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

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

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

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Punishment of vagrancy. The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate whether vagrants and beggars admitted at rehabilitation and production centres are required to perform work or participate in production activities. The Government indicates that vagrancy is considered as a «destructive behaviour» under Law No. 17/2017 of 28 April 2017 establishing the National Rehabilitation Service (NRS) and determining its mission, organization and functioning. In this regard, the Committee notes that the overall mission of the NRS is to «eradicate all forms of deviant behaviours by instilling positive behaviours, educating and providing professional skills», including through the coordination of the activities of rehabilitation and transit centres (section 7). It further notes that, pursuant to Law No. 17/2017, several Presidential and Ministerial Orders were adopted, such as:

• Ministerial Order No. 001/07.01 of 19 April 2018 determining, mission, organization and functioning of transit centres, which provides that transit centres are used for accommodating on a temporary basis people exhibiting “deviant acts or behaviours”, such as vagrancy, informal street vending, begging, prostitution, drug use or “any other deviant behaviour that is harmful to the public” (section 2). Such persons are selected and placed to a rehabilitation centre, upon decision of a steering committee.
• Presidential Orders Nos 99/01, 100/01 and 101/01 of 2 June 2018 which establish Iwawa, Gitagaga and Nyamagabe rehabilitation centres, thus replacing previous rehabilitation and production centres for vagrant people, which provide that once the person is registered in the centre, he or she shall receive training and technical know-how which must be in accordance with the programmes established by Government institutions in charge of vocational trainings and rehabilitation programmes. The management of the centre determines the period a person spends in the centre (sections 4, 11 and 12).

The Committee observes that, under the above provisions, vagrants, beggars or other persons who exhibit act or behaviour considered as «deviant» can be placed in transit and rehabilitation centres and requested to undertake activities which are assigned to them during the period determined by the centres. It observes that no provision refers to the prior consent of such persons nor to the possibility to appeal against the decisions taken by such centres. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that beggars and vagrants are not required to perform any work or participate in production activities, as such centres provides psychosocial rehabilitation through ergo therapy, including participation in hygienic works as well as practical activities leading to mastering vocational skills. It observes, however, that rehabilitation centres are also responsible for establishing programmes of income generating activities for the centres (section 4(9) of Presidential Orders Nos 99/01, 100/01 and 101/01 of 2 June 2018). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the number of beggars, vagrants and other persons who exhibit acts or behaviours considered as “deviant” transferred to transit and rehabilitation centres; (ii) the types of training and technical know-how such persons are required to perform; as well as (iii) the duration of such assignments. It further requests the Government to provide information on the programmes of income generating activities established by the rehabilitation centres as well as the participation of beggars, vagrants and other “deviant” persons in such programmes. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the penalties applicable in case of refusal of such persons to perform the activities assigned to them in the framework of rehabilitation programmes.

2. Freedom of public servants and career military personnel to leave their employment. The Committee recalls that, according to section 87 of the Presidential Order No. 32/01 of 3 September 2012 establishing the special statute of the Defence Forces, the member of the armed forces has to submit a written application for resignation to the competent authority which has 90 days to issue a decision and if the authority does not issue a decision within this time limit, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted. It notes that Presidential Order No. 32/01 was replaced by the Presidential Order No. 044/01 of 14/02/2020 establishing special statute governing Rwanda Defence Force which provides that a soldier may submit, in writing, to the Minister his or her application for cessation of military service. The Minister communicates, in writing, to the applicant the decision taken within 60 days from the date of reception of the application (section 106). The Committee further notes the adoption of the Law No. 17/2020 of 7 October 2020 establishing the general statute governing public servants which provides that a public servant has to submit a written application for resignation or cessation of duties in the interest of the service to the appointing authority. More particularly, a public servant who submits his or her application for resignation continues to discharge his or her duties until he or she is notified of the decision on his or her application in a 30 days-period, but if the appointing authority does not issue a decision within this time limit, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted (sections 73, 78 and 81).

The Committee observes that, under the above provisions, the application to resign made by the public servant or member of the armed forces may be either accepted or refused, and the legislation does not establish the criteria to be used to decide whether a resignation request will be granted. It recalls that, under the Convention, public servants, including career military personnel in peacetime, should have the right to leave their employment within a reasonable period, for example by means of previous notice (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 290). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any steps taken with a view to ensure that public servants and career military personnel are not deprived of the right to leave the service in peace time within a reasonable period, either at regular intervals or with prior notice. In the meantime, it requests the Government to indicate the criteria applied in accepting or rejecting a resignation request by public servants and career military personnel. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of resignation requests submitted, number of resignations accepted or refused and, if applicable, information on the grounds for refusal.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. 1. Prison labour. The Committee previously noted that prison labour may be carried out for the benefit of private companies and that according to section 45 of the Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service, a prisoner may be requested or can himself/herself request to perform work but he/she cannot be forced to perform work, with the exception of section 50(8) which provides that an incarcerated person has the obligation to perform activities for the development of the country, him/herself and the prison. It requested the Government to specify the manner in which prisoners formally give their consent to work for private enterprises, in practice, and to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that work in private enterprises is performed with the consent of prisoners and safety and health conditions are respected. The Government also indicates that a draft law regulating correctional services is currently under enactment process that would repeal the obligation of prisoners to perform activities for the development of the country, himself or herself and the prisons in order to avoid any abuse that may result from its application. The Committee takes notes of the copy of the agreement concluded for the construction of four classrooms by prisoners between the Rusizi district and the Rusizi prison in December 2019, transmitted by the Government and observes that this agreement was concluded between prison authorities and a public authority. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated information on the current status of the revision process of Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service, as well as a copy of the new legislation once adopted. Meanwhile, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that free, formal and informed consent is required from convicted prisoners when they work for private entities, as well as copy of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour.

2. Sentence involving the performance of community work. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes that, according to section 35 of the Law No. 68/2018 of 30 August 2018 determining offences and penalties in general, community service can be imposed as a principal penalty in lieu of imprisonment when an offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to five years. It further notes that, pursuant to the Presidential Order No. 66/01 of 2 November 2012 determining the modalities of implementation of community service as an alternative penalty to imprisonment, persons sentenced to community service can work for public administration, public institutions, civil organizations and members of private sector, after authorization by the Rwanda Correctional Service (RCS) and a memorandum of understanding must be signed between the beneficiary entities and the RCS. The Committee recalls that, where the performance of community work may be for the benefit of private entities, such as charitable associations or institutions, the conditions for its performance should be adequately managed and supervised to ensure that the work undertaken is effectively work of general interest and that the entities for which it is carried out are non-profit-making. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which the sentence of community work is applied, with an indication of the nature of the supervision carried out by the sentencing judge, the list of private entities authorized to receive persons convicted to this penalty, and examples of the work performed, including copies of memorandum of understanding signed between private entities and the Rwanda Correctional Service.

Article 25. Penal sanctions for the exaction of forced labour. Referring to its previous comments regarding national legislative provisions establishing that forced labour may be punished only with a fine, the Committee notes with interest that section 22 of the Law No. 51/2018 of 13 August 2018 relating to the prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons and exploitation of others criminalizes forced labour, slavery and other related practices and establishes penalties of imprisonment for a term of one to three years and a fine. Aggravated penalties are established by the law when forced labour is imposed on a victim of trafficking in persons or on a vulnerable person.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the Government’s information, in its report, on the adoption of Act No. 51/2018 of 13 August 2018 relating to the prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons and exploitation of others, which repeals the provisions of the Criminal Code criminalizing trafficking in persons. The Committee welcomes the fact that, in addition to provisions criminalizing trafficking in persons and establishing stringent penalties of imprisonment (section 18), Act No. 51/2018 also includes provisions on the prevention of trafficking, and on providing protection and assistance to the victims (sections 7 to 15). It notes the Government’s indication that several awareness-raising and training activities were undertaken on trafficking in persons, more particularly for law enforcement institutions regarding the identification, investigation and prosecution of cases of trafficking in persons. The Government adds that, in 2019, the Rwanda Bureau of Investigation opened 63 cases of transnational trafficking in persons (41 for forced labour and 22 for sexual exploitation). Furthermore, 64 individuals were arrested for trafficking in persons, of whom 9 were prosecuted. Two individuals were convicted and sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine.

The Committee notes that, according to the findings of research undertaken in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), in 2018, Rwanda is a transit country and, to a lesser extent, a country of origin for trafficking in persons. Data from the Department of Immigration and Emigration (DGIE) show that the majority of the suspected victims of trafficking in persons identified were women (77.67 per cent) and were mainly from neighbouring countries, and that Middle East Countries and East African Countries are the most frequent destination. The Committee notes that, in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Government indicated that the findings of this research informed the drafting of the National Action Plan on counter-human trafficking which was at the stage of adoption by the Cabinet in November 2020 (A/HRC/WG.6/37/RWA/1, 9 November 2020, paragraph 107). It further notes that, in its 2021 concluding observations, the United Nations Committee on Migrant Workers expressed concern at the limited knowledge about trafficking in persons and the challenges in evidence-gathering as one of the main causes of the low conviction rate for the crime of trafficking in persons as compared with other crimes (CMW/C/RWA/CO/2, paragraph 53). The Committee requests the Government to pursue its efforts to combat trafficking in persons for both labour exploitation and sexual exploitation, including through the swift adoption of the draft National Action Plan on counter-human trafficking. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this context to ensure adequate protection of victims of trafficking and strengthen the capacity of the law enforcement authorities to identify, investigate and prosecute cases of trafficking. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number of cases investigated and prosecuted, the number of convictions handed down and the penalties imposed.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. For a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that sections 2(2), 3, 5 and 13 of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 on community work, go well beyond the exception allowed in Article 2(2)(e) of the Convention for minor communal services. It noted that, pursuant to Act No. 53/2007, community work, referred to as Umuganda, shall aim to promote development activities in the framework of supporting the national budget and that every Rwandan from 18 to 65 years old shall have the obligation to perform community works, which shall take place on the last Saturday of every month. Persons who fail to participate without justified reasons are punishable by a fine. The Committee noted from the information provided by the Government that infrastructure construction was one of the main activities.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Umuganda isthe gathering of efforts of many people in order for them to carry out a general public interest activity. These community works shall be considereda civic obligation for Rwandan citizens, as provided for in Article 2(2)(b) of the Convention. In that regard, the Committee emphasizes that the exception of “normal civic obligations” provided for under this provision of the Convention should be understood in a very restrictive way. Three kinds of such “normal civic obligations” are specifically mentioned in the Convention as exceptions to its scope, namely: compulsory military service, work or service in cases of emergency and “minor communal services”. Thus, it is not possible to consider, within the meaning of the Convention, “normal civic obligations” to be work undertaken for public purposes, such as compulsory public works of general importance or compulsory national development service, which is prohibited by the Convention (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 277). Furthermore, the Committee recalls that “minor communal services” do not constitute forced labour only if certain criteria are met: (i) the services must be “minor”, such as relating primarily to maintenance work; (ii) the services must be performed in the direct interest of the community and not relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; and (iii) the community which has to perform the services, or their “direct” representative, must be consulted in regard to the need for such services. Noting that the large-scale participation in Umuganda is compulsory and infrastructure construction is one of the main activities, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to review the provisions of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 to ensure compliance with the Convention, whether by ensuring that participation in community works is voluntary or by limiting their scope to the exception of “minor communal services”. It requests the Government to continue to provide examples of the types of community works that can be required of the population under Act No. 53/2007.

