ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments > All Comments

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Uzbekistan (RATIFICATION: 1997)

DISPLAYINEnglish - French - Spanish

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee reiterates its direct request adopted in 2019, which read as follows.
The Committee notes the observations of the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) received on 30 August 2019.
Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to certain sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional labour) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely: section 139 (defamation); section 140 (insult); section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); sections 216 and 216-1 (creation or participation in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations); section 216-2 (violation of legislation on religious organizations); and section 217 (violation of the procedure for organizing and conducting assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations). The Committee also noted that similar offences are provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences, which provides for a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days, involving compulsory labour (section 346 of the Code) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely: section 201 (violation of the procedure for organizing and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations); section 202-1 (participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations); section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations); and section 241 (violation of the procedure for teaching religion).
The Committee noted the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), alleging that the Government continued to repress and arbitrarily detain independent journalists and human rights activists seeking to document state-sponsored forced labour. The Committee further noted that the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, in its concluding observations, indicated that it remained concerned about consistent reports of continuous harassment, surveillance, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and prosecutions on trumped-up charges of independent journalists, government critics and dissidents, human rights defenders and other activists, in retaliation to their legitimate work. Similar concerns were raised by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. The Human Rights Committee also expressed concerns about reports that freedom of expression on controversial and politically sensitive issues were severely restricted in practice, as well as about reports of arbitrary restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly in law and in practice, including, inter alia, the disruption of peaceful assemblies by law enforcement officers and arrests, detentions, beatings and sanctioning of participants. Noting the absence of information in the Government’s report, the Committee once again urged the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above sections of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.
The Committee notes the observations made by the IUF that free press is restricted and censorship is exerted over state media, and freedom of assembly and public protests are strictly limited through regulations.
The Committee notes from the Government’s report that according to the information provided by the Supreme Court, in 2018, five cases were brought against six people under section 201(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, out of which four people were fined and proceedings against two people were dropped. In the first half of 2019, five cases were brought against eight people under the same section of which six were fined, one case was dropped and one person was subject to administrative sanction. The Government further indicates that no cases were brought or sanctions applied under the provisions of the Criminal Code during 2018–2019. The Committee also notes from the ILO Third Party monitoring of child labour and forced labour during the 2018 cotton harvest in Uzbekistan that in 2018, the Uzbekistan media started reporting activities on forced labour issues and journalists were encouraged to cover forced labour issues. Moreover, local independent human rights activities were free to conduct their activities without any government interference.  The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of sections 139, 140, 156, 216 and 216-1, 216-2 and section 217 of the Criminal Code as well as sections 346, 201, 202-1, 240 and 241 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.
Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 218 of the Criminal Code punishes with imprisonment the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency. It recalled that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour should be limited to the need to cope with cases of force majeure in the strict sense of the term – namely, when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered – provided that the duration of the prohibition is limited to the period of immediate necessity. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of section 218 of the Criminal Code in practice.
The Committee notes the Government’s information that no cases were brought or sanctions applied under the Criminal Code during 2018–19. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of section 218 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee also reiterates its request for information on any provisions under which penal sanctions could be imposed for participation in strikes in situations other than a state of emergency, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the observations of the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) received on 8 October 2020. Not having received other supplementary information from the Government, the Committee repeats its comments adopted in 2019 and reproduced below.
The Committee also notes the observations of the IUF received on 30 August 2019.
Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production). In its previous comments, the Committee noted the allegations made by the IUF that the Government of Uzbekistan continued to impose a state system of forced labour for the economic purpose of producing cotton. It also noted the International Trade Union Confederation’s (ITUC) observations that there were a number of cases of involuntary engagement of workers as well as cases of extortion for replacement payments by local authorities which needed to be investigated and prosecuted. In this regard, the Committee noted the information provided by the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions of Uzbekistan (CFTUU) on the various measures taken within the framework of cooperation between Uzbekistan, the ILO and the World Bank for the implementation of ILO Conventions on child and forced labour in 2016, including training courses and seminars on international labour standards and their implementation for employees of ministries, departments, NGOs and farmers; awareness-raising campaigns against child and forced labour; and monitoring and implementation of the Feedback Mechanism (FBM). Moreover, at a round table discussion held in Tashkent and entitled “Status and Prospects for Cooperation between Uzbekistan and the ILO” all the participants, including representatives of the ILO, IOE, ITUC, World Bank, UNDP, UNICEF and diplomatic representatives expressed their commitment and willingness to cooperate closely with Uzbekistan.
The Committee further noted the results of the ILO quantitative survey on employment practices in the agricultural sector conducted by the research centre (Ekspecrt fikri) which indicated a decrease in the number of cotton pickers from 3.2 million in 2014 to 2.8 million in 2015; an increase in the number of voluntary participants in the 2015 cotton harvest; and a decrease in the number of medical employees, educational workers and students among the cotton pickers. The Committee finally noted from the report of the ILO, Third Party Monitoring and Assessment of Measures to Reduce the Risk of Child Labour and Forced Labour during the 2016 cotton harvest (TPM report) that since the 2015 harvest, the Government had made further commitments against child and forced labour, especially within the Action Plan for Improving Labour Conditions, Employment and Social Protection of Workers in the Agricultural Sector 2016–2018. Several training workshops to build the capacity of officials, including Hokims (regional governors), were conducted before the harvest with ministries, organizations and entities involved at all levels. Public awareness campaigns during the harvest reached remote villages, and messages on child and forced labour, on labour rights, and on the FBM hotline were distributed nationwide. Referring to the preliminary results of the ILO quantitative survey, the TPM report indicated that of the 2.8 million cotton pickers in 2015, a significant number, about two-thirds, were recruited voluntarily and that those “at risk” of involuntary work were mainly from the education sector, medical staff and students. The TPM report indicated that the monitoring teams, led by ILO experts, who visited 50 medical care facilities found that they were functioning normally during the harvest and that the staff attendance were usually monitored. The TPM report further indicated that while the unacceptability of child labour were recognized by all segments of society, awareness on risks of forced labour needed to be improved. The TPM report concluded that while important measures had been introduced for the voluntary recruitment of cotton pickers, they were not robust enough to decisively change the recruitment practices. Referring to the recommendations indicated in the TPM report to reduce the risk of forced labour in the cotton harvest, the Committee strongly encouraged the Government to continue to take effective and time-bound measures to strengthen safeguards against the use of forced labour in the cotton harvest, including through strengthening a functioning labour relations system for cotton pickers, developing a high-quality training strategy for all actors involved in the cotton harvest and continuing to raise awareness among all segments of society about the risks of forced labour in the cotton harvest.
The Committee notes the observations made by the IUF that the mobilization and use of labour for economic development in agriculture and to an extent in other sectors, remains a massive, systematic, ubiquitous and truly nationwide practice involving military personnel and servicemen, doctors, teachers, employees of state enterprises and other workers.
The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report on the various legislative measures taken, including amendments and additions to the existing laws as well as adoption of new laws to improve the working and employment conditions in agriculture and to bring them into compliance with the fundamental standards and norms. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to the following measures taken:
  • -Act No. ZRU-558 of August 2019 on insertion of amendments and additions to several pieces of legislation, including section 51 of the Administrative Liability Code, thereby stiffening the penalties for coercion to work and the engagement of children in forced labour;
  • -Order No. 197-ICh of the Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations (MELR) of 13 August 2019 on increasing the number of city and district state legal labour inspectors of the State Labour Inspectorate;
  • -Resolution No. 349 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 10 May 2018 on additional measures to eliminate forced labour through mandating the heads of state and economic administrative bodies at all levels to respond effectively to and stop the exaction of all types of forced labour from individuals, in particular, educational and healthcare workers, pupils, and employees of other public sector organizations, and to impose strict disciplinary measures against officials who directly or indirectly commit or allow the exaction of forced labour;
  • -Presidential Edict No. UP-5563 of 29 October 2018 on increasing the responsibility of heads of state bodies at all levels for prohibiting and eliminating forced labour in all its forms and manifestations;
  • -Resolution No. 799 of the Cabinet of Ministers of October 2017 on the organization of the operations of the Community Work Fund of the MELR with the aim of prohibiting forced labour by engaging individuals in paid community work.
The Government also indicates that notices regarding the prohibition of child labour and forced labour have been displayed in all localities, in healthcare and educational institutions and state organizations. Wide-scale campaigns on penalties for breaching the prohibition of child labour and forced labour have been conducted. With the assistance of the ILO, in 2018, 400 banners and 100,000 flyers on the prohibition of forced labour were distributed and placed in visible locations across the country. A short film on the FBM on forced labour was broadcasted on television. Tangible organizational and financial steps have been taken with a view to recruiting workers voluntarily for the cotton harvest. The Committee further notes the Government’s information regarding the reports on forced labour received by the FBM through a messaging service Telegram and a telephone hotline. According to this database, in 2016 and 2017, no more than 15 reports were received, in 2018, 2,135 reports were received. The state labour inspectors examined all the reports and in 284 cases concerning the use of forced labour, administrative penalties were imposed on persons forcing employees to pick cotton, including heads of the tax inspectorates and heads of the region, local council and local administrations (hokims). Orders were sent to 250 organizations to remedy breaches of the labour law and occupational safety and health; 50 representations were sent to heads of organizations; and a warning was sent to the Ministry of Defence. Disciplinary proceedings were brought against over 100 directors of comprehensive socio-economic development zones, 30 of them were dismissed from their posts, and 11 hokims were fined. Moreover, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that the ILO Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) has been extended to 2020.
The Committee notes with interest from the report of the ILO, Third Party Monitoring of child labour and forced labour during the 2018 cotton harvest (TPM report of 2018) that Uzbekistan has demonstrated major progress in the eradication of forced labour in the cotton harvest of 2018. Forced labour was reduced by 48 per cent compared to 2017. According to this report, there is a continued strong political commitment and clear communications from the Government of Uzbekistan to eradicate forced labour. The Committee also notes the following positive developments and results achieved in 2018 as reflected in the TPM report:
  • -Systematic forced labour (refers to a situation of forced labour imposed by the Government in a methodical and organized manner) was not exacted by the Government during the 2018 cotton harvest;
  • -The prohibition on recruiting students, teachers, nurses and doctors was systematically implemented and generally observed at the local level;
  • -Wages were increased by up to 85 per cent compared to the previous harvest and cotton pickers were paid on time and in full;
  • -Media started reporting actively on forced labour. Journalists were encouraged by the Government to cover forced labour issues. Local independent human rights activists were free to conduct their monitoring activities;
  • -Labour inspectorate was strengthened with 200 inspectors receiving training by the ILO on forced labour investigations and were deployed throughout the country to investigate alleged forced labour cases; and
  • -Over 2,000 cases of forced labour were investigated and 206 hokims, officials and managers were sanctioned for forced labour violations, leading to fines, demotions and dismissals.
The Committee takes due note of the measures taken by the Government and their impact on reducing the number of cases of forced labour in cotton farming. It notes however from the TPM report of 2018 that while a vast majority of pickers are not in forced labour, there are still a considerable number of cases of forced labour (6.8 per cent or 170,000 people) mainly because the legacy of the centrally planned agriculture and economy (centrally set quotas) is still conducive to the exaction of forced labour. The TPM report states that although reforms announced by the central Government have had an impact, the uneven implementation of national policies, especially at the local level remains a challenge.  The Committee therefore strongly encourages the Government to continue its efforts, including through its cooperation with the ILO and the social partners, within the framework of the DWCP, to ensure the complete elimination of the use of forced labour in cotton farming through the effective implementation of its policies at the local level. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to this end and the concrete results achieved, with an indication of the sanctions applied.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government which reiterates the content of its previous request adopted in 2019.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the observations of the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) received on 30 August 2019.
Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to certain sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional labour) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely: section 139 (defamation); section 140 (insult); section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); sections 216 and 216-1 (creation or participation in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations); section 216-2 (violation of legislation on religious organizations); and section 217 (violation of the procedure for organizing and conducting assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations). The Committee also noted that similar offences are provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences, which provides for a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days, involving compulsory labour (section 346 of the Code) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely: section 201 (violation of the procedure for organizing and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations); section 202-1 (participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations); section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations); and section 241 (violation of the procedure for teaching religion).
The Committee noted the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), alleging that the Government continued to repress and arbitrarily detain independent journalists and human rights activists seeking to document state-sponsored forced labour. The Committee further noted that the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, in its concluding observations, indicated that it remained concerned about consistent reports of continuous harassment, surveillance, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and prosecutions on trumped-up charges of independent journalists, government critics and dissidents, human rights defenders and other activists, in retaliation to their legitimate work. Similar concerns were raised by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. The Human Rights Committee also expressed concerns about reports that freedom of expression on controversial and politically sensitive issues were severely restricted in practice, as well as about reports of arbitrary restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly in law and in practice, including, inter alia, the disruption of peaceful assemblies by law enforcement officers and arrests, detentions, beatings and sanctioning of participants. Noting the absence of information in the Government’s report, the Committee once again urged the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above sections of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.
The Committee notes the observations made by the IUF that free press is restricted and censorship is exerted over state media, and freedom of assembly and public protests are strictly limited through regulations.
The Committee notes from the Government’s report that according to the information provided by the Supreme Court, in 2018, five cases were brought against six people under section 201(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, out of which four people were fined and proceedings against two people were dropped. In the first half of 2019, five cases were brought against eight people under the same section of which six were fined, one case was dropped and one person was subject to administrative sanction. The Government further indicates that no cases were brought or sanctions applied under the provisions of the Criminal Code during 2018–19. The Committee also notes from the ILO Third Party monitoring of child labour and forced labour during the 2018 cotton harvest in Uzbekistan that in 2018, the Uzbekistan media started reporting activities on forced labour issues and journalists were encouraged to cover forced labour issues. Moreover, local independent human rights activities were free to conduct their activities without any government interference. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of sections 139, 140, 156, 216 and 216-1, 216-2 and section 217 of the Criminal Code as well as sections 346, 201, 202-1, 240 and 241 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.
Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 218 of the Criminal Code punishes with imprisonment the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency. It recalled that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour should be limited to the need to cope with cases of force majeure in the strict sense of the term – namely, when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered – provided that the duration of the prohibition is limited to the period of immediate necessity. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of section 218 of the Criminal Code in practice.
The Committee notes the Government’s information that no cases were brought or sanctions applied under the Criminal Code during 2018–19. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of section 218 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee also reiterates its request for information on any provisions under which penal sanctions could be imposed for participation in strikes in situations other than a state of emergency, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the observations of the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) received on 30 August 2019.
Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production). In its previous comments, the Committee noted the allegations made by the IUF that the Government of Uzbekistan continued to impose a state system of forced labour for the economic purpose of producing cotton. It also noted the International Trade Union Confederation’s (ITUC) observations that there were a number of cases of involuntary engagement of workers as well as cases of extortion for replacement payments by local authorities which needed to be investigated and prosecuted. In this regard, the Committee noted the information provided by the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions of Uzbekistan (CFTUU) on the various measures taken within the framework of cooperation between Uzbekistan, the ILO and the World Bank for the implementation of ILO Conventions on child and forced labour in 2016, including training courses and seminars on international labour standards and their implementation for employees of ministries, departments, NGOs and farmers; awareness-raising campaigns against child and forced labour; and monitoring and implementation of the Feedback Mechanism (FBM). Moreover, at a round table discussion held in Tashkent and entitled “Status and Prospects for Cooperation between Uzbekistan and the ILO” all the participants, including representatives of the ILO, IOE, ITUC, World Bank, UNDP, UNICEF and diplomatic representatives expressed their commitment and willingness to cooperate closely with Uzbekistan.
The Committee further noted the results of the ILO quantitative survey on employment practices in the agricultural sector conducted by the research centre (Ekspecrt fikri) which indicated a decrease in the number of cotton pickers from 3.2 million in 2014 to 2.8 million in 2015; an increase in the number of voluntary participants in the 2015 cotton harvest; and a decrease in the number of medical employees, educational workers and students among the cotton pickers. The Committee finally noted from the report of the ILO, Third Party Monitoring and Assessment of Measures to Reduce the Risk of Child Labour and Forced Labour during the 2016 cotton harvest (TPM report) that since the 2015 harvest, the Government had made further commitments against child and forced labour, especially within the Action Plan for Improving Labour Conditions, Employment and Social Protection of Workers in the Agricultural Sector 2016–18. Several training workshops to build the capacity of officials, including Hokims (regional governors), were conducted before the harvest with ministries, organizations and entities involved at all levels. Public awareness campaigns during the harvest reached remote villages, and messages on child and forced labour, on labour rights, and on the FBM hotline were distributed nationwide. Referring to the preliminary results of the ILO quantitative survey, the TPM report indicated that of the 2.8 million cotton pickers in 2015, a significant number, about two-thirds, were recruited voluntarily and that those “at risk” of involuntary work were mainly from the education sector, medical staff and students. The TPM report indicated that the monitoring teams, led by ILO experts, who visited 50 medical care facilities found that they were functioning normally during the harvest and that the staff attendance were usually monitored. The TPM report further indicated that while the unacceptability of child labour were recognized by all segments of society, awareness on risks of forced labour needed to be improved. The TPM report concluded that while important measures had been introduced for the voluntary recruitment of cotton pickers, they were not robust enough to decisively change the recruitment practices. Referring to the recommendations indicated in the TPM report to reduce the risk of forced labour in the cotton harvest, the Committee strongly encouraged the Government to continue to take effective and time-bound measures to strengthen safeguards against the use of forced labour in the cotton harvest, including through strengthening a functioning labour relations system for cotton pickers, developing a high-quality training strategy for all actors involved in the cotton harvest and continuing to raise awareness among all segments of society about the risks of forced labour in the cotton harvest.
The Committee notes the observations made by the IUF that the mobilization and use of labour for economic development in agriculture and to an extent in other sectors, remains a massive, systematic, ubiquitous and truly nationwide practice involving military personnel and servicemen, doctors, teachers, employees of state enterprises and other workers.
The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report on the various legislative measures taken, including amendments and additions to the existing laws as well as adoption of new laws to improve the working and employment conditions in agriculture and to bring them into compliance with the fundamental standards and norms. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to the following measures taken:
  • -Law No. ZRU-558 of August 2019 on insertion of amendments and additions to several pieces of legislation, including section 51 of the Administrative Liability Code, thereby stiffening the penalties for coercion to work and the engagement of children in forced labour;
  • -Order No. 197-ICh of the Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations (MELR) of 13 August 2019 on increasing the number of city and district state legal labour inspectors of the State Labour Inspectorate;
  • -Resolution No. 349 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 10 May 2018 on additional measures to eliminate forced labour through mandating the heads of state and economic administrative bodies at all levels to respond effectively to and stop the exaction of all types of forced labour from individuals, in particular, educational and healthcare workers, pupils, and employees of other public sector organizations, and to impose strict disciplinary measures against officials who directly or indirectly commit or allow the exaction of forced labour;
  • -Presidential Edict No. UP-5563 of 29 October 2018 on increasing the responsibility of heads of state bodies at all levels for prohibiting and eliminating forced labour in all its forms and manifestations;
  • -Resolution No. 799 of the Cabinet of Ministers of October 2017 on the organization of the operations of the Community Work Fund of the MELR with the aim of prohibiting forced labour by engaging individuals in paid community work.
The Government also indicates that notices regarding the prohibition of child labour and forced labour have been displayed in all localities, in healthcare and educational institutions and state organizations. Wide-scale campaigns on penalties for breaching the prohibition of child labour and forced labour have been conducted. With the assistance of the ILO, in 2018, 400 banners and 100,000 flyers on the prohibition of forced labour were distributed and placed in visible locations across the country. A short film on the FBM on forced labour was broadcasted on television. Tangible organizational and financial steps have been taken with a view to recruiting workers voluntarily for the cotton harvest. The Committee further notes the Government’s information regarding the reports on forced labour received by the FBM through a messaging service Telegram and a telephone hotline. According to this database, in 2016 and 2017, no more than 15 reports were received, in 2018, 2,135 reports were received. The state labour inspectors examined all the reports and in 284 cases concerning the use of forced labour, administrative penalties were imposed on persons forcing employees to pick cotton, including heads of the tax inspectorates and heads of the region, local council and local administrations (hokims). Orders were sent to 250 organizations to remedy breaches of the labour law and occupational safety and health; 50 representations were sent to heads of organizations; and a warning was sent to the Ministry of Defence. Disciplinary proceedings were brought against over 100 directors of comprehensive socio-economic development zones, 30 of them were dismissed from their posts, and 11 hokims were fined. Moreover, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that the ILO Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) has been extended to 2020.
The Committee notes with interest from the report of the ILO, Third Party Monitoring of child labour and forced labour during the 2018 cotton harvest (TPM report of 2018) that Uzbekistan has demonstrated major progress in the eradication of forced labour in the cotton harvest of 2018. Forced labour was reduced by 48 per cent compared to 2017. According to this report, there is a continued strong political commitment and clear communications from the Government of Uzbekistan to eradicate forced labour. The Committee also notes the following positive developments and results achieved in 2018 as reflected in the TPM report:
  • -Systematic forced labour (refers to a situation of forced labour imposed by the Government in a methodical and organized manner) was not exacted by the Government during the 2018 cotton harvest;
  • -The prohibition on recruiting students, teachers, nurses and doctors was systematically implemented and generally observed at the local level;
  • -Wages were increased by up to 85 per cent compared to the previous harvest and cotton pickers were paid on time and in full;
  • -Media started reporting actively on forced labour. Journalists were encouraged by the Government to cover forced labour issues. Local independent human rights activists were free to conduct their monitoring activities;
  • -Labour inspectorate was strengthened with 200 inspectors receiving training by the ILO on forced labour investigations and were deployed throughout the country to investigate alleged forced labour cases; and
  • -Over 2,000 cases of forced labour were investigated and 206 hokims, officials and managers were sanctioned for forced labour violations, leading to fines, demotions and dismissals.
The Committee takes due note of the measures taken by the Government and their impact on reducing the number of cases of forced labour in cotton farming. It notes however from the TPM report of 2018 that while a vast majority of pickers are not in forced labour, there are still a considerable number of cases of forced labour (6.8 percent or 170,000 people) mainly because the legacy of the centrally planned agriculture and economy (centrally set quotas) is still conducive to the exaction of forced labour. The TPM report states that although reforms announced by the central Government have had an impact, the uneven implementation of national policies, especially at the local level remains a challenge. The Committee therefore strongly encourages the Government to continue its efforts, including through its cooperation with the ILO and the social partners, within the framework of the DWCP, to ensure the complete elimination of the use of forced labour in cotton farming through the effective implementation of its policies at the local level. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to this end and the concrete results achieved, with an indication of the sanctions applied.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to certain sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional labour) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely: section 139 (defamation); section 140 (insult); section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); sections 216 and 216-1 (creation or participation in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations); section 216-2 (violation of legislation on religious organizations); and section 217 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations). The Committee also noted that similar offences are provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences, which provides for a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days, involving compulsory labour (section 346 of the Code) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely: section 201 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations); section 202-1 (inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations); section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations); and section 241 (violation of the procedure of teaching of religion). It also noted the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), in August 2014, alleging that the Government continued to repress and arbitrarily detain independent journalists and human rights activists seeking to document state-sponsored forced labour. The Committee further noted that the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, in its concluding observations of July 2015, indicated that it remained concerned about consistent reports of continuous harassment, surveillance, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and prosecutions on trumped-up charges of independent journalists, government critics and dissidents, human rights defenders and other activists, in retaliation to their legitimate work (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3 and CCPR/C/UZB/CO/4). Similar concerns were raised by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders in the March 2015 report (A/HRC/28/63/Add.1). The Human Rights Committee also expressed concerns about reports that freedom of expression on controversial and politically sensitive issues was severely restricted in practice, as well as about reports of arbitrary restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly in law and in practice, including, inter alia, the disruption of peaceful assemblies by law enforcement officers and arrests, detentions, beatings and sanctioning of participants (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/4).
The Committee notes that the Government’s report merely repeats the sanctions prescribed under section 201 of the Administrative Liability Code and section 217 of the Criminal Code and does not provide any information with regard to its previous comments. The Committee notes with concern the persistent lack of information on this issue in the Government’s report, and once again draws the Government’s attention to the fact that sanctions involving compulsory labour are incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee once again urges the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above sections of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.
Article 1(c). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil, or the improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years.
The Committee notes the Government’s statement that forced labour cannot be used as a means of maintaining labour discipline. The Government indicates that according to section 181 of the Labour Code, sanctions for breaches of labour discipline involve: a reprimand; a fine, not exceeding 30 per cent of the average monthly salary; or a termination of the labour contract.
Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 218 of the Criminal Code punishes with imprisonment the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency. It recalled that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour should be limited to the need to cope with cases of force majeure in the strict sense of the term – namely, when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered – provided that the duration of the prohibition is limited to the period of immediate necessity. Noting the absence of information in the Government’s report, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 218 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee also reiterates its request for information on any provisions under which penal sanctions could be imposed for participation in strikes in situations other than a state of emergency, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the observations of the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) received on 31 August 2016, the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 2 September 2016 and the observations of the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions of Uzbekistan (CFTUU) received on 21 November 2016, as well as the Government’s report received on 9 September 2016.
Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production). In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations made by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) that, since the adoption of the Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) in 2014, the Government and the social partners in Uzbekistan, with the active support of the ILO, had been working to ensure the elimination of possible risks of forced labour in cotton fields. It also noted the statement made by the ITUC that, while the measures taken in the country in cooperation with the ILO in the framework of the DWCP had proven to be effective, by and large, in eliminating child labour in the cotton sector, it was concerned about the continued presence of forced labour practices and other violations of adult workers’ rights during the harvest period.
The Committee noted the adoption of an action plan in July 2015 guaranteeing the voluntary recruitment of cotton pickers and preventing forced and under-age labour during the cotton harvest as well as the directive from the Prime Minister to the Governors of all provinces to take urgent measures in this regard. The Committee also noted from the report of the Third Party Monitoring (TPM) on the use of child labour and forced labour during the 2015 cotton harvest, that with the assistance of the ILO and the World Bank, a Feedback Mechanism (FBM) was established by the Coordination Council to provide information and resolve any complaints about the use of forced labour during the 2015 cotton harvest. However, the Committee noted from the report of the TPM that while awareness of child labour was already at a high level, awareness of forced labour was still at an early stage. The report indicated that large-scale organized recruitment for cotton picking took place, but such recruitment took different forms depending on how the authorities decided to use the human resources at their disposal to meet their cotton quota. In a certain number of cases workers from both the public and private sectors indicated that they were forced to pick cotton against their will or had to pay someone else to pick cotton. The Committee noted from the TPM report that there were gaps in staff attendance registers and that consistent information was received from other sources that forced labour was more widespread than the monitoring process alone suggested.
The Committee notes the allegations made by the IUF that the Government of Uzbekistan continues to impose a state system of forced labour for the economic purpose of producing cotton. The IUF states that during the 2015 cotton harvest, more than 1 million people, including students, teachers, doctors, nurses and employees of government agencies and private business workers were forced to pick cotton under threat of a penalty, especially losing their jobs. Moreover, the Government imposes annual production quotas on farmers and uses coercion to enforce them. They are therefore obliged to fulfil production quotas or face a penalty.
Moreover, the Committee notes that the ITUC expresses the hope that the awareness-raising campaigns implemented by the social partners concerning child and forced labour and the establishment of grievance and redress mechanisms that the workers can use to report labour violations will be efficient and effective. The ITUC also indicates that there are a number of cases of involuntary engagement of workers as well as cases of extortion for replacement payments by local authorities which need to be investigated and prosecuted.
The Committee further notes the information provided by the CFTUU on the following measures taken in the framework of cooperation between Uzbekistan, the ILO and the World Bank for the implementation of ILO Conventions on child and forced labour in 2016: (i) training courses and seminars were conducted to improve the capacity of employees of ministries, departments, NGOs and farmers, including topics such as international labour standards and their implementation; (ii) awareness-raising campaigns against child and forced labour were carried out resulting in the dissemination of 100,000 flyers, 44,500 posters and 386 banners and an additional 500 banners by Farmers’ Councils on voluntary employment; (iii) the concept of the 2016 national monitoring of the child and forced labour was revised so as to empower monitoring groups to address the identified problems on the spot through negotiations with employers on the basis of social partnership principles; and (iv) the FBM at the initiative of the Coordination Council on Child Labour issues, and another at the call centre of the Ministry of Labour, was being implemented. The CFTUU further indicates that the National Monitoring Group carried out 386 visits to the regions and cities of Uzbekistan, covering 1,940 entities, including farms, colleges, high schools, pre-school educational institutions, small businesses and health facilities, during which the working conditions of about 53,000 cotton pickers were examined. During these visits, the National Monitoring Group found: unauthorized access to the cotton fields of 79 students over 18 years during school hours for the purpose of earning extra money, and a total of 1,543 teachers and health workers who were involved in cotton-picking during their spare time. Moreover, on 74 farms, insufficient working conditions and rest periods for cotton pickers were identified.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the measures taken during the 2015 cotton harvest were not intended to be temporary in nature, they are rather evidence of the commitment of the authorities to the future improvement of recruitment conditions in the agricultural sector and the departure from the quota system in cotton production. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to the following measures taken, after the 2015 monitoring:
  • -on 5 January 2016, an action plan 2016–18 was approved for the improvement of the working and employment conditions and social protection of agricultural workers consisting in five sections that include: improvement of the national legislative and regulatory structure related to labour relations; implementation of systematic measures to increase the level of mechanization in the agrarian sector; development of mechanisms and conditions of employment for seasonal agricultural work; institutional development and improvement of the feedback and national monitoring mechanisms for the prevention of child and forced labour; and widening outreach work among the population in respect of labour rights and the legal protection of workers’ interests embedded in the system;
  • -on 3 and 4 August 2016, a round table discussion including representatives of the ILO, IOE, ITUC, World Bank, UNDP, UNICEF and diplomatic representatives was held in Tashkent, entitled “Status and Prospects for Cooperation between Uzbekistan and the ILO”. At this event, all the participants expressed their commitment and willingness to cooperate closely with Uzbekistan, both in the area of labour relations and in modernizing the economy, in the mechanization of agriculture, as well as in continuing to implement the measures to promote the fundamental rights of workers;
  • -the first phase of a joint assessment with the ILO on measures to reduce the risk of child labour and forced labour was carried out from 18 to 21 July 2016, during which international experts noted systematic measures to implement ILO Conventions on child and forced labour; and
  • -in August 2016, a publication entitled Recommendations for a well-managed cotton-picking season and the creation of conditions for cotton pickers which aims at observing the rule of law and to facilitate the free recruitment of cotton pickers was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers in August 2016, and 3,000 copies of this recommendation were published and dispatched to localities.
The Committee further notes the Government’s reference to the results of the ILO quantitative survey on employment practices in the agricultural sector conducted by the research centre (Ekspecrt fikri) and noted by ILO officials during their visit to Uzbekistan in June 2016. It was noted that: (i) the number of cotton pickers utilized in 2015 decreased from 3.2 million in 2014 to 2.8 million in 2015; (ii) the number of voluntary participants in the 2015 cotton harvest had increased by almost 200,000 people; (iii) 23 per cent of those recruited to pick cotton (1.1 million) refused to take part in cotton picking and none of them experienced any negative consequences; and (iv) the number of medical employees, educational workers and students among the cotton pickers had decreased by 100,000. The Committee finally notes from the Government’s report under the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), that negotiations are ongoing for an extension of the DWCP until 2020.
The Committee notes from the report of the ILO, Third Party Monitoring and Assessment of Measures to Reduce the Risk of Child Labour and Forced Labour during the 2016 cotton harvest (TPM report) that since the 2015 harvest, the Government has made further commitments against child and forced labour, especially within the Action Plan for Improving Labour Conditions, Employment and Social Protection of Workers in the Agricultural Sector 2016–18. According to the TPM’s report: several training workshops to build the capacity of officials, including Hokims (regional governors), were conducted before the harvest with ministries, organizations and entities involved at all levels (from national to mahalla to address the risk of forced labour which had a positive impact, as the officials interviewed indicated that they were aware of the forced labour issues; the public awareness campaigns during the harvest reached remote villages; and the messages on child and forced labour, on labour rights, and on the FBM hotline were distributed nationwide.
Referring to the preliminary results of the ILO quantitative survey, the TPM report indicates that of the 2.8 million cotton pickers in 2015, a significant number, about two-thirds, were recruited voluntarily and that those “at risk” on involuntary work were mainly from the education sector, medical staff and students. The TPM report indicates that while the unacceptability of child labour is recognized by all segments of society, awareness on risks of forced labour need to be improved. The TPM report points out that further measures need to be taken in order to reduce the risk of forced labour in the cotton harvest, such as: (i) a national high-quality training strategy on forced labour for all responsible actors involved in the cotton harvest needs to be developed; (ii) a functioning labour relations system for cotton pickers needs to be strengthened; (iii) the role of the Ministry of Labour needs to be improved in defining, regulating and enforcing roles, responsibilities and standards of labour relations in the cotton harvest, including intermediaries; and (iv) the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Higher and Specialized Education need to increase awareness about the risks of forced labour among their staff and students. The Committee further notes from the TPM report that the monitoring teams, led by ILO experts, visited 50 medical care facilities and found that they were functioning normally during the harvest and the staff attendance was usually monitored.
The Committee welcomes the policy commitments undertaken by the Government and the social partners which have had a positive impact on the use of child and forced labour during the cotton harvest. The Committee notes however that the TPM’s report concludes that while important measures have been introduced for the voluntary recruitment of cotton pickers, they are not robust enough to decisively change recruitment practices. The Committee strongly encourages the Government to continue to take effective and time-bound measures to strengthen safeguards against the use of forced labour in the cotton harvest, including through strengthening a functioning labour relations system for cotton pickers, developing a high-quality training strategy for all actors involved in the cotton harvest and continuing to raise awareness among all segments of society about the risks of forced labour in the cotton harvest. The Committee also strongly encourages the Government to continue cooperating with the ILO and the social partners in the framework of the DWCP to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers, as well as students, in cotton farming and to provide information on the measures taken to this end and the concrete results achieved, with an indication of the sanctions applied. Please also provide information on whether the DWCP has been extended until 2020.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to certain sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional labour) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely: section 139 (defamation); section 140 (insult); section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); sections 216 and 216-1 (creation or participation in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations); section 216-2 (violation of legislation on religious organizations); and section 217 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations). The Committee also noted that similar offences are provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences, which imposes a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days, involving compulsory labour (section 346 of the Code) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely: section 201 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations); section 202-1 (inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations); section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations); and section 241 (violation of the procedure of teaching of religion). While noting the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), in August 2014, alleging that the Government continued to repress and arbitrarily detain independent journalists and human rights activists seeking to document state-sponsored forced labour, the Committee reiterated its concern with regard to the absence of information on this point in the Government’s report.
Following its previous comments, the Committee notes that, in its concluding observations of July 2015, the Human Rights Committee indicated that it remained concerned about consistent reports of continuous harassment, surveillance, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and prosecutions on trumped-up charges of independent journalists, government critics and dissidents, human rights defenders and other activists, in retaliation to their legitimate work (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3 and CCPR/C/UZB/CO/4). Similar concerns were raised by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders in his March 2015 report (A/HRC/28/63/Add.1). The Human Rights Committee also expressed concerns about reports that freedom of expression on controversial and politically sensitive issues is severely restricted in practice, as well as about reports of arbitrary restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly in law and in practice, including, inter alia, the disruption of peaceful assemblies by law enforcement officers and arrests, detentions, beatings and sanctioning of participants (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/4).
The Committee further notes that the ILO’s Third Party Monitoring (TPM) report of the use of child labour and forced labour during the 2015 cotton harvest of 18 November 2015, refers to consistent information received from other sources on alleged cases of harassment and threats to people seeking to monitor the 2015 cotton harvest. While noting with concern the persistent lack of information on this issue in the Government’s report, the Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the fact that sanctions involving compulsory labour are incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. In light of the above considerations, the Committee once again urges the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above sections of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.
Article 1(c). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil, or improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years. Noting once again that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 207 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline.
Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 218 of the Criminal Code punishes with imprisonment the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency. It recalled that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour should be limited to the need to cope with cases of force majeure in the strict sense of the term – namely, when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered – provided that the duration of the prohibition is limited to the period of immediate necessity.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, pursuant to section 93(19) of the Constitution “in exceptional cases (real outside threat, mass disturbances, major catastrophes, natural calamities, epidemics) in the interests of ensuring citizens’ security, the President of the Republic has the right to introduce the state of emergency on the entire territory or in the particular localities of the Republic of Uzbekistan and within 72 hours submit the adopted decision for approval by the chambers of the Oliy Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan”. The Government adds that the Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis is in charge of examining the decisions of the President on the introduction, prolongation or termination of a state of emergency. While noting the information provided by the Government, the Committee requests it to provide information on the application of section 218 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee also reiterates its request for information on any provisions under which penal sanctions could be imposed for participation in strikes in situations other than a state of emergency, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice.
Communication of texts. While noting that the Government ratified the Convention in 1997, the Committee notes with regret that the Government did not supply copies of the national legislation previously requested by the Committee. It draws the Government’s attention to the importance of providing a copy of its relevant national legislation, so as to enable the Committee to effectively assess the application of the present Convention in Uzbekistan. The Committee therefore requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force concerning the execution of criminal sentences, labour relations in the public service and governing strikes.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report received on 26 October 2015. It also notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 1 September 2015, and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 3 September 2015, as well as the Government’s reply to both communications, received on 13 November 2015.
Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production). The Committee previously noted the allegations made by the IOE and the ITUC regarding the persistent use of state-sponsored forced labour of adults for purposes of economic development in cotton production. The Committee also noted that the Government refuted the allegations, indicating that workers called upon to participate in agricultural work are engaged through individual employment contracts, being paid for the work performed, in addition to receiving the wage for their usual jobs. The Committee noted that, according to the high-level mission report on the monitoring of child labour during the 2013 cotton harvest, although the focus was not on forced labour of adults, the monitors were in a position to note issues relating to: the recruitment of labour to harvest cotton; the potential of mechanization and its consequences on the labour market; and the realization of the fundamental rights of workers, including respect for the effective implementation of the present Convention. In this regard, the Committee noted the subsequent development and adoption in April 2014 of a Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) for 2014–16 in cooperation between the Office, the social partners and the Government, which identifies measures to ensure that conditions of work and employment in agriculture, including in cotton farming, are in conformity with fundamental standards. To this end, the component of the DWCP on the application of Convention No. 105 establishes four performance indicators (a survey on working conditions in agriculture, including in the cotton-growing industry; national law and practice is reviewed and monitored; number of labour inspectors that demonstrate improved knowledge and skills to recognize forced labour practices; and number of roundtables held on forced labour both for the business community and for representatives of local government and administration, educational institutions, trade unions and the media).
The Committee notes that, in its observations received in September 2015, the IOE emphasizes that, since the adoption of the DWCP in 2014, the Government and the social partners in Uzbekistan, with the active support of the ILO, have been working to ensure the elimination of possible risks of forced labour in cotton fields. Referring to the round-table discussion held in August 2015 in Tashkent, in which the IOE was involved, it indicates that important discussions was held on the survey aimed at improving understanding of recruitment and retention practices in agriculture, and that the qualitative results demonstrated the presence of some risks of forced labour in cotton fields, often linked to the recruitment system and the lack of employment contracts. The IOE adds that, in the coming months, the ILO will continue with the quantitative part of the survey to better measure the extent of the risk of forced labour. The IOE indicates that it remains attentive to the results of the 2015 monitoring process on possible risks of forced labour, including on the measures taken to monitor the cotton harvest, strengthen record keeping in educational institutions, apply sanctions and further raise public awareness of this subject.
The Committee further notes that, in its observations received in September 2015, the ITUC indicates that, while the measures taken in the country, in cooperation with the ILO in the framework of the DWCP, have proved to be effective by and large in eliminating child labour in the cotton sector, it is concerned about the continued presence of forced labour practices and other violations of the workers’ rights of adults during harvest periods. The ITUC adds that the modalities of the monitoring for the 2015 cotton harvest were discussed during the round-table discussion held in August 2015, in which it was involved, and that it looks forward to the results. The ITUC further expresses concern about the misapplication of section 95 of the Labour Code, as this provision has allegedly been used as a basis for the involuntary transfer of workers from their workplace to the cotton fields. It urges the Government to make sure that the Labour Code cannot be used by employers to transfer workers from their workplaces to implement work in areas not related to their employment occupation, and particularly in the cotton fields. The ITUC also urges the Government to intensify the implementation of the DWCP, in collaboration with the social partners and the ILO, as well as to ensure that no citizen is coerced by the Government to pick cotton under threat, that farmers are able to recruit labour, inter alia, by raising the price of raw cotton, and to ensure that any cases of forced labour reported by human rights activists are investigated and perpetrators duly penalized.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the components of the DWCP continued to be implemented in 2015. To this end, several round-table discussions were held in Tashkent in May, August and November 2015 with the social partners and the ILO. The Government refers to the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 14 October 2014 between the World Bank and the ILO, which provides for a Third Party Monitoring (TPM) of the use of child labour and forced labour during the 2015 cotton harvest, to be conducted by the ILO to assess any potential use of child and forced labour by the beneficiaries of World Bank projects in specific project areas. The Government indicates that to this end the Cabinet of Ministers adopted on 17 July 2015 a plan of measures “guaranteeing the voluntary recruitment of cotton pickers and the inadmissibility of work by minors and forced labour during the 2015 cotton harvest” with particular focus on the inadmissibility of engaging participants under the age of 18 years from schools, academic lyceums and professional colleges, as well as workers from health and education facilities. It adds that the Prime Minister addressed instructions to the Governors of all provinces to this end on 3 October 2015. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that awareness-raising activities against child and forced labour were carried out resulting in 52,664 posters and 772 banners being displayed in prominent locations across the country. This also involved the distribution of relevant materials mentioning telephone hotline numbers, opened from 18 September 2015, which gave instructions on how cases of forced labour in the cotton harvest should be reported to the state labour inspectorate or to the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions of the Uzbekistan (CFTUU). A website was also established to raise the awareness of citizens concerning this Feedback Mechanism. The Government indicates that, from 15 September 2015, a legal clinic within the Coordination Council became operational to examine any complaint received on issues connected with forced labour. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, according to the results of the Feedback Mechanism, 155 communications were received and examined, including 39 from foreign sources and 15 from human rights defenders, and a great majority of them concerned rights at work. As a result, persons whose wages had been withheld were paid a total amount of 11,608,000 Uzbekistani som (UZS) and two persons were charged administratively and had to pay fines. The Government indicates that no act of coercion could be confirmed, in particular concerning any allegations of forced labour by civil servants or the requirement to pay another person to pick cotton. With reference to section 95 of the Labour Code, after recalling the measures taken to clarify its content, the Government observes that in practice some employers may have an incorrect interpretation of this provision and that the trade unions have proposed that information and awareness-raising activities shall be conducted. The Government adds that, in the context of the DWCP, work is currently under way on a quantitative survey of recruitment practices and conditions of work in agriculture in order to determine the risks of forced labour in cotton fields.
The Committee notes the report of 18 November 2015 of the TPM on the use of child labour and forced labour during the 2015 cotton harvest, which was conducted by the ILO for the World Bank. The monitoring took place between 14 September and 31 October 2015 in 1,100 sites located in the ten provinces where the World Bank supports projects, and 9,620 interviews were carried out with the objective of assessing the incidence of child labour and forced labour in the monitored areas. Training of the ten monitoring teams, each consisting of an ILO monitor and five national monitors, and briefings for stakeholders were conducted prior to and during the 2015 cotton harvest in the framework of the DWCP. The Committee welcomes the policy commitments adopted by the Government during the 2015 cotton harvest in the context of the DWCP to carry out an awareness-raising campaign on the abolition and prevention of the use of forced labour during the cotton harvest, and not to recruit medical staff and teachers for the harvest. The Committee notes that, as highlighted in the TPM report, while awareness of child labour is already at a high level, awareness of forced labour is still at an early stage. Further nationwide efforts by the Government and the social partners will be needed to ensure that the population is sensitized, and that messages on forced labour are effectively understood, as participating in the cotton harvest is frequently seen as a patriotic duty, a communal service tradition or justified by section 95 of the Labour Code. The Committee further notes from the TPM report that, as a result of the commitments made by the Government, the Coordination Council established a Feedback Mechanism (FBM) with the assistance of the ILO and the World Bank to provide information and resolve any complaints about the use of forced labour during the 2015 cotton harvest. The Committee notes that some complaints of forced labour have been made to the FBM, but that its usage was very low. The Committee also notes that the Coordinating Council is undertaking an evaluation of the FBM and will share the results and the data gathered with both the World Bank and the ILO. It notes that, according to the TPM report, monitors visited 254 cotton fields and interviewed 1,456 cotton pickers, 263 farmers or brigade leaders and seven children in the fields. The Committee notes that the use of children in the cotton harvest has become rare, sporadic and socially unacceptable, even if ongoing vigilance is needed. The monitors observed that thousands of students over 18 years of age participated in organized harvesting supervised by teachers, but that their participation seems to have been voluntary. The TPM report indicates that large-scale organized recruitment for cotton picking took place, but that this recruitment takes different forms, depending on how the authorities decide to use the human resources at their disposal to meet their cotton quota. The Committee notes that, according to the report of the TPM, in a certain number of cases workers from both the public and the private sectors indicated that they were forced to pick cotton against their will or had to pay someone else to pick cotton. The Committee notes that, while monitors were told that workers voluntarily picked cotton in their own time for cash and rewards, they observed that the organized recruitment of large numbers of persons in such a short period of time carries certain risks linked to workers’ rights and that certain indicators of forced labour were observed, such as the withholding of wages, abusive working and living conditions and excessive overtime.
The Committee also notes from the TPM report that monitors faced some difficulties as interviewees were more willing to say that they knew others who were told to pick cotton against their will, than to say they were in such a situation themselves. While monitors were able to gather documents, such as employment contracts and letters by students volunteering to harvest cotton, they were more commonly told that the documents were unavailable. There were also gaps in staff attendance registers. The Committee further notes the indication in the TPM report that consistent information was received from other sources that forced labour is more widespread than the monitoring process alone suggests, and that teachers and medical staff, as well as private businesses, reportedly more often claimed than detected by the monitors that they were picking cotton against their will or providing money or goods than detected by the monitors. In this regard, the Committee notes that, while acknowledging the measures taken by the State party to reduce forced labour of children under the age of 16 years in the cotton sector, the Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of July 2015, expressed concern at consistent reports indicating an increase in the use of forced labour of students and adults in the cotton and silk sectors (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/4).
The Committee welcomes the involvement of the Government and the social partners, in the context of the DWCP, which has had a positive impact on the use of child and forced labour in the 2015 cotton harvest. The Committee notes however that the TPM concludes that, while recent policy commitments not to recruit medical staff and teachers, combined with awareness-raising campaigns, have had an impact, this has not yet been sufficient to ensure that compulsory labour, or payment in lieu of such labour, is not practiced in these sectors, especially outside working hours. Noting that the TPM concludes that further work is needed to mitigate the risk of, and to strengthen safeguards against the use of forced labour, particularly in assessing the real willingness of pickers to engage in the cotton harvest, the Committee strongly encourages the Government to continue cooperating with the ILO and the social partners, in the framework of the DWCP, to ensure that the recruitment and engagement of public and private sector workers, as well as students, particularly over the age of 18 years, in cotton farming is carried out in a manner compatible with the Convention. With regard to the Government’s reference to an evaluation of the Feedback Mechanism undertaken by the Coordination Council, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on its outcome and on any measures taken as a result. The Committee once again urges the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers, as well as students, in cotton farming, and requests it to provide information on the measures taken to this end and the concrete results achieved, with an indication of the sanctions applied.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving an obligation to work (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional tasks) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely:
