Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2002, Publication: 90th ILC session (2002)

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

A Government representative considered that the presence of his Government before the Committee constituted a real paradox. In practice, Mauritania had never been in a better position since joining the ILO 40 years ago. Numerous promotional activities had been organized for international labour standards. Mauritania had now ratified all the fundamental Conventions and had signed a technical memorandum with the ILO. The various labour institutions in the country had been re-established, computerized and renovated, and labour inspectors trained. The Ministry of Labour had requested the ILO to undertake two in-depth studies on forced labour and on child labour. The Government had also transmitted to the ILO all the requested reports. In these conditions, it was difficult to understand why Mauritania was once again one of the cases to be examined by the Committee.

The population of Mauritania was composed of an Arab group from North Africa and other groups from sub-Saharan Africa. The entire population was Muslim. Each of the above groups had had a hierarchical system involving freemen, professionals and slaves. However, the traditional system had disappeared and no longer existed. But the system had after-effects.

At present, economic power and knowledge were the factors that counted in Mauritania. The Labour Code adopted in 1963 prohibited forced or compulsory labour, while the Constitution of Mauritania recognized the equality of its citizens, and penalties were envisaged for all persons who violated the prohibition of forced labour. Mauritania also intended to revise its Labour Code in order to strengthen the prohibition of forced labour. The adoption of new laws would not suffice to abolish forced labour. Time and education were needed to change mentalities.

The rule of law prevailed in Mauritania, as testified by the existence of political parties, political organizations, a dynamic civil society, a free press and the existence of a Parliament with an opposition. The Constitution also protected public freedoms. According to UNDP's Human Development Report, Mauritania was in 137th position in 2001, compared with 147th in 2000. An Act had made school attendance compulsory for children aged 6-14 years. The school attendance rate had almost doubled in ten years, and in its 2001 Report, UNESCO cites Mauritania as among the three sub-Saharan African countries which almost have a universal schooling rate. As part of its anti-poverty measures, the Government of Mauritania had developed a programme on urban development and a programme to combat poverty in rural areas. The anti-poverty programmes were for the benefit of all who met the poverty criteria, irrespective of their former social position. The social condition of the offspring of former slaves hardly differs from that of persons originating from other castes. They may be rich people, intellectuals, officials, merchants, poor or analphabets.

The Committee of Experts had shown a certain lack of rigour in its analysis of information available. Mauritania had not received the observations made by the ICFTU, which were mentioned in the Committee of Experts. These observations had been made in the month of October 2001. Even if Mauritania had received a copy of the observations, the Committee of Experts should not have examined them before its session in November 2002. Furthermore, the Government deplored that its six-page reply had been covered in only three lines in the report of the Committee of Experts. With regard to the allegations made by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), Mauritania had replied to them in its report on the follow-up to the Declaration. Mauritania had accepted a mission and the Committee of Experts should have waited for the outcome of the mission.

The Government intended to respect the obligations that it had assumed in ratifying ILO Conventions and its legislation fully respected their provisions. The Government respected its people, was committed to social justice and did not tolerate the practice of forced labour.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for his very extensive presentation of his Government's position, when explanations on the application of the Convention would have sufficed. The Government should not be surprised that this case was on the list of cases to be examined since there had been evident violations of this fundamental Convention for many years. During the adoption of the list of cases the previous year, the Worker members had indicated that they were following this case closely and would come back to it if progress were not noted by the Committee of Experts.

Slavery in Mauritania was a reality and the situation of slaves and those who risked being subjected to slavery was of great concern. The report of the Committee of Experts, which referred to communications from the ICFTU and the WCL, showed that practices of slavery existed in the country. The problem was widespread and highly complex. Thousands of human beings were victims of these practices and had no freedom to leave their so-called employers or to refuse certain types of work. The fact that the abolition of forced labour had been enshrined in legal instruments had not brought an end to practices of slavery in the country. It was shocking to note the persistence and gravity of the phenomenon, even if the Government claimed that it only consisted of after-effects, which was tantamount to understating or even denying the existence of the problem. A seminar on servitude organized by the Free Confederation of Mauritanian Workers (CLTM), which had been scheduled to be held in Kiffa from 15 to 18 September 2001, had been prohibited by the Governor of the city on the grounds that it had not been granted prior authorization and that forced labour did not exist in the country. This denial of the problem was also illustrated by the absence of provisions envisaging penalties in Ordinance No. 81-234 of 1981 on the abolition of slavery. Neither this Ordinance nor other standards contained provisions permitting the imposition of penal sanctions for the exaction of forced labour. It was inconceivable that a legal rule governing fundamental individual freedoms was not backed up by significant penalties and, as emphasized by the Committee of Experts, this was a clear violation of Article 25 of the Convention. The seriousness of the violations of fundamental freedoms referred to in this case placed an obligation on the Government to take practical measures to eradicate forced labour, particularly by raising the awareness of those concerned and severely punishing all those found guilty. The Government should also accept an ILO direct contacts mission to assist it to bring an end to this situation. The Government, in collaboration with the partners concerned, and particularly workers' and employers' organizations, needed to pursue a coherent policy to resolve this problem.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for the extensive information provided which, they assumed, had been included in the report that the Government indicated it had submitted in October 2001. This raised an issue mentioned by the Employer members in the general discussion, since it appeared that the Government's report and that of the ICFTU, which was quoted in the observation of the Committee of Experts, had been received at the same time, but that only one side of the case had been considered.