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

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Punishment of vagrancy. The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate whether vagrants and beggars admitted at rehabilitation and production centres are required to perform work or participate in production activities. The Government indicates that vagrancy is considered as a «destructive behaviour» under Law No. 17/2017 of 28 April 2017 establishing the National Rehabilitation Service (NRS) and determining its mission, organization and functioning. In this regard, the Committee notes that the overall mission of the NRS is to «eradicate all forms of deviant behaviours by instilling positive behaviours, educating and providing professional skills», including through the coordination of the activities of rehabilitation and transit centres (section 7). It further notes that, pursuant to Law No 17/2017, several Presidential and Ministerial Orders were adopted, such as:

• –Ministerial Order No. 001/07.01 of 19 April 2018 determining, mission, organization and functioning of transit centres, which provides that transit centres are used for accommodating on a temporary basis people exhibiting «deviant acts or behaviours», such as vagrancy, informal street vending, begging, prostitution, drug use or «any other deviant behaviour that is harmful to the public» (section 2). Such persons are selected and placed to a rehabilitation centre, upon decision of a steering committee.
• –Presidential Orders Nos 99/01, 100/01 and 101/01 of 2 June 2018 which establish Iwawa, Gitagaga and Nyamagabe rehabilitation centres, thus replacing previous rehabilitation and production centres for vagrant people, which provide that once the person is registered in the centre, he or she shall receive training and technical know-how which must be in accordance with the programmes established by Government institutions in charge of vocational trainings and rehabilitation programmes. The management of the centre determines the period a person spends in the centre (sections 4, 11 and 12).

The Committee observes that, under the above provisions, vagrants, beggars or other persons who exhibit act or behaviour considered as «deviant» can be placed in transit and rehabilitation centres and requested to undertake activities which are assigned to them during the period determined by the centres. It observes that no provision refers to the prior consent of such persons nor to the possibility to appeal against the decisions taken by such centres. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that beggars and vagrants are not required to perform any work or participate in production activities, as such centres provides psychosocial rehabilitation through ergo therapy, including participation in hygienic works as well as practical activities leading to mastering vocational skills. It observes, however, that rehabilitation centres are also responsible for establishing programmes of income generating activities for the centres (section 4 (9) of Presidential Orders Nos 99/01, 100/01 and 101/01 of 2 June 2018). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the number of beggars, vagrants and other persons who exhibit acts or behaviours considered as «deviant» transferred to transit and rehabilitation centres; (ii) the types of training and technical know-how such persons are required to perform; as well as (iii) the duration of such assignments. It further requests the Government to provide information on the programmes of income generating activities established by the rehabilitation centres as well as the participation of beggars, vagrants and other «deviant» persons in such programmes. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the penalties applicable in case of refusal of such persons to perform the activities assigned to them in the framework of rehabilitation programmes.

2. Freedom of public servants and career military personnel to leave their employment.The Committee recalls that, according to section 87 of the Presidential Order No. 32/01 of 3 September 2012 establishing the special statute of the Defence Forces, the member of the armed forces has to submit a written application for resignation to the competent authority which has 90 days to issue a decision and if the authority does not issue a decision within this time limit, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted. It notes that Presidential Order No. 32/01 was replaced by the Presidential Order No. 044/01 of 14/02/2020 establishing special statute governing Rwanda Defence Force which provides that a soldier may submit, in writing, to the Minister his or her application for cessation of military service. The Minister communicates, in writing, to the applicant the decision taken within 60 days from the date of reception of the application (section 106). The Committee further notes the adoption of the Law No. 17/2020 of 7 October 2020 establishing the general statute governing public servants which provides that a public servant has to submit a written application for resignation or cessation of duties in the interest of the service to the appointing authority. More particularly, a public servant who submits his or her application for resignation continues to discharge his or her duties until he or she is notified of the decision on his or her application in a 30 days-period, but if the appointing authority does not issue a decision within this time limit, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted (sections 73, 78 and 81).

The Committee observes that, under the above provisions, the application to resign made by the public servant or member of the armed forces may be either accepted or refused, and the legislation does not establish the criteria to be used to decide whether a resignation request will be granted. It recalls that, under the Convention, public servants, including career military personnel in peacetime, should have the right to leave their employment within a reasonable period, for example by means of previous notice (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 290). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any steps taken with a view to ensure that public servants and career military personnel are not deprived of the right to leave the service in peace time within a reasonable period, either at regular intervals or with prior notice. In the meantime, it requests the Government to indicate the criteria applied in accepting or rejecting a resignation request by public servants and career military personnel. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of resignation requests submitted, number of resignations accepted or refused and, if applicable, information on the grounds for refusal.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. 1. Prison labour. The Committee previously noted that prison labour may be carried out for the benefit of private companies and that according to section 45 of the Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service, a prisoner may be requested or can himself/herself request to perform work but he/she cannot be forced to perform work, with the exception of section 50(8) which provides that an incarcerated person has the obligation to perform activities for the development of the country, him/herself and the prison. It requested the Government to specify the manner in which prisoners formally give their consent to work for private enterprises, in practice, and to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that work in private enterprises is performed with the consent of prisoners and safety and health conditions are respected. The Government also indicates that a draft law regulating correctional services is currently under enactment process that would repeal the obligation of prisoners to perform activities for the development of the country, himself or herself and the prisons in order to avoid any abuse that may result from its application. The Committee takes notes of the copy of the agreement concluded for the construction of four classrooms by prisoners between the Rusizi district and the Rusizi prison in December 2019, transmitted by the Government and observes that this agreement was concluded between prison authorities and a public authority. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated information on the current status of the revision process of Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service, as well as a copy of the new legislation once adopted. Meanwhile, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that free, formal and informed consent is required from convicted prisoners when they work for private entities, as well as copy of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour.

2. Sentence involving the performance of community work. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes that, according to section 35 of the Law No 68/2018 of 30 August 2018 determining offences and penalties in general, community service can be imposed as a principal penalty in lieu of imprisonment when an offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to five years. It further notes that, pursuant to the Presidential Order No. 66/01 of 2 November 2012 determining the modalities of implementation of community service as an alternative penalty to imprisonment, persons sentenced to community service can work for public administration, public institutions, civil organizations and members of private sector, after authorization by the Rwanda Correctional Service (RCS) and a memorandum of understanding must be signed between the beneficiary entities and the RCS. The Committee recalls that, where the performance of community work may be for the benefit of private entities, such as charitable associations or institutions, the conditions for its performance should be adequately managed and supervised to ensure that the work undertaken is effectively work of general interest and that the entities for which it is carried out are non-profit-making. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which the sentence of community work is applied, with an indication of the nature of the supervision carried out by the sentencing judge, the list of private entities authorized to receive persons convicted to this penalty, and examples of the work performed, including copies of memorandum of understanding signed between private entities and the Rwanda Correctional Service.

Article 25. Penal sanctions for the exaction of forced labour. Referring to its previous comments regarding national legislative provisions establishing that forced labour may be punished only with a fine, the Committee notes with interest that section 22 of the Law No. 51/2018 of 13 August 2018 relating to the prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons and exploitation of others criminalizes forced labour, slavery and other related practices and establishes penalties of imprisonment for a term of one to three years and a fine. Aggravated penalties are established by the law when forced labour is imposed on a victim of trafficking in persons or on a vulnerable person.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention.Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the Government’s information, in its report, on the adoption of Act No. 51/2018 of 13 August 2018 relating to the prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons and exploitation of others, which repeals the provisions of the Criminal Code criminalizing trafficking in persons. The Committee welcomes the fact that, in addition to provisions criminalizing trafficking in persons and establishing stringent penalties of imprisonment (section 18), Act No. 51/2018 also includes provisions on the prevention of trafficking, and on providing protection and assistance to the victims (sections 7 to 15). It notes the Government’s indication that several awareness-raising and training activities were undertaken on trafficking in persons, more particularly for law enforcement institutions regarding the identification, investigation and prosecution of cases of trafficking in persons. The Government adds that, in 2019, the Rwanda Bureau of Investigation opened 63 cases of transnational trafficking in persons (41 for forced labour and 22 for sexual exploitation). Furthermore, 64 individuals were arrested for trafficking in persons, of whom 9 were prosecuted. Two individuals were convicted and sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine.

