Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Russian Federation (Ratification: 1998)

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political or ideological views. 1. Federal Act No. 141 of 28 July 2012 on Amendments to the Penal Code. The Committee previously noted that Federal Act No. 141 of 28 July 2012 on Amendments to the Penal Code of the Russian Federation reintroduced defamation as a felony punishable by fines or by compulsory work for a period of up to 12 weeks. Section 1 of this Act defines defamation as “knowingly disseminating false information hurting one’s dignity and reputation”. It lists four situations in which the crime is considered more serious: defamation contained in public speech, defamation conducted by an official who used his/her position, false information about one’s health and false accusations of a serious crime. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above-mentioned provisions regarding defamation.

The Committee notes with regret the absence of information on this point in the Government’s report. Referring to its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee once again recalls that offences laid down in the law against defamation, when defined in such wide or general terms, may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for the expression of political and ideological views. The Committee considers that 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 and economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision (paragraphs 153 and 154). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the provisions of Federal Act No. 141 of 28 July 2012 and on the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

2. Federal Act No. 136-FZ of June 2013, section 213 of the Penal Code. The Committee previously noted that the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed concern about Federal Act No. 136-FZ and the legal proceedings against members of the Pussy Riot punk band for hooliganism under section 213 of the Penal Code. The Committee noted that section 213 of the Criminal Code establishes a penalty of imprisonment or compulsory labour for hooliganism attended by reason of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred. It requested the Government to provide a copy of Federal Act No. 136-FZ and to provide information on the application of section 213 of the Criminal Code and Federal Act No. 136-FZ in practice.

The Committee notes with regret the absence of information on this point in the Government’s report. The Committee notes that Federal Act No. 136-FZ, available on the website of the Russian Gazette, introduces amendments to section 148 of the Penal Code. In particular, as amended, section 148.1 provides that a public action expressing clear disrespect for society and committed in order to insult the religious feelings of believers is punishable by penalties of up to one year’s imprisonment. The Committee once again recalls that the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The imposition of such sanctions shall be restricted to persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 213 of the Penal Code, as well as on section 148.1, including on the penalties imposed and the facts giving rise to these convictions.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR) received on 30 September 2019.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political or ideological views. 1. Act of 24 July 2007 on combating extremism. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption of the Act of 24 July 2007 to amend certain legal acts with a view to increasing liability for “extremist activities”, which includes acts based on racial, national or religious hatred or enmity. It noted that under sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code, the following acts are punishable with sanctions involving compulsory labour: public appeal to perform extremist activities; establishment of an extremist group or organization; and participation in such a group or organization prohibited by a court decision. The Government stated that, in imposing punishment, the court shall take into consideration the nature or degree or social danger of the crime and the personality of the convict, including any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and also the influence of the imposed penalty on the rehabilitation of the convicted person. Moreover, the list of penalties established under section 280 allows courts to impose alternative penalties to deprivation of liberty, such as fines. The Government further indicated that most penalties imposed were fines and that deprivation of liberty only concerned four persons. However, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed concern that the vague and open-ended definition of “extremist activity” in the Federal Act on combating extremist activity does not require an element of violence or hatred to be present and that no clear and precise criteria on how materials may be classified as extremist are provided in the Act.

The Committee notes that, according to the observations of the KTR, the definition of “extremism” provided for by section 1 of Federal Act No. 114-FZ is so broad that public expression of political views as well as ideological beliefs opposite to the established political, social or economic system may also fall under this definition.

The Committee notes the Government’s repeated indication that Federal Act No. 114-FZ, which enshrines the concepts of “extremist activities”, “extremist organizations” and “extremist materials”, determines the targets of action to combat extremist activities and governs procedures for preventing extremism. The Government also refers to Federal Act No. 519-FZ of 27 December 2018 on amendments to section 282 of the Penal Code (incitation of hatred or enmity and abasement of human dignity), according to which, only persons who have already incurred administrative liability for a similar act within one year are criminally punishable. The Government indicates that the Plenum of the Supreme Court, in paragraph 7 of its Decision No. 11 of 28 June 2011 on judicial practice in criminal cases on offences of an extremist nature, states that the phrase “acts intended to incite hatred or enmity” should be understood as, in particular, statements that justify and/or affirm the need for genocide, mass repressions, deportations and the commission of other unlawful acts, including the use of violence against representatives of any nation or race, or followers of any religion. Criticism of political organizations, ideological or religious associations, political, ideological or religious beliefs, national or religious customs in and of itself must not be considered acts intended to incite hatred or enmity. Moreover, according to statistical information from the judicial department of the Supreme Court, since 2017, the deprivation of liberty has been applied twice to persons convicted under section 280.2 of the Penal Code. Under section 280, the punishments imposed were primarily in the form of a fine. The Committee requests the Government to continue to ensure that no sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons, who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the laws on extremism in practice, including on any prosecutions and sentences pursuant to sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code and the Act of 2007 on combating extremism.

