Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Burkina Faso (Ratification: 1997)

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving compulsory labour as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. For a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to certain provisions of the legislation, under which penalties of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour pursuant to section 181 of Act No. 10-2017/AN, of 10 April 2017, on the prison system and section 86 of Order No. 642 APAS of 4 December 1950 issuing the prison regulations), may be imposed in situations covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention. More particularly, the Committee referred to the following provisions:

• – attack on the honour or sensibility of certain persons exercising public authority (sections 178 and 180 of the Penal Code), or against the authority of the judicial system or its independence (section 179 of the Penal Code), which constitutes an insult;
• – slurs upon the honour and dignity of individuals, insults, slander and defamation (sections 361–364 of the Penal Code);
• – similar provisions contained in sections 114–123 of Law No. 56/93/ADP of 30 December 1993 on the Information Code.

In its report, the Government indicates that persons who express political views or peacefully oppose the established political, social or economic system, in accordance with the national legislation in force, do not commit an offense and cannot be subject to a criminal penalty. In that regard, the Committee notes with interest that Law No. 057-2015/CNT, of 4 September 2015, on the legal regime for print media in Burkina Faso, which abrogates the Information Code, has removed prison penalties for the offences relating to attack on honour, insult and defamation (sections 114 et seq.).

The Committee also notes the adoption of a new Penal Code (Act No. 025-2018/AN of 31 May 2018). It observes that the provisions of the Penal Code to which it referred previously (relating to attacks on the honour, insults, slander and defamation) have been integrally reproduced under sections 352-1 to 352-4 and 524-1 to 524-4 of the new Penal Code. The Committee notes however that section 524-13 of the Penal Code provides that sections 524 et seq. shall not apply to natural or legal persons covered by the legal regime for print media, online media and audiovisual media.

The Committee welcomes the progress made in the revision of the legislation. It regrets, however, that the Government did not take the opportunity of the revision of the Penal Code to address the long standing issues raised by the Committee in relation to the provisions establishing penalties of imprisonment in situations covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention, that can still be imposed on citizens who are not covered by the legal regime for print media, online media and audiovisual media. It further notes that section 354-7 of the Penal Code provides that participants or organizers of an «illicit demonstration», defined by section 354-6 as undeclared, incompletely or inaccurately declared or banned demonstration, are now liable to imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for persons who hold or express political views or peacefully oppose the established political, social or economic system. The Committee emphasizes that the range of activities which must be protected, under this provision, from punishment involving compulsory labour, includes the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press or other communications media), as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views (see General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 302). The Committee therefore requests the Government to pursue its efforts to review the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code, so that no penalty of imprisonment entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who express political views or peacefully oppose the established political, social or economic system. Pending such revision, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of sections 352-1 to 352-4; 354-7; 524-1 to 524-4 of the Penal Code, in practice, in particular on the number of persons convicted on the basis of these provisions, the nature of the charges brought and the sanctions imposed.

Article 1(b). Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development. National service for development. The Committee previously noted that, pursuant to Decrees Nos 98-291/PRES/PM/DEF and 99-446/PRES/PM on the organization and functioning of national service for development (SND), any citizen of Burkina Faso between 18 and 30 years of age may be called up to participate in the national service for development. This service is accomplished in two phases: a training phase, during which those called up receive what is essentially civic and patriotic training and acquire the rudiments of vocational training in priority sectors for development; and a production phase, in which they make their contribution to the socio-economic development of the country in various sectors. The time spent in national service for development is considered time spent in military service, thereby releasing the citizen from any other military obligation. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation explicitly establishes the voluntary nature of participation in national service for development.

The Government reiterates that the SND is a civic service derived from article 10 of the Constitution. It adds that young people who meet the age requirements, hold general or technical education diplomas, a driving license or have dropped out of school can do it voluntarily, and are made available to administrative structures or training centres. The Committee takes note of this information. It however again points out that there is no indication in the legislation establishing and regulating the SND that persons who have been called up participate voluntarily in this service. The Committee further notes that, on 29 January 2021, the Council of Ministers adopted three new decrees establishing the statutes and functioning of the SND and that, according to the minutes of the Council of Ministers, these new regulations establish a 90 days mandatory period of the SND for all citizens of 18 to 30 years. The Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation explicitly establishes the voluntary nature of participation in national service for development and to provide information on any progress made in this regard. It further requests the Government to provide a copy of Decrees Nos 2021-0196/PRES/PM/MDNAC/MINEFID, 2021-0197/PRES/PM/MINEFID and 2021-0198/PRES/PM/MDNAC/MINEFID establishing the statutes and functioning of the national service for development.

Article 1(d). Criminal penalties for participation in a strike. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 386 of the Labour Code, under which the exercise of the right to strike shall on no account entail the occupation of the workplace or its immediate surroundings, otherwise the criminal sanctions established by the legislation in force shall apply. It requested the Government to amend the Labour Code in order to ensure that persons who participate peacefully in a strike cannot incur any criminal penalties which could result in the imposition of compulsory prison labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the revision of the Labour Code is still ongoing and reformulation proposals have been made in order to take into account the recommendations made by the Committee. The Government also indicates that, pursuant to section 213-4 of the Penal Code, community work cannot be imposed on convicted persons without their consent. The Committee observes that the Government does not provide information on the nature of criminal penalties that may be applied to persons who go on strike, pursuant to section 386 of the Labour Code nor on the relevant legal provisions that would be applied. It notes that, according to the wording of section 386 of the Labour Code, prison sentences could be applied “as criminal penalties” and recalls in that regard that prison sentences involve an obligation to work according to section 181 of the Prison System Act. Referring to its 2019 observation under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures within the process of revision of the Labour Code to amend section 386 so as to ensure that, in conformity with Article 1(d) of the Convention, persons who participate peacefully in a strike are not liable to penal sanctions which could involve compulsory labour. In the meantime, it requests once again the Government to provide information on the legal provisions establishing the nature of criminal penalties that may be applied to persons who go on strike, pursuant to section 386 of the Labour Code.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving compulsory labour as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Since 2002, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to certain provisions, under which criminal penalties involving compulsory prison labour (pursuant to section 86 of Order No. 642 APAS of 4 December 1950 issuing the prison regulations) may be imposed in situations covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention, in particular:

• -sections 177–180 of the Penal Code, under which any attack on the honour or sensibility of certain persons exercising public authority (sections 178 and 180), or against the authority of the judicial system or its independence (section 179), constitutes an insult;
• -sections 361–364 of the Penal Code, which provide for the punishment of slurs upon the honour and dignity of individuals, insults, slander and defamation;
• -sections 114–123 of Ordinance No. 92-024bis/PRES of 29 April 1992 on the Information Code, which contain similar provisions to the abovementioned sections of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that sections 177–180 of the Penal Code refer to insults against persons exercising public authority, while sections 361–364 refer to slurs upon the honour and dignity of individuals. The Government also indicates that sections 114–123 of the Information Code refer to attacks, conspiracies, crimes committed through participation in movements aimed at destabilization, and riots. The Government states that, at present, it does not have any data on these offences.

