Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2003, Publication: 91st ILC session (2003)

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

The Government representative recalled that his Government had undertaken to respect three commitments: to provide detailed and precise replies to the Committee of Experts, to adopt a draft Labour Code with ILO assistance and to allow an ILO technical mission to visit Mauritania. Concerning the adoption of a draft Labour Code, he indicated that such a draft had been approved in a first reading on 2 June. It provided for the prohibition of forced labour. This prohibition covered all labour relations, even if they did not involve a contract. He also noted that the Government had approved draft legislation on the trafficking of persons, including a broad definition of this term, as well as specific penalties and sanctions to be imposed in case of violations. With respect to the ILO technical mission, he emphasized the heavy workload involved in the finalization of the Labour Code and the law on the trafficking of persons. He also mentioned the serious and distressing events which had recently taken place in Mauritania, as a result of which the legitimate Government had almost been overthrown. He assured the Conference Committee that, as soon as the situation had been stabilized, the Government would fix a precise date to invite an ILO technical mission to Nouakchott.

The Worker members indicated that the Committee was once again discussing the serious problem of the violation of human rights in Mauritania. When the case had first been discussed in 1982, they had expressed the hope that the Government would make a serious commitment to eliminating slavery in the country. However, the observation made by the Committee of Experts showed that certain forms of slavery persisted. Indeed, it appeared that in the eyes of some, the descendents of slaves always suffered from a lower status from birth. These persons of lower status, who worked as agricultural workers, shepherds or servants, were entirely dependent on their masters to whom they gave the money that they earned or for whom they worked directly in exchange for food and lodging. It was therefore to be regretted that the Government continued to maintain that these were merely vestiges of the former social system or isolated cases, and that slavery had been abolished in Mauritania.

Despite the adoption of three legislative texts prohibiting forced or compulsory labour, namely the Constitution of 20 May 1961, Act No. 36-023 of 23 January 1963 issuing the Labour Code and the Order of 1980, the practice of slavery still existed in Mauritania. The refusal of the Government to acknowledge the existence of this grave problem condoned the existence of the practice. On several occasions, the Committee of Experts had called upon the Government to: (i) adopt a provision imposing legal sanctions in accordance with article 25 of Convention No. 29; (ii) extend the scope of the prohibition of forced or compulsory labour to all employment relations; (iii) repeal the Ordinance of 1962 conferring very broad powers on local leaders to requisition labour; and (iv) establish a complete list of establishments considered to be essential services for the population and which could be affected by a possible requisition order. Despite these requests, nothing had changed.

With regard to legal sanctions, no provisions had been adopted to give effect to Article 25 of the Convention. On the subject of the extension of the scope of the prohibition of forced labour, the current amendment to section 5 of the Labour Code, providing that any violation would be punishable in accordance with the penalties set out in the legislation in force, would give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts. With regard to the repeal of the Ordinance of 1962 and the establishment of a list of the establishments considered to be essential services, the Government had not provided any information, thereby showing its lack of good will. Despite certain measures at the legislative level, there were no grounds for believing that changes had been made in practice. The fact that the imposition of sanctions was prevented on persons perpetrating practices of slavery did not instil confidence in the good will of the Government to eliminate forced or compulsory labour. The adoption of legal provisions was not sufficient. It was also necessary to take economic measures with a view to the reintegration of the victims of slavery into society and their compensation. Campaigns to raise the awareness of the population also needed to be undertaken.

The previous year, the Government had undertaken to accept an ILO technical assistance mission. The Worker members regretted that the mission had not been able to visit the country. They hoped that the mission had been prevented for reasons of a practical nature. However, they recalled that for many years the Government had been prohibiting both the access to the country and the activities of human rights organizations. The Worker members called for a technical assistance mission to be sent to Mauritania so that the appropriate legal provisions could be adopted.

The Employer members recalled that the case of Mauritania had been already discussed by the Conference Committee the previous year. They noted that several forms of slavery still existed in the country, particularly in rural areas. Despite the formal prohibition of slavery, slave-like conditions continued to exist and they had to be eliminated. The key issue was the abolition of forced labour in practice. Referring to the statement by the Government representative that on 2 June 2003 a new law had been adopted targeting the abolition of such slave-like labour practices, the Employer members asked whether it had already come into force and had been implemented. The practice of forced labour was not only the vestiges of an old tradition, but also had systemic roots and would be difficult to eradicate immediately. While the Government representative might be able to deny specific instances of forced labour that were raised, the overall existence of forced labour in the country could not be concealed.

They regretted that a technical mission had not taken place, and noted the willingness expressed by the Government to make use of further technical assistance. Essentially, what was needed was a legal basis for the elimination of forced labour. However, the existing laws did not provide adequate sanctions for violations and they had not been implemented effectively. They requested the Government representative to provide necessary information to back up his statements on the action taken with a view to bringing national legislation into line with the Convention. The Employer members further recalled that in 2002 the Government had announced that it would repeal the Act of 1971 which provided for the possibility of requisitioning labour under specific emergency circumstances to ensure the functioning of services considered to be essential for the country or the population. They emphasized the need for the Government to provide more precise information on what services were covered by these provisions. Referring to Decree No. 70-153 of 23 May 1970 issuing the internal rules of prison establishments, they requested the Government to provide specific information on the measures taken to amend this Decree. They indicated in this respect that more precise regulations were required governing the hiring of prison labour to private individuals, since this remained under the overall responsibility of the public authorities. In conclusion, they emphasized that further action of a legislative and administrative nature was urgently needed to eliminate forced labour practices. They therefore urged the Government to provide full and complete information on the measures taken in the past and those intended in the future so that urgent action could be taken to generally abolish this rare remaining case of slavery.

The Worker member of Mauritania regretted that his country had once again been called before the Committee with regard to the application of Convention No. 29. He deplored the fact that his Government, despite the many calls made upon it, had remained indifferent to the sufferings endured by the victims of slavery. The problem of slavery was still topical in his country and required rigorous action.

The previous year, the Committee had had a long discussion of this case as well as the commitment the Government had made to accept an ILO technical assistance mission. This attitude had appeared to be a sign of good will, but had turned out to be merely another way of putting off a decision by the Committee and of continuing the violation of this fundamental Convention on forced labour. This situation was a violation of the human, economic and social rights of men and women who were born free and who aspired, as did all human beings, to freedom, dignity and a decent life. Reference was now being made to the provisions contained in the new Labour Code as a means of affording protection. However, the problems of slavery were difficult and complex. The few provisions contained in the Labour Code would not be sufficient to resolve them, particularly when their application in practice was the responsibility of labour inspectors who were renowned for their complacency and lack of respect for workers' rights. Nevertheless, the Free Confederation of Workers of Mauritania (CLTM) had put much effort in recent years into the adoption of the Labour Code, which would undoubtedly strengthen the protection provided. Among the new provisions, certain were related to the definition of slavery and trafficking, the protection of victims and the punishment of offenders. However, assistance policies were also needed, including the development and adoption of specific economic and social programmes, a policy of integration and an awareness-raising campaign. The CLTM recognized that, although important measures had been taken in recent years, such as Ordinance No. 81-234 of 1981, these had merely consisted of political decisions which had had no impact at the practical and institutional levels. Moreover, they were not of a nature to strengthen the protection and support provided as they had not been accompanied by legal, economic and social measures.

He reported that an awareness-raising seminar on forced labour, organized by the CLTM with the support of the WCL, which was to have been held in Kiffa in 2001, had been prohibited by the authorities. Now the CLTM, which was the most representative organization in the country through its trade union activities, its structures and 60,000 members, was the organization that was attacked the most by the authorities. Its members were subjected to pressure, intimidation and dismissal. Its activities had been blocked and over 200 dockers had been dismissed following a strike in October 2002. Recently, a very strong campaign had been carried out by the authorities to force militants in public establishments, using all possible means, to join the General Union of Mauritanian Workers (UTM). This campaign had greatly harmed the CLTM. In conclusion, he hoped that on this occasion the Government would collaborate with the ILO and accept a technical mission and ILO assistance. He added that the CLTM was prepared to collaborate with the ILO and the Government with a view to the implementation of Convention No. 29 and for the promotion of social dialogue which, unfortunately, did not exist in his country.

Another Worker member of Mauritania requested the Conference Committee to examine the report of the Committee of Experts clearly and without going beyond the technical issues raised, so as to avoid the politicization of the Committee. He emphasized that it was necessary to make a distinction between the "village chief", which was a historical concept that no longer existed, and the "area chief". He stated that he defended the interests of the workers, but it was necessary to make it clear that slavery was a historical phenomenon which no longer existed in the traditional sense. Referring to the statement by the Worker members, he emphasized that there had never been any question of sending an inquiry mission to Mauritania, but rather a technical mission. He added that the technical mission should not visit Mauritania in order to make inquires, but to provide assistance because the Labour Code had recently been adopted. Finally, he suggested that the evaluation of the representativity of trade union organizations should be part of the mandate of the technical mission.

