Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Russian Federation (Ratification: 1998)

Other comments on C105

Observation

2020
2016
2013
2012

Direct Request

Display in: French - SpanishView all

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR) received on 30 September 2019.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political or ideological views. 1. Act of 24 July 2007 on combating extremism. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption of the Act of 24 July 2007 to amend certain legal acts with a view to increasing liability for “extremist activities”, which includes acts based on racial, national or religious hatred or enmity. It noted that under sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code, the following acts are punishable with sanctions involving compulsory labour: public appeal to perform extremist activities; establishment of an extremist group or organization; and participation in such a group or organization prohibited by a court decision. The Government stated that, in imposing punishment, the court shall take into consideration the nature or degree or social danger of the crime and the personality of the convict, including any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and also the influence of the imposed penalty on the rehabilitation of the convicted person. Moreover, the list of penalties established under section 280 allows courts to impose alternative penalties to deprivation of liberty, such as fines. The Government further indicated that most penalties imposed were fines and that deprivation of liberty only concerned four persons. However, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed concern that the vague and open-ended definition of “extremist activity” in the Federal Act on combating extremist activity does not require an element of violence or hatred to be present and that no clear and precise criteria on how materials may be classified as extremist are provided in the Act.

The Committee notes that, according to the observations of the KTR, the definition of “extremism” provided for by section 1 of Federal Act No. 114-FZ is so broad that public expression of political views as well as ideological beliefs opposite to the established political, social or economic system may also fall under this definition.

The Committee notes the Government’s repeated indication that Federal Act No. 114-FZ, which enshrines the concepts of “extremist activities”, “extremist organizations” and “extremist materials”, determines the targets of action to combat extremist activities and governs procedures for preventing extremism. The Government also refers to Federal Act No. 519-FZ of 27 December 2018 on amendments to section 282 of the Penal Code (incitation of hatred or enmity and abasement of human dignity), according to which, only persons who have already incurred administrative liability for a similar act within one year are criminally punishable. The Government indicates that the Plenum of the Supreme Court, in paragraph 7 of its Decision No. 11 of 28 June 2011 on judicial practice in criminal cases on offences of an extremist nature, states that the phrase “acts intended to incite hatred or enmity” should be understood as, in particular, statements that justify and/or affirm the need for genocide, mass repressions, deportations and the commission of other unlawful acts, including the use of violence against representatives of any nation or race, or followers of any religion. Criticism of political organizations, ideological or religious associations, political, ideological or religious beliefs, national or religious customs in and of itself must not be considered acts intended to incite hatred or enmity. Moreover, according to statistical information from the judicial department of the Supreme Court, since 2017, the deprivation of liberty has been applied twice to persons convicted under section 280.2 of the Penal Code. Under section 280, the punishments imposed were primarily in the form of a fine. The Committee requests the Government to continue to ensure that no sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons, who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the laws on extremism in practice, including on any prosecutions and sentences pursuant to sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code and the Act of 2007 on combating extremism.

2. Federal Act No. 65-FZ of 8 June 2012 amending Federal Act No. 54 FZ of 9 June 2004 on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and picketing and the Code on Administrative Offences. The Committee previously noted the restrictions introduced in Federal Act No. 65-FZ of 8 June 2012 (Assemblies Act) amending Federal Act No. 54-FZ of 19 June 2004 on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and picketing and the Code on Administrative Offences. As amended, section 20.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences establishes a penalty of community work for a period of up to 50 hours for the organizing or holding of a public event without submitting notice thereof under the established procedures. Section 20.18 establishes administrative arrest for a term up to 15 years for the organization of the blocking, as well as active participation in the blocking, of transport lines. The Committee also noted that the HRC expressed concern about consistent reports of arbitrary restrictions on the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly, including arbitrary detentions and prison sentences for the expression of political views. The HRC was further concerned about the strong deterrent effect on the right to peaceful assembly of these new restrictions introduced in the Assemblies Act. In this regard, the Committee also noted the comments made by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on this matter in 2013.

The Committee notes with regret the absence of information in the Government’s report. The Committee once again requests the Government to specify the manner in which the sentenced person consents to community work. It also once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 20.2 and 20.18 of the Code on Administrative Offences, indicating the number of prosecutions, sanctions imposed and grounds for prosecution.

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