The Employer members noted that the Government representative had placed great emphasis on the ratification by his country of the ILO's fundamental Conventions. They emphasized in this respect that adherence to principles was very different from the application of the provisions of Conventions in practice. Indeed, in view of the comments made on the political and social situation in the country, it could be concluded that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution, the existence of the Parliament and the 1963 equality legislation, the matter at issue was a practical problem relating to the application and enforcement of laws so as to eradicate forced labour in practice. The admission by the Government representative that there remained attitudinal problems to be resolved amounted to a confirmation that forced labour did indeed exist in the country. The Government representative appeared to be saying that the law existed, but was not implemented in practice.

The Employer members recalled that the case had been examined by the Committee on four occasions, beginning in 1982. Twenty years later, they would have expected much more progress to have been made in combating the problem of slavery. In the face of allegations by workers' organizations and NGOs, which had previously been denied by the Government, it had now been admitted that the vestiges of forced labour persisted, but were limited to economically weak groups. The only way of ascertaining the real situation was to go to the country and examine what was happening there. The request by the Committee of Experts for the Government to accept a technical advisory mission was therefore reasonable. They called for the Government representative to indicate whether this would be acceptable.

A second issue that had not been discussed by the Government representative was whether any law in Mauritania provided for penalties for the exaction of forced labour. The Committee of Experts had noted that the legal prohibition of forced labour was limited to contractual relationships between employees and employers, but did not cover informal relationships, which occurred in all societies. In addition to this gap in the law, information was also required to show that penalties were in practice imposed on those responsible for forced labour.

Another issue that had not been discussed by the Government representative consisted of the powers conferred on local leaders by the Ordinance of 1962 to requisition labour, and the possibility under an Act of 1970 to requisition labour in services considered essential under penalty of imprisonment or fines for those who refused to obey a requisition order. The Employer members noted that the Committee of Experts had requested information from the Government on the establishments in which employees could be requisitioned in the event of a strike.

In conclusion, the Employer members observed that there were evidently a number of shortcomings in the law and a wide gap in practice. More information clearly needed to be provided on these issues, although some might already be included in the report mentioned by the Government representative. They looked forward to the analysis of this information by the Committee of Experts.

A Worker member of Mauritania recalled that this case concerned two matters: practices of slavery, and the requisitioning of labour under the threat of sanctions, still permitted under Mauritanian law. There should be further investigations regarding the first matter. The Free Confederation of Mauritanian Workers remained nonetheless concerned with the failure of the land reforms which had been decided upon with the official abolition of slavery. Years later, the grabbing up of land by unscrupulous business people had indeed had disastrous effects on the economy. Concerning the possibility of requisitioning of labour - still allowed under national law - certain noticeable improvements could be noted, even if the Labour Code had not yet been revised. The abrogation of the law which institutionalized a single trade union system and which subjected the creation of trade unions to previous authorization was indicative of this positive trend.

The Worker member of Niger stated that, although it was important to ratify a Convention, it was no less important to apply it effectively. Convention No. 29 on forced labour touched human dignity, which is a universal concern for all the members of the ILO. Slavery is a sad reality in Mauritania and the elements noted by the CMT and the CISL established the persistence of this phenomenon. The Government of Mauritania did nothing faced with this situation. Ordinance No. 81-234 of 1981 did not penalize the fact of having imposed forced labour. By using expressions such as "after-effects", the Government manifested its will to marginalize the problem. The prohibition of the seminar on slave labour which had been planned in Kiffa from 15 to 18 September by the Free Confederation of Mauritanian Workers on the sole grounds that the seminar had not been authorized and that slavery did not exist in Mauritania, stated very eloquently the real will of the Government.

Another Worker member of Mauritania, recalling that the Free Confederation of Mauritanian Workers was affiliated with the ICFTU, stated that the information that was available incontestably indicated the existence of a trend to eradicate the after-effects of the plague of slavery. He encouraged the sending of a mission to the field in order to establish the facts on the ground, as regards both the positions advanced by both the ICFTU and the Government.

The Government representative stated that the allegations made by the ICFTU regarding certain practices of slavery in Mauritania led him to wonder if they concerned his country. It should be recalled that even under the previous military regime, neither the competent bodies of the United Nations nor various reports stemming inter alia from the Government of the United States had ever noted the existence of such practices. There were no forced labour practices in Mauritania, not even in isolated cases. The Labour Code provided for sanctions and it was the Government's intention to develop these. Historically speaking, the Decree of 1980 forbidding forced labour was only a formal step in solidifying a prohibition already in existence.

Another Government representative recalled that Mauritania had never been called before the Conference Committee with regard to Convention No. 29, and that his country adhered to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. He himself had asked the ILO to conduct a study with a view to promoting the Declaration, and that the conclusions of this study had been endorsed by the social partners. Moreover, in March 2002, the National Labour Council had examined a draft Labour Code, which contained, as the previous code, provisions prohibiting forced labour. As regards the Decrees concerning obligatory labour which needed to be amended, he was certain that they would be.

The Employer members recalled that no law existed to penalize the exaction of forced labour, making it still possible to requisition people. A wide gap also remained with respect to practice. The Government's apparent refusal to accept a technical mission was not consistent with its statement that it came before the Committee in a good position. Therefore, the conclusions should stress that the current Conference Committee discussion was no different than that which took place in 1990, despite the ratification by the Government of all of the fundamental Conventions and technical assistance provided under the Declaration in the interim.

The Worker members recalled that, in 2000, Mauritania had been called before the Committee with regard to the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81). As regards certain practices mentioned in the observation of the Committee of Experts as being characteristic of a violation of Convention No. 29, the facts brought forward came from reliable sources.

The Worker members stated that the Government should be requested to do the necessary to conduct a campaign to inform the whole population of the problem of forced labour as well as of the available alternatives. The Government had to promote the integration of former slaves into society and the labour market. The legislation should be amended in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. In particular, national law would have to provide for penalties, which would have to be effectively applied, to suppress forced labour practices. Finally, it would be appropriate if the Government would agree to a direct contacts mission by the ILO, which could evaluate the situation in an objective manner in all the regions of the country and assist the Government, in consultation with the social partners, in conducting a coherent policy to address this problem.

The Government representative wanted to recall that the Government had not recognized the existence of incidents of forced labour in Mauritania, even in isolated cases.

The representative of the Secretary-General recalled that, concerning the working methods of the Committee, as indicated in his response to the different questions raised during the general discussion, the practice was that observations from the workers' organizations were systematically communicated to the Government for comments. While awaiting the response from the Government, the Committee of Experts noted the observations of the employers' organizations and the workers' organizations, and invited the Government to respond to them but did not make any conclusions at this stage. It was only when the response from the Government had been received, or in the case in which the Government had not furnished any response although it had been given the occasion to do so, that the Committee examined the substance of the observations received.

The Committee took note of the Government's statement and the debate that followed. The Committee recalled that the case had been subject to several discussions, in 1989 and 1990, on the occasion of which the Committee had concluded that this was a serious violation of the Convention. The Committee noted the information communicated by the Government representative to the effect that the rule of law in the country prevented that situations such as those described could exist, that Mauritania had ratified the eight fundamental Conventions and that the labour inspectorate had been strengthened and programmes to combat against poverty put in place. The Committee noted with concern, as did the Committee of Experts, that the workers' organizations continued to allege a serious violation of the Convention because of the existence of practices of forced labour, the absence of sanctions to punish those responsible and the ambiguity of the legal provisions with regard to the requisition of labour. It also noted that the Government reaffirmed that the alleged practices could only have an isolated character and only be the after-effects of an historical phenomenon. The Committee took note of the fact that the Government had agreed to a technical assistance mission by the Office to the country to examine the details of a study on forced labour and child labour and it hoped that this first step would be followed by the necessary legal, economic and educational measures to end practices of forced labour.

The Government representative wanted to recall that the Government had not recognized the existence of incidents of forced labour in Mauritania, even in isolated cases.

The representative of the Secretary-General recalled that, concerning the working methods of the Committee, as indicated in his response to the different questions raised during the general discussion, the practice was that observations from the workers' organizations were systematically communicated to the Government for comments. While awaiting the response from the Government, the Committee of Experts noted the observations of the employers' organizations and the workers' organizations, and invited the Government to respond to them but did not make any conclusions at this stage. It was only when the response from the Government had been received, or in the case in which the Government had not furnished any response although it had been given the occasion to do so, that the Committee examined the substance of the observations received.