ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1998, publiée 87ème session CIT (1999)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Fédération de Russie (Ratification: 1956)
Protocole de 2014 relatif à la convention sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Fédération de Russie (Ratification: 2019)

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

I. The Committee notes with interest that the Russian Federation has recently ratified the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105).

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

Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of the Convention. 1. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. With regard to the freedom of all military personnel (including personnel other than officers) to leave the service on their own initiative, after a reasonable time, the Committee notes with interest the Government's statement that the armed forces of the country now engage their military personnel completely on the basis of employment contracts, except the persons drafted for compulsory military service, and that warrant officers and petty officers as well as rank and file personnel perform their duties on the basis of fixed-term contracts concluded for a period of three to five years. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the relevant legislative provisions.

2. In its previous comments the Committee noted the Government's indication that recruitment of supplementary labour force by agricultural enterprises during the harvest season can only take place according to an individual agreement and asked the Government to provide samples of such agreements, as well as copies of applicable legislative provisions. In its report the Government indicates that the practice of recruiting students for agricultural works has actually been discontinued and that no complaints have been received in this regard by the Ministry of Labour. The Committee takes due note of this indication. It requests the Government to continue supplying in its future reports information on the evolution of law and practice in this matter.

3. The Committee notes that section 37 of the Correctional Labour Code, as amended on 12 June 1992, provides that every convicted person is under an obligation to work, such work being exacted from them by the administration of correctional institutions either at state enterprises, or at enterprises of other forms of ownership, on a contract basis. It also notes the provision of section 21 of Act No. 5473-I, of 21 July 1993, on the institutions and bodies for the execution of sentences involving deprivation of freedom, according to which compulsory labour may be exacted from convicted prisoners at enterprises of any organizational or legal form, even if such enterprises do not belong to the executive penal system and are located out of the place of correctional institutions; compulsory labour is exacted in this case on the basis of a contract concluded between the administration of institutions for the execution of sentences and the enterprises concerned.

The Committee recalls in this connection that Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention exempts from its provisions "any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that 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". While this Article strictly prohibits that prisoners be hired to or placed at the disposal of private undertakings, the Committee has accepted, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 97 to 101 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that schemes existing in certain countries under which prisoners may, particularly during the period preceding their release, voluntarily enter a normal employment relationship with private employers, do not fall within the scope of the Convention. As the Committee has repeatedly pointed out, only work performed in conditions of a free employment relationship can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition in Article 2, paragraph 2(c); this necessarily requires the formal consent of the person concerned and, in the light of the circumstances of the consent, i.e. the basic obligation to perform prison labour, and other restrictions on the prisoner's freedom to take up normal employment, there must be further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a labour relation, such as a level of wages and social security corresponding to a free labour relationship, to remove the employment from the scope of Article 2, paragraph 2(c), which unconditionally prohibits that persons who are under an obligation to perform prison labour be hired to or placed at the disposal of private companies.

The Committee hopes that, taking into account these considerations, the Government will take the necessary measures in relation to the above-mentioned legislation to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that it will provide, in its next report, information on law and practice regarding the work of prisoners for private enterprises.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer