ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2016, publiée 106ème session CIT (2017)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Togo (Ratification: 1999)

Autre commentaire sur C105

Observation
  1. 2023
  2. 2019

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Preliminary comment on the impact of compulsory prison labour on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes the adoption of the new Penal Code (Act No. 2015-010 of 24 November 2015). It notes that section 68 provides that persons sentenced to imprisonment are subjected to the obligation to work. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following provisions of Togolese law which may fall within the scope of certain Articles of the Convention.
Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 86 of the Media Code (Act No. 2004-15 of 27 August 2004) establishes the penalty of three months to one year of imprisonment and a fine for any person who, through various means referred to in section 85 of the Code, incites the population to violate the laws of the Republic and that, in the event of a repeat offence, the maximum penalty may be doubled. The Committee also noted section 25 of Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991, issuing the Charter of Political Parties which provides that any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter shall be liable to imprisonment of three to 12 months and/or a fine. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 86 of the Media Code and section 25 of the 1991 Charter Political Parties.
The Committee notes the lack of information on this matter in the Government’s report. The Committee notes that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in her 2014 report, expressed her concern that defamation was an offence under the Penal Code (section 58) that carried heavy penalties, including fines (A/HRC/25/55/Add.2, paragraph 23).
The Committee notes that new sections 290, 291 and 292 of the Penal Code of 2015 relating to defamation now prescribe suspended prison sentences of one to six months and a fine. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 86 of the Media Code and section 25 of the 1991 Charter Political Parties, including on court decisions illustrating their scope. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 290, 291 and 292 of the Penal Code of 2015 relating to defamation.
The Committee also notes the following sections of the Penal Code which may fall within the scope of application of the Convention:
– sections 491 and 492, which provide for imprisonment of six months to four years for insulting representatives of the public authority, or insulting the national flag or the national anthem;
– section 665, which provides for imprisonment of one to three years for any person who publishes, disseminates or reproduces false information by any means. Any person who is the author of false information shall be liable to imprisonment of three to five years.
Moreover, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following sections of the Penal Code: (i) sections 301 and 302 concerned with insulting the President or members of the Government or other public authorities; and (ii) section 540 concerned with the organization of an unlawful demonstration on a public thoroughfare. The Committee notes that the aforementioned sections provide for suspended prison sentences of one to six months and a fine.
The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the imposition of labour, and especially compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, without recourse to violence. It emphasizes that the range of activities which must be protected, under this provision, from punishment involving compulsory labour, includes the freedom to express political or ideological views (whether orally or through the press or other media) (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 302). In order to be able to evaluate the application in practice of the abovementioned provisions, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on their application in practice, including copies of any court decisions illustrating their scope.
Article 1(d) and (e). Imposition of prison sentences including an obligation to work as punishment for having participated in strikes and as a means of racial, social, national or religious discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to a number of provisions of the Act of 1 July 1901, concerning contracts of association which provide for prison sentences that include the obligation to work in circumstances falling within the scope of the Convention. It asked the Government to provide information on the application of the following provisions in practice:
  • -section 8(1), which provides that any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a fine of 16 to 200 CFA francs, the amount of the fine being doubled for a repeat offence (section 5 concerns the formalities for prior declaration, changes that have occurred in an association’s administration or management, and modifications that have been made to its regulation, read in conjunction with section 36 of the Penal Code);
  • -section 8(2), which provides that the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgment of dissolution shall be punished with a fine of 16 to 5,000 CFA francs and imprisonment of six days to one year, and section 8(3), which provides that any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty;
  • -section 15, which provides for the penalties established in section 8(2) to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such a list at the request of the prefect.
Noting the lack of information on this matter in the Government’s report, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the abovementioned provisions and to send copies of any court decisions based on them.
Article 1(d). Requisitioning of public officials in the event of a strike. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that sections 244 and 245 of the Public Service Regulations (21 January 2013) provide for the requisitioning of public officials in the event of a strike, and that the posts and jobs concerned would be identified in a decree. Even though the new provisions restrict the power of requisition to cases where the officials concerned occupy posts that are indispensable to the security of people and property, to the maintenance of public order, to the continuity of public services or to meeting the nation’s essential needs, the Committee noted that officials who do not comply with a requisition order are liable to six days’ imprisonment and/or a fine. The Committee recalled that the power of requisition should be limited to exceptional circumstances, including in services that are essential in the strict sense of the term, namely services the interruption of which would endanger the life, safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee therefore asked the Government to take this restriction into account when adopting the decree defining the posts of officials subject to requisitioning.
The Committee notes the lack of information on this matter in the Government’s report. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the decree defining the posts of officials subject to requisitioning has been adopted and, if so, to specify the provisions defining requisitioning and to send a copy of the aforementioned decree.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer