ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - China - Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Ratification: 1997)

Other comments on C029

Direct Request
  1. 2025
  2. 2007
  3. 2004
  4. 2002
  5. 2001
  6. 1999

Display in: French - SpanishView all

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its earlier comments. It notes, in particular, the information on the legislation and practice concerning prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons for the purpose of exploitation, provided by the Government in reply to its 2000 general observation.

Article 25 of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that, since the exaction of forced or compulsory labour is in contravention of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, a court or tribunal in proceedings within its jurisdiction may grant such remedy or make such order, in respect of such a breach, violation or threatened violation, as it has power to grant or make in those proceedings and as it considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. It requested the Government to indicate the provisions of penal legislation under which a court or tribunal might sentence a person found guilty of exaction of forced or compulsory labour.

In its latest report, the Government reiterates its previous statement that there is no specific penal legislation on such kind of malpractices, but offences such as false imprisonment and offences against the person might most likely be committed in cases of illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour, such offences being punishable under the general criminal law. The Committee notes the criminal law provisions communicated by the Government, and in particular, sections 24 and 25 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200, punishing intimidation and assaults with intent to cause certain acts to be done or omitted, as well as the Government’s explanations concerning their interpretation. While noting the Government’s indication in the report that the practice of the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour does not exist in the HKSAR and no court decisions on the subject have yet been reported, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide, in its future reports, information on the application in practice of the general criminal law provisions referred to above, supplying copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, as well as, more particularly, information on any legal proceedings which might have been instituted in connection with the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour and on any penalties imposed.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer