Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2021, publiée 110ème session CIT (2022)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Tadjikistan (Ratification: 1999)

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.