Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Senegal (Ratification: 1961)

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as a penalty for expressing political views or ideologically opposition. The Committee notes that several provisions of the Criminal Code provide for imprisonment for offences which could be associated with activities whereby persons express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, namely for:

• acts of such a nature as to give rise to political disturbances or cast discredit on political institutions and their functioning (article 80);
• participation in an unarmed gathering which may disturb the public peace (section 93);
• causing insult (sections 194 to 198);
• offending the President of the Republic by any public broadcasting medium (section 254);
• publication, display, circulation or reproduction, by any means, of false or misleading information (section 255); and
• defamation (section 259).

The Committee also notes that Ministerial Order No. 7580 of 20 July 2011 prohibits “protests of a political nature” in the centre of Dakar, the capital, and that section 97 of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment for any person who participates in or participates in the organization of a prohibited protest. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) ruled, through a decision of 31 March 2022, that this Order violates the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and requested the authorities to repeal it. The Committee also notes that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern at the ongoing restrictions to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, leading especially to the arrest of more than 500 persons over three days of protests in June 2023 (press release of 13 June 2023).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The range of activities which must be protected, under this provision, from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour thus comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media, or by the right of association, including by the establishment of political parties or societies). Certain limitations may be imposed by law on the rights and freedoms concerned, which must be accepted as normal safeguards against their abuse, examples being laws against incitement to violence, civil strife or racial hatred (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 302 and 303).

In this regard, the Committee notes that under the terms of section 692 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 32 of Decree No. 2001-362 of 4 May 2001 on the execution and organization of criminal sanctions, labour is compulsory for all persons sentenced to imprisonment for crimes or common law offences. The Committee therefore requests the Government to specify whether the violations of the Criminal Code referred to above fall under the procedures for crimes or common law offences – and would involve compulsory prison labour for all perpetrators of such violations – or any other procedures. The Committee also requests the Government to ensure that, in both law and practice, no one who, in a peaceful manner, expresses political views or opposes the established political, social or economic system, can be sentenced with sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of prosecutions brought on the basis of the above-mentioned provisions of the Criminal Code, the nature of the penalties imposed and the acts that resulted in legal prosecutions or convictions.

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

Previous comment

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work for breaches of labour discipline. For several years, the Committee has been referring to the need to amend sections 624, 643 and 645 of the Merchant Shipping Code (Act No. 2002-22 of 16 August 2002), which provides for prison sentences (involving compulsory labour in accordance with section 692 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 32 of Decree No. 2001-362 of 4 May 2001 on the execution and organization of penal sanctions), in the case of unapproved absence from the vessel, verbal insults, gestures or threats towards a superior, or a formal refusal to obey a service order. The Committee notes the Government’s repeated indication, in its report, that fines have always been preferred for breaches of discipline, even though the Merchant Shipping Code leaves the choice of whether to impose a fine or a custodial sentence to the judge. The Government adds that, insofar as judges are bound to respect the principle of proportionality between the offence and the penalty when handing down a penalty, persons receiving the penalty always have the possibility of appealing to a high-court judge if they consider that the penalty against them is disproportionate.

The Committee recalls, in this respect, that in view of the fact that the scope of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code mentioned above is not confined to cases in which the breach of discipline would endanger the ship or the life or health of persons on board, these provisions are contrary to the Convention, which prohibits recourse to forced labour, including in the form of compulsory prison labour, as a means of labour discipline. With reference to its 2021 comments on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006), in which it noted that a revision of the Merchant Shipping Code was under way, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the above provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code and to thereby align national legislation with the practice indicated and the Convention. The Committee hopes that this revision will be carried out shortly to ensure that, in conformity with Article 1(c) of the Convention, breaches by seafarers of labour discipline which do not endanger the ship or the persons on board cannot be punished with prison sentences, under which prison labour may be imposed.

Article 1(d). Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for participation in strikes. 1. Requisitioning in the event of a strike. The Committee recalls that section L.279(m) of the Labour Code provides for the possibility of a prison sentence, including compulsory labour, to workers who do not comply with a requisition order in the case of a strike, under section L.276 of the Labour Code, which allows for the requisition of workers who are engaged in jobs that are essential for the security of persons and property, the maintenance of public order, the continuity of public services and the satisfaction of the essential needs of the nation, with the list of jobs concerned to be established by decree. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the current reform of the Labour Code should be finalized by 2024 and that, in the interest of coherence, the implementing texts of the Labour Code will be adopted after revision of the Code. The Committee notes with deep regret that the Decree implementing section L.276 of the Labour Code has still not adopted since the entry into force in 1997 of the current Labour Code. The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour is compatible with the Convention only insofar as it is necessary to cope with cases of force majeure in the strict sense of the term – namely, when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered (see 2012 General Survey, on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 314). The Committee recalls in this regard that the Government previously indicated that pending the Decree implementing section L.276, Decree No. 72-017 of 11 March 1972 establishing the list of posts, jobs and functions the holders of which may be requisitioned continued to be applicable, and that this Decree targeted posts, jobs or functions which do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term. In this regard, it refers the Government to its 2022 comments under the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention by ensuring that the Decree to implement section L.276 of the Labour Code limits the list of posts, jobs and functions the holders of which may be requisitioned, to posts, jobs and functions which constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term. Pending the adoption of these measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections L.276 and L.279(m) of the Labour Code, particularly on the number of prosecutions brought or court rulings handed down, specifying the penalties imposed and the acts that led to these convictions.

2. Occupation of premises in a strike. Recalling that the last paragraph of section L.276 and section L.279(o) of the Labour Code provide for the possibility of imposing imprisonment involving compulsory labour for striking workers who have occupied the workplace or its immediate surroundings, the Committee notes with regret the absence of measures taken by the Government to ensure that, in both legislation and practice, no sanctions involving compulsory labour should be imposed for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes (see 2012 General Survey, paragraph 315). The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures, particularly within the context of the revision of the Labour Code, to amend the last paragraph of section L.276 and section L.279(o) of the Labour Code so as to ensure that striking workers who peacefully occupy the workplace or its immediate surroundings are not liable to prison sentences during which prison labour may be imposed. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the number of strikers who have been prosecuted and convicted under sections L.276 and L.279(o) of the Labour Code.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously emphasized the need to amend sections 624, 643 and 645 of the Merchant Shipping Code (Act No. 2002-22 of 16 August 2002). Under the terms of these provisions, unapproved absence from the vessel, verbal insults, gestures or threats towards a superior, or a formal refusal to obey a service order are punishable by imprisonment, which involves compulsory prison labour in accordance with section 692 of the Code of Penal Procedure and section 32 of Decree No. 2001-362 of 4 May 2001 on the execution and organization of penal sanctions. In view of the fact that the scope of the above-mentioned provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code is not confined to cases in which the breach of discipline would endanger the ship or the life or health of persons on board, the Committee has considered them to be contrary to the Convention, which prohibits recourse to forced labour, including in the form of compulsory prison labour, as a means of labour discipline. The Government indicates in its report that, in general, fines have always been preferred for breaches of discipline, even though the Merchant Shipping Code leaves the choice of whether to impose a fine or a custodial sentence to the judge. The Committee notes that since the Code is currently being revised, the Government will ensure that the definitive version takes into account all of the international obligations of Senegal in this regard. The Committee notes with deep concern that it has been commenting on this matter for more than 40 years, and that the Government did not take the opportunity presented by the adoption of the new Merchant Shipping Code in 2002 to bring its legislation into line with practice and with the Convention. The Committee therefore calls upon the Government to be in compliance with the Convention and expects that the necessary measures will finally be taken to amend articles 624, 643 and 645 of the Merchant Shipping Code so that breaches of labour discipline that do not endanger the ship or the persons on board cannot be punished with prison sentences, under which prison labour may be imposed.

Article 1(d). Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section L.276 of the Labour Code (under Title 13 on labour disputes), which allows the administrative authority to requisition workers from private enterprises and public services and establishments who are engaged in jobs that are essential for the security of persons and property, the maintenance of public order, the continuity of public services and the satisfaction of the essential needs of the nation. Any worker who does not comply with the requisition order is liable to a fine or imprisonment of three months to one year or both these penalties (section L.279(m)). The Committee noted that the Decree implementing section L.276, which was to establish the list of jobs concerned, was in the process of being adopted and that, in the meantime, Decree No. 72-017 of 11 March 1972 establishing the list of posts, jobs and functions of which the occupants may be requisitioned continued to be applicable. With reference to the comments made on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee observed that, pursuant to these provisions, the power to requisition workers may be exercised in respect of workers whose post, job or functions do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term, and that workers who do not comply with a requisition order are liable to imprisonment involving the obligation to work.

The Committee notes with regret that the Decree to implement section L.276, which only authorizes the requisitioning of workers to ensure the operation of essential services in the strict sense of the term, has still not been adopted. Reaffirming that appropriate measures will be taken to comply with the Convention and that the use of requisitioning remains extremely rare in practice, the Government indicates in its report that despite the delay in the adoption of the new Decree to implement section L.276 of the Labour Code, the right to strike will be fully guaranteed to all workers, in accordance with the law, and that those who legally exercise that right do not risk any criminal proceedings. In this regard, the Committee wishes to recall that in all cases and regardless of the legality of the strike action in question, any penalties imposed should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, and that the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment against persons peacefully organizing or participating in a strike. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Decree implementing section L.276 of the Labour Code is adopted as soon as possible and that workers who do not comply with a requisition order are not liable to imprisonment involving the obligation to work. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the above-mentioned Decree will limit the list of posts, jobs or functions of which the occupants may be subject to a requisition order to posts, jobs or functions that are strictly necessary to ensure the operation of essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee also previously emphasized the need to amend the last paragraph of section L.276 of the Labour Code, under which the exercise of the right to strike may not be accompanied by the occupation of the workplace or its immediate surroundings, otherwise the penalties set out in sections L.275 and L.279 will apply (in the latter case, imprisonment of three months to one year or a fine or both). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the last paragraph of section L.276 and section L.279 of the Labour Code, in order to ensure that striking workers who peacefully occupy the workplace or its immediate surroundings are not liable to imprisonment during which prison labour may be imposed.

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

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously emphasized the need to amend sections 624, 643 and 645 of the Merchant Shipping Code (Act No. 2002-22 of 16 August 2002). Under the terms of these provisions, unapproved absence from the vessel, verbal insults, gestures or threats towards a superior, or a formal refusal to obey a service order are punishable by imprisonment, which involves compulsory prison labour in accordance with section 692 of the Code of Penal Procedure and section 32 of Decree No. 2001-362 of 4 May 2001 on the execution and organization of penal sanctions. In view of the fact that the scope of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code mentioned above is not confined to cases in which the breach of discipline would endanger the ship or the life or health of persons on board, the Committee has considered these provisions to be contrary to the Convention, which prohibits recourse to forced labour, including in the form of compulsory prison labour, as a means of labour discipline. In this respect, the Government indicated that the merchant navy had itself considered excessive the penalties provided for and the violations penalized and that in practice penal sanctions were always disregarded in cases of breaches of discipline.

The Committee observes that the Government takes due note in its report of the observations made on the issue of the amendment of sections 624, 643 and 645 of the Merchant Shipping Act and that it undertakes to continue and firm up its efforts to bring the legislation into conformity with practice and with the Convention. The Committee notes with concern that it has been commenting on this matter for over 40 years and that the Government did not take the opportunity of the adoption of the new Merchant Shipping Code in 2002. The Committee accordingly expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will finally be taken to amend the provisions referred to above of the Merchant Shipping Code so as to ensure that breaches of labour discipline which do not endanger the ship or the persons on board cannot be punished with prison sentences, under which prison labour may be imposed.

Article 1(d). Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section L.276 of the Labour Code (under Title 13 on labour disputes), which allows the administrative authority to requisition workers from private enterprises and public services and establishments who are engaged in jobs that are essential for the security of persons and property, the maintenance of public order, the continuity of public services and the satisfaction of the essential needs of the nation. Any worker who does not comply with the requisition order is liable to a fine and a sentence of imprisonment of from three months to one year, or to only one of these penalties (section L.279(m)). The Committee noted that the Decree implementing section L.276, which was to establish the list of jobs concerned, was in the process of being adopted and that, in the meantime, Decree No. 72-017 of 11 March 1972 establishing the list of posts, jobs and functions of which the occupants may be requisitioned continued to be applicable. With reference to the comments made on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee emphasized that, pursuant to these provisions, the power to requisition workers may be exercised in respect of workers whose post, job or functions do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term, and that workers who do not comply with a requisition order are liable to imprisonment involving the obligation to work.

The Committee notes that the Decree to implement section L.276 has still not been adopted. The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated statement of its willingness to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention and that the reform will be undertaken within the framework of dialogue with the social partners, without detriment to the general interest or the principle of the continuity of public services. In this regard, the Committee wishes to recall that, in all cases and irrespective of the legality of the strike action in question, any sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and that the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment against persons peacefully organizing or participating in a strike. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Decree implementing section L.276 of the Labour Code is adopted as soon as possible and limits the list of posts, jobs or functions of which the occupants may be subject to a requisition order to posts, jobs or functions that are strictly necessary to ensure the operation of essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee also previously emphasized the need to amend the last paragraph of section L.276 of the Labour Code, under the terms of which the exercise of the right to strike may not be accompanied by the occupation of the workplace or its immediate surroundings, under penalty of the sanctions set out in sections L.275 and L.279 (with the latter envisaging a sentence of imprisonment of from three months to one year and a fine, or one of these two penalties). The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to amend the last paragraph of section L.276 and section L.279 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that striking workers who peacefully occupy the workplace or its immediate surroundings are not liable to prison sentences during which prison labour may be imposed.

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

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously emphasized the need to amend sections 624, 643 and 645 of the Merchant Shipping Code (Act No. 2002-22 of 16 August 2002). Under the terms of these provisions, unapproved absence from the vessel, verbal insults, gestures or threats towards a superior and a formal refusal to obey a service order are punishable by imprisonment, which involves compulsory prison labour in accordance with section 692 of the Code of Penal Procedure and section 32 of Decree No. 2001-362 of 4 May 2001 respecting the execution and organization of penal sanctions. In view of the fact that the scope of these provisions is not confined to cases in which the breach of discipline would endanger the ship or the life or health of persons on board, the Committee has considered these provisions to be contrary to the Convention, which prohibits recourse to forced labour, including in the form of compulsory prison labour, as a means of labour discipline. In this respect, the Government indicated that the merchant navy had itself considered excessive the penalties provided for and the violations penalized and that, for this reason, in practice penal sanctions were always disregarded in cases of breaches of discipline.

The Committee observes that the Government reiterates the indication that the question of amending sections 624, 643 and 645 is still under examination and that it undertakes to adopt the necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with practice and the Convention. The Committee notes with concern that it has been commenting on this matter for over 40 years and that the Government did not take the opportunity of the adoption of the new Merchant Shipping Code in 2002 to address this. The Committee accordingly expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will finally be taken to amend the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code referred to above so as to ensure that breaches of labour discipline which do not endanger the ship or the persons on board cannot be punished with prison sentences, under which prison labour may be imposed.

Article 1(d). Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as punishment for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section L.276 of the Labour Code (under Title 13 on labour disputes), which allows the administrative authority to requisition workers from private enterprises and public services and establishments who are engaged in jobs that are essential for the security of persons and property, the maintenance of public order, the continuity of public services and the satisfaction of the essential needs of the nation. Any worker who does not comply with the requisition order is liable to a fine and a sentence of imprisonment ranging from three months to one year, or only one of these two penalties (section L.279(m)). The Committee noted that the Decree implementing section L.276 which was to establish the list of jobs concerned was in the process of being adopted and that, in the meantime, Decree No. 72-017 of 11 March 1972 establishing the list of posts, jobs and functions of which the occupants may be requisitioned continued to be applicable. With reference to the comments made on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee emphasized that pursuant to these provisions, the power to requisition workers may be exercised in respect of workers whose post, job or functions do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term, and that workers who do not comply with a requisition order are liable to imprisonment involving the obligation to work.

