123rd Session, 2017
International Organization for Migration
Full Judgment Text: EN,
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her claim for compensation on account of labour exploitation and compulsory labour.
compensation; forced labour;
The Tribunal has explained its purview when a party relies on the violation of a right under an ILO Convention as follows:
“The complainant contends that the ILO acted in breach of its own international instruments when it did not renew his contract. He specifically refers to ILO Convention No. 158 and Article 3.2(c) of ILO Recommendation No. 166. [...] [T]hese instruments create obligations for Member States and do not apply to the relationships between the ILO and its officials. These latter relationships are governed by the terms of the contracts into which the person entered with the ILO and by the rules and regulations of the ILO, as interpreted and applied by the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgment 2662, under 12).” (Judgment 3448, consideration 10.)
However, the prohibition on forced labour is not confined to the Forced Labour Convention. It is also one of the fundamental principles and rights at work, as recognized in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, 1998, which is accepted by all ILO Member States through their membership of the ILO. The Tribunal already considered in Judgment 1333, consideration 5, that:
“The law that the Tribunal applies in entertaining claims that are put to it includes not just the written rules of the defendant organisation but the general principles of law and basic human rights.”
Accordingly, the complainant’s claim for compensation on the ground that she was subjected to compulsory labour and labour exploitation will be considered.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1333, 2662, 3448
applicable law; forced labour; ilo instruments;