The Committee notes that, according to the findings of research undertaken in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), in 2018, Rwanda is a transit country and, to a lesser extent, a country of origin for trafficking in persons. Data from the Department of Immigration and Emigration (DGIE) show that the majority of the suspected victims of trafficking in persons identified were women (77.67 per cent) and were mainly from neighbouring countries, and that Middle East Countries and East African Countries are the most frequent destination. The Committee notes that, in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Government indicated that the findings of this research informed the drafting of the National Action Plan on counter-human trafficking which was at the stage of adoption by the Cabinet in November 2020 (A/HRC/WG.6/37/RWA/1, 9 November 2020, paragraph 107). It further notes that, in its 2021 concluding observations, the United Nations Committee on Migrant Workers expressed concern at the limited knowledge about trafficking in persons and the challenges in evidence-gathering as one of the main causes of the low conviction rate for the crime of trafficking in persons as compared with other crimes (CMW/C/RWA/CO/2, paragraph 53). The Committee requests the Government to pursue its efforts to combat trafficking in persons for both labour exploitation and sexual exploitation, including through the swift adoption of the draft National Action Plan on counter-human trafficking. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this context to ensure adequate protection of victims of trafficking and strengthen the capacity of the law enforcement authorities to identify, investigate and prosecute cases of trafficking. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number of cases investigated and prosecuted, the number of convictions handed down and the penalties imposed.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. For a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that sections 2(2), 3, 5 and 13 of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 on community work, go well beyond the exception allowed in Article 2(2)(e) of the Convention for minor communal services. It noted that, pursuant to Act No. 53/2007, community work, referred to as Umuganda, shall aim to promote development activities in the framework of supporting the national budget and that every Rwandan from 18 to 65 years old shall have the obligation to perform community works, which shall take place on the last Saturday of every month. Persons who fail to participate without justified reasons are punishable by a fine. The Committee noted from the information provided by the Government that infrastructure construction was one of the main activities.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Umuganda isthe gathering of efforts of many people in order for them to carry out a general public interest activity. These community works shall be considereda civic obligation for Rwandan citizens, as provided for in Article 2(2)(b) of the Convention. In that regard, the Committee emphasizes that the exception of “normal civic obligations” provided for under this provision of the Convention should be understood in a very restrictive way. Three kinds of such “normal civic obligations” are specifically mentioned in the Convention as exceptions to its scope, namely: compulsory military service, work or service in cases of emergency and “minor communal services”. Thus, it is not possible to consider, within the meaning of the Convention, “normal civic obligations” to be work undertaken for public purposes, such as compulsory public works of general importance or compulsory national development service, which is prohibited by the Convention (see , paragraph 277). Furthermore, the Committee recalls that “minor communal services” do not constitute forced labour only if certain criteria are met: (i) the services must be “minor”, such as relating primarily to maintenance work; (ii) the services must be performed in the direct interest of the community and not relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; and (iii) the community which has to perform the services, or their “direct” representative, must be consulted in regard to the need for such services. Noting that the large-scale participation in Umuganda is compulsory and infrastructure construction is one of the main activities, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to review the provisions of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 to ensure compliance with the Convention, whether by ensuring that participation in community works is voluntary or by limiting their scope to the exception of “minor communal services”. It requests the Government to continue to provide examples of the types of community works that can be required of the population under Act No. 53/2007.

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

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

The Committee notes with concern 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

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Trafficking in persons. The Committee previously noted that the revised Penal Code (Law No. 01/2012/OL of 2 May 2012) includes provisions criminalizing trafficking in persons and establishes penalties of seven to ten years of imprisonment and a fine for internal trafficking, and up to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine for transnational trafficking, under sections 250–263. The Committee also noted that the first Annual Inter-ministerial National Consultative Forum on human trafficking, drug abuse and gender-based violence was held in Parliament in October 2014 which adopted a National Action Plan (NAP) to Combat Trafficking effective until 2016.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that the Penal Code is under review, including provisions related to human trafficking. Moreover, a special law on human trafficking is at the drafting stage, aimed at addressing the prevention and punishment of trafficking, as well as the protection of victims. The Committee also notes that the National Prosecution Bureau has filed 14 cases to the courts, of which eight persons were convicted and received penalties of up to ten years’ imprisonment. Moreover, the Government has established the Law Enforcement Academy and developed a training manual for both authorities and the public. Since 2015, 39 prosecutors and 34 judicial officers have received training on human trafficking. The Committee further notes that a Special Unit on Human Trafficking was established and that the police services have been extended to remote areas through the mobile police station and the Mobile Isange One Stop Centre. The Government has also enhanced information-sharing between the national police and the Immigration Bureau, and organized several meetings at regional and international levels within the framework of the East African Community (EAC), the Eastern Africa Police Chiefs Cooperation Organization (EAPCCO) and the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol). However, the Committee notes that the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) expressed its concern in its concluding observations of 9 March 2017, at the relatively low number of prosecutions and conviction of traffickers, inter alia because of insufficient resources allocated to law enforcement (CEDAW/C/RWA/CO/7-9, paragraph 26). The Committee therefore requests the Government to pursue its efforts to strengthen the capacity of the law enforcement authorities, including police officers, prosecutors and judges, particularly by providing appropriate training and allocating sufficient resources. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information on the application in practice of sections 250–263 of the Penal Code criminalizing trafficking in persons, including on the number of convictions and specific penalties applied. Noting the NAP 2014–16 has ended, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved through the application of the NAP, and to indicate whether it will be renewed for a second phase.

2. Punishment of vagrancy. The Committee previously noted that the revised Penal Code limits, under section 687, the punishment of vagrancy to cases that impair public order. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the status of the previous regulations according to which the mere fact of living as a vagrant was punishable by a period “at the disposal” of the Government during which work was compulsory. The Government indicated that Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975, establishing rehabilitation and production centres for vagrant people had become obsolete. The Committee requested the Government to confirm that the rehabilitation and production centres were closed.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 has been repealed by Law No. 01/2012 of 2 May 2012 instituting the Penal Code. However, the Government indicates that the rehabilitation and production centres are still in operation so that the vagrants and beggars are helped and re-integrated in their families and benefit from re education and social services. The Committee also notes that, pursuant to section 687 of the Penal Code, four cases of vagrancy were prosecuted by the National Public Prosecution Authority. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether vagrants and beggars admitted at the rehabilitation and production centre are required to perform work or participate in production activities.

3. Freedom of career members of the armed forces to leave their employment. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 85 of Presidential Order No.72/01 of 8 July 2002 establishing the army general statute, the member of the armed forces has to submit a written application for resignation to the competent authority which has 90 days to issue a decision and if the authority does not issue a decision within this time limit, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that in practice the competent authorities cannot refuse the resignation of career members of the armed forces within a reasonable period. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the number of applications to resign submitted by military staff that have been refused, indicating the grounds of the refusal.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 87 of Presidential Order No. 32/01 of 3 September 2012, establishing the special statute of the Defence Forces, addresses the procedures governing the applications for cessation of services, which also provides for 90 days for the competent authority to handle the request. The Government also indicates that all applications for cessation of service in the armed forces were granted.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. 1. Prison labour. The Committee previously noted that prison work may be carried out for the benefit of private bodies and that, according to Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service, a prisoner may be requested or can himself/herself request to perform work, but he/she cannot be forced to perform work. Besides, if such activities are income-generating, 10 per cent of the person’s earnings is allocated to him/her and strict compliance is required to respect occupational health and safety and social security provisions of the labour law. The Committee requested the Government to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that when the consent of a prisoner is provided or the permission is granted by the competent authority upon the request of a prisoner to perform work, the concerned prisoner shall not be forced to work beyond his/her capacity or perform work that degrades him/her. The Government also indicates that the prisoner may appeal to the Commissioner if his/her consent is not respected. The case may also be referred to the public procuratorate under the Penal Code. The Committee also notes that prisoners are allocated one day off per week and sufficient time for education and other activities as part of the treatment and rehabilitation.

The Committee recalls that, by virtue of Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, compulsory labour of convicted persons is excluded from the scope of the Convention, only if it is “carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority” and that such persons are not “hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations”, regardless of the purpose or the nature of the work undertaken. The Committee once again recalls that work by prisoners for private enterprises can be held compatible with the Convention only where the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that such work is not compulsory, but is carried out with the formal, informed and freely given consent of the person concerned, and that the conditions of such work approximate those of a free labour relationship. The Committee finally notes that samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour are not attached to the report, as indicated in the Government’s report. The Committee requests the Government to specify the manner in which the prisoners formally give their free, formal and informed consent to work for private enterprises, in practice. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour.

2. Sentence involving the performance of community work. The Committee previously noted section 48 of the Penal Code providing for community service as an alternative penalty to imprisonment (Travaux d’Intérêt Général, TIG) when an offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to five years. Community service can also be imposed in case of failure to comply with the court’s orders or to pay the whole debt arising from an offence (sections 48 and 49 of the Penal Code). The Committee also noted that, under article 56 of Law No. 34/2010, a person under TIG shall enjoy all rights of the prisoners provided for by the law.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, according to section 32 of the Presidential Order No. 10/01 of 7 March 2005 determining the modalities of implementation of community service, the community service is carried out three days per week, on the request by the host institution and with the consent of the convict. The Government also indicates that persons working under TIG are obliged to perform activities such as tree planting, renovation of bridges, construction of schools, building houses for victims of the genocide, cleaning the community and so on.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. In its previous comments, the Committee had been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that sections 2(2), 3 and 13 of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 on community work, go well beyond the exception allowed in Article 2(2)(e) of the Convention for minor communal services. The Committee noted that pursuant to sections 2 and 3, community work shall aim to promote development activities in the framework of supporting the national budget and that every Rwandan from 18 to 65 years old shall have the obligation to perform community works. Its section 4 provides that community work shall take place on the last Saturday of every month from 8 a.m. and shall last at least for three hours. The community work is unpaid (section 5) and persons who fail to participate without justified reasons are punishable by a fine not exceeding 5,000 Rwandan francs (section 13). The Government indicated that the participation in community work should be considered as minor services because it gives minimum contribution to the community itself without considering benefits to a few specific groups. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the type of work carried out under community services.

The Committee notes the absence of new information in the Government’s report. However, the Committee notes that, according to a report of the Rwanda Governance Board in 2017, the community services, referred to as Umuganda, involved about 91.3 per cent of the Rwandan population in 2015–16. The report also indicates that Umuganda has mainly contributed to environment protection through erosion control, tree planting, and cleaning, as well as to developing, building and maintaining different infrastructure, including the construction of roads, houses for vulnerable people, public offices, health centres and schools. For example, from 2009 to 2013, the estimated monetary value of community work attained 61.9 per cent of the total cost for the construction of classrooms, while the Government’s contribution only accounted for 36.62 per cent. The Committee therefore once again recalls that minor communal services may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only if certain criteria are met and that, inter alia, the services must be “minor services”, that is, relating primarily to maintenance work and, in exceptional cases, to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself. Noting that the large-scale participation in Umuganda is compulsory and that the infrastructure construction is one of the main activities, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that community services are limited to “minor services”, which constitute an exception to forced labour as provided for in the Convention.

Article 25. Penal sanctions for the exaction of forced labour. The Committee previously noted that, under section 167 of Act No. 13/2009 of 25 May 2009, issuing regulations on labour in Rwanda, anyone convicted of forced labour is liable to a prison term of three months to five years, a fine, or one of these penalties. The Committee further noted that the revised Penal Code includes provisions criminalizing forced labour and establishes penalties ranging from six months to two years of imprisonment and a fine, or one of these penalties, under section 178. Noting that the provision of the revised Penal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment which are lower than the sanctions provided under section 167 of the abovementioned Act No. 13/2009, and that according to both provisions forced labour may be punished only with a fine, the Committee recalled that under Article 25 of the Convention, penal sanctions imposed by law for exaction of forced labour must be really adequate and strictly enforced.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, in the ongoing process of labour law review, the sanctions for forced labour are proposed to be removed and integrated into the Penal Code, which is also under review. The Government indicates that the revised sanctions provided under the Penal Code will be adequate. The Committee also notes that in collaboration with different stakeholders, the Government has organized training for labour inspectors and social partners to enforce the labour law and its implementing orders. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the sanctions provided under the revised Penal Code for the exaction of forced labour are really adequate, and to provide a copy of the revised law once adopted.

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

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

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Trafficking in persons. The Committee previously noted that the revised Penal Code (Law No. 01/2012/OL of 2 May 2012) includes provisions criminalizing trafficking in persons and establishes penalties of seven to ten years of imprisonment and a fine for internal trafficking, and up to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine for transnational trafficking, under sections 250–263. The Committee also noted that the first Annual Inter-ministerial National Consultative Forum on human trafficking, drug abuse and gender-based violence was held in Parliament in October 2014 which adopted a National Action Plan (NAP) to Combat Trafficking effective until 2016.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that the Penal Code is under review, including provisions related to human trafficking. Moreover, a special law on human trafficking is at the drafting stage, aimed at addressing the prevention and punishment of trafficking, as well as the protection of victims. The Committee also notes that the National Prosecution Bureau has filed 14 cases to the courts, of which eight persons were convicted and received penalties of up to ten years’ imprisonment. Moreover, the Government has established the Law Enforcement Academy and developed a training manual for both authorities and the public. Since 2015, 39 prosecutors and 34 judicial officers have received training on human trafficking. The Committee further notes that a Special Unit on Human Trafficking was established and that the police services have been extended to remote areas through the mobile police station and the Mobile Isange One Stop Centre. The Government has also enhanced information-sharing between the national police and the Immigration Bureau, and organized several meetings at regional and international levels within the framework of the East African Community (EAC), the Eastern Africa Police Chiefs Cooperation Organization (EAPCCO) and the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol). However, the Committee notes that the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) expressed its concern in its concluding observations of 9 March 2017, at the relatively low number of prosecutions and conviction of traffickers, inter alia because of insufficient resources allocated to law enforcement (CEDAW/C/RWA/CO/7-9, paragraph 26). The Committee therefore requests the Government to pursue its efforts to strengthen the capacity of the law enforcement authorities, including police officers, prosecutors and judges, particularly by providing appropriate training and allocating sufficient resources. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information on the application in practice of sections 250–263 of the Penal Code criminalizing trafficking in persons, including on the number of convictions and specific penalties applied. Noting the NAP 2014–16 has ended, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved through the application of the NAP, and to indicate whether it will be renewed for a second phase.

2. Punishment of vagrancy. The Committee previously noted that the revised Penal Code limits, under section 687, the punishment of vagrancy to cases that impair public order. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the status of the previous regulations according to which the mere fact of living as a vagrant was punishable by a period “at the disposal” of the Government during which work was compulsory. The Government indicated that Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975, establishing rehabilitation and production centres for vagrant people had become obsolete. The Committee requested the Government to confirm that the rehabilitation and production centres were closed.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 has been repealed by Law No. 01/2012 of 2 May 2012 instituting the Penal Code. However, the Government indicates that the rehabilitation and production centres are still in operation so that the vagrants and beggars are helped and re-integrated in their families and benefit from re education and social services. The Committee also notes that, pursuant to section 687 of the Penal Code, four cases of vagrancy were prosecuted by the National Public Prosecution Authority. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether vagrants and beggars admitted at the rehabilitation and production centre are required to perform work or participate in production activities.

3. Freedom of career members of the armed forces to leave their employment. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 85 of Presidential Order No. 72/01 of 8 July 2002 establishing the army general statute, the member of the armed forces has to submit a written application for resignation to the competent authority which has 90 days to issue a decision and if the authority does not issue a decision within this time limit, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that in practice the competent authorities cannot refuse the resignation of career members of the armed forces within a reasonable period. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the number of applications to resign submitted by military staff that have been refused, indicating the grounds of the refusal.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 87 of Presidential Order No. 32/01 of 3 September 2012, establishing the special statute of the Defence Forces, addresses the procedures governing the applications for cessation of services, which also provides for 90 days for the competent authority to handle the request. The Government also indicates that all applications for cessation of service in the armed forces were granted.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. 1. Prison labour. The Committee previously noted that prison work may be carried out for the benefit of private bodies and that, according to Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service, a prisoner may be requested or can himself/herself request to perform work, but he/she cannot be forced to perform work. Besides, if such activities are income-generating, 10 per cent of the person’s earnings is allocated to him/her and strict compliance is required to respect occupational health and safety and social security provisions of the labour law. The Committee requested the Government to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that when the consent of a prisoner is provided or the permission is granted by the competent authority upon the request of a prisoner to perform work, the concerned prisoner shall not be forced to work beyond his/her capacity or perform work that degrades him/her. The Government also indicates that the prisoner may appeal to the Commissioner if his/her consent is not respected. The case may also be referred to the public procuratorate under the Penal Code. The Committee also notes that prisoners are allocated one day off per week and sufficient time for education and other activities as part of the treatment and rehabilitation.

The Committee recalls that, by virtue of Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, compulsory labour of convicted persons is excluded from the scope of the Convention, only if it is “carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority” and that such persons are not “hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations”, regardless of the purpose or the nature of the work undertaken. The Committee once again recalls that work by prisoners for private enterprises can be held compatible with the Convention only where the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that such work is not compulsory, but is carried out with the formal, informed and freely given consent of the person concerned, and that the conditions of such work approximate those of a free labour relationship. The Committee finally notes that samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour are not attached to the report, as indicated in the Government’s report. The Committee requests the Government to specify the manner in which the prisoners formally give their free, formal and informed consent to work for private enterprises, in practice. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour.

2. Sentence involving the performance of community work. The Committee previously noted section 48 of the Penal Code providing for community service as an alternative penalty to imprisonment (Travaux d’Intérêt Général, TIG) when an offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to five years. Community service can also be imposed in case of failure to comply with the court’s orders or to pay the whole debt arising from an offence (sections 48 and 49 of the Penal Code). The Committee also noted that, under article 56 of Law No. 34/2010, a person under TIG shall enjoy all rights of the prisoners provided for by the law.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, according to section 32 of the Presidential Order No. 10/01 of 7 March 2005 determining the modalities of implementation of community service, the community service is carried out three days per week, on the request by the host institution and with the consent of the convict. The Government also indicates that persons working under TIG are obliged to perform activities such as tree planting, renovation of bridges, construction of schools, building houses for victims of the genocide, cleaning the community and so on.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. In its previous comments, the Committee had been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that sections 2(2), 3 and 13 of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 on community work, go well beyond the exception allowed in Article 2(2)(e) of the Convention for minor communal services. The Committee noted that pursuant to sections 2 and 3, community work shall aim to promote development activities in the framework of supporting the national budget and that every Rwandan from 18 to 65 years old shall have the obligation to perform community works. Its section 4 provides that community work shall take place on the last Saturday of every month from 8 a.m. and shall last at least for three hours. The community work is unpaid (section 5) and persons who fail to participate without justified reasons are punishable by a fine not exceeding 5,000 Rwandan francs (section 13). The Government indicated that the participation in community work should be considered as minor services because it gives minimum contribution to the community itself without considering benefits to a few specific groups. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the type of work carried out under community services.

The Committee notes the absence of new information in the Government’s report. However, the Committee notes that, according to a report of the Rwanda Governance Board in 2017, the community services, referred to as Umuganda, involved about 91.3 per cent of the Rwandan population in 2015–16. The report also indicates that Umuganda has mainly contributed to environment protection through erosion control, tree planting, and cleaning, as well as to developing, building and maintaining different infrastructure, including the construction of roads, houses for vulnerable people, public offices, health centres and schools. For example, from 2009 to 2013, the estimated monetary value of community work attained 61.9 per cent of the total cost for the construction of classrooms, while the Government’s contribution only accounted for 36.62 per cent. The Committee therefore once again recalls that minor communal services may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only if certain criteria are met and that, inter alia, the services must be “minor services”, that is, relating primarily to maintenance work and, in exceptional cases, to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself. Noting that the large-scale participation in Umuganda is compulsory and that the infrastructure construction is one of the main activities, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that community services are limited to “minor services”, which constitute an exception to forced labour as provided for in the Convention.

Article 25. Penal sanctions for the exaction of forced labour. The Committee previously noted that, under section 167 of Act No. 13/2009 of 25 May 2009, issuing regulations on labour in Rwanda, anyone convicted of forced labour is liable to a prison term of three months to five years, a fine, or one of these penalties. The Committee further noted that the revised Penal Code includes provisions criminalizing forced labour and establishes penalties ranging from six months to two years of imprisonment and a fine, or one of these penalties, under section 178. Noting that the provision of the revised Penal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment which are lower than the sanctions provided under section 167 of the abovementioned Act No. 13/2009, and that according to both provisions forced labour may be punished only with a fine, the Committee recalled that under Article 25 of the Convention, penal sanctions imposed by law for exaction of forced labour must be really adequate and strictly enforced.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, in the ongoing process of labour law review, the sanctions for forced labour are proposed to be removed and integrated into the Penal Code, which is also under review. The Government indicates that the revised sanctions provided under the Penal Code will be adequate. The Committee also notes that in collaboration with different stakeholders, the Government has organized training for labour inspectors and social partners to enforce the labour law and its implementing orders. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the sanctions provided under the revised Penal Code for the exaction of forced labour are really adequate, and to provide a copy of the revised law once adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Trafficking in persons. The Committee previously noted that the revised Penal Code (Law No. 01/2012/OL of 2 May 2012) includes provisions criminalizing trafficking in persons and establishes penalties of seven to ten years of imprisonment and a fine for internal trafficking, and up to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine for transnational trafficking, under sections 250–263. The Committee also noted that the first Annual Inter-ministerial National Consultative Forum on human trafficking, drug abuse and gender-based violence was held in Parliament in October 2014 which adopted a National Action Plan (NAP) to Combat Trafficking effective until 2016.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that the Penal Code is under review, including provisions related to human trafficking. Moreover, a special law on human trafficking is at the drafting stage, aimed at addressing the prevention and punishment of trafficking, as well as the protection of victims. The Committee also notes that the National Prosecution Bureau has filed 14 cases to the courts, of which eight persons were convicted and received penalties of up to ten years’ imprisonment. Moreover, the Government has established the Law Enforcement Academy and developed a training manual for both authorities and the public. Since 2015, 39 prosecutors and 34 judicial officers have received training on human trafficking. The Committee further notes that a Special Unit on Human Trafficking was established and that the police services have been extended to remote areas through the mobile police station and the Mobile Isange One Stop Centre. The Government has also enhanced information-sharing between the national police and the Immigration Bureau, and organized several meetings at regional and international levels within the framework of the East African Community (EAC), the Eastern Africa Police Chiefs Cooperation Organization (EAPCCO) and the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol). However, the Committee notes that the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) expressed its concern in its concluding observations of 9 March 2017, at the relatively low number of prosecutions and conviction of traffickers, inter alia because of insufficient resources allocated to law enforcement (CEDAW/C/RWA/CO/7-9, paragraph 26). The Committee therefore requests the Government to pursue its efforts to strengthen the capacity of the law enforcement authorities, including police officers, prosecutors and judges, particularly by providing appropriate training and allocating sufficient resources. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information on the application in practice of sections 250–263 of the Penal Code criminalizing trafficking in persons, including on the number of convictions and specific penalties applied. Noting the NAP 2014–16 has ended, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved through the application of the NAP, and to indicate whether it will be renewed for a second phase.

2. Punishment of vagrancy. The Committee previously noted that the revised Penal Code limits, under section 687, the punishment of vagrancy to cases that impair public order. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the status of the previous regulations according to which the mere fact of living as a vagrant was punishable by a period “at the disposal” of the Government during which work was compulsory. The Government indicated that Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975, establishing rehabilitation and production centres for vagrant people had become obsolete. The Committee requested the Government to confirm that the rehabilitation and production centres were closed.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 has been repealed by Law No. 01/2012 of 2 May 2012 instituting the Penal Code. However, the Government indicates that the rehabilitation and production centres are still in operation so that the vagrants and beggars are helped and re-integrated in their families and benefit from re education and social services. The Committee also notes that, pursuant to section 687 of the Penal Code, four cases of vagrancy were prosecuted by the National Public Prosecution Authority. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether vagrants and beggars admitted at the rehabilitation and production centre are required to perform work or participate in production activities.

3. Freedom of career members of the armed forces to leave their employment. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 85 of Presidential Order No. 72/01 of 8 July 2002 establishing the army general statute, the member of the armed forces has to submit a written application for resignation to the competent authority which has 90 days to issue a decision and if the authority does not issue a decision within this time limit, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that in practice the competent authorities cannot refuse the resignation of career members of the armed forces within a reasonable period. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the number of applications to resign submitted by military staff that have been refused, indicating the grounds of the refusal.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 87 of Presidential Order No. 32/01 of 3 September 2012, establishing the special statute of the Defence Forces, addresses the procedures governing the applications for cessation of services, which also provides for 90 days for the competent authority to handle the request. The Government also indicates that all applications for cessation of service in the armed forces were granted.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. 1. Prison labour. The Committee previously noted that prison work may be carried out for the benefit of private bodies and that, according to Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service, a prisoner may be requested or can himself/herself request to perform work, but he/she cannot be forced to perform work. Besides, if such activities are income-generating, 10 per cent of the person’s earnings is allocated to him/her and strict compliance is required to respect occupational health and safety and social security provisions of the labour law. The Committee requested the Government to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that when the consent of a prisoner is provided or the permission is granted by the competent authority upon the request of a prisoner to perform work, the concerned prisoner shall not be forced to work beyond his/her capacity or perform work that degrades him/her. The Government also indicates that the prisoner may appeal to the Commissioner if his/her consent is not respected. The case may also be referred to the public procuratorate under the Penal Code. The Committee also notes that prisoners are allocated one day off per week and sufficient time for education and other activities as part of the treatment and rehabilitation.

The Committee recalls that, by virtue of Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, compulsory labour of convicted persons is excluded from the scope of the Convention, only if it is “carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority” and that such persons are not “hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations”, regardless of the purpose or the nature of the work undertaken. The Committee once again recalls that work by prisoners for private enterprises can be held compatible with the Convention only where the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that such work is not compulsory, but is carried out with the formal, informed and freely given consent of the person concerned, and that the conditions of such work approximate those of a free labour relationship. The Committee finally notes that samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour are not attached to the report, as indicated in the Government’s report. The Committee requests the Government to specify the manner in which the prisoners formally give their free, formal and informed consent to work for private enterprises, in practice. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour.

2. Sentence involving the performance of community work. The Committee previously noted section 48 of the Penal Code providing for community service as an alternative penalty to imprisonment (Travaux d’Intérêt Général, TIG) when an offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to five years. Community service can also be imposed in case of failure to comply with the court’s orders or to pay the whole debt arising from an offence (sections 48 and 49 of the Penal Code). The Committee also noted that, under article 56 of Law No. 34/2010, a person under TIG shall enjoy all rights of the prisoners provided for by the law.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, according to section 32 of the Presidential Order No. 10/01 of 7 March 2005 determining the modalities of implementation of community service, the community service is carried out three days per week, on the request by the host institution and with the consent of the convict. The Government also indicates that persons working under TIG are obliged to perform activities such as tree planting, renovation of bridges, construction of schools, building houses for victims of the genocide, cleaning the community and so on.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. In its previous comments, the Committee had been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that sections 2(2), 3 and 13 of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 on community work, go well beyond the exception allowed in Article 2(2)(e) of the Convention for minor communal services. The Committee noted that pursuant to sections 2 and 3, community work shall aim to promote development activities in the framework of supporting the national budget and that every Rwandan from 18 to 65 years old shall have the obligation to perform community works. Its section 4 provides that community work shall take place on the last Saturday of every month from 8 a.m. and shall last at least for three hours. The community work is unpaid (section 5) and persons who fail to participate without justified reasons are punishable by a fine not exceeding 5,000 Rwandan francs (section 13). The Government indicated that the participation in community work should be considered as minor services because it gives minimum contribution to the community itself without considering benefits to a few specific groups. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the type of work carried out under community services.

The Committee notes the absence of new information in the Government’s report. However, the Committee notes that, according to a report of the Rwanda Governance Board in 2017, the community services, referred to as Umuganda, involved about 91.3 per cent of the Rwandan population in 2015–16. The report also indicates that Umuganda has mainly contributed to environment protection through erosion control, tree planting, and cleaning, as well as to developing, building and maintaining different infrastructure, including the construction of roads, houses for vulnerable people, public offices, health centres and schools. For example, from 2009 to 2013, the estimated monetary value of community work attained 61.9 per cent of the total cost for the construction of classrooms, while the Government’s contribution only accounted for 36.62 per cent. The Committee therefore once again recalls that minor communal services may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only if certain criteria are met and that, inter alia, the services must be “minor services”, that is, relating primarily to maintenance work and, in exceptional cases, to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself. Noting that the large-scale participation in Umuganda is compulsory and that the infrastructure construction is one of the main activities, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that community services are limited to “minor services”, which constitute an exception to forced labour as provided for in the Convention.

Article 25. Penal sanctions for the exaction of forced labour. The Committee previously noted that, under section 167 of Act No. 13/2009 of 25 May 2009, issuing regulations on labour in Rwanda, anyone convicted of forced labour is liable to a prison term of three months to five years, a fine, or one of these penalties. The Committee further noted that the revised Penal Code includes provisions criminalizing forced labour and establishes penalties ranging from six months to two years of imprisonment and a fine, or one of these penalties, under section 178. Noting that the provision of the revised Penal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment which are lower than the sanctions provided under section 167 of the abovementioned Act No. 13/2009, and that according to both provisions forced labour may be punished only with a fine, the Committee recalled that under Article 25 of the Convention, penal sanctions imposed by law for exaction of forced labour must be really adequate and strictly enforced.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, in the ongoing process of labour law review, the sanctions for forced labour are proposed to be removed and integrated into the Penal Code, which is also under review. The Government indicates that the revised sanctions provided under the Penal Code will be adequate. The Committee also notes that in collaboration with different stakeholders, the Government has organized training for labour inspectors and social partners to enforce the labour law and its implementing orders. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the sanctions provided under the revised Penal Code for the exaction of forced labour are really adequate, and to provide a copy of the revised law once adopted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the Decree of 23 May 1896 on vagrancy and begging, read together with Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 establishing rehabilitation and production centres, the mere fact of living as a vagrant is punishable by a period “at the disposal” of the Government during which work is compulsory. The Committee recalled that, by defining the offence of vagrancy too broadly – the simple fact of not working may constitute an offence – and by placing such persons at the disposal of the Government, these provisions afford a direct and indirect means of exacting compulsory labour, which is contrary to the Convention. The Committee also noted that these provisions make vagrancy punishable by a prison sentence of two to six months but do not refer to breaches of public order or unlawful activities on the part of vagrant persons.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that article 687 of the revised Penal Code (Law No. 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012) defines vagrancy as behaviour of a person who has no fixed abode and has no regular occupation or profession, in the way it impairs public order and, accordingly, vagrancy will be punishable when it disrupts public order. The Government further indicates that it has undertaken measures to help vagrant and idle people to get skills through vocational training so they can get employed or self-employed and give up their vagrant and idle lives. While noting that the new Penal Code seems to repeal Decree of 23 May 1896 on vagrancy and begging, and limits the punishment of vagrancy to cases of breach of public order, the Committee asks the Government to indicate whether this implies that Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 establishing rehabilitation and production centres, is no longer in force and therefore that vagrant people are no longer “at the disposal” of the Government for a period of time during which work is compulsory.