The Committee recalls that restrictions on fundamental rights and liberties, including freedom of expression, may have a bearing on the application of the Convention if such restrictions are enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour. Referring to its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions (paragraph 302), the Committee points out that the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour, under Article 1(a) of the Convention, thus comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media), as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. Lastly, the Committee emphasizes that the protection provided by the Convention is not limited to the expression or manifestation of views diverging from established principles; even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities are protected by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to or call for violent means to these ends. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the provisions of the aforementioned legislation (Penal Code and Information Code) are not used to punish, by means of a prison sentence (involving compulsory prison labour), persons who express political views or peacefully oppose the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of these provisions, including information on the court decisions handed down in this regard.

Article 1(b). Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development. National service for development. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that Decrees Nos 98-291/PRES/PM/DEF and 99-446/PRES/PM on the organization and functioning of national service for development explicitly establish the voluntary nature of participation in this service. This service, for which any citizen of Burkina Faso between 18 and 30 years of age may be called up, is accomplished in two phases: a training phase, during which those called up receive what is essentially civic and patriotic training and acquire the rudiments of vocational training in priority sectors for development; and a production phase, in which they make their contribution to the socio-economic development of the country in various sectors. The time spent in national service for development is considered time spent in military service, thereby releasing the citizen from any other military obligation (Decrees Nos 98-291/PRES/PM/DEF and 99 446/PRES/PM). The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to re-examine the legislation on national service for development.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report submitted under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), that the revision of the legislation on military service is still pending. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation explicitly establishes the voluntary nature of participation in national service for development. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). Criminal penalties for participation in a strike. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 386 of the Labour Code, under the terms of which the exercise of the right to strike may not be accompanied by the occupation of the workplace or its immediate surroundings, failing which the criminal penalties established by the legislation in force will apply. Moreover, referring to its comments on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to revise section 386 of the Labour Code to ensure that persons who participate peacefully in a strike cannot incur any criminal penalties which would result in compulsory labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the revision of the Labour Code has begun and that its recommendations will be taken into consideration. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that the amendments brought by the revision of the Labour Code will give full effect to the provisions of Article 1(d) of the Convention.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application of certain provisions of the Penal Code which establish sentences of imprisonment as a penalty for certain acts or activities whereby persons are able to express political views. Since section 86 of Order No. 642 APAS of 4 December 1950 issuing the prison regulations provides that convicted prisoners are under the obligation to work, such provisions could have an impact on the application of the Convention, which prohibits the exaction of compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, from a person for expressing certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. It noted in particular:

• – sections 177–180 of the Penal Code, under which any attack on the honour or sensibility of certain persons exercising public authority (sections 178 and 180), or against the authority of the judicial system or its independence (section 179), constitutes an offence punishable by imprisonment;
• – sections 361–364 of the Penal Code, which provide for the punishment of slurs upon the honour and dignity of an individual, insults, calumny and defamation;
• – sections 114–123 of Ordinance No. 92-024bis/PRES of 29 April 1992 issuing the Code of Information, which contain similar provisions to those of the abovementioned sections of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes that the Government has not supplied any information on the application of these provisions. However, it observes that, according to the press release of 3 March 2014 of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights of the African Union, there is a case before the Court concerning a Burkinabé journalist who was sentenced by the courts in Burkina Faso to 12 months’ imprisonment and a fine for defamation and abuse of a magistrate, further to the publication of two articles in a journal in August 2012. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the abovementioned provisions of the national legislation serve their proper purpose and are not used to penalize the expression of political opinions or opposition to the established political, social or economic system through imprisonment, which could entail compulsory labour. The Government is also requested to provide information on court decisions based on these provisions, so that the Committee can assess their scope of application, and to provide copies of relevant decisions in this regard.

Article 1(b). Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development. National service for development. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the legislation explicitly establishes the voluntary nature of participation in national service for development. This service, for which any Burkinabé citizen between 18 and 30 years of age may be called up, is accomplished in two phases: a training phase, during which those called up receive what is basically civic and patriotic training and acquire the rudiments of vocational training in priority sectors for development; and a production phase, in which they make their contribution to the socio-economic development of the country in various sectors. The time spent in national service for development is considered as time spent in military service, thereby releasing the citizen from any other military obligation (Decrees Nos 98 292/PRES/PM/DEF and 99-446/PRES/PM).

The Government indicates in its report that it has noted the Committee’s comments and that it will review the matter in the context of the next reform of the legislation relating to national service for development. The Committee notes this information and recalls that any service, whether as part of compulsory military service, instead of it, or as part of civic service, which entails young persons’ compulsory participation in activities geared to the economic development of their country, is incompatible with Article 1(b) of the Convention. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will indeed review the legislation on national service for development in order to make participation in this service voluntary.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participation in a strike. The Committee previously referred to section 386 of the Labour Code, according to which the right to strike shall on no account entail the occupation of workplaces or their immediate vicinity, otherwise the criminal penalties established by the legislation in force shall apply.

The Government indicates in its report that, further to the study conducted with ILO support with regard to bringing national law and practice into conformity with the fundamental and governance Conventions of the ILO, a plan was drawn up for implementing the study’s recommendations. The plan provides for the revision of the provisions of the Labour Code that are not in line with international labour Conventions. The Committee duly notes this information and hopes that, as part of this process, the Government will revise the provisions of section 386 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that persons who participate peacefully in a strike cannot incur any criminal penalties which would result in compulsory labour. The Committee also refers in this respect to its comments relating to the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. For a number of years the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that certain sections of the Penal Code could be used to penalize the expression of political opinions or opposition to the established political system through prison sentences involving compulsory labour. It noted, in particular, sections 177–180, under which any attack on the honour or sensibility of certain persons exercising public authority (sections 178 and 180), or against the authority of the judicial system or its independence (section 179), constitutes an offence punishable by imprisonment. Furthermore, sections 361–364 of the Penal Code provide for the punishment of slurs upon the honour and dignity of an individual, insults, slander and defamation. Section 364 prescribes imprisonment for any person found guilty of committing defamation, as defined in section 361, namely “any allegation or imputation of a fact which is detrimental to the honour or dignity of individuals or entities to which the act is attributed”. Under the terms of section 365, any person against whom legal action is taken for defamation shall have the opportunity to provide proof of the truth of his or her statements and thereby have such action ended. The Committee also noted that sections 114–123 of Ordinance No. 92-024bis/PRES of 29 April 1992 issuing the Code of Information contain similar provisions. This Ordinance also contains provisions prescribing imprisonment for certain press offences.

