15/6/22, 4:11 All Comments

NORMLEX Information System on International Labour Standards Search User guide Glossary

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
(Ratification: 1964)

Display in: French - Spanish Printable version

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations received from the International

Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the
Federation of Chambers and Associations
of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) on 31 August 2017.
It also notes the observations from the Confederation of Workers
of Venezuela (CTV) received on 5
November 2019 and requests the Government
to provide its reply to these observations.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment

involving the
obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political opinions
or views
ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic
system. In its previous
comments, the Committee noted that persons
sentenced to a penalty of deprivation of liberty of presidio or
prisión are
subject to an obligation to work (sections 12 and 15 of
the Penal Code) and observed that the following provisions of the
Penal Code
provide for penalties of prisión, involving compulsory prison labour,
for certain forms of behaviour, namely:
-offending or showing a lack of
respect for the President of the Republic or for a number of public
authorities (sections
147 and 148);

-public denigration of the

National Assembly, the Supreme Court of Justice, etc. (section
149);

-offending the honour, reputation or prestige of a member

of the National Assembly or a public servant, or of a judicial
or a
political body (sections 222 and 225); proof of the truth of the facts
is not admitted (section 226); and

-defamation (sections 442 and

444).

Recalling that the Convention

prohibits the imposition of work, including prison labour, as a punishment on
persons who
express political views, the Committee previously noted with deep
concern the criminalization of social movements and the
expression of political
views. It requested the Government to provide information on the application in
practice of the
above-mentioned provisions, while ensuring that no one who, in a
peaceful manner, expresses political views or opposes
the established political,
social or economic system can be sentenced to imprisonment, under the terms of
which
compulsory labour could be imposed.

The Committee notes

the Government’s statement, in its report, that no one, and more particularly no
business or union
leader, has been condemned for peacefully protesting or
expressing political views. It adds that there is no legislative
provision
imposing an obligation to work on convicted persons and that no complaint has
been registered in that respect.
Convicted persons can voluntarily participate
in cultural, sport or socio-productive activities in order to facilitate their
social reintegration once released. The Committee notes that the Government
refers to several provisions of the Basic
Prison Code (Official Gazette No.
6.207 of 28 December 2015), while highlighting that convicted persons can work
in areas
corresponding to their skills and receive a financial allowance in
return for their work. The Government adds that prison
labour is a means of
social reintegration and is only mandatory when the convicted person intends to
reduce the length of
his or her custodial sentence and access alternative
penalties to imprisonment (sections 60, 63, 65 and 67 of the Code). It
notes,
nevertheless, that the Government does not provide any information on the
application in practice of sections 147 to
149, 222, 225, 226, 442 and 444 of
the Penal Code. Furthermore, referring to its previous comments, it recalls
that: (i)
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13101:0::NO::P13101_COMMENT_ID:4049360 1/7
15/6/22, 4:11 All Comments

under the terms of the Basic Prison Code, work by convicted persons is
a right but also a duty and, under section 64 of the
Code, convicted persons who
refuse work or who voluntarily perform it in an inappropriate manner, commit a
very serious
fault and are liable to the penalties established in the Code; and
(ii) pursuant to sections 12 and 15 of the Penal Code
referred to above, persons
sentenced to a penalty of deprivation of liberty of presidio or
prisión are subject to an obligation
to work. The Committee also
emphasizes that where the national legislation provides for the obligation to
work for persons
convicted to sentences of imprisonment, as is the case in the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for penalties of presidio and
prisión, provisions of the legislation which lay down limits or
restrictions on the exercise of certain civil rights or public
freedoms, the
violation of which may be punished by sentences of imprisonment, have an effect
on the application of the
Convention. Indeed, persons who do not comply with
these limits could be convicted to a sentence of imprisonment and, as
a
consequence, be subjected to compulsory labour.

The Committee
notes that, in its observations, the CTV expresses concern about the recurring
cases of persecution for
expressing political opinions, highlighting that there
has been an increase in criminalization of social protests and
expression of
political opinions other than those of the governmental party, with the
possibility of criminal sentences
involving forced or compulsory labour. The CTV
adds that there have been numerous cases of persecution of union leaders,
some
of whom have been prosecuted before military tribunals, and that recently
several university rectors and lecturers
have also been prosecuted for
criticizing the Government. The CTV further refers to an investigation carried
out by an NGO,
which showed that, in 2018, 387 cases of violation of freedom of
expression were registered and 24 persons were
imprisoned for publishing, on
social networks, opinions criticizing governmental actions or data showing the
social,
economic and political emergency in the country.

The
Committee takes note of the adoption of the Constitutional Law against hatred,
for peaceful coexistence and tolerance
(Act No. 41.274 of 8 November 2017), and
more particularly of section 20 which provides that “anyone who publicly or
through any means suitable for public dissemination promotes, fosters or incites
hatred, discrimination or violence against
a person or a group of persons, by
reason of their real or alleged membership to a determined social, ethnic,
religious or
political group … shall be punished by imprisonment for ten to
20 years.” It notes, that pursuant to section 21 of the Act, the
real or
supposed membership to a determined political group is an aggravated
circumstance for the offence. The Committee
notes that several bodies, such as
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), have expressed concern
regarding the broad, vague and ambiguous nature of the terms mentioned under
section 20 of the Act, and highlighted that
the declarations issued by the
Government indicate that it will be used to persecute the political opposition
and criminalize
expression of views opposed to the established political system
(IACHR, Country report on Venezuela, Situation of human
rights in Venezuela,
December 2017).

The Committee notes that similar concerns

were expressed on the above Act No 41.274 by the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights in her 2019 report on the situation of human
rights in the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela, who also highlights that
successive laws and reforms have facilitated the criminalization of the
opposition and of
anyone critical of the Government through vague provisions,
increased sanctions for acts that are guaranteed by the right of
freedom of
peaceful assembly and the use of military jurisdiction for civilians. The United
Nations High Commissioner
further indicates that neither the Office of the
Attorney General nor the Ombudsman, nor the Government nor the police
provide
protection to victims and witnesses of human rights violations, and that the
Attorney General has contributed to
stigmatizing and discrediting members of the
political opposition and those critical of the Government, in violation of the
principle of presumption of innocence. Impunity has enabled the recurrence of
human rights violations, emboldened
perpetrators and side-lined victims
(A/HRC/41/18, 9 October 2019, paragraphs 35, 36, 57, 77 and 80). The Committee
notes that, in its Resolution adopted in October 2019, the United Nations Human
Rights Council strongly condemns the
widespread targeted repression and
persecution on political grounds in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and
urges the
Government to immediately release all political prisoners and all
other persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty. The
Committee further notes
that the United Nations Human Rights Council highlights that the Prosecutor of
the International
Criminal Court has decided to open a preliminary examination
of the situation in the country to analyse crimes allegedly
committed, since at
least April 2017, in the context of demonstrations and related political unrest.
It further notes that on
30 April 2020, several United Nations human rights
experts indicated that they were alarmed at the increasing threats,
attacks and
charges against journalists as well as criminalization of human rights defenders
since the state of health

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13101:0::NO::P13101_COMMENT_ID:4049360 2/7
15/6/22, 4:11 All Comments

emergency which was declared on 13 March 2020 as a

result of the global virus pandemic (OHCHR press release, 30 April
2020).

Lastly, the Committee notes the report of the ILO

Commission of Inquiry appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of
the
International Labour Organisation to examine the observance by the Government of
the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela of the Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery
Convention, 1928 (No. 26), the Freedom of Association and Protection
of the
Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Tripartite Consultation
(International Labour Standards)
Convention, 1976 (No. 144), of which the ILO
Governing Body took note at its 337th Session (GB 337/INS/8, October
2019). It
notes more particularly that the ILO Commission of Inquiry observed with concern
that: (i) serious criminal
charges, criminalized under the Penal Code and the
Basic Code of Military Justice, have been brought against employers’
leaders,
trade unionists and members of employers’ organizations for the exercise of
their activities, such as participation in
protest activities, or expression of
views on issues directly related to the defence of the interests of employers’
and workers’
organizations; and (ii) their trial by a military court which
constitutes serious violations of the exercise of basic civil
liberties, such as
freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. The Committee notes that the
criminal charges imposed
as a result of actions carried out during activities of
the employers’ and workers’ organizations, which were referred to by
the ILO
Commission of Inquiry include: causing panic and/or unrest among the population
through the dissemination of
false information, insulting the sentry and the
armed forces, unlawful association, treason, terrorism, resistance and
contempt
for authority.

The Committee deplores the continued

criminalization of social movements and expression of views opposed to the
established political, social or economic system. The Committee
strongly urges the Government to take the
necessary measures, both in law
and practice, to put an immediate end to any violation of the
provisions of
the Convention by ensuring that no one who, in a peaceful manner, expresses
political
views or opposes the established political, social or economic
system can be sentenced to imprisonment,
under the terms of which compulsory
labour could be imposed. It requests the Government to provide
information
on the application in practice of the provisions of the Penal Code, the
Basic Code of Military
Justice and Act No. 41.274 referred to above, as well
as detailed information on court decisions based
thereon, with an indication
of the facts that gave rise to the convictions and the nature of the
sanctions
imposed. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to ensure
the immediate release of any person
convicted to a prison sentence entailing
compulsory prison labour, for peacefully expressing political
views or
opposing the established political, social or economic
system.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the observations received on 26 August 2016 from the Independent
Trade Union Alliance (ASI), on 31 August 2016 from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Federation
of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS), and on 12 September 2016
from the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CODESA), the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), the
General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE).

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the

obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political opinions or views
ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee
previously recalled that, where the national legislation provides for the obligation to work for persons convicted to
sentences of imprisonment, the provisions of the legislation which lay down limits or restrictions on the exercise of certain
civil rights or public freedoms, the violation of which may be punished by sentences of imprisonment, may have an effect
on the application of the Convention. In this context, the Committee notes the information concerning reprisals or the use
of repressive power to intimidate or punish persons by reason of their political opinions, the criminalization of legitimate
trade union activities and the obstacles encountered by defenders of human rights and trade union rights in exercising their
activities in full freedom. It requested the Government to ensure that no one who, in a peaceful manner, expresses political
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13101:0::NO::P13101_COMMENT_ID:4049360 3/7
15/6/22, 4:11 All Comments

views, opposes the established, political, social or economic system or who participates in a strike can be sentenced to
imprisonment, under the terms of which compulsory labour could be imposed, and to provide information on the
application of the following provisions of the Penal Code which establish penalties of prisión for certain forms of behaviour:
-offending or showing a lack of respect for the President of the Republic or for a number of public authorities (sections
147 and 148);

-public denigration of the National Assembly, the Supreme Court of Justice, etc. (section 149);

-offending the honour, reputation or prestige of a member of the National Assembly or a public servant, or of a judicial
or political body (sections 222 and 225), with proof of the truth of the facts not being admitted (section 226); and

-defamation (sections 442 and 444).

In its report, the Government indicates that persons who in a peaceful manner express political views or participate in
strikes are not sentenced to imprisonment or compulsory labour. It indicates that the prison system develops effective
policies intended to transform prisoners and ensure their social integration, within which work is valued and is not an
accessory penalty. These policies are intended to ensure that convicts are integrated voluntarily into production units. They
are not compelled to work and their integration into these production units amounts to recognition of their good conduct,
and is taken into account when applying sentence reductions.

The Committee notes this information. It observes that, under the terms of the new Basic Prison Code, which entered into
force in December 2015, work by prisoners is a right and must not by nature constitute a penalty or an obligation. However,
it notes that work is also a duty and that, under section 64 of the Code, convicted persons who refuse work or who
voluntarily perform it in an inappropriate manner, commit a serious fault and are liable to the penalties established in the
Code. The Committee also recalls that, among the sentences of imprisonment envisaged in the Penal Code, the sentences of
“presidio” and “prisión” involve the obligation to work (in, respectively, forced labour or work related to the arts and
crafts). Only persons convicted to a sentence of “arresto” are excluded from the requirement to work (section 17). The
Committee therefore considers that the provisions of the national legislation relating to the issue of work in prison may be
interpreted in a contradictory manner in so far as the Penal Code explicitly establishes an obligation to work and the Basic
Prison Code specifies that work is not compulsory, but at the same time establishes that any person who refuses work
commits a serious fault and is liable to a penalty. The Committee accordingly considers that persons convicted to a sentence
of “presidio” or “prisión” could be compelled to work.

The Committee notes that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which in 2015 examined the application by the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, expressed concern at reports
that journalists and human rights defenders have been subjected to intimidation, threats and attacks; allegations of the
arbitrary arrest of members of the political opposition; provisions and practices which could discourage the expression of
critical positions or critical media and social media reporting on matters of public interest, and which could adversely affect
the exercise of freedom of expression, including provisions that make defamation and offending or failing to show respect
for the President and other senior officials criminal offences (CCPR/C/VEN/CO/4 of 14 August 2015). The Committee also
notes that the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) emphasized in the report submitted in June
2016 to the OAS Permanent Council that undue restrictions of social protest, the excessive use of force against
demonstrators and the criminalization of opponents and dissidents are typical of the Government’s action. He also
emphasized that the media are regularly subjected to penal and administrative proceedings. Finally, the Committee recalls
that, in the context of its supervision of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to
Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), it expresses concern at the information relating to acts of violence and intimidation
against workers’ and employers’ organizations, and the climate in which public freedoms are exercised.

