Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2010, publiée 100ème session CIT (2011)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Emirats arabes unis (Ratification: 1997)

Compulsory prison labour. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 70 of the Penal Code, a convicted person serving a sentence of imprisonment is under the obligation to perform work as prescribed in the prison. It also noted that, under section 24 of the Federal Act on the organization of prison establishments (No. 43 of 1992), prisoners in category “C” (those imprisoned for a specified term or for life) are required to work on tasks specified by the by-laws of the prison and entitled to receive remuneration (the tasks on which prisoners may be employed being specified in Chapter 3 of Ministerial Decree No. 471 of 1995).

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed explanations concerning the application of the legal provisions envisaging sentences of imprisonment. The Government refers to the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the United Nations in 1955, which the Government used as inspiration for Act No. 43/1992 on the organization of prison establishments, and which guarantee the right to work of prisoners in return for a wage and in compliance with working hours. The Government confirms that, by virtue of section 70 of the Penal Code, any convicted person serving a prison sentence should be allocated specific work to perform in prisons, under specific conditions, with an indication of the objective of such work, which is not the punishment of the prisoner, but rehabilitation.

While noting these indications, the Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the explanations provided in paragraphs 144–147 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, according to which, in the great majority of cases, labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will have no relevance to the application of Convention No. 105, such as in the cases of the exaction of forced or compulsory labour from common offenders convicted, for example, of robbery, kidnapping or other acts of violence or of having endangered the life or health of others, or numerous other offences. However, if a person is required to perform compulsory prison labour because that person holds or has expressed certain political views, has committed a breach of labour discipline, or has participated in a strike, the situation is covered by the Convention which, in addition, prohibits the use “of any form” of forced or compulsory labour as a sanction, as a means of coercion, education or discipline, or as a punishment in respect of the persons within the scope of Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention.

Article 1(a). Political coercion and punishment for holding or expressing political or ideological views. The Committee noted previously that, under Federal Law No. 15 of 1980 governing publications and publishing, penal sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) can be imposed, in accordance with sections 86 and 89 of the Law, for the violation of the following provisions of the Law:

–      section 70: prohibition upon criticizing the President of the Republic or the rulers of the Emirates;

–      section 71: prohibition on publishing documents harmful to Islam, or to the Government, or to the country’s interests or the basic systems on which society is founded;

–      section 76: prohibition on publishing material containing information shameful to the President of an Arab or Muslim country or a country with friendly ties, as well as material which may threaten the ties of the country with Arab, Muslim or friendly countries;

–      section 77: prohibition on publishing material which causes an injustice to Arabs or constitutes a misrepresentation of Arab civilization or cultural heritage;

–      section 81: prohibition on publishing material which harms the national currency or causes confusion over the economic situation of a country.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a Decree was promulgated on 24 September 2007 prohibiting the imprisonment of journalists in judicial cases related to publication, freedom of expression or the exercise of their occupation. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the above Decree so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention. Please also provide information on the consequences of this legislation in practice.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that certain provisions of the Penal Code prohibit the establishment of an organization or the convening of a meeting or conference for the purpose of attacking or mistreating the foundations or teachings of the Islamic religion, or calling for the observance of another religion, with such offences being punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of ten years (sections 317 and 320). It also noted that sections 318 and 319 of the Penal Code provide that a prison sentence involving an obligation to work may be imposed on any person who is a member of an association specified in section 317, who challenges the foundations or teachings of the Islamic religion, proselytizes another religion or advocates a related ideology. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that appropriate measures will be taken to bring sections 317 to 320 of the Penal Code into conformity with the Convention and that, pending the adoption of such measures, the Government will provide information on the application of sections 317 to 320 in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions, indicating the penalties imposed.

The Committee previously noted that, under the terms of section 41 of Federal Law No. 6 of 1974, on non-profit-making organizations, any violation of the provisions of the Law is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 41, supplying copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee previously noted that under the Federal Law on Merchant Shipping (No. 26 of 1981), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) may be imposed on seafarers for various breaches of labour discipline, such as violation of service-related orders, neglecting to serve on vessels or to mount guard, being absent from a vessel without authorization, or any other act that may disrupt order or the service on board (section 200(a)(c)(g) and (j)), refusal to comply with an order concerning work on board the vessel, repeated acts of disobedience (section 204(d) and (e)), or the performance of any acts mentioned in section 204 by more than three persons in agreement (section 205).

The Committee recalled, with reference to the explanations provided in paragraph 179 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee emphasized that the Convention does not cover sanctions relating to acts liable to endanger the ship or the life or health of persons (such as, for example, the sanctions of imprisonment provided for in section 209 of the Federal Law on Merchant Shipping punishing acts that damage a vessel or jeopardize the lives of persons on board). However, with regard to sanctions relating more generally to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience, such sanctions fall within the scope of the Convention. Noting that the Government’s report does not contain relevant information on these matters, the Committee once again invites it to take the necessary measures to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention by limiting their scope to circumstances in which the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 231(1) of the Penal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to work) in cases in which at least three public officials abandon their jobs or voluntarily abstain from performing any obligations related thereto, acting in agreement amongst themselves or pursuing an illegal objective. The Committee recalls, with reference to the explanations provided in paragraph 189 of its General Survey referred to above, that no one who has participated in a peaceful strike should be subject to penal sanctions and in no event should risk a prison sentence. While noting that the Government’s report does not contain relevant information on these matters, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to provide information on the application of this provision in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.