CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes a communication received from the Association of Christian Trade Unions (UMURIMO), which contains allegations concerning the imposition of community work on the population. It notes that this communication was sent to the Government on 5 October 2009. The Committee asks the Government to respond to these allegations in its next report. Furthermore, 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:

Articles 1 (paragraph 1), and 2 (paragraph 1), of the Convention. 
1. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, according to the Decree of 23 May 1896 on vagrancy and begging, read in conjunction with Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 establishing re‑education and production centres, the simple fact of living in a state of vagrancy is punishable by a term of being available to the Government during which work will be compulsory. The Committee considered that these provisions, by providing too broad a definition of the offence of vagrancy – the simple fact of not working may be treated as an offence – and by making these persons available to the Government, constitute a direct and indirect means of exacting labour, which is inconsistent with the Convention.

In reply, the Government refers to the provisions on vagrancy contained in the draft Penal Code (sections 513 and 514). According to these provisions, vagrancy is punishable by imprisonment for between two and six months or a fine, or both, and any idle person with no known place of residence or means of support and not carrying out a known profession is regarded as a vagrant. While noting that the draft Penal Code no longer seems to refer to making these persons available to the Government, the Committee observes that these persons remain liable to a prison sentence because of their idleness without any reference in the legislation to a disruption of public order or to the fact that these persons are engaged in unlawful activities. In so far as these provisions constitute an indirect means of exacting labour, the Committee hopes that, in the context of the Penal Code revision process, the Government will be able to review the matter so that only idle persons who disrupt the public order by unlawful acts may be liable for the penalties set in the legislation.

2. Freedom to leave employment. Referring to sections 116, 117 and 118 of Act No. 22/2002 issuing the general conditions of service of public servants, which regulate the resignation procedure for state employees, the Committee asked the Government to specify whether resignation applications submitted by these employees may be refused and, if so, on what grounds, and whether the competent authority may require public employees to remain in their post for a specific period. In reply, the Government indicates that the application for resignation may be refused when, for example, the employee has been granted funding from the public administration to carry out studies. In this case, the employee signs a contract with the administration specifying the period during which he or she undertakes to remain with the administration following completion of those studies. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to provide examples of these contracts so as to ensure that a certain proportionality is guaranteed. Please also indicate whether, in such cases, the persons concerned could nonetheless resign by paying back the costs incurred by the administration for their studies.

The Committee also notes that the general conditions of service of members of the armed forces (Order No. 72/01 of 8 July 2002) contains provisions similar to the general conditions of service of public servants: the member of the armed forces has to submit a written application for resignation to the competent authority which has 90 days to issue a decision. If the authority does not issue a decision within this time limit, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether, in practice, applications for resignation may be refused and, if so, on what grounds. Please provide statistical information in this regard.

Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a). Work exacted under laws on compulsory military service. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, according to section 4(a) of the Labour Code, the term “forced labour” does not cover labour exacted in exceptional circumstances under provisions governing military service and which involves activities of a purely military nature. It requested the Government to provide a copy of the legislation governing compulsory military service. The Committee notes that in its latest report, the Government does not provide any texts or information on this point. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the legislation regulating compulsory military service.

Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. The Committee is aware of the adoption of Act No. 38/2006 of 25 September 2006 establishing and determining the organization of the national prison service. It notes that, under section 29, prisoners have the right to perform an activity in relation to their professional skills and that the type of activities performed by these persons shall be determined by ministerial order. Section 40 provides that, in return for this work, these persons shall be given an amount equivalent to 10 per cent of the total amount of their earnings. Finally, section 46 provides for the possibility for prisoners to carry out work outside the prison. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the ministerial order governing the type of activities performed by prisoners. Please also indicate whether this work may be carried out for private entities.

Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (e). Minor communal services. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments on the nature of works organized by local communities, the Government specifies that these works are designed to promote the building of infrastructure for the country’s development, alongside national budget allocations, and encourage conviviality among people. These works, which are carried out on the last Saturday of the month, are organized by the members of the community after consultation with the competent authorities; they involve all Rwandan citizens over the age of 18. The Government indicates that the legislative decree regulating the organization of this community work was submitted to the Assembly and will be provided as soon as it has been adopted. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to give examples of works carried out within the context of community work and specify what penalties are incurred by citizens who refuse to participate. Please provide a copy of the legislative decree as soon as it has been adopted.

Article 25. Imposition of adequate penal sanctions. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed concern that the penalties imposed on persons who illegally exact forced labour were not sufficiently dissuasive, since it is only from the second offence that a penalty of imprisonment applies, with a term of between 15 days and six months (section 194 of the Labour Code). In its report, the Government indicates that the issue of adequate penal sanctions will be re-examined within the framework of the process under way of revising the Labour Code and the Penal Code. The Committee hopes that the Government will take this opportunity to make provision in its national legislation for penal sanctions in the event of exaction of forced labour which are really adequate and dissuasive, as provided for by Article 25 of the Convention. In the meantime, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether any criminal proceedings have already been initiated to punish persons imposing forced labour, whether pursuant to section 194 of the Labour Code or to any other provision of the national legislation under which forced labour practices may be penalized.