prisons and the social rehabilitation of prisoners. It notes that, according to section 48 of the Code, remand prisoners are not required to work other than to perform the tasks needed to keep the premises clean, and that the prison doctor must first be consulted for this purpose. In relation to convicted prisoners, sections 100–103 of the Code refer to external worksites:

–      section 100(1) provides that, under the external worksite regime, sentenced prisoners work in teams under the supervision of the prison administration outside the establishment performing tasks for public institutions and establishments;

–      section 100(2) provides that the hiring of prison labour may also be authorized under the same conditions to private enterprises involved in the performance of work of public interest;

–      section 102(4) indicates that the prison staff are responsible for supervision outside the establishment, on worksites, and during transfers and rest periods. However, the Code also allows for the employer body to be made partly responsible for this supervision requirement;

–      under section 103(1), requests for the hiring of prison labour are addressed to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences, who then submits them to the Committee for the Execution of Sentences for an opinion. Where such requests are approved, an agreement to establishing general and specific conditions of employment for prison labour is concluded with the requesting body;

–      under section 103(2), the agreement is signed jointly by a representative of the requesting body and the director of the prison establishment.

In addition, the Committee notes the following provisions:

–      section 115(1) sets up a public establishment to be responsible for the employment of prison labour;

–      section 115(2) provides for the duties, organization and running of the establishment to be set by regulation;

–      section 160 provides that, except in the event of incompatibility, prisoners assigned to a job or to tasks are covered by the provisions of the labour and social protection legislation in force;

–      under section 162, remuneration is paid to prisoners for all work done, on the basis of a pay scale established jointly by the Minister of Justice, Keeper of the Seals and the Minister responsible for labour;

–      section 164 allows the prison administration to conclude agreements with public or private bodies for the purpose of improving the management of prison establishments and achieving the objectives of rehabilitating prisoners and reintegrating them into society.

The Committee notes that none of the abovementioned provisions of the Code on the organization of prisons provides that convicted persons must give their consent freely and without the menace of any penalty whatsoever in the broad sense of Article 2(1) of the Convention to working for private enterprises. It notes that, according to these provisions, an agreement setting forth working conditions for prison labour is concluded between the prison establishment and the private enterprise, but that there is no employment contract binding the private employer and the prison worker. In view of the foregoing, the Committee requests the Government:

–      to indicate the measures taken or envisaged so that the voluntary character of the hiring of prisoners to private enterprises be reflected in the national legislation;

–      to communicate information on the application in practice of the provisions of the Code on the organization of prisons that allow the hiring of prison labour to private enterprises: number of prisoners and private enterprises concerned, occupations concerned, guarantees in terms of remuneration and occupational safety and health, etc.;

–      to provide copies of agreements concluded between prison establishments and private enterprises;

–      to provide a copy of the pay scales referred to in section 162 of the Code, also establishing a comparison with the remuneration of free workers;

–      to indicate whether prisoners may refuse to work for private enterprises and, if so, whether they may be exposed to sanctions for doing so, in particular in relation to the possibility of having their sentences reduced or arranged;

–      to indicate how the supervision of detainees is guaranteed in practice in the event that the employer body is made partly responsible for this supervision requirement;

–      to provide copies of the texts adopted for the application of the Code on the organization of prisons.

5. Punishment of vagrancy. The Committee notes that, according to section 196 of the Penal Code, a vagrant is anyone of no fixed abode and no means of livelihood who ordinarily exercises no trade or occupation although fit for work and who is unable to show that he or she has sought work or who has refused remunerated work offered. Section 196 further provides that vagrancy shall be punished by a prison term of from one to six months. The Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that the above definition of vagrancy is not limited to activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb the public order and can therefore amount to an indirect constraint to work, which is contrary to the provisions of the Convention. It notes that section 195 of the Penal Code applies the same penalty to anyone engaging regularly in begging. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the application in practice of section 196 of the Penal Code, including copies of relevant court decisions. It also requests the Government to take steps to limit the scope of section 196 solely to persons engaging in activities that are unlawful or likely to disturb the public order.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Article 2(1) of the Convention. Civic service. Since 1986, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the incompatibility with the Convention of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 on civic service, as amended and supplemented by Act No. 86‑11 of 19 August 1986, under which it was possible to require persons who had completed a course of higher education or training to perform a period of civic service of from two to four years in order to obtain employment or exercise an occupation. The Committee notes that Ordinance No. 06-06 of 15 July 2006, approved by Act No. 06-15 of 14 November 2006, has lowered the minimum length of civic service from two years to one year. Consequently, the length of civic service may now vary, depending on the training and the geographical area, from one to four years instead of the former two to four years. The Committee points out that this reduction in length of the minimum civic service in no way changes the fact that the service is exacted under the menace of a penalty within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Convention, and therefore amounts to forced labour under the terms of the Convention.

The Government indicated in a previous report that civic service is a statutory period of work performed for a public administration, body or enterprise in local communities by persons submitted to the civic service. It represents the contribution of these persons to the economic, social and cultural development of the country. According to the Government, persons covered by civic service have the same rights and obligations as the workers governed by the legislation respecting the general conditions of service of workers, including the right to receive remuneration from the employing entity in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the years of civic service performed are taken into account for purposes of seniority, promotion and retirement, as well as in the contract period during which the person concerned is bound to a public body by a training contract. The Government further indicated that persons covered by civic service are assigned exclusively to the specialized branch or discipline in which they were trained.

The Committee took due note of these explanations. However, it also pointed out that under sections 32 and 38 of the Act, refusal to perform civic service and the resignation of the person concerned without acceptable grounds result in their prohibition from exercising an activity on their own account, and that any violation is punishable under section 243 of the Penal Code. Similarly, under sections 33 and 34 of the Act, before they engage workers, all private employers are required to satisfy themselves that applicants are not covered by civic service or can produce documentation proving that they have discharged it, and that any private employer knowingly employing a citizen who has evaded civic service is liable to imprisonment and a fine. Therefore, although the persons liable to civic service benefit from working conditions (remuneration, seniority, promotion, retirement, etc.) similar to those of regular public sector workers, they discharge this service under a menace because, in the event of refusal, they are denied access to any professional self-employed activity or to any employment in the private sector, as a result of which civic service falls within the concept of compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Convention. Furthermore, since it consists of a contribution by the persons concerned to the economic development of the country, this compulsory service violates Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, which has also been ratified by Algeria.

The Committee again reiterates that forced labour means any 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. Referring once again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 55 to 62 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken to repeal or amend the provisions in question in the light of Conventions Nos 29 and 105 and that the Government will soon be able to report on the measures adopted in this respect.