The Committee expresses deep concern at the criminalization of social movements and the expression of political views.
In view of the above, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that no person who, in a peaceful
manner, expresses political views or opposes the established political, social or economic system can be
convicted to a sentence of imprisonment involving the requirement to perform compulsory labour. It
also once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13101:0::NO::P13101_COMMENT_ID:4049360 4/7
15/6/22, 4:11 All Comments

provisions of the Penal Code referred to above, with an indication of the number of court rulings issued,
the basis for such rulings and the facts behind the convictions.

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

Article 1(a) and (d) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment

involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political opinions or
views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system or as
a punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that
persons sentenced to a penalty of deprivation of liberty of presidio or prisión are subject to the obligation to work. Only
persons sentenced to a penalty of arresto are excluded from the obligation to work (sections 12, 15 and 17 of the Penal
Code). Recalling that the Convention prohibits the imposition of work, including prison labour, as a punishment on persons
who express political views, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice
of the following provisions of the Penal Code which establish penalties of prisión for certain forms of behaviour:
-offending or showing a lack of respect for the President of the Republic or for a number of public authorities (sections
147 and 148);

-public denigration of the National Assembly, the Supreme Court of Justice, etc. (section 149);

-offending the honour, reputation or prestige of a member of the National Assembly or a public servant, or of a judicial
or a political body (sections 222 and 225); proof of the truth of the facts is not admitted (section 226);

-defamation (sections 442 and 444).

In its report, the Government specifies that under the terms of the Constitution and the Basic Labour Act, in the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela, labour is considered to be voluntary and free from any coercion. It cannot be required as a
disciplinary measure, or a punishment for expressing political opinions as there exist constitutional guarantees in the
social, civil and political fields setting forth the rights of citizens. Similarly, forced labour cannot be imposed as a
punishment for participating in a strike. Workers may withdraw their labour on condition that they comply with the
procedures envisaged in that respect and that they ensure essential and minimum services.

The Committee notes this information. It recalls that, where the national legislation provides for the obligation to work for
persons convicted to sentences of imprisonment, as is the case in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for penalties of
presidio and prisión, provisions of the legislation which lay down limits or restrictions on the exercise of certain civil rights
or public freedoms, the violation of which may be punished by sentences of imprisonment, have an effect on the application
of the Convention. Indeed, persons who do not comply with these limits could be convicted to a sentence of imprisonment
and, accordingly, be subjected to compulsory labour.

In this regard, the Committee recalls that it noted that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) had on
several occasions expressed concern at the situation with regard to freedom of thought and expression in the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela and noted information attesting to a trend of acts of reprisal against individuals who express public
disapproval of government policies; a trend to take disciplinary, administrative and penal action against the media and
journalists; the use of the punitive power of the State to criminalize human rights defenders, judicialize peaceful social
protests and bring criminal prosecutions against persons considered by the authorities to be political opponents
(OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 54 of 30 December 2009, and OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 5 corr. 1 of 7 March 2011). Similarly, the
Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) referred to several provisions of the national legislation which restrict the
exercise of the right to strike and can serve as a basis for criminalizing social protest through high fines as well as sentences
of imprisonment against persons who, in the exercise of the right to strike, paralyse the activities of an enterprise. The
criminalization of legitimate trade union activities was also a cause for concern for this Committee and the Committee on
the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference in the context of their supervision of the application of
the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13101:0::NO::P13101_COMMENT_ID:4049360 5/7
15/6/22, 4:11 All Comments

The Committee observes that, in its latest annual report (2012), the IACHR considered that the situation remained a matter
of concern and decided to include the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Chapter IV of its report devoted to countries
whose human rights practices merit special attention. The IACHR recommended that the Government refrain from making
reprisals or using the punitive power of the State to intimidate or sanction individuals based on their political opinions,
guarantee the conditions necessary for defenders of human rights and trade union rights to be able to engage freely in their
activities, and refrain from taking any action or adopting any new legislation that would limit or impede their work.

In view of the above considerations, the Committee once again requests the Government to take all the
necessary measures to ensure that no one who, in a peaceful manner, expresses political views, opposes
the established political, social or economic system or who participates in a strike can be sentenced to
imprisonment, under the terms of which compulsory labour could be imposed. It also requests the
Government to provide information on the application in practice of the provisions of the Penal Code
referred to above, as well as copies of court decisions based thereon and an indication of the facts that
gave rise to the convictions. Finally, noting that in August 2013 the National Assembly adopted a new
Basic Prison Code, which does not yet appear to have been promulgated, the Committee requests the
Government to indicate whether the adoption of this text affects the requirement to work of persons
convicted to a sentence of presidio or prisión.

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

Article 1(a) and (d) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment

involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political opinions or
views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system or as
a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee notes the comments submitted on 31
August 2011 by the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) on the application by the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela of a number of Conventions. The Committee observes that the CTV refers to several provisions of the national
legislation (the Penal Code and the Framework Act on national security and defence) as restricting the exercise of the right
to strike and serving as a basis for criminalizing social protest in the country, and accordingly constituting a form of
blackmail and coercion to prevent workers from defending their interests legitimately. According to the union, these
provisions can be used to penalize, through high fines as well as sentences of imprisonment, persons who, in the exercise of
their right to strike, paralyse the activities of an enterprise.

The Committee observes that, in the context of the supervision of the application of the Freedom of Association and
Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), both the Committee of Experts and the Committee on the
Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference have expressed concern at the criminalization of
legitimate trade union activities, at restrictions on the public freedoms that are necessary for the exercise of trade union
rights and at allegations that a climate of intimidation prevails around trade union organizations, employers’ organizations
and heads of enterprises that are not sympathetic to the Government.

The Committee notes the report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) entitled “Democracy and
human rights in Venezuela” (OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc.54, of 30 December 2009) and its 2010 Annual Report
(OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc.5 corr.1, of 7 March 2011), and in particular paragraphs 608–837 covering the situation in the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In its 2009 report, the IACHR examined with concern the situation with regard to
freedom of thought and expression in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It considered that the lack of independence and
autonomy of the judicial authorities in relation to the political authorities is a fragile aspect of democracy. It analysed the
serious obstacles faced by human rights defenders and it expressed concern at the information attesting to a trend of acts of
reprisal against individuals who express public disapproval of Government policies, which affect both opposition bodies
and citizens who exercise their right to express their disagreement with the policies adopted. In its 2010 report, the IACHR
indicates that this worrying trend has continued and also notes a trend to take disciplinary, administrative and penal action
against the media and journalists. The IACHR recommended the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to refrain from carrying
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13101:0::NO::P13101_COMMENT_ID:4049360 6/7
15/6/22, 4:11 All Comments

out reprisals or using the punitive power of the State to intimidate or sanction individuals on the basis of their political
opinions and to guarantee the plurality of spaces for democratic activity, including respect for demonstrations and protests
that are carried out in exercise of the right of assembly and peaceful demonstration. In its press releases Nos 36/10 and
61/10, the IACHR also expressed its deep concern at the use of the punitive power of the State to criminalize human rights
defenders, judicialize peaceful social protests and bring criminal prosecutions against persons the authorities considered to
be political opponents.

The Committee also notes that, in the context of the Universal Periodic Review carried out in October 2011 by the United
Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) stated
that the situation with regard to the right to freedom of expression had deteriorated in recent years and referred to a series
of provisions of the national legislation that were also likely to restrict the right to freedom of expression
(A/HRC/WG.6/12/VEN/2, paragraphs 44 and 46).

The Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 1(a) and (d) of the Convention, persons who express political views,
or who express opposition to the established political, social or economic system, or who participate in a strike, cannot be
the subject of sanctions under the terms of which work is imposed upon them. The Committee notes that, under the terms
of sections 12 and 15 of the Penal Code, persons sentenced to a penalty of presidio or of prisión are subject to the obligation
to work. Only persons sentenced to a penalty of arresto are excluded from the obligation to work (section 17). The
Committee draws attention to the following provisions of the Penal Code which establish penalties of prisión for certain
forms of behaviour:
-offending or showing a lack of respect for the President of the Republic or for a number of public authorities (sections
147 and 148);

-public denigration of the National Assembly, the Supreme Court of Justice, etc. (section 149);

-offending the honour, reputation or prestige of a member of the National Assembly or a public servant, or of a judicial
or political body (sections 222 and 225); proof of the truth of the facts is not admitted (section 226);

-defamation (sections 242 and 244).

In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that no one who expresses
political views, who peacefully opposes the established political, social or economic system or who
participates peacefully in a strike can be sentenced to imprisonment under the terms of which
compulsory labour would be imposed. It also requests the Government to provide information on the
application in practice of the above provisions, with a copy of court decisions based thereon and an
indication of the facts that gave rise to the convictions.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2017 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13101:0::NO::P13101_COMMENT_ID:4049360 7/7