Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Tajikistan (Ratification: 1999)

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

Previous comment

Article 1(c)of the Convention. Penal sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that under section 332 “Negligence” of the Criminal Code, 22 cases were considered in 2019, 10 in 2020, 29 in 2021, and 20 in 2022. The Committee also takes note of the examples of the court decisions handed down under section 332(2) of the Criminal Code provided by the Government. The Government points out that section 322 of the Criminal Code is not applied as a means of labour discipline and aims to punish public officials whose negligence has entailed a substantial violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or the legally protected interests of society or the State. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of prosecutions, convictions and the penalties applied under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 160 “Violation of the procedure for organising and holding meetings, rallies, demonstrations, picketing and street processions” of the Criminal Code has never been used to prosecute trade union members for carrying out legitimate trade union activities. The Government further indicates that participants in peaceful strikes are not criminally liable. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of prosecutions, convictions and the penalties applied under section 160 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions.

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

Previous comment

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that there are eight persons convicted under section 137 “Public insults of the President”; two persons convicted under section 137-1 “Public insults or defamation of the Leader of the Nation”; 137 persons convicted under section 189 “Incitement of social, racial, national, regional, religious enmity or discord”; and one person convicted under section 330(2) “Insult of a representative of authority” of the Criminal Code. The Committee also takes note of the examples of the court decisions handed down under sections 137, 189, and 330 of the Criminal Code provided by the Government.

The Committee notes that the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee, in its 2023 report on follow-up to its concluding observations, regretted that individuals had been deprived of their liberty on a number of charges related to insulting or libelling the President/Leader of the Nation and insulting other State officials (CCPR/C/137/2/Add.4). With respect to section 189(1) of the Criminal Code, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in its Opinion No. 89/2020, expressed concern that the provisions of this section are vague and overly broad and may be used to punish the peaceful exercise of human rights. In its other Opinions, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention referred to the arbitrary arrests and deprivation of liberty of political opposition activists which resulted from the legitimate exercise of their rights and freedoms (Opinions No. 48/2021 and No.23/2020) The Committee also notes that the UN human rights experts expressed concern about the use of extremism- and terrorism-related charges against human rights defenders and minority activists (the communication of 12 May 2023). The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination regretted that the national counter-terrorism legislation, including the provisions of the Criminal Code, contains an overly broad and ambiguous definition of “terrorism” and related offences (CERD/C/TJK/CO/12-13).

The Committee recalls that while Article 1(a) of the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence, it protects those who, in a peaceful manner, express their views or oppose the established political, social or economic system (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 303). The Committee further observes from the examples of the court decisions provided by the Government that the application of sections 137, 189 and 330 of the Criminal Code in practice is not limited to cases of violence. The Committee notes with concern that the provisions of the Criminal Code are used to arrest, prosecute and convict human rights defenders, opposition members and journalists who express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, leading to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour, particularly imprisonment, corrective labour and public works. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessarymeasures to review the provisions of the Criminal Code punishing extremism and terrorism-related offences, in such a way that, both in law and practice, no penalty involving compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who peacefully express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee further urges the Government to amend or repeal sections 137, 137-1, 189, and 330 of the Criminal Code by clearly restricting the scope of these provisions to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour.

