Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Libya (Ratification: 1961)

The Government supplied the following information:

The Government considers that there is no contradiction between article 1 of Law No. 20 of 1962, article 6 of the Decree of 5 October 1955 and this Convention. The confinement provided for in section 1 of Law No. 20 of 1962 and the imprisonment provided for in section 6 of the Decree of 5 October 1955 do not combine with the obligation to work. In addition, even if labour was required during such confinement and imprisonment, it would be within the exception provided for in section 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention.

The Committee of Experts' statement that "... in both cases the persons concerned, who are merely suspected or accused, and detained by decision of judge, are obliged to work" is an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of the above-mentioned laws.

Section 71 of Law No. 40 of 1974 on service in the armed forces and section 108 of Law No. 55 of 1976 on resignations within the civil service, are contrary to the Convention. These provisions have been entrusted to the competent departments with a view to amending them.

In addition, a Government representative indicated that the blockade imposed on his country had made communication difficult with the ILO. The setting up of a new technical committee with responsibility for examining the observations of the Committee of Experts had been proposed by the Department of Vocational Training. Replies had been given to the comments of the Committee of Experts. With respect to the Convention, his Government believed that the comments on article 1 of Law No. 20 of 1962 were without foundation. This could be seen clearly in Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, where there is an express exclusion of this type of work from the definition of forced or obligatory labour. The law of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was in every respect in keeping with the provisions of the Convention. The interpretation of the Committee of Experts, viz., that persons suspected or accused of certain offences were subjected to forced labour, was also incorrect. The limitations imposed on the freedom of public servants and members of the armed forces to leave their employment was, it should be noted, the object of a re-examination at the present time.

The Workers' members welcomed the explanations given by the Government representative, which were incidentally of interest in view of paragraph 150 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts. It was difficult to continue a dialogue with governments if they failed to submit their reports to the Committee of Experts within the time-limits laid down. The Government apparently saw no contradiction between article 1 of Law No. 20 of 1962 and the Convention. The Committee of Experts was of a different opinion and undoubtedly had a reason for its opinion. When a government held an opinion different from that of the Committee of Experts, the Workers' members tended rather to side with the Committee of Experts, made up as it was of eminent legal experts. Only a detailed report by the Government would permit a definite opinion to be given. With respect to restrictions on the freedom of workers to leave their employment there was disquieting news concerning the position of Sri Lankan women employed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The Government was requested to submit detailed information on this matter. The Workers' members emphasised the necessity to submit reports on the application of ratified Conventions in order to permit a genuine dialogue within the Conference Committee.

The Employers agreed with the Workers' members. The first point concerned forced labour, which could be imposed on the basis of suspicion or accusation of certain offences; this was clearly in violation of the Convention. On this point they requested the Government representative to report to his Government that the Conference Committee shared the opinion of the Committee of Experts. On the second point concerning the possibility of leaving employment, if such a possibility were not envisaged this would be a violation of the Convention. It followed from the Government's written reply that it shared this opinion, inasmuch as an alteration of existing provisions had been envisaged. The Government could be invited to bring about this modification as soon as possible.

The Government representative informed the Workers' members that the new technical committee (the only one qualified to deal with these matters) would be informed of the question of bringing the Libyan law into line with the Convention. Even though the observations of the Committee of Experts might be relevant, there was no contradiction between the aforesaid provisions and the Convention. With respect to civil servants' freedom to resign, the matter had been referred to the competent authorities. With regard to the disquiet expressed by the Workers' members concerning the Sri Lankan women employed in the Libyan Arab Jamahirya, he had no information on the subject.

The Committee took note of the written and oral information submitted by the Government. It understood that the Government hoped that it was not in contradiction with the Convention. In view of the fact that the Government did not send a full report on the ratified Conventions in due time, the Committee felt it was not in a position to agree with the Government's viewpoint. As the subject-matter was of a very serious nature, the Committee urged the Government to reconsider its position so as to amend the legislation in the sense suggested by the Committee of Experts. The Committee hoped that the Government would submit to the ILO a report containing full particulars at its earliest convenience.