Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1990, Publication: 77th ILC session (1990)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Mauritania (Ratification: 1961)
Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 - Mauritania (Ratification: 2016)

A Government representative stated that the situation described in the report of the Committee of Experts no longer reflected the actual conditions that had existed for several years. Slavery no longer existed in his country; all citizens had the same rights and duties. The problem that arose was one of bringing Ordinance No. 81-234 to abolish slavery into conformity with the Convention. To be applied, this Ordinance required subsidiary legislation in the form of a decree so as to implement section 3 concerning compensation for those having held titles. A decree would thus be necessary in order permit payment of the compensation provided for under section 3 of the Ordinance. The Government was conscious of the need to take the measures necessary to implement the Ordinance and was currently considering whether to abrogate section 3 concerning compensation or to give it effect. The Government had already demonstrated its good faith and its willingness to take account of the observations of the Committee of Experts by giving the regional authorities instructions concerning the sanctions to be applied to those violating provisions of the laws and regulations prohibiting slavery. Section 56A of the Penal Code provided penal sanctions for such violations. The question of concern to the present Committee was thus being studied and the Committee could rest assured that his Government would find a solution in conformity with the observations of the Committee of Experts. Concerning call-up of labour, he repeated his earlier statements to the effect that measures were being considered to bring national legislation into confirmity with the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention. The rebirth of trade union structures would allow the draft Labour Code, drawn up in collaboration with ILO, to be submitted to the National Labour Council. Once adopted, this Code would allow several outstanding problems to be resolved. His Government requested ILO assistance to reconsider the whole draft in the light of the changing situation.

The Employers' members regretted having to repeat their remarks of the previous year because Mauritania had not presented a report. For a long time, there had been indications that slavery had not toally disappeared in reality even though, since 1963, forced labour had been prohibited by the Labour Code and had been subject to penal sanctions. In 1980 and 1981, Ordinances had, moreover, been adopted on the abolition of slavery and on the payment of compensation to former slave-owners. No steps had, however, been taken to compensate those who were to lose their slaves, and slave-owners consequently continued to exact work from their slaves. The Government was now refusing to give effect to its own intentions and to take measures to pay compensation, arguing that there was no need to compensate financially a prohibited activity. That position appeared to be logical but experience seemed to show that the problem could not be solved in that way. The Government representative had only repeated what this Committee had already heard previously, namely that the problem did not exist in practice but that the Government would do its best to resolve it. The Government's policy lacked coherence and did not reveal a will to take the measures necessary to effectively eliminate slavery. Referring to the statement of the Government representative that the question was being studied, the Employers' members recalled that this Committee had already had the problem before it in 1984, 1986 and 1989, apparently without any results. What was the position of the important question of compensation, to which the Government representative had not referred today? In any event, it was absolutely necessary to put an end to the practice of slavery. Moreover, regarding call-up of labour, the Government had for a very long time claimed to recognise the need to revise the legislation and it was high time that a draft be submitted and the stage of declarations-of-intent left behind.

The Workers' members completely agreed with the Employers' members. Concerning the question of compensation, it appeared from the Committee of Experts' report that the Government intended to delete that provision because it would be illogical to provide compensation for an activity that had been declared illegal. The Government's precise position on that question should be made known. Was it in favour of paying such compensation or not?

The Government representative, replying to the comments made by the Employers' and the Workers' members, reiterated that slavery did not exist in Mauritania and that he disagreed with the observations of the Committee of Experts on that particular point. On the contrary, it was quite correct that Ordinance No. 81-234 was not in conformity with the Convention and that that should be remedied. The question of compensation was being studied and would require a decision on the part of both the Government and the National Assembly. The options were the following: either to delete section 3 of Ordinance No. 81-234 which provided for compensation to be paid by means of an implementing decree, in which case the Ordinance would be in conformity with the Convention, or to adopt an implementing decree for section 3 in order to pay compensation, which would also bring the Ordinance into conformity with the Convention. Thus, whichever option was chosen, it would be in conformity with the Convention.

The Employers' members stated that the vague nature of the statements by the Government representative showed that the Government had not yet determined how to fulfil its obligations. Consequently, the Employers' members could only express their very serious concern faced with the persistence of a problem which had already been discussed several times by this Committee.

The Workers' members completely agreed with the remarks made by the Employers' members and associated themselves with the expression of their concern. They stressed that it was not enough for a country that had ratified the Convention to prohibit slavery, the country also had the obligation to ensure that sanctions were effectively and strictly applied. requests by the Committee of Experts for detailed information had not met with any reply on that point. Concerning call-up of labour, the report of the Committee of Experts noted that, in 1986, the Government representative at this Committee had announced that the necessary measures to give effect to the provisions of the Convention had been taken. However, today it appeared that the problem was still being studied. Further clarification of the question would be useful.

The Government representative, replying to the remarks made by the Employers' members, stated that his Government would do its best to respond to all the observations of the present Committee. Concerning the remarks made by the Workers' members on the measures taken regarding call-up of labour to give effect to the Convention, delays had occurred because of the birth of trade union structures which had only finished in April 1989 and because of incidents which had occurred on the borders of the country.

The Workers' member of Senegal deplored the fact that there was a country in Africa where slavery was practised. He supported the comments made by the Employers' and the Workers' members and requested this Committee to stress firmly the need to apply the Convention.

The Workers' member of Botswana asked for further clarification of the Government's intentions with respect to section 3 of Ordinance No. 81-234 and the payment of compensation. Could assurances, moreover, be given to the present Committee that information would be sent to the ILO on prosecutions of those who violated the provisions banning slavery and on the penalties imposed on them? Finally, could the Government communicate to the ILO any instrument repealing section 3 of the above-mentioned Ordinance?

In reply to these questions, the Government representative repeated his Government's commitment to make every effort to bring national legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Workers' members, again expressing their very grave concern, stated that the Government should be urged to take steps without delay and send the specific information requested by the Committee of Experts. They hoped that, on the basis of such information, the Committee would be able to note progress next year; otherwise, it would be obliged to reach different conclusions.

The Committee took note of the information given by the Government but deplored the fact that it was not more specific, notably on the points raised by the Committee of Experts. It further noted the request to the Director-General of the ILO to send a mission to the country, which could help to amend the legislation so as to ensure compliance with the Convention. With deep concern, the Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would be in a position to give full and detailed particulars on legislation and practice in the very near future. The Committee observed that it might come to conclusions of a different nature if the Government failed to do so, and it requested the Government to supply a further detailed report in time for examination by the Committee of Experts, so that the present Committee could discuss the position in 1991.