Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Côte d'Ivoire (Ratification: 1961)

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

Impact of compulsory prison labour on the application of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that any person sentenced to imprisonment is forced to work, with the exception of persons convicted of military offences. It referred to section 46 of the Penal Code, which provides that sentences involve imprisonment, but persons sentenced to detention are not compelled to work; section 68 of Decree No. 69-189 of 14 May 1969 issuing the prison regulations, which provide that convicted prisoners are required to work; and section 680 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes the same obligation to work, and specifies that it applies to persons sentenced to imprisonment for crimes or common law offences. In view of the compulsory nature of the labour of persons sentenced to imprisonment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of certain provisions of the Penal Code, which provide for imprisonment for offences which might fall within the scope of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention.

The Government indicates in its report that the reference to compulsory labour in prison contained in section 46 of the former Penal Code has been removed in the new Penal Code of 2019 (Act No. 2019-574 of 26 June 2019), in order to resolve any ambiguity. The Government refers in this respect to sections 42 and 43 of the Penal Code, which provide that a prison sentence shall be served in accordance with the law and that imprisonment shall be served in a prison. The Government also refers to section 68 of the Decree regulating prisons and section 724 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2018 (which uses the same wording as section 680 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure), and indicates in this connection that the labour referred to in these provisions is not a sentence as such, but a means of serving the sentence, and that this labour offers benefits to convicted prisoners. The Government further indicates that the provisions providing for the compulsory nature of labour in prison contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Decree regulating prisons have not been applied in the last three years.

The Committee therefore observes that, while the reference to the obligation to work of persons sentenced to imprisonment has been removed from the Penal Code, it remains in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2018 (section 724: "persons sentenced to imprisonment for crimes or common law offences shall be required to work") and is still in force in the 1969 Decree issuing the prison regulations. The legal basis for imposing labour on a person sentenced to imprisonment thus remains. In this respect, the Committee recalls that Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention prohibits the imposition of any form of compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, as a means of labour discipline or for having participated in strikes.

In this respect, the Committee observes that the provisions of the former Penal Code providing for the imposition of prison sentences (including the obligation to work) in circumstances that could fall within the scope of the Convention have been retained in the 2019 Penal Code. The provisions in question are as follows:

With respect to Article 1(a) of the Convention (work imposed as a punishment for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system):

• – section 182: possession, distribution, sale or public display, for propaganda purposes, of tracts or bulletins of foreign origin or inspiration, such as to harm the national interest;
• – section 183: publication, dissemination, disclosure or reproduction by whatever means of false information which results in, or could result in, … the undermining of public morals or the discrediting of institutions or their functioning;
• – sections 197–199: participation in a prohibited demonstration, participation in the organization of an unauthorized or prohibited demonstration, and organization of an unauthorized or prohibited demonstration;
• – sections 264–270: insults directed at the President of the Republic or the Vice-President of the Republic, heads of state and representatives of foreign governments, and insults directed at national emblems and public authorities;
• – section 367: insults through an information system.

With respect to Article 1(c) (labour imposed as a means of labour discipline):

• – section 295: negligence by a civil servant causing delays, slowdowns or disruption that seriously affects the functioning of the public service in which he/she works.

Lastly, with respect to Article 1(d) (labour imposed as a punishment for having participated in strikes):

• – section 342: threats or deception intended to cause or maintain a concerted work stoppage with a view to forcing an increase or decrease in wages or undermining the free exercise of industry or work.

The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to continue bringing its legislation into line with the practice indicated, by expressly indicating in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Decree regulating prisons that labour in prison is voluntary. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that no prison sentence, which involves compulsory labour under national law, may be imposed under the above provisions of the Penal Code on persons for expressing certain political views, or their opposition to the established political, social or economic system, as a means of labour discipline or as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the effect given in practice to the above provisions of the Penal Code, specifying the number of prosecutions initiated under these provisions, the charges brought and the sentences imposed.

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

Impact of compulsory prison labour on the application of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that, with the exception of persons convicted of military offences, any individual sentenced to imprisonment is forced to work. Under section 46 of the Penal Code, sentences involve imprisonment in all cases but persons sentenced to detention are not compelled to work. Moreover, under section 68 of Decree No. 69-189 of 14 May 1969 issuing the prison regulations, convicted prisoners are required to work. Lastly, section 680 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the same obligation to work, stating that it applies to individuals sentenced to imprisonment for crimes or common law offences. The Committee drew the Government’s attention to the following provisions of the Penal Code which prescribe prison sentences for offences which could come within the scope of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention.

With respect to Article 1(a) (work imposed as a punishment for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system):

• -section 172: possession, distribution, sale or public display, for propaganda purposes, of tracts or bulletins of foreign origin or inspiration, such as to harm the national interest;
• -section 173: publication, dissemination, disclosure or reproduction by whatever means of false information which results in, or could result in, … the undermining of public morals or the discrediting of institutions or their functioning;
• -section 183: participation in an unauthorized or prohibited demonstration; and
• -sections 243–249: insults and abuse directed at Heads of State, representatives of foreign governments and national or foreign emblems, and also abuse directed at the public authorities.

With respect to Article 1(c) (work imposed as a means of labour discipline):

• -section 271: negligence by a civil servant causing any delay, slowdown or disruption that seriously undermines the functioning of the public service to which he/she belongs.

With respect to Article 1(d) (work imposed as a punishment for having participated in strikes):

• -section 318: threats or deception intended to cause or maintain a concerted work stoppage with a view to forcing an increase or decrease in wages or undermining the freedom of industry or work.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that section 680 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while establishing the compulsory nature of prison labour, stipulates that the revenue from the work of convicted persons goes, inter alia, towards the payment of fines for the public treasury and the prosecuting authority and towards a reserve fund and allowance for convicted persons at the time of their release. According to the Government, compulsory labour for any person serving a prison sentence cannot be considered as a penalty for expressing certain political views, for participating in a strike or as a disciplinary measure. While noting the advantages that the convicted persons could obtain from work, the Committee observes that it does not change the compulsory nature of prison labour.

Referring to its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions paragraphs 302 and 312, the Committee recalls that in most cases work imposed on persons as a result of a court conviction does not have an impact on the application of the Convention. However, if a person is obliged to do work, including work in prison, because of holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system or because of participating in strikes, such compulsory labour comes within the scope of application of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention, which prohibits the use of any form of compulsory labour in the above circumstances. Hence, where penalties of imprisonment involve compulsory labour, as is the case in Côte d’Ivoire, they come within the scope of the Convention if they are imposed for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system or for participating in strikes. In view of the foregoing explanations, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code, particularly information on the number of convictions handed down and the basis for the convictions. The Committee also requests the Government to provide, if applicable, copies of relevant court decisions so that it can assess the scope of the abovementioned provisions in the light of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments made in 2015.

Repetition

Impact of compulsory prison labour on the application of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to clarify whether the distinction between common law offences and political offences was still applied in practice. The Government indicates in reply that the concept of political offences no longer exists, either in positive law or in practice. Section 35 of the new Penal Code makes a distinction between common law offences, for which the deprivation of freedom takes the form of imprisonment, and military offences, for which the deprivation of freedom takes the form of military detention.

The Committee notes this information. It observes that, with the exception of persons convicted of military offences, any individual sentenced to imprisonment is forced to work. According to section 46 of the Penal Code, sentences involve imprisonment in all cases but persons sentenced to detention are not compelled to work. Moreover, according to section 68 of Decree No. 69-189 of 14 May 1969 issuing the prison regulations, convicted prisoners are required to work. Lastly, section 680 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the same obligation to work, stating that it applies to individuals sentenced to imprisonment for crimes or common law offences.

The Committee recalls that, in most cases, work imposed as a result of a judicial conviction does not affect the application of the Convention. However, if a person is forced to work, particularly to engage in prison labour, as a result of expressing certain political views, opposing the established political, social or economic order, or participating in a strike, such compulsory labour comes within the scope of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention, which prohibits recourse to any form of compulsory labour in these circumstances. Hence, where prison sentences include compulsory labour – as is the case in Côte d’Ivoire – they come within the scope of the Convention since they constitute a penalty for expressing political views, expressing opposition or participating in a strike.

In view of the above, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following provisions of the Penal Code which prescribe prison sentences for offences which could come within the scope of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention.

• – Article 1(a) (work imposed as a punishment for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system):

■ section 172: possession, distribution, sale or public display, for propaganda purposes, of tracts or bulletins of foreign origin or inspiration, such as to harm the national interest;

■ section 173: publication, dissemination, disclosure or reproduction by whatever means of false information which results in, or could result in, … the undermining of public morals or the discrediting of institutions or their functioning;

■ section 183: participation in an unauthorized or prohibited demonstration; and

■ sections 243–249: insults and abuse directed at Heads of State, representatives of foreign governments and national or foreign emblems, and also abuse directed at the public authorities.

• – Article 1(c) (work imposed as a means of labour discipline):

■ section 271: negligence by a civil servant causing any delay, slowdown or disruption that seriously undermines the functioning of the public service to which he/she belongs.

• – Article 1(d) (work imposed as a punishment for having participated in strikes):

■ section 318: threats or deception intended to cause or maintain a concerted work stoppage with a view to forcing an increase or decrease in wages or undermining the freedom of industry or work.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of these provisions of the Penal Code and, in particular, information on the number of convictions handed down and the facts forming the basis of the convictions and, if applicable, to provide copies of the relevant court decisions to enable the Committee to evaluate the scope of these provisions in the light of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Impact of compulsory prison labour on the application of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to clarify whether the distinction between common law offences and political offences was still applied in practice. The Government indicates in reply that the concept of political offences no longer exists, either in positive law or in practice. Section 35 of the new Penal Code makes a distinction between common law offences, for which the deprivation of freedom takes the form of imprisonment, and military offences, for which the deprivation of freedom takes the form of military detention.

The Committee notes this information. It observes that, with the exception of persons convicted of military offences, any individual sentenced to imprisonment is forced to work. According to section 46 of the Penal Code, sentences involve imprisonment in all cases but persons sentenced to detention are not compelled to work. Moreover, according to section 68 of Decree No. 69-189 of 14 May 1969 issuing the prison regulations, convicted prisoners are required to work. Lastly, section 680 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the same obligation to work, stating that it applies to individuals sentenced to imprisonment for crimes or common law offences.

The Committee recalls that, in most cases, work imposed as a result of a judicial conviction does not affect the application of the Convention. However, if a person is forced to work, particularly to engage in prison labour, as a result of expressing certain political views, opposing the established political, social or economic order, or participating in a strike, such compulsory labour comes within the scope of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention, which prohibits recourse to any form of compulsory labour in these circumstances. Hence, where prison sentences include compulsory labour – as is the case in Côte d’Ivoire – they come within the scope of the Convention since they constitute a penalty for expressing political views, expressing opposition or participating in a strike.

In view of the above, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following provisions of the Penal Code which prescribe prison sentences for offences which could come within the scope of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention.

• -Article 1(a) (work imposed as a punishment for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system):

■ Section 172: possession, distribution, sale or public display, for propaganda purposes, of tracts or bulletins of foreign origin or inspiration, such as to harm the national interest;

■ Section 173: publication, dissemination, disclosure or reproduction by whatever means of false information which results in, or could result in, … the undermining of public morals or the discrediting of institutions or their functioning;

■ Section 183: participation in an unauthorized or prohibited demonstration; and

■ Sections 243–249: insults and abuse directed at heads of State, representatives of foreign governments and national or foreign emblems, and also abuse directed at the public authorities.

• -Article 1(c) (work imposed as a means of labour discipline):

■ Section 271: negligence by a civil servant causing any delay, slowdown or disruption that seriously undermines the functioning of the public service to which he/she belongs.

• -Article 1(d) (work imposed as a punishment for having participated in strikes):

■ Section 318: threats or deception intended to cause or maintain a concerted work stoppage with a view to forcing an increase or decrease in wages or undermining the freedom of industry or work.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of these provisions of the Penal Code and, in particular, information on the number of convictions handed down and the facts forming the basis of the convictions and, if applicable, to provide copies of the relevant court decisions to enable the Committee to evaluate the scope of these provisions in the light of the Convention.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Exemption from the obligation to work for persons sentenced to imprisonment for political offences. The Committee notes that, according to section 68 of Decree No. 69-189 of 14 May 1969 issuing the prison regulations, convicted persons are obliged to work. Section 680 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the same obligation to work, stating that it applies to persons serving terms of imprisonment for crimes or common law offences. With reference to this provision, the Committee previously asked the Government to clarify which offences might be considered as being of a political nature. The Government indicated that offences of a political nature were those which aimed to obstruct the organization and functioning of the public authorities, offences against the security of the State, offences relating to associations, public meetings and crowds, with offences related to the press also belonging by definition in that category. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the distinction between common law offences and political offences is still applied in practice and, if so, to state which offences are considered as being of a political nature.