The Committee observes that the Decree implementing section L.276 has still not been adopted. However, it notes the Government’s indication that the spirit of L.276 is indeed to establish clear rules relating to requisitioning, which only concerns workers whose jobs or functions are in essential services and are indispensable for the security of persons and property, the maintenance of public order, the continuity of public services and the satisfaction of the essential needs of the nation, and that the objective is not to hinder the normal exercise of the right to strike. The Committee also notes the Government’s reaffirmation of its will to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with Convention, and that this reform will be carried out in the context of dialogue with the social partners. In this respect, the Committee wishes to recall that, in all cases and regardless of the legality of the strike action in question, any sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and that the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment against persons peacefully organizing or participating in a strike. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Decree implementing section L.276 of the Labour Code is adopted as soon as possible and limits the list of posts, jobs or functions of which the occupants may be subject to a requisition order to posts, jobs or functions that are strictly necessary to ensure the operation of essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee also previously emphasized the need to amend the last paragraph of section L.276 of the Labour Code, under the terms of which the exercise of the right to strike may not be accompanied by the occupation of the workplace or its immediate surroundings, under penalty of the sanctions set out in sections L.275 and L.279, with the latter envisaging a sentence of imprisonment ranging from three months to one year and a fine, or one of these penalties. The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to amend the last paragraph of section L.276 and section L.279 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that striking workers who peacefully occupy the workplace or its immediate surroundings are not liable to prison sentences during which prison labour may be imposed upon them.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work for breaches of labour discipline. In its previous comments, the Committee emphasized the need to amend sections 624, 643 and 645 of the Merchant Shipping Code (Act No. 2002-22 of 16 August 2002). Under the terms of these provisions, unapproved absence from the vessel, verbal insults, gestures or threats towards a superior and a formal refusal to obey a service order are punishable by imprisonment, which involves compulsory prison labour in accordance with section 692 of the Code of Penal Procedure and section 32 of Decree No. 2001-362 of 4 May 2001 concerning the implementation and organization of penal sanctions. In view of the fact that the scope of these provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code is not confined to cases in which the breach of discipline would endanger the ship or the persons on board, the Committee has considered these provisions to be contrary to the Convention, which prohibits recourse to forced labour, including in the form of compulsory prison labour, as a means of labour discipline.

In this respect, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that the merchant navy had itself considered excessive the penalties provided for and the violations penalized and that, for this reason, in practice penal sanctions were always disregarded in cases of breaches of discipline. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the question of the amendment of sections 642, 643 and 654 is still under examination and that measures will be taken to ensure that the legislation reflects established practice and is in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting on this matter for over 40 years. It also noted with regret that the Government did not take the opportunity of the adoption of the new Merchant Shipping Code in 2002 to amend the provisions on which it had been commenting. In these circumstances, the Committee trusts that the Government will be able to indicate in its next report the amendment of sections 624, 643 and 645 of the new Merchant Shipping Code so as to ensure that breaches of labour which do not endanger the ship or the persons on board cannot be punished with prison sentences.

Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section L.276 of the Labour Code, which allows the administrative authority to requisition workers from private enterprises and public services and establishments who are engaged in jobs that are essential for the security of persons and property, the maintenance of public order, the continuity of public services and the satisfaction of the essential needs of the nation. Any worker who does not comply with the requisition order is liable to a fine and a sentence of imprisonment ranging from three months to one year, or only one of these two penalties (section L.279(m)). The Committee also noted that the Decree implementing section L.276 which was to establish the list of jobs concerned was in the process of being adopted and that, in the meantime, Decree No. 72-017 of 11 March 1972, establishing the list of posts, jobs and functions of which the occupants may be requisitioned which continued to apply. It also noted that, in its comments in 2006, the National Confederation of Workers of Senegal (CNTS) indicated that the requisitioning of certain workers sometimes amounted to abuse of authority intended to break strikes called by workers, and that certain employers in the private sector used this process to force workers to remain in their posts when this was not justified by necessity.

In this context, the Committee referred to the comments that it has been making concerning the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), in which it has recalled that the power to requisition workers in the event of a strike must be limited to the workers required to maintain essential services in the strict sense of the term. In so far as the power to requisition workers may be exercised in respect of workers whose post, job or functions do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term and that workers who do not comply with a requisition order are liable to imprisonment involving the obligation to work (section L.279(m)) of the Labour Code), the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Decree implementing section L.276 of the Labour Code, which is in the process of being adopted, is in conformity with the Convention.

In its latest report, the Government confirms that the necessary measures will be adopted for this purpose. It adds that a study has recently been undertaken to identify cases of non-conformity of the national legislation with the ILO’s fundamental Conventions ratified by Senegal, and the solutions which could be adopted in the context of the reform of the Labour Code and certain of its implementing texts. The Government emphasizes that this reform will take time, but that it is committed to comply with its international obligations. The Committee takes due note of this commitment and hopes that all measures will be taken to ensure that the new decree implementing section L.276 of the Labour Code will be adopted in the very near future and that it will limit the list of posts, jobs or functions in which workers may be subject to a requisition order to the posts, jobs or functions that are strictly necessary to ensure the operation of essential services in the strict sense of the term. Furthermore, as the Committee emphasized in paragraph 189 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, in all cases and regardless of the legality of the strike action in question, any sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and the authorities should refrain from applying sentences of imprisonment against those who peacefully organize or participate in a strike.

Finally, the Committee recalls that it emphasized the need to amend the last paragraph of section L.276 of the Labour Code, under the terms of which the exercise of the right to strike may not be accompanied by the occupation of the workplace or its immediate surroundings, under penalty of the sanctions set out in sections L.275 and L.279, with the latter envisaging a sentence of imprisonment ranging from three months to one year and a fine, or one of these penalties. The Committee trusts that the Government will be able to indicate in its next report that sections L.276, last paragraph, and L.279 of the Labour Code have been amended so as to ensure that striking workers who peacefully occupy the workplace or its immediate surroundings are not liable to prison sentences involving the obligation to work.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work for breaches of labour discipline. In its previous comments, the Committee noted with regret that the Government had not taken the opportunity afforded by the adoption of the new Merchant Shipping Code (Act No. 2002-22 of 16 August 2002) to amend the provisions which it had been commenting on for many years. Under sections 624, 643 and 645 of the new Merchant Shipping Code, unapproved absence from the vessel, verbal insults, gestures or threats towards a superior and a formal refusal to obey a service order are still punishable by imprisonment, involving compulsory prison labour, in accordance with section 692 of the Code of Penal Procedure and section 32 of Decree No. 2001-362 of 4 May 2001 concerning the implementation and organization of penal sanctions. In view of the fact that the scope of these provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code is not confined to cases in which the breach of discipline would endanger the ship or the persons on board, the Committee considered these provisions to be contrary to the Convention, which prohibits recourse to forced labour, including in the form of compulsory prison labour, as a means of labour discipline.

In its last but one report, the Government recognized that these provisions were not in conformity with the Convention. It indicated that, in practice, no prison sentence involving compulsory labour was applied and that the merchant navy had itself considered as excessive the penalties provided for and the violations penalized. For this reason, according to the Government, penal sanctions were always discarded in cases of breaches of discipline. The merchant navy had received instructions to take steps to find a definitive solution to this situation. In view of this information, the Committee considered that the Government should have no difficulties in making the necessary changes to the Merchant Shipping Code so that the legislation reflects the practice already established and is in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government indicates that the measures announced are indeed being considered with a view to making the necessary changes to the Merchant Shipping Code. In view of the above, and considering that it has been commenting on this point for more than 40 years, the Committee trusts that the Government will be able to provide information, in its next report, on the steps taken to amend sections 624, 643 and 645 of the new Merchant Shipping Code and therefore ensure conformity with the Convention in law and practice.

Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a punishment for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to section L.276 of the Labour Code which allows the administrative authority to requisition workers from private enterprises and public services and establishments who are engaged in jobs that are essential for the security of persons and property, the maintenance of public order, the continuity of public services and the satisfaction of the essential needs of the nation. Any worker who does not comply with the requisition order is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment ranging from three months to one year (section L.279(m)). The Committee requested the Government to supply a copy of the decree implementing section L.276 containing the list of jobs concerned as well as information on the cases in which the competent administrative authority had had recourse to section L.276. In reply, the Government indicated that the requisition of workers is certainly justified in essential services, that it is a measure of public security and that it is on no account designed to constitute a penalty. The Government pointed out that the decree implementing section L.276 was in the process of being adopted and that, pending this, it was Decree No. 72‑017 of 11 March 1972 establishing the list of posts, jobs and functions of which the occupants may be subject to requisition which continued to apply. The Committee noted this information, as well as the comments of the National Confederation of Workers of Senegal (CNTS), sent in November 2006 by the Government, that the requisition of certain workers in certain situations constituted an abuse of authority intended to break strikes initiated by workers. According to the CNTS, certain employers in the private sector used this process to force workers to remain in their posts when there was no need to do so.

The Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government merely indicates that the requisition only concerns jobs that are essential for the security of persons and property, the maintenance of public order, the continuity of public services or the satisfaction of the essential needs of the nation. The Committee refers to the comments that it has been making on this matter since 1998 in relation to the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). In these comments, the Committee has recalled on many occasions that recourse to this type of measure should be limited exclusively to the maintenance of essential services in the strict sense of the term (those the interruption of which would endanger the life, safety or health of the whole or part of the population), to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to acute national crises.

Noting that, firstly, workers who do not comply with a requisition order are liable to imprisonment involving the obligation to work (section L.279(m) of the Labour Code) and, secondly, powers of requisitioning may be exercised with regard to workers whose posts, jobs or functions are not essential services in the strict sense of the term, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary steps to ensure that the Decree implementing section L.276 of the Labour Code, which is in the process of being adopted, is in conformity with the Convention. To that end, the list of posts, jobs and functions whose occupants may be subject to requisitioning should be limited to the posts, jobs and functions which are strictly necessary to ensure the operation of essential services in the strict sense of the term, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and to acute national crises, and workers who do not comply with a requisitioning order should not be liable to imprisonment involving the obligation to work.

