CMNT_TITLE

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Belarus (RATIFICATION: 1956)

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. It has noted, in particular, the provisions of the Act on Military Duty and Military Service, as amended on 19 July 2006, concerning the conclusion and termination of military service contracts, as well as the provisions governing conditions for payment of unemployment benefits, in relation to the participation in paid public works. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would communicate, with its next report, a copy of the Decree of the Council of Ministers on the organization and implementation of public works, of 16 May 1997 (No. 513), as amended by Decree No. 488 of 8 April 1999.

Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. Work of prisoners for private enterprises. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that employment of prisoners for private enterprises outside prison premises is allowed in accordance with the legislation in force, and that private parties are entitled to conclude contracts on the use of labour of prisoners with the administration of a correctional institution. The Committee noted the provisions of the Execution of Penal Sentences Code, 2001, concerning the obligation of convicts to work at the enterprises determined by the administration of correctional institutions, including private ones, the refusal to work being punishable with sanctions (section 98 of the Code). It also noted that conditions of work of convicts (including hours of work and rest periods, occupational safety and health and social security) are established in accordance with the labour legislation of Belarus, and their wage rates shall not be lower than those established by the labour legislation for the performance of corresponding types of work (sections 99 and 100 of the Code).

The Committee recalled that, to be compatible with Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, which expressly prohibits convicted prisoners from being hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, such work should not involve compulsory labour and should be carried out with the freely given consent of the persons concerned. The Committee also refers in this connection to the explanations given in paragraphs 59–60 and 114–120 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it pointed out that, in the context of a captive labour force having no alternative access to the free labour market, the most reliable indicator of the voluntariness of labour is the work performed under conditions approximating a free labour relationship, which include wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and occupational safety and health. There may be also other factors that can be regarded as objective and measurable advantages which the prisoner gains from the actual performance of the work and which could be considered in determining whether consent was freely given and informed (such as the learning of new skills which could be deployed by prisoners when released; the offer of continuing the work of the same type upon their release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively in a controlled environment enabling them to develop team skills).

While noting that, under the legislative provisions referred to above, prisoners’ conditions of work may be considered as approximating those of a free labour relationship, the Committee reiterates its hope that measures will be taken, both in law and in practice, to ensure that any work or service by prisoners for private enterprises is performed only with the voluntary consent of the prisoners concerned, so that such consent is freely given and informed and is free from the menace of any penalty, including any loss of privileges or other disadvantages following from a refusal to work. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.