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

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

The Committee notes with deep 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. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2023, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political views. The Committee previously noted that certain provisions on the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment for situations that might be covered by Article 1(a)of the Convention. It also noted that sanctions of imprisonment involve compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 107(1) of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of these provisions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that a request was sent to the Ministry of Justice regarding the application of section 189 of the Criminal Code, and Article 1of the Convention, and a response shall be sent to the Committee once it is received by the Government. The Committee once again refers to section 189 of the Criminal Code under which “propaganda of the exclusiveness of citizens by a sign to religion, national racial, or local origin, if these actions were committed in public or using means of mass media are punishable by up to five years of restriction of liberty or imprisonment for the same period”. The Committee also notes that under section 137, public insults of the President using press or other media are punishable by correctional labour up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of two to five years. Section 330(2) also provides that public insult of an official in mass media is punishable by a fine or confinement for a period of two to six months, or up to two years of imprisonment. The Committee further notes that in its concluding observations of 2013, the UN Human Rights Committee remained concern at the existence of penal provisions on liable and insult against the President (section 137) and insult against government representatives (section 330(2)) (CCPR/C/TJK/CO/2, paragraph 22). In this regard, the Committee recalls, referring to paragraphs 302–304 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, that sanctions involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, are incompatible with Article 1(a)of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violence views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system.The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 137, 189 and 330(2) of the Criminal Code, as well as copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their application to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Penal sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee previously noted that, under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code (“Negligence”), the non-performance or improper performance by a public official of his/her duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to the legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by compulsory community works or correctional labour.Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the court decisions handed down pursuant to section 322(1) of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its application, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. The Committee previously noted that section 160 of the Criminal Code provides that organizers of public meetings, assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing conducted in violation of the established procedure are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged with a view to ensuring that no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed on a worker for the mere fact of a peaceful participation in a strike. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a request was sent to the Ministry of Justice regarding the application of section 160 of the Criminal Code, and a response shall be sent to the Committee once it is received by the Government. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report submitted under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that section 160 of the Criminal Code proposes penalties for breaching the procedures governing the organization of rallies and demonstrations or, in some circumstances, a prison sentence of two years. Participants in peaceful strike action bear no criminal liability.While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 160 of the Criminal Code, particularly on the relevant court decisions handed down under this section, and the penalties imposed.

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

The Committee notes with deep 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. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2022, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political views. The Committee previously noted that certain provisions on the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment for situations that might be covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention. It also noted that sanctions of imprisonment involve compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 107(1) of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of these provisions.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that a request was sent to the Ministry of Justice regarding the application of section 189 of the Criminal Code, and Article 1 of the Convention, and a response shall be sent to the Committee once it is received by the Government.

The Committee once again refers to section 189 of the Criminal Code under which “propaganda of the exclusiveness of citizens by a sign to religion, national racial, or local origin, if these actions were committed in public or using means of mass media are punishable by up to five years of restriction of liberty or imprisonment for the same period”. The Committee also notes that under section 137, public insults of the President using press or other media are punishable by correctional labour up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of two to five years. Section 330(2) also provides that public insult of an official in mass media is punishable by a fine or confinement for a period of two to six months, or up to two years of imprisonment. The Committee further notes that in its concluding observations of 2013, the UN Human Rights Committee remained concern at the existence of penal provisions on liable and insult against the President (section 137) and insult against government representatives (section 330(2)) (CCPR/C/TJK/CO/2, paragraph 22).

In this regard, the Committee recalls, referring to paragraphs 302–304 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, that sanctions involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, are incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violence views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 137, 189 and 330(2) of the Criminal Code, as well as copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their application to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Penal sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee previously noted that, under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code (“Negligence”), the non-performance or improper performance by a public official of his/her duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to the legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by compulsory community works or correctional labour. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the court decisions handed down pursuant to section 322(1) of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its application, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. The Committee previously noted that section 160 of the Criminal Code provides that organizers of public meetings, assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing conducted in violation of the established procedure are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged with a view to ensuring that no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed on a worker for the mere fact of a peaceful participation in a strike. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a request was sent to the Ministry of Justice regarding the application of section 160 of the Criminal Code, and a response shall be sent to the Committee once it is received by the Government. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report submitted under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that section 160 of the Criminal Code proposes penalties for breaching the procedures governing the organization of rallies and demonstrations or, in some circumstances, a prison sentence of two years. Participants in peaceful strike action bear no criminal liability. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 160 of the Criminal Code, particularly on the relevant court decisions handed down under this section, and the penalties imposed.

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

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

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political views. The Committee previously noted that certain provisions on the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment for situations that might be covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention. It also noted that sanctions of imprisonment involve compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 107(1) of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of these provisions.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that a request was sent to the Ministry of Justice regarding the application of section 189 of the Criminal Code, and Article 1 of the Convention, and a response shall be sent to the Committee once it is received by the Government.

The Committee once again refers to section 189 of the Criminal Code under which “propaganda of the exclusiveness of citizens by a sign to religion, national racial, or local origin, if these actions were committed in public or using means of mass media are punishable by up to five years of restriction of liberty or imprisonment for the same period”. The Committee also notes that under section 137, public insults of the President using press or other media are punishable by correctional labour up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of two to five years. Section 330(2) also provides that public insult of an official in mass media is punishable by a fine or confinement for a period of two to six months, or up to two years of imprisonment. The Committee further notes that in its concluding observations of 2013, the UN Human Rights Committee remained concern at the existence of penal provisions on liable and insult against the President (section 137) and insult against government representatives (section 330(2)) (CCPR/C/TJK/CO/2, paragraph 22).

