Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Turkmenistan (Ratification: 1997)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

The Committee reiterates the content of its direct request adopted in 2019 which is reproduced below.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2019.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted sections 176(2) and 192 of the Criminal Code which establish penalties of fines, correctional labour of up to two years or imprisonment for a period of up to five years, for offences related to any insult or defamation against the President, and libel against a judge, lay judge, prosecutor, investigator or the person conducting the inquiry; and section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Internet Services Law of 2014 (IDIS Law of 2014), concerning the liability of Internet users for the truthfulness of all the information that they post, and the publication of materials which contain insults or defamation against the President. The Committee noted from the report of the Technical Advisory Mission of September 2016 that it was clear from the meetings held with some of the stakeholders, including various United Nations (UN) agencies that the practice of forced labour imposed for expressing political views exists. The Committee therefore urged the Government to take the necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinion or views opposed to the established system. It also requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code and section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Services Law of 2014.

The Committee notes the observations made by the ITUC that the Government continues to prosecute, intimidate or harass those who attempt to report on the working conditions in the cotton industry. In October 2016, the Government arrested and charged Gasper Matalaev, a reporter who contributed to an article documenting the use of forced labour in the annual cotton harvest, with fraud. He was sentenced to three years in a labour camp.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that no criminal cases have been launched or investigated under sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code. It also notes the information provided by the Government on the increase in the internet availability pursuant to the IDIS Law of 2014. The Committee notes that there are certain provisions in the Criminal Code, under the terms of which certain activities might be punished by sentences of correctional labour, involving an obligation to perform labour for a period from two months to two years (as per section 50 of the Criminal Code) in circumstances which may be covered by the Convention. The provisions in question are as follows:

• -section 177: which provides for penalties of imprisonment for a term of three to eight years for the incitement of social, national, ethnic, racial or religious enmity or discord;
• -section 178: which provides for penalties of fines or correctional labour or imprisonment for up to two years for the offences related to abuse of the State flag or national anthem;
• -section 191: which provides for penalties of fines or correctional labour for up to one year for contempt of court; and
• -section 212: which provides for penalties of fines or correctional labour for up to two years for insulting a representative of authority.

The Committee notes that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of April 2017, expressed its concern at: (i) the undue restrictions on access to the internet and disproportionate limitations on online content for vaguely and broadly defined activities provided for in the IDIS Law of 2014; and (ii) the continuous use of harassment, intimidation, torture, arbitrary arrests, detention and conviction of journalists, human rights activists or members of religious groups on reportedly politically motivated charges (CCPR/C/TKM/CO/2, paragraph 42). Referring to its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions (paragraphs 302 and 303), the Committee points out that the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving compulsory labour, under Article 1(a), comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media), as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. It also emphasizes that the Convention does not prohibit the application of penalties involving compulsory labour to persons who use violence, incite violence or prepare acts of violence.  The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, are imposed, in law and in practice, on persons who peacefully express views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, for example by clearly restricting the scope of sections 176(2), 177, 178, 191, 192 and 212 of the Criminal Code as well as section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Internet Services Law of 2014 to situations connected with the use of violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard, as well as information on the application in practice of the sections referred to above, specifying the number of prosecutions made under each provision and the types of penalties imposed.