Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Guinea (Ratification: 1959)

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

Previous comment

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the activities carried out by the National Committee against Trafficking in Persons and Related Practices (CNLTPPA) to combat trafficking in persons and on the measures adopted to repress the crime of trafficking under the provisions of the Penal Code of 2016.

The Government indicates in its report that a plan of action has been adopted against trafficking in persons covering the period 2020–22, the implementation of which is entrusted to the CNLTPPA. The plan of action is composed of several strategic components, including: (i) the strengthening of prevention; (ii) the promotion of the identification, assistance and support for victims; (ii) the intensification of repressive measures; and (iv) the strengthening of cooperation and partnership. The Government refers to several actions undertaken by the CNLTPPA within this framework, including: (i) the formulation of a communication and community mobilization plan to combat trafficking; (ii) the promotion and strengthening of the assistance helpline 116; (iii) the training of magistrates, police officers and the judicial police in relation to trafficking in persons; (iv) the mapping of the actors responsible for the compilation of statistical data on trafficking in the country; and (v) discussions with a view to the rehabilitation of shelters for victims of trafficking.

The Government also refers to the formulation and revision of the standard operational procedures document on assistance for victims of trafficking, with a view to ensuring better coordination in the provision of assistance to victims. It specifies that up to now 155 victims of trafficking have been identified and have benefited from various types of assistance, including legal, psychosocial and food assistance with a view to their integration. The Committee notes in this regard that, according to the information on the website of the Ministry for the Promotion of Women, Children and Vulnerable Persons, a shelter for victims of trafficking has been rehabilitated and was inaugurated in November 2022.

The Government adds that the evaluation of the implementation of the plan of action will give rise to the formulation of a new plan of action, and also refers to the adoption of an advocacy action plan for the period 2018–22 with a view to preventing the trafficking of nationals of Guinea for forced labour abroad.

With regard to the repression of the crime of trafficking in persons, the Government indicates that so far only one investigation has been carried out into a potential case of trafficking in May 2022, and that there have been 26 convictions. Among the sentences handed down, six persons were sentenced to three months of imprisonment and a fine, while the 20 others were sentenced to suspended six-month prison sentences and a fine. In this regard, the Committee recalls, in light of the seriousness of the crime and the fact that penalties must be really dissuasive, that only a fine or a very short period of imprisonment, or a suspended prison sentence, are not effective penalties.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to ensure the more effective identification of cases of trafficking in persons, with an indication of the number of victims who have been identified and who have benefited from protection and assistance measures. It requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that cases of trafficking in persons give rise to robust investigations as a basis for judicial prosecutions and the imposition of sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties against those who are found guilty. Please provide information on this subject and indicate the penalties imposed. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the strategic components of the plans of action referred to above, the evaluation carried out and the measures taken as a result of the evaluation to reinforce action to combat trafficking in persons for both sexual exploitation and labour exploitation.

Article 2(2)(c). 1. Prison labour made available to private individuals. In reply to the request made by the Committee, the Government indicates that it has attached to its report a copy of Decree No. 2016/309/PRG/SGG of 31 October 2016 determining the legal regime for prisons. Noting that no copy of the Decree was attached to the Government’s report, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the Decree of 31 October 2016, and of any other text governing work by prisoners, so that it can examine whether the conditions under with prison labour is carried out are in conformity with the Convention.

2. Community service imposed as an alternative or supplementary penalty to a prison sentence. In response to the requests by the Committee relating to sentences of community service (sections 43, 144 and 146 of the Penal Code), the Government indicates that the types of work undertaken within the framework of such sentences are at the discretion of the courts. The Government adds that it does not at present have any examples of private entities that have been authorized to benefit from community service. The Committee recalls that, in order to be in conformity with the Convention, where a sentence of general community service imposed as an alternative to imprisonment can be performed for the benefit of a private entity, the work performed must really be of benefit to the community and the entities for which it is performed must not be profit-making. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether the courts have already imposed sentences of community service and, if so, to provide information on the private entities for which community service may have been carried out and examples of the types of work performed in this context.

Article 2(2)(d). Cases of emergency. Further to the Committee’s requests on the application in practice of sections 299 (incriminating the voluntary failure to take action to prevent a situation liable to give rise to danger to the safety of the public) and 983 (criminalizing the refusal or failure to respond to a requisition in the event of a disturbance of the public order, disaster or any other situation constituting a danger to the public) of the Penal Code, the Government indicates that there have been no convictions under these provisions, which have not been applied in practice. The Committee recalls that the power to mobilize labour may only be used for work or service that is strictly indispensable to combat an imminent danger which is a threat to the population, and requests the Government to continue providing information on any effect given in practice to sections 299 and 983 of the Penal Code.

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

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. The Committee duly notes the adoption of Act No. 2016/059/AN of 26 October 2016 enacting the Penal Code, under which trafficking in human beings is prohibited and the perpetrators of the offence of trafficking shall be liable to imprisonment of three to seven years and a fine of 500,000 to 10 million Guinean francs (section 323). Sections 325–328 of the Penal Code establish aggravating circumstances for the offence of trafficking in persons. The Committee notes that, according to the 2016 evaluation report on national mechanisms to combat trafficking in persons and provide assistance to victims in Guinea, published by the ACP–EU (African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and the European Union) Migration Action programme, implemented by the International Organization for Migration, Guinea is simultaneously an origin, transit and destination country for trafficking in persons (page 9). The Committee observes that the Government, in its report on the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), indicates that the Anti-Trafficking Division at the Central Office for Combating Organized Crime (OCLCO), which is mandated to research, identify and bring before the courts the perpetrators of offences directly or indirectly linked to organized crime, has brought before the courts 15 cases of trafficking and 17 alleged perpetrators of trafficking in persons over the last two years. The Government also indicates in its report on Convention No. 182 that the Office for the Protection of Gender, Childhood and Morality (OPROGEM) identified six cases of trafficking in 2017, of which two involved adult victims.

The Committee notes the adoption of Decree No. D/2017/039/PRG/SGG of 17 February 2017 establishing the National Committee against Trafficking in Persons and Related Practices (CNLTPPA) and its remit, structure, composition and operation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its September 2018 report to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, that the CNLTPPA is the body responsible for implementing, formulating and developing policies, programmes and projects to combat trafficking in persons and related practices (CCPR/C/GIN/Q/3/Add.1, paragraph 91). Following the implementation of the National Plan of Action against Trafficking in Persons 2009–11, which was extended until 2013, the 2016 report of the ACP–EU Migration Action programme provided recommendations for the development of a new operational plan of action against trafficking in persons. It recommended the Government to focus its new plan of action, inter alia, on improving mechanisms for the prevention of trafficking and the protection of victims and collecting and analysing national data on trafficking in persons. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the provisions of the Penal Code on trafficking in persons, including an indication of the number of victims of trafficking and the number and nature of prosecutions and penalties imposed. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the adoption and implementation of a national plan of action to combat trafficking in persons and on the activities conducted by the CNLTPPA to combat trafficking in persons.

Article 2(2)(c). 1. Prison labour made available to private individuals. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG of 20 September 1972 on the establishment and structure of the prison administration and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81 of 13 November 1981 supplementing Decree No. 247/72/PRG, the work of prisoners consists, apart from menial labour in the service of the prison, of workshop activities inside the prison, and this work can be transferred on secondment to individuals upon signature of an agreement with the administrative authority under the technical supervision of the contractor’s representative. This work can also consist of labour outside the prison in fields and on public worksites. The Committee noted that no provisions of the abovementioned Decrees require the consent of detainees for work carried out for private individuals and requested the Government to include in the national legislation provisions requiring the formal consent of detainees to work for private entities and guarantees demonstrating the existence of working conditions similar to those of a free working relationship, particularly in terms of remuneration and occupational safety and health.

The Committee notes with interest that the provisions of section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81 were repealed by Decree No. 2016/309/PRG/SGG of 31 October 2016 establishing the prison regulations. The Committee requests the Government to send a copy of Decree No. 2016/309/PRG/SGG of 31 October 2016 establishing the prison regulations.

2. Community service imposed as an alternative or supplementary penalty to a prison sentence. The Committee notes that section 38 of Act No. 2016/059/AN issuing the Penal Code establishes community service as an alternative penalty to imprisonment. It notes that, under section 43 on the offences that may incur a prison sentence of up to one year, the court may, after establishing the sentence, order the convicted person, rather than carrying out that sentence, to carry out between 200 hours (25 days) and 240 hours (30 days) of unpaid community work for a public entity or an association authorized to conduct community work. The Committee notes that, under sections 144 and 146, unpaid community work may also be imposed in the case of a suspended sentence combined with an obligation to perform community service, either for a public entity or for a private entity with a public service mandate or an association authorized to conduct community work. Sections 44 and 144 provide that the penalty of community service and a suspended sentence combined with an obligation to perform community service cannot be handed down to the defendant if he or she objects or is not present at the hearing.

Noting that, under sections 43, 144 and 146 of the Penal Code, a penalty of unpaid community service may be imposed for the benefit of a private entity, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the type of work involved and to give examples of authorized private entities in which community service is performed.

Article 2(2)(d). Cases of emergency. The Committee previously referred to section 517(11) of the Penal Code of 1998, which provides that any persons who refuse or neglect to perform service work or to provide assistance required of them in certain specific circumstances shall be liable to a prison sentence and a fine. It emphasized that some of the circumstances set out in this section cannot be considered cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention, particularly cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance or judicial execution.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the provisions of section 517(11) have been replaced by section 299 of the Penal Code of 2016, which provides that any person refraining from taking or eliciting action, without risk to himself or herself or others, to prevent a crime that poses a danger to public security, shall incur a prison sentence of two years and a fine of 10 million Guinean francs. The Committee also notes that section 983 of the Penal Code of 2016 provides for a fine for refusing or neglecting to respond, without good grounds, to a requisition from a magistrate or a judicial police official acting within his/her mandate, or a requisition from a competent administrative authority, in the case of a disturbance of the public order or vandalism or any other situation posing a danger to the public. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 299 and 983 of the Penal Code.

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

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Vagrancy. The Committee previously noted that, under sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Code of 1998, any persons who are officially declared vagrants, namely “persons who have no fixed abode and no means of subsistence and have no regular job or occupation”, are liable by virtue thereof to imprisonment ranging from three to six months. The Committee considered that these provisions enabled a prison sentence including the obligation to work to be imposed on persons who have done nothing to disturb public order and may constitute a direct or indirect compulsion to work, which is incompatible with the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to amend the abovementioned sections of the Penal Code so that only persons who are found guilty of unlawful activity and of disturbing public order may incur penalties.

The Committee notes the indication in the Government’s report that the Penal Code of 1998 has been replaced by Act No. 2016/059/AN of 26 October 2016 enacting the Penal Code. The Committee notes with satisfaction that sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Code of 1998 have been repealed with the effect that persons who have not disturbed public order may no longer be punished by imprisonment involving the obligation to work.

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

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

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments initially made in 2012. The Committee also notes that the Government had been requested to provide information to the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 106th Session of the International Labour Conference for failure to supply reports and information on the application of ratified Conventions.

Repetition

Article 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Vagrancy. In its previous comments the Committee underlined the need to restrict the scope of sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Code defining and imposing penalties for vagrancy. Under section 272 of the Penal Code, vagrants are defined as persons who have no fixed abode and no means of subsistence and generally have no job or occupation. Under section 273(1), any person who has been officially declared a vagrant is liable by virtue thereof to imprisonment ranging from three to six months. The Committee considered that these provisions might lead to the imposition of imprisonment including the obligation to work on persons who have done nothing to disturb public order and can therefore be applied in such a way as to constitute a direct or indirect compulsion to work, which is incompatible with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that no court decision has been issued on this subject and that steps will be taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice to bring these provisions of the Penal Code into conformity with the Convention. The Committee takes due note of this information and trusts that the steps taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice will result in amendments to sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Code so that only persons who are found guilty of unlawful activity and of disturbing public order may incur penalties. The Government is requested in the meantime to continue to supply information on any court ruling issued on the basis of these provisions.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour hired out to private individuals. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG of 20 September 1972 concerning the establishment and structure of the prison administration and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81 of 13 November 1981 complementing Decree No. 247/72/PRG, the work of prisoners consists, apart from labour gangs in the service of the prison, of workshop activities inside the prison, and this work can be transferred under concession to individuals upon signature of an agreement with the administrative authority under the technical surveillance of the contractor’s delegate. This work can also consist of external work in the fields and on public worksites. Observing that no provision of the abovementioned Decrees provides that prison labour for private entities must be performed on a voluntary basis, the Committee emphasized the need to incorporate provisions in the national legislation which establish, firstly, the obligation to obtain formal consent from prisoners to work for private entities and, secondly, guarantees, especially regarding remuneration and occupational safety and health, indicating the existence of conditions of work which are comparable to those of a free employment relationship.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, even though the wording of sections 78 and 79 does not appear to require the consent of prisoners in practice, the consent of prisoners is indeed necessary. Moreover, even though it is permitted by legislation, the concession of prison labour to private entities outside prisons does not occur in practice because of the lack of staff engaged in the surveillance of prisoners and because of the risk that such prisoners may be subjected to forced labour by the contracting parties. The Government explains that steps will, however, be taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice with a view to revising the legislation in this field.

The Committee recalls that, for the work performed by convicted prisoners for private entities either inside or outside the prison not to be considered as forced labour, it is necessary for the prisoners to have given their formal, free and informed consent to such work. In view of the particular situation in which prisoners are placed, this formal consent must also be supported by a number of guarantees, aimed at making prisoners’ conditions of work comparable to those of free workers, especially with regard to remuneration and occupational safety and health protection. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how the free, formal and informed consent of prisoners is obtained in practice. Moreover, since the national legislation allows the work of prisoners to be transferred to private entities, the Committee hopes that measures will be taken to ensure that, in the context of the steps taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice, changes may be made to the legislation to ensure its full conformity with the Convention.

Article 2(2)(d). Cases of emergency. The Committee previously referred to section 517(11) of the Penal Code, which provides that any persons who refuse or neglect to perform work or service or to lend assistance required of them in certain specific circumstances shall be liable to imprisonment and a fine. It emphasized that certain circumstances specified in this section cannot be considered cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention, particularly cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance or judicial execution. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the provisions of section 517(11) of the Penal Code do not apply in practice because they are obsolete and that steps will be taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice to review these provisions. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the steps taken to review the provisions of section 517(11) of the Penal Code and it trusts that due account will be taken during the revision process of the Committee’s comments so that any work imposed on the population is restricted to cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention.

Article 25. Penalties. The Committee notes that section 337 of the Penal Code concerning the trafficking in persons states that anyone who concludes an agreement for the purpose of depriving another of his or her freedom, whether for financial gain or free of charge, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from five to ten years. Moreover, securing the provision of services without remuneration, or in exchange for remuneration that is clearly not commensurate with the scale of the task accomplished, and by abusing the vulnerability or dependent situation of a person, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from six months to five years and a fine. Finally, subjecting a person to conditions of work or accommodation which are incompatible with human dignity by abusing that person’s vulnerability or dependent situation, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and a fine. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply information on the application of these provisions in practice, particularly regarding investigations and judicial proceedings instituted or rulings issued on the basis of section 337 of the Penal Code.

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

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

Repetition

Article 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Vagrancy. In its previous comments the Committee underlined the need to restrict the scope of sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Code defining and imposing penalties for vagrancy. Under section 272 of the Penal Code, vagrants are defined as persons who have no fixed abode and no means of subsistence and generally have no job or occupation. Under section 273(1), any person who has been officially declared a vagrant is liable by virtue thereof to imprisonment ranging from three to six months. The Committee considered that these provisions might lead to the imposition of imprisonment including the obligation to work on persons who have done nothing to disturb public order and can therefore be applied in such a way as to constitute a direct or indirect compulsion to work, which is incompatible with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that no court decision has been issued on this subject and that steps will be taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice to bring these provisions of the Penal Code into conformity with the Convention. The Committee takes due note of this information and trusts that the steps taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice will result in amendments to sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Code so that only persons who are found guilty of unlawful activity and of disturbing public order may incur penalties. The Government is requested in the meantime to continue to supply information on any court ruling issued on the basis of these provisions.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour hired out to private individuals. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG of 20 September 1972 concerning the establishment and structure of the prison administration and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81 of 13 November 1981 complementing Decree No. 247/72/PRG, the work of prisoners consists, apart from labour gangs in the service of the prison, of workshop activities inside the prison, and this work can be transferred under concession to individuals upon signature of an agreement with the administrative authority under the technical surveillance of the contractor’s delegate. This work can also consist of external work in the fields and on public worksites. Observing that no provision of the abovementioned Decrees provides that prison labour for private entities must be performed on a voluntary basis, the Committee emphasized the need to incorporate provisions in the national legislation which establish, firstly, the obligation to obtain formal consent from prisoners to work for private entities and, secondly, guarantees, especially regarding remuneration and occupational safety and health, indicating the existence of conditions of work which are comparable to those of a free employment relationship.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, even though the wording of sections 78 and 79 does not appear to require the consent of prisoners in practice, the consent of prisoners is indeed necessary. Moreover, even though it is permitted by legislation, the concession of prison labour to private entities outside prisons does not occur in practice because of the lack of staff engaged in the surveillance of prisoners and because of the risk that such prisoners may be subjected to forced labour by the contracting parties. The Government explains that steps will, however, be taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice with a view to revising the legislation in this field.

The Committee recalls that, for the work performed by convicted prisoners for private entities either inside or outside the prison not to be considered as forced labour, it is necessary for the prisoners to have given their formal, free and informed consent to such work. In view of the particular situation in which prisoners are placed, this formal consent must also be supported by a number of guarantees, aimed at making prisoners’ conditions of work comparable to those of free workers, especially with regard to remuneration and occupational safety and health protection. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how the free, formal and informed consent of prisoners is obtained in practice. Moreover, since the national legislation allows the work of prisoners to be transferred to private entities, the Committee hopes that measures will be taken to ensure that, in the context of the steps taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice, changes may be made to the legislation to ensure its full conformity with the Convention.

Article 2(2)(d). Cases of emergency. The Committee previously referred to section 517(11) of the Penal Code, which provides that any persons who refuse or neglect to perform work or service or to lend assistance required of them in certain specific circumstances shall be liable to imprisonment and a fine. It emphasized that certain circumstances specified in this section cannot be considered cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention, particularly cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance or judicial execution. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the provisions of section 517(11) of the Penal Code do not apply in practice because they are obsolete and that steps will be taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice to review these provisions. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the steps taken to review the provisions of section 517(11) of the Penal Code and it trusts that due account will be taken during the revision process of the Committee’s comments so that any work imposed on the population is restricted to cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention.

Article 25. Penalties. The Committee notes that section 337 of the Penal Code concerning the trafficking in persons states that anyone who concludes an agreement for the purpose of depriving another of his or her freedom, whether for financial gain or free of charge, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from five to ten years. Moreover, securing the provision of services without remuneration, or in exchange for remuneration that is clearly not commensurate with the scale of the task accomplished, and by abusing the vulnerability or dependent situation of a person, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from six months to five years and a fine. Finally, subjecting a person to conditions of work or accommodation which are incompatible with human dignity by abusing that person’s vulnerability or dependent situation, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and a fine. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply information on the application of these provisions in practice, particularly regarding investigations and judicial proceedings instituted or rulings issued on the basis of section 337 of the Penal Code.

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

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

Repetition

Article 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Vagrancy. In its previous comments the Committee underlined the need to restrict the scope of sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Code defining and imposing penalties for vagrancy. Under section 272 of the Penal Code, vagrants are defined as persons who have no fixed abode and no means of subsistence and generally have no job or occupation. Under section 273(1), any person who has been officially declared a vagrant is liable by virtue thereof to imprisonment ranging from three to six months. The Committee considered that these provisions might lead to the imposition of imprisonment including the obligation to work on persons who have done nothing to disturb public order and can therefore be applied in such a way as to constitute a direct or indirect compulsion to work, which is incompatible with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that no court decision has been issued on this subject and that steps will be taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice to bring these provisions of the Penal Code into conformity with the Convention. The Committee takes due note of this information and trusts that the steps taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice will result in amendments to sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Code so that only persons who are found guilty of unlawful activity and of disturbing public order may incur penalties. The Government is requested in the meantime to continue to supply information on any court ruling issued on the basis of these provisions.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour hired out to private individuals. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG of 20 September 1972 concerning the establishment and structure of the prison administration and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81 of 13 November 1981 complementing Decree No. 247/72/PRG, the work of prisoners consists, apart from labour gangs in the service of the prison, of workshop activities inside the prison, and this work can be transferred under concession to individuals upon signature of an agreement with the administrative authority under the technical surveillance of the contractor’s delegate. This work can also consist of external work in the fields and on public worksites. Observing that no provision of the abovementioned Decrees provides that prison labour for private entities must be performed on a voluntary basis, the Committee emphasized the need to incorporate provisions in the national legislation which establish, firstly, the obligation to obtain formal consent from prisoners to work for private entities and, secondly, guarantees, especially regarding remuneration and occupational safety and health, indicating the existence of conditions of work which are comparable to those of a free employment relationship.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, even though the wording of sections 78 and 79 does not appear to require the consent of prisoners in practice, the consent of prisoners is indeed necessary. Moreover, even though it is permitted by legislation, the concession of prison labour to private entities outside prisons does not occur in practice because of the lack of staff engaged in the surveillance of prisoners and because of the risk that such prisoners may be subjected to forced labour by the contracting parties. The Government explains that steps will, however, be taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice with a view to revising the legislation in this field.

The Committee recalls that, for the work performed by convicted prisoners for private entities either inside or outside the prison not to be considered as forced labour, it is necessary for the prisoners to have given their formal, free and informed consent to such work. In view of the particular situation in which prisoners are placed, this formal consent must also be supported by a number of guarantees, aimed at making prisoners’ conditions of work comparable to those of free workers, especially with regard to remuneration and occupational safety and health protection. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how the free, formal and informed consent of prisoners is obtained in practice. Moreover, since the national legislation allows the work of prisoners to be transferred to private entities, the Committee hopes that measures will be taken to ensure that, in the context of the steps taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice, changes may be made to the legislation to ensure its full conformity with the Convention.

Article 2(2)(d). Cases of emergency. The Committee previously referred to section 517(11) of the Penal Code, which provides that any persons who refuse or neglect to perform work or service or to lend assistance required of them in certain specific circumstances shall be liable to imprisonment and a fine. It emphasized that certain circumstances specified in this section cannot be considered cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention, particularly cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance or judicial execution. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the provisions of section 517(11) of the Penal Code do not apply in practice because they are obsolete and that steps will be taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice to review these provisions. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the steps taken to review the provisions of section 517(11) of the Penal Code and it trusts that due account will be taken during the revision process of the Committee’s comments so that any work imposed on the population is restricted to cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention.

Article 25. Penalties. The Committee notes that section 337 of the Penal Code concerning the trafficking in persons states that anyone who concludes an agreement for the purpose of depriving another of his or her freedom, whether for financial gain or free of charge, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from five to ten years. Moreover, securing the provision of services without remuneration, or in exchange for remuneration that is clearly not commensurate with the scale of the task accomplished, and by abusing the vulnerability or dependent situation of a person, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from six months to five years and a fine. Finally, subjecting a person to conditions of work or accommodation which are incompatible with human dignity by abusing that person’s vulnerability or dependent situation, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and a fine. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply information on the application of these provisions in practice, particularly regarding investigations and judicial proceedings instituted or rulings issued on the basis of section 337 of the Penal Code.