In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the need to amend the provisions of the last paragraph of section L.276 of the Labour Code, which states that any exercise of the right to strike accompanied by occupation of the workplace or its immediate surroundings is liable to the penalties provided for by sections L.275 and L.279, namely: loss of entitlement to the payments and benefits provided for in the event of termination of the contract (section L.275); and imprisonment ranging from three months to one year and/or a fine (section L.279). The Government indicated that the restrictions concerning the occupation of workplaces in the event of a strike were actually limited to cases in which strikes cease to be non-violent and that the penalties provided for had never been applied, such situations having always been settled by means of negotiation. The Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government indicates that it will take all the necessary steps to ensure that the legislation is in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee hopes that in its next report, the Government will be able to report on the steps taken to amend sections L.276, last paragraph, and L.279 of the Labour Code by removing the provisions imposing prison sentences involving the obligation to work on striking workers who occupy the workplace or its immediate surroundings and by ensuring that this right is guaranteed as long as the strike remains non-violent, therefore ensuring conformity with the Convention in law and practice.

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

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work for breaches of labour discipline. In its previous comments, the Committee noted with regret that the Government had not taken the opportunity afforded by the adoption of the new Merchant Shipping Code (Act No. 2002-22 of 16 August 2002) to amend the provisions which it had been commenting on for many years. Under sections 624, 643 and 645 of the new Merchant Shipping Code, unapproved absence from the vessel, verbal insults, gestures or threats towards a superior and a formal refusal to obey a service order are still punishable by imprisonment, involving compulsory prison labour, in accordance with section 692 of the Code of Penal Procedure and section 32 of Decree No. 2001-362 of 4 May 2001 concerning the implementation and organization of penal sanctions. In view of the fact that the scope of these provisions is not confined to cases in which the breach of discipline would endanger the ship or the persons on board, the Committee has considered them to be contrary to the Convention, which prohibits recourse to forced labour, including in the form of compulsory prison labour, as a means of labour discipline.

In its last report, the Government recognizes that these provisions are not in conformity with the Convention. It adds that, in practice, no prison sentence involving compulsory labour is applied and that the merchant navy itself has considered as excessive the penalties provided for and the contraventions penalized. For this reason, penal sanctions are always discarded in cases of breaches of discipline. The merchant navy has received instructions to identify all provisions of the Code which are contrary to international conventions and to take steps for the situation to be settled definitely. In view of this information, the Committee considers that the Government should have no difficulties in making the necessary changes to the Merchant Shipping Code so that the legislation is brought into conformity with the Convention and with the established practice.

Article 1(d). Prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a punishment for participation in strikes. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to section L.276 of the Labour Code, which enables the administrative authority to requisition workers from private enterprises and public services and establishments who are engaged in jobs that are essential for the security of persons and property, the maintenance of public order, the continuity of public services and the satisfaction of the essential needs of the nation. Any worker who does not comply with the requisition order is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment ranging from three months to one year (section L.279(m)). The Committee asked the Government to supply a copy of the Decree implementing section L.276 containing the list of jobs concerned and information on cases in which the competent administrative authority had recourse to section L.276. In this respect, the Committee recalled that requisition can only be justified with regard to essential services, i.e. services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

In reply, the Government states that the requisition of workers is certainly justified in the case of essential services. It is only for this reason that the provision is laid down, namely as a measure of public security. On no account is it designed to constitute a penalty. The Government points out that the Decree implementing section L.276 is in the process of being adopted and, pending this, it is Decree No. 72-017 of 11 March 1972 establishing the list of posts, jobs or functions of which the occupants may be subject to requisition which continues to apply.

In comments communicated in November 2006 by the Government, the National Confederation of Workers of Senegal (CNTS) states that the requisition of certain workers in certain situations constitutes an abuse of authority intended to break strikes initiated by workers. Certain employers in the private sector use this process to force workers to remain in their posts when there is no need for them to do so.

The Committee notes all this information. It notes, as it did in 2006 in its observation on the application of Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), by Senegal, that Decree No. 72-017 provides for the requisitioning of workers in relation to many posts, jobs or functions to which the definition of essential services in the strict sense of the term (i.e. those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) does not apply. The Committee also emphasized in the same observation that having recourse to the replacement of striking workers is a serious violation of the right to strike. Noting that, firstly, workers who do not comply with a requisition order are liable to imprisonment (section L.279(m) of the Labour Code) and, secondly, powers of requisitioning may be exercised with regard to workers whose posts, jobs or functions are not essential services in the strict sense of the term, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the Decree implementing section L.276 of the Labour Code, which is in the course of being adopted, is in conformity with the Convention. To this end, the list of posts, jobs or functions whose occupants may be subject to requisitioning should be limited to the posts, jobs or functions which are strictly necessary to ensure the operation of essential services in the strict sense of the term, and workers who do not comply with a requisitioning order should not be liable to imprisonment.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the need to amend the last paragraph of section L.276 of the Labour Code, which states that any exercise of the right to strike accompanied by occupation of the workplace or its immediate surroundings is liable to the penalties provided for by sections L.275 and L.279(o), namely: loss of entitlement to the payments and benefits provided for in the event of termination of a contract; imprisonment ranging from three months to one year and/or a fine. In its report, the Government indicates that the restrictions concerning occupation of the workplace in the event of a strike are actually limited to cases in which strikes cease to be non-violent and that the penalties provided for have never been applied, situations having always been settled by means of negotiation. The Committee notes this information. It reminds the Government that the current wording of the last paragraph of section L.276, by not being limited to cases in which strikes cease to be non-violent, contains an excessive restriction on the exercise of the right to strike, any person contravening this provision being liable to imprisonment. While noting that the penalties laid down by section L.276 have never been applied in practice, the Committee considers that, in order to guarantee legal certainty and ensure the conformity of the legislation with the Convention, the provisions of section L.726 of the Labour Code should be amended by removing the penal aspect of the penalties laid down and ensuring that the right to occupy the workplace or its immediate surroundings is guaranteed as long as the strike remains non-violent.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work for breaches of labour discipline. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code (Act No. 62-32 of 22 March 1962), under the terms of which certain breaches of discipline by seafarers were punishable by sentences of imprisonment involving, by virtue of the penal legislation, compulsory prison labour. Under the terms of sections 223, 241 and 243 of the Code, unapproved absence from the vessel, verbal insults, gestures or threats towards a superior and a formal refusal to obey a service order were punishable by prison sentences. In view of the scope of these provisions, which cannot be confined to cases in which the breach of discipline would endanger the ship or the persons on board, the Committee has considered them to be contrary to the Convention, which prohibits recourse to forced labour, including in the form of compulsory prison labour, as a means of labour discipline. The Government indicated on several occasions that the revision of the Merchant Shipping Code would provide an opportunity to make the amendments called for by the Committee so as to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Government also added that, in practice, no sentence of imprisonment involving compulsory labour had been imposed on any workers in the merchant navy under these provisions.

The Committee notes that a new Merchant Shipping Code was adopted in 2002 (Act No. 2002-22 of 16 August 2002). It notes with regret that the Government did not take the opportunity to amend the provisions on which it commented previously. By virtue of sections 624, 643 and 645 of the new Merchant Shipping Code, unapproved absence from the vessel, verbal insults, gestures or threats towards a superior and a formal refusal to obey a service order are still punishable by sentences of detention, involving compulsory prison labour in accordance with section 692 of the Code of Penal Procedure and section 32 of Decree No. 2001-362 of 4 May 2001 respecting the implementation and organization of penal sanctions. The Committee nevertheless notes that the penalty which may be imposed in the event of formal refusal to obey following a warning has been reduced from "six days to six months" to "six days to one month". The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to bring these provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code into conformity with the Convention. In the meantime, it requests the Government to provide information on any court decision which has been handed down or any sentence of imprisonment imposed under these provisions.

Article 1(d). Sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as a punishment for having participated in strikes

1. The Committee notes that section L.276 of the Labour Code enables the administrative authority to requisition workers from private enterprises and public services and establishments who are engaged in jobs that are essential for the security of persons and property, the maintenance of public order, the continuity of public services and the satisfaction of the essential needs of the nation. The list of jobs so defined is to be determined by decree. Any worker who does not comply with the requisition order is liable to a fine and a sentence of imprisonment of from three months to one year, or to one of these penalties (section L.279(m)). The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the decree issued under section L.276 establishing the list of jobs concerned, as well as information on cases in which the competent administrative authority has had recourse to section L.276. The Committee recalls in this respect, as it has in the context of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that requisitioning can only be justified in essential services, that is services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

2. The Committee notes that, by virtue of section L.276 in fine, the exercise of the right to strike may not be accompanied by the occupation of the workplace or its immediate vicinity, under penalty of the sanctions established in sections L.275 and L.279(o), namely: loss of entitlement to the benefits and damages envisaged in the event of the termination of the contract; a sentence of imprisonment of from three months to one year; or one of these two penalties. The Committee has drawn the Government’s attention, in the context of the application of Convention No. 87, to the fact that restrictions on the occupation of the workplace should be limited to cases in which the strike action ceases to be peaceful. The Committee recalls that the Convention prohibits recourse to forced labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated in strikes. However, in the event of violations of section L.276 above, a prison sentence can be imposed which involves, under the terms of the penal legislation referred to above, the obligation to work. Under these conditions, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to amend section L.276 of the Labour Code.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. With reference to the comments that it has been making since 1965, the Committee notes that sections 223 and 243 of the Merchant Shipping Code, which provide for a penalty of imprisonment involving compulsory labour in the event of certain breaches of labour discipline, have not yet been amended. It also notes that the Government's latest report contains no information on the measures taken in this respect.

On many occasions, the Committee has noted the Government's repeated indications that the Merchant Shipping Code was being revised. The Committee trusts that the Government will make every effort to bring the Merchant Shipping Code into conformity with the Convention and that it will provide information on the measures taken for this purpose.

Article 1(b). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the organization and activities of youth camps and to provide a copy of the applicable provisions. In its latest report, the Government states that information on the organization of youth camps is not yet available. The Committee once again hopes that the Government will make every effort to provide the requested information.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Further to its previous observations, the Committee notes that work is still continuing on the reform of Labour Code and the Merchant Shipping Code. It hopes that this reform will ensure in particular that sections 223 and 243 of the Merchant Shipping Code, which provide for a penalty of imprisonment involving compulsory labour in the event of certain breaches of labour discipline, are brought into conformity with the requirements of the Convention and that the Government will provide the necessary information.

