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

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

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. In earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain provisions of the Penal Code and the Act on the Expression and Dissemination of Opinions, No. 6132 of 1962, the implementation of which could affect application of the Convention since they provide for penalties of imprisonment involving the obligation to work for offences pertaining to freedom of expression relating to authorities that represent the established political, social or economic system. The provisions in question are section 86 of the Penal Code under which any public offence against the Head of State is punishable by a prison term of from six months to two years and a fine; section 368, under which any defamation or public affront against the Head of State is punishable by imprisonment of three months to one year and a fine. Defamation and affront against deputies, representatives of Congress, secretaries of State, magistrates of the Supreme Court or courts of first instance is punishable, under sections 369 and 372, with imprisonment of from eight days to six months and a fine and defamation against depositories of public authority is punishable under section 370 with a prison term of from eight days to three months and a fine. Act No. 6132 of 19 December 1962 on the expression and dissemination of opinions likewise provides for prison sentences for offence against the President of the Republic (from three months’ to one year’s imprisonment and a fine, or only one of these two penalties (section 26)); defamation against courts and tribunals, the armed forces, the police, the chambers of Congress, municipal authorities and other state institutions, members of the Cabinet, one or more members of the chambers of Congress, one or more public servants, one or more depositories of public authority, is punishable by imprisonment of from six days to three months and a fine, or only one of these two penalties (section 34).

The Committee has pointed out that, under section 57 of Act No. 224-84 regulating the prison regime, work is compulsory for all prisoners who are convicted. It can be inferred from the foregoing that breach of the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code and the Act on the expression and dissemination of opinions, on offence, defamation and affront could be punished by imprisonment involving an obligation to work.

The Committee notes that in its report the Government states that there have been only two court decisions under the abovementioned provisions, in cases that are not material to the application of the Convention. However, the Committee notes with interest that, in Decision No. 91 of 16 December 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice, referring to the Act on the expression and dissemination of opinions, applied the principles of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds that laws that criminalize expression offensive to public officials are contrary to freedom of expression.

The Committee again points out that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits all recourse to 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.

In view of what the case law says regarding the application of Act No. 6132, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to bring the national legislation into line with the Convention by amending or repealing sections 26 and 34 of the Act on the expression and dissemination of opinions, and sections 368, 369, 370 and 372 of the Penal Code, and to provide information on the progress made in this respect. Meanwhile, it asks the Government to provide information on the number of persons sentenced under these provisions, the nature of the charges against them and the penalties imposed, and to provide copies of the relevant judicial decisions.