Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2005, Publication: 93rd ILC session (2005)

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 inclusion of this case in the list of cases to be examined by the current session of the Committee was seen by his country as a constructive step, motivated by the intention to draw up an inventory of progress made in implementing the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, in particular following the direct contacts mission of May 2004.

The Government representative presented the measures taken by his Government since then: (1) the adoption of a draft Labour Code elaborated with the assistance of the ILO and the entry into force of the Labour Code on 16 July 2004; (2) the extension of the definition of forced labour provided in article 5 of the draft Labour Code to forced labour which did not result from the non-execution of an employment contract, in conformity with the formula proposed by the Committee of Experts; (3) the criminalization of forced labour through the Act of 17 July 2003 and by virtue of sections 5 and 435 of the new Labour Code. The penalties provided for also applied to aggravated acts of violence or threats of violence exercised by a person in order to ensure another person's services, or take the product of his or her activity. According to the Labour Code, the aggravated violence extended to violence against freedom of movement, freedom of work, the free disposal of one's goods and the free exercise of parental responsibilities (penalties foreseen: five to ten years of forced labour, fines, loss of civil and political rights); (4) the repeal of the provisions of the Labour Code concerning the administration and direction of trade unions, which were discriminatory vis-à-vis foreigners, by virtue of section 273 of the new Labour Code, which allowed foreigners to undertake such functions if they complied with certain conditions, in conformity with Convention No. 87; (5) the repeal of the Ordinance of 1962, which delegated certain powers to the local chiefs concerning the maintenance of public order, by virtue of the Act of 27 January 2005. It should be noted that this Ordinance had not been replaced and that its provisions which had been considered contrary to Article 2 of the Convention no longer existed; (6) the establishment of the list of services which were considered to be essential for the population by Order No 566/MFPT/MFPE adopted by the Ministers of the Interior and Employment. This list excluded henceforth the postal service and public transport.

The Government representative also presented the various measures taken by his Government in order to improve the living conditions of workers, promote standards and consolidate the rule of law: (1) initiation on 4 July 2004, of the first free collective negotiations organized in more than 20 years with the participation of the employers and the five trade union confederations, negotiations which had led in particular to an increase of the inter-professional guaranteed minimum wage (SMIG) by more than 365 per cent; (2) the elaboration of a technical cooperation programme to promote the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work; (3) the implementation of programmes to fight against poverty, with encouraging results, which led to believe that the objectives set in the areas of health, education and housing would be attained by 2015; (4) the creation of an inter-ministerial structure aimed, in the first place, to introduce the organs responsible for the law's implementation to international labour standards in the area of forced labour (two seminars held in Nouakchott and Kiffa) and then, in the second place, awareness-raising among the populations, especially in the disadvantaged areas, with the support of the United States Embassy in Mauritania; (5) the national programme for good governance contained a component on "promotion of human rights and reinforcement of civil society's capacity". The Lutheran World Federation had been associated with this programme. The Government had recognized three human rights associations: the Mauritanian Human Rights Association, the think tank on economic and social development and SOS-Esclaves.

The Government was about to approve a national plan for the promotion and protection of human rights, elaborated with the assistance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The plan included sections on the most vulnerable groups and on the partnership between the Government and civil society. With regard to the second section, the Government had solicited the assistance of the ILO and the UNDP.

The Employer members recalled that Convention No. 29 required the suppression of forced labour in all forms, that the illegal exaction of forced labour be a punishable offence, and that penalties imposed by law were adequate and strictly enforced. Mauritania had adopted a first Decree to abolish slavery in 1905; the 1963 Labour Code prohibited forced labour and imposed relevant penal sanctions. As noted by the Committee of Experts, however, the Labour Code provisions only applied to employers and workers in a formal employment relationship. In 1980, the Government had adopted a declaration abolishing slavery, and in 1981, it had adopted an ordinance abolishing slavery and providing for compensation to former slave-owners. From 1990 to 2000, the Government had repeatedly insisted that forced labour no longer existed in the country.

They noted that previous comments of the Committee of Experts had held that slavery persisted in Mauritania, citing information from the report of the Working Group on Slavery of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The Committee of Experts' current comments cited the observations in the report of the direct contacts mission of May 2004, which had noted that the Government considered the practice of forced labour "entirely exceptional and, in any case, not more developed than that in certain major cities in the industrialized world". The direct contacts mission had also noted the views of the Free Confederation of Mauritanian Workers (CLTM), which held that "situations of forced labour are widespread in Mauritania". The Employer members also noted that the direct contacts mission concluded that further research and investigation into the continued existence of forced labour was needed, and they therefore urged the Government to cooperate with such further investigations in order to determine the extent to which forced labour persisted.