In this regard, the Committee recalls, referring to paragraphs 302–304 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, that sanctions involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, are incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violence views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 137, 189 and 330(2) of the Criminal Code, as well as copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their application to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Penal sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee previously noted that, under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code (“Negligence”), the non-performance or improper performance by a public official of his/her duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to the legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by compulsory community works or correctional labour. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the court decisions handed down pursuant to section 322(1) of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its application, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. The Committee previously noted that section 160 of the Criminal Code provides that organizers of public meetings, assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing conducted in violation of the established procedure are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged with a view to ensuring that no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed on a worker for the mere fact of a peaceful participation in a strike. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a request was sent to the Ministry of Justice regarding the application of section 160 of the Criminal Code, and a response shall be sent to the Committee once it is received by the Government. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report submitted under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that section 160 of the Criminal Code proposes penalties for breaching the procedures governing the organization of rallies and demonstrations or, in some circumstances, a prison sentence of two years. Participants in peaceful strike action bear no criminal liability. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 160 of the Criminal Code, particularly on the relevant court decisions handed down under this section, and the penalties imposed.

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

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

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political views. The Committee previously noted that certain provisions on the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment for situations that might be covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention. It also noted that sanctions of imprisonment involve compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 107(1) of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of these provisions.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that a request was sent to the Ministry of Justice regarding the application of section 189 of the Criminal Code, and Article 1 of the Convention, and a response shall be sent to the Committee once it is received by the Government.

The Committee once again refers to section 189 of the Criminal Code under which “propaganda of the exclusiveness of citizens by a sign to religion, national racial, or local origin, if these actions were committed in public or using means of mass media are punishable by up to five years of restriction of liberty or imprisonment for the same period”. The Committee also notes that under section 137, public insults of the President using press or other media are punishable by correctional labour up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of two to five years. Section 330(2) also provides that public insult of an official in mass media is punishable by a fine or confinement for a period of two to six months, or up to two years of imprisonment. The Committee further notes that in its concluding observations of 2013, the UN Human Rights Committee remained concern at the existence of penal provisions on liable and insult against the President (section 137) and insult against government representatives (section 330(2)) (CCPR/C/TJK/CO/2, para. 22).

In this regard, the Committee recalls, referring to paragraphs 302–304 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, that sanctions involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, are incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violence views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 137, 189 and 330(2) of the Criminal Code, as well as copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their application to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Penal sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee previously noted that, under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code (“Negligence”), the non-performance or improper performance by a public official of his/her duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to the legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by compulsory community works or correctional labour. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the court decisions handed down pursuant to section 322(1) of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its application, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. The Committee previously noted that section 160 of the Criminal Code provides that organizers of public meetings, assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing conducted in violation of the established procedure are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged with a view to ensuring that no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed on a worker for the mere fact of a peaceful participation in a strike. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a request was sent to the Ministry of Justice regarding the application of section 160 of the Criminal Code, and a response shall be sent to the Committee once it is received by the Government. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report submitted under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that section 160 of the Criminal Code proposes penalties for breaching the procedures governing the organization of rallies and demonstrations or, in some circumstances, a prison sentence of two years. Participants in peaceful strike action bear no criminal liability. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 160 of the Criminal Code, particularly on the relevant court decisions handed down under this section, and the penalties imposed.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political views. The Committee previously noted that certain provisions on the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment for situations that might be covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention. It also noted that sanctions of imprisonment involve compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 107(1) of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of these provisions.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that a request was sent to the Ministry of Justice regarding the application of section 189 of the Criminal Code, and Article 1 of the Convention, and a response shall be sent to the Committee once it is received by the Government.

The Committee once again refers to section 189 of the Criminal Code under which “propaganda of the exclusiveness of citizens by a sign to religion, national racial, or local origin, if these actions were committed in public or using means of mass media are punishable by up to five years of restriction of liberty or imprisonment for the same period”. The Committee also notes that under section 137, public insults of the President using press or other media are punishable by correctional labour up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of two to five years. Section 330(2) also provides that public insult of an official in mass media is punishable by a fine or confinement for a period of two to six months, or up to two years of imprisonment. The Committee further notes that in its concluding observations of 2013, the UN Human Rights Committee remained concern at the existence of penal provisions on liable and insult against the President (section 137) and insult against government representatives (section 330(2)) (CCPR/C/TJK/CO/2, para. 22).

