Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2020, publiée 109ème session CIT (2021)

Repetition

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Trafficking in persons. The Committee previously noted that the revised Penal Code (Law No. 01/2012/OL of 2 May 2012) includes provisions criminalizing trafficking in persons and establishes penalties of seven to ten years of imprisonment and a fine for internal trafficking, and up to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine for transnational trafficking, under sections 250–263. The Committee also noted that the first Annual Inter-ministerial National Consultative Forum on human trafficking, drug abuse and gender-based violence was held in Parliament in October 2014 which adopted a National Action Plan (NAP) to Combat Trafficking effective until 2016.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that the Penal Code is under review, including provisions related to human trafficking. Moreover, a special law on human trafficking is at the drafting stage, aimed at addressing the prevention and punishment of trafficking, as well as the protection of victims. The Committee also notes that the National Prosecution Bureau has filed 14 cases to the courts, of which eight persons were convicted and received penalties of up to ten years’ imprisonment. Moreover, the Government has established the Law Enforcement Academy and developed a training manual for both authorities and the public. Since 2015, 39 prosecutors and 34 judicial officers have received training on human trafficking. The Committee further notes that a Special Unit on Human Trafficking was established and that the police services have been extended to remote areas through the mobile police station and the Mobile Isange One Stop Centre. The Government has also enhanced information-sharing between the national police and the Immigration Bureau, and organized several meetings at regional and international levels within the framework of the East African Community (EAC), the Eastern Africa Police Chiefs Cooperation Organization (EAPCCO) and the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol). However, the Committee notes that the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) expressed its concern in its concluding observations of 9 March 2017, at the relatively low number of prosecutions and conviction of traffickers, inter alia because of insufficient resources allocated to law enforcement (CEDAW/C/RWA/CO/7-9, paragraph 26). The Committee therefore requests the Government to pursue its efforts to strengthen the capacity of the law enforcement authorities, including police officers, prosecutors and judges, particularly by providing appropriate training and allocating sufficient resources. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information on the application in practice of sections 250–263 of the Penal Code criminalizing trafficking in persons, including on the number of convictions and specific penalties applied. Noting the NAP 2014–16 has ended, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved through the application of the NAP, and to indicate whether it will be renewed for a second phase.

2. Punishment of vagrancy. The Committee previously noted that the revised Penal Code limits, under section 687, the punishment of vagrancy to cases that impair public order. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the status of the previous regulations according to which the mere fact of living as a vagrant was punishable by a period “at the disposal” of the Government during which work was compulsory. The Government indicated that Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975, establishing rehabilitation and production centres for vagrant people had become obsolete. The Committee requested the Government to confirm that the rehabilitation and production centres were closed.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 has been repealed by Law No. 01/2012 of 2 May 2012 instituting the Penal Code. However, the Government indicates that the rehabilitation and production centres are still in operation so that the vagrants and beggars are helped and re-integrated in their families and benefit from re education and social services. The Committee also notes that, pursuant to section 687 of the Penal Code, four cases of vagrancy were prosecuted by the National Public Prosecution Authority. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether vagrants and beggars admitted at the rehabilitation and production centre are required to perform work or participate in production activities.

3. Freedom of career members of the armed forces to leave their employment. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 85 of Presidential Order No.72/01 of 8 July 2002 establishing the army general statute, the member of the armed forces has to submit a written application for resignation to the competent authority which has 90 days to issue a decision and if the authority does not issue a decision within this time limit, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that in practice the competent authorities cannot refuse the resignation of career members of the armed forces within a reasonable period. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the number of applications to resign submitted by military staff that have been refused, indicating the grounds of the refusal.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 87 of Presidential Order No. 32/01 of 3 September 2012, establishing the special statute of the Defence Forces, addresses the procedures governing the applications for cessation of services, which also provides for 90 days for the competent authority to handle the request. The Government also indicates that all applications for cessation of service in the armed forces were granted.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. 1. Prison labour. The Committee previously noted that prison work may be carried out for the benefit of private bodies and that, according to Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service, a prisoner may be requested or can himself/herself request to perform work, but he/she cannot be forced to perform work. Besides, if such activities are income-generating, 10 per cent of the person’s earnings is allocated to him/her and strict compliance is required to respect occupational health and safety and social security provisions of the labour law. The Committee requested the Government to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that when the consent of a prisoner is provided or the permission is granted by the competent authority upon the request of a prisoner to perform work, the concerned prisoner shall not be forced to work beyond his/her capacity or perform work that degrades him/her. The Government also indicates that the prisoner may appeal to the Commissioner if his/her consent is not respected. The case may also be referred to the public procuratorate under the Penal Code. The Committee also notes that prisoners are allocated one day off per week and sufficient time for education and other activities as part of the treatment and rehabilitation.

The Committee recalls that, by virtue of Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, compulsory labour of convicted persons is excluded from the scope of the Convention, only if it is “carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority” and that such persons are not “hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations”, regardless of the purpose or the nature of the work undertaken. The Committee once again recalls that work by prisoners for private enterprises can be held compatible with the Convention only where the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that such work is not compulsory, but is carried out with the formal, informed and freely given consent of the person concerned, and that the conditions of such work approximate those of a free labour relationship. The Committee finally notes that samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour are not attached to the report, as indicated in the Government’s report. The Committee requests the Government to specify the manner in which the prisoners formally give their free, formal and informed consent to work for private enterprises, in practice. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour.

2. Sentence involving the performance of community work. The Committee previously noted section 48 of the Penal Code providing for community service as an alternative penalty to imprisonment (Travaux d’Intérêt Général, TIG) when an offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to five years. Community service can also be imposed in case of failure to comply with the court’s orders or to pay the whole debt arising from an offence (sections 48 and 49 of the Penal Code). The Committee also noted that, under article 56 of Law No. 34/2010, a person under TIG shall enjoy all rights of the prisoners provided for by the law.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, according to section 32 of the Presidential Order No. 10/01 of 7 March 2005 determining the modalities of implementation of community service, the community service is carried out three days per week, on the request by the host institution and with the consent of the convict. The Government also indicates that persons working under TIG are obliged to perform activities such as tree planting, renovation of bridges, construction of schools, building houses for victims of the genocide, cleaning the community and so on.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. In its previous comments, the Committee had been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that sections 2(2), 3 and 13 of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 on community work, go well beyond the exception allowed in Article 2(2)(e) of the Convention for minor communal services. The Committee noted that pursuant to sections 2 and 3, community work shall aim to promote development activities in the framework of supporting the national budget and that every Rwandan from 18 to 65 years old shall have the obligation to perform community works. Its section 4 provides that community work shall take place on the last Saturday of every month from 8 a.m. and shall last at least for three hours. The community work is unpaid (section 5) and persons who fail to participate without justified reasons are punishable by a fine not exceeding 5,000 Rwandan francs (section 13). The Government indicated that the participation in community work should be considered as minor services because it gives minimum contribution to the community itself without considering benefits to a few specific groups. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the type of work carried out under community services.

The Committee notes the absence of new information in the Government’s report. However, the Committee notes that, according to a report of the Rwanda Governance Board in 2017, the community services, referred to as Umuganda, involved about 91.3 per cent of the Rwandan population in 2015–16. The report also indicates that Umuganda has mainly contributed to environment protection through erosion control, tree planting, and cleaning, as well as to developing, building and maintaining different infrastructure, including the construction of roads, houses for vulnerable people, public offices, health centres and schools. For example, from 2009 to 2013, the estimated monetary value of community work attained 61.9 per cent of the total cost for the construction of classrooms, while the Government’s contribution only accounted for 36.62 per cent. The Committee therefore once again recalls that minor communal services may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only if certain criteria are met and that, inter alia, the services must be “minor services”, that is, relating primarily to maintenance work and, in exceptional cases, to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself. Noting that the large-scale participation in Umuganda is compulsory and that the infrastructure construction is one of the main activities, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that community services are limited to “minor services”, which constitute an exception to forced labour as provided for in the Convention.

Article 25. Penal sanctions for the exaction of forced labour. The Committee previously noted that, under section 167 of Act No. 13/2009 of 25 May 2009, issuing regulations on labour in Rwanda, anyone convicted of forced labour is liable to a prison term of three months to five years, a fine, or one of these penalties. The Committee further noted that the revised Penal Code includes provisions criminalizing forced labour and establishes penalties ranging from six months to two years of imprisonment and a fine, or one of these penalties, under section 178. Noting that the provision of the revised Penal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment which are lower than the sanctions provided under section 167 of the abovementioned Act No. 13/2009, and that according to both provisions forced labour may be punished only with a fine, the Committee recalled that under Article 25 of the Convention, penal sanctions imposed by law for exaction of forced labour must be really adequate and strictly enforced.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, in the ongoing process of labour law review, the sanctions for forced labour are proposed to be removed and integrated into the Penal Code, which is also under review. The Government indicates that the revised sanctions provided under the Penal Code will be adequate. The Committee also notes that in collaboration with different stakeholders, the Government has organized training for labour inspectors and social partners to enforce the labour law and its implementing orders. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the sanctions provided under the revised Penal Code for the exaction of forced labour are really adequate, and to provide a copy of the revised law once adopted.