The Employer members also noted the amended Labour Code of 2004, which abolished forced labour in any labour relationship, not just where it was governed by an employment contract. In addition, Act No. 2003-025 of 17 July 2003 regarding trafficking of persons made such acts punishable by imprisonment. They noted the Government representative's position that this legislation was also intended to prohibit violence in connection with the freedom of movement.

In view of the above, and in light of the conclusions of the direct contacts mission, it appeared that while progress had been made with regard to legislative measures prohibiting forced labour, more information was needed regarding penal sanctions for violations of this legislation. They urged the Government to provide information on the jurisdictions competent to receive complaints and the penalties imposed under the Labour Code and the Act on trafficking of persons, including the number of complaints lodged and the respective court decisions.

They commended the Government on action taken to combat poverty through economic and social means. This notwithstanding, the Employer members saw this matter as a problem of the application and enforcement by the Government of relevant national legislation. As a result, they urged the Government to improve the application and enforcement of national legislation, including the consistent enforcement of penalties for any offences relating to forced labour. Finally, as the direct contacts mission had noted, there was no enforcement mechanism for labour legislation, and resources allocated to the labour inspectorate were scarce. They wished to reinforce that allocation of additional resources for the labour inspectorate was only one of a number of mechanisms by which national legislation could be more effectively enforced. In conclusion, they urged the Government to acknowledge the problems of forced labour that still existed and to establish, with the ILO, an information and awareness-raising campaign to sensitize all elements of the population to the issue, including those who were most susceptible of being victims.

The Worker members recalled that this Committee had been examining this case since 1982 and raised a question regarding the evolution of the situation in the past 25 years. Despite numerous references by the Committee of Experts to the issue of persons descended from former slaves who were obliged to work for a person who claimed the status of being their "master", and the persistence of this phenomenon described in the report by the organization SOS-Slavery, the Government had not yet provided a response on the concrete cases nor indicated whether investigations had been conducted in these particular cases. The Government continued to minimize, and even to deny, the forced labour practices and to present them, as for the direct contacts mission of 2004, as entirely exceptional and not more developed than in certain major cities in the industrialized world. It was paradoxical that the Government denied the existence of slave-like practices and at the same time pursued amendments of its legislation aimed at the prohibition of such practices, thus following the demands formulated by the Committee of Experts requesting the extension of the prohibition of forced labour to any labour relationship, the imposition of sanctions in conformity with the Convention, the repeal of provisions allowing the village chiefs to requisition labour and the establishment of a complete list of essential services in which such practice was authorized. In this regard, the Worker members noted with interest and satisfaction the adoption of the new Labour Code, which had extended the scope of prohibition of forced labour to any labour relationship, even where it was not derived from an employment contract, the introduction of penal sanctions under the Act of 2003 punishing trafficking in persons, the establishment of the complete list of essential services and the repeal of the text allowing the requisitioning of persons. They observed, however, that those legislative changes had not yet been followed by practicalresults, and that measures still had to be taken to make them operational. In fact, the application of the new laws was likely to create confusion in a situation where the principle of the prohibition of forced labour and the sanctions applicable in case of violation were provided for in the two different legislative texts. Besides, the Labour Code contained no reference to persons working at their former "master's" home and deprived of the freedom to move and to work anywhere else. As specified in the report of the direct contacts mission, the exercise of the right of appeal was therefore decisive. As it was explained in the report of SOS-Slavery, there was collusion between the "masters" and the judicial system. The "master's" descendants constituted the overwhelming majority of the leading class of the country, including the army administration, judicial staff and police forces. The direct contacts mission indicated that there was no labour law enforcement machinery because of the scarce resources allocated to the labour inspectorate. At the same time, strict application of economic, social and educational measures allowing for the reintegration and indemnification of the victims appeared necessary. The Worker members praised the legal progress achieved and wished that it were followed by practical results, and that the Government would be expressly requested to assume the obligations in regard to the integration in one and the same text of the provisions prohibiting forced labour and imposing sanctions, the preparation of detailed reports on the forced labour cases, competent jurisdictions and sanctions imposed, the organization of the information campaign on slavery, the elaboration of the social and economic action plan against poverty and the vestiges of slavery, the ratification and application of Convention No. 144 on tripartite consultations and the guarantee of freedom of expression for trade unions and civil society. Besides, while having noted the success of the direct contacts mission, the Worker members proposed a new mission of this kind in order to assist the Government in putting its obligations into practice and to assess the needs for technical assistance. They stated that they would be happy to see slavery definitively eradicated before the 25th anniversary of the first examination of this case by this Committee.