  • – section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); the Committee previously noted the Government’s statement that, besides the “intentional actions demeaning the national honour and dignity, or insulting the feelings of citizens in connection with their religious beliefs”, this section also makes punishable “manufacturing, storage or dissemination of materials propagating national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity”;
  • – sections 216 and 216-1 (creation or participation in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations);
  • – section 216-2 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, as, for example, the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and
  • – section 217 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations).
The Committee also noted the following provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences, which impose a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days (involving an obligation to perform labour under section 346 of the Code) in circumstances that could be incompatible with the Convention:
  • – section 201 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations);
  • – section 202-1 (inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations);
  • – section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, for example the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and
  • – section 241 (violation of the procedure of teaching of religion: teaching without prior authorization or teaching by a person who did not receive a special religious education).
In this connection, the Committee previously noted that the Human Rights Committee (HRC), in its concluding observations of 7 April 2010, expressed concern regarding the number of representatives of independent non governmental organizations, journalists, and human rights defenders imprisoned, assaulted, harassed or intimidated, because of the exercise of their profession. The HRC also expressed concern at the limitations and restrictions on freedom of religion and belief, including for members of non-registered religious groups, and recommended that the Government amend, in particular, section 216 2 of the Criminal Code. The HRC also expressed concern over the existing provisions in sections 139 and 140 on defamation and insult, which may be used to punish individuals who criticise the existing regime (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3, paragraphs 19 and 24). In this regard, the Committee noted that section 139 on defamation provides for a penalty of corrective labour of up to two years, and section 140 on insult provides for a penalty of up to one year.
The Committee reiterates its concern with regard to the absence of information on this point in the Government’s report. The Committee notes, however, that the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), in its observations submitted in August 2014, states that the Government continued to repress and detain individuals seeking to document state-sponsored forced labour. In this regard, the ITUC provides information on the arrest and detention of independent journalists and human rights activists advocating farmers’ interests.
The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the fact 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-violent views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. Therefore, the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour under this provision comprise the freedom to express political or ideological views, as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens peacefully seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. In light of the above considerations, the Committee once again urges the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above sections of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.
Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil, or improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years. Noting once again that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee reiterates its request for information on the application of section 207 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that no sanctions involving the obligation to work are imposed as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline.
Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 218 of the Criminal Code punishes with imprisonment the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency. It recalled that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour should be limited to the need to cope with cases of force majeure in the strict sense of the term – namely, when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered – provided that the duration of the prohibition is limited to the period of immediate necessity. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the definition of the term “state of emergency”, as referred to in section 218 of the Criminal Code, as well as on the application in practice of such section, so as to enable it to ascertain that, in accordance with the Convention, no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for peaceful participation in strikes. The Committee also reiterates its request for information on any provisions under which penal sanctions could be imposed for the participation in strikes in situations other than a state of emergency, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice.
Communication of texts. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force concerning the execution of criminal sentences, labour relations in the public service and governing strikes.
[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report received on 1 September 2014. It also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 31 August 2014, and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 1 September 2014, as well as the Government’s reply to both communications, received on 29 October 2014. The Committee further notes the observations of the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions of Uzbekistan (CFTUU), received on 24 October 2014. These observations were transmitted to the Government for its comments.
Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production). The Committee previously noted the allegations made by the IOE and the ITUC regarding the persistent use of state-sponsored forced labour of adults for purposes of economic development in cotton production. The Committee also noted that the Government refuted the allegations, indicating that workers called upon to participate in agricultural work are engaged through individual employment contracts, being paid for the work performed, in addition to receiving the wage for their usual jobs. The Committee noted further the information in the high-level mission report on the monitoring of child labour during the 2013 cotton harvest, of November 2013. The mission report emphasized that, since the monitoring exercise was limited to the scope of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), the results obtained could not establish or deny reported practices of forced labour of adults. Nonetheless, the report states that monitors were in a position to note other issues relevant to the mandate of the ILO, for example with regard to the recruitment of the labour force to harvest cotton, the potential and consequences of mechanization on the labour market, and the realization of fundamental rights of workers, including the respect for the effective implementation of the present Convention. Against this background, the Committee urged the Government to continue to engage in cooperation with the ILO and the social partners, within the framework of a country programme, so as to ensure the full application of the Convention and the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour in cotton production.
In this connection, the Committee welcomes the development and adoption of a Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) in April 2014. The DWCP identifies concrete priorities, objectives, outcomes and performance indicators for the cooperation between the Office, the social partners and the Government during the period 2014–16. The Committee notes, in particular, the measures proposed in the context of the DWCP with a view to assuring that conditions of work and employment in agriculture, including in cotton farming, are in conformity with fundamental standards. To this end, the component of the DWCP on the application of Convention No. 105 establishes four indicators of performance, namely:
  • – a survey on working conditions in agriculture, including in the cotton-growing industry, contains recommendations to improve labour recruitment and retention practices;
  • – national law and practice is reviewed and monitored;
  • – number of labour inspectors that demonstrate improved knowledge and skills to recognize forced labour practices; and
  • – number of roundtables held on forced labour both for the business community and for representatives of local government and administration, educational institutions, trade unions and the media.
The Committee also notes that a round-table discussion was held in Tashkent on 6–7 August 2014 in order to discuss and elaborate practical measures to implement the agreed components of the DWCP, in particular with regard to ILO assistance to child labour monitoring during the 2014 cotton harvest and the implementation of the survey on recruitment practices and working conditions in agriculture and in cotton growing to be carried out in the near future. The Committee welcomes the above developments, which demonstrate the Government’s readiness to collaborate with the ILO and the social partners.
The Committee notes that, in its observations received in August 2014, the ITUC states that, in spite of certain measures taken by the Government, such as the adoption of the DWCP, the systematic use of forced labour in cotton production continued to affect farmers; public and private sector workers, including teachers, doctors and nurses; unemployed citizens; and recipients of public welfare benefits. According to the ITUC, the root causes of forced labour in the cotton industry lie in the system of total government control of the sector, which has a detrimental impact on farmers and the labour force mobilised by the State. The ITUC further alleges that, during the 2013 harvest, the Government once again assigned cotton production quotas, which, at the local level, were enforced on individuals according to the amount of cotton in the fields. Workers and farmers failing to meet the assigned quotas were faced with threats of dismissal from their usual jobs, loss of land and extraordinary investigations. For example, according to the ITUC, hospital administrations instructed doctors, nurses and other staff to pick cotton or contribute with approximately half their salaries to the cotton harvest, under threats of dismissal. Community inhabitants were coerced to pick cotton under threats of having their access to electricity and social benefits restricted.
In its observations submitted in September 2014, the IOE highlights that, through the acceptance of ILO technical assistance in 2013 and the adoption of the DWCP in 2014, the Government and social partners in Uzbekistan have demonstrated their commitment to enhancing cooperation with the ILO and other relevant organizations in order to adopt measures for the full application of the Conventions. In this regard, the IOE states that it expects the Government and social partners to continue to cooperate with the ILO in order to eradicate forced labour. The IOE also welcomes the preparation of a survey on working conditions in agriculture and emphasizes its view that the exaction of forced labour goes beyond the compulsory employment of civil servants and private sector workers during the cotton harvest, and includes farmers’ obligations to follow directives on land management, agricultural technology and farming systems. The IOE expresses its hope that the Government will provide the international social partners and the ILO with information on the results of the aforementioned survey, including statistics on the number of adults working in agriculture, the level of wages, whether cases of established forced labour practices were identified, and the penalties applied thereto.
The Committee notes further that, in its observations submitted in September 2014, the CFTUU provides information on a number of measures taken by the Government, in cooperation with the social partners, with a view to effectively implementing ILO Conventions with regard to forced and child labour, including through social dialogue, development of awareness raising campaigns, establishment of telephone hotlines, and technical cooperation with the ILO. The CFTUU also provides information on measures taken by trade unions in the lead up to the 2014 cotton harvest in order to improve working and living conditions of cotton pickers, and to ensure that no children under 18 years of age are involved in the cotton harvest. In this connection, the CFTUU indicates that trade unions held workshops in all provinces and districts with a view to informing civil servants, government officials, farmers’ councils, educational establishments, financial institutions and public associations on the requirements of ILO Conventions on forced and child labour, as well as on issues such as payment of wages and access to food, medical services and leisure activities for cotton pickers.
The Committee notes the Government’s statement, referring also to the definition of forced labour in Article 2 of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), that the recruitment of workers on a voluntary basis for work in the cotton harvest cannot be considered as forced labour, since workers are free to terminate their employment at any time, may a situation of coercion arise. Moreover, in its reply to the observations made by the IOE, of 29 October 2014, the Government reiterates its view that individuals engaged in cotton picking are usually motivated by the possibility of supplementing their income. The Government also provides information on a number of measures taken to enhance cooperation with the social partners in the country, including with regard to the implementation of the ILO Conventions on forced and child labour. These include, for example, the undertaking of seminars on the implementation of international labour standards, dissemination of information on activities carried out to address forced and child labour, and campaigns to raise the awareness of both the population in general, as well as farmers and the business community on these issues.
Additionally, the Committee notes the Government’s statement in its reply to the observations of the ITUC that it has issued an official instruction to all concerned organizations on the prohibition of the forced mobilization of workers, without their voluntary agreement, for engagement in cotton picking. According to the Government, violations of this instruction are punishable with severe sanctions. The Government also indicates that steps are being taken for the institutionalization of voluntary recruitment of cotton pickers through labour market institutions. With regard to the reiterated allegations presented by the ITUC according to which public sector employees were required to sign new contracts containing a conditional clause on their voluntary participation in agriculture and farming work, the Government refutes the existence of an order or regulation providing for such condition. The Government also states that the current labour legislation allows for the temporary transfer of a worker to other activities, without the agreement of the individual concerned.
While noting the above considerations, the Committee observes that, for the purposes of Conventions Nos 29 and 105, the term “forced or compulsory labour” is defined as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily”. In this context, “voluntary offer” refers to the freely given and informed consent of workers to enter into an employment relationship, as well as to their freedom to leave their employment at any time, without fear of retaliation or loss of any privilege. In this regard, the Committee recalls, referring also to paragraph 271 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, that, even in cases where employment is originally the result of a freely concluded agreement, the right of workers to free choice of employment, without being subject to the menace of any penalty, remains inalienable. Accordingly, while temporary transfers of employment might be inherent to certain professions and activities, the Committee considers that the application in practice of provisions, orders or regulations allowing for the systematic transfer of workers for the performance of activities which are unrelated to their ordinary occupations (e.g. the transfer of a health-care professional to perform agricultural work) should be carefully examined in order to ensure that such practice would not result in a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties turning into work by compulsion of law. The Committee also points out that, although certain forms of compulsory work or service (such as work that is part of the normal civic obligations of citizens and minor communal services) are expressly excluded from the scope of the forced labour conventions, these exceptions are limited to minor works or services performed in the direct interest of the population, and do not include work intended to benefit a wider group or work for purposes of economic development, which is explicitly prohibited by the present Convention.
In light of the above, and in order to allow the Committee to ascertain that the recruitment and engagement of individuals in cotton picking is carried out in a manner compatible with the Convention, the Committee strongly encourages the Government to continue to cooperate with the ILO and the social partners, so as to ensure that the survey on recruitment practices and working conditions in agriculture, in particular in cotton growing, is effectively undertaken and its results subsequently disseminated. With regard to the Government’s reference to an official instruction on the prohibition of forced mobilization of workers for engagement in cotton picking, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how this instruction is enforced, whether any violations have been detected and, in the affirmative, to provide information on the sanctions imposed. The Committee once again urges the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers, as well as students, in cotton farming, and requests it to provide information on the measures taken to this end and the concrete results achieved.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.
[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional tasks) in circumstances related to the application of the Convention:
  • -section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); the Committee previously noted the Government’s statement that, besides the “intentional actions demeaning the national honour and dignity or insulting the feelings of citizens in connection with their religious beliefs”, this section also makes punishable “manufacturing, storage or dissemination of materials propagating national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity”;
  • -section 216 and 216-1 (creation or participation in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations);
  • -section 216-2 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, as, for example, the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and
  • -section 217 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations).
The Committee also noted the following provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences, which impose a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days (involving an obligation to perform labour under section 346 of the Code) in circumstances that could be covered by the Convention:
  • -section 201 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations);
  • -section 202-1 (inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations);
  • -section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, for example the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and
  • -section 241 (violation of the procedure of teaching of religion: teaching without prior authorization or teaching by a person who did not receive a special religious education).
The Committee notes with concern an absence of information on this point in the Government’s report. However, it notes that the Human Rights Committee (HRC), in its concluding observation of 7 April 2010, expressed concern regarding the number of representatives of independent non-governmental organizations, journalists, and human rights defenders imprisoned, assaulted, harassed or intimidated, because of the exercise of their profession. The HRC also expressed concern at the limitations and restrictions on freedom of religion and belief, including for members of non-registered religious groups, and recommended that the Government amend, in particular, section 216-2 of the Criminal Code. The HRC also expressed concern over the existing provisions in section 139 and 140 of the Criminal Code on defamation and insult, which may be used to punish individuals who criticise the existing regime (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3, paragraphs 19 and 24). In this regard, the Committee notes that section 139 (on defamation) provides for a penalty of corrective labour of up to two years, and section 140 (on insult) provides for a penalty of up to one year.
With reference to paragraph 302 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour “as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system”. The range of activities which must be protected, under this provision, from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour thus comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. In the light of the above considerations, the Committee urges the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the sections 139, 140, 156, 216, 216-1, 216-2 and 217 of the Criminal Code, and sections 201, 202-1, 240 and 241 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.
Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil or improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years. Noting once again that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to supply information on the application of section 207 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that it is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.
Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, Committee noted that section 218 of the Criminal Code punishes the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency with imprisonment. Referring to paragraph 314 of the 2012 General Survey, the Committee recalls that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour is compatible with the Convention only in so far as it is necessary to cope with cases of force majeure in the strict sense of the term – namely, when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered – provided that the duration of the prohibition is limited to the period of immediate necessity. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide information on the definition of the term “state of emergency”, as referred to in section 218 of the Criminal Code. It also requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 218 in practice in its next report. Lastly, it once again requests the Government to provide information on any provisions imposing penal sanctions on participants in strikes in situations other than a state of emergency, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice.
Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force concerning the execution of criminal sentences, labour relations in the public service and governing strikes.
[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2014.]

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s reports dated 3 and 6 May 2013 and 11 November 2013. It also notes the communication of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 21 August 2013 and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) dated 1 September 2013, as well as the Government’s reply to both communications, dated 31 October 2013. The Committee further notes the ITUC’s observations dated 25 November 2013, which refer to the systematic state mobilization of the forced labour of adults in the 2013 cotton harvest. These observations were transmitted to the Government for its comments. Lastly, it notes the report of the ILO high-level mission (mission report) on the monitoring of child labour during the 2013 cotton harvest in Uzbekistan, dated 19 November 2013.
Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production). In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the allegations made by the IOE and the ITUC concerning the systematic and persistent use of forced labour of adults for purposes of economic development in cotton production. The Committee also noted that the Government denied these allegations and reiterated that under no circumstances may employers use compulsory labour for the production or harvesting of agricultural products in Uzbekistan, the exaction of forced labour being punishable with penal and administrative sanctions.
The Committee notes that the ITUC, in its communication dated 21 August 2013, states that despite legislative and policy measures taken to address forced labour, the Government has not provided evidence of any impact of these measures. State-sponsored forced labour of adults continued during the 2012 cotton harvest in virtually all administrative areas in Uzbekistan, and the burden of field work shifted from younger children to children over the age of 15 and adults, including university students, public sector workers, citizens who receive welfare benefits and private sector employees. With regard to schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and ministries, groups of employees were assigned to pick cotton for two to three weeks on a rotating basis. Approximately 60 per cent of teachers were forced to pick cotton, and the only way to avoid such work was by paying a fine of 400,000 Uzbekistani soms (approximately US$183). The ITUC further alleges that the Government defines an annual cotton production quota for farmers, and those farmers that fail to meet this quota face severe consequences including loss of their land, prosecution on criminal charges and physical punishment. During the 2012 cotton harvest, authorities intensified efforts to mobilize labour to harvest cotton including through police intimidation, extortion and threats regarding loss of jobs, pensions and welfare benefits. Additionally, in January 2013, the Government required public sector employees to sign new contracts that included a clause that they would voluntarily help with agriculture and farming work. The ITUC also provides information on the poor working conditions of cotton pickers, including poor accommodation, long working hours and the lack of safe drinking water.
The Committee notes that the IOE, in its most recent communication dated 1 September 2013, states that as the preparation for the 2103 cotton harvest began, it appeared that teachers had been enlisted to prepare for the cotton season. The IOE emphasizes that new information on the 2013 cotton harvest would soon be available, and that if the cotton harvest replicated the same scenario as in previous years, the Government would be failing to comply with its obligations under the Convention. Previous years had involved a state-ordered system of forced labour for the cotton harvest, whereby farmers and employees in the public and private sector were obligated to collect cotton. Refusal to work, or failure to meet a quota, could result in beatings, threats, expulsion from university, loss of employment, loss of public benefits and the confiscation of land. The IOE underlines that it is expecting the full engagement of the Government and the national social partners to address these issues, including the implementation as a matter of urgency of measures to apply the Convention, the improvement in the exchange of information between the Government and the ILO (particularly this Committee), and the enhancement of a wide monitoring process where ILO representatives would have full freedom of movement and access to all regions and relevant parties.
The Committee notes that the Government, in its report dated 3 May 2013, states that workers called upon to participate in agricultural work are paid for the work they perform, in addition to receiving the average wage for their usual job. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement in its reply to the comments of the ITUC dated 31 October 2013 that all the cotton produced in the country is grown by private farmers. The Government indicates that during the cotton harvest, pickers are engaged through individual employment contracts, generally motivated by a desire to earn additional income, and a minimum payment is set per kilogram of cotton picked. It also indicates that in the run-up to the 2013 cotton harvest, the Council of the Federation of Trades Unions carried out an initiative regarding the establishment of favourable working and living conditions for the cotton pickers and timely payment of their wages, which was supported by the Government. Recommendations in this regard were brought to the attention of local authorities, labour inspectorates and farmers, and this trade union monitored the observance of labour legislation and labour protection during the performance of cotton-picking work, as well as rules relating to sanitary and hygiene conditions, the availability of medical care and the provision of drinking water and three full hot meals a day. Moreover, hotlines have been set up at all trades union bodies for workers to report violations of their labour rights, and no reports of violations of the rights of workers had thus far been received in the 2013 cotton harvest.
In addition, the Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments of the IOE that the institutional foundations have been established for resolving this issue. The Government states that the Action Plan for Co-operation with the ILO for 2013–15 has been adopted in accordance with decisions taken at the round table held on 17–18 July 2013 in Tashkent. Under this Plan, a Decent Work Country Programme and a programme for cooperation with ILO–IPEC have been drafted.
In this regard, the Committee notes the information in the high-level mission report that, following a round table in July 2013, it was agreed that there would be joint ILO–Uzbek monitoring of the cotton harvest in 2013 based on the ILO proposed document on child labour monitoring. The monitoring took place from 11 September until 31 October 2013, covering approximately 40,000 kilometres across the country. The monitoring units had full access and were on no occasion hindered in their access to any cotton farm, school or community in any zone. These units made 806 documented site visits comprised of 406 farms, 206 households, and 395 places offering education to children and young people. During stops at farms, schools, colleges, lyceums, and buildings within communities in the vicinity of the farms, the units interviewed employers, farmers, adult farm workers, children found in or around cotton farms, teachers, school administrators, students, parents and community members. Of the 275 colleges and lyceums covered by the monitoring, monitors found six closed colleges in two zones and significant absenteeism in grades one and two of colleges in four zones. One of the reasons provided in interviews with school staff was that they were closed for the cotton harvest but that students under 18 years of age were reassigned to other classes or activities. The mission report does not indicate whether students over the age of 18 at these colleges, closed due to the cotton harvest, participated in the harvest on a voluntary basis. In this regard, the mission report emphasizes that the monitoring carried out during the cotton harvest was limited to the scope of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), and that, consequently, the monitoring results cannot either establish or deny reported practices of forced labour of adults. Nevertheless, the Committee observes the monitoring report which states that the monitors were in a position to note other issues relevant to the mandate of the ILO. The report also states that, importantly, among these issues is the framework and various practices under which the entire cotton production is conducted. This pertains to the campaign and recruitment of the labour force to harvest the cotton, the potential and consequences of mechanization on the labour market, and the realization of fundamental rights of the workers, including the respect for the effective implementation of the Convention. The mission report further states that comprehensive inter-ministerial support and action will be required to fully address all relevant issues related to cotton production and harvest.
In this regard, the Committee welcomes the Government’s statement, in its report of 11 November 2013, expressing its readiness for the further broad development of cooperation with the ILO within the framework of the Decent Work concept, including effective measures for eradicating forced and child labour in accordance with this Convention and Convention No. 182 and requesting the ILO to provide technical assistance for questions of their implementation. The Government states that the social partners, represented by the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Union of Farmers of Uzbekistan have also expressed their readiness for expanded cooperation with the ILO as well as other interested organizations (such as the IOE and ITUC) who express good will, strive towards constructive dialogue and wish to assist Uzbekistan in the questions of prohibiting forced labour. Taking due note of the Government’s collaboration with the ILO during the cotton harvest in 2013, as well as its stated commitment to implementing this Convention, the Committee urges the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers as well as students in cotton production. In this regard, it urges the Government to continue to engage in cooperation with the ILO and the social partners, within the framework of a country programme, towards the full application of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information on concrete measures taken in this respect, in its next report.
The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.
[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2014.]

