Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2011, publiée 101ème session CIT (2012)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - République de Moldova (Ratification: 1993)

The Committee notes with satisfaction that the Law No. 277-XVI of 18 December 2008 has repealed section 358 (1) of the Criminal Code which imposed sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) for the organization of or active participation in group actions breaking violently public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. The Committee also notes with satisfaction that the same Law has amended section 285 of the Criminal Code (“Mass disorders”) by limiting the application of sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) to acts of violence against persons, use of firearms and violent or armed resistance to representatives of authorities.

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilizing of labour for purposes of economic development. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted a communication received in February 2004 from the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (CSRM), which referred, in particular, to certain provisions of the Law on mobilization, No. 1192-XV of 4 July 2002, the Law on the requisitioning of goods and services in the public interest, No. 1352 XV of 11 October 2002, and the government decision to approve regulations on the mobilization at the workplace, No. 751 of 24 June 2003, under which the central and local authorities, as well as military bodies, can exact compulsory labour from the population under certain conditions as a means of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of the development of the national economy.

In its report, the Government expresses the view that both the punishment in form of community service work in the interest of society and the provisions of section 3(b) of Law No. 1352-XV of 11 October 2002 on the requisition of assets and performance of labour duty in the interest of society, does not represent forced or compulsory labour under Convention No. 105, but falls within the exceptions allowed by Article 2(2) of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).

The Committee refers in this connection to the explanations provided in paragraph 144 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, in which it has considered that in the great majority of cases, labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will have no relevance to the application of Convention No. 105, such as in the cases of the exaction of compulsory labour from common offenders convicted, for example, of robbery, kidnapping, bombing or other acts of violence or acts or omissions that have endangered the life or health of others, or numerous other offences. However, if a person has to perform compulsory prison labour because she or he holds or has expressed particular political views, has committed a breach of labour discipline or has participated in a strike, the situation is covered by this Convention, which prohibits the use “of any form” of forced or compulsory labour as a sanction, as a means of coercion, education or discipline, or as a punishment in respect of the persons within the meaning of Article 1(a), (c) and (d).

The Committee also recalls that Article 1(b) requires the abolition of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development. The Committee previously noted in this regard that section 3(b) of the Law on the requisitioning of goods and services in the public interest referred to above stipulates that one of the aims of such requisitioning is to create conditions for the good functioning of the national economy and public institutions. As regards the exceptions allowed under Article 2(2)(d) of Convention No. 29, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 62–64 of its 2007 General Survey, in which it has considered that in order to respect the limits of the exception provided for in the Convention, the power to call up labour should be confined to genuine cases of emergency, or force majeure. The Committee has noted that the wording of section 3(b) of the above Law does not seem to be limited to such circumstances.

The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to bring the above provisions of the Law on mobilization, No. 1192-XV of 4 July 2002, the Law on the requisitioning of goods and services in the public interest, No. 1352-XV of 11 October 2002, and the Government decision to approve regulation on the mobilization at the workplace, No. 751 of 24 June 2003, into conformity with the Convention. It asks the Government to provide in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

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