Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Bolivia (Plurinational State of) (Ratification: 1990)

Impact of the obligation to work incurred by convicted prisoners on the application of Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that under section 48 of the Penal Code and section 181ff. of Act No. 2298 of 2001 (on sentence enforcement and supervision), custodial sentences entail the obligation to work. It recalls also, in relation to the penalty of labour, that even though this penalty cannot be enforced without the consent of the convicted person, where the latter does not give their consent, the penalty will be converted into a custodial sentence (section 28 of the Penal Code), which entails compulsory labour.

Article 1(a). Imposition of forced labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information on the detention of journalists using the offence of defamation as a basis (section 282 of the Penal Code, which provides for a penalty of labour for a period ranging from one month to one year or a fine). The Committee also asked the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the following provisions of the Penal Code, under which sentences of imprisonment may be imposed in circumstances which may fall within the scope of application of Article 1(a) of the Convention:

• section 123 (sedition), under which persons who take up positions publicly and in open hostility with a view to undermining or disturbing public order in any way shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of ranging from one to three years;
• section 126 (conspiracy), under which any person who engages in a conspiracy involving three or more persons with a view to committing crimes of sedition shall be liable to half of the penalty for that crime;
• section 134 (public disorder and disturbances), which provides that any persons who for the purpose of preventing or disturbing a public meeting cause riotous behaviour, disturbances or other disorders shall be liable to a penalty of labour for a period ranging from one month to one year.

With regard to the application in practice of section 282 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes defamation, the Government indicates that there are no cases of convictions in legal proceedings against journalists for political opinions or any cases that have resulted in criminal penalties involving a custodial sentence, let alone any obligation to perform forced labour.

The Committee also notes that the Ombuds Office, in a report entitled “24 days – Situation of conflict in Bolivia in October and November 2024”, referred to the discretionary use of the criminal offence of terrorism in the context of the blockades in October and November 2024. In relation to the 212 persons arrested during the 24 days of blockades, 27 proceedings were opened. Among these, in 11 criminal cases, the prosecutors charged 115 persons on a discretionary basis with the crime of terrorism, without justification or objectivity, giving rise to arbitrary interpretations that led to an erroneous and disproportionate application.

The Committee also notes that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in its 2024 report entitled “Social cohesion: The challenge for the consolidation of democracy in Bolivia”, reiterated its concern at the persistence of unclear and non-objective criminal offences, such as terrorism. The Government reported that there are proposals for reforms regarding the definition of the constituent elements of “terrorism”, in response to the recommendations contained in the report of the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts. The Government also highlighted Bill No. 305, which, in its opinion, introduces the legal amendments necessary for ensuring compliance with international obligations.

The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who peacefully express certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic order by providing that, in the context of these activities, they cannot incur penalties that entail the obligation to work. It emphasizes in this regard that, although limitations on the right to freedom of expression or assembly may be established to protect public order, when such limitations are drafted in broad terms, they may lend themselves to interpretation and application in practice that is incompatible with the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee has underlined the importance of amending the provisions relating to defamation so that this does not constitute an offence that incurs penalties involving compulsory labour.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to take all necessary steps to ensure, in both law and practice, that persons who peacefully express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system cannot be subjected to criminal penalties involving compulsory labour. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the measures taken to revise the content of section 282 of the Penal Code (defamation); (ii) the application in practice of section 133 of the Penal Code (terrorism), as well as of sections 123, 126 and 134 of the Penal Code, including the number of persons convicted, the acts that gave rise to these convictions, and the penalties imposed.

Article 1(d). Penalties for having participated in strikes. For a number of years, the Committee has been observing that section 2 of Decree-Law No. 2565 of 6 June 1951 establishes penalties of imprisonment for participation in general, sympathy and solidarity strikes and has been requesting the Government to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in the context of the new model of the State, the right to strike was decriminalized through Act No. 316 of 2012. The Committee reiterates that Act No. 316 of 2012 does not contain any provision which expressly provides for the repeal of section 2 of Decree-Law No. 2565 of 6 June 1951.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the imposition of sentences involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. Taking into account the Government’s indication, and referring to its comments on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention, by explicitly amending or repealing section 2 of Decree-Law No. 2565 of 6 June 1951, and to provide information on any progress achieved in this regard.