Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Dominica (Ratification: 1983)

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report, due since 2014, has not been received. In light of its urgent appeal launched to the Government in 2019, the Committee proceeds with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 5 of the Seditious and Undesirable Publications Act, Chapter 10:03 of 1968 a person who engages in seditious acts, make seditious pronouncements, or produces, publishes, sells or distributes seditious publications is liable to imprisonment. Section 3(1) defines seditious intention as including, among others, a false statement or wilful misrepresentation of facts or of the motives of intentions of the Government or any Officer or minister of the Government to excite dislike or discontent with the Government. The Committee also noted that section 6(4) of the Act, read together with section 12, provides for a penalty of imprisonment for the production, reproduction, possession and distribution of publications prohibited by an Order or notice. The Committee observed that the above-mentioned provisions of the Seditious and Undesirable Publications Act were broadly defined. Noting that according to section 59 of the Prison Rules, Chapter 12:70, as amended as of 1990, persons convicted to a sentence of imprisonment can be required to undertake compulsory labour, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above-mentioned provisions of the Seditious and Undesirable Publications Act.

The Committee notes that in its 2020 concluding observations for Dominica, the United Nations Human Rights Committee referred to the Libel and Slander Act, chapter 7:04, as amended as of 1979 expressing its concern about the disproportionate sanctions in relation to defamation established therein and its impact on the exercise of freedom of expression (CCPR/C/DMA/COA/R/1, paragraph 41). According to section 6 of this Act, any person, who maliciously publishes any defamatory libel, is liable to imprisonment of up to one year. The Committee also notes that the Government indicates in its 2020 reply to the issues raised by the UN Human Rights Committee that a number of journalists in Dominica have been found guilty of defamation of individuals serving in Government, as well as in the opposition and the general public (CCPR/C/DMA/RQAR/1, para. 86).

The Committee recalls that under Article 1(a) of the Convention, persons who have expressed certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system should not be punished with sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee wishes to emphasize that laws against defamation, sedition or subversion, when defined in wide or general terms, may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 304). The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, both in law and in practice. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 5 and 6, read together with section 12, of the Seditious and Undesirable Publications Act; as well as of section 5 of the Libel and Slander Act, including court decisions. The Committee also requests the Government to include information on the number of prosecutions made under each provision, the grounds for prosecution, as well as on the number of convictions and the nature of the penalties imposed.

Article 1(c). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline. Seafarers. The Committee notes that according to section 194(c) of the International Maritime Act, (Act No. 9) of 2000, a crew member of a vessel who solicits or incites any other member of the crew to disobey or resist the lawful orders of the Master or other officers of such vessel is liable to imprisonment for up to ten years. The Committee recalls that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee stresses in this regard that provisions establishing prison sanctions, involving compulsory labour, for breaches of labour discipline that do not tend to endanger the ship or the life or health of persons, are not in conformity with the Convention (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 312). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 194(c) of the International Maritime Act, including on relevant court decisions, indicating the nature of the sanctions imposed and the facts giving rise to the conviction, in order to enable the Committee to assess whether this provision is applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(d). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee notes that section 67 of the Industrial Relations Act, Chapter 89:01 of 1986 provides for financial sanctions for employees who participate in strikes that are contrary to this Act and that failure to pay the imposed sanctions is punishable by imprisonment for six months. The Committee observes that section 61(1) of the Act establishes that no trade union shall declare a strike unless the Minister responsible for industrial relations has not referred the trade dispute to an arbitration tribunal within fourteen days after the dispute is reported to the Minister. In this regard, the Committee also refers to its comments under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee recalls that according to Article 1(d) of the Convention, no sanctions involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, may be imposed on workers for the mere fact of peacefully participating in a strike. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that, in both law and practice, persons who participate peacefully in a strike cannot be liable to sanctions of imprisonment, which involve compulsory labour. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 67 of the Industrial Relations Act, indicating in particular whether, prison sentences have been imposed on persons who failed to pay the financial penalties imposed as a consequence of their participation in strikes.

The Committee reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in relation to the issues raised above.