Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Burkina Faso (Ratification: 1997)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. For a number of years the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that certain sections of the Penal Code could be used to penalize the expression of political opinions or opposition to the established political system through prison sentences involving compulsory labour. It noted, in particular, sections 177–180, under which any attack on the honour or sensibility of certain persons exercising public authority (sections 178 and 180), or against the authority of the judicial system or its independence (section 179), constitutes an offence punishable by imprisonment. Furthermore, sections 361–364 of the Penal Code provide for the punishment of slurs upon the honour and dignity of an individual, insults, slander and defamation. Section 364 prescribes imprisonment for any person found guilty of committing defamation, as defined in section 361, namely “any allegation or imputation of a fact which is detrimental to the honour or dignity of individuals or entities to which the act is attributed”. Under the terms of section 365, any person against whom legal action is taken for defamation shall have the opportunity to provide proof of the truth of his or her statements and thereby have such action ended. The Committee also noted that sections 114–123 of Ordinance No. 92-024bis/PRES of 29 April 1992 issuing the Code of Information contain similar provisions. This Ordinance also contains provisions prescribing imprisonment for certain press offences.

Since neither the penal legislation nor the prison regulations appear to contain special provisions governing the detention of persons convicted of political offences, the Committee concluded that any person convicted of one of the offences established by the abovementioned provisions of the Penal Code or the Code of Information may be compelled to perform prison labour.

The Committee notes the lack of information on this point in the Government’s report.

In order to be able to assess the scope and extent of application of these provisions, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on their application in practice, stating how many court decisions have been handed down on the basis of these provisions and supplying sample copies thereof which will enable the Committee to ascertain that these provisions serve their proper objective and are not used to penalize the expression of political opinions through imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

Article 1(b). Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development. Service for national development. In its previous comments the Committee noted that the Service for National Development (SND) involves the compulsory participation of young people in activities serving the development of their country. The SND is accomplished in two successive phases: the training phase, during which those called up receive an essentially civic and patriotic training and acquire the rudiments of vocational training in priority sectors for development; and a production phase, in which they make their contribution to the socio-economic development of the country in the education, agriculture and stock-rearing sectors, and also in other sectors making use of wage earners and persons called up from the rural and informal sectors. The 12 months spent engaged in the SND are considered as time spent in military service, thus releasing the citizen from any other military obligation (Decree No. 98 292/PRES/PM/DEF and Decree No. 99-446/PRES/PM).

The Committee has considered that the SND activities for the development of the country are incompatible with the Convention inasmuch as young people do not participate in them voluntarily.

The Committee notes the Government’s explanations that the compulsory nature of the SND derives from section 10 of the Constitution and the voluntary nature of the SND cannot be established in formal provisions since that would deprive such service of its philosophical content. Like other civic obligations such as the payment of taxes, accomplishing the SND is a civic duty but it does not form part of any development project.

However, the Committee notes that section 10 of Act No. 013/98/AN of 28 April 1998 (as amended by Act No. 0149-2005/AN of 18 May 2005) issuing the legal provisions applicable to posts and employees in the public service states that no person may apply for a post in the public service if he or she has not fulfilled all the relevant requirements of the legislation on military service or any other equivalent civic obligations.

The Committee again recalls that Article 1(b) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the legislation on service for national development (SND) explicitly establishes the voluntary nature of participation in this service, and to send information on any further developments in this regard.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participation in a strike or refusal to comply with a requisition order. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under the terms of the legislation, the authorities have wide-ranging powers to requisition officials to ensure the continuation of the administration and the safety of persons and property, and any failure by officials to discharge their duties may incur disciplinary penalties, without prejudice, where applicable, to the penalties laid down by the penal legislation (Act No. 013/98/AN of 18 April 1998, issuing the legal provisions applicable to posts and employees in the public service, and Act No. 45-60/AN of 27 July 1960, issuing regulations on the right to strike of state officials and employees). It asked the Government to indicate the criminal penalties applicable to public officials who refuse to comply with a requisition order. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that they cannot incur any criminal penalties since no criminal penalties to this end are provided for in the Penal Code, the Labour Code or Act No. 45-60/AN.

Furthermore, the Committee noted that section 386 of the new Labour Code (Act No. 028-2008/AN) states that the exercise of the right to strike shall on no account entail the occupation of workplaces or their immediate vicinity, otherwise the criminal penalties established by the legislation in force shall apply. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which, in this case, might be applied to strikers.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that all steps have been taken to avoid obstruction of the principles of freedom of association, whereby the occupation of workplaces or their immediate vicinity cannot incur penalties.

However, the Committee notes that section 386 of the Labour Code (Act No. 028-2008/AN), which imposes criminal penalties for strikes which involve the occupation of workplaces or their immediate vicinity, is still in force.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the legislative measures taken or contemplated so that the occupation of workplaces, or their immediate vicinity, can only incur penalties in cases where a strike ceases to be peaceful or where the freedom of non-strikers to work or the enterprise management’s right to enter the premises is violated.