Article 1(b). The Committee notes that the Government hopes to transmit in the near future the information which was requested previously concerning the organization and activities of youth camps.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to supply information on the organization and activities of the youth camps referred to by the Government in its third periodic report on the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document CCPR/C64/Add.5 of 4 June 1991, paragraph 41) and to supply copies of the provisions that are applicable in this respect.

The Committee notes that the Government's report does not contain any reference to this subject and the Committee hopes that the Government will supply the required information with its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. For over ten years the Committee has been referring in its comments to sections 223 and 243 of the Merchant Shipping Code, under which seafarers may be punished for breaches of labour discipline (absence without leave, refusal to obey after formal order) with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour under section 40 of the Penal Code. The Committee notes that in its report the Government reiterates its previous indications that the provisions in question are currently being revised in the overall framework of the revision of the Merchant Shipping Code. The Committee hopes that sections 223 and 243 of the Merchant Shipping Code will be amended in the very near future to ensure that no sentence involving the obligation to work can be imposed for breaches of labour discipline and requests the Government to indicate the progress achieved in this respect.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to supply information on the organization and activities of the youth camps referred to by the Government in its third periodic report on the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document CCPR/C64/Add.5 of 4 June 1991, paragraph 41) and to supply copies of the provisions that are applicable in this respect.

The Committee notes that the Government's report does not contain any reference to this subject and the Committee hopes that the Government will supply the required information with its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. For over ten years the Committee has been referring in its comments to sections 223 and 243 of the Merchant Shipping Code, under which seafarers may be punished for breaches of labour discipline (absence without leave, refusal to obey after formal order) with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour under section 40 of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes that in its report the Government reiterates its previous indications that the provisions in question are currently being revised in the overall framework of the revision of the Merchant Shipping Code.

The Committee hopes that sections 223 and 243 of the Merchant Shipping Code will be amended in the very near future to ensure that no sentence involving the obligation to work can be imposed for breaches of labour discipline and requests the Government to indicate the progress achieved in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to supply information on the organization and activities of the youth camps referred to by the Government in its third periodic report on the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document CCPR/C/64/Add.5 of 4 June 1991, paragraph 41) and to supply copies of the provisions that are applicable in this respect.

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no reference to this subject and hopes that the Government will supply the required information with its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under sections 223 and 243 of the Merchant Shipping Code, seafarers are punished for breaches of labour discipline (absence without leave from the vessel, refusal to obey after formal order) with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour under section 40 of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes that in its report the Government reiterates its previous indications to the effect that the authorities have decided to bring the provisions in question into conformity with the Convention during the revision of the Merchant Shipping Code and that, in practice, no sentence of imprisonment has been passed on a seafarer committing a breach of labour discipline.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information on any progress achieved in the adoption of the necessary amendments to bring the Merchant Shipping Code into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes that the draft Labour Code in one of its provisions (section L4) prohibits forced labour in all its forms.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to supply information on the organization and activities of the youth camps referred to by the Government in its third periodic report on the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document CCPR/C/64/Add.5 of 4 June 1991, paragraph 41) and to supply copies of the provisions that are applicable in this respect.

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no reference to this subject and hopes that the Government will supply the required information with its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under sections 223 and 243 of the Merchant Navy Code, seafarers are punished for breaches of labour discipline (absence without leave from the vessel, refusal to obey after formal order) with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour under section 40 of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes that in its report the Government reiterates its previous indications to the effect that the authorities have decided to bring the provisions in question into conformity with the Convention during the revision of the Merchant Navy Code and that, in practice, no sentence of imprisonment has been passed on a seafarer committing a breach of labour discipline.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information on any progress achieved in the adoption of the necessary amendments to bring the Merchant Navy Code into conformity with the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the organisation and activities of the youth camps referred to by the Government in its third periodic report on the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document CCPR/C/64/Add.5 of 4 June 1991, paragraph 41) and to supply copies of the provisions that are applicable in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

Articles 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under sections 223 and 243 of the Merchant Navy Code, seafarers are punished for breaches of labour discipline (absence without leave from the vessel, refusal to obey after formal order) with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour under section 40 of the Penal Code.

The Government stated previously that the authorities have decided to bring the provisions in question into conformity with the Convention during the current revision of the Merchant Navy Code and that, in practice, no sentence of imprisonment has been passed by judges on a seafarer committing a breach of labour discipline.

The Committee notes the Government's repeated statements that the above provisions of the Merchant Navy Code are currently being amended within the framework of the revision of the Merchant Navy Code. Noting that these provisions have been the subject of its comments for many years, the Committee hopes that the Government will soon be able to report the adoption of the necessary amendments to bring the Merchant Navy Code into conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that under sections 223 and 243 of the Merchant Navy Code seafarers are punished for breaches of labour discipline (absence without leave from the vessel, refusal to obey after formal order) with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour under section 40 of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes with interest the information provided in the Government's report, to the effect that the authorities have decided to bring the provisions in question into conformity with the Convention during the current revision of the Merchant Navy Code. The Committee also notes the Government's reiterated statement that, in practice, no sentence of imprisonment involving compulsory labour has been passed by judges on a seafarer committing a breach of labour discipline and that such sentences are applied by judges only in cases of mutiny or where the safety of the vessel is in danger.

The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will shortly be able to report the adoption of the necessary amendments to bring the Merchant Navy Code into conformity with the Convention.