Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Kazakhstan (Ratification: 2001)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 1. Code of Administrative Offences. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided information on the provisions governing the sentence of administrative arrest which may be imposed under section 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences of 2014 for the violation of the law on the procedure for organizing and holding peaceful assemblies. The Committee notes that according to section 913(2) of the Code, persons sentenced to administrative arrest shall be detained in custody at the places determined by internal affairs bodies. As per section 913(3) of the Code, the execution of administrative arrest shall be carried out in accordance with the rules established by the national legislation. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any legislative provisions governing the execution of administrative arrest as provided in section 913(3) of the Code of Administrative Offences. Please also indicate whether the sanction of administrative arrest involves an obligation to perform compulsory labour.

2. Criminal Code. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not replied to the Committee’s previous request to provide information on the application in practice of a number of provisions of the Criminal Code which provide for penalties involving compulsory labour in circumstances that could relate to the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the system. It observes however that sections 130 (defamation) and 373 (public insult and other encroachment on the honour and dignity of the First President of Kazakhstan) of the Criminal Code have been repealed by the Act of 26 June 2020 No. 349-VI and the Act of 12 July 2023 No. 23-VIII, leading to the decriminalization of these offences.

The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the following sections of the Criminal Code, indicating the facts pursuant to which the court decisions were handed down and the penalties imposed, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain the scope of these provisions and their compatibility with Article 1(a) of the Convention:

• section 131 (insult);
• section 182 (creation, management of and participation in extremist groups);
• section 372 (desecration of state symbols);
• section 376 (infringement on honour and dignity of the deputy of the Parliament of Kazakhstan);
• section 378 (insult of a representative of authority);
• section 405 (organization of and participation in activities of social or religious associations or other organizations after the prohibition of their activities or their liquidation due to extremism); and
• section 411 (slander against a judge of the Constitutional Court of Kazakhstan, a judge, a juror, a prosecutor, a person conducting a pre-trial investigation, an expert, a bailiff, or a justice officer).

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violations of labour discipline. The Committee notes the Government’s information concerning the application in practice of section 371 of the Criminal Code which provides for penalties involving compulsory labour for a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his/her duties as the result of unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails infliction of substantial harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or legally protected interests of the society or the State. In particular, under section 371 of the Criminal Code, 12 persons were sentenced to deprivation of liberty or restriction of freedom, both involving compulsory labour, in 2020; 15 persons in 2021; and 5 persons during the first five months of 2022.

The Committee recalls that, according to Article 1(c) of the Convention, no sanction involving compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour, correctional work, or community service) shall be imposed for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee has underlined in this regard that only breaches of labour discipline that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where the life or health are in danger are excluded from the scope of the Convention (see the Committee’s 2012 General Survey on the Fundamental Conventions, paragraph 310).

The Committee further notes that under section 371 of the Criminal Code, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his/her duties shall entail infliction of “substantial harm”. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the manner in which inflicting “substantial harm” has been interpretated by courts to characterize the offence under section 371 of the Criminal Code and to convict perpetrators, so that the Committee can assess to what extent this section is compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participating in strikes. Labour Code. The Committee duly notes the Government’s indication that the sanctions imposed for the organization and conduct of a strike recognized as illegal by a court under section 176 of the Labour Code correspond to the disciplinary sanctions of a remark, a reprimand, a severe reprimand, or dismissal, which do not involve compulsory labour.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union of Workers in the Fuel and Energy Complex, received on 31 August 2022.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Criminal Code. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that under section 174 (incitement of social, national, tribal, racial, class or religious hatred) of the Criminal Code, 19 persons were convicted to the sentences of restriction of freedom or deprivation of liberty, both involving compulsory labour, during the first five months of 2022; 19 persons in 2021; and 14 persons in 2020. No persons were punished with the sentences involving compulsory labour under sections 400 (violation of procedure for organizing and holding peaceful assemblies) and 404 (forming, leading and participation in activities of illegal public and other associations) of the Criminal Code from 2021 to the first five months of 2022.

The Committee also notes the observations of the Trade Union of Workers in the Fuel and Energy Complex regarding the application in practice of section 274 (spreading of false information) of the Criminal Code. In particular, the observations refer to the case of a political activist who, in 2020, was accused of publishing some negative information about the ruling party, and sentenced to three years of restriction of freedom and 100 hours of community service. Furthermore, the Committee notes that in its 2022 concluding observations, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed concern that the broadly worded provisions of section 174 of the Criminal Code may lead to unnecessary or disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression (CERD/C/KAZ/CO/8-10). The Committee further notes that in its opinions No. 33/2021 and No. 43/2020, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that the arrests and detentions of the nine individuals resulted from the peaceful exercise of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression and that the detentions were arbitrary as they were based on overly broad and vague provisions of section 174 of the Criminal Code (A/HRC/WGAD/2021/33; A/HRC/WGAD/2020/43).

The Committee also notes that in the joint communication of 18 January 2022, the United Nations independent human rights experts expressed concern over the reported wide-scale arbitrary arrests and detentions of over 9,900 individuals, including civil society representatives, journalists and human rights defenders during the protests of January 2022. In its 2023 concluding observations, the United Nations Committee against Torture expressed deep concern about many consistent reports indicating acts of intimidation, threats and arbitrary detention of human rights defenders in connection with their human rights work (CAT/C/KAZ/CO/4).

The Committee notes with deepconcern the information relating to the arrests, detentions and convictions of persons who express opinions and views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, which have led or may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour. The Committee once again recalls that under Article 1(a) of the Convention, persons holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system shall not be subject to punishments that would require them to work, including compulsory prison labour, community service and correctional work. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take immediate measures to ensure that, both in law and practice, no one who expresses political views or opposes the established political, social or economic system in a peaceful manner, can be sentenced to penalties under which compulsory labour may be imposed. The Committee once again requests the Government to review sections 174, 274, 400 and 404 of the Criminal Code, for example by clearly restricting their scope to situations connected with the use of violence, or by suppressing penalties 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 of sections 174, 274, 400 and 404 of the Criminal Code, including the number and grounds for prosecutions and convictions made under each section, and the type of penalties imposed.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participating in strikes. Criminal Code. The Government indicates that no cases have been considered by courts under section 402 of the Criminal Code, which provides for penal sanctions for incitement to continue a strike that has been declared illegal by a court. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that within the framework of the Action Plan for the implementation of the recommendations of the ILO Committee on the Application of Standards in relation to the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), it is being considered to amend section 402 of the Criminal Code by limiting its scope to the calls for continued participation in a strike recognized illegal by a court when it has inflicted substantial harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or legally protected interests of the society or the State or has entailed mass disorders.

