Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2023, publiée 112ème session CIT (2024)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Kirghizistan (Ratification: 1992)
Protocole de 2014 relatif à la convention sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Kirghizistan (Ratification: 2020)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the observations of the Kyrgyzstan Federation of Trade Unions (FPK), received on 1 November 2022.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Prohibition of forced labour. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that section 170 of the Criminal Code adopted in 2021 sets out imprisonment of from three to six years for the use of forced labour. It further notes the Government’s indication that despite the efforts made, forced labour practices continue to exist in different regions of Kyrgyzstan. In this respect, the FPK points out that foreign citizens are primarily at risk of being subjected to forced labour and refers to several citizens of Uzbekistan who reported being victims of forced labour through the hotlines of the human rights organizations in 2020–22. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to prevent and suppress the use of forced labour and ensure that perpetrators are appropriately identified and punished. It further requests the Government to supply statistical data on the application of section 170 of the Criminal Code, including the number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and penal sanctions applied and the difficulties encountered in this regard.

Article 2(2)(a). Compulsory military service. Alternative service. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the number of persons involved in alternative service, as compared to the number of those performing compulsory military service. In its reply, the Government indicates that the requested information is confidential and is not subject to disclosure.

The Committee recalls that compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention, provided that it is used “for work of a purely military character” (Article 2(2)(a)). However, a non-military activity performed as an alternative to compulsory military service may also fall outside the scope of the Convention in limited circumstances. In particular, this includes an alternative service which may be carried out as a privilege granted to individuals on request, in acknowledgement of freedom of conscience. In examining whether performance of an alternative service is a privilege granted to individuals on their request or whether, on the contrary, national service is being used as a means of pursuing economic and social development through the use of compulsory labour, due account should be taken of the number of persons concerned and the conditions in which they make their choice (see the Committee’s 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Convention, paragraphs 274–75).

The Committee further recalls that according to sections 16(2) and 32 of the Act on Universal Compulsory National Service for Kyrgyz Citizens: Military and Alternative Service of 2009, conscripts who have not been despatched to a military unit due to meeting a conscription quota have a right to perform an alternative service upon their written request. Otherwise, such conscripts will be called up for military service in the next conscription. The Committee observes that in such circumstances, performance of an alternative service does not always relate to the exercise of freedom of conscience. While taking into consideration the Government’s indication that the information on the number of persons involved in alternative service and compulsory military service is confidential, the Committee nevertheless points out the need to determine whether in Kyrgyzstan, the alternative service is only performed as a privilege granted to individuals at their request and on limited grounds and therefore could fall outside the scope of the Convention or on the contrary concerns a large number of citizens. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the percentage of persons who undertake an alternative service, as compared to the percentage of those performing compulsory military service without providing the exact number of conscripts.

Article 2(2)(c). 1. Work of prisoners for private enterprises. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that according to section 58 of the 2013 Instructions on the procedure and conditions for serving sentences in prison settlements within the Kyrgyz penitentiary system, convicted persons in prison settlements can be hired by a private entity only upon their written consent. The Committee reiterates its previous comments indicating that apart from the prison settlements (“kolonii-poseleniya”), convicted persons in corrective settlements (“ispravitelnye-kolonii”) and prisons (“tyurmy”) may also perform compulsory work at enterprises of correctional institutions, state organizations, and organizations of other forms of ownership (sections 73 and 103 of the Criminal Executive Code of 2017). The Committee therefore requests once again the Government to indicate whether convicted persons in corrective settlements (“ispravitelnye-kolonii”) and prisons (“tyurmy”) who work for a private entity only do so with their formal, free and informed consent.

2. Sentences of public work. The Committee observes that sections 60(1)(a) and 61 of the Criminal Code of 2021 provide, among the penal sanctions that can be imposed by courts, the penalty of public work, which consists of an obligation to perform unpaid work for the benefit of society during a period from 40 to 300 hours. The types of public work shall be determined by local authorities together with the probation authorities. The Committee further observes that according to section 30 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of 2021, public works may be appointed by courts for a period from 8 to 40 hours. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the nature of institutions for which offenders may perform public work, and to provide examples of the types of public work that may be required under the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offenses.

3. Sentences of restriction of freedom. The Committee observes that, pursuant to sections 60(1)(b) and 62 of the Criminal Code of 2021, courts can impose on offenders a penal sanction of restriction of freedom for a period from six months to three years. The Committee further observes that the penalty of restriction of freedom may include an obligation to enter work or study within the determined period (section 62(3)(4) of the Criminal Code). According to section 63(4) of the Criminal Executive Code of 2017, the work performed by convicted persons sentenced to restriction of freedom shall be regulated by labour legislation, except for the rules of hiring, dismissal from work, and transfer to another job. The Committee requests the Government to indicate if the courts have handed down sentences of restriction of freedom involving the duty to “enter work”. If this is the case, please provide information on the number of these sentences since the Code has been in effect and modalities of execution of this penalty, including the nature of the institutions for which offenders sentenced to restriction of liberty may perform work and examples of such work.