The Committee further notes that under section 2 of Ordinance No. 06-06 of 15 July 2006, civic service may be performed in private sector health establishments in accordance with arrangements set forth in regulations. The Committee refers the Government to paragraph 56 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour in which it pointed out that according to Paragraph 3(3) of the Special Youth Schemes Recommendation, 1970 (No. 136), the services of participants should not be used for the advantage of private persons or undertakings. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will take this into account, and requests it to indicate whether regulations have been adopted to specify arrangements under which civic service may be performed in private sector health establishments and, if so, to provide a copy. Please also indicate whether, in practice, persons subject to the civic service requirement perform such service in private sector health establishments, and provide any other information allowing the extent of this practice to be assessed (number of persons and establishments concerned, length of service, etc.) together with information on the working conditions of the persons concerned.

Article 2(2)(a). National service. For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 November 1974 issuing the National Service Code, under which conscripts are required to take part in the running of various sectors of the economy and the administration. It has also referred to the Order of 1 July 1987, under which conscripts, after three months of military training, must serve in priority sectors of national activity, and particularly as teachers. The Committee noted that they are further required to perform civic service for a period of between one and four years, as explained above. The Committee recalled that, under the terms of Article 2(2)(a) of the Convention, compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only where conscripts are assigned to work of a purely military character.

The Committee notes the information on this matter sent by the Government in its last report to the effect that the civic form of national service has not been used since 2001. It notes the Government’s statement that this de facto suspension will be reflected in law as soon as the reform of the National Service Code is placed on the agenda. The Committee requests the Government to send information on any developments in this matter showing that the national legislation has been aligned with practice and hence with the provisions of the Convention, and to provide copies of the relevant texts.

The Committee is addressing a request on other matters directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

1. Freedom of seafarers to leave their employment. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 67 of the model conditions of service of seafarers (Decree No. 88-17 of 13 September 1988) provides that the employment relationship may in no event be terminated outside the national territory. Section 65 of the conditions of service provide for a three-month period of notice for hands and supervisors and six months for officers.

The Committee noted previously that, although section 67 of the conditions of service protects seafarers against dismissal which may result in their being put off the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not permit seafarers to leave their employment after completion of the period of notice if, at the time, they are not on national territory. After requesting the Government to re-examine this provision and indicate the measures taken to bring it into conformity with the Convention, the Committee noted that Decree No. 88-17 had been submitted for examination to the relevant department of the Ministry of Transport.

The Committee noted the explanations provided by the Government in its report which confirmed that the employment relationship cannot in any event be terminated outside the national territory.

The Committee considered that the provision prohibiting seafarers from terminating their employment, even after the completion of the statutory period of notice, while they are outside the national territory, has the effect of turning a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law for a period without limit of time.

As the Government has not provided any information on this subject in its latest report, the Committee once again requests it, firstly, to re-examine Decree No. 88-17 of 13 September 1988 in the light of the explanations provided in paragraphs 67 to 73 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour and to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that seafarers can terminate their employment by giving a reasonable period of notice. It would also be grateful if the Government would indicate the nature and provide a list of the commitments undertaken by officers at the time of recruitment, since officers can only leave their employment after fulfilling all the commitments which they have undertaken.

2. Article 2, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 to set up and determine the functions and organization of the people’s defence. The Committee noted that, under sections 1 and 3 of the Act, citizens aged between 18 and 60 years inclusive are subject to the obligations of the people’s defence, set up within the framework of the national defence; under section 8, the conditions for the deployment of the people’s defence forces in peacetime are set out in regulations; and, by virtue of section 9 with respect to economic defence, the people’s defence forces participate in the protection of production units and the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country. The application of section 9 of the Act is determined by means of regulations.

The Committee noted the Government’s repeated indications that the regulations on the application of section 9 had not yet been adopted and it requested information on the effect given in practice to section 9 of Act No. 87-16.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its latest report to the effect that Act No. 87-16, of 1 August 1987, has fallen into abeyance, as it has never been given effect since its enactment.

While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with practice and, by the same token, with these provisions of the Convention. It also requests the Government to continue providing information on this subject in its next report.

3. Article 2, paragraph 2(c) and (d). In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under sections 4 and 5 of Executive Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991 determining the limits and conditions of referral to a security centre, issued under section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 91-196 proclaiming martial law, the military authorities, which were assigned the powers of the police, can make detention orders against adults whose activities endanger public order and safety or the normal operation of public services (section 4(1)) through their refusal to comply with a written requisition order issued by the authority exercising the powers of the police and the maintenance of public order, thereby seriously affecting the functioning of the national economy (section 4(6)), or by opposing the execution of a requisition order issued by reason of the emergency and the need for services to be provided by a public or private service (section 4(7)). The period of detention in a security centre was set at 45 days, which could be renewed only once (section 5).

With reference to the explanations provided in paragraphs 63 to 66 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee indicated that it should be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour is to be limited to what is strictly required in order to cope with circumstances endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its last report to the effect that Executive Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991, issued under section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 91-196 of 4 June 1991 proclaiming martial law, is now officially null and void, even though it has not explicitly been repealed, as martial law was raised by Presidential Decree No. 91-336 of 22 September 1991. It notes that security centres were established under section 5(2) of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992 declaring a state of emergency, as supplemented, and that detention in a security centre was imposed under section 3 of Executive Decree No. 92-75 of 20 February 1992 establishing the conditions for the implementation of certain provisions of Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992. According to the Government, all the security centres which were opened have since been closed.

While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with practice and to continue providing information on this subject in its next report.

4. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its general observation of 1998. It notes that, according to the Government, section 143 of Ordinance No. 72-02 of 10 February 1972 issuing the Code on prison organization and rehabilitation provides that convicts may be employed in the context of external worksites, thereby establishing the possibility of assigning detainees outside the establishment and under the supervision of the prison administration to work of general interest carried out on behalf of public administrations or communities, public establishments and enterprises and the self-managed sector, although excluding the private sector. According to the Government, section 146 of the Ordinance of 10 February 1972 provides that the assignment of convicts to either of the systems envisaged by the Code on prison organization is decided upon by the Minister of Justice, upon the proposal of the magistrate for the application of penal sentences, based on the opinion of the Classification and Disciplinary Commission.

The Committee notes the information that it is planned to include in the draft text amending the Code on prison organization private enterprises the activities of which lie within the scope of work of general interest. The Committee indicates that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, the term "forced or compulsory labour" does not include any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The Committee refers to its 1979 General Survey, in which it considered that "provided the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that the persons concerned offer themselves voluntarily without being subjected to pressure or the menace of any penalty, such employment does not fall within the scope of the Convention" (paragraph 97). Among the guarantees which should be afforded to prisoners, the Committee enumerated the payment of normal wages and social security, and the consent of trade unions.

The Committee also refers to its general observation of 2001, and particularly paragraph 10, in which it recalled the conditions for the private employment of prisoners. The Committee indicated that in order to comply with the Convention, the work of prisoners for private companies requires the freely given consent of the workers concerned, without the menace of any penalty in the wide sense of Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, such as loss of privileges or an unfavourable assessment of behaviour taken into account for reduction of sentence.

It added that, in the context of a captive labour force having no alternative access to the free labour market, free consent to a form of employment going prima facie against the letter of the Convention needs to be authenticated by arm’s length conditions of employment approximating a free labour relationship, such as the existence of a labour contract between the prisoner and the private company using his or her labour and free labour market oriented conditions regarding wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and safety and health.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take these elements into account when reviewing the Code on prison organization and requests it to provide a copy of the revised Code once it has been adopted, together with its implementing regulations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

1. Civic service. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided any information in reply to its comments on this subject. It is therefore bound to reiterate its previous request.

Since 1986, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the incompatibility with the Convention of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 respecting civic service, as amended in 1986, which require persons who have completed a course of higher education or training to perform a period of civic service of between two and four years in order to obtain employment or exercise an occupation.

On this subject, the Government indicated in a previous report that civic service is a statutory period of work performed for a public administration, body or enterprise in local communities by persons submitted to the civic service. It represents the contribution of these persons to the economic, social and cultural development of the country. According to the Government, persons covered by civic service have the same rights and obligations as the workers governed by the legislation respecting the general conditions of service of workers, including the right to receive remuneration from the employing entity in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the years of civic service performed are taken into account for purposes of seniority, promotion and retirement, as well as in the contract period during which the person concerned is bound to a public body by a training contract. Finally, with regard to the incompatibility noted by the Committee, the Government pointed out that persons covered by civic service are assigned exclusively to the specialized branch or discipline in which they were trained.

The Committee took due note of these explanations. However, it also pointed out that under sections 32 and 38 of the Act, refusal to perform civic service and the resignation of the person concerned without acceptable grounds result in their prohibition from exercising an activity on their own account, such as setting up as a trader, craft worker or promoter of a private economic investment, and that any violation is punishable under section 243 of the Penal Code. Similarly, under sections 33 and 34 of the Act, before they engage workers, all private employers are required to satisfy themselves that applicants are not covered by civic service or can produce documentation proving that they have discharged it, and that any private employer knowingly employing a citizen who has evaded civic service is liable to imprisonment and a fine. Therefore, although the persons liable to civic service benefit from working conditions (remuneration, seniority, promotion, retirement, etc.) similar to those of regular public sector workers, they discharge this service under a menace because, in the event of refusal, they are denied access to any professional self-employed activity or to any employment in the private sector, as a result of which civic service falls within the concept of compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Furthermore, since it consists of a contribution by the persons concerned to the economic development of the country, this compulsory service violates Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, which has also been ratified by Algeria.

The Committee again reiterates that forced labour means any work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered her or himself voluntarily. Referring once again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 55 to 62 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken to repeal or amend the provisions in question in the light of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105 and that the Government will soon be able to report on the measures adopted in this respect.

2. National service. For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to Ordinance No. 74-103, of 15 November 1974, issuing the Code of National Service, under which conscripts are required to contribute to the operation of various economic and administrative sectors. It has also referred to the Order of 1 July 1987, which requires conscripts, after three months of military training, to serve in priority sectors of national activity, and particularly as teachers. The Committee noted that they are also required to perform two, three or four years of civic service (see point 1 above). The Committee recalled that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention, compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only where conscripts are assigned to work of a purely military character.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its last report on this matter, according to which the civil form of national service has been suspended since 2001 by the government authorities.

While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether Ordinance No. 74-103 and the Order of 1 July 1987 have been repealed or amended so that the law is in conformity with practice and, by the same token, with the provisions of the Convention and, if so, to provide copies of the relevant texts.

3. The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on certain other matters.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

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

1. Freedom of seafarers to leave their employment. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 67 of the model conditions of service of seafarers (Decree No. 88-17 of 13 September 1988) lays down that the employment relationship can in no event be terminated outside the national territory. Section 65 of the above conditions of service lays down a three-month period of notice for hands and supervisors and six months for officers.

The Committee notes that, although section 67 of the conditions of service protects seafarers against dismissal which may result in their being put off the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not permit seafarers to leave their employment after completion of the period of notice if, at the time, they are not on national territory. After requesting the Government to re-examine this provision and indicate the measures taken to bring it into conformity with the Convention, the Committee noted that Decree No. 88-17 had been submitted for examination to the relevant department of the Ministry of Transport.

The Committee notes the explanations provided by the Government in its last report which confirm that the employment relationship cannot in any event be terminated outside the national territory.

The Committee considers that the provision which prohibits seafarers from terminating their employment, even after the completion of the statutory period of notice, while they are outside the national territory, has the effect of turning a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law for a period without limit of time.

The Committee requests the Government to re-examine Decree No. 88-17 of 13 September 1988 in the light of the explanations provided in paragraphs 67 to 73 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour and to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that seafarers can terminate their employment by giving a reasonable period of notice. It would also be grateful if the Government would indicate the nature and provide a list of the commitments undertaken by officers at the time of recruitment, since officers can only leave their employment after fulfilling all the commitments which they have undertaken.

2. Article 2, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 to set up and determine the functions and organization of the people’s defence. The Committee notes that: under sections 1 and 3 of the Act, citizens aged between 18 and 60 years inclusive are subject to the obligations of the people’s defence, set up within the framework of the national defence; under section 8, the conditions for the deployment of the people’s defence forces in peacetime are set out in regulations; and, by virtue of section 9 with respect to economic defence, the people’s defence forces participate in the protection of production units and in strengthening the economic capacity of the country. The application of section 9 of the Act is determined by means of regulations.

The Committee noted the Government’s repeated indications that the regulations on the application of section 9 had not yet been adopted and it requested information on the effect given to section 9 of Act No. 87-16 in practice.

In the absence of information on this subject in the Government’s last reports, the Committee refers to the comments contained in its observation on the Convention concerning activities undertaken in the context of national service and once again requests the Government to provide information on the effect given in practice to section 9 of Act No. 87-16 and to indicate the activities covered by the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country, in which the people’s defence forces must participate.

3. Article 2, paragraph 2(c) and (d). In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under sections 4 and 5 of Executive Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991 determining the limits and conditions of referral to a security centre, issued under section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 91-196 proclaiming a state of emergency, the military authorities, which were assigned the powers of the police, can make detention orders against adults whose activities endanger public order and safety or the normal functioning of public services (section 4(1)) through their refusal to comply with a written requisition order issued by the authority exercising the powers of the police and the maintenance of public order, thereby seriously affecting the functioning of the national economy (section 4(6)), or by opposing the execution of a requisition order issued by reason of the state of emergency and the need for services to be provided by a public or private service (section 4(7)). The period of detention in a security centre was set at 45 days, which could be renewed only once (section 5).