In this regard, the Committee recalls, referring to paragraphs 302–304 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, that sanctions involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, are incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violence views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 137, 189 and 330(2) of the Criminal Code, as well as copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their application to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Penal sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee previously noted that, under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code (“Negligence”), the non-performance or improper performance by a public official of his/her duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to the legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by compulsory community works or correctional labour. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the court decisions handed down pursuant to section 322(1) of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its application, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. The Committee previously noted that section 160 of the Criminal Code provides that organizers of public meetings, assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing conducted in violation of the established procedure are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged with a view to ensuring that no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed on a worker for the mere fact of a peaceful participation in a strike. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a request was sent to the Ministry of Justice regarding the application of section 160 of the Criminal Code, and a response shall be sent to the Committee once it is received by the Government. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report submitted under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that section 160 of the Criminal Code proposes penalties for breaching the procedures governing the organization of rallies and demonstrations or, in some circumstances, a prison sentence of two years. Participants in peaceful strike action bear no criminal liability. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 160 of the Criminal Code, particularly on the relevant court decisions handed down under this section, and the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

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

Repetition

Communication of texts. The Committee notes the Law on political parties, the Law on information and the Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations and peaceful processions, supplied by the Government with its report. The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the Broadcasting Law and the Law governing the press, to which reference is made in section 17 of the Law on information.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. The Committee previously noted that the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 107(1) of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences) for the “inciting national, racial or religious hatred” made publicly or through mass media (section 189). The Committee also noted that, under section 160 of the Criminal Code, organizers of public meetings, assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing conducted in violation of the established procedure are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour as explained above).

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

Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on the above issues, the Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to provide, in its next report, information on the application of the abovementioned sections 160 and 189 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

The Committee previously noted that under sections 307-1, 307-2 and 308 of the Criminal Code relating to the “extremist activities”, the following acts are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour): public appeal to performing extremist activities (including through mass media or the Internet), establishment of an extremist group or organization and participation in such a group or organization or a political party prohibited by a court decision.

Referring to the above explanations, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide, in its next report, information on the application of the abovementioned sections in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, and clarifying in particular the notion of “extremist activities”, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Penal sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee previously noted that, under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code (“Negligence”), the non-performance or improper performance by a public official of his/her duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by compulsory community works or correctional labour.

Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the court decisions passed under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its scope, including sample copies of such decisions, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. Referring to its comments made under Article 1(a) of the Convention concerning section 160 of the Criminal Code, under which organizers of public meetings, assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing conducted in violation of the established procedure are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour), the Committee previously requested the Government to indicate whether this section is applicable to participants in unlawful strikes. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in the report that the Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations and peaceful processions does not contain provisions concerning strikes. It also notes the Government’s indication that measures are being taken with a view to amending this Law.

Referring also to its comments made under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee hopes that the Government will provide, in its next report, information on measures taken or envisaged with a view to ensuring that no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed on a worker for the mere fact of a peaceful participation in a strike.

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

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

Repetition

Communication of texts. The Committee notes the Law on political parties, the Law on information and the Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations and peaceful processions, supplied by the Government with its report. The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the Broadcasting Law and the Law governing the press, to which reference is made in section 17 of the Law on information.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. The Committee previously noted that the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 107(1) of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences) for the “inciting national, racial or religious hatred” made publicly or through mass media (section 189). The Committee also noted that, under section 160 of the Criminal Code, organizers of public meetings, assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing conducted in violation of the established procedure are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour as explained above).

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

Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on the above issues, the Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to provide, in its next report, information on the application of the abovementioned sections 160 and 189 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

The Committee previously noted that under sections 307-1, 307-2 and 308 of the Criminal Code relating to the “extremist activities”, the following acts are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour): public appeal to performing extremist activities (including through mass media or the Internet), establishment of an extremist group or organization and participation in such a group or organization or a political party prohibited by a court decision.

Referring to the above explanations, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide, in its next report, information on the application of the abovementioned sections in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, and clarifying in particular the notion of “extremist activities”, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Penal sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee previously noted that, under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code (“Negligence”), the non-performance or improper performance by a public official of his/her duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by compulsory community works or correctional labour.

Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the court decisions passed under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its scope, including sample copies of such decisions, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. Referring to its comments made under Article 1(a) of the Convention concerning section 160 of the Criminal Code, under which organizers of public meetings, assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing conducted in violation of the established procedure are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour), the Committee previously requested the Government to indicate whether this section is applicable to participants in unlawful strikes. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in the report that the Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations and peaceful processions does not contain provisions concerning strikes. It also notes the Government’s indication that measures are being taken with a view to amending this Law.

Referring also to its comments made under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee hopes that the Government will provide, in its next report, information on measures taken or envisaged with a view to ensuring that no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed on a worker for the mere fact of a peaceful participation in a strike.

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

Communication of texts. The Committee notes the Law on Political Parties, the Law on Information and the Law on Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations and Peaceful Processions, supplied by the Government with its report. The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the Broadcasting Law and the Law governing the Press, to which reference is made in section 17 of the Law on Information.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. The Committee previously noted that the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 107(1) of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences) for the “inciting national, racial or religious hatred” made publicly or through mass media (section 189). The Committee also noted that, under section 160 of the Criminal Code, organizers of public meetings, assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing conducted in violation of the established procedure are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour as explained above).

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

Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on the above issues, the Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to provide, in its next report, information on the application of the abovementioned sections 160 and 189 in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

The Committee previously noted that under sections 307-1, 307-2 and 308 of the Criminal Code relating to the “extremist activities”, the following acts are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour): public appeal to performing extremist activities (including through mass media or the internet), establishment of an extremist group or organization and participation in such a group or organization or a political party prohibited by a court decision.

Referring to the above explanations, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide, in its next report, information on the application of the above-mentioned sections in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, and clarifying in particular the notion of “extremist activities”, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Penal sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee previously noted that, under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code (“Negligence”), the non-performance or improper performance by a public official of his/her duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by compulsory community works or correctional labour.

Noting that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the court decisions passed under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its scope, including sample copies of such decisions, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. Referring to its comments made under Article 1(a) of the Convention concerning section 160 of the Criminal Code, under which organizers of public meetings, assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing conducted in violation of the established procedure are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour), the Committee previously requested the Government to indicate whether this section is applicable to participants in unlawful strikes. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in the report that the Law on Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations and Peaceful Processions does not contain provisions concerning strikes. It also notes the Government’s indication that measures are being taken with a view to amending this Law.

Referring also to its comments made under Convention No. 87, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide, in its next report, information on measures taken or envisaged with a view to ensuring that no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed on a worker for the mere fact of a peaceful participation in a strike.

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

The Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government in its first and second reports on the application of the Convention.

Communication of texts. The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: laws governing the press and other media; laws governing political parties and associations; laws governing assemblies, meetings and demonstrations.

Article 1, subparagraph a, of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. 1. The Committee notes that the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 107(1) of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences) for the “inciting national, racial or religious hatred” made publicly or through mass media (section 189). The Committee also notes that under section 160 of the Criminal Code, organizers of public meetings, assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing conducted in violation of the established procedure are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour as explained above).

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

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application of the abovementioned sections 160 and 189 in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

2. The Committee notes that under sections 307-1, 307-2 and 308 of the Criminal Code relating to the “extremist activities”, the following acts are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour): public appeal to performing extremist activities (including through mass media or the internet), establishment of an extremist group or organization and participation in such a group or organization or a political party prohibited by a court decision.

Referring to the explanations in point 1 above, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application of the above-mentioned sections in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, and clarifying in particular the notion of “extremist activities”, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with the Convention.

Article 1, subparagraph c. Penal sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee notes that, under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code (“Negligence”), the non-performance or improper performance by a public official of his/her duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by compulsory community works or correctional labour.

The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the court decisions passed under section 322(1) of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its scope, including sample copies of such decisions, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1, subparagraph d. Sanctions for participating in strikes. The Committee refers to its comments made under Article 1(a) of the present direct request, in which it has noted that under section 160 of the Criminal Code, organizers of public meetings, assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing conducted in violation of the established procedure are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour).

Referring also to its comments made under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Tajikistan, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether section 160 of the Criminal Code is applicable to participants in unlawful strikes and to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.