Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2012, Publicación: 102ª reunión CIT (2013)

Convenio sobre la abolición del trabajo forzoso, 1957 (núm. 105) - Tailandia (Ratificación : 1969)

Otros comentarios sobre C105

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Political Parties Act. The Committee previously noted that the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2541 (1998) contained several provisions relating to the expression of political views, pursuant to which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) could be imposed. The Committee expressed the hope that measures would be taken to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2541 has been repealed. In this regard, the Committee notes that a new law, the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550, was adopted in 2007. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 95(3) and section 120 of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for using the name, initials or emblem of a political party that has been dissolved by the Constitutional Court, for political activities or to receive any benefit. Moreover, pursuant to section 97 and section 120, penalties of imprisonment may also be imposed on a person who was previously a member of the Executive Committee of the dissolved political party who, within a period of five years from the date of the dissolution, applies for the formation of a new political party, becomes a member of an Executive Committee of a political party, or promotes a new political party. In this connection, the Committee notes that section 94 states that the Constitutional Court may issue an order to dissolve a political party if it has committed one of five acts, including “an act which may be harmful to the democratic regime of the Government with the King as Head of State under the Constitution” (section 94(3)) and “an act, either inside or outside the Kingdom, which may endanger the security of the State, or be contrary to law, public order, good morals” (section 94(4)).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. With reference to paragraph 307 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee recalls that the prohibition of political views as a consequence of the prohibition of political parties or associations (subject to penalties involving compulsory labour) is incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), into conformity with the Convention, to ensure that no penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for the holding or expression of political views. Pending the adoption of such amendments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), particularly whether any political parties have been dissolved by order of the Constitutional Court (pursuant to section 94) and whether any penalties of imprisonment have been imposed pursuant to this Act.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. For a number of years the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that this section had not been applied in practice.

The Committee once again notes the Government statement that, while acknowledging the Committee’s concerns, it must reiterate that the application of section 117 is narrowed to only those people who launch a strike with the intention to change state laws, intimidate the Government or innocent people. The Government further reiterates that this section is not intended to limit the right to strike for the sake of the economic and social objectives affecting occupational interests of workers. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits recourse to sanctions involving any form of compulsory labour “as a punishment for having participated in strikes”. The Committee further recalls that organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general. Observing that the Committee has been raising this issue for over two decades, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 117 of the Criminal Code, to ensure that no sanction of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for peaceful participation in strikes. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 117 of the Criminal Code, with its next report.