Recalling that the imposition of compulsory labour as a penalty for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes is prohibited by the Convention and referring to its comments made under Convention No. 87, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal sanctions involving compulsory labour under section 402 of the Criminal Code. It requests the Government to provide information on the progress achieved in this regard and to continue to provide information on the application of section 402 of the Criminal Code, including the number and nature of the penalties applied.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2024 .]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year (see Article 1(d) below, on penalties for participating in strikes), as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 1. Code of Administrative Offences. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 322 of the Code of Administrative Offences of 1984, administrative arrest involved an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities. It noted that, under section 488 of the new Code of Administrative Offence of 5 July 2014, as amended in 2015, the violation of the Kazakh law on the procedure for organizing and holding peaceful meetings, rallies, marches, pickets and demonstrations is punishable with a fine or administrative arrest for a term of up to 15 days. The Government indicated that in 2015, 109 actions were held in which 4,719 people participated and 75 of those actions were unauthorized. The Government stressed that only 19 people who participated in unauthorized action were sentenced to administrative penalties under section 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences of 2014. The Committee however noted that the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association expressed his concern that participants in unauthorized assemblies seemed to have been increasingly subjected to intimidation, imprisonment and administrative sanctions. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that persons who peacefully assemble were not subject to penalties involving compulsory labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in the event of a refusal to stop an unauthorized meeting, rally, march, picket or demonstration, the internal affairs authorities take the necessary measures to stop the act being committed, to ensure public safety. It also notes the information in the compilation report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), for the Universal Periodic Review of November 2019, that on 9 and 10 June 2019, at least 1,000 arrests of peaceful protesters had reportedly taken place in Nur-Sultan, Almaty and Shymkent, with 550 individuals being charged and penalized for “participating in an unauthorized assembly” under the Code of Administrative Offences. The report also indicates that mass arrests, detentions and criminal prosecutions had followed demonstrations over proposed land reforms across the country, in 2016 (A/HRC/WG.6/34/KAZ/2, paragraph 28). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that persons who peacefully assemble are not subject to penalties involving compulsory labour and to provide information in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the provisions governing the sentence of administrative arrest, including, if any, the voluntary nature of work under administrative arrest.

2. Criminal Code. The Committee notes that, under a certain number of provisions of the Criminal Code of 2015, sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as correctional work, community service, restriction of freedom, deprivation of liberty) may be imposed for offences related to civil rights and political freedoms on persons holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The provisions in question are as follows:

• -sections 130 and 411, concerning defamation of another person or of public officials;
• -sections 131, 376 and 378, which penalize insult of another person or of public officials;
• -section 182, which establishes penalties of deprivation of liberty for the creation, management of and participation in extremist groups;
• -section 274, concerning the spreading of false information;
• -section 372, concerning the desecration of state symbols;
• -section 373, which establishes penalties for infringing upon the honour and dignity of the president; and
• -section 405, punishing the organization of and participation in activities of social or religious associations or other organizations after the prohibition of their activities or their liquidation due to extremism.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate how the above mentioned sections of the Criminal Code of 2015 are applied in practice, so that it can assess to what extent these provisions are compatible with the present provisions of the Convention. It also requests the Government to provide details of court decisions handed down, the number and nature of sentences applied and the grounds for prosecution.

3. Law on Social Associations The Committee previously requested the Government to clarify the scope of liability of individuals (including officials in state agencies and members of the governing body of a social association) for violation of the provisions of the Law on Social Associations of 31 May 1996, pursuant to section 22 of this Law. It also requested the Government to indicate the applicable sanctions.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 489 of the Code of Administrative Offences establishes a penalty of a fine and a warning for breaching the legislation on social association as well as for the management of or participation in the activities of social or religious associations that have not been duly registered.

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violations of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 371 of the Criminal Code of 2015, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his/her duties as the result of unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by a fine, correctional labour, restriction of freedom or deprivation of liberty. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of this provision.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that according to the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan, in the first half of 2019, three people were convicted under section 371 of the Criminal Code, among which one was sentenced to restriction of freedom. The Government requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of section 371 of the Criminal Code, including the nature of the penalties applied, and to indicate the circumstances in which the penalties have been imposed.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participating in strikes. 1. Labour Code. The Committee noted that section 176 of the Labour Code of 2015 defines a strike as illegal “in the period of martial law, emergency or special measures introduced under the law of Kazakhstan on national emergencies; at military units of the armed forces of Kazakhstan, or other military establishments and entities authorized to deal with the national defence, national security, emergency recovery, rescue operations, fire suppression, disaster prevention or response; at special public and law enforcement bodies, at hazardous industrial facilities, at ambulance and first aid stations” and that “persons provoking further strike action recognized as illegal by the court shall be liable under the law of Kazakhstan”. The Committee also noted that section 177 of the Labour Code states that “where a strike has been recognized illegal by the court, the employer may bring disciplinary action against the workers involved in organizing or holding of the strike”. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the scope of liability provided for under section 176 of the Labour Code, as well as on any sanction that might have been imposed under this provision on persons peacefully participating in a strike defined as illegal.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its supplementary report that, under section 176(2) of the Labour Code, strikes are also declared illegal in organizations directly related to ensuring the life of the population that provide energy, heat, water, and gas supply, aviation, rail, road, public and water transportation, communications, and health care, if the minimum list and volume of relevant services, required for the population and determined on the basis of a preliminary agreement of employee representatives with the local executive body, have not been preserved. In addition, the Committee notes section 176(2-1) of the Labour Code, introduced by the Act on amendments and additions to some legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on labour issues of 4 May 2020, No. 321-VI, which specifies the cases of recognition of strikes as illegal at hazardous industrial facilities.

Moreover, the Committee observes that section 176 prohibits strikes that have been declared with no account taken of the time frames, procedures and requirements set out by the Labour Law and strikes creating a real risk to human lives and health. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the scope of liability for individuals who contravene section 176 of the Labour Code, indicating the applicable sanctions. It also requests the Government to provide information on the application of this section in practice, including any sanction that may have been imposed.

2. Criminal Code. The Committee notes that section 402 of the Criminal Code of 2015 introduces a new offence, pursuant to which an incitement to continue a strike that has been declared illegal by a court is punishable with a fine, correctional work, restriction of freedom or deprivation of liberty. Referring to its comments made in 2017 under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee notes the information provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) that individuals have been convicted and sentenced under section 402 of the Criminal Code (2016).

The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government in its latest report on the application of Convention No. 87 that, in accordance with the Act on amendments and additions to some legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on labour issues of 4 May 2020, No. 321-VI, the liability for an incitement to participate in illegal strikes was mitigated. In this respect, the Committee notes that although the penal sanctions imposed for violation of section 402 of the Criminal Code have been lowered, they still include correctional work, community service, restriction of freedom or deprivation of liberty, which involve compulsory labour.

Recalling that the exaction of compulsory labour as a sanction imposed for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes is prohibited by the Convention, the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to repeal sanctions involving compulsory labour under section 402 of the Criminal Code. It requests the Government to provide information on the progress achieved in this regard. In the meantime, it requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 402 of the Criminal Code in practice, including the number and nature of the penalties applied.

Communication of texts. The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the latest updated laws governing the press and other media and governing religion.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the supplementary information provided by the Government on matters raised in its previous direct request, and otherwise repeats the content of its observation adopted in 2019 which read as follows.

The Committee previously noted that according to the Criminal Code of 3 July 2014, persons convicted for penal offences with penalties of correctional work or community service are under the obligation to perform labour (sections 42 and 43 of the Criminal Code). The Committee notes that the penalties of restriction of freedom and deprivation of liberty (provided for under sections 44 and 46 of the Criminal Code, respectively) also involve compulsory labour, under the conditions set out in the Executive Penal Code of 5 July 2014 (sections 63(2) and 104(2)(1)).

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Criminal Code. In its previous comments, the Committee noted a number of provisions of the Criminal Code, under the terms of which certain activities might be punished by sentences involving an obligation to perform labour in circumstances which are covered by the Convention. The provisions in question are as follows:

• -section 174, which provides for penalties of restriction of freedom or deprivation of liberty for the incitement of social, national, gender-based, racial, class or religious discord;
• -section 400, which establishes penalties such as a fine, correctional work, community work or remand in custody in case of violation of the procedure for organizing and holding meetings, rallies, pickets, street marches and demonstrations;
• -section 404, which establishes penalties such as a fine, correctional work, restriction of freedom, deprivation of liberty, with forfeiture of the right to hold certain posts or to engage in certain activities in case of forming, leading and participation in activities of illegal social and other associations.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication that, in 2015, there were 47 offences under section 174 of the Criminal Code, out of which three cases were submitted to court, and 44 cases were discontinued. The Committee requested the Government to ensure in practice that the provisions of sections 174, 400 and 404 of the Criminal Code were applied in a manner so as to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour were imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political or ideological views.

The Government indicates in its report that, according to the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan, in the first half of 2019, 19 people were convicted under section 174 of the Criminal Code, including six who were sentenced to imprisonment and ten to restriction of freedom. The Government states that no cases were prosecuted under sections 400 and 404. The Committee notes the information in the compilation report prepared by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, for the Universal Periodic Review of November 2019, that the Special Rapporteur on terrorism observed that section 174 of the Criminal Code was the most commonly used against civil society activists, particularly against religious organizations (A/HRC/WG.6/34/KAZ/2, paragraph 25). The Committee also notes that, according to the 2017 Report “Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), section 174 of the Criminal Code has been increasingly widely used against critical activists, including atheist writers (page 29). Moreover, section 174 of the Criminal Code has been applied in cases concerning criticism of policies pursued by the president of a foreign state (page 132).

Referring to its General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, 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, correctional work or community service, 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 174, 400 and 404 of the Criminal Code to situations connected with the use of violence, or by suppressing 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, the grounds for prosecution, and the type of penalties imposed.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 1. Code of Administrative Offences. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 322 of the Code of Administrative Offences of 1984, administrative arrest involved an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities. It noted that, under section 488 of the new Code of Administrative Offence of 5 July 2014, as amended in 2015, the violation of the Kazakh law on the procedure for organizing and holding peaceful meetings, rallies, marches, pickets and demonstrations is punishable with a fine or administrative arrest for a term of up to 15 days. The Government indicated that in 2015, 109 actions were held in which 4,719 people participated and 75 of those actions were unauthorized. The Government stressed that only 19 people who participated in unauthorized action were sentenced to administrative penalties under section 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences of 2014. The Committee however noted that the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association expressed his concern that participants in unauthorized assemblies seemed to have been increasingly subjected to intimidation, imprisonment and administrative sanctions. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that persons who peacefully assemble were not subject to penalties involving compulsory labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in the event of a refusal to stop an unauthorized meeting, rally, march, picket or demonstration, the internal affairs authorities take the necessary measures to stop the act being committed, to ensure public safety. It also notes the information in the compilation report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), for the Universal Periodic Review of November 2019, that on 9 and 10 June 2019, at least 1,000 arrests of peaceful protesters had reportedly taken place in Nur-Sultan, Almaty and Shymkent, with 550 individuals being charged and penalized for “participating in an unauthorized assembly” under the Code of Administrative Offences. The report also indicates that mass arrests, detentions and criminal prosecutions had followed demonstrations over proposed land reforms across the country, in 2016 (A/HRC/WG.6/34/KAZ/2, paragraph 28). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that persons who peacefully assemble are not subject to penalties involving compulsory labour and to provide information in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the provisions governing the sentence of administrative arrest, including, if any, the voluntary nature of work under administrative arrest.

2. Criminal Code. The Committee notes that, under a certain number of provisions of the Criminal Code of 2015, sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as correctional work, community service, restriction of freedom, deprivation of liberty) may be imposed for offences related to civil rights and political freedoms on persons holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The provisions in question are as follows:

• -sections 130 and 411, concerning defamation of another person or of public officials;
• -sections 131, 376 and 378, which penalize insult of another person or of public officials;
• -section 182, which establishes penalties of deprivation of liberty for the creation, management of and participation in extremist groups;
• -section 274, concerning the spreading of false information;
• -section 372, concerning the desecration of state symbols;
• -section 373, which establishes penalties for infringing upon the honour and dignity of the president; and
• -section 405, punishing the organization of and participation in activities of social or religious associations or other organizations after the prohibition of their activities or their liquidation due to extremism.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate how the above mentioned sections of the Criminal Code of 2015 are applied in practice, so that it can assess to what extent these provisions are compatible with the present provisions of the Convention. Please provide details of court decisions handed down, the number and nature of sentences applied and the grounds for prosecution.

3. Law on Social Associations The Committee previously requested the Government to clarify the scope of liability of individuals (including officials in state agencies and members of the governing body of a social association) for violation of the provisions of the Law on Social Associations of 31 May 1996, pursuant to section 22 of this Law. It also requested the Government to indicate the applicable sanctions.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 489 of the Code of Administrative Offences establishes a penalty of a fine and a warning for breaching the legislation on social association as well as for the management of or participation in the activities of social or religious associations that have not been duly registered.

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violations of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 371 of the Criminal Code of 2015, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his/her duties as the result of unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by a fine, correctional labour, restriction of freedom or deprivation of liberty. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of this provision.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that according to the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan, in the first half of 2019, three people were convicted under section 371 of the Criminal Code, among which one was sentenced to restriction of freedom. The Government requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of section 371 of the Criminal Code, including the nature of the penalties applied, and to indicate the circumstances in which the penalties have been imposed.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participating in strikes. 1. Labour Code. The Committee noted that section 176 of the Labour Code of 2015 defines a strike as illegal “in the period of martial law, emergency or special measures introduced under the law of Kazakhstan on national emergencies; at military units of the armed forces of Kazakhstan, or other military establishments and entities authorized to deal with the national defence, national security, emergency recovery, rescue operations, fire suppression, disaster prevention or response; at special public and law enforcement bodies, at hazardous industrial facilities, at ambulance and first aid stations” and that “persons provoking further strike action recognized as illegal by the court shall be liable under the law of Kazakhstan”. The Committee also noted that section 177 of the Labour Code states that “where a strike has been recognized illegal by the court, the employer may bring disciplinary action against the workers involved in organizing or holding of the strike”. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the scope of liability provided for under section 176 of the Labour Code, as well as on any sanction that might have been imposed under this provision on persons peacefully participating in a strike defined as illegal.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under section 176 of the Labour Code, strikes are also declared illegal in railways, civil aviation, organizations providing vital public services (such as public transport, water and electricity supply, heating and communications) and at continuous production facilities which, once stopped, can result in serious and hazardous consequences. Moreover, section 176 prohibits strikes that have been declared with no account taken of the time frames, procedures and requirements set out by the Labour Law and strikes creating a real risk to human lives and health. The Committee requests once again the Government to indicate the scope of liability for individuals who contravene section 176 of the Labour Code, indicating the applicable sanctions. It also requests the Government to provide information on the application of this section in practice, including any sanction that may have been imposed.

2. Criminal Code. The Committee notes that section 402 of the Criminal Code of 2015 introduces a new offence, pursuant to which an incitement to continue a strike that has been declared illegal by a court is punishable with a fine, correctional work, restriction of freedom or deprivation of liberty. Referring to its comments made in 2017 under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee notes the information provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) that individuals have been convicted and sentenced under section 402 of the Criminal Code (2016).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its report on Convention No. 87, that proposals to amend the penalties set out in section 402 of the Criminal Code will be sent to Parliament. Recalling that the exaction of compulsory labour as a sanction imposed for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes is prohibited by the Convention, the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to repeal sanctions involving compulsory labour under section 402 of the Criminal Code, in the framework of the amendment of this section. It requests the Government to provide information on the progress achieved in this regard. In the meantime, it requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 402 of the Criminal Code in practice, including the number and nature of the penalties applied.

Communication of texts. The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the latest updated laws governing the press and other media and governing religion.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee previously noted that according to the Criminal Code of 3 July 2014, persons convicted for penal offences with penalties of correctional work or community service are under the obligation to perform labour (sections 42 and 43 of the Criminal Code). The Committee notes that the penalties of restriction of freedom and deprivation of liberty (provided for under sections 44 and 46 of the Criminal Code, respectively) also involve compulsory labour, under the conditions set out in the Executive Penal Code of 5 July 2014 (sections 63(2) and 104(2)(1)).

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Criminal Code. In its previous comments, the Committee noted a number of provisions of the Criminal Code, under the terms of which certain activities might be punished by sentences involving an obligation to perform labour in circumstances which are covered by the Convention. The provisions in question are as follows:

• -section 174, which provides for penalties of restriction of freedom or deprivation of liberty for the incitement of social, national, gender-based, racial, class or religious discord;
• -section 400, which establishes penalties such as a fine, correctional work, community work or remand in custody in case of violation of the procedure for organizing and holding meetings, rallies, pickets, street marches and demonstrations;
• -section 404, which establishes penalties such as a fine, correctional work, restriction of freedom, deprivation of liberty, with forfeiture of the right to hold certain posts or to engage in certain activities in case of forming, leading and participation in activities of illegal social and other associations.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication that, in 2015, there were 47 offences under section 174 of the Criminal Code, out of which three cases were submitted to court, and 44 cases were discontinued. The Committee requested the Government to ensure in practice that the provisions of sections 174, 400 and 404 of the Criminal Code were applied in a manner so as to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour were imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political or ideological views.

The Government indicates in its report that, according to the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan, in the first half of 2019, 19 people were convicted under section 174 of the Criminal Code, including six who were sentenced to imprisonment and ten to restriction of freedom. The Government states that no cases were prosecuted under sections 400 and 404. The Committee notes the information in the compilation report prepared by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), for the Universal Periodic Review of November 2019, that the Special Rapporteur on terrorism observed that section 174 of the Criminal Code was the most commonly used against civil society activists, particularly against religious organizations (A/HRC/WG.6/34/KAZ/2, paragraph 25). The Committee also notes that, according to the 2017 Report “Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), section 174 of the Criminal Code has been increasingly widely used against critical activists, including atheist writers (page 29). Moreover, section 174 of the Criminal Code has been applied in cases concerning criticism of policies pursued by the president of a foreign state (page 132).

Referring to its General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, 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, correctional work or community service, 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 174, 400 and 404 of the Criminal Code to situations connected with the use of violence, or by suppressing 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, the grounds for prosecution, and the type of penalties imposed.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments initially made in 2016.

Repetition

The Committee notes that the Criminal Code of 3 July 2014 entered into force on 1 January 2015. The Committee notes that persons convicted for penal offences with penalties of correctional work or community service are under the obligation to perform compulsory labour. According to section 42 of the Criminal Code 2014, correctional work involves hiring a convicted person to work at the existing main place of work. Section 43 of the Criminal Code refers to the penalty of community service, which consists of a convicted person completing unskilled socially useful work for free and is organized by the local executive authorities to take place in public places. Furthermore, according to section 48 of the same Code, the penalty of deprivation of liberty can involve compulsory labour.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of a certain number of provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Administrative Offences under which sanctions involving compulsory labour may be imposed in circumstances that may fall under the scope of Article 1(a) of the Convention.

1. Criminal Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new Criminal Code which entered into force on 1 January 2015, amends certain provisions to which the Committee previously referred. Section 164 in the old version of the Criminal Code has been replaced by section 174 on the incitement of social, national, gender-based, racial, class or religious hatred and which provides for penalties of deprivation of liberty, with no alternative punishment measures in the form of correctional work or community work. Section 400 of the Criminal Code, which was section 334 in the old version, establishes penalties such as a fine, correctional work or community work, remand in custody in case of violation of the procedure for organizing and holding meetings, rallies, pickets, streets marches and demonstrations. Finally, section 404 of the Criminal Code replaces section 337 in the old version and establishes penalties such as a fine, correctional work, restriction of liberty, with forfeiture of the right to hold certain posts or to engage in certain activities in case of forming, leading and participation in the activities of illegal social and other associations. The Committee notes the Government’s information on the application in practice that in 2015, there were 47 offences under section 174 of the Criminal Code out of which three cases were submitted to court, and 44 cases were discontinued.

The Committee notes that in his Report of 16 June 2015, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association of the Human Rights Council observed that the right to peacefully assemble, hold meetings, rallies and demonstrations, street processions and pickets is guaranteed by the Constitution. However, examining a number of restrictions on the enjoyment of these rights in practice, the Special Rapporteur considered that the Government’s approach to regulating assemblies renders that right meaningless. He also referred to the penalties provided for under section 400 of the Criminal Code for participation in “illegal” assemblies and considered that they impose disproportionately severe sanctions and can include the deprivation of liberty (A/HRC/29/25/Add.2, paragraphs 52–56). Referring to its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee recalls that certain limits to freedom of peaceful assembly may be imposed by law for the purpose of securing recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. The Committee reminds the Government that restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly and their enforcement with penal sanctions involving compulsory labour shall be exceptional. Moreover, if those restrictions are too narrow, they may lead to the imposition of penalties involving forced or compulsory labour (paragraphs 153–155). In light of the above comments, the Committee requests the Government to ensure in practice that the provisions of sections 174, 400 and 404 of the Criminal Code are applied in a manner so as to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour are imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political or ideological views. Please provide information on the application in practice of these provisions of the Criminal Code indicating the number of prosecutions, the sanctions imposed and the grounds for prosecution.

2. Code of Administrative Offences. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that, under section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations” is punishable with administrative arrest for a term of up to 15 days. According to section 322 of the Code of Administrative Offences, administrative arrest involves an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences.

In its report, the Government indicates that in order to respect the procedure to hold a peaceful action, prior permission must be obtained from the local authorities. Thus, a permission is needed for gatherings in public places but there are no restrictions or conditions on gatherings on private premises. The Government also indicates that, in 2015, 109 actions were held, in which 4,719 people participated and 75 of those actions were unauthorized. The current legislation does not contain any conditions or restrictions on covering public gatherings in the mass media or on observing them and, in practice, no journalist or observer has filed a complaint on the restriction of their rights during a public gathering in recent years. The Government stresses that despite the fact that a significant number of events were held in violation of the law, the organizers and participants of protests are generally subjected to awareness-raising measures and that administrative penalties are applied only in exceptional cases. Administrative penalties under section 488 of the Code of Administration Offences, which establishes liability for the violation of the Kazakh law on the procedure for organizing and holding peaceful meetings, rallies, marches, pickets and demonstration, were imposed on only 19 of the total number of people who participated in unauthorized action.

The Committee takes note that in the abovementioned report, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association expressed his concern that, participants in unauthorized assemblies seem to have been increasingly subjected to intimidation, fines, imprisonment and administrative sanctions (paragraph 12). Noting that according to section 488 subsections 1 and 3 of the Code of Administration Offences, a sanction of administrative arrest, which involves compulsory labour may be imposed for the violation of the procedure for organizing and holding peaceful meetings and rallies, and that the Government confirms that this provision has been used by the courts, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that persons who peacefully assemble are not subject to penalties involving compulsory labour. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the sanctions imposed on participants in the unauthorized actions held in Kazakhstan.

Law on Social Associations. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 22 of the Law on Social Associations of 31 May 1996, individuals (including officials in state agencies and members of the governing body of a social association) may be held liable for violation of the provisions of this Law. The Committee requests the Government once again to clarify the scope of such liability, indicating the applicable sanctions.

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violations of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 371 of the Criminal Code 2015, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his/her duties as the result of unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional labour, or by compulsory participation in public works, or by detention under arrest. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on its application in practice of this provision. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the application of section 371 of the Code in order to ascertain that this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention. Please, provide details of court decisions handed down, the number and nature of sentences applied and the grounds for prosecution.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participating in strikes. The Committee notes that section 176 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 2015 defines a strike as illegal “in the period of martial law, emergency or special measures introduced under the law of Kazakhstan on national emergencies; at military units of the armed forces of Kazakhstan, or other military establishments and entities authorized to deal with the national defence, national security, emergency recovery, rescue operations, fire suppression, disaster prevention or response; at special public and law enforcement bodies, at hazardous industrial facilities, at ambulance and first aid stations” and that “persons provoking further strike action recognized as illegal by the court shall be liable under the law of Kazakhstan”. The Committee also notes that section 177 of the Labour Code 2015 states that “where a strike has been recognized illegal by the court, the employer may bring disciplinary action against the workers involved in organizing or holding of the strike”. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the scope of the liability provided for under of section 176 of the Labour Code, as well as on any sanction that may have been imposed under this provision on persons peacefully participating in a strike defined as illegal.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes that the Criminal Code of 3 July 2014 entered into force on 1 January 2015. The Committee notes that persons convicted for penal offences with penalties of correctional work or community service are under the obligation to perform compulsory labour. According to section 42 of the Criminal Code 2014, correctional work involves hiring a convicted person to work at the existing main place of work. Section 43 of the Criminal Code refers to the penalty of community service, which consists of a convicted person completing unskilled socially useful work for free and is organized by the local executive authorities to take place in public places. Furthermore, according to section 48 of the same Code, the penalty of deprivation of liberty can involve compulsory labour.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of a certain number of provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Administrative Offences under which sanctions involving compulsory labour may be imposed in circumstances that may fall under the scope of Article 1(a) of the Convention.

1. Criminal Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new Criminal Code which entered into force on 1 January 2015, amends certain provisions to which the Committee previously referred. Section 164 in the old version of the Criminal Code has been replaced by section 174 on the incitement of social, national, gender-based, racial, class or religious hatred and which provides for penalties of deprivation of liberty, with no alternative punishment measures in the form of correctional work or community work. Section 400 of the Criminal Code, which was section 334 in the old version, establishes penalties such as a fine, correctional work or community work, remand in custody in case of violation of the procedure for organizing and holding meetings, rallies, pickets, streets marches and demonstrations. Finally, section 404 of the Criminal Code replaces section 337 in the old version and establishes penalties such as a fine, correctional work, restriction of liberty, with forfeiture of the right to hold certain posts or to engage in certain activities in case of forming, leading and participation in the activities of illegal social and other associations. The Committee notes the Government’s information on the application in practice that in 2015, there were 47 offences under section 174 of the Criminal Code out of which three cases were submitted to court, and 44 cases were discontinued.

The Committee notes that in his Report of 16 June 2015, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association of the Human Rights Council observed that the right to peacefully assemble, hold meetings, rallies and demonstrations, street processions and pickets is guaranteed by the Constitution. However, examining a number of restrictions on the enjoyment of these rights in practice, the Special Rapporteur considered that the Government’s approach to regulating assemblies renders that right meaningless. He also referred to the penalties provided for under section 400 of the Criminal Code for participation in “illegal” assemblies and considered that they impose disproportionately severe sanctions and can include the deprivation of liberty (A/HRC/29/25/Add.2, paragraphs 52–56). Referring to its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee recalls that certain limits to freedom of peaceful assembly may be imposed by law for the purpose of securing recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. The Committee reminds the Government that restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly and their enforcement with penal sanctions involving compulsory labour shall be exceptional. Moreover, if those restrictions are too narrow, they may lead to the imposition of penalties involving forced or compulsory labour (paragraphs 153–155). In light of the above comments, the Committee requests the Government to ensure in practice that the provisions of sections 174, 400 and 404 of the Criminal Code are applied in a manner so as to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour are imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political or ideological views. Please provide information on the application in practice of these provisions of the Criminal Code indicating the number of prosecutions, the sanctions imposed and the grounds for prosecution.

2. Code of Administrative Offences. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that, under section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations” is punishable with administrative arrest for a term of up to 15 days. According to section 322 of the Code of Administrative Offences, administrative arrest involves an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences.

In its report, the Government indicates that in order to respect the procedure to hold a peaceful action, prior permission must be obtained from the local authorities. Thus, a permission is needed for gatherings in public places but there are no restrictions or conditions on gatherings on private premises. The Government also indicates that, in 2015, 109 actions were held, in which 4,719 people participated and 75 of those actions were unauthorized. The current legislation does not contain any conditions or restrictions on covering public gatherings in the mass media or on observing them and, in practice, no journalist or observer has filed a complaint on the restriction of their rights during a public gathering in recent years. The Government stresses that despite the fact that a significant number of events were held in violation of the law, the organizers and participants of protests are generally subjected to awareness-raising measures and that administrative penalties are applied only in exceptional cases. Administrative penalties under section 488 of the Code of Administration Offences, which establishes liability for the violation of the Kazakh law on the procedure for organizing and holding peaceful meetings, rallies, marches, pickets and demonstration, were imposed on only 19 of the total number of people who participated in unauthorized action.

The Committee takes note that in the abovementioned report, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association expressed his concern that, participants in unauthorized assemblies seem to have been increasingly subjected to intimidation, fines, imprisonment and administrative sanctions (paragraph 12). Noting that according to section 488 subsections 1 and 3 of the Code of Administration Offences, a sanction of administrative arrest, which involves compulsory labour may be imposed for the violation of the procedure for organizing and holding peaceful meetings and rallies, and that the Government confirms that this provision has been used by the courts, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that persons who peacefully assemble are not subject to penalties involving compulsory labour. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the sanctions imposed on participants in the unauthorized actions held in Kazakhstan.

Law on Social Associations. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 22 of the Law on Social Associations of 31 May 1996, individuals (including officials in state agencies and members of the governing body of a social association) may be held liable for violation of the provisions of this Law. The Committee requests the Government once again to clarify the scope of such liability, indicating the applicable sanctions.

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violations of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 371 of the Criminal Code 2015, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his/her duties as the result of unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional labour, or by compulsory participation in public works, or by detention under arrest. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on its application in practice of this provision. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the application of section 371 of the Code in order to ascertain that this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention. Please, provide details of court decisions handed down, the number and nature of sentences applied and the grounds for prosecution.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participating in strikes. The Committee notes that section 176 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 2015 defines a strike as illegal “in the period of martial law, emergency or special measures introduced under the law of Kazakhstan on national emergencies; at military units of the armed forces of Kazakhstan, or other military establishments and entities authorized to deal with the national defence, national security, emergency recovery, rescue operations, fire suppression, disaster prevention or response; at special public and law enforcement bodies, at hazardous industrial facilities, at ambulance and first aid stations” and that “persons provoking further strike action recognized as illegal by the court shall be liable under the law of Kazakhstan”. The Committee also notes that section 177 of the Labour Code 2015 states that “where a strike has been recognized illegal by the court, the employer may bring disciplinary action against the workers involved in organizing or holding of the strike”. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the scope of the liability provided for under of section 176 of the Labour Code, as well as on any sanction that may have been imposed under this provision on persons peacefully participating in a strike defined as illegal.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Criminal Code, Code of Administrative Offences and the Law on Social Associations.

The Committee previously noted the Criminal Code provisions imposing various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, restriction of freedom, compulsory participation in public works and correctional labour) for the following acts:

• – “incitement of social, national, tribal, racial or religious enmity” (section 164);
• – “creation or participation in the activity of illegal public association” which proclaims or carries out in practice racial, national, tribal, social, class or religious intolerance (section 337); and
• – “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of rallies, meetings, picketing, street marches or demonstrations”, if such acts entailed disruption of transport or caused considerable damage to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations (section 334).

The Committee noted that the sanctions of deprivation of freedom and restriction of freedom involve compulsory labour under procedures and conditions defined by the Code governing the execution of penal sentences (sections 99 and 47). It requested the Government to provide information on the application of sections 164, 334 and 337 of the Criminal Code in practice. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain the information requested.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring also to the explanations provided in paragraph 303 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Such views may be expressed orally or through the press or other communications media or through the exercise of the right of association or participation in meetings and demonstrations. Since freedom of expression of political views is closely linked to the right of association and of assembly through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, any prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations, or participation therein, or organization of meetings and demonstrations, may raise questions of their compatibility with the Convention.

The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to provide information on the application of the abovementioned sections 164, 334 and 337 of the Criminal Code in practice, including sample copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with the Convention.

The Committee previously noted that, under section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations” is punishable with “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days, which involves an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities, by virtue of section 322 of the above Code. Referring to its comments concerning the above provisions of the Criminal Code, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

The Committee previously noted that, according to section 22 of the Law on Social Associations, of 31 May 1996, individuals (including officials in state agencies and members of the governing body of a social association) may be held liable for violation of the provisions of this Law. The Committee asks the Government once again to clarify the scope of such liability, indicating the applicable sanctions.

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violations of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 316 of the Criminal Code, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his/her duties as the result of unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional labour, or by compulsory participation in public works, or by detention under arrest. In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 316 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on its application in practice. Since the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee again requests the Government to supply such information in its next report, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of section 316 and indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Criminal Code, Code of Administrative Offences and the Law on Social Associations.

The Committee previously noted the Criminal Code provisions imposing various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, restriction of freedom, compulsory participation in public works and correctional labour) for the following acts:

• -“incitement of social, national, tribal, racial or religious enmity” (section 164);
• -“creation or participation in the activity of illegal public association” which proclaims or carries out in practice racial, national, tribal, social, class or religious intolerance (section 337); and
• -“violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of rallies, meetings, picketing, street marches or demonstrations”, if such acts entailed disruption of transport or caused considerable damage to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations (section 334).

The Committee noted that the sanctions of deprivation of freedom and restriction of freedom involve compulsory labour under procedures and conditions defined by the Code governing the execution of penal sentences (sections 99 and 47). It requested the Government to provide information on the application of sections 164, 334 and 337 of the Criminal Code in practice. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain the information requested.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring also to the explanations provided in paragraph 303 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Such views may be expressed orally or through the press or other communications media or through the exercise of the right of association or participation in meetings and demonstrations. Since freedom of expression of political views is closely linked to the right of association and of assembly through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, any prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations, or participation therein, or organization of meetings and demonstrations, may raise questions of their compatibility with the Convention.

The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to provide information on the application of the abovementioned sections 164, 334 and 337 of the Criminal Code in practice, including sample copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with the Convention.

The Committee previously noted that, under section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations” is punishable with “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days, which involves an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities, by virtue of section 322 of the above Code. Referring to its comments concerning the above provisions of the Criminal Code, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

The Committee previously noted that, according to section 22 of the Law on Social Associations, of 31 May 1996, individuals (including officials in state agencies and members of the governing body of a social association) may be held liable for violation of the provisions of this Law. The Committee asks the Government once again to clarify the scope of such liability, indicating the applicable sanctions.

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violations of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 316 of the Criminal Code, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his/her duties as the result of unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional labour, or by compulsory participation in public works, or by detention under arrest. In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 316 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on its application in practice. Since the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee again requests the Government to supply such information in its next report, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of section 316 and indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted the Criminal Code provisions imposing various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, restriction of freedom, compulsory participation in public works and correctional labour) for the following acts:

• – “incitement of social, national, tribal, racial or religious enmity” (section 164);
• – “creation or participation in the activity of illegal public association” which proclaims or carries out in practice racial, national, tribal, social, class or religious intolerance (section 337); and
• – “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of rallies, meetings, picketing, street marches or demonstrations”, if such acts entailed disruption of transport or caused considerable damage to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations (section 334).

The Committee noted that the sanctions of deprivation of freedom and restriction of freedom involve compulsory labour under procedures and conditions defined by the Code governing the execution of penal sentences (sections 99 and 47).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 152–166 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Such views may be expressed orally or through the press or other communications media or through the exercise of the right of association or participation in meetings and demonstrations. Since freedom of expression of political views is closely linked to the right of association and of assembly through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, any prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations, or participation therein, or organization of meetings and demonstrations, may raise questions of their compatibility with the Convention.

The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to provide information on the application of the abovementioned sections 164, 334 and 337 of the Criminal Code in practice, including sample copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with the Convention.

The Committee previously noted that, under section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations” is punishable with “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days, which involves an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities, by virtue of section 322 of the above Code. Referring to its comments in point 1 of this direct request, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

The Committee notes that, according to section 22 of the Law on Social Associations, of 31 May 1996, individuals (including officials in state agencies and members of the governing body of a social association) may be held liable for violation of the provisions of this Law. The Committee asks the Government once again to clarify the scope of such liability, indicating the applicable sanctions.

Article 1(c). The Committee previously noted that, under section 316 of the Criminal Code, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his/her duties as the result of unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional labour, or by compulsory participation in public works, or by detention under arrest. In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 316 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on its application in practice. Since the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee requests the Government to supply such information in its next report, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of section 316 and indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Article 1 subparagraph a, of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.
1. The Committee previously noted the Criminal Code provisions imposing various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, restriction of freedom, compulsory participation in public works and correctional labour) for the following acts:

–           “incitement of social, national, tribal, racial or religious enmity” (section 164);

–           “creation or participation in the activity of illegal public association” which proclaims or carries out in practice racial, national, tribal, social, class or religious intolerance (section 337); and

–           “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of rallies, meetings, picketing, street marches or demonstrations”, if such acts entailed disruption of transport or caused considerable damage to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations (section 334).