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

Article 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Vagrancy. In its previous comments the Committee underlined the need to restrict the scope of sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Code defining and imposing penalties for vagrancy. Under section 272 of the Penal Code, vagrants are defined as persons who have no fixed abode and no means of subsistence and generally have no job or occupation. Under section 273(1), any person who has been officially declared a vagrant is liable by virtue thereof to imprisonment ranging from three to six months. The Committee considered that these provisions might lead to the imposition of imprisonment including the obligation to work on persons who have done nothing to disturb public order and can therefore be applied in such a way as to constitute a direct or indirect compulsion to work, which is incompatible with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that no court decision has been issued on this subject and that steps will be taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice to bring these provisions of the Penal Code into conformity with the Convention. The Committee takes due note of this information and trusts that the steps taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice will result in amendments to sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Code so that only persons who are found guilty of unlawful activity and of disturbing public order may incur penalties. The Government is requested in the meantime to continue to supply information on any court ruling issued on the basis of these provisions.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour hired out to private individuals. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG of 20 September 1972 concerning the establishment and structure of the prison administration and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81 of 13 November 1981 complementing Decree No. 247/72/PRG, the work of prisoners consists, apart from labour gangs in the service of the prison, of workshop activities inside the prison, and this work can be transferred under concession to individuals upon signature of an agreement with the administrative authority under the technical surveillance of the contractor’s delegate. This work can also consist of external work in the fields and on public worksites. Observing that no provision of the abovementioned Decrees provides that prison labour for private entities must be performed on a voluntary basis, the Committee emphasized the need to incorporate provisions in the national legislation which establish, firstly, the obligation to obtain formal consent from prisoners to work for private entities and, secondly, guarantees, especially regarding remuneration and occupational safety and health, indicating the existence of conditions of work which are comparable to those of a free employment relationship.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, even though the wording of sections 78 and 79 does not appear to require the consent of prisoners in practice, the consent of prisoners is indeed necessary. Moreover, even though it is permitted by legislation, the concession of prison labour to private entities outside prisons does not occur in practice because of the lack of staff engaged in the surveillance of prisoners and because of the risk that such prisoners may be subjected to forced labour by the contracting parties. The Government explains that steps will, however, be taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice with a view to revising the legislation in this field.

The Committee recalls that, for the work performed by convicted prisoners for private entities either inside or outside the prison not to be considered as forced labour, it is necessary for the prisoners to have given their formal, free and informed consent to such work. In view of the particular situation in which prisoners are placed, this formal consent must also be supported by a number of guarantees, aimed at making prisoners’ conditions of work comparable to those of free workers, especially with regard to remuneration and occupational safety and health protection. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how the free, formal and informed consent of prisoners is obtained in practice. Moreover, since the national legislation allows the work of prisoners to be transferred to private entities, the Committee hopes that measures will be taken to ensure that, in the context of the steps taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice, changes may be made to the legislation to ensure its full conformity with the Convention.

Article 2(2)(d). Cases of emergency. The Committee previously referred to section 517(11) of the Penal Code, which provides that any persons who refuse or neglect to perform work or service or to lend assistance required of them in certain specific circumstances shall be liable to imprisonment and a fine. It emphasized that certain circumstances specified in this section cannot be considered cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention, particularly cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance or judicial execution. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the provisions of section 517(11) of the Penal Code do not apply in practice because they are obsolete and that steps will be taken in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice to review these provisions. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the steps taken to review the provisions of section 517(11) of the Penal Code and it trusts that due account will be taken during the revision process of the Committee’s comments so that any work imposed on the population is restricted to cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention.

Article 25. Penalties. The Committee notes that section 337 of the Penal Code concerning the trafficking in persons states that anyone who concludes an agreement for the purpose of depriving another of his or her freedom, whether for financial gain or free of charge, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from five to ten years. Moreover, securing the provision of services without remuneration, or in exchange for remuneration that is clearly not commensurate with the scale of the task accomplished, and by abusing the vulnerability or dependent situation of a person, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from six months to five years and a fine. Finally, subjecting a person to conditions of work or accommodation which are incompatible with human dignity by abusing that person’s vulnerability or dependent situation, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and a fine. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply information on the application of these provisions in practice, particularly regarding investigations and judicial proceedings instituted or rulings issued on the basis of section 337 of the Penal Code.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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

The Committee notes Act No. 98/036 of 31 December 1998 issuing the Penal Code. It also notes Decree No. 247/72/PRG of 20 September 1972 concerning the establishment and structure of the prison administration and Decree No. 624/PRG/81 of 31 November 1981 complementing Decree No. 247/72/PRG. The Committee notes that, under section 73 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 74 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81, work is compulsory for all convicted prisoners under common law but is optional for those who have been accused or charged.

Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. Prison labour hired out to private individuals. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81, the work of prisoners consists, apart from labour gangs in the service of the prison, of workshop activities inside the prison and this work can be transferred under concession to individuals upon signature of an agreement with the administrative authority under the technical surveillance of the contractor’s delegate. This work can also consist of external work in the fields and on public worksites. The abovementioned sections state that all proceeds from this work go to the prisoners themselves.

The Committee recalls that, under the terms of these provisions of the Convention, any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is only excluded from the scope of the Convention if the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. In order to comply with the Convention, private employment of prison labour must depend on the formal consent of the prisoner concerned (see paragraph 60 of the General Survey of 2007 on eradication of forced labour). In view of the particular situation in which prisoners are placed, this form of consent must also be endorsed by a number of guarantees, aimed at making prisoners’ conditions of work comparable to those of free workers. As part of these guarantees, the Committee has mentioned the level of remuneration and occupational safety and health protection. The Committee notes that no provision of the abovementioned Decrees provides that prison labour for private individuals must be performed on a voluntary basis and with the necessary guarantees. It notes that the fact that prisoners are “transferred” (cédés) for work, as referred to in the abovementioned sections 78 and 79, tends to denote a lack of consent on the part of the prisoners. The Committee emphasizes the need to incorporate provisions in the national legislation which establish, firstly, the obligation to obtain formal consent from prisoners to work for private individuals, companies or associations and, secondly, guarantees, especially regarding remuneration and occupational safety and health, indicating the existence of conditions of work which are comparable to those of a free employment relationship. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, in practice, convicted prisoners are hired, inside or outside prisons, to private individuals, companies or associations, as provided for by section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81. If so, it requests the Government to indicate how the formal consent of the prisoners concerned is ensured and what guarantees they enjoy, particularly with regard to remuneration and occupational safety and health.

Article 2(2)(d). Cases of emergency. The Committee notes that section 517(11) of the Penal Code states that anyone capable who refuses or neglects to perform work or service or to lend assistance required of them in cases of accident, unrest, shipwreck, flood, fire or other calamities, or in cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance or judicial execution, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to 15 days and a fine. It notes that, although some of the abovementioned circumstances do correspond to cases of emergency as provided for by Article 2(2)(d), others – particularly cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance and judicial execution – cannot be considered as cases of emergency within the meaning of these provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how these provisions are applied in practice, by sending a copy of any court decision issued on the basis of section 517(11) of the Penal Code.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1). Vagrancy. The Committee notes that section 272 of the Penal Code states that vagrants are persons who have no fixed abode and no means of subsistence and generally have no job or occupation. Under the terms of section 273(1), any person who has been officially declared a vagrant is liable by virtue thereof to imprisonment ranging from three to six months. The Committee notes that this very broad definition of vagrancy might lead to the imposition of imprisonment including the obligation to work on persons who have done nothing to disturb public order. As indicated by the terms of section 273(1) itself, the very fact of having no fixed abode or means of subsistence and being habitually without a job or occupation is sufficient to come within the scope of application of the Penal Code. The Committee emphasizes that such provisions, which are sufficiently general to be potentially applicable in such a way as to constitute a direct or indirect constraint to work, are incompatible with the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to restrict the scope of sections 272 and 273 only to persons who are guilty of unlawful activity. In the meantime, it would be grateful if the Government would indicate how these sections are applied in practice and send a copy of any court decision issued on the basis thereof.

Article 25. Penalties. The Committee notes that section 337 of the Penal Code concerning the trafficking of persons states that anyone who concludes an agreement for the purpose of depriving another of his or her freedom, whether for financial gain or free of charge, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from five to ten years. Moreover, securing the provision of services without remuneration, or in exchange for remuneration that is clearly not commensurate with the scale of the task accomplished, by abusing the vulnerability or dependent situation of a person, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from six months to five years and a fine. Finally, exposing a person to conditions of work or accommodation which are incompatible with human dignity by abusing that person’s vulnerability or dependent situation, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and a fine. Section 339 of the Penal Code states that anyone who delivers or receives a person into bondage shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to two years, which may be increased to five years in cases where the victim is under 15 years of age, and a fine. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any court decisions have been issued on the basis of these provisions. If so, it would be grateful if the Government would send a copy of them to the Office.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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:

The Committee notes Act No. 98/036 of 31 December 1998 issuing the Penal Code. It also notes Decree No. 247/72/PRG of 20 September 1972 concerning the establishment and structure of the prison administration and Decree No. 624/PRG/81 of 31 November 1981 complementing Decree No. 247/72/PRG. The Committee notes that, under section 73 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 74 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81, work is compulsory for all convicted prisoners under common law but is optional for those who have been accused or charged.

Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. Prison labour hired out to private individuals. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81, the work of prisoners consists, apart from labour gangs in the service of the prison, of workshop activities inside the prison and this work can be transferred under concession to individuals upon signature of an agreement with the administrative authority under the technical surveillance of the contractor’s delegate. This work can also consist of external work in the fields and on public worksites. The abovementioned sections state that all proceeds from this work go to the prisoners themselves.

The Committee recalls that, under the terms of these provisions of the Convention, any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is only excluded from the scope of the Convention if the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. In order to comply with the Convention, private employment of prison labour must depend on the formal consent of the prisoner concerned (see paragraph 60 of the General Survey of 2007 on eradication of forced labour). In view of the particular situation in which prisoners are placed, this form of consent must also be endorsed by a number of guarantees, aimed at making prisoners’ conditions of work comparable to those of free workers. As part of these guarantees, the Committee has mentioned the level of remuneration and occupational safety and health protection. The Committee notes that no provision of the abovementioned Decrees provides that prison labour for private individuals must be performed on a voluntary basis and with the necessary guarantees. It notes that the fact that prisoners are “transferred” (cédés) for work, as referred to in the abovementioned sections 78 and 79, tends to denote a lack of consent on the part of the prisoners. The Committee emphasizes the need to incorporate provisions in the national legislation which establish, firstly, the obligation to obtain formal consent from prisoners to work for private individuals, companies or associations and, secondly, guarantees, especially regarding remuneration and occupational safety and health, indicating the existence of conditions of work which are comparable to those of a free employment relationship. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, in practice, convicted prisoners are hired, inside or outside prisons, to private individuals, companies or associations, as provided for by section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81. If so, it requests the Government to indicate how the formal consent of the prisoners concerned is ensured and what guarantees they enjoy, particularly with regard to remuneration and occupational safety and health.

Article 2(2)(d). Cases of emergency. The Committee notes that section 517(11) of the Penal Code states that anyone capable who refuses or neglects to perform work or service or to lend assistance required of them in cases of accident, unrest, shipwreck, flood, fire or other calamities, or in cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance or judicial execution, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to 15 days and a fine. It notes that, although some of the abovementioned circumstances do correspond to cases of emergency as provided for by Article 2(2)(d), others – particularly cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance and judicial execution – cannot be considered as cases of emergency within the meaning of these provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how these provisions are applied in practice, by sending a copy of any court decision issued on the basis of section 517(11) of the Penal Code.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1). Vagrancy. The Committee notes that section 272 of the Penal Code states that vagrants are persons who have no fixed abode and no means of subsistence and generally have no job or occupation. Under the terms of section 273(1), any person who has been officially declared a vagrant is liable by virtue thereof to imprisonment ranging from three to six months. The Committee notes that this very broad definition of vagrancy might lead to the imposition of imprisonment including the obligation to work on persons who have done nothing to disturb public order. As indicated by the terms of section 273(1) itself, the very fact of having no fixed abode or means of subsistence and being habitually without a job or occupation is sufficient to come within the scope of application of the Penal Code. The Committee emphasizes that such provisions, which are sufficiently general to be potentially applicable in such a way as to constitute a direct or indirect constraint to work, are incompatible with the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to restrict the scope of sections 272 and 273 only to persons who are guilty of unlawful activity. In the meantime, it would be grateful if the Government would indicate how these sections are applied in practice and send a copy of any court decision issued on the basis thereof.

Article 25. Penalties. The Committee notes that section 337 of the Penal Code concerning the trafficking of persons states that anyone who concludes an agreement for the purpose of depriving another of his or her freedom, whether for financial gain or free of charge, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from five to ten years. Moreover, securing the provision of services without remuneration, or in exchange for remuneration that is clearly not commensurate with the scale of the task accomplished, by abusing the vulnerability or dependent situation of a person, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from six months to five years and a fine. Finally, exposing a person to conditions of work or accommodation which are incompatible with human dignity by abusing that person’s vulnerability or dependent situation, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and a fine. Section 339 of the Penal Code states that anyone who delivers or receives a person into bondage shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to two years, which may be increased to five years in cases where the victim is under 15 years of age, and a fine. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any court decisions have been issued on the basis of these provisions. If so, it would be grateful if the Government would send a copy of them to the Office.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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:

1. The Committee notes Act No. 98/036 of 31 December 1998 issuing the Penal Code. It also notes Decree No. 247/72/PRG of 20 September 1972 concerning the establishment and structure of the prison administration and Decree No. 624/PRG/81 of 31 November 1981 complementing Decree No. 247/72/PRG. The Committee notes that, under section 73 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 74 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81, work is compulsory for all convicted prisoners under common law but is optional for those who have been accused or charged.

2. Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (c), of the Convention. Prison labour hired out to private individuals. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81, the work of prisoners consists, apart from labour gangs in the service of the prison, of workshop activities inside the prison and this work can be transferred under concession to individuals upon signature of an agreement with the administrative authority under the technical surveillance of the contractor’s delegate. This work can also consist of external work in the fields and on public worksites. The abovementioned sections state that all proceeds from this work go to the prisoners themselves.

The Committee recalls that, under the terms of these provisions of the Convention, any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is only excluded from the scope of the Convention if the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. In order to comply with the Convention, private employment of prison labour must depend on the formal consent of the prisoner concerned (see paragraph 60 of the General Survey of 2007 on eradication of forced labour). In view of the particular situation in which prisoners are placed, this form of consent must also be endorsed by a number of guarantees, aimed at making prisoners’ conditions of work comparable to those of free workers. As part of these guarantees, the Committee has mentioned the level of remuneration and occupational safety and health protection. The Committee notes that no provision of the abovementioned Decrees provides that prison labour for private individuals must be performed on a voluntary basis and with the necessary guarantees. It notes that the fact that prisoners are “transferred” (cédés) for work, as referred to in the abovementioned sections 78 and 79, tends to denote a lack of consent on the part of the prisoners. The Committee emphasizes the need to incorporate provisions in the national legislation which establish, firstly, the obligation to obtain formal consent from prisoners to work for private individuals, companies or associations and, secondly, guarantees, especially regarding remuneration and occupational safety and health, indicating the existence of conditions of work which are comparable to those of a free employment relationship. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, in practice, convicted prisoners are hired, inside or outside prisons, to private individuals, companies or associations, as provided for by section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81. If so, it requests the Government to indicate how the formal consent of the prisoners concerned is ensured and what guarantees they enjoy, particularly with regard to remuneration and occupational safety and health.

3. Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (d). Cases of emergency. The Committee notes that section 517(11) of the Penal Code states that anyone capable who refuses or neglects to perform work or service or to lend assistance required of them in cases of accident, unrest, shipwreck, flood, fire or other calamities, or in cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance or judicial execution, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to 15 days and a fine. It notes that, although some of the abovementioned circumstances do correspond to cases of emergency as provided for by Article 2(2)(d), others – particularly cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance and judicial execution – cannot be considered as cases of emergency within the meaning of these provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how these provisions are applied in practice, by sending a copy of any court decision issued on the basis of section 517(11) of the Penal Code.

4. Articles 1 (paragraph 1), and 2 (paragraph 1). Vagrancy. The Committee notes that section 272 of the Penal Code states that vagrants are persons who have no fixed abode and no means of subsistence and generally have no job or occupation. Under the terms of section 273(1), any person who has been officially declared a vagrant is liable by virtue thereof to imprisonment ranging from three to six months. The Committee notes that this very broad definition of vagrancy might lead to the imposition of imprisonment including the obligation to work on persons who have done nothing to disturb public order. As indicated by the terms of section 273(1) itself, the very fact of having no fixed abode or means of subsistence and being habitually without a job or occupation is sufficient to come within the scope of application of the Penal Code. The Committee emphasizes that such provisions, which are sufficiently general to be potentially applicable in such a way as to constitute a direct or indirect constraint to work, are incompatible with the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to restrict the scope of sections 272 and 273 only to persons who are guilty of unlawful activity. In the meantime, it would be grateful if the Government would indicate how these sections are applied in practice and send a copy of any court decision issued on the basis thereof.

5. Article 25. Penalties. The Committee notes that section 337 of the Penal Code concerning the trafficking of persons states that anyone who concludes an agreement for the purpose of depriving another of his or her freedom, whether for financial gain or free of charge, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from five to ten years. Moreover, securing the provision of services without remuneration, or in exchange for remuneration that is clearly not commensurate with the scale of the task accomplished, by abusing the vulnerability or dependent situation of a person, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from six months to five years and a fine. Finally, exposing a person to conditions of work or accommodation which are incompatible with human dignity by abusing that person’s vulnerability or dependent situation, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and a fine. Section 339 of the Penal Code states that anyone who delivers or receives a person into bondage shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to two years, which may be increased to five years in cases where the victim is under 15 years of age, and a fine. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any court decisions have been issued on the basis of these provisions. If so, it would be grateful if the Government would send a copy of them to the Office.

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

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

1. The Committee notes Act No. 98/036 of 31 December 1998 issuing the Penal Code. It also notes Decree No. 247/72/PRG of 20 September 1972 concerning the establishment and structure of the prison administration and Decree No. 624/PRG/81 of 31 November 1981 complementing Decree No. 247/72/PRG. The Committee notes that, under section 73 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 74 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81, work is compulsory for all convicted prisoners under common law but is optional for those who have been accused or charged.

2. Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. Prison labour hired out to private individuals. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81, the work of prisoners consists, apart from labour gangs in the service of the prison, of workshop activities inside the prison and this work can be transferred under concession to individuals upon signature of an agreement with the administrative authority under the technical surveillance of the contractor’s delegate. This work can also consist of external work in the fields and on public worksites. The abovementioned sections state that all proceeds from this work go to the prisoners themselves.

The Committee recalls that, under the terms of these provisions of the Convention, any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is only excluded from the scope of the Convention if the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. In order to comply with the Convention, private employment of prison labour must depend on the formal consent of the prisoner concerned (see paragraph 60 of the General Survey of 2007 on eradication of forced labour). In view of the particular situation in which prisoners are placed, this form of consent must also be endorsed by a number of guarantees, aimed at making prisoners’ conditions of work comparable to those of free workers. As part of these guarantees, the Committee has mentioned the level of remuneration and occupational safety and health protection. The Committee notes that no provision of the abovementioned Decrees provides that prison labour for private individuals must be performed on a voluntary basis and with the necessary guarantees. It notes that the fact that prisoners are “transferred” (cédés) for work, as referred to in the abovementioned sections 78 and 79, tends to denote a lack of consent on the part of the prisoners. The Committee emphasizes the need to incorporate provisions in the national legislation which establish, firstly, the obligation to obtain formal consent from prisoners to work for private individuals, companies or associations and, secondly, guarantees, especially regarding remuneration and occupational safety and health, indicating the existence of conditions of work which are comparable to those of a free employment relationship. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, in practice, convicted prisoners are hired, inside or outside prisons, to private individuals, companies or associations, as provided for by section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81. If so, it requests the Government to indicate how the formal consent of the prisoners concerned is ensured and what guarantees they enjoy, particularly with regard to remuneration and occupational safety and health.

3. Article 2(2)(d). Cases of emergency. The Committee notes that section 517(11) of the Penal Code states that anyone capable who refuses or neglects to perform work or service or to lend assistance required of them in cases of accident, unrest, shipwreck, flood, fire or other calamities, or in cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance or judicial execution, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to 15 days and a fine. It notes that, although some of the abovementioned circumstances do correspond to cases of emergency as provided for by Article 2(2)(d), others – particularly cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance and judicial execution – cannot be considered as cases of emergency within the meaning of these provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how these provisions are applied in practice, by sending a copy of any court decision issued on the basis of section 517(11) of the Penal Code.

4. Articles 1(1) and 2(1). Vagrancy. The Committee notes that section 272 of the Penal Code states that vagrants are persons who have no fixed abode and no means of subsistence and generally have no job or occupation. Under the terms of section 273(1), any person who has been officially declared a vagrant is liable by virtue thereof to imprisonment ranging from three to six months. The Committee notes that this very broad definition of vagrancy might lead to the imposition of imprisonment including the obligation to work on persons who have done nothing to disturb public order. As indicated by the terms of section 273(1) itself, the very fact of having no fixed abode or means of subsistence and being habitually without a job or occupation is sufficient to come within the scope of application of the Penal Code. The Committee emphasizes that such provisions, which are sufficiently general to be potentially applicable in such a way as to constitute a direct or indirect constraint to work, are incompatible with the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to restrict the scope of sections 272 and 273 only to persons who are guilty of unlawful activity. In the meantime, it would be grateful if the Government would indicate how these sections are applied in practice and send a copy of any court decision issued on the basis thereof.

5. Article 25. Penalties. The Committee notes that section 337 of the Penal Code concerning the trafficking of persons states that anyone who concludes an agreement for the purpose of depriving another of his or her freedom, whether for financial gain or free of charge, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from five to ten years. Moreover, securing the provision of services without remuneration, or in exchange for remuneration that is clearly not commensurate with the scale of the task accomplished, by abusing the vulnerability or dependent situation of a person, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from six months to five years and a fine. Finally, exposing a person to conditions of work or accommodation which are incompatible with human dignity by abusing that person’s vulnerability or dependent situation, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and a fine. Section 339 of the Penal Code states that anyone who delivers or receives a person into bondage shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to two years, which may be increased to five years in cases where the victim is under 15 years of age, and a fine. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any court decisions have been issued on the basis of these provisions. If so, it would be grateful if the Government would send a copy of them to the Office.

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

1. The Committee notes Act No. 98/036 of 31 December 1998 issuing the Penal Code. It also notes Decree No. 247/72/PRG of 20 September 1972 concerning the establishment and structure of the prison administration and Decree No. 624/PRG/81 of 31 November 1981 complementing Decree No. 247/72/PRG. The Committee notes that, under section 73 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 74 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81, work is compulsory for all convicted prisoners under common law but is optional for those who have been accused or charged.

2. Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. Prison labour hired out to private individuals. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81, the work of prisoners consists, apart from labour gangs in the service of the prison, of workshop activities inside the prison and this work can be transferred under concession to individuals upon signature of an agreement with the administrative authority under the technical surveillance of the contractor’s delegate. This work can also consist of external work in the fields and on public worksites. The abovementioned sections state that all proceeds from this work go to the prisoners themselves.

