Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments, and in particular, the Government’s indications concerning the application in practice of section 263 of the Criminal Code. It notes with interest that, following the amendment introduced to this section by Law No. 162-FZ of 8 December 2003, a provision imposing sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) on a transport worker for violation of safety rules on railway, air and water transport, which resulted through negligence in the causing of large-scale material loss, has been repealed.

Article 1, paragraphs (a) and (c), of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain provisions of the Criminal Code making punishable by arrest or imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) or by corrective work the disclosure of state secrets (in the absence of elements of state treason) (section 283) and the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing large-scale damages (section 293(1)). The Committee requested information on the application of these provisions in practice, in order to assess their conformity with the Convention.

While taking note of the Government’s view that works carried out following the court sentence do not fall under the definition of forced labour, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations contained in paragraphs 104 and 105 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, in which it has considered that the exclusion of prison labour under Convention No. 29 does not automatically apply to Convention No. 105. The Committee pointed out that, in most cases, labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will have no relevance to the application of Convention No. 105, but if a person is in any way forced to work because he holds or has expressed certain political views or has committed a breach of labour discipline, such a situation is covered by the Convention.

The Committee therefore reiterates its request for information on the application in practice of the abovementioned section 283 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, (e.g. with reference to the cases of an environmentalist (retired navy captain) who was charged under the above provision after publication of information concerning hazards posed by nuclear waste generated by the fleet, and a military journalist who was charged after conducting freelance reporting on radioactive contamination and passing information to the Japanese media, about which information was published in the press), so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with Article 1, paragraph (a), of the Convention.

The Government is also requested once again to supply information on the application in practice of the abovementioned section 293(1) of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph (c), of the Convention.