The Committee requested the Government on several occasions to provide information on the effect given in practice to the provisions of Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991.

The Government has not provided the information requested in its last reports.

With reference to the explanations provided in paragraphs 63 to 66 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee recalls that it should be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour is to be limited to what is strictly required in order to cope with circumstances endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee once again requests the Government to provide full information on the effect given in practice to the above provisions in order to enable it to assess their scope.

4. Referring to the general observation on the Convention made in its report to the 87th Session of the International Labour Conference (1999), the Committee requests the Government to include in its next report information as to the present position in law and practice as regards:

(i)  whether there are prisons administered by private concerns, profit-making or otherwise;

(ii)  whether any private prison contractors deploy prisoners to work either inside or outside prison premises, either for the account of the contractor or for that of another enterprise;

(iii)  whether private parties are admitted by the prison authorities into prison premises of any kind for the purpose of engaging prisoners in employment;

(iv)  whether employment of prisoners outside prison premises, either for a public authority or for a private enterprise, is allowed;

(v)  the conditions in which employment under any of the above conditions takes place, in respect of remuneration (indicating the level and comparing it with any minimum wage normally applicable to such work), benefits accruing (such as pension rights and workers’ compensation), observance of occupational safety and health legislation and other conditions of employment (e.g. through labour inspection), and how those conditions are determined.

(vi)  what the source of any remuneration is (whether from public or private funds) and for what purposes it must or may be applied (e.g. for the personal use of the prisoner or if it is subject to compulsory deductions);

(vii)how the consent of the prisoners concerned is guaranteed, so that it is free from the menace of any penalty, including any loss of privileges or other disadvantages following from a refusal to work.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters.

1. Civic service. Since 1986 this Committee has drawn the Government’s attention to the incompatibility with the Convention of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984, as amended in 1986, which requires persons who have completed a course of higher education or training, to perform a period of civic service of between two and four years in order to obtain employment or exercise an occupation.

On this subject, the Government states in its latest report that civic service is a statutory period of work performed by persons under the authority of a public administration, body or enterprise in local communities. It represents the contribution of these persons to the economic, social and cultural development of the country. According to the Government, persons covered by civic service have the same rights and obligations as the workers governed by the legislation with regard to the general conditions of service of workers, including the right to receive remuneration at the expense of the employing body in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the years of civic service performed are taken into account for purposes of seniority, promotion and retirement, as well as in the contract period during which the person concerned is bound to a public body by a training contract. Finally, with regard to the incompatibility noted by the Committee, the Government recalls that persons covered by civic service carry out this service exclusively in the specialized branch or discipline in which they have been trained.

The Committee takes due note of these explanations. However, it also points out that under sections 32 and 38 of the Act, refusal to perform civic service and the resignation of the person concerned without acceptable grounds results in their prohibition from exercising an activity on their own account, such as setting up as a trader, craftworker or promoter of a private economic investment, and that any violation is punishable under section 243 of the Penal Code. Similarly, under sections 33 and 34 of the Act, all private employers before engaging workers are required to satisfy themselves that applicants are not covered by civic service or can produce documentation proving that they have discharged it, and that any private employer knowingly employing a citizen who has evaded civic service is liable to imprisonment and a fine. Therefore, although the persons liable to civic service benefit from working conditions (remuneration, seniority, promotion, retirement, etc.) similar to those of regular public sector workers, they discharge this service under threat because, in the event of their refusal, they are denied access to any professional self-employed activity or to any employment in the private sector. In those circumstances the requirement to perform civic service falls within the concept of compulsory labour contained in Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Furthermore, since it consists of a contribution by the persons concerned to the economic development of the country, this compulsory service violates Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, which has also been ratified by Algeria.

The Committee recalls that forced labour means 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 her or himself voluntarily. Referring again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 55 to 62 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken to repeal or amend the provisions in question in the light of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105 and that the Government will soon be able to report on the provisions adopted to this end.

2. National service. In its earlier comments since 1988, the Committee has referred to Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 November 1974 issuing the National Service Code, under which conscripts are required to contribute to the operation of various economic and administrative sectors. It has also referred to the Order of 1 July 1987, which requires conscripts, after three months of military training, to serve in priority sectors of national activity, and particularly as teachers. The Committee notes that these are also required to perform two, three or four years of civic service (see point 1 above). The Committee recalled that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention, compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only where conscripts are assigned to work of a purely military character. In the absence of information in the Government’s latest report on this point, the Committee trusts that the needs of public education and other non-military sectors will be met without having recourse to compulsory labour and that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention on this matter. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to report that the relevant provisions of the national legislation have been amended or repealed.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on certain other matters.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

1. Freedom of seafarers to leave their employment. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 67 of the model conditions of service of seafarers (Decree No. 88-17 of 13 September 1988) lays down that the employment relationship can in no event be terminated outside the national territory. Section 65 of the above conditions of service lays down a three-month period of notice for hands and supervisors and six months for officers.

The Committee notes that, although section 67 of the conditions of service protects seafarers against dismissal which may result in their being put off the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not permit seafarers to leave their employment after completion of the period of notice if, at the time, they are not on national territory. After requesting the Government to re-examine this provision and indicate the measures taken to bring it into conformity with the Convention, the Committee noted that Decree No. 88-17 had been submitted for examination to the relevant department of the Ministry of Transport.

The Committee notes the explanations provided by the Government in its last report which confirm that the employment relationship cannot in any event be terminated outside the national territory.

The Committee considers that the provision which prohibits seafarers from terminating their employment, even after the completion of the statutory period of notice, while they are outside the national territory, has the effect of turning a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law for a period without limit of time.

The Committee requests the Government to re-examine Decree No. 88-17 of 13 September 1988 in the light of the explanations provided in paragraphs 67 to 73 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour and to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that seafarers can terminate their employment by giving a reasonable period of notice. It would also be grateful if the Government would indicate the nature and provide a list of the commitments undertaken by officers at the time of recruitment, since officers can only leave their employment after fulfilling all the commitments which they have undertaken.

2. Article 2, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 to set up and determine the functions and organization of the people's defence. The Committee notes that: under sections 1 and 3 of the Act, citizens aged between 18 and 60 years inclusive are subject to the obligations of the people's defence, set up within the framework of the national defence; under section 8, the conditions for the deployment of the people's defence forces in peacetime are set out in regulations; and, by virtue of section 9 with respect to economic defence, the people's defence forces participate in the protection of production units and in strengthening the economic capacity of the country. The application of section 9 of the Act is determined by means of regulations.

The Committee noted the Government's repeated indications that the regulations on the application of section 9 had not yet been adopted and it requested information on the effect given to section 9 of Act No. 87-16 in practice.

