CMNT_TITLE

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour imposed as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that several sections of the Penal Code (Organic Law No. 01/2012/OL of 2 May 2012) provide for sanctions of imprisonment, which involve compulsory labour, in circumstances falling within the scope of the Convention (sections 116, 136, 451, 462, 463, 468 and 469). It expressed concern regarding information on prosecution of opposition politicians, journalists and human rights defenders as a means of discouraging them from freely expressing their opinions. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that no penal sanctions involving compulsory prison labour may be imposed on persons for peacefully expressing political views.

Concerning compulsory prison labour, the Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its report, that a draft law regulating correctional services is currently under the enactment process. The draft law would repeal the obligation of prisoners to perform activities for the development of the country, themselves and the prisons, provided for under section 50(8) of Act No. 34/2010 of 12 November 2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of the Rwanda Correctional Service, in order to avoid any abuse that may result from its application. While noting this information, the Committee observes that section 35 of Act No. 68/2018 of 30 August 2018 determining offences and penalties in general, which replaced the Penal Code, provides that the court may order that the convict serve community service as a principal penalty in lieu of imprisonment when an offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to five years. The Committee observes that the legislation in force continues to provide that persons sentenced to imprisonment are under an obligation to perform activities.

Legislation related to civil liberties and political freedoms. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest that, pursuant to Act No. 69/2019 of 8 November 2019 amending Act No. 68/2018, defamation against the President of the Republic and humiliation of national authorities are decriminalized. It notes, however, that, under a certain number of provisions of Act No. 68/2018, sanctions involving compulsory labour may still be imposed for acts related to civil liberties and political freedoms and through which persons can express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The provisions in question are as follows:

• section 161 concerning public insult;
• section 164 concerning the crime of “instigating divisions”;
• section 194 concerning the spread of false information or harmful propaganda with intent to cause a “hostile international opinion” against the Government;
• section 204 on causing uprising or unrest among the population; and
• section 225(1) and (2), concerning demonstration in a public place without prior authorization or illegal demonstration or public meeting (when security, public order or health is not threatened).

Legislation related to press and media freedoms. The Committee further notes that, pursuant to Act No. 02/2013 of 11 March 2013, regulating media, “the freedom of opinions and information shall not jeopardize the general public order and good morals …”. In that regard, it notes that several legislations adopted in recent years also provide for sanctions involving compulsory labour for acts through which persons express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. More particularly:

• Act No. 60/2018 of 22 August 2018 on prevention and punishment of cyber-crimes imposes up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine for publishing “rumours that may incite fear, ... or that may make a person lose their credibility” (section 39); and
• Act No. 24/2016 of 18 June 2016, governing information and communication technologies, prohibits the dissemination of “grossly offensive” or “indecent” messages, as well as the use of information and communications technology to cause “annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety” (section 60), and provides that any person who, knowingly or wilfully, publishes, transmits or causes to be published in electronic form, any “indecent” information commits an offence punishable in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code (section 206).

The Committee also notes that, , as recently highlighted in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council, several UN treaty bodies and Special Rapporteurs continued to express serious concerns at prosecutions of politicians, journalists and human rights defenders, as a means of discouraging them from freely expressing their opinions (A/HRC/WG.6/37/RWA/2, 13 November 2020, paragraph 45; letter dated 30 May 2018 from the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; and CAT/C/RWA/CO/2, 21 December 2017, paragraphs 52–53). In the framework of the UPR, a number of recommendations formulated by the Working Group, and supported by Rwanda, referred to the elimination from the legislation of provisions that undermine freedom of expression and the protection of journalists and members of the media and civil society against harassment and intimidation (A/HRC/47/14, 25 March 2021, paragraphs 134-136).

The Committee notes with deep concern this information. The Committee observes that the above-mentioned provisions of Act No. 68/2018 of 30 August 2018, Act No. 60/2018 of 22 August 2018 and Act No. 24/2016 of 18 June 2016, are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to their application as a means of punishment for peacefully expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In so far as these provisions are enforceable with penal sanctions which involve compulsory labour, they fall within the scope of the Convention. The Committee recalls that legal guarantees of rights to freedom of thought and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, as well as freedom from arbitrary arrest, constitute an important safeguard against the imposition of compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political or ideological views (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 302). The Committee therefore urges the Government to ensure that persons who, by means of methods that neither use violence nor incite to violence, express political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system do not incur penal sanctions involving an obligation to work. It expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to review the above-mentioned provisions of Act No. 68/2018 of 30 August 2018 determining offences and penalties in general; Act No. 60/2018 of 22 August 2018 on prevention and punishment of cyber crimes; and Act No. 24/2016 of 18 June 2016 governing information and communication technologies, for example by clearly restricting the scope of these provisions to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as compulsory prison labour or compulsory community service). In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, including on the number of prosecutions initiated and convictions handed down, as well as information on the facts that led to them.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 66/2018 of 30 August 2018 regulating labour, which provides for a number of restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike, by considering a strike as being legal only when the arbitration committee has exceeded 15 working days without issuing its decision or the conciliation resolution on collective dispute or the court award being enforceable have not been implemented (section 105). It notes that section 118 of Act No. 66/2018 provides for sanctions of imprisonment for a term of not less than six months, involving compulsory labour, for employees who go on strike illegally. The Committee further notes the adoption of Ministerial Order No. 004/19.20 of 17 March 2020, determining essential services that should not be interrupted during strikes or lock-outs, which repealed Ministerial Order No. 4 of 13 July 2010. It observes that services related to communication, transportation or education are still considered as essential services, and that section 6 of the Ministerial Order provides that other services may be considered as essential services “for public interest”. Furthermore, employees are prohibited from exercising a strike within ten days preceding or following elections in the country (section 8). The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that the right to strike may only be restricted or prohibited in essential services in the strict sense of the term (namely, in services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), in the public service only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or in situations of acute national crisis (see General Survey, paragraph 314). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures, both in law and in practice, to ensure that no worker who participates peacefully in a strike can be liable and sentenced to penal sanctions involving compulsory labour.