Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Niger (Ratification: 1962)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a means of labour discipline or as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on any cases involving recourse to the provisions of section 119(2) of the Penal Code, which provides that public servants found guilty of dereliction of duty, the aim or effect of which is to prevent or suspend the discharge of their tasks, shall be liable to imprisonment of one to three years. The Committee recalls that persons sentenced to imprisonment shall undertake compulsory labour except where sentenced for political offences (section 24 of the Penal Code, and sections 24 and 25 of Act No. 2017-08 establishing the fundamental principles of the prison regime).

The Government again indicates, in its report, that research conducted by the competent Ministry of Justice services indicates that no criminal court has issued rulings on any cases of dereliction of duty. The Government also states that a bill to amend the order regulating exercise of the right to strike has been formulated by the Ministry of Labour. The Committee duly notes this information and requests the Government to continue to provide information on all recourse in practice to section 119(2) of the Penal Code related to dereliction of duty. It also requests the Government to communicate a copy of the new legislation amending the order regulating exercise of the right to strike, once it has been adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a means of labour discipline or as a punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 119(2) of the Penal Code, which provides that public servants found guilty of dereliction of duty, the aim or effect of which is to prevent or suspend the discharge of their tasks, shall be liable to imprisonment of one to three years (with individuals sentenced to imprisonment being obliged to work under the terms of section 24 of the Penal Code). The Government indicated that no criminal court has issued rulings on any cases involving dereliction of duty. The Committee notes once again the Government’s indication in its report that officials who are the subject of requisition orders to perform minimum duties in vital services generally comply with such orders, and any persons who have not complied with them have been neither reported nor prosecuted. Noting that the question of the extent of powers to requisition state officials and officials of territorial communities is being examined under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee requests the Government to provide information in future reports on any cases involving recourse by the criminal courts to the provisions of section 119(2) of the Penal Code.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a means of labour discipline or as a punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 119(2) of the Penal Code, which provides that public servants found guilty of dereliction of duty, the aim or effect of which is to prevent or suspend the discharge of their tasks, shall be liable to imprisonment of one to three years (with individuals sentenced to imprisonment being obliged to work under the terms of section 24 of the Penal Code). The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that research conducted by the competent departments of the Ministry of Justice reveals that no criminal court has issued rulings on any cases involving dereliction of duty. The Government adds that officials who are the subject of requisition orders to perform minimum duties in vital services generally comply with such orders, and any persons who have not complied with them have been neither reported nor prosecuted. Noting that the question of the extent of powers to requisition state officials and officials of territorial communities is being examined under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee requests the Government to provide information in future reports on any cases involving recourse by the criminal courts to the provisions of section 119(2) of the Penal Code.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a means of labour discipline or as a punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the use made by the national courts of section 119(2) of the Penal Code. According to these provisions, public servants found guilty of dereliction of duty, the aim or effect of which is to prevent or suspend the discharge of their tasks, shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from one to three years. The Committee also drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the national legislation places excessive restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike of state officials and officials of territorial communities. In particular, it lays down the obligation to provide a minimum service in vital services – which are defined more broadly than essential services in the strict sense of the term – and provides for the possibility of requisitioning officials for this purpose (Ordinances Nos 96-009 and 96-010 of 21 March 1996 establishing, respectively, the conditions for the exercise of the right to strike of state officials and officials of territorial communities and the list of strategic and/or vital services).

The Government indicated previously in this regard that in practice there has never been any question of recourse to section 119(2) (dereliction of duty) of the Penal Code to categorize a refusal to comply with a requisition order as a dereliction of duty. It specified that officials who have refused to comply with requisition orders have had their wages docked by the number of days not worked. The Committee notes that in its last report the Government provides no new information on this matter.

The Committee requests the Government in its next report to provide information on the practical effect given to the provisions on dereliction of duty in section 119(2) of the Penal Code. Please provide details of instances where public servants have been prosecuted and punished under these provisions, specifying the factual circumstances cited. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate any penalties imposed on public servants for non compliance with a requisition order in connection with the obligation to provide a minimum service pursuant to Ordinances Nos 96-009 and 96-010 of 21 March 1996. Lastly, as regards the matter of excessive restrictions on the right to strike of state officials and officials of territorial communities, the Committee refers the Government to its comments on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imprisonment with compulsory labour as punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that, under the terms of section 81 of Decree No. 99-368/PCRN/MJ/DH of 3 September 1999 determining the organization and internal rules of prisons, persons convicted for political offences or the expression of views are not required to work.

With regard to the application in practice of sections 2 and 23 of Ordinance No. 84-6 of 1 March 1984 regulating associations (as amended), the Committee notes that, as in its previous reports, the Government confirms that no one has been convicted for creating an undeclared association.

Article 1(c) and (d). Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a means of labour discipline or as a punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the national legislation places excessive restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike of State officials and officials of territorial communities, particularly by laying down the obligation to provide a minimum service in vital services defined more broadly than essential services in the strict sense of the term, and that it also provides for the possibility of requisitioning officials for this purpose (Ordinances Nos 96-009 and 96-010 of 21 March 1996 establishing, respectively, the conditions for the exercise of the right to strike of State officials and officials of territorial communities and the list of strategic and/or vital services). The Committee also observed that, under the terms of section 119(2) of the Penal Code, public servants found guilty of dereliction of duty, the aim or effect of which is to prevent or suspend the discharge of their tasks, shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of from one to three years.

The Committee notes that, in reply to its request for information on the scope of these provisions, the Government indicates that Ordinance No. 96-009 and its implementing decrees do not establish penalties to which State officials or officials of territorial communities may be liable if they have been requisitioned and have refused to ensure the minimum service in a vital State service. In practice, requisitioned officials who have refused to perform the work have been subject to salary reductions corresponding to the number of days not worked. The Government adds that there has never been any question of having recourse to section 119(2) of the Penal Code to categorize a refusal to comply with a requisition order as dereliction of duty. The Committee notes this information and, with regard to the issue of excessive restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike by State officials and officials of territorial communities, the Committee refers to the comments that it is making on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee also requests the Government to provide information in future reports on the application in practice of section 119(2) of the Penal Code and, in particular, further details on the circumstances in which public officials may be liable to the penal sanctions set out in this provision for dereliction of duty.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee notes that, following the adoption of Ordinance No. 2010-035 of 4 June 2010 establishing the freedom of the press, the Ordinance of 1999, which in turn repealed Act No. 97-26 on which the Committee had commented previously, has been repealed. The Committee notes with satisfaction that, with the adoption of Ordinance No. 2010-035, press-related offences such as insults and defamation may no longer be punished by prison sentences.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Preliminary observation regarding compulsory prison labour for prisoners convicted of political offences. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that work is compulsory for all convicted prisoners (section 90 of Decree
No. 63‑103 establishing the organization and internal rules of prison establishments). Section 18 of the Penal Code states that persons serving sentences for criminal political offences are separated from ordinary prisoners and are not subject to forced labour. Section 24 of the Penal Code states that persons serving prison sentences are employed in all kinds of work (paragraph 1) and that persons serving prison sentences for political offences are separated from other prisoners (paragraph 2). The Committee concluded from a combined reading of these provisions that persons serving sentences for political offences were also subject to the obligation to work in prison. In its latest report the Government indicates, with regard to the provisions of section 24 of the Penal Code, that criminal courts always seek to distinguish between ordinary and political prisoners and that the latter are never subjected to the provisions of section 24(1) and are therefore never employed in “all kinds of work”.

The Committee notes these explanations. It considers that if, in practice, persons serving sentences for political offences are not subject to the obligation to work in prison, the legislation should be amended to this effect (section 24(2) of the Penal Code and also section 90 of Decree No. 63-103, which makes work compulsory for all convicted prisoners without any distinction regarding the nature of the offence), in order to avoid any ambiguity. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to this end and to supply information on the concept of political offences liable to incur a prison sentence, including examples illustrating the scope of this concept.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imprisonment with compulsory labour as punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Pending the amendments suggested in the previous point, the Committee would like the Government to continue to supply information on the application of the following provisions of the legislation:

–      sections 54–61 of Act No. 98-23 amending Act No. 97-26 establishing the freedom of the press, which provide for varying terms of imprisonment for different offences against the press laws: the Government indicates in its report that a new bill has been submitted to the National Assembly and that it will keep the Office informed of developments. The Committee notes this information. It also notes that a general assembly of the communication media was held in March 2010, during which a preliminary draft of legislation to decriminalize offences against the press laws in Niger was discussed. The Committee hopes that this draft legislation will be adopted in the very near future so that persons who exercise their freedom of opinion or expression through the press cannot be sentenced to imprisonment for offences against the press laws such as abuse, defamation or misinformation;

–      sections 2 and 23 of Ordinance No. 84-6 of 1 March 1984 regulating associations: the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether use has been made of the provisions of section 2 of this Ordinance to prohibit the creation of an organization or declare it null and void and, if so, under what circumstances. The Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether any persons have been sentenced to imprisonment for participating in the creation or administration of an undeclared association.

Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for participation in strikes. In its previous comments the Committee noted that the national legislation placed excessive restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike of state officials and officials of territorial communities, particularly by laying down the obligation to provide a minimum service in vital services defined more broadly than essential services in the strict sense of the term, and also provided for the possibility of requisitioning officials for this purpose (Ordinances Nos 96-009 and 96-010 of 21 March 1996 establishing, respectively, the conditions for exercise of the right to strike of state officials and officials of territorial communities and the list of strategic and/or vital services). The Committee also noted that, under the terms of section 119(2) of the Penal Code, public servants found guilty of dereliction of duty, the aim or effect of which is to prevent or suspend the accomplishment of their tasks, shall be liable to imprisonment of one to three years. The Committee considered that, inasmuch as the provisions relating to dereliction of duty apply to officials who, in the context of a strike, refuse to provide the minimum service or obey a requisition order, these workers might be sentenced to imprisonment in which they might be subjected to compulsory prison labour.

Given the lack of information from the Government in its latest report on the application of the provisions of the legislation, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the penalties that might be incurred by state officials and officials of territorial communities who have been requisitioned and who refuse to provide the minimum service in a vital or strategic service of the State. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether these officials might be considered guilty of dereliction of duty, under the terms of section 119(2) of the Penal Code, and to supply information on any court decision issued on this basis further to a strike in the public service.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Preliminary observation regarding compulsory prison labour for prisoners convicted for political offences. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 90 of Decree No. 63-103 establishing the organization and rules of penitentiary establishments, work is compulsory for all convicts, regardless of the nature of the offence for which they were convicted. The Government refers in its report to section 18 of the Penal Code under which political prisoners are not subject to compulsory work. The Committee points out in this connection that, although men serving sentences for criminal offences are employed on the most arduous works of public utility, persons serving sentences for criminal political offences are separated from ordinary prisoners and are not subject to compulsory work (sections 17 and 18 of the Penal Code). This is not the case for persons serving correctional sentences, who are subject to a general obligation to work since they may be employed on all tasks according to section 24.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out that the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the political, social or economic system. It emphasized that it is often in the exercise of the rights of assembly, expression, demonstration and the right to organize that political opposition to the established order is expressed. It drew the Government’s attention to a number of provisions in the legislation regulating the exercise of these rights under which penalties of imprisonment may be imposed, namely:

–           section 169 of the Penal Code under which a prison term of from three to six months may be imposed for insulting an official, a public officer or a citizen entrusted with a public function;

–           sections 54–61 of Act No. 98-23 amending Act No. 97-26 on the freedom of the press, which provide for prison terms of varying lengths for defamation;

–           sections 2 and 23 of Ordinance No. 84-6 of 1 March 1984 regulating associations. Under section 23, participation in the creation and/or administration of an undeclared association is punishable by a prison term ranging from one month to one year. According to section 2, any association founded for a cause or purpose which is contrary to the laws or regulations in force or offends against morality, or for the purpose of breaching the peace or the territorial integrity of the nation, or for a purpose which conflicts with the form of government, shall automatically be null and void. Section 2 furthermore prohibits regional or ethnic associations.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, no one has been convicted for the abovementioned offences concerning insult of public officials, libel in the press or the creation of an unlawful association. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the practical effect given to the abovementioned provisions (number of persons sentenced under them, nature of the penalties imposed, number of associations dissolved or prohibited). Please provide copies of relevant court decisions.

The Committee also takes due note of the fact that the Government has set up a committee to prepare texts on the decriminalization of offences against the press law. It hopes that the Government will take all necessary steps to ensure that the Committee is able to conclude its work as soon as possible. The Committee is the more insistent on the need to abolish criminal penalties and, first and foremost, the prison sentences for press offences that it observes that the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection on the right to freedom of opinion and expression has already had occasion to ask the Government to respond to allegations relating to prison sentences for insult or defamation imposed on journalists or other information workers exercising their freedom of opinion or expression (see inter alia documents E/CN.4/2006/55/Add.1 and A/HRC/4/27/Add.1).

Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for participation in strikes. In its previous comments the Committee asked the Government to review its legislation in so far as public employees breaching provisions on the exercise of the right to strike may be punished by prison sentences involving compulsory prison labour. Section 9 of Ordinance No. 96-009 of 21 March 1996, regulating the exercise of the right to strike of state officials and officials of territorial communities, provides that a minimum service must be ensured for vital and/or strategic state services. An official called on to provide a minimum service must do so and, in exceptional cases, such officials may be requisitioned. The Committee has been asking the Government for many years, in the context of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which Niger has also ratified, to amend this provision so as to “restrict its scope only to cases in which work stoppages are likely to provoke an acute national crisis, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or to essential services in the strict sense of the term”. The Committee has likewise noted that Ordinance No. 96-010 of 21 March 1996 setting forth a list of strategic and/or vital services includes some services that the Committee on Freedom of Association does not deem to be essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee has pointed out that, although the two ordinances do not themselves provide for penalties for breach of their provisions, under section 119(2) of the Penal Code public servants deemed to have abandoned their posts are punished by a prison term ranging from two to five years. To the extent that the provisions on abandonment of post apply to public servants who, in the context of a strike, refuse to provide the minimum service or obey a requisition order, these workers could be sentenced to a prison term in which they could be subjected to compulsory prison labour.

The Committee notes that in its latest report the Government states that the list of vital and/or strategic state services requiring maintenance of a minimum service is being revised, under the Committee on the Representativeness of Trade Unions, in the light of ILO criteria. The Committee hopes that, in the context of this revision, and in view of the foregoing comments and those made under Convention No. 87, the Government will amend the provisions of Ordinances Nos 96-009 and 96-010 so as to limit restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike of public servants to essential services in the strict sense of the term, to cases where a work stoppage could cause an acute national crisis or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, no state employees have been punished for refusing to provide a minimum service. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on any penalties imposed on requisitioned public servants who refuse to provide a minimum service in a vital and/or strategic state service. Please indicate in particular whether such employees could be deemed to have abandoned their posts within the meaning of section 119(2) of the Penal Code.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the obligation to work, laid down in section 90 of Decree No. 63-103 establishing the organization and rules of penitentiary establishments, applies to all convicted persons regardless of the nature of the offence for which they were convicted, which means that work may be exacted from prisoners convicted of political offences. In addition, various provisions in the national legislation allow the imposition of prison sentences which may involve the obligation to work in instances covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention, namely:

-  section 169 of the Penal Code of 15 July 1961 under which a prison term of from three to six months may be imposed with respect to insulting an official;

-  sections 54-61 of Act No. 98-23, amending Act No. 97-26 on freedom of the press, which provide for prison terms of varying lengths for libel.

The Committee also noted that, by virtue of sections 2 and 23 of Ordinance No. 84-6 of 1 March 1984 regulating associations, prison terms may be imposed on persons convicted on political grounds. Under section 2, any association founded for a cause or purpose which is contrary to the laws and regulations in force or offends against morality, or for the purpose of breaching the peace or the territorial integrity of the nation, for a purpose which conflicts with the form of government, shall automatically be null and void. Under section 23, whosoever participates in the creation or administration of an undeclared association may be punished by a prison term ranging from one month to one year. Furthermore, section 2 prohibits regional or ethnic associations. The latter are defined as any association the purpose of which is to maintain the particularities of one region or ethnic group in another region and/or any association of Niger nationals from one region who live in another region.

The Committee recalled that the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The protection afforded by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or demonstrating opinions that differ from established principles. Activities intended to bring about fundamental changes in State institutions are also covered by the Convention provided that they do not involve the use of, or incitement to, violent methods as a means of achieving the ends sought. The Committee also emphasized the importance, for the effective application of the Convention, of legislation guaranteeing freedom of association, of expression, of demonstration and the right to organize, and the direct impact that the restriction of these rights may have on the application of the Convention. Indeed, it is often in the exercise of these rights that political opposition to the established order is expressed.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government that no one has been actually convicted for insult of a public official, violation of press laws or the creation of an illegal association. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of the above provisions, including on the number of persons convicted under these provisions and the nature of the sanctions imposed. Please include copies of the relevant court decisions.

2. Article 1(d). With regard to the right to strike of public servants, the Committee noted that, under the terms of section 9 of Ordinance No. 96-009 of 21 March 1996 regulating the exercise of the right to strike of officials of the State and officials of territorial communities, a minimum service shall be guaranteed in vital and/or strategic state services. Officials requisitioned for ensuring the minimum service are bound to provide it. Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of section 119(2) of the Penal Code, public servants deemed to have abandoned their posts are punished by a prison term ranging from two to five years (as could be the case for public servants who refuse to provide the minimum service and participate in a strike). Having been convicted for participating in a strike, these public servants may thus be subjected to compulsory prison labour. The Committee recalled that the Convention does not prohibit the imposition of sanctions for participating in strikes in the public service or other essential services. Nevertheless, such sanctions should be applied only to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

Section 2 of Ordinance No. 96-010 of 21 March 1996 sets forth a list of services deemed to be strategic and/or vital. The Committee observed that the list is very long and includes services which, according to the Committee on Freedom of Association, do not constitute essential services in which strikes may be forbidden (paragraph 545 of the Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee). Such is the case for state media, petroleum provision, banking and finance, public transport and garbage collection.

In its latest report, the Government indicates that, before calling a strike, state officials or their union give prior notice to the competent authorities. During the period of notice, the list of officials requisitioned to provide the minimum service in strategic or vital services of the State is drawn up by the authorities, in collaboration with trade unions. The Government indicates that the list of strategic and/or vital services remains in force but that the regulations governing strikes are in the process of being revised by the Government and employers’ and workers’ representatives.

The Committee notes this information. It hopes that the above process will lead to the amendment of the provisions of section 2 of Ordinance No. 96-010, mentioned above, so as to ensure that the list of services cited as strategic or vital conforms to the criteria of "essential services" in the strict sense of the term (that is services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). The Committee requests the Government in the meantime to provide information on the application in practice of section 9 of Ordinance No. 96-009 regulating the exercise of the right to strike of state officials and officials of territorial communities. It requests the Government to indicate whether requisitioned public officials who refuse to provide the minimum service in a vital or strategic service of the State are deemed to have abandoned their post, within the meaning of section 119(2) of the Penal Code. Please also state whether any public servants have been punished for refusing to provide the minimum service, and indicate the nature of the sanctions imposed.

3. The Committee also requests the Government to provide copies of the legislation governing the defence of the internal and external security of the State and the state of siege.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the report sent by the Government.

1. The Committee notes that section 90 of Decree No. 63-103 establishing the organization and rules of penitentiary establishments, applies to all convicted prisoners regardless of the nature of the offence of which they have been convicted. This means that prisoners convicted of political offences could be subjected to forced labour under the above provision.

2. Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes that penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed under several provisions of the national legislation in circumstances covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention:

-  section 169 of the Penal Code of 15 July 1961, under which insults to an official may be punished with imprisonment of from three to six months;

-  sections 54 to 61 of Act No. 98-23, amending Act No. 97-26 on freedom of the press, which provide for penalties of imprisonment of varying length for libel.

The Committee observes that there are provisions on the right of association which allow penalties of imprisonment in which persons convicted of political offences can be forced to work (section 90 of Decree No. 63-103). The provisions concerned are sections 2 and 23 of Ordinance No. 84-6 of 1 March 1984 regulating associations. Pursuant to section 2, any association founded for a cause or purpose contrary to the laws and regulations in force or to morality, or for the purpose of breaching the peace or the territorial integrity of the nation or a purpose which conflicts with the form of government shall automatically be null and void. According to section 23, anyone who takes part in the creation or administration of an undeclared association may be sentenced to imprisonment of from one month to a year.

The Committee notes that section 2 prohibits any regional or ethnic associations. The latter are defined as any association established for the purpose of maintaining the particularities of a region or ethnic group in another region and/or any association of Nigeriens from one region residing in another region.

The Committee recalls that the Convention prohibits the use of all forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a means of coercion or political education or as a sanction for expressing certain political opinions or ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic order.

The Committee also recalls that the protection established by the Convention is not confined to the expression of views or of opposition to the established system. Consequently, there are no grounds for considering that activities which aim to introduce fundamental changes to state institutions are outside the scope of the protection afforded by the Convention provided that violence is not used or advocated as a means of attaining the objective set.

The Committee also points out the importance for effective enforcement of the Convention of guaranteeing by law freedom of expression, assembly and association, the restriction of which can have a direct effect on the application of the Convention. Indeed, political opposition to the established order is often expressed in the exercise of these freedoms.

The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the abovementioned provisions, indicating in particular the number of persons convicted under such provisions, and to provide copies of the relevant court decisions.

3. Article 1(d). With regard to the right to strike of public servants, the Committee notes that according to section 9 of Ordinance No. 96-009 of 21 March 1996 regulating the right to strike, the administrative authorities shall requisition a number of public servants working in a strategic sector in order to ensure a minimum service. Public servants requisitioned for such work who participate in the strike are treated as having abandoned their duties and are punished by imprisonment of from two to five years under section 119(2) of the Penal Code. Having been convicted for participating in a strike, these public servants may be subjected to compulsory prison labour.

The Committee recalls that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties for participating in strikes in the civil service or other essential services, provided that such provisions are applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population).

Section 2 of Ordinance No. 96-010 of 21 March 1996 sets forth a list of services deemed to be strategic and/or vital by the Government and in which the right to strike may be restricted. The Committee observes that the list is very long and includes services which, according to the Committee on Freedom of Association, do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term (paragraph 545 of the Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee). Broadly speaking, the following do not, according to the Committee on Freedom of Association, constitute essential services in which strikes may be prohibited:

-  state media;

-  petroleum provision services;

-  banking and finance;

-  public transport;

-  garbage collection.

The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical implementation of section 9 of the Ordinance regulating the right to strike, and on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that all the services mentioned in the list established by Ordinance No. 96-010 meet the criteria for "essential services" in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population).

4. The Committee also asks the Government to send copies of the legislative provisions governing the protection of the internal and external security of the State, and of the provisions governing states of siege and states of emergency.