Since neither the penal legislation nor the prison regulations appear to contain special provisions governing the detention of persons convicted of political offences, the Committee concluded that any person convicted of one of the offences established by the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code or the Code of Information may be compelled to perform prison labour.

The Committee notes the lack of information on this point in the Government’s report.

In order to be able to assess the scope and extent of application of these provisions, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on their application in practice, stating how many court decisions have been handed down on the basis of these provisions and supplying sample copies thereof which will enable the Committee to ascertain that these provisions serve their proper objective and are not used to penalize the expression of political opinions through imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

Article 1(b). Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development. Service for national development. In its previous comments the Committee noted that the Service for National Development (SND) involves the compulsory participation of young people in activities serving the development of their country. The SND is accomplished in two successive phases: the training phase, during which those called up receive an essentially civic and patriotic training and acquire the rudiments of vocational training in priority sectors for development; and a production phase, in which they make their contribution to the socio-economic development of the country in the education, agriculture and stock-rearing sectors, and also in other sectors making use of wage earners and persons called up from the rural and informal sectors. The 12 months spent engaged in the SND are considered as time spent in military service, thus releasing the citizen from any other military obligation (Decree No. 98 292/PRES/PM/DEF and Decree No. 99-446/PRES/PM).

The Committee has considered that the SND activities for the development of the country are incompatible with the Convention inasmuch as young people do not participate in them voluntarily.

The Committee notes the Government’s explanations that the compulsory nature of the SND derives from section 10 of the Constitution and the voluntary nature of the SND cannot be established in formal provisions since that would deprive such service of its philosophical content. Like other civic obligations such as the payment of taxes, accomplishing the SND is a civic duty but it does not form part of any development project.

However, the Committee notes that section 10 of Act No. 013/98/AN of 28 April 1998 (as amended by Act No. 0149-2005/AN of 18 May 2005) issuing the legal provisions applicable to posts and employees in the public service states that no person may apply for a post in the public service if he or she has not fulfilled all the relevant requirements of the legislation on military service or any other equivalent civic obligations.

The Committee again recalls that Article 1(b) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the legislation on service for national development (SND) explicitly establishes the voluntary nature of participation in this service, and to send information on any further developments in this regard.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participation in a strike or refusal to comply with a requisition order. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under the terms of the legislation, the authorities have wide-ranging powers to requisition officials to ensure the continuation of the administration and the safety of persons and property, and any failure by officials to discharge their duties may incur disciplinary penalties, without prejudice, where applicable, to the penalties laid down by the penal legislation (Act No. 013/98/AN of 18 April 1998, issuing the legal provisions applicable to posts and employees in the public service, and Act No. 45-60/AN of 27 July 1960, issuing regulations on the right to strike of state officials and employees). It asked the Government to indicate the criminal penalties applicable to public officials who refuse to comply with a requisition order. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that they cannot incur any criminal penalties since no criminal penalties to this end are provided for in the Penal Code, the Labour Code or Act No. 45-60/AN.

Furthermore, the Committee noted that section 386 of the new Labour Code (Act No. 028-2008/AN) states that the exercise of the right to strike shall on no account entail the occupation of workplaces or their immediate vicinity, otherwise the criminal penalties established by the legislation in force shall apply. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which, in this case, might be applied to strikers.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that all steps have been taken to avoid obstruction of the principles of freedom of association, whereby the occupation of workplaces or their immediate vicinity cannot incur penalties.

However, the Committee notes that section 386 of the Labour Code (Act No. 028-2008/AN), which imposes criminal penalties for strikes which involve the occupation of workplaces or their immediate vicinity, is still in force.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the legislative measures taken or contemplated so that the occupation of workplaces, or their immediate vicinity, can only incur penalties in cases where a strike ceases to be peaceful or where the freedom of non-strikers to work or the enterprise management’s right to enter the premises is violated.

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

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Freedom of opinion and expression. The Committee notes that certain sections of the Penal Code could be used to penalize the expression of political opinions or opposition to the established political system through prison sentences involving compulsory labour. It notes in particular sections 177–180, under which any attack on the honour or sensibility of certain persons exercising public authority (sections 178 and 180), or against the authority of the judicial system or its independence (section 179), constitutes an offence punishable by imprisonment. Furthermore, sections 361–364 of the Penal Code provide for the punishment of slurs upon the honour and dignity of an individual, insults, calumny and defamation. Section 364 prescribes imprisonment for any person found guilty of committing defamation, as defined in section 361, namely “any allegation or imputation of a fact which is detrimental to the honour or dignity of individuals or entities to which the act is attributed”. Under the terms of section 365, any person against whom legal action is taken for defamation shall have the opportunity to provide proof of truth of his or her statements and thereby have such action ended. The Committee also notes that sections 114–123 of Ordinance No. 92 024bis/PRES of 29 April 1992 issuing the Code of Information contain similar provisions. This Ordinance also contains provisions prescribing imprisonment for certain press offences.

Since neither the penal legislation nor the prison regulations appear to contain special provisions governing the detention of persons convicted of political offences, any person convicted for one of the offences established by the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code or the Code of Information may be compelled to perform prison labour. In order to be able to assess the scope of these provisions, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on their application in practice, stating whether any court decisions have been taken on the basis of these provisions and supplying sample copies thereof which will enable the Committee to ascertain that these provisions serve their proper purpose and are not used to penalize the expression of political opinions by sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

Freedom of association. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under the terms of sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code, the founders or officials of an association unlawfully maintained or reconstituted after its dissolution by the authorities or in breach of orders relating to its recognition shall be liable to imprisonment involving, as indicated above, the obligation to work. It asked the Government to indicate the criteria used by the authority for recognizing or prohibiting an association and to supply information on the practical application of sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes from the information sent by the Government and the text of Act No. 10/92/ADP concerning freedom of association that associations may be formed freely and without prior administrative authorization, merely being obliged to complete certain formalities to declare their existence. Section 47 of this Act states that dissolution of the association may be pronounced by decree of the Head of State adopted in the Council of Ministers, if an investigation establishes that the association is pursuing an unlawful objective or cause, is engaging in activities contrary to its statutes or in demonstrations likely to disrupt public order, morals or peace, or possesses the characteristics of a private militia or subversive organization.

Article 1(b). Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development. National Development Service. With reference to the National Development Service (SND), the Committee previously drew the Government’s attention to the fact that programmes involving the compulsory participation of young people, as part of their military service or instead of it, in activities geared to the development of their country, have been considered incompatible with the Conventions on forced labour. Hence SND, for which any Burkinabé citizen between 18 and 30 years of age may be called up, is accomplished in two successive phases: the training phase, during which those called up receive an essentially civic and patriotic training and acquire the rudiments of vocational training in priority sectors for development; and a production phase, in which they make their contribution to the socio-economic development of the country in education, agriculture and stock-rearing sectors, and also in other sectors making use of wage earners and persons called up from the rural and informal sectors. The 12 months spent engaged in SND are considered as time spent in military service, thus releasing the citizen from any other military obligation (Decree No. 98 292/PRES/PM/DEF and Decree No. 99-446/PRES/PM).

The Government indicates in its last report that SND is a civic service which imbues young persons with values of solidarity and patriotism and that it has never been a question of this service forcing young persons to participate in development programmes. Each person called up, voluntarily and according to his or her profile, registers and chooses his or her area of activity. The Government points out that work performed in the context of SND may be considered the equivalent of work experience for the persons concerned, whose priority is to find employment. Moreover, there are SND training centres for mechanical skills, masonry, carpentry, etc., which young persons may make use of to facilitate their vocational integration. The Committee notes this information but points out that there is no indication in the legislation establishing and regulating SND that persons who have been called up participate voluntarily in this service. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to review the matter and take the necessary steps to ensure that the legislation makes explicit provision for the voluntary nature of participation in this service.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participation in a strike or refusal to comply with a requisition order. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under the terms of the legislation, the authorities have wide-ranging powers to requisition officials to ensure the continuation of the administration and the safety of persons and property, and any failure by officials to discharge their duties may incur disciplinary penalties, without prejudice, where applicable, to the penalties laid down by the penal legislation (Act No. 013/98/AN of 18 April 1998 issuing the legal provisions applicable to posts and officials in the public service and Act No. 45-60/AN of 27 July 1960 issuing regulations on the right to strike of state officials and employees). It asked the Government to indicate the penalties applicable to public officials who refuse to comply with a requisition order. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that they cannot incur any criminal penalties since no criminal penalties to this end are provided for in the Penal Code, the Labour Code or Act No. 45-60/AN.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that section 386 of the new Labour Code (Act No. 028-2008/AN) states that the exercise of the right to strike shall on no account entail the occupation of work places or their immediate vicinity, otherwise the criminal penalties established by the legislation in force shall be incurred. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which, in this case, might be applied to strikers. It recalls that, according to the principles of freedom of association, the occupation of workplaces or their immediate vicinity could only incur penalties in cases where a strike ceased to be peaceful or in cases where the freedom of non-strikers to work or the enterprise management’s right to enter the premises was violated.

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

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:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Freedom of opinion and expression. The Committee notes that certain sections of the Penal Code could be used to penalize the expression of political opinions or opposition to the established political system through prison sentences involving compulsory labour. It notes in particular sections 177–180, under which any attack on the honour or sensibility of certain persons exercising public authority (sections 178 and 180), or against the authority of the judicial system or its independence (section 179), constitutes an offence punishable by imprisonment. Furthermore, sections 361–364 of the Penal Code provide for the punishment of slurs upon the honour and dignity of an individual, insults, calumny and defamation. Section 364 prescribes imprisonment for any person found guilty of committing defamation, as defined in section 361, namely “any allegation or imputation of a fact which is detrimental to the honour or dignity of individuals or entities to which the act is attributed”. Under the terms of section 365, any person against whom legal action is taken for defamation shall have the opportunity to provide proof of truth of his or her statements and thereby have such action ended. The Committee also notes that sections 114–123 of Ordinance No. 92‑024bis/PRES of 29 April 1992 issuing the Code of Information contain similar provisions. This Ordinance also contains provisions prescribing imprisonment for certain press offences.

Since neither the penal legislation nor the prison regulations appear to contain special provisions governing the detention of persons convicted of political offences, any person convicted for one of the offences established by the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code or the Code of Information may be compelled to perform prison labour. In order to be able to assess the scope of these provisions, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on their application in practice, stating whether any court decisions have been taken on the basis of these provisions and supplying sample copies thereof which will enable the Committee to ascertain that these provisions serve their proper purpose and are not used to penalize the expression of political opinions by sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

Freedom of association. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under the terms of sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code, the founders or officials of an association unlawfully maintained or reconstituted after its dissolution by the authorities or in breach of orders relating to its recognition shall be liable to imprisonment involving, as indicated above, the obligation to work. It asked the Government to indicate the criteria used by the authority for recognizing or prohibiting an association and to supply information on the practical application of sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes from the information sent by the Government and the text of Act No. 10/92/ADP concerning freedom of association that associations may be formed freely and without prior administrative authorization, merely being obliged to complete certain formalities to declare their existence. Section 47 of this Act states that dissolution of the association may be pronounced by decree of the Head of State adopted in the Council of Ministers, if an investigation establishes that the association is pursuing an unlawful objective or cause, is engaging in activities contrary to its statutes or in demonstrations likely to disrupt public order, morals or peace, or possesses the characteristics of a private militia or subversive organization.

Article 1(b). Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development. National Development Service. With reference to the National Development Service (SND), the Committee previously drew the Government’s attention to the fact that programmes involving the compulsory participation of young people, as part of their military service or instead of it, in activities geared to the development of their country, have been considered incompatible with the Conventions on forced labour. Hence SND, for which any Burkinabé citizen between 18 and 30 years of age may be called up, is accomplished in two successive phases: the training phase, during which those called up receive an essentially civic and patriotic training and acquire the rudiments of vocational training in priority sectors for development; and a production phase, in which they make their contribution to the socio-economic development of the country in education, agriculture and stock-rearing sectors, and also in other sectors making use of wage earners and persons called up from the rural and informal sectors. The 12 months spent engaged in SND are considered as time spent in military service, thus releasing the citizen from any other military obligation (Decree No. 98‑292/PRES/PM/DEF and Decree No. 99-446/PRES/PM).

The Government indicates in its last report that SND is a civic service which imbues young persons with values of solidarity and patriotism and that it has never been a question of this service forcing young persons to participate in development programmes. Each person called up, voluntarily and according to his or her profile, registers and chooses his or her area of activity. The Government points out that work performed in the context of SND may be considered the equivalent of work experience for the persons concerned, whose priority is to find employment. Moreover, there are SND training centres for mechanical skills, masonry, carpentry, etc., which young persons may make use of to facilitate their vocational integration. The Committee notes this information but points out that there is no indication in the legislation establishing and regulating SND that persons who have been called up participate voluntarily in this service. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to review the matter and take the necessary steps to ensure that the legislation makes explicit provision for the voluntary nature of participation in this service.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participation in a strike or refusal to comply with a requisition order. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under the terms of the legislation, the authorities have wide-ranging powers to requisition officials to ensure the continuation of the administration and the safety of persons and property, and any failure by officials to discharge their duties may incur disciplinary penalties, without prejudice, where applicable, to the penalties laid down by the penal legislation (Act No. 013/98/AN of 18 April 1998 issuing the legal provisions applicable to posts and officials in the public service and Act No. 45-60/AN of 27 July 1960 issuing regulations on the right to strike of state officials and employees). It asked the Government to indicate the penalties applicable to public officials who refuse to comply with a requisition order. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that they cannot incur any criminal penalties since no criminal penalties to this end are provided for in the Penal Code, the Labour Code or Act No. 45-60/AN.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that section 386 of the new Labour Code (Act No. 028-2008/AN) states that the exercise of the right to strike shall on no account entail the occupation of work places or their immediate vicinity, otherwise the criminal penalties established by the legislation in force shall be incurred. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which, in this case, might be applied to strikers. It recalls that, according to the principles of freedom of association, the occupation of workplaces or their immediate vicinity could only incur penalties in cases where a strike ceased to be peaceful or in cases where the freedom of non-strikers to work or the enterprise management’s right to enter the premises was violated.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government concerning the penalties incurred for violations of section 120 of the Penal Code, which prohibits the formation of unarmed gatherings on public thoroughfares such as to disturb public tranquillity.