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with regret 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:
Repetition
Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional tasks) in circumstances covered by the Convention:
  • – section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); the Committee has noted from the Government’s report that, besides the “intentional actions demeaning the national honour and dignity or insulting the feelings of citizens in connection with their religious beliefs”, this section also makes punishable “manufacturing, storage or dissemination of materials propagating national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity”;
  • – section 216 and 216-1 (creation or inclining to participate in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations);
  • – section 216-2 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, as, for example, the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and
  • – section 217 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations).
The Committee also noted previously the following provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences, which impose a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days (involving an obligation to perform labour under section 346 of the Code) in circumstances covered by the Convention:
  • – section 201 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations);
  • – section 202-1 (inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations);
  • – section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, for example the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and
  • – section 241 (violation of the procedure of teaching of religion: teaching without prior authorization or teaching by a person who did not receive a special religious education).
The Committee recalled that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Such views may be expressed orally or through the press or other communications media or through the exercise of the right of association or participation in meetings and gatherings.
In the light of the above considerations, the Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections 156, 216, 216-1, 216-2 and 217 of the Criminal Code, and sections 201, 202-1, 240 and 241 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention. Please also provide information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.
Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil or improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application of this provision in practice. Since the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the application of section 207 in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that it is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.
Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the provisions of section 218 of the Criminal Code punishing the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate any provisions imposing penal sanctions on participants in illegal strikes in the normal situation (outside a state of emergency), and to supply a copy, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice, including also copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.
Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force concerning the execution of criminal sentences, labour relations in the public service and the right to strike.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), dated 22 October 2012, which relate to the mobilization of adults, particularly teachers, university students and employees from the private and public sectors, in the national cotton harvest, as well as the Government’s reply to these comments dated 20 November 2012.
Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production). In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the allegations made in 2008 and 2009 by the IOE and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) concerning the systematic and persistent use of forced labour, including forced child labour, in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan. The Committee recalled that similar allegations were made in 2004 by the Council of the Trade Unions Federation of Uzbekistan, which referred to practices of a mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in cotton production, in which public sector workers, schoolchildren and university students were involved.
As regards practices of forcible involvement of schoolchildren in the cotton harvest, the Committee previously asked the Government to refer to its comments on the application of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), likewise ratified by Uzbekistan.
However, as the Committee previously noted from the above allegations made by employers’ and workers’ organizations, not only children but also adults were subject to forced labour during the cotton harvest. The ITUC asserted, in particular, that, despite the existence of the legal framework against the use of forced labour, local administration employees, teachers, factory workers and doctors were commonly forced to leave their jobs for weeks at a time and pick cotton with no additional compensation; in some instances refusal to cooperate could lead to dismissal from work; even elderly people and mothers of young babies had been reportedly ordered by local government officials to pick cotton or lose their pensions or child benefits.
The Committee previously noted that, in its reply to the above communications by the IOE and the ITUC, the Government denied the allegations about coercion of large numbers of people to participate in agricultural works and reiterated that under no circumstances may employers use compulsory labour for the production or harvesting of agricultural products in Uzbekistan, the exaction of forced labour being punishable with penal and administrative sanctions and employers being liable for violation of labour legislation. The Government further indicated in its reply to the Committee’s comments received in May 2011 that, according to the legislation in force, public sector workers and university students may participate in the cotton harvest if such work is performed under a labour contract concluded between an employer and a worker under section 72 of the Labour Code. Any other exaction of labour from these categories without payment would be considered as compulsion to work, which involves responsibility and punishment of perpetrators in accordance with the legislation. The Government also added that the State Legal Labour Inspection intervenes upon every revealed case of the exaction of forced labour and applies appropriate legal measures, while informing the competent bodies of the detected violations of labour legislation. The Government further made reference to the recent legislative measures aimed at improving the legal framework for the abolition of forced labour, such as the adoption of the Law on Measures to Combat Trafficking in Persons and respective amendments to the Criminal Code.
The Committee refers, however, to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 182, in which it notes the ITUC observations under that Convention received in 2010, 2011 and 2012, as well as the IOE comments received in 2010 and 2012 and, in particular, the assertion contained in these communications that, despite the Government’s denial, sources in the country indicate the widespread mobilization of forced labour (particularly of children) in the annual cotton harvest in a number of Uzbekistan’s regions.
Recalling that the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour for purposes of economic development, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the concrete measures taken, including through labour inspection, to ensure the elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public sector workers and students in cotton production. Noting also the general statistical data concerning a number of violations of the labour legislation detected in 2011 and a number of cases in which administrative penalties (fines) have been imposed on responsible public officials for such violations, the Committee requests the Government to provide statistics on the number of cases of forced labour detected by the State Legal Labour Inspection, indicating in particular whether judicial proceedings have been instituted in such cases and indicating the penalties imposed on perpetrators.
The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report contains no reply to its 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:
Repetition
Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force concerning the execution of criminal sentences, labour relations in the public service and the right to strike.
Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional tasks) in circumstances covered by the Convention:
  • – section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); the Committee has noted from the Government’s report that, besides the “intentional actions demeaning the national honour and dignity or insulting the feelings of citizens in connection with their religious beliefs”, this section also makes punishable “manufacturing, storage or dissemination of materials propagating national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity”;
  • – section 216 and 216-1 (creation or inclining to participate in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations);
  • – section 216-2 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, as, for example, the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and
  • – section 217 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations).
The Committee also noted previously the following provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences, which impose a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days (involving an obligation to perform labour under section 346 of the Code) in circumstances covered by the Convention:
  • – section 201 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations);
  • – section 202-1 (inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations);
  • – section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, for example the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and
  • – section 241 (violation of the procedure of teaching of religion: teaching without prior authorization or teaching by a person who did not receive a special religious education).
The Committee recalled that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Such views may be expressed orally or through the press or other communications media or through the exercise of the right of association or participation in meetings and gatherings.
In the light of the above considerations, the Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections 156, 216, 216-1, 216-2 and 217 of the Criminal Code, and sections 201, 202-1, 240 and 241 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention. Please also provide information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.
Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil or improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application of this provision in practice. Since the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the application of section 207 in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that it is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.
Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the provisions of section 218 of the Criminal Code punishing the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate any provisions imposing penal sanctions on participants in illegal strikes in the normal situation (outside a state of emergency), and to supply a copy, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice, including also copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production). In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the allegations made in 2008 and 2009 by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) concerning the systematic and persistent use of forced labour, including forced child labour, in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan. The Committee recalled that similar allegations were made in 2004 by the Council of the Trade Unions Federation of Uzbekistan, which referred to practices of a mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in cotton production, in which public sector workers, schoolchildren and university students were involved.
As regards practices of forcible involvement of schoolchildren in the cotton harvest, the Committee previously asked the Government to refer to its comments on the application of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), likewise ratified by Uzbekistan.
However, as the Committee previously noted from the above allegations made by employers’ and workers’ organizations, not only children but also adults were subject to forced labour during the cotton harvest. The ITUC asserted, in particular, that, despite the existence of the legal framework against the use of forced labour, local administration employees, teachers, factory workers and doctors were commonly forced to leave their jobs for weeks at a time and pick cotton with no additional compensation; in some instances refusal to cooperate could lead to dismissal from work; even elderly people and mothers of young babies had been reportedly ordered by local government officials to pick cotton or lose their pensions or child benefits.
The Committee previously noted that, in its reply to the above communications by the IOE and the ITUC, the Government denied the allegations about coercion of large numbers of people to participate in agricultural works and reiterated that under no circumstances employers may use compulsory labour for the production or harvesting of agricultural products in Uzbekistan, the exaction of forced labour being punishable with penal and administrative sanctions and employers being liable for violation of labour legislation. The Government further indicates in its reply to the Committee’s comments received in May 2011 that, according to the legislation in force, public sector workers and university students may participate in the cotton harvest, if such work is performed under the labour contract concluded between an employer and a worker under section 72 of the Labour Code, any other exaction of labour from these categories without payment being considered as compulsion to work, which involves responsibility and punishment of perpetrators in accordance with the legislation. The Government also adds in its 2011 report that the State Legal Labour Inspection intervenes upon every revealed fact of the exaction of forced labour and applies appropriate legal measures, while informing the competent bodies of the detected violations of labour legislation. It further recalls the recent legislative measures aiming at improving the legal framework for the abolition of forced labour, such as the adoption of the Law on Measures to Combat Trafficking in Persons and respective amendments to the Criminal Code.
The Committee refers, however, to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 182, in which it noted the ITUC observations under that Convention received in 2010, and in particular, the ITUC assertion that, despite the Government’s denial, sources in the country confirm the widespread mobilization of forced labour (particularly of children) in the 2009 cotton harvest in a number of Uzbekistan’s regions.
The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will provide, in its next report, information on concrete measures taken, including through labour inspection, in order to eliminate any possibility of using compulsory labour of public sector workers and university students in cotton production, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, which prohibits the use of compulsory labour for purposes of economic development. Noting also the general statistical data concerning a number of violations of the labour legislation detected in 2010 and a number of cases in which administrative penalties (fines) have been imposed on responsible public officials for such violations, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide statistics on the number of cases of forced labour detected by the State Legal Labour Inspection, to which reference is made in the Government’s report, indicating in particular, whether judicial proceedings have been instituted in such cases and indicating the penalties imposed on perpetrators.
The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

CMNT_TITLE

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:

Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force concerning the execution of criminal sentences, labour relations in the public service and the right to strike.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional tasks) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

–      section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); the Committee has noted from the Government’s report that, besides the “intentional actions demeaning the national honour and dignity or insulting the feelings of citizens in connection with their religious beliefs”, this section also makes punishable “manufacturing, storage or dissemination of materials propagating national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity”;

–      section 216 and 216-1 (creation or inclining to participate in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations);

–      section 216-2 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, as, for example, the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and

–      section 217 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations).

The Committee also noted previously the following provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences, which impose a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days (involving an obligation to perform labour under section 346 of the Code) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

–      section 201 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations);

–      section 202-1 (inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations);

–      section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, for example the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and

–      section 241 (violation of the procedure of teaching of religion: teaching without prior authorization or teaching by a person who did not receive a special religious education).

The Committee recalled that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Such views may be expressed orally or through the press or other communications media or through the exercise of the right of association or participation in meetings and gatherings.

In the light of the above considerations, the Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections 156, 216, 216-1, 216-2 and 217 of the Criminal Code, and sections 201, 202-1, 240 and 241 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention. Please also provide information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil or improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application of this provision in practice. Since the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the application of section 207 in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that it is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the provisions of section 218 of the Criminal Code punishing the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate any provisions imposing penal sanctions on participants in illegal strikes in the normal situation (outside a state of emergency), and to supply a copy, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice, including also copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production). In its earlier comments, the Committee noted communications received in 2008 and 2009 from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which alleged that, despite the existence of the legal framework against the use of forced labour, there were continued non-governmental organizations denouncing, and media reports recording the systematic and persistent use of forced labour, including forced child labour, in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan. The IOE and the ITUC alleged that the Government systematically mobilized both school-aged children and adults to work in the annual cotton harvest for purposes of economic development. The Committee also noted previously the comments made by the Council of the Trade Unions Federation of Uzbekistan, communicated by the Government with its 2004 report, which contained allegations concerning practices of mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in cotton production, in which public sector workers, school children and university students were involved.

The Committee notes two new communications received in November 2010 from a number of workers’ organizations: a communication dated 19 November 2010, received from the European Apparel and Textile Confederation (EURATEX) and the European Trade Union Federation: Textiles, Clothing and Leather (ETUF: TCL); and a communication dated 22 November 2010 received from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the ETUF: TCL, the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) and the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT). Both communications, which relate to the issue of continued use of child labour in the cotton harvest, were sent to the Government, in November 2010, for such comments as it may wish to make on the matters raised therein.

The Committee notes the Government’s response to the 2008 and 2009 communications by the IOE and the ITUC, received in January 2010, in which the Government submitted its observations on the alleged cases of widespread use of forced child labour in the cotton industry, including information on the implementation of the national action plan concerning the application of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), and the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), likewise ratified by Uzbekistan. In so far as Article 3(a) of Convention No. 182 provides that the worst forms of child labour include “all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour”, the Committee is of the view that this problem can be examined more specifically under Convention No. 182. The protection of children is enhanced by the fact that Convention No. 182 requires States which ratify it to take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to refer to its comments on the application of Convention No. 182.

However, the Committee previously noted that, according to the above allegations made by the IOE and the ITUC, adults were also subject to forced labour during the cotton harvest. The ITUC alleged, in particular, that local administration employees, teachers, factory workers and doctors were commonly forced to leave their jobs for weeks at a time and pick cotton with no additional compensation; in some instances refusal to cooperate could lead to dismissal from work; even elderly people and mothers of young babies had been reportedly ordered by local government officials to pick cotton or lose their pensions or child benefits. The ITUC concluded that, even if forced labour in the cotton fields was not the result of state policy, the Government still violated the Convention by failing to ensure its effective observance, since it systematically required persons to work in the cotton fields against their will, under the threat of a penalty and in extremely perilous conditions for the purposes of economic development.

The Committee notes that, in its reply to the above communications by the IOE and the ITUC, received in January 2010, the Government denies the allegations about coercion of large numbers of people to participate in agricultural work and reiterates that, under no circumstances, employers may use compulsory labour for the production or harvesting of agricultural products in Uzbekistan, the exaction of forced labour being punishable with penal and administrative sanctions, and employers being liable for violation of labour legislation. The Government also reiterates its earlier statement that almost all the country’s cotton is produced by private undertakings that have no economic interest in employing additional labour.

While noting these indications, the Committee asks the Government to state, in its next report, whether public sector workers and university students participate in the cotton harvest and, if so, how their work is organized, indicating, in particular, the measures taken, including through labour inspection, in order to eliminate any possibility to use compulsory labour in cotton production, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, which prohibits the use of compulsory labour for purposes of economic development. Please also provide information on the legal proceedings which have been instituted against employers for the exaction of compulsory labour in cotton production under the existing penal and administrative provisions, supplying copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

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

CMNT_TITLE

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:

Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force concerning the execution of criminal sentences, labour relations in the public service and the right to strike.

Article 1, subparagraph a, of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional tasks) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

–      section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); the Committee has noted from the Government’s report that, besides the “intentional actions demeaning the national honour and dignity or insulting the feelings of citizens in connection with their religious beliefs”, this section also makes punishable “manufacturing, storage or dissemination of materials propagating national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity”;

–      sections 216 and 216-1 (creation or inclining to participate in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations);

–      section 216-2 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, as e.g. the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and

–      section 217 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations).

The Committee also noted previously the following provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences, which impose a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to fifteen days (involving an obligation to perform labour under section 346 of the Code) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

–      section 201 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations);

–      sections 202-1 (inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations);

–      section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, e.g. the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and

–      section 241 (violation of the procedure of teaching of religion: teaching without prior authorization or teaching by a person who did not receive a special religious education).

The Committee recalled that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Such views may be expressed orally or through the press or other communications media or through the exercise of the right of association or participation in meetings and gatherings.

In the light of the above considerations, the Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections 156, 216, 216-1, 216-2 and 217 of the Criminal Code, and sections 201, 202-1, 240 and 241 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention. Please also provide information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Article 1, subparagraph c. Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil or improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application of this provision in practice. Since the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the application of section 207 in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that it is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1, subparagraph d. Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the provisions of section 218 of the Criminal Code punishing the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate any provisions imposing penal sanctions on participants in illegal strikes in the normal situation (outside a state of emergency), and to supply a copy, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice, including also copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production). In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the observations made by the Council of the Trade Unions Federation of Uzbekistan, communicated by the Government with its 2004 report, which contained allegations concerning practices of a mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production), in which public sector workers, schoolchildren and university students were involved. It also noted a communication dated 17 October 2008, received from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), which alleged that, despite the existence of the legal framework against the use of forced labour, there were continued non-governmental organizations and media reports denunciating the systematic and persistent use of forced labour, including forced child labour, in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan. The Committee notes the Government’s response to the above communication by the IOE, received in January 2009. It further notes a new communication from the IOE dated 26 August 2009, as well as a communication from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 31 August 2009, both of them concerning the above subject, which were sent to the Government in August and September 2009 for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. Finally, the Committee notes the comments made by the Council of the Trade Unions Federation of Uzbekistan on the application of the Convention, in a communication dated 10 August 2009.

In the 2009 communication referred to above, the IOE reiterated its previous comments submitted in 2008 and stated that there were continued non-governmental organizations and media reports denunciating the systematic and persistent use of forced labour, including forced child labour, in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan. The above communication by the ITUC contains similar allegations, according to which the Government systematically mobilizes both school-age children and adults to work in the annual cotton harvest for purposes of economic development; it further alleges that, in addition to forcible nature of the work, persons concerned are working in extremely exploitative and harmful conditions. The ITUC refers in this connection to the report of the fact-finding mission to Central Asia undertaken by the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF), in which the IUF reported that, during cotton harvesting, teachers and children are mobilized in many rural areas to help with the harvest that interrupts the study for several weeks. Both the IOE and the ITUC refer in their respective communications to the 2005 reports of the two non-governmental organizations: Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and the International Labour Rights Forum (ILRF), which contained allegations that every year hundreds of thousands of Uzbek schoolchildren are forced to work in the national cotton harvest for up to three months. The IOE further refers to the 2006 concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child concerning Uzbekistan (CRC/C/UZB/CO/2, 2 June 2006, 42nd Session), in which the UN Committee expressed its deep concern at the information about the involvement of the very many school-age children in the harvesting of cotton resulting in serious health problems and recommended to the Government to take all measures to comply with international child labour standards and establish mechanisms to monitor the situation. The IOE also refers to the concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights concerning Uzbekistan (E/C.12/UZB/CO/1, 24 January 2006, 35th Session), in which that Committee expressed concern about the persistent reports of the situation of school-age children who are obliged to participate in the cotton harvest every year and, for that reason, do not attend school during this period.