In the absence of information on this subject in the Government's last reports, the Committee refers to the comments contained in its observation on the Convention concerning activities undertaken in the context of national service and once again requests the Government to provide information on the effect given in practice to section 9 of Act No. 87-16 and to indicate the activities covered by the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country, in which the people's defence forces must participate.

3. Article 2, paragraph 2(c) and (d). In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under sections 4 and 5 of Executive Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991 determining the limits and conditions of referral to a security centre, issued under section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 91-196 proclaiming a state of emergency, the military authorities, which were assigned the powers of the police, can make detention orders against adults whose activities endanger public order and safety or the normal functioning of public services (section 4(1)) through their refusal to comply with a written requisition order issued by the authority exercising the powers of the police and the maintenance of public order, thereby seriously affecting the functioning of the national economy (section 4(6)), or by opposing the execution of a requisition order issued by reason of the state of emergency and the need for services to be provided by a public or private service (section 4(7)). The period of detention in a security centre was set at 45 days, which could be renewed only once (section 5).

The Committee requested the Government on several occasions to provide information on the effect given in practice to the provisions of Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991.

The Government has not provided the information requested in its last reports.

With reference to the explanations provided in paragraphs 63 to 66 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee recalls that it should be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour is to be limited to what is strictly required in order to cope with circumstances endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee once again requests the Government to provide full information on the effect given in practice to the above provisions in order to enable it to assess their scope.

4. Referring to the general observation on the Convention made in its report to the 87th Session of the International Labour Conference (1999), the Committee requests the Government to include in its next report information as to the present position in law and practice as regards:

(i) whether there are prisons administered by private concerns, profit-making or otherwise;

(ii) whether any private prison contractors deploy prisoners to work either inside or outside prison premises, either for the account of the contractor or for that of another enterprise;

(iii) whether private parties are admitted by the prison authorities into prison premises of any kind for the purpose of engaging prisoners in employment;

(iv) whether employment of prisoners outside prison premises, either for a public authority or for a private enterprise, is allowed;

(v) the conditions in which employment under any of the above conditions takes place, in respect of remuneration (indicating the level and comparing it with any minimum wage normally applicable to such work), benefits accruing (such as pension rights and workers' compensation), observance of occupational safety and health legislation and other conditions of employment (e.g. through labour inspection), and how those conditions are determined.

(vi) what the source of any remuneration is (whether from public or private funds) and for what purposes it must or may be applied (e.g. for the personal use of the prisoner or if it is subject to compulsory deductions);

(viii) how the consent of the prisoners concerned is guaranteed, so that it is free from the menace of any penalty, including any loss of privileges or other disadvantages following from a refusal to work.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

1. Civic service. Since 1986 this Committee has drawn the Government's attention to the incompatibility with the Convention of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984, as amended in 1986, which requires persons who have completed a course of higher education or training, to perform a period of civic service of between two and four years in order to obtain employment or exercise an occupation.

On this subject, the Government states in its latest report that civic service is a statutory period of work performed by persons under the authority of a public administration, body or enterprise in local communities. It represents the contribution of these persons to the economic, social and cultural development of the country. According to the Government, persons covered by civic service have the same rights and obligations as the workers governed by the legislation with regard to the general conditions of service of workers, including the right to receive remuneration at the expense of the employing body in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the years of civic service performed are taken into account for purposes of seniority, promotion and retirement, as well as in the contract period during which the person concerned is bound to a public body by a training contract. Finally, with regard to the incompatibility noted by the Committee, the Government recalls that persons covered by civic service carry out this service exclusively in the specialized branch or discipline in which they have been trained.

The Committee takes due note of these explanations. However, it also points out that under sections 32 and 38 of the Act, refusal to perform civic service and the resignation of the person concerned without acceptable grounds results in their prohibition from exercising an activity on their own account, such as setting up as a trader, craftworker or promoter of a private economic investment, and that any violation is punishable under section 243 of the Penal Code. Similarly, under sections 33 and 34 of the Act, all private employers before engaging workers are required to satisfy themselves that applicants are not covered by civic service or can produce documentation proving that they have discharged it, and that any private employer knowingly employing a citizen who has evaded civic service is liable to imprisonment and a fine. Therefore, although the persons liable to civic service benefit from working conditions (remuneration, seniority, promotion, retirement, etc.) similar to those of regular public sector workers, they discharge this service under threat because, in the event of their refusal, they are denied access to any professional self-employed activity or to any employment in the private sector. In those circumstances the requirement to perform civic service falls within the concept of compulsory labour contained in Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Furthermore, since it consists of a contribution by the persons concerned to the economic development of the country, this compulsory service violates Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, which has also been ratified by Algeria.

The Committee recalls that forced labour means 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 her or himself voluntarily. Referring again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 55 to 62 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken to repeal or amend the provisions in question in the light of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105 and that the Government will soon be able to report on the provisions adopted to this end.

2. National service. In its earlier comments since 1988, the Committee has referred to Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 November 1974 issuing the National Service Code, under which conscripts are required to contribute to the operation of various economic and administrative sectors. It has also referred to the Order of 1 July 1987, which requires conscripts, after three months of military training, to serve in priority sectors of national activity, and particularly as teachers. The Committee notes that these are also required to perform two, three or four years of civic service (see point 1 above). The Committee recalled that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention, compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only where conscripts are assigned to work of a purely military character. In the absence of information in the Government's latest report on this point, the Committee trusts that the needs of public education and other non-military sectors will be met without having recourse to compulsory labour and that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention on this matter. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to report that the relevant provisions of the national legislation have been amended or repealed.

3. The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on certain other matters.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Articles 1, paragraph 1, and 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee refers to its observation and recalls that the model conditions of service for seafarers (Decree No. 88-17 of 13 September 1988) lay down certain restrictions on the freedom of workers to leave their employment. The Committee trusts the Government will take its comments into consideration in the envisaged revision of the Decree to bring it into conformity with the Convention, and provide details.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that the Government's report received in 1997 does not contain any response to the observation made by the Committee in 1996 in respect of a number of questions to which the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention over a number of years, concerning in particular the following points:

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2(b), of the Convention. Contrary to the Convention, Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 respecting the civic service, as amended, imposes on persons who have completed a course of higher education or training judged to be a priority for economic and social development, civic service of between two and four years in order to obtain employment or exercise an occupation. The Committee has previously pointed out that compulsory service imposed upon persons who have received particular training under penalty of being unable to enter or obtain employment, is contrary to the Convention.

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2(a). The National Service Code (Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 November 1974, as amended) is incompatible with the Convention, in so far as it imposes obligatory service on conscripts which is not restricted to military service but includes alternative service in economic and administrative sectors for up to four years. Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 with respect to the organization of the People's Defence envisages, under section 9, the adoption of regulations which would enable the People's Defence to participate in activities associated, in particular, with the protection of production units and strengthening the economic capacity of the country. The Committee notes the information from the Government that at the time of its report no regulations had been adopted, but the Committee again requests the Government to indicate the effect given in practice to section 9.

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2(c) and (d). Where a state of emergency has been declared, Executive Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991 provides for the military authorities, which have police powers, to make detention orders against certain persons who refuse to comply with or who oppose the execution of a requisition order and to hold them in a security centre for 45 days with one right of renewal of the same period. The Committee again requests information as to the practical application of this Decree, to enable it to assess whether it Decree is compatible with the prohibition of forced labour under the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide additional information in its next report on the measures taken to ensure the application of the Convention in respect of the above-mentioned points, and if it would provide the information requested in its direct request. The Government might wish to seek the technical assistance of the ILO in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

1. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 regarding civic service. This Act, as amended in 1986, provides that citizens who have completed a course of higher education or training as senior technicians in branches or skills judged to be of priority for economic and social development are subject to this service. These branches and skills are established by the annual development plan and issued in annex to the Finance Act (section 4, as amended, of Act No. 84-10). The length of civic service may not exceed four years (section 16, as amended, of Act No. 84-10) and, by virtue of section 17 of Decree No. 87-90 of 21 April 1987, made under Act No. 84-10, it varies between a minimum of two years and a maximum of four years depending on the region to which the individual is assigned. Under the terms of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10, those called up for civic service cannot obtain employment or exercise an occupation until they have satisfied their obligations as regards civic service.

The Committee noted that the list of branches was limited to medicine, pharmacy and dental surgery.

It nevertheless pointed out that service imposed upon persons who have received a particular training, under penalty of a sanction (the impossibility of exercising an occupational activity or obtaining employment) is contrary to Convention No. 29 and Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, which has also been ratified by Algeria and requested the Government to examine, in the light of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105, the provisions of the Act on civic service.

2. For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions of the legislation relating to national service (Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 November 1974 to issue the National Service Code). Under these provisions, conscripts are obliged to participate in the functioning of various economic and administrative sectors. Under the Order of 1 July 1987, university-level conscripts, after three months of military training, serve in priority sectors of national activity, and generally as teachers. The Committee notes that these persons are also subject to two, three or even four years of civic service. The Committee noted that Act No. 89-19 of 12 December 1989 reduces the length of national service to 18 months and that Act No. 89-20 of the same date dispenses from national service citizens aged 30 years and over on 1 November 1989, irrespective of their legal situation in respect of national service.

In its latest report, in response to questions raised under points 1 and 2, the Government indicated that university-level conscripts preferred to carry out their service in priority sectors.

The Committee observes that preference for one sector or another in order to meet the obligations of the service does not affect the fact that it is compulsory service and does not eliminate the incompatibility with the Convention of the participation of conscripts in the functioning of various economic and administrative sectors since, as the Committee noted in its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only if used for work of a purely military character.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the observance of the Convention on this point and to supply information on the progress achieved to this effect.

3. The Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 to set up and determine the functions and organization of the people's defence. The Committee noted that, by virtue of sections 1 and 3 of the Act, citizens aged between 18 and 60 years inclusive are subject to the obligations of the people's defence set up within the framework of national defence; that, by virtue of section 8, the conditions of service of the people's defence forces in peacetime are set out in regulations; and that by virtue of section 9 respecting economic defence, the people's defence forces participate in the protection of production units and in strengthening the economic capacity of the country. The application of section 9 of the Act is determined by means of regulations.

The Committee noted from the Government's report that regulations on the application of section 9 had not yet been adopted. The Government repeats the same comment in its latest report.

The Committee also requested the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to section 9 of Act No. 87-16 and observes that the Government's report does not contain the information requested.

The Committee refers to the indications under the preceding points of the present observation on activities carried out in the framework of compulsory service in national defence and once again requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of section 9 of Act No. 87-16 and to specify what is meant by strengthening the economic capacity of the country in which the people's defence forces must participate.

4. Freedom of workers to leave their employment. The Committee noted that section 67 of the model conditions of service for seafarers (Decree No. 88-17 of 13 September 1988) lays down that the employment relationship can in no event be terminated outside the national territory. Section 65 of the above conditions of service lays down a three-month period of notice for hands and supervisors and six months for officers.

The Committee noted that, although section 67 of the conditions of service protects seafarers against dismissal which may result in their being put off the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not permit seafarers to leave their employment after completion of the period of notice if, at that time, they are not on national territory. The Committee requested the Government to re-examine this provision and to indicate the measures that have been taken to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee noted that its comments had been transmitted to the relevant departments of the Ministry of Transport with a view to undertaking a re-examination in order to ensure conformity with the Convention. In its latest report, the Government indicates again that the Committee's comments will be taken into account in the revision of the texts governing seafarers.

The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure application of the Convention in this respect.

5. The Committee noted that under sections 4 and 5 of Executive Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991 determining the limits and conditions of referral to a security centre, under section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 91-196 proclaiming a state of emergency, the military authorities, which were assigned the powers of the police, could make detention orders against adults whose activities endangered public order and safety or the normal functioning of public services (section 4(1)), through their refusal to comply with a written requisition order issued by the authority exercising the powers of the police and the maintenance of public order, thereby seriously affecting the functioning of the national economy (section 4(6)), or by opposing the execution of a requisition order issued by reason of the state of emergency and the need for services to be provided by a public or private service (section 4(7)). The period of detention in a security centre was set at 45 days, which could be renewed once (section 5).

The Committee requested the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the provisions of Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991.

The Government has not supplied in its report the information requested.

With reference to the explanations provided in paragraphs 63 to 66 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee notes that it should be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour is to be limited to what is strictly required in order to cope with circumstances endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to the provisions respecting the requisitioning of workers, in order to enable the Committee to assess their scope.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 respecting civic service. This Act, which was amended in 1986, provides in its current form that citizens who have completed a course of higher education or training as senior technicians in branches or skills judged to be of priority for economic and social development are subject to this service. These branches and skills are established by the annual development plan and issued in annex to the Finance Act (section 4, as amended, of Act No. 84-10). The length of civic service may not exceed four years (section 16, as amended, of Act No. 84-10) and, by virtue of section 17 of Decree No. 87-90, of 21 April 1987, to implement Act No. 84-10, it varies between a minimum of two years and a maximum of four years as a function of the region to which the individual is assigned. Under the terms of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10, those called up for civic service cannot obtain employment or exercise an occupation until they have satisfied their obligations as regards civic service.

The Committee noted that the list of branches had been limited to medicine, pharmacy and dental surgery. It nevertheless pointed out that service imposed upon persons who have received a particular training, under penalty of a sanction (the impossibility of exercising an occupational activity or obtaining employment) is contrary to Convention No. 29 and Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, which has also been ratified by Algeria.