The Committee notes that, under section 86 of Order No. 642 APAS of 4 December 1950 issuing the regulations on prisons, work is compulsory for all those convicted of general offences. Hence, persons serving a prison sentence are subjected to prison labour. The Committee recalls that it is contrary to the Convention to subject a person to compulsory labour, including in the form of compulsory prison labour, because that person has expressed certain political views, has opposed the established political, social or economic system or has participated in a strike.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Freedom of opinion and expression. The Committee notes that certain sections of the Penal Code could be used to penalize the expression of political opinions or opposition to the established political system through prison sentences involving compulsory labour. It notes in particular sections 177–180, under which any attack on the honour or sensibility of certain persons exercising public authority (sections 178 and 180), or against the authority of the judicial system or its independence (section 179), constitutes an offence punishable by imprisonment. Furthermore, sections 361–364 of the Penal Code provide for the punishment of slurs upon the honour and dignity of an individual, insults, calumny and defamation. Section 364 prescribes imprisonment for any person found guilty of committing defamation, as defined in section 361, namely “any allegation or imputation of a fact which is detrimental to the honour or dignity of individuals or entities to which the act is attributed”. Under the terms of section 365, any person against whom legal action is taken for defamation shall have the opportunity to provide proof of truth of his or her statements and thereby have such action ended. The Committee also notes that sections 114–123 of Ordinance No. 92‑024bis/PRES of 29 April 1992 issuing the Code of Information contain similar provisions. This Ordinance also contains provisions prescribing imprisonment for certain press offences.

Since neither the penal legislation nor the prison regulations appear to contain special provisions governing the detention of persons convicted of political offences, any person convicted for one of the offences established by the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code or the Code of Information may be compelled to perform prison labour. In order to be able to assess the scope of these provisions, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on their application in practice, stating whether any court decisions have been taken on the basis of these provisions and supplying sample copies thereof which will enable the Committee to ascertain that these provisions serve their proper purpose and are not used to penalize the expression of political opinions by sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

Freedom of association. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under the terms of sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code, the founders or officials of an association unlawfully maintained or reconstituted after its dissolution by the authorities or in breach of orders relating to its recognition shall be liable to imprisonment involving, as indicated above, the obligation to work. It asked the Government to indicate the criteria used by the authority for recognizing or prohibiting an association and to supply information on the practical application of sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes from the information sent by the Government and the text of Act No. 10/92/ADP concerning freedom of association that associations may be formed freely and without prior administrative authorization, merely being obliged to complete certain formalities to declare their existence. Section 47 of this Act states that dissolution of the association may be pronounced by decree of the Head of State adopted in the Council of Ministers, if an investigation establishes that the association is pursuing an unlawful objective or cause, is engaging in activities contrary to its statutes or in demonstrations likely to disrupt public order, morals or peace, or possesses the characteristics of a private militia or subversive organization.

Article 1(b). Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development. National Development Service. With reference to the National Development Service (SND), the Committee previously drew the Government’s attention to the fact that programmes involving the compulsory participation of young people, as part of their military service or instead of it, in activities geared to the development of their country, have been considered incompatible with the Conventions on forced labour. Hence SND, for which any Burkinabé citizen between 18 and 30 years of age may be called up, is accomplished in two successive phases: the training phase, during which those called up receive an essentially civic and patriotic training and acquire the rudiments of vocational training in priority sectors for development; and a production phase, in which they make their contribution to the socio-economic development of the country in education, agriculture and stock-rearing sectors, and also in other sectors making use of wage earners and persons called up from the rural and informal sectors. The 12 months spent engaged in SND are considered as time spent in military service, thus releasing the citizen from any other military obligation (Decree No. 98‑292/PRES/PM/DEF and Decree No. 99-446/PRES/PM).

The Government indicates in its last report that SND is a civic service which imbues young persons with values of solidarity and patriotism and that it has never been a question of this service forcing young persons to participate in development programmes. Each person called up, voluntarily and according to his or her profile, registers and chooses his or her area of activity. The Government points out that work performed in the context of SND may be considered the equivalent of work experience for the persons concerned, whose priority is to find employment. Moreover, there are SND training centres for mechanical skills, masonry, carpentry, etc., which young persons may make use of to facilitate their vocational integration. The Committee notes this information but points out that there is no indication in the legislation establishing and regulating SND that persons who have been called up participate voluntarily in this service. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to review the matter and take the necessary steps to ensure that the legislation makes explicit provision for the voluntary nature of participation in this service.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participation in a strike or refusal to comply with a requisition order. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under the terms of the legislation, the authorities have wide-ranging powers to requisition officials to ensure the continuation of the administration and the safety of persons and property, and any failure by officials to discharge their duties may incur disciplinary penalties, without prejudice, where applicable, to the penalties laid down by the penal legislation (Act No. 013/98/AN of 18 April 1998 issuing the legal provisions applicable to posts and officials in the public service and Act No. 45-60/AN of 27 July 1960 issuing regulations on the right to strike of state officials and employees). It asked the Government to indicate the penalties applicable to public officials who refuse to comply with a requisition order. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that they cannot incur any criminal penalties since no criminal penalties to this end are provided for in the Penal Code, the Labour Code or Act No. 45-60/AN.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that section 386 of the new Labour Code (Act No. 028-2008/AN) states that the exercise of the right to strike shall on no account entail the occupation of work places or their immediate vicinity, otherwise the criminal penalties established by the legislation in force shall be incurred. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which, in this case, might be applied to strikers. It recalls that, according to the principles of freedom of association, the occupation of workplaces or their immediate vicinity could only incur penalties in cases where a strike ceased to be peaceful or in cases where the freedom of non-strikers to work or the enterprise management’s right to enter the premises was violated.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

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 following matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee wishes to recall, by way of a preliminary remark, that work imposed upon persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law does not, in most cases, bear any relation with the application of this Convention. However, where an individual is, in any manner whatsoever, compelled to work, for example in the form of prison labour, because she or he has expressed certain political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, or has participated in a strike, this lies within the scope of the Convention. Accordingly, prison sentences, where they involve compulsory labour, lie within the scope of the Convention when they penalize breaches of the prohibition to express views or opposition, or participation in a strike. In this respect, the Committee noted in its previous direct request that, by virtue of section 86 of Order No. 642 APAS of 4 December 1950 issuing the prison regulations, work is compulsory for all those convicted of general offences. It requested the Government to provide additional information on the effect given to certain provisions of the legislation which may have a bearing on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government’s latest report does not contain relevant information in this respect. It requests the Government to reply to the following points.

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. (a) Freedom of opinion and expression. The Committee notes that certain sections of the Penal Code could be used to repress the expression of political opinions through sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour. It notes in particular sections 177 to 180, under which any offence against the honour and delicacy of certain persons exercising public authority (sections 178 and 180), or against the authority of the judicial system or its independence (section 179), constitute offences which may be punished by prison sentences. Furthermore, sections 361 to 364 of the Penal Code provide for the punishment of slurs upon the honour and consideration of an individual, insults, calumny and slander. Section 364 provides for sentences of imprisonment for any person found guilty of committing defamation, as defined in section 361, namely “any allegation or imputation of a fact which is detrimental to the honour and consideration of individuals or entities to which the act is attributed”. Under the terms of section 365, any person against whom legal action is taken for defamation shall have the opportunity to provide proof of the truth of her or his statements and thereby have such action ended. The Committee also notes that sections 114 to 123 of Ordinance No. 92-024bis/PRES of 29 April 1992 issuing the Code of Information contains similar provisions. This Ordinance also contains provisions prescribing sentences of imprisonment for certain press offences.

As the penal legislation and the prison legislation do not appear to contain provisions issuing special regulations governing the detention of persons convicted of offences of a political nature, any person who is convicted for one of the offences established by the above provisions of the Penal Code or the Code of Information may be compelled to perform prison labour. So as to be able to assess the scope of these provisions, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide detailed information on their application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.

(b) Freedom of association. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the importance for effective compliance with the Convention of the legal safeguards relating to the right of assembly, expression, demonstration and association, and the direct effect that limitations of these rights can have on the application of the Convention. Indeed, it is often through the exercise of these rights that political opposition to the established system can be expressed. In this respect, the Committee notes that, under the terms of sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code, the maintenance or re-establishment of an association found to be unlawful by the authorities, and failure to comply with orders relating to the recognition of an association, may be punished by a sentence of imprisonment involving, as indicated above, the obligation to work.

The Committee recalls that the Convention prohibits the imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving labour as a punishment for persons holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, as is the case of the penalties envisaged in sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code referred to above. It requests the Government to indicate the criteria enabling the authority to prohibit or recognize an association and to provide information on the effect given in practice to sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of Act No. 10/92 governing freedom of association.

(c) Freedom of assembly and demonstration. The Committee notes that section 120 of the Penal Code prohibits the formation of unarmed gatherings on public thoroughfares such as to disturb the peace. It requests the Government to indicate the penalty incurred in the event of the violation of this provision of the Penal Code and to provide copies of related court decisions.

2. Article 1(b). Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development. National Development Service. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 4 of Decree No. 98-291/PRES/PM/DEF determining the organization and operation of the National Development Service (SND), any national of Burkina Faso between 18 and 30 years of age may be required for SND. The period spent engaged in SND (12 months) is considered as time passed under military service. The procedures for the performance of SND are governed by Decree No. 98-292/PRES/PM/DEF, which provides that SND shall be accomplished in two successive phases, namely, training and production. During the first phase, those called up receive an essentially civic and patriotic training with the aim of preparing them morally and physically for tasks of socio‑economic development (sections 24 and 25) and the acquisition of the rudiments of vocational training in priority sectors for development (section 28). During the second phase, those called up make their contribution to the socio-economic development of the country in the education, agriculture and stock-rearing sectors, as well as in other sectors making use of wage earners and persons called up from the rural and informal sectors (sections 30 to 35).

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that schemes involving the compulsory participation of young people, as part of their military service or instead of it, in activities directed towards the development of their country, have been considered incompatible with the Conventions on forced labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the SND and practical examples of the work undertaken in the context of this service.

3. Article 1(d). Participation of public officials in a strike. The Committee notes that the right to strike of public officials is guaranteed by section 45 of the Act issuing the legal status applicable to posts and officials in the public service (Act No. 013/98/AN of 18 April 1998), and more particularly by Act No. 45‑60/AN of 27 July 1960, issuing regulations respecting the right to strike of state officials and employees. However, this right may be restricted for certain categories of public officials, as section 1 of Act No. 45-60/AN provides that certain specific conditions of service may derogate from the right to strike of public officials. Furthermore, orders may be issued by the ministers concerned requisitioning public officials to ensure the continuation of the administration and the safety of persons and property (section 6). Persons who refuse to comply with a requisition order are liable to disciplinary sanctions (section 7). In this respect, the Committee notes that section 137 of Act No. 013/98/AN, referred to above, provides that any failing by a public official in her or his duties makes the latter liable to disciplinary measures without prejudice, where appropriate, to the penalties envisaged in the penal legislation.

The Committee recalls that the requisitioning of public officials is only possible in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. It requests the Government to indicate the services in which public officials may be requisitioned with a view to ensuring a minimum service in the event of strikes, and the conditions governing such requisitions. It would also be grateful if the Government would indicate the penalties which may be applicable to public officials who have refused to comply with a requisition order. Finally, please provide copies of the specific conditions of service which derogate from the right to strike of public officials, as envisaged in section 1 of Act No. 45-60/AN.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the adoption of the new Labour Code (Act No. 033-2004/AN of 29 October 2004). It notes with interest that section 5 provides that no one can make use of forced or compulsory labour in any form in the five cases envisaged in Article 1 of the Convention.

The Committee wishes to recall, by way of a preliminary remark, that work imposed upon persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law does not, in most cases, bear any relation with the application of this Convention. However, where an individual is, in any manner whatsoever, compelled to work, for example in the form of prison labour, because she or he has expressed certain political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, or has participated in a strike, this lies within the scope of the Convention. Accordingly, prison sentences, where they involve compulsory labour, lie within the scope of the Convention when they penalize breaches of the prohibition to express views or opposition, or participation in a strike. In this respect, the Committee noted in its previous direct request that, by virtue of section 86 of Order No. 642 APAS of 4 December 1950 issuing the prison regulations, work is compulsory for all those convicted of general offences. It requested the Government to provide additional information on the effect given to certain provisions of the legislation which may have a bearing on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government’s latest report does not contain relevant information in this respect. It requests the Government to reply to the following points.

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

 (a) Freedom of opinion and expression. The Committee notes that certain sections of the Penal Code could be used to repress the expression of political opinions through sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour. It notes in particular sections 177 to 180, under which any offence against the honour and delicacy of certain persons exercising public authority (sections 178 and 180), or against the authority of the judicial system or its independence (section 179), constitute offences which may be punished by prison sentences. Furthermore, sections 361 to 364 of the Penal Code provide for the punishment of slurs upon the honour and consideration of an individual, insults, calumny and slander. Section 364 provides for sentences of imprisonment for any person found guilty of committing defamation, as defined in section 361, namely "any allegation or imputation of a fact which is detrimental to the honour and consideration of individuals or entities to which the act is attributed". Under the terms of section 365, any person against whom legal action is taken for defamation shall have the opportunity to provide proof of the truth of her or his statements and thereby have such action ended. The Committee also notes that sections 114 to 123 of Ordinance No. 92-024bis/PRES of 29 April 1992 issuing the Code of Information contains similar provisions. This Ordinance also contains provisions prescribing sentences of imprisonment for certain press offences.

As the penal legislation and the prison legislation do not appear to contain provisions issuing special regulations governing the detention of persons convicted of offences of a political nature, any person who is convicted for one of the offences established by the above provisions of the Penal Code or the Code of Information may be compelled to perform prison labour. So as to be able to assess the scope of these provisions, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide detailed information on their application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.

(b) Freedom of association. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the importance for effective compliance with the Convention of the legal safeguards relating to the right of assembly, expression, demonstration and association, and the direct effect that limitations of these rights can have on the application of the Convention. Indeed, it is often through the exercise of these rights that political opposition to the established system can be expressed. In this respect, the Committee notes that, under the terms of sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code, the maintenance or re-establishment of an association found to be unlawful by the authorities, and failure to comply with orders relating to the recognition of an association, may be punished by a sentence of imprisonment involving, as indicated above, the obligation to work.

The Committee recalls that the Convention prohibits the imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving labour as a punishment for persons holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, as is the case of the penalties envisaged in sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code referred to above. It requests the Government to indicate the criteria enabling the authority to prohibit or recognize an association and to provide information on the effect given in practice to sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of Act No. 10/92 governing freedom of association.

(c) Freedom of assembly and demonstration. The Committee notes that section 120 of the Penal Code prohibits the formation of unarmed gatherings on public thoroughfares such as to disturb the peace. It requests the Government to indicate the penalty incurred in the event of the violation of this provision of the Penal Code and to provide copies of related court decisions.

2. Article 1(b). Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development. National Development Service. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 4 of Decree No. 98-291/PRES/PM/DEF determining the organization and operation of the National Development Service (SND), any national of Burkina Faso between 18 and 30 years of age may be required for SND. The period spent engaged in SND (12 months) is considered as time passed under military service. The procedures for the performance of SND are governed by Decree No. 98-292/PRES/PM/DEF, which provides that SND shall be accomplished in two successive phases, namely, training and production. During the first phase, those called up receive an essentially civic and patriotic training with the aim of preparing them morally and physically for tasks of socio-economic development (sections 24 and 25) and the acquisition of the rudiments of vocational training in priority sectors for development (section 28). During the second phase, those called up make their contribution to the socio-economic development of the country in the education, agriculture and stock-rearing sectors, as well as in other sectors making use of wage earners and persons called up from the rural and informal sectors (sections 30 to 35).

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that schemes involving the compulsory participation of young people, as part of their military service or instead of it, in activities directed towards the development of their country, have been considered incompatible with the Conventions on forced labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the SND and practical examples of the work undertaken in the context of this service.

3. Article 1(d). Participation of public officials in a strike. The Committee notes that the right to strike of public officials is guaranteed by section 45 of the Act issuing the legal status applicable to posts and officials in the public service (Act No. 013/98/AN of 18 April 1998), and more particularly by Act No. 45-60/AN of 27 July 1960, issuing regulations respecting the right to strike of state officials and employees. However, this right may be restricted for certain categories of public officials, as section 1 of Act No. 45-60/AN provides that certain specific conditions of service may derogate from the right to strike of public officials. Furthermore, orders may be issued by the ministers concerned requisitioning public officials to ensure the continuation of the administration and the safety of persons and property (section 6). Persons who refuse to comply with a requisition order are liable to disciplinary sanctions (section 7). In this respect, the Committee notes that section 137 of Act No. 013/98/AN, referred to above, provides that any failing by a public official in her or his duties makes the latter liable to disciplinary measures without prejudice, where appropriate, to the penalties envisaged in the penal legislation.

The Committee recalls that the requisitioning of public officials is only possible in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. It requests the Government to indicate the services in which public officials may be requisitioned with a view to ensuring a minimum service in the event of strikes, and the conditions governing such requisitions. It would also be grateful if the Government would indicate the penalties which may be applicable to public officials who have refused to comply with a requisition order. Finally, please provide copies of the specific conditions of service which derogate from the right to strike of public officials, as envisaged in section 1 of Act No. 45-60/AN.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s first reports and requests it to provide information on the following points.

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. Freedom of opinion and expression. The Committee notes that certain sections of the Penal Code which provide for sentences of imprisonment involving, by virtue of section 86 of Order No. 642 APAS of 4 December 1950 issuing the prison regulations, the obligation to work, are liable to repress the expression of political opinions. It notes in particular sections 177 to 180 of the Penal Code which provide, among other measures, for sentences of imprisonment to punish offences against those exercising public authority. According to the provisions concerned, any offence against the honour and delicacy of certain persons exercising public authority (sections 178 and 180), or against the authority of the judicial system or its independence (section 179) constitute punishable offences. The Committee notes that sections 361 to 364 of the Penal Code provide for the punishment of slurs upon the honour and consideration of an individual, insults, calumny and slander. Section 364 provides for sentences of imprisonment for any person found guilty of committing defamation, as defined in section 361, namely "any allegation or imputation of a fact which is detrimental to the honour or consideration of individuals or entities to which the act is attributed". Under the terms of section 365, any person against whom legal action is taken for defamation shall have the opportunity to provide proof of the truth of her or his statements and thereby have such action ended.

The Committee also notes Ordinance No. 92-024 bis/PRES of 29 April 1992 issuing the Code of Information in Burkina Faso, sections 114 to 123 of which contain similar provisions. This Ordinance also contains provisions prescribing sentences of imprisonment for certain press offences, which involve, under the above provisions of the Order of 4 December 1950, the obligation to work.

The Committee notes that, under section 86 of Order No. 642 APAS of 4 December 1950 above, prison labour is compulsory for all common law convicts and for members of the armed forces convicted in military tribunals. The Committee notes that the legislation does not contain specific provisions respecting persons convicted of offences of a political nature and that under the terms of section 86 of the above Order a person found guilty of insulting behaviour, defamation or one of the press offences envisaged in the Code of Information is liable to a sentence of imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that these provisions of the Convention prohibit recourse to any form of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. With reference to paragraphs 102 to 109 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the above provisions of the Penal Code and the Code of Information are not interpreted in such a manner as to repress the expression of political views. It also requests it to provide information on the application in practice of the above provisions of the Penal Code and the Code of Information and to provide copies of any judicial decision handed down under these provisions.

2. Freedom of association. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the importance for effective compliance with the Convention of the legal safeguards relating to the right of assembly, expression, demonstration and association, and the direct effect that limitations of these rights can have on the application of the Convention. Indeed, it is often through the exercise of these rights that political opposition to the established system can be expressed (see the 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, paragraph 139). In this respect, the Committee notes sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code, which read as follows:

  Section 220: (…) The founders, directors or administrators of an association which is illegally maintained or re-established following an act of dissolution, and any person who, through occult propaganda, speeches, writings or any other means, perpetuates or endeavours to perpetuate the work of a dissolved association shall be liable to imprisonment of from three months to three years and a fine of between 75,000 and 900,000 francs.

  Section 221: Any person who for any reason does not comply with the injunctions of the competent authority relating to the recognition of an association or who imparts false information, assumes or continues to assume responsibility for the administration of foreign associations or establishments operating without authorization, shall be liable to imprisonment of from six months to three years and a fine of between 15,000 and 900,000 francs.

The same penalties shall be applicable to the leaders and participants in the activities of associations or establishments which operate without complying with the conditions set out in the act of authorization or beyond the duration set out in the latter.

The Committee notes that, under the terms of the above provisions, the maintenance or re-establishment of an association found to be illegal by the authorities, and failure to comply with injunctions relating to the recognition of an association, are punishable with penalties of imprisonment involving the obligation to work, under the terms of section 86 of Order No. 642 APAS of 4 December 1950. The Committee recalls that the penalties set out in sections 220 and 221 must not serve as a punishment for persons who hold or express certain political opinions or express their ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the criteria upon which the authority can prohibit or recognize an association, and to provide information on the application in practice of sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code. The Committee also requests the Government to provide copies of Act No. 10/92 issuing regulations governing freedom of association, and the Act governing political parties.

3. Freedom of assembly and demonstration. The Committee notes section 120 of the Penal Code, which prohibits the formation of unarmed gatherings on public thoroughfares such as to disturb the peace.

The Committee notes the absence of provisions in the Penal Code setting out the penalty incurred in the event of the violation of section 120 by a person participating in an unarmed gathering and it therefore requests the Government to provide information on this matter. The Committee also requests the Government to provide copies of regulations respecting public order (including Decree No. 93-389 organizing the maintenance of order in Burkina Faso), and any judicial rulings handed down under section 120 of the Penal Code.

Article 1(b). 4. Work of general interest. The Committee notes that Act No. 009/98/AN, issuing the general conditions of service of members of the national armed forces, provides that members of the forces performing their compulsory service may be assigned to work of national interest. The obligation to serve is governed by sections 33 et seq. of Act No. 009/98/AN, which provide for statutory active service of 18 months devoted to civic and military instruction, as well as work of national interest. Sections 33 and 36 of the above Act provide that:

  Section 33: Any unmarried national of Burkina Faso aged between 18 and 25 years may enrol freely or be called up to serve in the national army.

  Section 36: Statutory active service shall be performed in units of the land and air forces and the national police force. It shall be devoted to military and civic instruction and work of national interest.

The issue of compulsory work of general interest has been raised on many occasions in the context of Convention No. 29. The Committee noted that the former Act respecting recruitment provided for the possibility of imposing "work of general interest" on members of the armed forces performing their compulsory service (section 5 of Act No. 49-62/AN). The Government had stated that the provision in question had never been applied in practice and that the service envisaged under this section exclusively covered cases of emergency, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of Convention No. 29. Using similar terms, Act No. 009/98/AN provides for the possibility of imposing "work of national interest" on members of the armed forces in the context of their compulsory service.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that work exacted under laws respecting compulsory military service is only excluded from the scope of the Convention when it consists of work of a purely military nature. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the "work of national interest" envisaged in section 36 of Act No. 009/98/AN is strictly limited to cases of emergency, in accordance with the indications provided by the Government in its report on Convention No. 29.

5. National development service. The Committee also notes Decree No. 98-291/PRES/PM/DEF determining the organization and operation of the national development service, known as SND. Section 4 of the Decree provides that "any national of Burkina Faso between 18 and 30 years of age may be required for SND", section 5 sets the duration of SND at 12 months and provides that periods spent engaged in SND shall be considered as military service. The procedures for the performance of SND are governed by Decree No. 98-292/PRES/PM/DEF, which provides that SND shall be accomplished in two successive phases, namely training and production. During the first phase, those called up receive an essentially civic and patriotic training with the aim of preparing them morally and physically for tasks of socio-economic development (sections 24 and 25), and the acquisition of the rudiments of vocational training in priority sectors for development (section 28). Under section 30 of Decree No. 98-292/PRES/PM/DEF, the second phase "is the phase of SND during which those called up make their contribution to the socio-economic development of the country". The fields in which work is performed are the education, agriculture and stock-rearing sectors, as well as other sectors making use of wage earners and persons called up from the rural and informal sectors (sections 30 to 35).

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 38 to 42 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, which indicate that "schemes involving the compulsory participation of young people (as part of their military service or instead of it) in activities directed towards the development of their country were incompatible with the Conventions on forced labour".

The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information and practical examples of the work undertaken in the context of national development service.

6. Article 1(d). Right to strike of public officials. The Committee notes that the right to strike is guaranteed in general by article 22 of the Constitution, and that it is also guaranteed for public officials by section 45 of the Act issuing the legal status applicable to posts and officials in the public service (Act No. 013/98/AN), and more particularly by Act No. 45-60/AN, issuing regulations respecting the right to strike of state officials and employees.

The Committee notes that the right to strike can be restricted for certain categories of public officials, as provided for in section 1 of Act No. 45-60/AN, which provides that certain specific conditions of service may derogate from the right to strike of public officials. Under section 6 of this Act, orders may be issued by the ministers concerned requisitioning public officials to ensure the continuation of the administration and the safety of persons and property. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the requisitioning of public officials is only possible in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (paragraph 545 of the Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the services in which public officials may be requisitioned with a view to ensuring a minimum service in the event of strikes, and the conditions governing such requisitions. It requests the Government to provide copies of the specific conditions of service in which the right to strike of public officials is restricted, as envisaged by section 1 of Act No. 45-60/AN.

The Committee notes that persons who refuse to comply with a requisition order are liable to disciplinary sanctions (section 7 of Act No. 45-60/AN). It also notes that section 137 of Act No. 013/98/AN provides that any failing by a public official in her or his duties makes the latter liable to disciplinary measures without prejudice, where appropriate, to the penalties envisaged in the penal legislation. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the penalties which may be applied to public officials who have refused to comply with a requisition order.