The Committee noted that the sanctions of deprivation of freedom and restriction of freedom involve compulsory labour under procedures and conditions defined by the Code governing the execution of penal sentences (sections 99 and 47).

    The Committee recalls that Article 1, subparagraph a, of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 152–166 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Such views may be expressed orally or through the press or other communications media or through the exercise of the right of association or participation in meetings and demonstrations. Since freedom of expression of political views is closely linked to the right of association and of assembly through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, any prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations, or participation therein, or organization of meetings and demonstrations, may raise questions of their compatibility with the Convention.

The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to provide information on the application of the abovementioned sections 164, 334 and 337 of the Criminal Code in practice, including sample copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with the Convention.

2. The Committee previously noted that, under section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations” is punishable with “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days, which involves an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities, by virtue of section 322 of the above Code. Referring to its comments in point 1 of this direct request, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

3. The Committee notes that, according to section 22 of the Law on Social Associations, of 31 May 1996, individuals (including officials in state agencies and members of the governing body of a social association) may be held liable for violation of the provisions of this Law. The Committee asks the Government once again to clarify the scope of such liability, indicating the applicable sanctions.

Article 1, subparagraph c. The Committee previously noted that, under section 316 of the Criminal Code, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his/her duties as the result of unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional labour, or by compulsory participation in public works, or by detention under arrest. In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 316 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on its application in practice. Since the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee requests the Government to supply such information in its next report, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of section 316 and indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. 1. The Committee notes that the Criminal Code provides for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom and restriction of freedom, compulsory participation in public works and correctional labour) for the “incitement of social, national, tribal, racial or religious enmity” (section 164), for the “creation or participation in the activity of illegal public association” which proclaims or carries out in practice racial, national, tribal, social, class or religious intolerance (section 337) and for the “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of rallies, meetings, picketing, street marches or demonstrations”, if such acts entailed disruption of transport or caused considerable damage to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations (section 334). The Committee notes that the sanctions of deprivation of freedom and restriction of freedom involve compulsory labour under procedures and conditions defined by the Code governing the execution of penal sentences (sections 99 and 47).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It refers in this connection to paragraph 154 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence; but sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide in its next report, information on the application of the abovementioned sections 164, 334 and 337 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with the Convention.

2. The Committee notes that, under section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations” is punishable with “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days, which involves an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities, by virtue of section 322 of the above Code. Referring to its comments in point 1 of this direct request, the Committee asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

3. The Committee notes that, according to section 22 of the Law on Social Associations, of 31 May 1996, individuals (including officials in state agencies and members of the governing body of a social association) may be held liable for violation of the provisions of this Law. The Committee asks the Government to clarify the scope of such liability, indicating the applicable sanctions.

Article 1(c). Sanctions applicable to public servants. The Committee notes that, under section 316 of the Criminal Code, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his duties as the result of his unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional labour, or by compulsory participation in public works, or by detention under arrest. In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 316 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, please supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee notes that the Criminal Code provides for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom and restriction of freedom, compulsory participation in public works and correctional labour) for the “incitement of social, national, tribal, racial or religious enmity” (section 164), for the “creation or participation in the activity of illegal public association” which proclaims or carries out in practice racial, national, tribal, social, class or religious intolerance (section 337) and for the “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of rallies, meetings, picketing, street marches or demonstrations”, if such acts entailed disruption of transport or caused considerable damage to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations (section 334). The Committee notes that the sanctions of deprivation of freedom and restriction of freedom involve compulsory labour under procedures and conditions defined by the Code governing the execution of penal sentences (sections 99 and 47).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It refers in this connection to paragraphs 133 to 140 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence; but sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide in its next report, information on the application of the abovementioned sections 164, 334 and 337 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with the Convention.

2. The Committee notes that, under section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations” is punishable with “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days, which involves an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities, by virtue of section 322 of the above Code. Referring to its comments in point 1 of this direct request, the Committee asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

3. The Committee notes that, according to section 22 of the Law on Social Associations, of 31 May 1996, individuals (including officials in state agencies and members of the governing body of a social association) may be held liable for violation of the provisions of this Law. The Committee asks the Government to clarify the scope of such liability, indicating the applicable sanctions.

Article 1(c). The Committee notes that, under section 316 of the Criminal Code, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his duties as the result of his unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional labour, or by compulsory participation in public works, or by detention under arrest. In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 316 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, please supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would supply, in its next report, additional information on the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee notes that the Criminal Code provides for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom and restriction of freedom, compulsory participation in public works and correctional labour) for the "incitement of social, national, tribal, racial or religious enmity" (section 164), for the "creation or participation in the activity of illegal public association" which proclaims or carries out in practice racial, national, tribal, social, class or religious intolerance (section 337) and for the "violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of rallies, meetings, picketing, street marches or demonstrations", if such acts entailed disruption of transport or caused considerable damage to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations (section 334). The Committee notes that the sanctions of deprivation of freedom and restriction of freedom involve compulsory labour under procedures and conditions defined by the Code governing the execution of penal sentences (sections 99 and 47).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It refers in this connection to paragraphs 133 to 140 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence; but sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide in its next report, information on the application of the abovementioned sections 164, 334 and 337 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with the Convention.

2. The Committee notes that, under section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, "violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations" is punishable with "administrative arrest" for a term of up to 15 days, which involves an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities, by virtue of section 322 of the above Code. Referring to its comments in point 1 of this direct request, the Committee asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

3. The Committee notes that, according to section 22 of the Law on Social Associations, of 31 May 1996, individuals (including officials in state agencies and members of the governing body of a social association) may be held liable for violation of the provisions of this Law. The Committee asks the Government to clarify the scope of such liability, indicating the applicable sanctions.

Article 1(c). The Committee notes that, under section 316 of the Criminal Code, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his duties as the result of his unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional labour, or by compulsory participation in public works, or by detention under arrest. In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 316 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, please supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.