Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its previous direct request.

Articles 1 and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. The Committee previously noted that, under section 26 of the Act on universal conscription and military service and point 59.7 of the Regulations respecting the military service of officers (Order No. 360 of 1993 of the Ministry of Defence), career military officers may be discharged from service at their own request if their family situation and other circumstances prevent them from performing their military duties. According to the Government’s explanations in its latest report, the discharge from service under these provisions is possible only on compassionate grounds, when there are good reasons preventing the officers from military service, like, for example, serious illness of children or near relatives, the need of taking continuous care of them, removal to their place of residence, etc. It logically follows from these explanations that in the absence of such good reasons the discharge of officers at their own request is not possible.

2. The Committee recalls in this connection, referring to paragraphs 33 and 72 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that career military servicemen who have voluntarily entered into an engagement may not be denied the right to leave the service in peacetime within a reasonable period, either at specified intervals or with previous notice, subject to the conditions which may normally be required to ensure the continuity of the service. The Committee hopes that appropriate measures will be taken with a view to amending the existing legislation in order to ensure compliance with the Convention on this point. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Article 2(2). 3. The Committee previously noted that, under point 1 of Decree No. 7 of the President of the Republic of Belarus on complementary measures to guarantee employment of 17 March 1997, the payment of unemployment benefits is suspended in the event that an unemployed person fails, without a valid reason, to carry out a monthly standard of participation in paid public works assigned by the state employment service. The Government indicates in its report that the said Decree is not applicable and that the organization of public works and participation therein is regulated by the revised Act on Employment of Population (text of 6 January 1999) and the Decree of the Council of Ministers respecting the organization and implementation of public works of 8 April 1999, No. 488. The Committee notes, however, that the revised text of the Act on Employment of Population referred to by the Government contains a similar provision concerning the suspension of unemployment benefits in case of failure to participate in public works (section 18-1, point 2). Having noted the Government’s repeated statement that, under section 9.1 of the Act on Employment of Population, participation in paid public works does not constitute an obligation on the part of unemployed persons, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, a copy of Decree No. 488 referred to above, as well as information on its application in practice.

Article 2(2)(c). 4. The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government concerning prison labour in Belarus. It has noted, in particular, the Government’s statement that employment of prisoners outside prison premises, both for public authorities and for private enterprises, is allowed in accordance with the legislation in force, and that private parties are entitled to conclude contracts on the use of labour of prisoners with the administration of a correctional institution, in accordance with the legislation in force. It has also noted the Government’s indication that, according to the internal regulations of a correctional institution, coercive measures can be applied to prisoners in case of their refusal to work.

5. The Committee recalls in this connection that under Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is exempted from the scope of the Convention only if the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, work for private companies can be compatible with the Convention only where prisoners work in conditions approximating a free employment relationship; this necessarily requires the voluntary consent of the prisoner as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free employment relationship, such as wages and social security (see paragraphs 97-99 of the Committee’s 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, paragraphs 122-125 of its General Report submitted to the 86th Session of the ILC (1998) and paragraphs 82-146 of its General Report submitted to the 89th Session of the ILC (2001)). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether and how the consent of the prisoners to work for private enterprises is obtained and what are the wages, social security and other conditions of work of prisoners working for private enterprises. Please also supply copies of contracts concluded between a company and the administration of a correctional institution and of any contracts between prisoners and companies, as well as a copy of the Executive Penal Code, to which reference is made in the Government’s report, and of any other legislation or regulations relating to prison labour.