Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2011, publiée 101ème session CIT (2012)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Roumanie (Ratification: 1957)

Autre commentaire sur C029

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the measures taken by the Government show its commitment to combat trafficking in persons. It noted, in particular, the adoption of Act No. 678 of 2001 concerning the prevention and combating of trafficking in persons; the adoption of a national strategy and a plan of action to combat trafficking, as well as actions to implement the various components of such plan: prevention; awareness-raising campaigns; improving the social and economic situation of vulnerable persons; assistance to victims; strengthening the cooperation between the different national actors; and international cooperation. The Committee also noted the statistics provided by the Government, which show that the actions undertaken by law enforcement and prosecution bodies had resulted in numerous convictions for trafficking in persons.

The Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government provides detailed information on labour inspections which have been carried out to monitor the activities of private agencies of recruitment and placement of workers abroad. The Government highlights that some of these agencies recruit workers with a view to exploiting them abroad. Recruitment takes place, including by means of publication in the press of job advertisements requiring no or few qualifications. It indicates that, between January 2009 and December 2010, 306 agencies (out of 1,370 registered) have been inspected by the labour inspectorate, 97 were found to be in violation of national law, resulting in 437 orders issued.

The Committee takes due note of this information. It encourages the Government to pursue its efforts towards strengthening the labour inspectorate’s capacity in order to identify abusive practices incurred by placement and recruitment agencies that could lead to trafficking in persons. Acknowledging the complexity of this transnational phenomenon, its link to organized crime and the significant number of victims involved, the Committee encourages the Government to strengthen cooperation between the actors involved in the fight against trafficking in persons, namely, labour inspectorates, law enforcement and judicial authorities. The Committee requests the Government to supply information in its future reports on the measures taken to further enhance the efforts towards the implementation of the national strategy and the national plan to combat trafficking, stating the difficulties faced by the authorities in this regard and the measures taken to overcome them. It also requests the Government to indicate the manner in which victims’ protection is ensured, inasmuch as such protection can contribute to the effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions against the perpetrators, indicating as well as the measures taken to reintegrate victims exploited abroad who return to the country. Please continue to supply information on the judicial proceedings instituted against perpetrators and the sentences handed down.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. As regards the obligation to work in prison, the Committee previously noted a contradiction between section 56 of the Penal Code (Penal Code of 1968 as amended), according to which the regime for the implementation of prison sentences is based on the obligation of convicted prisoners to perform useful work, and section 57 of Act No. 275/2006 concerning the implementation of sentences and measures ordered by the judicial authorities in the course of criminal proceedings, according to which persons sentenced to imprisonment who are fit to work may, with their consent, perform work which is related to their qualifications and abilities. In its 2009 report, the Government indicated that section 56 of the Penal Code had been repealed. It also referred to the provisions of section 53(3), under which persons sentenced to imprisonment may give their consent to the performance of useful work. The Committee pointed out that the provisions of section 53(3) quoted by the Government do not appear to correspond to those of section 53 of the Penal Code adopted in 2009 (Law No. 286/2009). Noting that the Government’s latest report contains no information in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to specify the provisions of the new Penal Code of 2009 under which work done by persons sentenced to imprisonment is voluntary.

As regards the arrangements for the performance of prison work for private entities, the Committee previously noted that work may be performed in the context of the regime for the provision of services on behalf of an economic operator, individual or association, inside or outside the prison, and that the prison administration may conclude a contract for the provision of services for this purpose (section 60 of aforementioned Act No. 275/2006). It noted that convicted prisoners who wish to work for an economic operator make their request in writing, and that a committee exists in each prison for selecting candidates. The conditions of work of convicted prisoners approximate as far as possible to those of free workers, and operators must respect the rules relating to the prevention of occupational risks and occupational safety and health. The Government also indicated that the work performed for private economic operators is paid according to rates negotiated between the prison administration and the operator – rates which may not be lower than the national minimum wage. The Committee requests the Government to send an example of a contract concluded between the prison administration and a private operator and to indicate in its future reports any changes to the arrangements for the performance of prison work on behalf of private operators.

Sentence of community work. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the conditions for the performance of work in the community interest are laid down in Ordinance No. 55/2002. The Committee noted that the penalty of community work prescribed by this Ordinance constitutes an alternative penalty to the payment of a fine. This penalty is pronounced by a judicial body with the consent of the person concerned and the work is performed on behalf of public legal entities. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the penalty of work in the community interest may also constitute an alternative to the penalty of imprisonment and, if so, to specify the provisions which govern it.