The Committee noted that the Government's last report does not contain information on this point. The Committee requests the Government to examine, in the light of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105, the provisions of the Act respecting civic service and to supply information on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that the Convention is respected on this point. The Committee also requests the Government to state the branches determined in the latest annual development plan and the number of persons affected in the years 1991 and 1992.

2. For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions in the legislation relating to national service (Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 Novembr 1974 to issue the National Service Code). In this context, conscripts are obliged to participate in the functioning of various economic and administrative sectors. Under the Order of 1 July 1987, university conscripts, after three months of military training, serve in priority sectors of national activity, and generally as teachers. The Committee noted that these persons are also subject to two, three or even four years of civic service.

The Committee noted that Act No. 89-19 of 12 December 1989 reduces the length of national service to 18 months and that Act No. 89-20 of the same date dispenses from national service citizens aged 30 years and over on 1 November 1989, irrespective of their legal situation in respect of national service. The Committee however noted, as it did in its previous direct request, that the reduction in the length of national service does not eliminate the incompatibility with the Convention of the participation of conscripts in the functioning of various economic and administrative sectors since, as the Committee noted in its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only if used for work of a purely military character.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Convention is respected on this point and to supply information on the progress achieved to this effect.

3. The Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 to set up and determine the functions and organization of the people's defence. The Committee noted that by virtue of sections 1 and 3 of the Act, citizens aged between 18 and 60 years inclusive are subject to the obligations of the people's defence, set up within the framework of the national defence, which, by virtue of section 8 of the conditions of service of the people's defence forces, are in peace time set out in regulations; and that by virtue of section 9 respecting economic defence, the people's defence forces participate in the protection of production units and in strengthening the economic capacity of the country. The application of section 9 of the Act is determined by means of regulations.

The Committee noted from the Government's report that regulations on the application of section 9 had not yet been adopted and requested the Government to transmit the text of these regulations when they have been adopted. The Committee also requested the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to section 9 of Act No. 87-16 and to describe the nature of the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country, in which the people's defence forces have to participate.

4. Freedom of workers to leave their employment. The Committee noted that section 67 of the model conditions of service for seafarers (Decree No. 88-17 of 13 September 1988) lays down that the employment relationship can in no event be terminated outside the national territory. Section 65 of the above conditions of service lays down a three-month waiting period of notice for hands and supervisors and six-months for officers.

The Committee noted that, although section 67 of the conditions of service protects seafarers against dismissal which may result in their being put off the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not permit seafarers to leave their employment after completion of the period of notice if, at that time, they are not on national territory. The Committee requested the Government to re-examine this provision and to indicate the measures that have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that it is in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee noted, from the information supplied by the Government, that its comments have been transmitted to the relevant departments of the Ministry of Transport with a view to undertaking a re-examination in order to bring the above provisions into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the progress that has been achieved in this respect.

5. The Committee noted that under sections 4 and 5 of Executive Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991 determining the limits and conditions of referral to a security centre, under section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 91-196 proclaiming a state of emergency (for four months starting from 5 June 1991), the military authorities, which were assigned the powers of the police, could make detention orders against adults whose activities endangered public order and safety or the normal functioning of public services (section 4(1)), through their refusal to comply with a written requisition order issued by the authority exercising the powers of the police and the maintenance of public order, thereby seriously affecting the functioning of the national economy (section 4(6)), or by opposing the execution of a requisition order issued by reason of the state of emergency and the need for services to be provided by a public service or a public or private enterprise (section 4(7)). The period of detention in a security centre was set at 45 days, which could be renewed once (section 5).

With reference to the explanations provided in paragraphs 63 to 66 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee notes that it should be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour is to be limited to what is strictly required in order to cope with circumstances endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee requests the Government to state whether Decree No. 91-201 is still in force and, if so, to supply information on the effect given in practice to the provisions respecting the requisitioning of workers, in order to enable the Committee to assess their scope.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

1. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 respecting civic service. This Act, which was amended in 1986, provides in its current form that citizens who have completed a course of higher education or training as senior technicians in branches or skills judged to be of priority for economic and social development are subject to this service. These branches and skills are established by the annual development plan and issued in annex to the Finance Act (section 4, as amended, of Act No. 84-10). The length of civic service may not exceed four years (section 16, as amended, of Act No. 84-10) and, by virtue of section 17 of Decree No. 87-90, of 21 April 1987, to implement Act No. 84-10, it varies between a minimum of two years and a maximum of four years as a function of the region to which the individual is assigned. Under the terms of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10, those called up for civic service cannot obtain employment or exercise an occupation until they have satisfied their obligations as regards civic service.

The Committee noted that the list of branches had been limited to medicine, pharmacy and dental surgery. It nevertheless pointed out that service imposed upon persons who have received a particular training, under penalty of a sanction (the impossibility of exercising an occupational activity or obtaining employment) is contrary to Convention No. 29 and Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, which has also been ratified by Algeria.

The Committee notes that the Government's last report does not contain information on this point. The Committee requests the Government to examine, in the light of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105, the provisions of the Act respecting civic service and to supply information on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that the Convention is respected on this point. The Committee also requests the Government to state the branches determined in the latest annual development plan and the number of persons affected in the years 1991 and 1992.

2. For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions in the legislation relating to national service (Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 Novembr 1974 to issue the National Service Code). In this context, conscripts are obliged to participate in the functioning of various economic and administrative sectors. Under the Order of 1 July 1987, university conscripts, after three months of military training, serve in priority sectors of national activity, and generally as teachers. The Committee noted that these persons are also subject to two, three or even four years of civic service.

The Committee notes that Act No. 89-19 of 12 December 1989 reduces the length of national service to 18 months and that Act No. 89-20 of the same date dispenses from national service citizens aged 30 years and over on 1 November 1989, irrespective of their legal situation in respect of national service. The Committee however notes, as it did in its previous direct request, that the reduction in the length of national service does not eliminate the incompatibility with the Convention of the participation of conscripts in the functioning of various economic and administrative sectors since, as the Committee noted in its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only if used for work of a purely military character.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Convention is respected on this point and to supply information on the progress achieved to this effect.

3. The Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 to set up and determine the functions and organization of the people's defence. The Committee noted that by virtue of sections 1 and 3 of the Act, citizens aged between 18 and 60 years inclusive are subject to the obligations of the people's defence, set up within the framework of the national defence, which, by virtue of section 8 of the conditions of service of the people's defence forces, are in peace time set out in regulations; and that by virtue of section 9 respecting economic defence, the people's defence forces participate in the protection of production units and in strengthening the economic capacity of the country. The application of section 9 of the Act is determined by means of regulations.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that regulations on the application of section 9 have not yet been adopted and requests the Government to transmit the text of these regulations when they have been adopted. The Committee also requests the Government to supply information on the effect given in practice to section 9 of Act No. 87-16 and to describe the nature of the strengthening of the economic capacity of the country, in which the people's defence forces have to participate.