2. Freedom of career members of the armed forces to leave the service. Referring to its previous comments regarding the resignation of members of the armed forces, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that their resignation may not be accepted amongst other grounds when the competent authorities deem it necessary for the person to continue to serve in the army.

The Committee recalls that career military personnel may not be denied the right to leave the service in peace time within a reasonable period, for example, by means of notice of reasonable length (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, paragraph 290). As the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the measures taken or envisaged to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. In the meantime, it again asks the Government to indicate the number of applications to resign by military staff that has been refused, indicating the grounds for refusal.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. In its previous comments, the Committee noted Ministerial Decree No. 001/08/08 of 14 February 2008 setting forth the activities of prison inmates, and the Government’s statement that prison work may also be carried out for the benefit of private bodies. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that any work or service undertaken by prisoners for private bodies is carried out in conditions approximating a free labour relationship.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 50 of Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service provides that a prisoner may be requested or can himself/herself request to perform work, but he/she cannot be forced to perform work. Besides, if such activities are income generating, 10 per cent of what the person earns is allocated to him/her and strict compliance is required to respect occupational health and safety and social security provisions of the labour law. Noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour, as well as information on their working conditions. Please provide a copy of Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. Over a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that sections 2(2), 3 and 13 of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 on community work go well beyond the exception allowed in Article 2(2)(e) for minor communal services. It requested the Government to take the necessary measures to review the abovementioned Act, in order to meet the criteria that exclude minor communal services from the scope of the Convention.

The Committee notes that the Government once again indicates that community works aim at promoting development activities in the village’s communities to improve the social conditions of the population. This includes maintenance work, and the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community, which is performed in the direct interest of the community, and the community at village level determines what must be done.

Noting this indication, the Committee nevertheless observes that section 13 of the abovementioned legislation still appears to go beyond the exceptions allowed by the Convention, as it provides for penalties for failure to take part in community work. The Committee therefore, recalls once again that minor communal services may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only if certain criteria are met: (i) the services must be “minor services”, i.e. relating primarily to maintenance work and, in exceptional cases, to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself; (ii) the services must be performed in the direct interest of the community and not relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; and (iii) the members of the community itself, i.e. the community which has to perform the services, or their “direct” representative (e.g. the village council) must have the right to be consulted with regard to the need for such services (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, paragraph 281). The Committee therefore, once again, expresses the hope that Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 on community work will be repealed in the near future and the legislation will be brought into compliance with the Convention. It asks the Government to provide in its next report information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 25. Application of really adequate penalties. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 167 of Act No. 13/2009 of 25 May 2009 issuing regulations on labour in Rwanda, anyone convicted of forced labour is liable to a prison term of three months to five years and a fine of 500,000 to 2 million Rwandan francs (RWF) (approximately US$800 to US$3,000). It requested the Government to provide information on any prosecutions for use of forced labour and any penalties imposed.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there has been no case of prosecutions with respect to the use of forced labour and any penalties. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information in its future reports on any prosecutions for the use of forced labour and any penalties, as soon as available.

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

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the Decree of 23 May 1896 on vagrancy and begging, read together with Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 establishing rehabilitation and production centres, the mere fact of living as a vagrant is punishable by a period “at the disposal” of the Government during which work is compulsory. The Committee recalled that, by defining the offence of vagrancy too broadly – the simple fact of not working may constitute an offence – and by placing such persons at the disposal of the Government, these provisions afford a direct and indirect means of exacting compulsory labour, which is contrary to the Convention. The Committee also noted that these provisions make vagrancy punishable by a prison sentence of two to six months but do not refer to breaches of public order or unlawful activities on the part of vagrant persons.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that article 687 of the revised Penal Code (Law No. 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012) defines vagrancy as behaviour of a person who has no fixed abode and has no regular occupation or profession, in the way it impairs public order and, accordingly, vagrancy will be punishable when it disrupts public order. The Government further indicates that it has undertaken measures to help vagrant and idle people to get skills through vocational training so they can get employed or self-employed and give up their vagrant and idle lives. While noting that the new Penal Code seems to repeal Decree of 23 May 1896 on vagrancy and begging, and limits the punishment of vagrancy to cases of breach of public order, the Committee asks the Government to indicate whether this implies that Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 establishing rehabilitation and production centres, is no longer in force and therefore that vagrant people are no longer “at the disposal” of the Government for a period of time during which work is compulsory.

2. Freedom of career members of the armed forces to leave the service. Referring to its previous comments regarding the resignation of members of the armed forces, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that their resignation may not be accepted amongst other grounds when the competent authorities deem it necessary for the person to continue to serve in the army.

The Committee recalls that career military personnel may not be denied the right to leave the service in peace time within a reasonable period, for example, by means of notice of reasonable length (paragraph 290 of the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work). As the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the measures taken or envisaged to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. In the meantime, it again asks the Government to indicate the number of applications to resign by military staff that has been refused, indicating the grounds for refusal.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. In its previous comments, the Committee noted Ministerial Decree No. 001/08/08 of 14 February 2008 setting forth the activities of prison inmates, and the Government’s statement that prison work may also be carried out for the benefit of private bodies. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that any work or service undertaken by prisoners for private bodies is carried out in conditions approximating a free labour relationship.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 50 of Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service provides that a prisoner may be requested or can himself/herself request to perform work, but he/she cannot be forced to perform work. Besides, if such activities are income generating, 10 per cent of what the person earns is allocated to him/her and strict compliance is required to respect occupational health and safety and social security provisions of the labour law. Noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour, as well as information on their working conditions. Please provide a copy of Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. Over a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that sections 2(2), 3 and 13 of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 on community work go well beyond the exception allowed in Article 2(2)(e) for minor communal services. It requested the Government to take the necessary measures to review the abovementioned Act, in order to meet the criteria that exclude minor communal services from the scope of the Convention.

The Committee notes that the Government once again indicates that community works aim at promoting development activities in the village’s communities to improve the social conditions of the population. This includes maintenance work, and the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community, which is performed in the direct interest of the community, and the community at village level determines what must be done.

Noting this indication, the Committee nevertheless observes that section 13 of the abovementioned legislation still appears to go beyond the exceptions allowed by the Convention, as it provides for penalties for failure to take part in community work. The Committee therefore, recalls once again that minor communal services may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only if certain criteria are met: (i) the services must be “minor services”, i.e. relating primarily to maintenance work and, in exceptional cases, to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself; (ii) the services must be performed in the direct interest of the community and not relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; and (iii) the members of the community itself, i.e. the community which has to perform the services, or their “direct” representative (e.g. the village council) must have the right to be consulted with regard to the need for such services (paragraph 281 of the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work). The Committee therefore, once again, expresses the hope that Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 on community work will be repealed in the near future and the legislation will be brought into compliance with the Convention. It asks the Government to provide in its next report information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 25. Application of really adequate penalties. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 167 of Act No. 13/2009 of 25 May 2009 issuing regulations on labour in Rwanda, anyone convicted of forced labour is liable to a prison term of three months to five years and a fine of 500,000 to 2 million Rwandan francs (RWF) (approximately US$800 to US$3,000). It requested the Government to provide information on any prosecutions for use of forced labour and any penalties imposed.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there has been no case of prosecutions with respect to the use of forced labour and any penalties. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information in its future reports on any prosecutions for the use of forced labour and any penalties, as soon as available.

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

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 matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the Decree of 23 May 1896 on vagrancy and begging, read together with Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 establishing rehabilitation and production centres, the mere fact of living as a vagrant is punishable by a period “at the disposal” of the Government during which work is compulsory. The Committee took the view that by defining the offence of vagrancy too broadly – the mere fact of not working constitutes grounds enough for a vagrancy charge – and by placing such persons at the disposal of the Government, these provisions afford a direct and indirect means of exacting labour, which is contrary to the Convention. The Committee also noted that these provisions make vagrancy punishable by a prison term of from two to six months but do not refer to breaches of public order or unlawful activities on the part of vagrant persons.

The Government stated that these provisions will be reviewed in the light of the current revision of the Penal Code. The Committee reiterates the hope that as part of this revision process, the Government will take the necessary steps to reconsider this matter with a view to ensuring that only idle persons who breach the public order by unlawful acts are liable to the penalties set in the legislation.

2. Freedom to leave employment. Referring to sections 116, 117 and 118 of Act No. 22/2002 issuing the general conditions of service of public servants, the Committee asked the Government in its previous comments whether public servants may be denied the right to resign. The Committee notes the standard training contract sent by the Government which states that the public employee must repay the amount disbursed by the public administration to finance training/studies if he/she resigns before completing two years of service. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information in its future reports on the practical application of the abovementioned provisions, including statistics on the numbers of acceptance and denial of applications to resign, and in particular the grounds for refusal.

With regard to applications to resign from military personnel, the Government states that their resignation may be denied amongst other grounds when the competent authorities deem it necessary for the person to continue to serve in the army. Referring to the explanations in paragraph 46 of the General Survey of 2007 on the Eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that career military personnel may not be denied the right to leave the service in peace time within a reasonable period, for example, by means of notice of reasonable length. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will provide information in its next report on the measures taken or envisaged to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. In the meantime, it again asks the Government to inform the number of applications to resign by military staff that have been refused, indicating the grounds for refusal.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. The Committee previously noted Ministerial Decree No. 001/08/08 of 14 February 2008 setting forth the activities of prison inmates, and the Government’s statement that prison work may also be carried out for the benefit of private bodies. The Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that according to Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only provided that: (i) the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority; and (ii) the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The Committee has always made it clear that these two conditions apply together: the fact that a prisoner remains at all times under the supervision and control of a public authority does not in itself relieve the Government of the duty to fulfil the second condition, namely that the prisoner shall not be hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations.

The Committee refers the Government to paragraphs 59–60 and 114–120 of its General Survey of 2007, on the eradication of forced labour, in which it points out that convict labour for private parties is compatible with the Convention only where it is not akin to compulsory work but, on the contrary, is carried out with the free consent of the prisoner and in conditions approximating a free labour relationship. The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will be taken both in law and in practice to ensure that any work or service undertaken by prisoners for private bodies is carried on in conditions approximating a free labour relationship, in other words with the formal consent of the prisoners concerned and with the guarantee of other safeguards that are essential to a free labour relationship, such as remuneration, occupational safety and health and social security. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee asks the Government to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private operators using prison labour, together with information on the working conditions of prisoners working for private bodies.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. In its previous comments the Committee took note of a communication from the Association of Christian Trade Unions (UMURIMO) containing allegations about the imposition of community work on the population and asserting that the provisions of the Act of 2007 on community work are not consistent with the Convention insofar as anyone fit for work is required to perform community work. The Committee asked the Government to provide examples of the tasks performed by way of community work and to specify the penalties that apply in the event of refusal.

The Committee noted that section 2(2) of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 establishing the community work regime provides that the purpose of community work is to promote the construction of infrastructure for the development of the country, as an addition to the input from the national budget; section 3 of the same Act lays down an obligation for all persons to perform such work, and section 13 provides for penalties for failure to take part in it. The Committee observed that these provisions appear to go well beyond the exception allowed in Article 2(2)(e) for minor communal services. It pointed out that minor communal services may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only if certain criteria are met: (i) the services must be “minor services”, i.e. relating primarily to maintenance work and, in exceptional cases, to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself; (ii) the services must be performed in the direct interest of the community and not relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; and (iii) the members of the community itself, i.e. the community which has to perform the services, or their “direct” representative (e.g. the village council) must have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services (General Survey of 2007, paragraph 65). The Committee accordingly asks the Government to reconsider the abovementioned provisions of Act No. 53/2007 on community work with a view to meeting the criteria that exclude minor communal services from the scope of the Convention.

Article 25. Application of really adequate penalties. The Committee previously noted section 167 of Act No. 13/2009 of 25 May 2009 issuing regulations on labour in Rwanda under which anyone convicted of forced labour is liable to a prison term of from three months to five years and a fine of from 500,000 to 2 million Rwandese francs. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any prosecutions for illegal use of forced or compulsory labour and any penalties imposed.

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

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the Decree of 23 May 1896 on vagrancy and begging, read together with Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 establishing rehabilitation and production centres, the mere fact of living as a vagrant is punishable by a period “at the disposal” of the Government during which work is compulsory. The Committee took the view that by defining the offence of vagrancy too broadly – the mere fact of not working constitutes grounds enough for a vagrancy charge – and by placing such persons at the disposal of the Government, these provisions afford a direct and indirect means of exacting labour, which is contrary to the Convention. The Committee also noted that these provisions make vagrancy punishable by a prison term of from two to six months but do not refer to breaches of public order or unlawful activities on the part of vagrant persons.

In its report the Government states that these provisions will be reviewed in the light of the current revision of the Penal Code. The Committee reiterates the hope that as part of this revision process, the Government will take the necessary steps to reconsider this matter with a view to ensuring that only idle persons who breach the public order by unlawful acts are liable to the penalties set in the legislation.

2. Freedom to leave employment. Referring to sections 116, 117 and 118 of Act No. 22/2002 issuing the general conditions of service of public servants, the Committee asked the Government in its previous comments whether public servants may be denied the right to resign. The Committee notes the standard training contract sent by the Government in its report which states that the public employee must repay the amount disbursed by the public administration to finance training/studies if he/she resigns before completing two years of service. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information in its future reports on the practical application of the abovementioned provisions, including statistics on the numbers of acceptance and denial of applications to resign, and in particular the grounds for refusal.

With regard to applications to resign from military personnel, the Government states that their resignation may be denied amongst other grounds when the competent authorities deem it necessary for the person to continue to serve in the army. Referring to the explanations in paragraph 46 of the General Survey of 2007 on the Eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that career military personnel may not be denied the right to leave the service in peace time within a reasonable period, for example, by means of notice of reasonable length. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will provide information in its next report on the measures taken or envisaged to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. In the meantime, it again asks the Government to inform the number of applications to resign by military staff that have been refused, indicating the grounds for refusal.

Article 2(2)(a). Work exacted under compulsory military service laws. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that there is no compulsory military service and hence no legislation on the matter.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. The Committee notes Ministerial Decree No. 001/08/08 of 14 February 2008 setting forth the activities of prison inmates, and the Government’s statement that prison work may also be carried out for the benefit of private bodies. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that according to Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only provided that: (i) the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority; and (ii) the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The Committee has always made it clear that these two conditions apply together: the fact that a prisoner remains at all times under the supervision and control of a public authority does not in itself relieve the Government of the duty to fulfil the second condition, namely that the prisoner shall not be hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations.

The Committee refers the Government to paragraphs 59–60 and 114–120 of its General Survey of 2007, on the eradication of forced labour, in which it points out that convict labour for private parties is compatible with the Convention only where it is not akin to compulsory work but, on the contrary, is carried out with the free consent of the prisoner and in conditions approximating a free labour relationship. The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will be taken both in law and in practice to ensure that any work or service undertaken by prisoners for private bodies is carried on in conditions approximating a free labour relationship, in other words with the formal consent of the prisoners concerned and with the guarantee of other safeguards that are essential to a free labour relationship, such as remuneration, occupational safety and health and social security. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee asks the Government to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private operators using prison labour, together with information on the working conditions of prisoners working for private bodies.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. In its previous comments the Committee took note of a communication from the Association of Christian Trade Unions (UMURIMO) containing allegations about the imposition of community work on the population and asserting that the provisions of the Act of 2007 on community work are not consistent with the Convention insofar as anyone fit for work is required to perform community work. The Committee asked the Government to provide examples of the tasks performed by way of community work and to specify the penalties that apply in the event of refusal.

The Committee noted that section 2(2) of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 establishing the community work regime provides that the purpose of community work is to promote the construction of infrastructure for the development of the country, as an addition to the input from the national budget; section 3 of the same Act lays down an obligation for all persons to perform such work, and section 13 provides for penalties for failure to take part in it. The Committee observes that these provisions appear to go well beyond the exception allowed in Article 2(2)(e) for minor communal services. It points out that minor communal services may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only if certain criteria are met: (i) the services must be “minor services”, i.e. relating primarily to maintenance work and, in exceptional cases, to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself; (ii) the services must be performed in the direct interest of the community and not relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; and (iii) the members of the community itself, i.e. the community which has to perform the services, or their “direct” representative (e.g. the village council) must have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services (General Survey of 2007, paragraph 65). The Committee accordingly asks the Government to reconsider the abovementioned provisions of Act No. 53/2007 on community work with a view to meeting the criteria that exclude minor communal services from the scope of the Convention.

Article 25. Application of really adequate penalties. The Committee notes section 167 of Act No. 13/2009 of 25 May 2009 issuing regulations on labour in Rwanda under which anyone convicted of forced labour is liable to a prison term of from three months to five years and a fine of from 500,000 to 2 million Rwandese francs. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any prosecutions for illegal use of forced or compulsory labour and any penalties imposed.

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

The Committee notes a communication received from the Association of Christian Trade Unions (UMURIMO), which contains allegations concerning the imposition of community work on the population. It notes that this communication was sent to the Government on 5 October 2009. The Committee asks the Government to respond to these allegations in its next report. Furthermore, 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 matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Articles 1 (paragraph 1), and 2 (paragraph 1), of the Convention. 
1. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, according to the Decree of 23 May 1896 on vagrancy and begging, read in conjunction with Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 establishing re‑education and production centres, the simple fact of living in a state of vagrancy is punishable by a term of being available to the Government during which work will be compulsory. The Committee considered that these provisions, by providing too broad a definition of the offence of vagrancy – the simple fact of not working may be treated as an offence – and by making these persons available to the Government, constitute a direct and indirect means of exacting labour, which is inconsistent with the Convention.

In reply, the Government refers to the provisions on vagrancy contained in the draft Penal Code (sections 513 and 514). According to these provisions, vagrancy is punishable by imprisonment for between two and six months or a fine, or both, and any idle person with no known place of residence or means of support and not carrying out a known profession is regarded as a vagrant. While noting that the draft Penal Code no longer seems to refer to making these persons available to the Government, the Committee observes that these persons remain liable to a prison sentence because of their idleness without any reference in the legislation to a disruption of public order or to the fact that these persons are engaged in unlawful activities. In so far as these provisions constitute an indirect means of exacting labour, the Committee hopes that, in the context of the Penal Code revision process, the Government will be able to review the matter so that only idle persons who disrupt the public order by unlawful acts may be liable for the penalties set in the legislation.

2. Freedom to leave employment. Referring to sections 116, 117 and 118 of Act No. 22/2002 issuing the general conditions of service of public servants, which regulate the resignation procedure for state employees, the Committee asked the Government to specify whether resignation applications submitted by these employees may be refused and, if so, on what grounds, and whether the competent authority may require public employees to remain in their post for a specific period. In reply, the Government indicates that the application for resignation may be refused when, for example, the employee has been granted funding from the public administration to carry out studies. In this case, the employee signs a contract with the administration specifying the period during which he or she undertakes to remain with the administration following completion of those studies. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to provide examples of these contracts so as to ensure that a certain proportionality is guaranteed. Please also indicate whether, in such cases, the persons concerned could nonetheless resign by paying back the costs incurred by the administration for their studies.

The Committee also notes that the general conditions of service of members of the armed forces (Order No. 72/01 of 8 July 2002) contains provisions similar to the general conditions of service of public servants: the member of the armed forces has to submit a written application for resignation to the competent authority which has 90 days to issue a decision. If the authority does not issue a decision within this time limit, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether, in practice, applications for resignation may be refused and, if so, on what grounds. Please provide statistical information in this regard.

Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a). Work exacted under laws on compulsory military service. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, according to section 4(a) of the Labour Code, the term “forced labour” does not cover labour exacted in exceptional circumstances under provisions governing military service and which involves activities of a purely military nature. It requested the Government to provide a copy of the legislation governing compulsory military service. The Committee notes that in its latest report, the Government does not provide any texts or information on this point. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the legislation regulating compulsory military service.

Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. The Committee is aware of the adoption of Act No. 38/2006 of 25 September 2006 establishing and determining the organization of the national prison service. It notes that, under section 29, prisoners have the right to perform an activity in relation to their professional skills and that the type of activities performed by these persons shall be determined by ministerial order. Section 40 provides that, in return for this work, these persons shall be given an amount equivalent to 10 per cent of the total amount of their earnings. Finally, section 46 provides for the possibility for prisoners to carry out work outside the prison. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the ministerial order governing the type of activities performed by prisoners. Please also indicate whether this work may be carried out for private entities.

Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (e). Minor communal services. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments on the nature of works organized by local communities, the Government specifies that these works are designed to promote the building of infrastructure for the country’s development, alongside national budget allocations, and encourage conviviality among people. These works, which are carried out on the last Saturday of the month, are organized by the members of the community after consultation with the competent authorities; they involve all Rwandan citizens over the age of 18. The Government indicates that the legislative decree regulating the organization of this community work was submitted to the Assembly and will be provided as soon as it has been adopted. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to give examples of works carried out within the context of community work and specify what penalties are incurred by citizens who refuse to participate. Please provide a copy of the legislative decree as soon as it has been adopted.

Article 25. Imposition of adequate penal sanctions. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed concern that the penalties imposed on persons who illegally exact forced labour were not sufficiently dissuasive, since it is only from the second offence that a penalty of imprisonment applies, with a term of between 15 days and six months (section 194 of the Labour Code). In its report, the Government indicates that the issue of adequate penal sanctions will be re-examined within the framework of the process under way of revising the Labour Code and the Penal Code. The Committee hopes that the Government will take this opportunity to make provision in its national legislation for penal sanctions in the event of exaction of forced labour which are really adequate and dissuasive, as provided for by Article 25 of the Convention. In the meantime, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether any criminal proceedings have already been initiated to punish persons imposing forced labour, whether pursuant to section 194 of the Labour Code or to any other provision of the national legislation under which forced labour practices may be penalized.

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

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 
1. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, according to the Decree of 23 May 1896 on vagrancy and begging, read in conjunction with Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 establishing re-education and production centres, the simple fact of living in a state of vagrancy is punishable by a term of being available to the Government during which work will be compulsory. The Committee considered that these provisions, by providing too broad a definition of the offence of vagrancy – the simple fact of not working may be treated as an offence – and by making these persons available to the Government, constitute a direct and indirect means of exacting labour, which is inconsistent with the Convention.

In reply, the Government refers to the provisions on vagrancy contained in the draft Penal Code (sections 513 and 514). According to these provisions, vagrancy is punishable by imprisonment for between two and six months or a fine, or both, and any idle person with no known place of residence or means of support and not carrying out a known profession is regarded as a vagrant. While noting that the draft Penal Code no longer seems to refer to making these persons available to the Government, the Committee observes that these persons remain liable to a prison sentence because of their idleness without any reference in the legislation to a disruption of public order or to the fact that these persons are engaged in unlawful activities. In so far as these provisions constitute an indirect means of exacting labour, the Committee hopes that, in the context of the Penal Code revision process, the Government will be able to review the matter so that only idle persons who disrupt the public order by unlawful acts may be liable for the penalties set in the legislation.

2. Freedom to leave employment. Referring to sections 116, 117 and 118 of Act No. 22/2002 issuing the general conditions of service of public servants, which regulate the resignation procedure for state employees, the Committee asked the Government to specify whether resignation applications submitted by these employees may be refused and, if so, on what grounds, and whether the competent authority may require public employees to remain in their post for a specific period. In reply, the Government indicates that the application for resignation may be refused when, for example, the employee has been granted funding from the public administration to carry out studies. In this case, the employee signs a contract with the administration specifying the period during which he or she undertakes to remain with the administration following completion of those studies. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to provide examples of these contracts so as to ensure that a certain proportionality is guaranteed. Please also indicate whether, in such cases, the persons concerned could nonetheless resign by paying back the costs incurred by the administration for their studies.

The Committee also notes that the general conditions of service of members of the armed forces (Order No. 72/01 of 8 July 2002) contains provisions similar to the general conditions of service of public servants: the member of the armed forces has to submit a written application for resignation to the competent authority which has 90 days to issue a decision. If the authority does not issue a decision within this time limit, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether, in practice, applications for resignation may be refused and, if so, on what grounds. Please provide statistical information in this regard.

Article 2, paragraph 2(a). Work exacted under laws on compulsory military service. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, according to section 4(a) of the Labour Code, the term “forced labour” does not cover labour exacted in exceptional circumstances under provisions governing military service and which involves activities of a purely military nature. It requested the Government to provide a copy of the legislation governing compulsory military service. The Committee notes that in its latest report, the Government does not provide any texts or information on this point. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the legislation regulating compulsory military service.

Article 2, paragraph 2(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. The Committee is aware of the adoption of Act No. 38/2006 of 25 September 2006 establishing and determining the organization of the national prison service. It notes that, under section 29, prisoners have the right to perform an activity in relation to their professional skills and that the type of activities performed by these persons shall be determined by ministerial order. Section 40 provides that, in return for this work, these persons shall be given an amount equivalent to 10 per cent of the total amount of their earnings. Finally, section 46 provides for the possibility for prisoners to carry out work outside the prison. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the ministerial order governing the type of activities performed by prisoners. Please also indicate whether this work may be carried out for private entities.

Article 2, paragraph 2(e). Minor communal services. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments on the nature of works organized by local communities, the Government specifies that these works are designed to promote the building of infrastructure for the country’s development, alongside national budget allocations, and encourage conviviality among people. These works, which are carried out on the last Saturday of the month, are organized by the members of the community after consultation with the competent authorities; they involve all Rwandan citizens over the age of 18. The Government indicates that the legislative decree regulating the organization of this community work was submitted to the Assembly and will be provided as soon as it has been adopted. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to give examples of works carried out within the context of community work and specify what penalties are incurred by citizens who refuse to participate. Please provide a copy of the legislative decree as soon as it has been adopted.

Article 25. Imposition of adequate penal sanctions. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed concern that the penalties imposed on persons who illegally exact forced labour were not sufficiently dissuasive, since it is only from the second offence that a penalty of imprisonment applies, with a term of between 15 days and six months (section 194 of the Labour Code). In its report, the Government indicates that the issue of adequate penal sanctions will be re-examined within the framework of the process under way of revising the Labour Code and the Penal Code. The Committee hopes that the Government will take this opportunity to make provision in its national legislation for penal sanctions in the event of exaction of forced labour which are really adequate and dissuasive, as provided for by Article 25 of the Convention. In the meantime, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether any criminal proceedings have already been initiated to punish persons imposing forced labour, whether pursuant to section 194 of the Labour Code or to any other provision of the national legislation under which forced labour practices may be penalized.

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

The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in its first and second reports. It notes with interest that section 4 of the Labour Code prohibits forced or compulsory labour unconditionally. It also notes that the definition of forced or compulsory labour is in compliance with the Convention, as well as the instances in which labour or service which is exacted does not amount to forced labour. The Committee nevertheless requests the Government to provide additional information on the following points.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Punishment of vagrancy. The Committee notes the Decree of 23 May 1896 on vagrancy and begging, which was rendered binding in Rwanda and under which anyone found in a state of vagrancy or begging is arrested and prosecuted (section 1). The court may place at the Government’s disposal for up to seven years anyone who is sound of body and who "through idle, drunken or dissolute conduct" lives in a habitual state of vagrancy (section 3). Persons found in a state of vagrancy may likewise be placed at the Government’s disposal for up to one year in the absence of any of the circumstances listed in section 3 (section 4). Vagrants placed at the Government’s disposal are interned in workhouses or workshops. The Committee notes that Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 regulates such establishments, which are also known as "re-education and production centres". Under section 6 of the Order, persons interned are employed according to their abilities in the various jobs organized in the centres. They may also be employed in other jobs of general use such as building and road construction. The Committee notes that under the abovementioned provisions of the Decree on vagrancy and begging, the simple fact of living in a state of vagrancy is punishable by a term of availability to the Government during which work will be compulsory. The Committee considers that too broad a definition of vagrancy and like offences may constitute a means of exacting labour which is inconsistent with the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will review the situation and provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to define vagrancy more narrowly so that the simple fact of not working may not be treated as an offence and that only persons who disrupt the public order by unlawful acts may be liable for the penalties set in the legislation.

2. Freedom to leave employment. The Committee notes that, under section 116 of Act No. 22/2002 on the general status of the public service, one of the means whereby state employees may be separated from service is voluntary termination, which the employees must apply for in writing stating unambiguously that they wish to leave the public service. The written application is addressed to the competent authority, which has 30 days to issue a decision. Pending notification of acceptance of the application, public employees must continue to perform their duties. If the competent authority issues no decision within the prescribed time limit, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted (sections 117 and 118). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice. Please specify in particular whether applications to resign may be refused and, if so, on what grounds, and whether the competent authority may require public employees to remain in their post for a specific period. Please provide copies of any relevant decisions.

The Committee also asks the Government to provide a copy of the provisions applicable to career members of the armed forces.

Article 2, paragraph 2(a). Work exacted under laws on compulsory military service. The Committee notes that article 47 of the Constitution specifies that everyone has a duty to participate in defending the country and that national, civil or military service shall be organized by law. It notes in this connection that according to section 4(a) of the Labour Code, the term forced labour does not cover labour exacted in exceptional circumstances under provisions governing military service and which involves activities of a purely military nature. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the laws and regulations governing compulsory military service.

Article 2, paragraph 2(e). Minor communal services. The Committee notes that according to section 4(d) of the Labour Code, the term "forced labour" does not include small jobs organized by local communities with the approval of the population or their direct representatives. The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the nature of such jobs and on how local communities approve and organize them in practice. Please provide copies of any provisions regulating this practice.

Article 25. Imposition of adequate penal sanctions. The Committee notes that under section 194 of the Labour Code, anyone contravening the provisions of section 4 of the Labour Code, which prohibits forced labour, is punished by a fine of from 10,000 to 50,000 francs; the penalty for a second offence is the same fine plus a prison term of from 15 days to six months. The Committee notes that only from the second offence does a penalty of imprisonment apply, and is concerned that this is not sufficiently dissuasive. It points out that under Article 25 of the Convention, penal sanctions imposed by law for illegal exaction of forced labour must be really adequate and strictly enforced. It requests the Government to provide information on the practical effect given to section 194 of the Labour Code. It would be grateful if the Government would also provide information on any criminal proceedings initiated to punish the illegal exaction of forced labour and on the penal ties imposed, whether pursuant to section 194 of the Labour Code or to any other provision of the national legislation under which forced labour practices may be penalized.