The Committee recalls that, under the terms of these provisions of the Convention, any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is only excluded from the scope of the Convention if the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. In order to comply with the Convention, private employment of prison labour must depend on the formal consent of the prisoner concerned (see paragraph 60 of the General Survey of 2007 on eradication of forced labour). In view of the particular situation in which prisoners are placed, this form of consent must also be endorsed by a number of guarantees, aimed at making prisoners’ conditions of work comparable to those of free workers. As part of these guarantees, the Committee has mentioned the level of remuneration and occupational safety and health protection. The Committee notes that no provision of the abovementioned Decrees provides that prison labour for private individuals must be performed on a voluntary basis and with the necessary guarantees. It notes that the fact that prisoners are “transferred” (cédés) for work, as referred to in the abovementioned sections 78 and 79, tends to denote a lack of consent on the part of the prisoners. The Committee emphasizes the need to incorporate provisions in the national legislation which establish, firstly, the obligation to obtain formal consent from prisoners to work for private individuals, companies or associations and, secondly, guarantees, especially regarding remuneration and occupational safety and health, indicating the existence of conditions of work which are comparable to those of a free employment relationship. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, in practice, convicted prisoners are hired, inside or outside prisons, to private individuals, companies or associations, as provided for by section 78 of Decree No. 247/72/PRG and section 79 of Decree No. 624/PRG/81. If so, it requests the Government to indicate how the formal consent of the prisoners concerned is ensured and what guarantees they enjoy, particularly with regard to remuneration and occupational safety and health.

3. Article 2(2)(d). Cases of emergency. The Committee notes that section 517(11) of the Penal Code states that anyone capable who refuses or neglects to perform work or service or to lend assistance required of them in cases of accident, unrest, shipwreck, flood, fire or other calamities, or in cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance or judicial execution, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one to 15 days and a fine. It notes that, although some of the abovementioned circumstances do correspond to cases of emergency as provided for by Article 2(2)(d), others – particularly cases of banditry, looting, blatant criminal activity, public disturbance and judicial execution – cannot be considered as cases of emergency within the meaning of these provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how these provisions are applied in practice, by sending a copy of any court decision issued on the basis of section 517(11) of the Penal Code.

4. Articles 1(1) and 2(1). Vagrancy. The Committee notes that section 272 of the Penal Code states that vagrants are persons who have no fixed abode and no means of subsistence and generally have no job or occupation. Under the terms of section 273(1), any person who has been officially declared a vagrant is liable by virtue thereof to imprisonment ranging from three to six months. The Committee notes that this very broad definition of vagrancy might lead to the imposition of imprisonment including the obligation to work on persons who have done nothing to disturb public order. As indicated by the terms of section 273(1) itself, the very fact of having no fixed abode or means of subsistence and being habitually without a job or occupation is sufficient to come within the scope of application of the Penal Code. The Committee emphasizes that such provisions, which are sufficiently general to be potentially applicable in such a way as to constitute a direct or indirect constraint to work, are incompatible with the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to restrict the scope of sections 272 and 273 only to persons who are guilty of unlawful activity. In the meantime, it would be grateful if the Government would indicate how these sections are applied in practice and send a copy of any court decision issued on the basis thereof.

5. Article 25. Penalties. The Committee notes that section 337 of the Penal Code concerning the trafficking of persons states that anyone who concludes an agreement for the purpose of depriving another of his or her freedom, whether for financial gain or free of charge, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from five to ten years. Moreover, securing the provision of services without remuneration, or in exchange for remuneration that is clearly not commensurate with the scale of the task accomplished, by abusing the vulnerability or dependent situation of a person, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from six months to five years and a fine. Finally, exposing a person to conditions of work or accommodation which are incompatible with human dignity by abusing that person’s vulnerability or dependent situation, shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to five years and a fine. Section 339 of the Penal Code states that anyone who delivers or receives a person into bondage shall be liable to imprisonment ranging from one month to two years, which may be increased to five years in cases where the victim is under 15 years of age, and a fine. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any court decisions have been issued on the basis of these provisions. If so, it would be grateful if the Government would send a copy of them to the Office.

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

Freedom of public servants to terminate their employment. In relation to its previous comments concerning the freedom of public servants to terminate their employment on their own initiative, the Committee notes with interest article 122 of Law No. L/2001/028/AN on the general status of public servants, communicated by the Government. This article provides for the right of a public servant to resign by means of a written request presented to the relevant administrative authority. A decision by the competent authority to intervene must occur within three months, beyond which point the request to resign is deemed accepted.

Minor communal services. The Committee notes the information from the Government concerning work involving the construction of ramps in rural communities.

Child trafficking. Concerning the questions raised by the Committee in its previous direct request on the situation of child victims of sale, trafficking and prostitution, the Committee notes the ratification of Convention No. 182 in 2003. It considers that these questions can henceforth be considered with greater specificity under that Convention.

Request for legislation. The Committee asks the Government to communicate a copy of the Penal Code, as well as copies of provisions governing the penitentiary system.

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

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

1. The Committee has noted the Government’s reply in its latest report to the Committee’s request for information on the application of sections 103 and 105 of the General Public Service Statute concerning in particular the reasons for the competent authority to accept or refuse a resignation and on the type of disciplinary sanctions provided. The Government indicates that the freedom of public servants to leave their employment constitutes normal practice following the institution of the system of voluntary departure and granting of non-active status. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the legislative texts relating to the system of voluntary departure and granting of non-active status.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring national legislation into conformity with the Convention, by repealing or specifically amending the abovementioned provisions so that there is no ambiguity in regard to their application and the law reflects a practice which, according to the Government, is already in force.

2. The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government in its report regarding the creation of "bypasses" (bretelles)- in rural communities which enable citizens to exploit their harvests or, often, prevent bush fires which could ravage plantations, food crops, etc. - which may be requested at the initiative of either a political authority or an administrative authority. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether this work is carried out in the direct interest of the community and whether the people who must perform the work have the opportunity to express an opinion as to whether it is justified.

3. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the new general public service statute mentioned in previous reports has been adopted and to supply a copy.

4. The Committee has noted the final observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/15/Add.100) which expresses concern in relation to children victims of sale, trafficking and prostitution (paragraph 10). In the report submitted to the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/3/Add.48 of June 1997), the Government refers to sections 289-290 and 299-300 of the Penal Code of 1975 which punishes kidnapping or trafficking, pawning and prostitution of children (paragraph 87).

5. Article 25 of the Convention. By virtue of Article 25 of the Convention, the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be punishable as a penal offence, and it shall be an obligation on any Member ratifying this Convention to ensure that the penalties imposed by law are really adequate and are strictly enforced. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on any judicial procedures brought against persons responsible for trafficking or economic and sexual exploitation of children and any sentences imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on following matters raised in its previous direct request.

1. The Committee has noted the Government’s reply in its latest report to the Committee’s request for information on the application of sections 103 and 105 of the General Public Service Statute concerning in particular the reasons for the competent authority to accept or refuse a resignation and on the type of disciplinary sanctions provided. The Government indicates that the freedom of public servants to leave their employment constitutes normal practice following the institution of the system of voluntary departure and granting of non-active status. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the legislative texts relating to the system of voluntary departure and granting of non-active status.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring national legislation into conformity with the Convention, by repealing or specifically amending the abovementioned provisions so that there is no ambiguity in regard to their application and the law reflects a practice which, according to the Government, is already in force.

2. The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government in its report regarding the creation of "bypasses" (bretelles)- in rural communities which enable citizens to exploit their harvests or, often, prevent bush fires which could ravage plantations, food crops, etc. - which may be requested at the initiative of either a political authority or an administrative authority. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether this work is carried out in the direct interest of the community and whether the people who must perform the work have the opportunity to express an opinion as to whether it is justified.

3. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the new general public service statute mentioned in previous reports has been adopted and to supply a copy.

4. The Committee has noted the final observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/15/Add.100) which expresses concern in relation to children victims of sale, trafficking and prostitution (paragraph 10). In the report submitted to the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/3/Add.48 of June 1997), the Government refers to sections 289-290 and 299-300 of the Penal Code of 1975 which punishes kidnapping or trafficking, pawning and prostitution of children (paragraph 87).

5. Article 25 of the Convention. By virtue of Article 25 of the Convention, the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be punishable as a penal offence, and it shall be an obligation on any Member ratifying this Convention to ensure that the penalties imposed by law are really adequate and are strictly enforced. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on any judicial procedures brought against persons responsible for trafficking or economic and sexual exploitation of children and any sentences imposed.