2. Federal Act No. 65-FZ of 8 June 2012 amending Federal Act No. 54 FZ of 9 June 2004 on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and picketing and the Code on Administrative Offences. The Committee previously noted the restrictions introduced in Federal Act No. 65-FZ of 8 June 2012 (Assemblies Act) amending Federal Act No. 54-FZ of 19 June 2004 on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and picketing and the Code on Administrative Offences. As amended, section 20.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences establishes a penalty of community work for a period of up to 50 hours for the organizing or holding of a public event without submitting notice thereof under the established procedures. Section 20.18 establishes administrative arrest for a term up to 15 years for the organization of the blocking, as well as active participation in the blocking, of transport lines. The Committee also noted that the HRC expressed concern about consistent reports of arbitrary restrictions on the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly, including arbitrary detentions and prison sentences for the expression of political views. The HRC was further concerned about the strong deterrent effect on the right to peaceful assembly of these new restrictions introduced in the Assemblies Act. In this regard, the Committee also noted the comments made by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on this matter in 2013.

The Committee notes with regret the absence of information in the Government’s report. The Committee once again requests the Government to specify the manner in which the sentenced person consents to community work. It also once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 20.2 and 20.18 of the Code on Administrative Offences, indicating the number of prosecutions, sanctions imposed and grounds for prosecution.

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

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political or ideological views. 1. Federal Law No. 141 of 28 July 2012 on Amendments to the Criminal Code. The Committee notes that Federal Law No. 141 of 28 July 2012 on Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation reintroduces defamation as a felony punishable by fines or by compulsory work for a period of up to 12 weeks. The Committee notes that section 1 of this Law defines defamation as “knowing dissemination of false information hurting one’s dignity and reputation, and lists four situations in which the crime is considered more serious: defamation contained in public speech, defamation conducted by an official who used his/her position, false information about one’s health and false accusations of committing a serious crime”. The Committee also notes that in its concluding observations of 28 April 2015, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations expressed concern about the re-criminalization of defamation (CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, paragraph 19).

Referring to its General Survey of 2007 on eradication of forced labour, the Committee recalls that offences laid down in the laws against defamation, when defined in such wide or general terms, may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for the expression of political and ideological views. The Committee considers that 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 and economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision (paragraphs 153 and 154). Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the provisions of Federal Law No. 141 of 28 July 2012 and on the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

2. Federal Law No. 136-FZ of June 2013, section 213 of the Criminal Code. The Committee notes that in its report of 28 April 2015, the Human Rights Committee expresses concern about the Federal Law No. 136-FZ (blasphemy law) and the legal proceedings against members of the Pussy Riot punk band for hooliganism under section 213 of the Criminal Code (CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, paragraph 19). The Committee notes that section 213 states that “hooliganism, that is, a gross violation of the public order manifested in patent contempt of society and attended: (a) by the use of weapons or articles used as weapons; (b) by reason of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred; shall be punishable with a fine in the amount of 300 thousand to 500 thousand roubles or in the amount of a wage/salary or other income of the convicted person for a term of two to three years, or with obligatory labour for a term of up to 480 hours, or with compulsory labour for a term of one to two years, or with compulsory labour for a term of up to five years, or with deprivation of liberty for the same term”.

The Committee recalls that 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”. The imposition of such sanctions shall be restricted to persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. Noting that section 213 of the Criminal Code establishes a penalty of imprisonment or compulsory labour for hooliganism attended by reason of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the applications of this section of the Criminal Code. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application of the blasphemy law (Federal Law No. 136-FZ of 2013) and a copy of this law. Please also provide information on all the judicial suits pursuant to section 213 of the Criminal Code and the blasphemy law, including on the penalty imposed and the facts giving rise to these convictions.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political or ideological views. 1. Law of 24 July 2007 on combating extremism. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption of the Law of 24 July 2007, to amend certain legal acts with a view to increasing liability for “extremist activities”, which includes acts based on racial, national or religious hatred or enmity. It noted that under sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code, the following acts are punishable with sanctions of the privation of liberty (which involves compulsory labour); public appeal to perform extremist activities (as defined in section 1 of the Law on combating extremist activity); establishment of an extremist group or organization; and participation in such a group or organization prohibited by a court decision. Regarding the definition of the term “extremist activities”, the Committee emphasized that if legislative restrictions are formulated in such broad and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social and economic system, such penalties are not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee recalled 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. However, the Committee emphasized that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting opinions diverging from established principles. Even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities remain protected by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to or call for violent means to these ends. Accordingly, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to ensure that no sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. It requested the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the laws concerning “extremism” in practice, including information on any prosecutions, and convictions pursuant to sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code and the Law on combating extremist activity. The Committee also requested the Government to provide the list of the banned organizations, for which persons’ participation may be penalized with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that section 280, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code establishes liability of public appeals for the performance of extremist activities and that paragraph 2 establishes liability for the same deeds committed with the use of the mass media or information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet. The Government indicates that the Law of 24 July 2007 is of a blanket nature and that the provisions of Federal Act No. 114-FZ of 25 July 2002 on counteracting of extremist activity (FZ No. 114) must be followed when categorizing a crime. Thus, the definition of extremist activities is strengthened in section 1 of FZ No. 114. The Committee notes that public appeals, as evoked in section 280 of the Law of 2007, are the expression of any form of appeal to other persons with the aim of provoking them to undertake extremist activities and that the public nature of appeals must be decided by the courts, which will take into account the places, the means, the environment and other circumstances of the cases. The Committee also notes from the Government’s report that the penalties provided for by section 280, paragraph 1, of the Law of 2007 consist of a fine for a period of up to two years, or compulsory labour for a term of up to three years, or deprivation of liberty for a term of up to four years or an arrest for a term of four to six months. The Committee notes that according to the Government’s indication, section 60, paragraph 3, of the Law of 2007 states that in imposing punishment, the court shall take into consideration the nature or degree or social danger of the crime and the personality of the convict, including any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and also the influence of the imposed penalty on the rehabilitation of the convicted person. The Committee further notes that according to the Government, compulsory labour is an alternative penalty to deprivation of liberty and that the provisions of the Law of 2007 concerning compulsory labour will be applicable from 1 January 2017. It further notes that the list of penalties established under section 280 allows courts to impose alternative penalties to deprivation of liberty. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that in 2014, 50 persons were convicted under section 280, four persons under section 282.1 and 36 persons under section 282.2. In the first half of 2015, 280 persons were convicted under section 280, three persons under section 282.1 and 17 persons under 282.2. For this period, the Government indicates that all penalties were fines amounting to 300,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and that deprivation of liberty only concerned four persons, while other types of penalties were not imposed. The Committee notes that according to the Government the aforesaid provisions are not tools for the criminal prosecution of persons expressing particular political views or in opposition to the established political, social and economic system.

The Committee notes that in its concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of the Russian Federation on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 28 April 2015 (CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, paragraph 20), the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations expresses concern that the vague and open-ended definition of “extremist activity” in the Federal Law on combating extremist activity does not require an element of violence or hatred to be present and that no clear and precise criteria on how materials may be classified as extremist are provided in the law.

The Committee recalls once again that the expression or manifestation of opinions diverging from the established political, economic or social system is protected by the Convention against the imposition of penalties involving compensatory labour. However, the Convention does not prohibit the imposition of such penalty as a sanction for persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence falls outside its scope. The Committee therefore requests, once again, the Government to ensure that no sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons, who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the circumstances under which the sentenced person consents to compulsory labour as an alternative penalty to imprisonment, as well as to continue to provide information on the application of the laws on extremism in practice, including on any prosecutions and sentences pursuant to sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code and the Law of 2007 on combating extremism. Please also provide relevant court cases in this regard as well as a copy of the list of banned organizations for which persons’ participation may be penalized with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

2. Federal Law No. 65-FZ of 8 June 2012 amending Federal Law No. 54 FZ of 9 June 2004 on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and picketing and the Code on Administrative Offences. The Committee notes the restrictions introduced in Federal Law No. 65-FZ of 8 June 2012 (Assemblies Act) amending Federal Law No. 54-FZ of 19 June 2004 on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and picketing and the Code on Administrative offences. More specifically, the Committee notes that the Law of 8 June 2012 amended section 20.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences which establishes a penalty of community service for a period of up to 50 hours for the organizing or holding of a public event without submitting notice thereof under the established procedures. Section 20.18 establishes administrative arrest for a term up to 15 years for the organization of the blocking, as well as active participation in the blocking, of transport lines. The Committee also notes the introduction of community work as a new sanction in section 3.13: Community work shall entail unpaid work of public utility performed by a physical individual having committed an administrative infringement, carried out during free time outside their principal work, duties or studies. Community work shall be imposed by a judge for a period of between 20 and 200 hours and shall be performed for no more than four hours a day.

The Committee notes that in April 2015 the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations expresses concern about consistent reports of arbitrary restrictions on the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly, including arbitrary detentions and prison sentences for the expression of political views. The Human Rights Committee is further concerned about the strong deterrent effect on the right to peaceful assembly of these new restrictions introduced in the Assemblies Act (CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, paragraph 21). In this regard, the Committee also notes the comments made by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on this matter (11 March 2013, CDL-AD(2013)003, paragraphs 24–25, 30–31, 36 and 47).

In the light of the above comments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the circumstances under which the sentenced person consents to community work. Please provide information on the application in practice of sections 20.2 and 20.18 of the Code on Administrative Offences, indicating the number of prosecutions, the sanctions imposed and the grounds for prosecution.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political or ideological views. The Committee previously noted the adoption of a law on 24 July 2007, to amend certain legal acts with a view to increasing liability for “extremist activities”, which include acts based on racial, national or religious hatred or enmity. It noted, in particular, that under sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code, the following acts are punishable with sanctions of the privation of liberty (which involves compulsory labour): public appeal to perform extremist activities (as defined in section 1 of the Law on combating extremist activity); establishment of an extremist group or organization; and participation in such a group or organization prohibited by a court decision. In this regard, the Committee noted that the Human Rights Committee (HRC) noted that there had been numerous reports that laws on extremism are being used to target organizations and individuals critical of the Government. The HRC also expressed regret that the definition of “extremist activity” in the Law on combating extremist activity remains vague, allowing for arbitrariness in its application and that the 2006 amendment to this law has made certain forms of defamation of public officials an act of extremism (24 November 2009, CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6, paragraph 25). Moreover, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had urged the Government to review sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code, under which a number of acts are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment together with compulsory labour (1 June 2011, E/C.12/RUS/CO/5, paragraph 13). However, the Committee noted that the Plenum of the Supreme Court adopted Decision No. 11 (28 June 2011) on judicial practice in criminal cases involving offences of an extremist nature in order to provide guidance to ensure uniformity in the judicial procedure related to cases brought under these sections. This Decision states that courts should, in examining such offences, consider both the protection of the public interest and the protections contained in the Constitution relating to freedom of conscience, of thought, of expression, and the right to seek, receive, transmit, produce and disseminate information by any lawful means, as well as the right to assemble peacefully without arms. Moreover, the Decision states that the criticism of political organizations, ideological and religious associations, political, ideological or religious beliefs; or national or religious practices in and of itself should not be regarded as an act aimed at inciting hatred and enmity. It requested information on the impact of this Decision on cases related to extremism.

The Committee notes with regret an absence of information in the Government’s report on the impact, if any, of Decision No. 11 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 2011. However, it notes the Government’s statement that if the concept of “extremist activity” was defined in an enunciative manner, it would be impossible to apply the concept effectively to the limitless number of actual legal situations that could occur. It indicates that in the work of the department that combats extremism, priority is given to the prevention of crimes of an extremist character, and to detecting and stopping the most dangerous violent manifestations of extremism, not to applying legislation on extremism to people who express certain political views or views opposed to the existing political, social and economic system. Some 656 offences of an extremist character were recorded in 2010, 622 such offences in 2011 and 741 offences in 2012. The Government states that the spread of this type of activity in the country is evident from the rise in the annual number of offences recorded. The majority of those found guilty of an offence under sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code were not given custodial sentences. Of the 32 convictions handed down under section 280 (public appeals for a forcible change of the constitutional system) two persons were sentenced to imprisonment (involving compulsory labour), and two were ordered to undergo corrective labour. Of the 37 persons convicted under section 282.2 (organizing an activity of an extremist community), nine were sentenced to imprisonment. The Government provides examples of groups considered as extremist groups, and states that this includes 20 dangerous anarchist and nationalist radical groups, as well as leaders and activists of radical organizations. A list of banned organizations includes 19 terrorist organizations and 31 extremist ones. While noting the examples provided in the Government’s report, the Committee notes the absence of comprehensive information on these banned organizations, or relevant court cases concerning these organizations which would allow the Committee to assess the scope and extent of the application of these provisions in practice.

With regard to the Government’s indications concerning the definition of the term extremist activities, the Committee wishes to emphasize that if legislative restrictions are formulated in such broad and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such penalties are not in conformity with the Convention. While 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, the Committee must emphasize that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting opinions diverging from established principles. Even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities are protected by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to or call for violent means to these ends. The Committee would also like to point out that even if legislation responds to a legitimate need, it can nevertheless become a means of political coercion and a means of punishing the peaceful exercise of civil rights and liberties, such as the freedom of expression and association. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to take measures to ensure that no sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide, in its next report, information on the application of the laws concerning “extremism” in practice, including information on any prosecutions, convictions and sentences pursuant to sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code and the Law on combating extremist activity. It requests the Government to provide copies of relevant court cases in this regard, as well as a copy of the list of banned organizations, for which persons’ participation may be penalized with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political or ideological views. The Committee previously noted the adoption of a law of 24 July 2007 to amend certain legal acts with a view to increasing liability for “extremist activities”, which include acts based on political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity. It noted, in particular, that under sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code, the following acts are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour): public appeal to perform extremist activities; establishment of an extremist group or organization; and participation in such a group or organization prohibited by a court decision. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code, as well as clarification of the term “extremist activities”.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that to ensure that judicial practice is consistent in cases involving offences of an extremist nature, the Plenum of the Supreme Court adopted Decision No. 11 (28 June 2011) on judicial practice in criminal cases involving offences of an extremist nature. This Decision seeks to provide guidance to ensure uniformity in the judicial procedure related to cases brought under sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that the current legislation of the Russian Federation contains no legal definition of the term “extremist activities”. However, the Government refers to section 1 of the Law on Combating Extremist Activity (Federal Act No. 114-FZ of 25 July 2002 as amended), which states that extremist activity/extremism includes, inter alia: stirring up of social, racial, ethnic or religious discord; propaganda of the exceptional nature, superiority or deficiency of persons on the basis of their social, racial, ethnic, religious or linguistic affiliation or attitude to religion; public calls inciting the carrying out of the aforementioned actions or mass dissemination (or the production or storage) of knowingly extremist material; making a public, knowingly false, accusation that an individual holding state office of the Russian Federation has committed actions mentioned in this section while discharging their official duties; and organization and preparation of the aforementioned actions and also incitement of others to commit them.

In this regard, the Committee notes that the Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of 25 November 2009, noted that there have been numerous reports that laws on extremism are being used to target organizations and individuals critical of the Government. The Human Rights Committee expressed regret that the definition of “extremist activity” in the Law on Combating Extremist Activity remains vague, allowing for arbitrariness in its application and that the 2006 amendment to this law has made certain forms of defamation of public officials an act of extremism (CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6, paragraph 25). Moreover, the Committee notes that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its concluding observations of 1 June 2011, urged the Government to review sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code, under which a number of acts are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment together with compulsory labour (E/C.12/RUS/CO/5, paragraph 13).

The Committee recalls that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society, and 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. However, the Committee wishes to emphasize that if such restrictions are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such penalties are not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the impact of Decision No. 11 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 2011 in ensuring that no prison sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. In this regard, the Committee strongly encourages the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application of the laws concerning “extremism” in practice, including information on any prosecutions, convictions and sentences pursuant to sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code and the Law on Combating Extremist Activity. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of Decision No. 11 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 2011, with its next report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political or ideological views. The Committee previously noted the adoption of a Law of 24 July 2007 to amend certain legal acts with a view to increasing liability for the “extremist activities”, which include acts based on political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity. It noted, in particular, that under sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Criminal Code, the following acts are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour): public appeal to perform extremist activities; establishment of an extremist group or organization; and participation in such a group or organization prohibited by a court decision.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention once again to paragraph 154 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it pointed 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 if sanctions involving compulsory labour enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such sanctions fall within the scope of the Convention.

The Committee asks the Government once again to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with Article 1(a) of the Convention. Please also clarify the notion of “extremist activities”, which is used in the above provisions of the Criminal Code.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments, and in particular, the Government’s indications concerning the application in practice of section 283 (disclosure of state secrets) and section 293(1) (non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing large-scale damage) of the Criminal Code, as well as copies of the relevant court decisions.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views. The Committee has noted the adoption of the Law of 24 July 2007 to amend certain legal acts with a view to increasing liability for the “extremist activities”, which include acts based on political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity. It has noted that under sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Criminal Code, the following acts are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour): public appeal to performing extremist activities, establishment of an extremist group or organization and participation in such a group or organization prohibited by a court decision.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations contained in paragraph 154 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, where it pointed 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 if sanctions involving compulsory labour enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such sanctions fall within the scope of the Convention.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, and clarifying in particular the notion of “extremist activities”, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with Article 1(a) of the Convention.

