Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2014, publiée 104ème session CIT (2015)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Egypte (Ratification: 1958)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving the obligation to work as a punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions under which penal sanctions involving compulsory prison labour (pursuant to sections 16 and 20 of the Penal Code) may be imposed in situations covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention, such sanctions being therefore incompatible with the Convention, namely:

• – section 178(3) of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 536 of 12 November 1953 and Act No. 93 of 28 May 1995, regarding the production or possession with a view to the distribution, sale, etc. of any images which may prejudice the reputation of the country by being contrary to the truth, giving an inexact description, or emphasizing aspects which are not appropriate;
• – section 80(d) of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 112 of 19 May 1957, in so far as it applies to the wilful dissemination abroad by an Egyptian of tendentious rumours or information relating to the internal situation of the country for the purpose of reducing the high reputation or esteem of the State, or the exercise of any activity which will prejudice the national interest;
• – section 98(a)bis and (d) of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 34 of 24 May 1970, which prohibits the following: advocacy, by any means, of opposition to the fundamental principles of the socialist system of the State; encouraging aversion or contempt for these principles; encouraging calls to oppose the union of the people’s working forces; constituting or participating in any association or group pursuing any of the foregoing aims, or receiving any material assistance for the pursuit of such aims;
• – sections 98(b) and(b)bis, and 174 of the Penal Code concerning advocacy of certain doctrines;
• – section 102bis of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 34 of 24 May 1970, regarding the dissemination or possession of means for the dissemination of news or information, false or tendentious rumours, or revolutionary propaganda which may harm public security, spread panic among the people or prejudice the public interest;
• – section 188 of the Penal Code concerning the dissemination of false news which may harm the public interest; and
• – the Public Meetings Act, No. 14 of 1923, and the Meetings Act, No. 10 of 1914, granting general powers to prohibit or dissolve meetings, even in private places.

The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its statement that, with regard to section 98(a)bis and (d) of the Penal Code, sentences of imprisonment are only applicable in the case of establishment of, or participation in, associations or organizations in opposition to the fundamental principles of the socialist system of the State, and not for the peaceful expression of political views opposed to the established political system. Concerning sections 98(b) and (b)bis, and 174, the Government repeatedly indicates that the sentences of imprisonment of up to five years are only applicable against the advocacy of certain doctrines aimed at changing the fundamental principles of the Constitution or the social order by the use of force or other unlawful means. Finally, as regards the Public Meetings Act of 1923, the Government states that its provisions aim at safeguarding public safety and prevent offences that might result from public meetings. Therefore, only acts that go beyond the peaceful expression of views are punishable under the 1923 Act. The Committee also notes the Government’s reiterated indication that the penalty of hard labour has been abolished from the Penal Code pursuant to Law No. 126 of 2008.

In this regard, the Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the scope of the Convention is not restricted to sentences of “hard labour” or other particularly arduous forms of labour, as opposed to ordinary prison labour. The Convention 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 ambit of Article 1(a), (c) and (d).

The Committee also points out that sanctions involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, are incompatible with Article 1(a) where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. Therefore, the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour under this provision comprise the freedom to express political or ideological views, as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens peacefully seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion.

In this connection, the Committee notes the Government’s brief indication that the application in practice of the above provisions does not violate the Convention. The Government also states that it is committed to implementing the provisions in the legislation relating to freedom of expression. The Committee observes, however, that the above provisions are not limited to acts of violence or incitement to violence, but are as well applied to acts such as the advocacy, by any means, of opposition to the fundamental principles of the socialist system of the State, encouraging disrespect for principles such as freedom of expression and assembly.

In light of the above considerations, the Committee notes with regret that, despite the comments it has been addressing to the Government on this point, a new Protests Law was promulgated in November 2013, giving local security authorities broad powers to ban public gatherings, and allowing for excessive sanctions, including sentences of imprisonment, to be imposed on those found in breach of its provisions. The Committee also notes that, following the adoption of the 2013 law, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed deep concern about the increasingly severe restrictions and physical attacks on both media and civil society activists in Egypt, including the harassment, detention and prosecution of national and international journalists. The UN High Commissioner stressed that “the charges levelled against the journalists, which include harming national unity and social peace, spreading false reports, and membership of a ‘terrorist organization,’ are far too broad and vague, and therefore reinforce the belief that the real target is freedom of expression”. According to the High Commissioner, since its promulgation in November 2013, the new Protests Law “has been used to arrest and convict dozens of protesters, including political activists” (UN OHCHR, Press Release, 23 June 2014).

The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no prison sentences involving compulsory labour are imposed on persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken to bring the above provisions of the Penal Code, the Public Meetings Act, No. 14 of 1923, the Meetings Act, No. 10 of 1914, and the Protests Law of 2013 into conformity with the Convention, and requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(b). Use of conscripts for purposes of economic development. The Committee refers in this regard to its observation addressed to the Government under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).

Article 1(d). Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for participation in strikes. For many years, the Committee has been referring to sections 124, 124A and C, and 374 of the Penal Code, under which strikes by any public employee may be punished with imprisonment for up to one year (with the possibility of doubling the term of imprisonment), which may involve compulsory labour pursuant to section 20 of the same law.

The Committee notes that, in 2010, the Government indicated that sections 124, 124A and C, and 374 apply to cases in which the stoppage of services would endanger people’s health or safety, such as in cases of doctors in public hospitals refraining from aiding a patient. The Government also stated that the Court of Cassation has handed down rulings in this regard, including one decision that sentenced a nurse for inciting his colleagues in a public hospital to suspend work and for the damage caused by the workers’ assembly.

The Committee recalls in this regard that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated peacefully in a strike. With reference to paragraph 315 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee also draws the Government’s attention to the fact that, in all cases, sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a strike. The Committee therefore trusts that the necessary measures will at last be taken to repeal or amend the above provisions of the Penal Code and requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide copies of court decisions passed under the abovementioned sections of the Penal Code, including the rulings handed down by the Court of Cassation to which reference was made by the Government.

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

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]