Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Rwanda (Ratification: 2001)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes with interest that the revised Penal Code (Law No. 01/2012/OL of 2 May 2012) includes provisions criminalizing trafficking in persons and establishes penalties of seven to ten years of imprisonment and a fine for internal trafficking, and up to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine for transnational trafficking, under sections 250 to 263. The Committee also notes that the first Annual Inter-ministerial National Consultative Forum on human trafficking, drug abuse and gender-based violence was held in Parliament in October 2014 which adopted a National Action Plan to Combat Trafficking which will be effective until 2016. The Government also launched two national anti-trafficking awareness campaigns in 2014. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the National Action Plan to Combat Trafficking 2014–16, indicating whether the objectives set out have been achieved and whether an evaluation has been undertaken in order to assess the impact of the measures adopted. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 250 to 263 of the Penal Code criminalizing trafficking in persons, including on the number of convictions and specific penalties applied, as well as on the measures taken to provide appropriate training to the competent authorities, including police officers, prosecutors and judges, and on the resources allocated to them in identifying trafficking victims and initiating legal proceedings.

2. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the revised Penal Code limits, under section 687, the punishment of vagrancy to cases that impair public order. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the status of the previous regulations according to which the mere fact of living as a vagrant was punishable by a period “at the disposal” of the Government during which work was compulsory. The Government indicates in its report that Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975, establishing rehabilitation and production centres for vagrant people has become obsolete. Vagrant people and beggars are helped and reintegrated in their families and benefit from re-education and social welfare services. Noting that according to section 765 of the Penal Code, all prior legal provisions contrary to the Penal Code, including section 687 thereof, are hereby repealed, the Committee requests the Government to confirm that rehabilitation and production centres provided for under Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 have been closed. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 687 in practice, specifying the facts that have been considered by the competent authorities as impairing public order, the number of vagrant people convicted and penalties applied.

3. Freedom of career members of the armed forces to leave their employment. In its previous comments, the Committee took note of section 85 of Presidential Order No. 72/01 of 8 July 2002 establishing the army general statutes, according to which the member of the armed forces has to submit a written application for resignation to the competent authority which has 90 days to issue a decision and if the authority does not issue a decision within this time limit, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted. However, the Committee also noted the Government’s indication that the resignation of members of the armed forces may not be accepted among other grounds when the competent authorities deem it necessary for the person to continue to serve in the army. The Committee recalled several times that career military personnel may not be denied the right to leave the service in peacetime within a reasonable period, for example, by means of notice of reasonable length (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 290). The Committee requests the Government to ensure that in practice the competent authorities cannot refuse the resignation of career members of the armed forces within a reasonable period. The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report the number of applications to resign submitted by military staff that have been refused, indicating the grounds for refusal.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. 1. Prison labour. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indications that prison work may be carried out for the benefit of private bodies and that, according to Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service, a prisoner may be requested or can himself/herself request to perform work, but he/she cannot be forced to perform work. Besides, if such activities are income generating, 10 per cent of the person’s earnings is allocated to him/her and strict compliance is required to respect occupational health and safety and social security provisions of the labour law. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that, both in law and in practice, any by prisoners for private bodies is carried on with the formal consent of the prisoners concerned and with the guarantee of other safeguards that are essential to a free labour relationship.

The Committee takes note of the abovementioned Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service, copy of which has been forwarded by the Government with its report. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide information on the manner in which the prisoners give their free, formal and informed consent to work for private companies. More particularly, the Committee notes that section 45 provides that an incarcerated person cannot be forced to perform work, with the exception of the provision of section 50(8), according to which an incarcerated person has the obligation to perform activities for the development of the country, himself/herself and the prison. In light of the above, the Committee recalls that work by prisoners for private enterprises can be held compatible with the Convention only where the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that such work is not compulsory, but is carried out with the formal, informed and freely given consent of the person concerned, and that the conditions of such work approximate those of a free labour relationship. The Committee draws the attention of the Government to the broad terms used to define the exception under section 50(8) of Law No. 34/2010 and observes that despite the Government’s indication that prison labour is a voluntary activity, the legislation provides for an exception according to which an incarcerated person has the obligation to perform activities for the development of the country, himself/herself and the prison. The Committee requests the Government to specify the manner in which the prisoners formally give their free, formal and informed consent to work for private enterprises, in practice. The Committee also requests the Government to provide additional information on the interpretation given in practice to section 50(8) of Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service, including concrete examples of cases where a prisoner has been forced to perform activities for the development of the country, himself or herself and the prison, while specifying the types of work imposed on prisoners. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour, as well as information on their working conditions.

2. Sentence involving the performance of community work. The Committee notes that section 48 of the Penal Code provides that when an offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to five years, the court may order that the convicted person serves half of the term of his or her sentence in performing community service as an alternative penalty to imprisonment (TIG). Community service can also be imposed in case of failure to comply with the court’s orders or to pay the whole debt arising from an offence (sections 48 and 49 of the Penal Code). The Committee further notes that, under article 56 of Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service, a person under TIG shall enjoy all rights of the prisoners provided for by the law. Noting that the modalities for the execution of community service as an alternative penalty to imprisonment shall be determined by a Presidential Order (section 50 of the Penal Code and section 55 of Law No. 34/2010) and that the rights of persons under TIG shall be determined by a Ministerial Order, the Committee requests the Government to provide copy of the above regulations. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the types of work and the list of entities where TIG can be carried out.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. In its previous comments, the Committee had been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that sections 2(2), 3 and 13 of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 on community work go well beyond the exception allowed in Article 2(2)(e) of the Convention for minor communal services. The Committee notes the Government’s repeated indication that community work aims at promoting development activities in village communities to improve the social conditions of the population. The Government indicates that participation in community work should be considered as minor services because it gives minimum contribution to the community development and such work are directly performed by the community itself without considering benefits to a few specific groups. However, if agreed upon by the community, there can be instances where communal works are used to help improve the lives of vulnerable people by constructing houses or cultivating their lands for better harvest. The Government adds that, taking into consideration the government programmes, every local government adopts a yearly action plan on communal services to be undertaken, and the community is involved in the planning of such activities. The Government considers that penalties for failure to take part in community work are a kind of contribution from those who do not participate in such activities and can be considered as a compensation for their absence.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. The Committee recalls that minor communal services may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only if certain criteria are met and that, inter alia, the services must be “minor services”, that is, relating primarily to maintenance work and, in exceptional cases, to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself. Noting that, pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of Law No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007, community work shall aim to promote development activities in the framework of supporting the national budget and that every Rwandan from 18 to 65 years old shall have the obligation to perform community works, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in order to ensure that community services are limited to “minor services” which constitute an exception to forced labour as provided for in the Convention, indicating the type of work carried out under community services.

Article 25. Penal sanctions for the exaction of forced labour. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 167 of Act No. 13/2009 of 25 May 2009 issuing regulations on labour in Rwanda, anyone convicted of forced labour is liable to a prison term of three months to five years, a fine, or to one of these penalties. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on any prosecutions for the use of forced labour and any penalties.

The Committee notes the Government’s repeated indication that there has been no case of prosecutions with respect to the use of forced labour nor any penalties imposed. The Committee notes that the revised Penal Code includes provisions criminalizing forced labour and establishes penalties ranging from six months to two years of imprisonment and a fine, or one of these penalties, under section 178. Noting that the provision of the revised Penal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment which are lower than the sanctions provided under section 167 of abovementioned Act No. 13/2009, and that according to both provisions forced labour may be punished only with a fine, the Committee recalls that under Article 25 of the Convention, penal sanctions imposed by law for exaction of forced labour must be really adequate and strictly enforced. It observed in this regard that fines or short term sentences of imprisonment cannot be considered as effective penalties, given the seriousness of the offence and the dissuasive effects that the penalties should have (General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, 2007, paragraph 137). In this connection, the Committee also refers to its 2013 observation on the application of Convention (No. 81) on Labour Inspection, 1947, and observes that an absence or low number of investigations and legal proceedings may, in some cases, be indicative of a limited capacity of law enforcement services to identify victims or collect evidence, as well as a lack of awareness of the general public which may prevent victims from seeking assistance and legal service. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in order to ensure that penal sanctions imposed by law for the exaction of forced labour are really adequate and strictly enforced, especially by ensuring training of labour inspectors and providing them with the necessary means to perform their duties. Please also provide information on the judicial proceedings instigated and on the dissuasive penalties actually applied to persons who impose forced labour.