Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2005, publiée 95ème session CIT (2006)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views that are ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system

In its previous comments, the Committee recalled that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits recourse to forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It noted that all persons convicted to a prison sentence are under the obligation to work, in accordance with section 39 of the Penal Code and section 40 of Ordinance No. 111/127 of 20 May 1961 on the organization of the prison system. The Committee noted in this respect that the following provisions of the legislation make it possible to prosecute and penalize with imprisonment activities which may contribute to the expression of political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system:

-  sections 166 and 167 of the Penal Code, under which any person who makes use of the spoken, written or printed word to incite or attempt to incite the general public against the public authorities or to alarm the general public, or any person who impugns the binding force of the law may be punished with a sentence of imprisonment;

-  section 83 of Act No. 18/2002 concerning the press, under which any person who, by means of the press, incites a third party to commit crimes or offences punishable by the Penal Code shall be deemed an accomplice and liable to the penalties laid down by the said Code if such incitement has repercussions or results in an attempted crime or offence (taking account of sections 166 and 167 of the Penal Code referred to above);

-  section 46 of Act No. 16/2003 of 27 June 2003, concerning political groupings and politicians, under which, without prejudice to the penal provisions, any person who establishes or runs a political grouping in violation of the legislation shall be liable to imprisonment for between six months and two years and a fine of 500,000 to 1 million Rwandan francs or either of these two penalties, and any person who runs or participates in a political grouping which continues to operate after being suspended or a political grouping which is reconstituted after being dissolved, shall be liable to the same penalties.

In order to be able to assess the scope of these provisions and their effect on the application of the Committee, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on their application in practice and copies of related court decisions.

In its latest report, the Government indicates that copies of any rulings handed down have been requested from the Supreme Court and will be forwarded when they have been received. The Committee notes this information and reiterates its previous request. Information on the effect given in practice to the above provisions is necessary so that the Committee can assess their scope and ensure that activities relating to the expression of certain political views or of ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system, without recourse to violence, are not punished by imprisonment including compulsory labour.

Article 1(c). Imposition of forced labour as a means of labour discipline

For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to section 29 of the Decree of 1 April 1983, establishing articles of agreement for inland navigation, and to sections 13 and 14 of the Decree of 11 May 1921, establishing the disciplinary and penal code for inland navigation, which are contrary to this provision of the Convention inasmuch as they allow prison sentences involving compulsory labour to be imposed on sailors for breaches of labour discipline. In this regard, the Government stated previously that no cases involving the imprisonment of sailors for breaches of labour discipline had occurred, given the virtually non-existent traffic on Lake Kivu. In its latest report, the Government confirms the absence of prison sentences and court rulings in this respect, and indicates that the provisions in question have fallen into abeyance and that new legislation taking into account current realities should be developed. In view of this information, the Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to take the necessary measures to amend or repeal these provisions so as to ensure that no sentence of imprisonment involving compulsory labour can be imposed on sailors in cases of breaches of labour discipline.

Article 1(d). Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes

1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 191 of the Labour Code (Act No. 51/2001 of 30 December 2001), the right to strike of workers occupying jobs essential to the maintenance of the safety of persons and property, and workers occupying jobs in which any stoppage would endanger human life and safety, is exercised according to the procedures laid down by order of the minister responsible for labour issues. It requested the Government to provide a copy of this order. In its report, the Government indicates that the order is being prepared, but has not yet been issued. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Decree as soon as it is adopted so that it can assess its conformity with the Convention.

2. The Committee also previously requested the Government to indicate the nature of the penalties incurred by workers against whom legal action is taken by their employer under section 190 of the Labour Code, which allows an employer to take legal action against workers who have participated in a strike deemed to be illegal by the competent authority. In this respect, the Committee noted the concerns expressed by the Association of Christian Trade Unions (UMURIMO) that it is almost impossible to call a legal strike because the procedure for settling collective disputes, as established by the Labour Code, is very cumbersome and the ministerial order for the establishment of the Conciliation Council provided for in section 183 of the Labour Code has still not been adopted.

In its report, the Government confirms that no court rulings have been issued in cases brought by an employer against a worker for participation in a strike deemed to be illegal by the competent authority. It emphasizes the need to specify the nature of the penalties incurred by strikers in any action taken against them in pursuance of section 190 of the Labour Code and indicates that a solution will be found on the occasion of a future revision of the Labour Code. The Committee notes this information. It also observes that, in its comments on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), it has considered that the juxtaposition of sections 183 and 189 of the Labour Code appears to constitute a form of compulsory arbitration placing excessive restrictions on the right to strike of trade union organizations. In view of these restrictions, a strike could very easily be deemed illegal by the competent authority.

The Committee hopes that, on the occasion of the revision of the Labour Code referred to by the Government, the question of the penalties incurred as a result of action taken against workers under section 190 of the Labour Code, will be examined in the light of Article 1(d) of the Convention, under which no form of forced labour, including compulsory prison labour, may be imposed as a punishment for having participated in strikes.