The Government representative doubted the soundness of the allegations made by the Worker and Employer members. He indicated that the discussions had to be based on the report of the Committee of Experts and should not touch on political considerations. Social justice should be objective and balanced in order to resolve the problems, and not to make accusations. The allegation of slavery was extremely serious. The Government had never recognized the persistence of slave-like practices in the country. It was true that Mauritania had had castes, but the descendents of former slaves were no longer considered as slaves today, and the fact that a person belonged to a particular historical social category today had no consequences for their rights. There were no longer any occupations reserved for descendants of slaves (shepherds, domestic workers), and these jobs were performed by all classes. Those that had these jobs received wages higher than the minimum wage.

Referring to the statement by the Worker members alleging serious violations of human rights in Mauritania since 1982, he indicated that the country had been governed by the rule of law since 1991 and that there were around 20 political parties, as well as five trade union organizations. The Government also respected public freedoms, freedom of association and of organization. There were no prisoners and there were 10 free newspapers that criticized the Government without fear. Even the Secretary-General of the CLTM knew he could make all sorts of allegations without worry. He emphasized the importance of adopting a responsible attitude and the need for speakers to weigh their words carefully. The Worker members should verify their sources before making allegations and read the Government's written statements. He denied the allegations of the Worker members that the origin of a person had an effect on their status. He indicated, for example, that shepherds were better paid than teachers, and that the salary of a domestic worker was higher than that of a police officer. There were no public secrets and if slavery really existed the Government would not close its eyes to it and would not discuss the definition of this phenomenon. He said that the debate was surreal. Mauritania faced many other problems, such as underemployment. In this respect, he challenged those making allegations to inform the judiciary of one single case of slavery. The Government had recently made many efforts to respond to the requests of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee. In this regard, he recalled that the Labour Code, which was in the process of adoption, effectively introduced the prohibition of forced labour and provided that any violation of its provisions would be punishable by sanctions. He had also reiterated the Government's intention to formally repeal the Order of 1962. The Committee should understand that this involved much work and take into account the weakness of the administration. He forcefully reiterated that there was no lack of goodwill on the Government's part.

He recalled that the country had just experienced an attempted coup, which had threatened the rule of law, from which thankfully it had been preserved. In his opinion, it was now necessary to preserve the rule of law instead of responding to allegations. While it was normal for the Employer and Worker members to defend social standards and implementation of Conventions, they should not adopt a punitive approach.

The Worker members recalled that their clear objective was compliance with standards, nothing more, nothing less. Up to now, the Government had not acknowledged that slavery was a problem, which was preventing its eradication. The Worker members had based their statements on the hard facts in the report of the Committee of Experts. Although legislation prohibiting forced labour existed, it still needed to be implemented in practice. The Worker members called on the Government to open up the debate and to let civil society address the problem openly. After so many years, they considered that a direct contacts mission was necessary to assess the situation in the country, before technical assistance could be of use.

The Employer members regretted that no progress had apparently been made in this case, despite the fact that it had been discussed the previous year, as well as in 1989 and 1990. Despite the eloquence of the Government representative, he had provided no new information. Moreover, he did not appear to understand the gravity of the problem or to realize the measures that needed to be taken in law and in practice. Indeed, he had seemed intent on minimizing the problems that still remained. However, through his statements, he had in fact admitted the persistence of forced labour, particularly in agriculture, domestic work and animal husbandry. The Employer members further noted that anyone who drew attention to these problems in the country ran the risk of being penalized. They therefore called upon the Government to openly acknowledge the problems that still existed so that the necessary measures could be taken, with particular emphasis on the application of effective sanctions for any violations of the respective legislation. They supported the proposal by the Worker members that a direct contacts mission be sent to Mauritania to help with the application of the Convention.

The Government representative stated that the adoption of the conclusions in their present form would render the Committee's discussions meaningless. Up to now none of the allegations made had been proven to be true. To base conclusions on such hypotheses undermined the credibility of the Committee and gave no credit to the good faith that the Government had always shown.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee shared the concern expressed by the Committee of Experts at the absence of legal provisions penalizing the exaction of forced labour and regretted that the mission which had been accepted by the Government had not taken place. The Committee noted the statement of the Government representative concerning the adoption at the first reading of the Labour Code and draft legislation to suppress the trafficking of persons. The Committee expressed deep concern at the persistence of situations which constituted grave violations of the prohibition of forced labour. It urged the Government that a technical assistance mission should take place in the form of a direct contacts mission to the country to help the Government and the social partners with a view to the application of the Convention. The Committee hoped that progress would be made in practice in the near future in this case. The Committee decided to place its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report.

The Government representative stated that the adoption of the conclusions in their present form would render the Committee's discussions meaningless. Up to now none of the allegations made had been proven to be true. To base conclusions on such hypotheses undermined the credibility of the Committee and gave no credit to the good faith that the Government had always shown.