According to the allegations made by the IOE and the ITUC, adult persons are also subject to forced labour during the cotton harvest. The ITUC alleges, in particular, that local administration employees, teachers, factory workers and doctors are commonly forced to leave their jobs for weeks at a time and pick cotton with no additional compensation; in some instances refusal to cooperate can lead to dismissal from work; even elderly people and mothers of young babies have been reportedly ordered by local government officials to pick cotton or lose their pensions or child benefits. The ITUC concludes that, even if forced labour in the cotton field were not the result of the state policy, the Government still violates the Convention by failing to ensure its effective observance, since it systematically requires persons to work in the cotton fields against their will, under the threat of a penalty and in extremely perilous conditions for the purposes of economic development. The IOE states that, while the adoption in September 2008 of a decree prohibiting child labour in cotton plantations, as well as the approval of a National Action Plan to eradicate forced child labour, could be considered as positive steps, it still remains uncertain if the implementation of these measures will be sufficient to address these deeply rooted practices.

The Committee notes that, in its reply to the 2008 communication by the IOE, the Government denied the allegations about coercion of large numbers of people to participate in agricultural works and reiterated that under no circumstances may employers use compulsory labour for the production or harvesting of agricultural products in Uzbekistan, the exaction of forced labour being punishable with the penal and administrative sanctions and employers being liable for violation of labour legislation in respect of persons under the age of 18. The Government also states that practically all the country’s cotton is produced by small undertakings that have no economic interest in employing additional labour, and the well-developed education system prevents the exaction of forced labour from children. The Government further states that state policy on the protection of children is implemented within the framework of the development goals set out in the Millennium Declaration, international obligations arising from ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the adoption of the National Plan of Action to Protect the Rights and Interests of Children. It indicates that, following the ratification by Uzbekistan of the ILO Conventions Nos 138 and 182, the Government has approved the National Plan of Action to implement the above Conventions, and a system of public monitoring ensuring that immediate action is taken to put an end to any violation of children’s rights has been set up. The Government refers in this connection to the System for the Protection of the Family, Mothers and Children, headed by the Deputy Prime Minister, and to the Commission on the Affairs of Minors, headed by the Prosecutor General, as well as to the state legal inspectorates and safety and health inspectorates set up in every region of the country under the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. The national labour legislation sets the minimum age for admission to employment at 16 years, and a list of occupations involving arduous working conditions in which employment of persons under 18 years old is prohibited was adopted in 2001. The Government reiterates that children’s welfare is one of the top national priorities and refers in this connection to a large-scale social protection system and various state social programmes, as well as educational reform, which includes 12 years of compulsory schooling for all children.

While noting the Government’s indications concerning the positive steps that have been taken to protect the children’s rights and to prohibit child labour in occupations involving arduous working conditions, including the adoption in September 2008 of a decree prohibiting the use of child labour in cotton plantations, the Committee observes, however, that there is a convergence of views of the United Nations bodies, the representative organizations of employers and workers, as well as non-governmental organizations concerning the large‑scale use of child labour, including compulsory labour, in cotton production in Uzbekistan.

The Committee hopes that the Government will respond in detail to the latest observations of the employers’ and workers’ organizations referred to above and provide, in its next report, information on measures taken, both in law and in practice, in order to suppress and not to make use of compulsory labour, including both compulsory child labour and compulsory labour of adult persons, in the cotton production. The Committee requests the Government, in particular, to provide information on the application in practice of a decree prohibiting the use of child labour in cotton plantations, adopted in September 2008, as well as information on other measures, legislative or otherwise, that have been taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention, which expressly prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour for purposes of economic development.

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

CMNT_TITLE

Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force concerning the execution of criminal sentences, labour relations in the public service and the right to strike.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional tasks) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

–      section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); the Committee has noted from the Government’s report that, besides the “intentional actions demeaning the national honour and dignity or insulting the feelings of citizens in connection with their religious beliefs”, this section also makes punishable “manufacturing, storage or dissemination of materials propagating national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity”;

–      sections 216 and 216-1 (creation or inclining to participate in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations);

–      section 216-2 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, as e.g. the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and

–      section 217 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations).

The Committee also noted previously the following provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences, which impose a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to fifteen days (involving an obligation to perform labour under section 346 of the Code) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

–      section 201 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations);

–      sections 202-1 (inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations);

–      section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, e.g. the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and

–      section 241 (violation of the procedure of teaching of religion: teaching without prior authorization or teaching by a person who did not receive a special religious education).

The Committee recalled that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring also to the explanations provided in
paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Such views may be expressed orally or through the press or other communications media or through the exercise of the right of association or participation in meetings and gatherings.

In the light of the above considerations, the Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections 156, 216, 216-1, 216-2 and 217 of the Criminal Code, and sections 201, 202-1, 240 and 241 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention. Please also provide information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil or improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application of this provision in practice. Since the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the application of section 207 in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that it is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the provisions of section 218 of the Criminal Code punishing the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate any provisions imposing penal sanctions on participants in illegal strikes in the normal situation (outside a state of emergency), and to supply a copy, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice, including also copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production). The Committee previously noted the observations made by the Council of the Trade Unions Confederation of Uzbekistan, communicated by the Government with its 2004 report, which contained allegations concerning practices of a mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production), in which public sector workers, schoolchildren and university students are involved. It also notes a communication concerning the same subject, dated 17 October 2008, received from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), which was sent to the Government on 4 November 2008, for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. The IOE alleges that, despite the existence of the legal framework against the use of forced labour, there are continued non-governmental organizations and media reports denouncing the systematic and persistent use of forced labour, including forced child labour, in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan.

The Committee notes the Government’s statements in its latest report, received in March 2008, that under no circumstances may employers use compulsory labour for the production or harvesting of agricultural products in Uzbekistan, and government officials cannot impose compulsory labour on the population for the profit of private employers. The Government also indicates that there are no legislative provisions governing this issue. The Committee notes, however, the adoption in September 2008 of a decree prohibiting the use of child labour in cotton plantations in Uzbekistan.

The Committee requests the Government to comment on the workers’ and employers’ observations referred to above, indicating, in particular, how the participation of the public sector workers, schoolchildren and university students in the cotton harvest is organized, and what measures have been taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention, which expressly prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour for purposes of economic development. Please also supply available statistics and copies of any relevant documents, reports, studies and enquiries.

The Committee is also addressing a request on certain other points directly to the Government.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with regret 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 following matters raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force concerning the execution of criminal sentences, labour relations in the public service and the right to strike, as well as additional information on the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. The Committee notes that the Criminal Code provides for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional tasks) for the “incitement of national, racial or religious enmity” (section 156), for the “creation or inclining to participate in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations” (sections 216 and 216-1), for the “violation of legislation on religious organizations” (such as performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another) (section 216-2), as well as for the “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations” (section 217). Criminal sanctions may be imposed under sections 216, 216-1, 216-2 and 217 only after the application of administrative sanctions for such acts.

The Committee also notes that the Code of Administrative Offences contains provisions punishing with “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days (which involves an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities, under section 346 of the Code), the “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations” (section 201), the “inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations” (section 202-1), the “violation of legislation on religious organizations” (such as the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another) (section 240) and the “violation of the procedure of teaching of religion” (teaching without prior authorization or teaching by a person who did not receive a special religious education) (section 241).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It refers in this connection to paragraph 154 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence; but sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections 156, 216, 216-1, 216-2 and 217 of the Criminal Code, and sections 201, 202-1, 240 and 241 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(b). Mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development. Referring to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 29, likewise ratified by Uzbekistan, the Committee notes the observations made by the Council of the Trade Unions Confederation of Uzbekistan, communicated by the Government with its report, which contain allegations concerning practices of a mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production), in which public sector workers, schoolchildren and university students are involved. The Committee requests the Government to comment on these observations, supplying copies of the relevant legislation, if any, and to provide information on measures taken or envisaged in order to ensure compliance with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee notes that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil or improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years. In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 207 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, please supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

Article 1(d). Punishment for the participation in strikes. The Committee notes that, in virtue of section 218 of the Criminal Code, participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency is punishable with fines or by arrest or deprivation of freedom. Please indicate whether there are provisions imposing penal sanctions on participants in illegal strikes in the situations not covered by a state of emergency, and if so, please supply copies, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice, including copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

CMNT_TITLE

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 following matters raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force concerning the execution of criminal sentences, labour relations in the public service and the right to strike, as well as additional information on the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Criminal Code provides for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional tasks) for the “incitement of national, racial or religious enmity” (section 156), for the “creation or inclining to participate in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations” (sections 216 and 216-1), for the “violation of legislation on religious organizations” (such as performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another) (section 216-2), as well as for the “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations” (section 217). Criminal sanctions may be imposed under sections 216, 216-1, 216-2 and 217 only after the application of administrative sanctions for such acts.

The Committee also notes that the Code of Administrative Offences contains provisions punishing with “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days (which involves an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities, under section 346 of the Code), the “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations” (section 201), the “inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations” (section 202-1), the “violation of legislation on religious organizations” (such as the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another) (section 240) and the “violation of the procedure of teaching of religion” (teaching without prior authorization or teaching by a person who did not receive a special religious education) (section 241).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It refers in this connection to paragraphs 133-140 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence; but sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections 156, 216, 216-1, 216-2 and 217 of the Criminal Code, and sections 201, 202-1, 240 and 241 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(b). Referring to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 29, likewise ratified by Uzbekistan, the Committee notes the observations made by the Council of the Trade Unions Confederation of Uzbekistan, communicated by the Government with its report, which contain allegations concerning practices of a mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production), in which public sector workers, schoolchildren and university students are involved. The Committee requests the Government to comment on these observations, supplying copies of the relevant legislation, if any, and to provide information on measures taken or envisaged in order to ensure compliance with the Convention.

Article 1(c). The Committee notes that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil or improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years. In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 207 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, please supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

Article 1(d). The Committee notes that, in virtue of section 218 of the Criminal Code, participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency is punishable with fines or by arrest or deprivation of freedom. Please indicate whether there are provisions imposing penal sanctions on participants in illegal strikes in the situations not covered by a state of emergency, and if so, please supply copies, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice, including copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force concerning the execution of criminal sentences, labour relations in the public service and the right to strike, as well as additional information on the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee notes that the Criminal Code provides for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional tasks) for the "incitement of national, racial or religious enmity" (section 156), for the "creation or inclining to participate in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations" (sections 216 and 216-1), for the "violation of legislation on religious organizations" (such as performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another) (section 216-2), as well as for the "violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations" (section 217). Criminal sanctions may be imposed under sections 216, 216-1, 216-2 and 217 only after the application of administrative sanctions for such acts.

The Committee also notes that the Code of Administrative Offences contains provisions punishing with "administrative arrest" for a term of up to 15 days (which involves an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities, under section 346 of the Code), the "violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations" (section 201), the "inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations" (section 202-1), the "violation of legislation on religious organizations" (such as the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another) (section 240) and the "violation of the procedure of teaching of religion" (teaching without prior authorization or teaching by a person who did not receive a special religious education) (section 241).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It refers in this connection to paragraphs 133-140 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence; but sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections 156, 216, 216-1, 216-2 and 217 of the Criminal Code, and sections 201, 202-1, 240 and 241 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(b). Referring to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 29, likewise ratified by Uzbekistan, the Committee notes the observations made by the Council of the Trade Unions Confederation of Uzbekistan, communicated by the Government with its report, which contain allegations concerning practices of a mobilization and use of labour for purposes of economic development in agriculture (cotton production), in which public sector workers, schoolchildren and university students are involved. The Committee requests the Government to comment on these observations, supplying copies of the relevant legislation, if any, and to provide information on measures taken or envisaged in order to ensure compliance with the Convention.

Article 1(c). The Committee notes that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil or improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years. In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 207 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, please supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

Article 1(d). The Committee notes that, in virtue of section 218 of the Criminal Code, participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency is punishable with fines or by arrest or deprivation of freedom. Please indicate whether there are provisions imposing penal sanctions on participants in illegal strikes in the situations not covered by a state of emergency, and if so, please supply copies, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice, including copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

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