A Worker member of Mauritania stated that significant progress had been made and that ILO technical assistance had accompanied that process. Forced labour was related to the problem of poverty and was a scourge that developing countries must fight against. The way that SOS-Slavery had presented the problem of slavery in Mauritania was biased; it was an exaggerated and sensational account. The speaker also refuted the statements alleging that there was no freedom of association in the country. Similarly, it was not possible to assert that freedom of movement was restricted in the country. The direct contacts mission had not been able to find any instances thereof.

Another Worker member of Mauritania stated that his country had once again been included in the list of cases because the Government continued to deny the existence of slavery, and yet slavery existed and was practised in all its forms. That year, three people, including one journalist, had been imprisoned for around two months, accused of having helped a slave escape from his masters. The case was still pending before the court. Such action demonstrated the severity of the practice. Thousands of people were kept as slaves, yet the Government's arguments always referred to measures taken to combat poverty or illiteracy. Such measures were not, however, of any benefit to slaves, given their position, since they were the property of their masters. Today, their freedom, emancipation and promotion must be secured by means of specific policies and awareness campaigns.

The provisions of the new Labour Code were confusing, very general, and did not form a suitable regulatory basis for dealing with cases of forced labour or slavery. Similarly, penalties were not imposed upon offenders, and no judgements had ever been made in favour of slaves, despite the number of complaints filed in connection with the practice of forced labour. All the above demonstrated the Government's lack of commitment to eradicating slavery and improving the conditions of victims with a view to their integration into the working society of the country.

The Government had recently recognized a number of trade union organizations and human rights associations, including SOS-Slavery. Although such action was courageous, the fundamental issue was that of the effective eradication of slavery through the adoption of specific measures. The Government should firstly acknowledge the existence of that phenomenon and reaffirm its commitment to taking economic, social and legal measures.

The speaker said that his organization, the CLTM, endorsed the recommendations of the ILO direct contacts mission, and assured the Government of its cooperation in eliminating the scourge in question, in the belief that the promotion of social dialogue and the creation of a permanent cooperation framework would be very positive in terms of human rights. Finally, he emphasized that the CLTM, his organization, was a trade union organization that was free and independent of political parties and the Government.

The Employer member of Mauritania said he was surprised to see Mauritania on the list of individual cases. Things had to be seen as they were; the case had to be tackled objectively and one should be wary of NGOs and political parties that used the situation to fulfil certain political objectives. Slavery no longer existed in Mauritania and the Government had set up appropriate structures to eradicate inequality and combat poverty. The information given by the Government was objective and true. Given the above, the speaker felt that Mauritania had been cited due to the valuable and substantial progress made.

The Worker member of the Central African Republic reminded those present at the meeting that despite the emergence of new forms of forced labour, one must not forget those forms which, although considered to be "old", were still very much in existence given the fact that the descendants of slaves were slaves today. Despite the uncertainty as to its scale, the phenomenon really existed, and subjected the many people affected in the various regions of the country to all types of incredible, but real, abuse. The information available did not clarify whether penalties for carrying out those practices were actually imposed, and there was no evidence of any conviction in that respect. The Government only provided very general responses. However, it formulated precise allegations against a trade union organization accused of using that issue for political means, contrary to the principle set forth in Convention No. 87 of non-interference in trade union activities aimed at defending workers' rights, including those of slaves, and therefore a solution should have been found in social dialogue and not in confrontation. The speaker observed that it was high time the Government provided precise statistics on the number of workers used as slaves, on the penalties imposed and on the practical reinsertion measures in place. In conclusion, the speaker recalled the need for proper dialogue on the issue of forced labour. The trade union organizations strongly hoped that such dialogue would very soon commence and that the Government would make efforts to ensure that, in its next report, the Committee of Experts would be able to note real progress in that area.

The Government member of France stated that it would be useful to know what this Committee still expected of the Mauritanian Government, which had received a direct contacts mission, as had been requested by the Committee in 2002 and 2003, and which had also put into effect the essence of the mission's recommendations.

The previous observations of the Committee of Experts concerned three points. Previously, forced labour was not sanctioned severely enough; the prevailing provisions in the Labour Code dealing with this matter assumed the existence of a labour contract, which was rare in cases of forced labour, and the sole penalties provided for were fines. The only means of applying heavier penalties was through other penal provisions. The Committee of Experts moreover criticized the too frequent use of the right to requisition staff and the extensive list of services considered as essential. On all of these points, the new legislation brought about considerable progress. The list of essential services had been revised, and more importantly, the new Labour Code had defined forced labour as a crime in itself, subject to ten years' imprisonment. It was necessary to continue to draw upon the ongoing work of the ILO and UNDP.

The case of Mauritania could turn out to be a case of progress in its legislative developments. But there also, the problem was the aftermath of slavery. Convention No. 29 could not solve the situations of poverty and cultural alienation experienced by the descendants of former slaves, even if they were free. The speaker stated that the ILO should develop better instruments to regulate the informal economy and to provide support for descendants of slaves with a view to ensuring their economic, social and cultural integration.

The Government member of Finland, speaking also on behalf of the Government members of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, noted that while the Government appeared to consider the problem of slavery as marginal, the information sources cited in the Committee of Experts' report confirmed that slavery was a reality in Mauritania, the extent of which was unknown. She feared that the victims of this heinous practice were often vulnerable individuals belonging to economically weak groups, such as women and children. Nothing could justify slavery and it was a crime against the fundamental human right of personal freedom and integrity. It affected both individual dignity and psychological development and often led to deplorable social situations. She noted the Government's efforts in this matter, but it appeared that these measures had not been enough. She therefore requested the Government to give full effect in law and practice to the points raised by the Committee of Experts, to ensure that employers' and workers' organizations as well as NGOs were involved in this process, to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, and to provide a detailed reply to all questions raised in the report of the Committee of Experts.

The Government representative wished to answer certain questions that had been raised during the discussion. As regards the reference of the Employer members to the Ordinance of 1981, he explained that it had been adopted in the particular context of the adaptation of national legislation to Islamic law. The point was not to fill a legal void but to provide the moral authority for the prohibition of slavery as foreseen in the Labour Code.

As regards the definition of forced labour, reference should be made to Convention No. 29. Forced labour should not be confused with the problem of poverty. The existing legal gaps had been filled and if Mauritanians who lived in conditions of poverty and insecurity represented about 40 per cent of the population, not all of them were descendants of slaves. It was not easy to eradicate situations of poverty and vulnerability which resulted from social status, and the Government in recent years had proactively implemented a programme of action in economic, social and cultural domains that was especially aimed at descendents of slaves. It was not true that the Mauritanian Government had not or was not undertaking efforts or measures targeting descendants of slaves. For example, it had organized ambitious programmes in the cities, particularly to provide accommodation, as well as in rural areas. It was worth noting that descendants of slaves were represented at the management level in public office, the armed forces, the police, public service, etc.

Concerning the question of application of appropriate penalties provided in the legislation, all the courts were competent to examine cases and accordingly apply appropriate penalties. In this regard, the Government had been committed to provide precise and exhaustive information on the cases mentioned in the report of SOS-Slavery. Moreover, it had not been proved that these allegations were correct.

As for the necessity to strengthen labour inspection, Mauritania had indeed limited resources common to a developing country, and international assistance for the strengthening of labour inspection would be welcome.

The speaker was surprised that the Worker members had referred to the existing contradiction between legislation and national practice. The Committee of Experts in its comments had requested to change the legislation. These changes had been made and due to the amendments to the Labour Code, Mauritania now had effective legal provisions to deal with all situations of forced labour. At the same time, the Government had taken a number of measures to combat, in practice, the problem of poverty as well as in the areas of schooling, education and health. The Government has done its utmost despite the limited resources it disposed of as a less developed country. There was no proof that in Mauritania anyone was compelled to work.

As regards the sensitization campaign requested by a number of speakers, the Government representative considered that this campaign had already started with the assistance of the ILO within the framework of the action plan to promote human rights, which included important information, communication and education measures, and that had to be approved shortly by the Government. In addition, in the past few years five workshops had been organized on the issue of domestic work of girls.

Finally, as regards the imprisonment of a journalist, the speaker indicated that the facts mentioned were not accurate. The Government was ready to accept all the positive and constructive actions which might help to eliminate the existing shortcomings.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for his reply to the discussion. They indicated that the conclusions should reflect the positive measures taken by the Government in connection with the amendment to the Labour Code that had extended the scope of the provision regarding the prohibition of forced labour. They noted that forced labour had been made an offence under the amended Labour Code, and that the penalties for this offence had been included in the Act regarding the trafficking of persons. The Employer members therefore noted the progress made by the Government in bringing its national legislation into compliance with the Convention. Nevertheless, they emphasized the need for additional information on the jurisdictions competent to receive complaints and on the penalties imposed under the Labour Code and the Act regarding the trafficking of persons, as had been requested by the Committee of Experts.

The Employer members observed that, in the face of conflicting information received from the Government, on the one hand, and from the workers' organizations, on the other hand, it was unclear how widespread the persistence of the problem of forced labour was. They considered that further research and investigation on the continued existence of forced labour and the magnitude of the problem was necessary, which could entail a direct contacts mission.

The Employer members expressed their very serious concern with the persistence of the allegations of forced labour and urged the Government to adopt the necessary measures to eradicate all practices of forced labour in all of its forms, placing particular emphasis on the enforcement of the national legislation, including the penalties for the exaction of forced labour. Referring also to the Committee of Experts' comments concerning the absence of an enforcement mechanism for labour legislations and the scarce resources allocated to the labour inspectorate, which had been noted by the direct contacts mission in 2004, the Employer members considered it necessary to reflect in the conclusions that the allocation of additional resources was only one of a number of mechanisms by which the legislation could be more effectively enforced. Finally, the Employer members urged the Government to institute, with the assistance of the ILO, an information and awareness-raising campaign to sensitize all elements of the population to the serious problem of forced labour.

The Worker members favourably welcomed the progress made in legislation and appreciated the contribution made by the direct contacts mission. They had hoped to examine the effects in practice and requested the Government to undertake a series of concrete legal steps, namely, the abrogation of the powers of village chiefs, the introduction of sanctions in the new Labour Code, and the provision of reports on cases brought before justice. They also asked for policy measures in the form of an information campaign aimed at the whole population, and a plan of action against poverty and the repercussions of slavery and to promote freedom for civil society. They also invited the Government to make international commitments, in particular, the ratification of Convention No. 144 on tripartite consultation. In a positive spirit, the Worker members proposed the organization of a new direct contacts mission in order to determine in a definitive manner whether or not slavery existed in Mauritania, and to put into effect the commitments and the technical cooperation mentioned earlier.

The Committee took note of the information given by the Government representative and the discussion that had ensued. The Committee recalled that the present case had been discussed in the same Committee in the past, notably in 2002 and 2003. In that regard, the Committee noted that the Government had accepted the visit of the direct contacts mission, which had taken place in May 2004. The Committee took note of all the information set out in the report of the Committee of Experts, in particular that concerning the new Labour Code, adopted in July 2004, which provided for the prohibition of forced labour - a prohibition that covered any type of work, even that not subject to an employment contract - and the imposition of penal sanctions.

The Committee took note of the information given by the Government representative concerning the adoption of the new Labour Code; the penalization of forced labour under the law prohibiting trafficking in persons; the adoption of the decree laying down the list of essential service establishments; the increase in the interprofessional minimum wage; the programmes to combat poverty, especially the technical cooperation programme devised in conjunction with the ILO for the promotion of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work; and the creation of an inter-ministerial structure which aimed to make those responsible more aware of the application of labour standards, including those on forced labour. The Committee also took note of the statement by the Government representative concerning the recognition of human rights associations involved in activities that focused on issues related to forced labour.

The Committee indicated with some concern that in its report the direct contacts mission referred to allegations, made by certain workers' organizations, that some forced labour practices continued to exist - practices that were the vestiges of legally abolished slavery.

The Committee noted the Committee of Experts' concern about the possible effects, in practice, of the fact that the general prohibition on forced labour was provided for in the Labour Code, while penalties were provided for in a specific law punishing another crime, namely the law prohibiting trafficking of persons of 2003.

The Committee trusted that the legislative measures adopted would produce rapid practical results that would bring an end to the vestiges of slavery and that the Government would be able to provide information on legal actions taken in various jurisdictions, by virtue of section 5 of the Labour Code, and on the penalties imposed.

The Committee, having noted the progress made by the Government in the field of legislation, invited it to submit an exhaustive and detailed report that:

(1) responded to all the comments made by the Committee of Experts;

(2) contained full information on the competent jurisdictions to receive complaints and the penalties imposed;

(3) contained all elements relating to the awareness campaign;

(4) provided information on the consultations held with the social partners.

The Committee invited the Government to continue to avail itself to the technical cooperation of the ILO and other donors, which should include an awareness campaign on forced labour.

The Committee, having taken into account the conflicting information on the persistence of the practices of forced labour and slavery, decided that the Office undertake a fact-finding mission. That mission should review the effective application of national legislation.