4. Freedom of workers to leave their employment. The Committee noted that section 67 of the model conditions of service for seafarers (Decree No. 88-17 of 13 September 1988) lays down that the employment relationship can in no event be terminated outside the national territory. Section 65 of the above conditions of service lays down a three-month waiting period of notice for hands and supervisors and six-months for officers.

The Committee noted that, although section 67 of the conditions of service protects seafarers against dismissal which may result in their being put off the vessel outside the national territory, this provision does not permit seafarers to leave their employment after completion of the period of notice if, at that time, they are not on national territory. The Committee requested the Government to re-examine this provision and to indicate the measures that have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that it is in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes, from the information supplied by the Government, that its comments have been transmitted to the relevant departments of the Ministry of Transport with a view to undertaking a re-examination in order to bring the above provisions into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the progress that has been achieved in this respect.

5. The Committee notes that under sections 4 and 5 of Executive Decree No. 91-201 of 25 June 1991 determining the limits and conditions of referral to a security centre, under section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 91-196 proclaiming a state of emergency (for four months starting from 5 June 1991), the military authorities, which were assigned the powers of the police, could make detention orders against adults whose activities endangered public order and safety or the normal functioning of public services (section 4(1)), through their refusal to comply with a written requisition order issued by the authority exercising the powers of the police and the maintenance of public order, thereby seriously affecting the functioning of the national economy (section 4(6)), or by opposing the execution of a requisition order issued by reason of the state of emergency and the need for services to be provided by a public service or a public or private enterprise (section 4(7)). The period of detention in a security centre was set at 45 days, which could be renewed once (section 5).

With reference to the explanations provided in paragraphs 63 to 66 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee notes that it should be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour is to be limited to what is strictly required in order to cope with circumstances endangering the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee requests the Government to state whether Decree No. 91-201 is still in force and, if so, to supply information on the effect given in practice to the provisions respecting the requisitioning of workers, in order to enable the Committee to assess their scope.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to Act No. 84-10 of 11 February 1984 respecting civic service. This Act, which was amended in 1986, provides, in its current form, that citizens who have completed a course or higher education or training as senior technicians in branches or skills judged to be of priority for economic and social development are subject to this service. These branches and skills are established by the annual development plan and issued in annex to the Finance Act (section 14, as amended, of Act No. 84-10). The length of civic service may not exceed four years (section 16, as amended, of Act No. 84-10) and, by virture of section 17 of Decree No. 87-90 of 21 April 1987, to implement Act No. 84-10, it varies between a minimum of two years and a maximum of four years as a function of the region to which the individual is assigned.

Furthermore, under the terms of sections 32, 33, 34 and 38 of Act No. 84-10, those called up for civic service cannot obtain employment or exercise an occupation until they have satisfied their obligations as regards civic service. The Committee requested the Government to supply information on the functioning of civic service, the number of graduates called up annually and the number who are exempted.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report that, under the terms of Act No. 88-34 of 31 December 1988, issuing the annual plan for 1989 and Executive Decree No. 89-128 of 25 July 1989 respecting the implementation of civic service for 1989, the only graduates affected by civic service are those in the branches of medicine, pharmacy and dental surgery. The number of persons called up in 1988-89 was 3,159 physicians, 666 pharmacists and 703 dental surgeons.

The Committee notes with interest that the list of branches has been restricted. It nevertheless points out that service imposed upon persons who have received a particular training, under penalty of a sanction (the impossibility of exercising an occupational activity or obtaining employment) is contrary to Convention No. 29 and Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, which has also been ratified by Algeria.

The Committee requests the Government to examine how, in the light of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105, this Act may be brought into harmony with practice.

2. For several years, the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the provisions in the legislation relating to national service (Ordinance No. 74-103 of 15 November 1974 to issue the National Service Code). In this context, conscripts are obliged to participate in the functioning of various economic and administrative sectors. Under the Order of 1 July 1987, university conscripts, after three months of military training, serve in priority sectors of national activity, and generally as teachers. The Committee noted that these persons are also subject to two, three or even four years of civic service.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that the Council of Ministers has examined a draft Bill to reduce the length of national service to 18 months and that a thorough review of the National Service Code has been decided upon that will take into account the development of the country and the requirements of national defence.

The Committee notes this information. It observes, however, that the reduction in the length of national service does not eliminate the incompatibility of the participation of conscripts in the functioning of various economic and administrative sectors with the Convention since, as the Committee noted in its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only if used for work of a purely military character.

The Committee hopes that the review of the National Service Code will provide an opportunity to take into account the provisions of the Convention in this respect. It requests the Government to continue supplying information on the progress achieved on this review.

3. The Committee noted the provisions of Act No. 87-16 of 1 August 1987 to set up and determine the functions and organisation of the people's defence. The Committee noted that by virtue of sections 1 and 3 of the Act, citizens aged between 18 and 60 years inclusive are subject to the obligations of the people's defence, set up within the framework of the national defence, which, by virtue of section 8 of the conditions of service of the people's defence forces, are, in peacetime, set out in regulations, and that by virtue of section 9 respecting economic defence, the people's defence forces participate in the protection of production units and in strengthening the economic capacity of the country; the rules for its application are determined by means of regulations.

The Committee notes that the regulations on the application of Act No. 87-16 have not yet been adopted. It requests the Government to supply a copy of them when they have been adopted.

4. Freedom of workers to leave their employment. The Committee requested the Government to supply a copy of the provisons regulating the length and conditions of notice established for employees in the event of their resignation, as they are set out in the model conditions of employment and the specific conditions of employment that have already been adopted.

The Committee notes the provisions of Decrees No. 88-17 of 13 September 1988 issuing model conditions of service for seafarers; 89-64 of 9 May 1989 issuing model conditions of service for auxiliary land-bound workers in the fields of land, air and maritime transport and meteorology; and 89-119 of 11 July 1989 issuing the model conditions of service for workers in the construction, public works and water industries.

The Committee notes that section 67 of the model conditions of service for seafarers lays down that the employment relationship can in no case be terminated outside the national territory. Section 65 of the above conditions of service lays down a three-month period of notice for hands and supervisors and six months for officers.

While taking into account the fact that section 67 of the conditions of service protect seafarers against dismissal which may result in their being put off the boat outside the national territory, the Committee notes that this provision does not permit seafarers to leave their employment after the completion of the period of notice if, at that time, they are not on the national territory.

The Committee requests the Government to re-examine this provision and to indicate the measures that have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that it is in conformity with the Convention.