Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2022, Publicación: 111ª reunión CIT (2023)

Convenio sobre la abolición del trabajo forzoso, 1957 (núm. 105) - Líbano (Ratificación : 1977)

Otros comentarios sobre C105

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report, due since 2018, has not been received. In light of its urgent appeal launched to the Government in 2021, the Committee proceeds with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Over a number of years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to provide information on the application of certain provisions of the Penal Code under which penalties of imprisonment, which may involve compulsory prison labour (pursuant to sections 46 and 51 of the Penal Code), may be imposed in circumstances that may fall under Article 1(a) of the Convention, namely:

–sections 297 and 298 on offences against the prestige of the State and participation in political or social associations of an international nature; and
–section 301(1) on offences against the activities aimed at modifying by illegal means the Constitution of the State.

The Committee notes the lack of information available from the Government on the application in practice of the above provisions of the Penal Code. It observes that, in its 2018 concluding observations, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed specific concern about: (1) the criminalization of defamation, insult, criticism of public officials and blasphemy, which can be punished with imprisonment; (2) allegations of extensive interpretation of the concept of cybercrime by the Cybercrime Centre of the Internal Security Forces aimed at restricting freedom of expression; and (3) reports of the arrest and prosecution of individuals allegedly criticizing State authorities or political figures, including through social media. It further notes that, in its 2022 concluding observations, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women expressed concerns about reports of harassment and excessive limitations on the right to freedom of expression for human rights defenders and the shrinking civic space in the State party, including allegations of mass surveillance of digital communications (CCPR/C/LBN/CO/3, 9 May 2018, paragraphs 33 and 45; and CEDAW/C/LBN/CO/6, 1 March 2022, paragraph 33).

In this regard, the Committee observes that several provisions of the Penal Code provide for penalties of imprisonment, which may involve compulsory prison labour, for certain activities that may fall within the scope of Article 1(a) of the Convention, namely activities through which persons express ideas or views opposed to the established political, economic or social system. The provisions in question are as follows:

–section 383 on insulting or threatening a public employee while doing their job;
–section 384 on insulting the president, flag or national emblem;
–section 386 on slander;
–section 388 on libel;
–section 389 on insult, slander and libel against judges not acting in their official capacity; and
–sections 582 and 584 on libel against private citizens.

The Committee recalls that, under Article 1(a) of the Convention, persons who, without recourse to violence, hold or express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system must not be subject to sanctions that would require them to work, including compulsory prison labour. It notes that, according to the Penal Code, prison labour is compulsory for persons convicted to extended imprisonment (section 46 provides that persons sentenced to extended imprisonment shall be employed on one of the activities organized by the prison administration). The Committee observes, in that regard, that there is a specific scheme for political offences, which are defined as intentional offences committed with a political motive (section 196 of the Penal Code). Indeed, under section 198, where the judge recognizes the political nature of an offence, extended imprisonment will be applied instead of hard labour, and simple imprisonment or forced residence instead of imprisonment with labour, except in cases of political offences against the external security of the State.

The Committee requests the Government to ensure that persons who peacefully hold or express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system are not punished with sanctions that would require them to work. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 198 of the Penal Code in practice, indicating the criteria on which the judge determines the political nature of an offence, and to supply a copy of judicial decisions handed down in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to provideinformation on how sections 297, 298, 301(1), 383, 384, 386, 388, 389, 582 and 584 of the Penal Code are applied in practice, including on: the number of cases referred to the Cybercrimes Bureau for investigation; the number of prosecutions initiated and convictions handed down; the nature of the penalties applied to those convicted on the basis of the above-mentioned provisions of the Penal Code. Please also indicate if the offences committed under these provisions of the Penal Code are deemed to be political offences pursuant to section 196 of the Penal Code.