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

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments, and in particular, the Government’s indications concerning the application in practice of section 263 of the Criminal Code. It notes with interest that, following the amendment introduced to this section by Law No. 162-FZ of 8 December 2003, a provision imposing sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) on a transport worker for violation of safety rules on railway, air and water transport, which resulted through negligence in the causing of large-scale material loss, has been repealed.

Article 1, paragraphs (a) and (c), of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain provisions of the Criminal Code making punishable by arrest or imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) or by corrective work the disclosure of state secrets (in the absence of elements of state treason) (section 283) and the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing large-scale damages (section 293(1)). The Committee requested information on the application of these provisions in practice, in order to assess their conformity with the Convention.

While taking note of the Government’s view that works carried out following the court sentence do not fall under the definition of forced labour, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations contained in paragraphs 104 and 105 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, in which it has considered that the exclusion of prison labour under Convention No. 29 does not automatically apply to Convention No. 105. The Committee pointed out that, in most cases, labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will have no relevance to the application of Convention No. 105, but if a person is in any way forced to work because he holds or has expressed certain political views or has committed a breach of labour discipline, such a situation is covered by the Convention.

The Committee therefore reiterates its request for information on the application in practice of the abovementioned section 283 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, (e.g. with reference to the cases of an environmentalist (retired navy captain) who was charged under the above provision after publication of information concerning hazards posed by nuclear waste generated by the fleet, and a military journalist who was charged after conducting freelance reporting on radioactive contamination and passing information to the Japanese media, about which information was published in the press), so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with Article 1, paragraph (a), of the Convention.

The Government is also requested once again to supply information on the application in practice of the abovementioned section 293(1) of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph (c), of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. 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, paragraph (a), of the Convention. The Committee has noted that under section 283 of the new Criminal Code the revealing of state secrets may be punished with deprivation of freedom for a term of up to four years, a penalty which involves compulsory labour under the Code on the Execution of Sentences (section 103). Referring to information published in the press regarding the cases of an environmentalist and retired navy captain who was charged under the above provision after publication of information concerning hazards posed by nuclear waste generated by the fleet, and a military journalist who was charged after conducting freelance reporting on radioactive contamination and passing information to the Japanese media, the Committee would appreciate it if the Government would supply information on the application of the abovementioned Criminal Code provision in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.

Article 1, paragraph (c). 1. The Committee has noted that, under section 293 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm or other grave consequences to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by correctional labour or by arrest for up to three months, which involves compulsory labour according to the rules governing deprivation of freedom (section 54 of the Criminal Code and sections 69(2) and 103 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that the abovementioned provision of the Criminal Code is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, the Government is requested to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

2. The Committee has also noted that, under section 263 of the Criminal Code, violation by a transport worker of rules of safe movement or operation of railway, air and water transport, causing by negligence harm to human health or large-scale material loss, is punishable by deprivation of freedom for up to two years, which involves compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application of this provision in practice, indicating in particular the meaning of the term "large-scale material loss" and including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government in its first and second reports 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, paragraph (a), of the Convention. The Committee has noted that under section 283 of the new Criminal Code the revealing of state secrets may be punished with deprivation of freedom for a term of up to four years, a penalty which involves compulsory labour under the Code on the Execution of Sentences (section 103). Referring to information published in the press regarding the cases of an environmentalist and retired navy captain who was charged under the above provision after publication of information concerning hazards posed by nuclear waste generated by the fleet, and a military journalist who was charged after conducting freelance reporting on radioactive contamination and passing information to the Japanese media, the Committee would appreciate it if the Government would supply information on the application of the abovementioned Criminal Code provision in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.

Article 1, paragraph (c). 1. The Committee has noted that, under section 293 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm or other grave consequences to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by correctional labour or by arrest for up to three months, which involves compulsory labour according to the rules governing deprivation of freedom (section 54 of the Criminal Code and sections 69(2) and 103 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that the abovementioned provision of the Criminal Code is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, the Government is requested to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

2. The Committee has also noted that, under section 263 of the Criminal Code, violation by a transport worker of rules of safe movement or operation of railway, air and water transport, causing by negligence harm to human health or large-scale material loss, is punishable by deprivation of freedom for up to two years, which involves compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application of this provision in practice, indicating in particular the meaning of the term "large-scale material loss" and including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.