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

1. The Committee notes the Government’s reply in its latest report to the Committee’s request for information on the application of sections 103 and 105 of the General Public Service Statute concerning in particular the reasons for the competent authority to accept or refuse a resignation and on the type of disciplinary sanctions provided. The Government indicates that the freedom of public servants to leave their employment constitutes normal practice following the institution of the system of voluntary departure and granting of non-active status. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the legislative texts relating to the system of voluntary departure and granting of non-active status.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring national legislation into conformity with the Convention, by repealing or specifically amending the abovementioned provisions so that there is no ambiguity in regard to their application and the law reflects a practice which, according to the Government, is already in force.

2. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report regarding the creation of "bypasses" (bretelles)- in rural communities which enable citizens to exploit their harvests or, often, prevent bush fires which could ravage plantations, food crops, etc. - which may be requested at the initiative of either a political authority or an administrative authority. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether this work is carried out in the direct interest of the community and whether the people who must perform the work have the opportunity to express an opinion as to whether it is justified.

3. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the new general public service statute mentioned in previous reports has been adopted and to supply a copy.

4. The Committee notes the final observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/15/Add.100) which expresses concern in relation to children victims of sale, trafficking and prostitution (paragraph 10). In the report submitted to the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/3/Add.48 of June 1997), the Government refers to sections 289-290 and 299-300 of the Penal Code of 1975 which punishes kidnapping or trafficking, pawning and prostitution of children (paragraph 87).

5. Article 25 of the Convention. By virtue of Article 25 of the Convention, the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be punishable as a penal offence, and it shall be an obligation on any Member ratifying this Convention to ensure that the penalties imposed by law are really adequate and are strictly enforced. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on any judicial procedures brought against persons responsible for trafficking or economic and sexual exploitation of children and any sentences imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous comments: Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee has sought information concerning the freedom of public servants to leave their employment, particularly with regard to those public servants who have benefited from training. The Committee notes the Government's response that public servants, like workers in the private and mixed sectors, are free to terminate employment. In the case of workers in the private and mixed sectors, the procedure is compulsory under sections 2, 73 and 77 of the Labour Code and in respect of vocational training, is governed by section 10 of the Ordinance No. 91/026/PRG/SGG of 11 March 1991. In the case of public servants, freedom to terminate is governed by sections 1, 6, 102, 103, 104, 105 and 111 of the General Public Service Statute. The Committee notes that under the above section 103, resignation is only effective in so far as it is accepted by the authority empowered to make appointments; and that under section 105 disciplinary sanctions are provided for in this respect. The Committee refers to the explanations given in paragraphs 67 to 69 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, and requests the Government to provide information in respect of the application of sections 103 and 105 of the General Public Service Statute, in particular with regard to the criteria applied by the competent authorities in accepting or refusing an application to resign, and the types of disciplinary sanctions provided for. 2. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether the new Public Service Statute, which it referred to in previous reports, has been adopted and, if so, to provide a copy of the text. 3. Referring to the general observation on the Convention made in its report to the 87th Session of the ILC (1999), the Committee requests the Government to include in its next report information as to the present position in law and practice as regards:

(i) whether there are prisons administered by private concerns, profit-making or otherwise;

(ii) whether any private prison contractors deploy prisoners to work either inside or outside prison premises, either for the account of the contractor or for that of another enterprise;

(iii) whether private parties are admitted by the prison authorities into prison premises of any kind for the purpose of engaging prisoners in employment;

(iv) whether employment of prisoners outside prison premises, either for a public authority or for a private enterprise, is allowed;

(v) the conditions in which employment under any of the above conditions takes place, in respect of remuneration (indicating the level and comparing it with minimum wage normally applicable to such work), benefits accruing (such as pension rights and workers' compensation), observance of occupational safety and health legislation and other conditions of employment (e.g. through labour inspection), and how those conditions are determined;

(vi) what the source of any remuneration is (whether from public or private funds) and for what purposes it must or may be applied (e.g. for the personal use of the prisoner or if it is subject to compulsory deductions);

(vii) for whose benefit is the product of prisoners' work and any surplus profit deriving from it, after deduction of overheads, and how it is disbursed;

(viii) how the consent of the prisoners concerned is guaranteed, so that it is free from the menace of any penalty, including any loss of privileges or other disadvantages following from a refusal to work.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee has sought information concerning the freedom of public servants to leave their employment, particularly with regard to those public servants who have benefited from training.

The Committee notes the Government's response that public servants, like workers in the private and mixed sectors, are free to terminate employment. In the case of workers in the private and mixed sectors, the procedure is compulsory under sections 2, 73 and 77 of the Labour Code and in respect of vocational training, is governed by section 10 of the Ordinance No. 91/026/PRG/SGG of 11 March 1991. In the case of public servants, freedom to terminate is governed by sections 1, 6, 102, 103, 104, 105 and 111 of the General Public Service Statute.

The Committee notes that under the above section 103, resignation is only effective in so far as it is accepted by the authority empowered to make appointments; and that under section 105 disciplinary sanctions are provided for in this respect. The Committee refers to the explanations given in paragraphs 67 to 69 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, and requests the Government to provide information in respect of the application of sections 103 and 105 of the General Public Service Statute, in particular with regard to the criteria applied by the competent authorities in accepting or refusing an application to resign, and the types of disciplinary sanctions provided for.

2. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether the new Public Service Statute, which it referred to in previous reports, has been adopted and, if so, to provide a copy of the text.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matter raised in its previous direct request:

Freedom of state employees to leave their employment. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government's statements to the effect that public servants who have benefited from training at the expense of the State have to complete at least five years of actual service in the administration for their resignation applications to be approved.

In its report received in April 1994, the Government states that only workers covered by the provisions of the Labour Code are subject to the obligation to remain in the service of their employers for a period at least equivalent to that of their training and that, in the case of public servants, this obligation is not enforced.

The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the texts that are applicable in this respect.

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether the new conditions of service of the public service, to which reference was made in previous reports, have been adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

Freedom of state employees to leave their employment. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government's statements to the effect that public servants who have benefited from training at the expense of the State have to complete at least five years of actual service in the administration for their resignation applications to be approved.

In its last report, the Government states that only workers covered by the provisions of the Labour Code are subject to the obligation to remain in the service of their employers for a period at least equivalent to that of their training and that, in the case of public servants, this obligation is not enforced.

The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the texts that are applicable in this respect.

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether the new conditions of service of the public service, to which reference was made in previous reports, have been adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Freedom of workers in the service of the State to leave their employment. With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee noted the information in the Government's report for the period ending 30 June 1991 to the effect that public servants who have received training financed by the State must have completed five years of effective service in the administration before they can be authorized to resign. The Committee again requests the Government to provide a copy of the texts applying to this matter.

The Committee also again asks the Government to provide with its future reports copies of any amendments to the Public Service Statute or of any new statutes adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

Freedom of workers in the service of the State to leave their employment. With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee notes the information in the Government's report to the effect that public servants who have received training financed by the State must have completed five years of effective service in the administration before they can be authorized to resign. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the texts applying to this matter.

The Committee also asks the Government to provide with its future reports copies of any amendments to the Public Service Statute or of any new statutes adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

Freedom of workers in the service of the State to leave their employment

For some years, the Committee has been noting the Government's indications to the effect that a new public service statute is being prepared, and has requested the Government to provide a copy of this text as soon as it is adopted. The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no information on this matter and hopes that the Government will shortly report on the progress of the above revision. The Committee notes that under sections 103 and 105 of Ordinance No. 048/PRG of 1959 issuing the general conditions of service of the public service, which, the Committee understands, is still in force, resignation is only effective in so far as it is accepted by the authority empowered to make appointments, whose decision must be given within three months. A public servant who ceases his duties before his resignation is accepted loses all his acquired rights and may be liable to disciplinary sanctions. The Committee requests the Government to state the criteria that are applied by the competent authorities in accepting or refusing an application to resign and the possibilities of appeal in the event of refusal. It also asks the Government to provide a copy of the texts applying to the resignation of public servants who have received training financed by the State.