Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political or ideological views. The Committee previously noted the adoption of a law on 24 July 2007, to amend certain legal acts with a view to increasing liability for “extremist activities”, which include acts based on racial, national or religious hatred or enmity. It noted, in particular, that under sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code, the following acts are punishable with sanctions of the privation of liberty (which involves compulsory labour): public appeal to perform extremist activities (as defined in section 1 of the Law on combating extremist activity); establishment of an extremist group or organization; and participation in such a group or organization prohibited by a court decision. In this regard, the Committee noted that the Human Rights Committee (HRC) noted that there had been numerous reports that laws on extremism are being used to target organizations and individuals critical of the Government. The HRC also expressed regret that the definition of “extremist activity” in the Law on combating extremist activity remains vague, allowing for arbitrariness in its application and that the 2006 amendment to this law has made certain forms of defamation of public officials an act of extremism (24 November 2009, CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6, paragraph 25). Moreover, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had urged the Government to review sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code, under which a number of acts are punishable with sanctions of imprisonment together with compulsory labour (1 June 2011, E/C.12/RUS/CO/5, paragraph 13). However, the Committee noted that the Plenum of the Supreme Court adopted Decision No. 11 (28 June 2011) on judicial practice in criminal cases involving offences of an extremist nature in order to provide guidance to ensure uniformity in the judicial procedure related to cases brought under these sections. This Decision states that courts should, in examining such offences, consider both the protection of the public interest and the protections contained in the Constitution relating to freedom of conscience, of thought, of expression, and the right to seek, receive, transmit, produce and disseminate information by any lawful means, as well as the right to assemble peacefully without arms. Moreover, the Decision states that the criticism of political organizations, ideological and religious associations, political, ideological or religious beliefs; or national or religious practices in and of itself should not be regarded as an act aimed at inciting hatred and enmity. It requested information on the impact of this Decision on cases related to extremism.

The Committee notes with regret an absence of information in the Government’s report on the impact, if any, of Decision No. 11 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 2011. However, it notes the Government’s statement that if the concept of “extremist activity” was defined in an enunciative manner, it would be impossible to apply the concept effectively to the limitless number of actual legal situations that could occur. It indicates that in the work of the department that combats extremism, priority is given to the prevention of crimes of an extremist character, and to detecting and stopping the most dangerous violent manifestations of extremism, not to applying legislation on extremism to people who express certain political views or views opposed to the existing political, social and economic system. Some 656 offences of an extremist character were recorded in 2010, 622 such offences in 2011 and 741 offences in 2012. The Government states that the spread of this type of activity in the country is evident from the rise in the annual number of offences recorded. The majority of those found guilty of an offence under sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code were not given custodial sentences. Of the 32 convictions handed down under section 280 (public appeals for a forcible change of the constitutional system) two persons were sentenced to imprisonment (involving compulsory labour), and two were ordered to undergo corrective labour. Of the 37 persons convicted under section 282.2 (organizing an activity of an extremist community), nine were sentenced to imprisonment. The Government provides examples of groups considered as extremist groups, and states that this includes 20 dangerous anarchist and nationalist radical groups, as well as leaders and activists of radical organizations. A list of banned organizations includes 19 terrorist organizations and 31 extremist ones. While noting the examples provided in the Government’s report, the Committee notes the absence of comprehensive information on these banned organizations, or relevant court cases concerning these organizations which would allow the Committee to assess the scope and extent of the application of these provisions in practice.

With regard to the Government’s indications concerning the definition of the term extremist activities, the Committee wishes to emphasize that if legislative restrictions are formulated in such broad and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such penalties are not in conformity with the Convention. While the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence, the Committee must emphasize that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting opinions diverging from established principles. Even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities are protected by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to or call for violent means to these ends. The Committee would also like to point out that even if legislation responds to a legitimate need, it can nevertheless become a means of political coercion and a means of punishing the peaceful exercise of civil rights and liberties, such as the freedom of expression and association. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to take measures 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. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide, in its next report, information on the application of the laws concerning “extremism” in practice, including information on any prosecutions, convictions and sentences pursuant to sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code and the Law on combating extremist activity. It requests the Government to provide copies of relevant court cases in this regard, as well as a copy of the list of banned organizations, for which persons’ participation may be penalized with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour.