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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. Prison labour. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that section 103 of the Code on the Execution of Penal Sentences provides that convicted persons are under an obligation to perform labour, such labour being exacted from them by the administration of penitentiary institutions at enterprises of such institutions, at state enterprises, or at enterprises of other forms of ownership. The Committee also noted the provision of section 21 of Act No. 5473-I (of 21 July 1993) on the institutions and bodies for the execution of penal sentences involving deprivation of freedom, according to which compulsory labour may be exacted from convicted prisoners at enterprises of any organizational or legal form, even if such enterprises do not belong to the system of the execution of penal sentences and are located out of the place of penitentiary institutions, compulsory labour being exacted in this case on the basis of a contract concluded between the administration of penitentiary institutions and the enterprises concerned.

The Committee recalls that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention strictly prohibits that prisoners are hired to, or placed at, the disposal of private enterprises. However, the Committee has considered, as explained in paragraphs 59 and 60 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, that work for private enterprises can be held compatible with Article 2(2)(c) if prisoners voluntarily enter a normal employment relationship with private employers and perform work in conditions approximating a free employment relationship. This arrangement necessarily requires the informed, formal consent of the person concerned, as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a labour relationship, such as wages, social security and occupational safety and health. If the above conditions are complied with, the work of prisoners will be removed from the scope of Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, since no compulsion is involved.

As regards conditions of work of convicted prisoners, the Committee previously noted that, under sections 103–105 of the Code on the Execution of Penal Sentences, their hours of work and rest periods, occupational safety and health, as well as remuneration (leaving room for deductions and attachments) are governed by the general labour legislation. It also noted the Government’s indication in its 2007 report that, under Decree No. 727 of the Government of the Russian Federation (of 15 October 2001), convicted prisoners performing compulsory remunerated labour are covered by compulsory State social security schemes, similarly to the free workers.

While having noted that, under the above provisions, prisoners’ conditions of work may be considered as approximating those of a free labour relationship, the Committee observes that, under the legislation in force, the informed, formal consent of prisoners to work for private enterprises does not appear to be asked for.

Having also noted the Government’s indication that, at present, the work of prisoners for private enterprises does not take place in practice, the Committee nevertheless reiterates its hope that, in the light of the above considerations, the Government will take the necessary measures in order to ensure that, both in the legislation and in practice, the work of prisoners for private enterprises will be carried out only with their voluntary consent, such consent being informed and free from the menace of any penalty, including the loss of rights or privileges. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the communication from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), according to which thousands of persons were trafficked from the Russian Federation to other countries, including Canada, China, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Spain, Thailand and the United States. Internal trafficking within the Russian Federation also reportedly took place; women were generally forced to work as prostitutes while men were trafficked into agricultural or construction work. The Government indicated in its 2007 report that detection of human trafficking cases had increased six-fold in three years, and several dozens of organized criminal groups engaged in recruiting Russian citizens for the purpose of sexual and labour exploitation in the countries of Western Europe, Middle East and North America had been uncovered. According to the 2009 Global Report on forced labour under the follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, recent data from the Russian Federation and other countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States point to a steady increase in the number of identified persons trafficked for labour exploitation.

The Committee previously noted the information provided by the Government concerning prosecution of offences of human trafficking under the new section 127.1 of the Criminal Code. However, in spite of the legal prohibition and punishment of human trafficking, it still remains a source of serious concern in practice. In this connection, the Committee notes with regret that no progress has been achieved as regards the adoption of the draft Law on Combating Human Trafficking, which provides for a system of bodies to combat trafficking and contains provisions concerning prevention of trafficking, as well as protection and rehabilitation of victims, to which the Government referred in its earlier reports.

The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the Government will take immediate steps with a view to ensuring that the draft Law on Combating Human Trafficking is adopted in the near future. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of section 127.1 of the Criminal Code, supplying sample copies of the relevant court decisions in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of this provision and to indicate the penalties imposed on perpetrators. Please also provide information on the practical measures taken or envisaged to prevent, suppress and combat trafficking in human beings.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. Prison labour. The Committee has noted that section 103 of the Code on the Execution of Penal Sentences provides that convicted persons are under an obligation to perform labour, such labour being exacted from them by the administration of penitentiary institutions at enterprises of such institutions, at state enterprises, or at enterprises of other forms of ownership. The Committee previously noted the provision of section 21 of Act No. 5473-I (of 21 July 1993) on the institutions and bodies for the execution of penal sentences involving deprivation of freedom, according to which compulsory labour may be exacted from convicted prisoners at enterprises of any organizational or legal form, even if such enterprises do not belong to the system of the execution of penal sentences and are located out of the place of penitentiary institutions, compulsory labour being exacted in this case on the basis of a contract concluded between the administration of penitentiary institutions and the enterprises concerned.

The Committee recalled in this connection that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention exempts from its provisions “any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations”. While this Article strictly prohibits prisoners from being hired to or placed at the disposal of private undertakings, the Committee has pointed out in its previous General Surveys, as well as in its most recent General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour (paragraphs 59–60), that, provided convicted prisoners voluntarily consent to such work, without being subjected to pressure or menace, such work does not fall within the scope of the Convention. At the same time the Committee has indicated that, bearing in mind the captive circumstances of prisoners, there must be safeguards to ensure that their consent is given freely and voluntarily. The Committee, in paragraphs 114–122 of the 2007 General Survey referred to above, discussed the safeguards which include not only written formal consent, but further, that the most reliable indicator of voluntariness of the labour is if the work is performed under conditions which approximate a free labour relationship. Factors to be taken into account in such circumstances would include, for example, that there was a level of wages and social security provisions which approximated a free labour relationship. In addition, there may also be other factors that can be regarded as objective and measurable advantages which the prisoner gains from the actual performance of the work and which could be considered in determining whether consent was freely given and informed (such as the learning of new skills which could be deployed by prisoners when released; the offer of continuing work of the same type upon their release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively in a controlled environment enabling them to develop team skills).

As regards conditions of work of convicted prisoners, the Committee has noted that, under sections 103–105 of the Code on the Execution of Penal Sentences, their hours of work and rest periods, occupational safety and health, as well as remuneration (leaving room for deductions and attachments) are governed by the general labour legislation. It has also noted from the Government’s report that, under Decree No. 727 of the Government of the Russian Federation (of 15 October 2001), convicted prisoners performing compulsory remunerated labour are covered by compulsory state social security schemes, similarly to free workers.

While noting that, under the above provisions, prisoners’ conditions of work may be considered as approximating those of a free labour relationship, the Committee observes that, under the legislation in force, the formal consent of prisoners to work for private enterprises does not appear to be asked for. Noting also that, at present, the work of prisoners for private enterprises does not take place in practice, the Committee nevertheless expresses the hope that, in the light of the above considerations, the Government will take the necessary measures in order to ensure that, both in legislation and in practice, the work of prisoners for private enterprises will be carried out only with their voluntary consent, such consent being free from the menace of any penalty, including the loss of rights or privileges. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. Referring to its earlier comments, the Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government concerning measures taken to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons for the purpose of exploitation. It has noted, in particular, the adoption of the Federal Act No. 162-FZ, of 8 December 2003, which introduced amendments to the Criminal Code (insertion of the new sections 127.1 (trafficking in human beings) and 127.2 (exploitation of slave labour)), which define crimes related to trafficking and slave-like practices and provide for severe sanctions of imprisonment. It has also noted the information on the implementation in the Russian Federation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Plan of Action to combat trafficking in persons, of the European Union project “Prevention of human trafficking in the Russian Federation” conducted in collaboration with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the programme of cooperation between Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) on combating human trafficking for 2007–2010, as well as the information on bilateral cooperation with neighbouring countries in this field. The Committee has noted statistical information concerning persecution of the offences of human trafficking under section 127.1 of the Criminal Code, as well as the information on the court decisions and other information on the law enforcement provided in the report.

As regards the elaboration of a draft Law on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings which should provide for a system of bodies to combat trafficking and contain provisions concerning prevention of trafficking, as well as protection and rehabilitation of victims, to which the Government referred in its previous report, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft text has been finalized and submitted to the State Duma of the Russian Federation.

The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would continue to provide information on the application in practice of section 127.1 of the Criminal Code, supplying sample copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed on perpetrators, as well as information on the practical measures taken or envisaged to combat trafficking in human beings with a view to eliminating it. Please also keep the ILO informed on progress in the adoption of the draft Law on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings and provide a copy thereof, once it has been adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Prison labour

The Committee previously noted that section 37 of the Correctional Labour Code, as amended on 12 June 1992, provides that every convicted person is under an obligation to work, such work being exacted from them by the administration of correctional institutions either at state enterprises, or at enterprises of other forms of ownership, on a contract basis. It also noted the provision of section 21 of Act No. 5473-I, of 21 July 1993, on the institutions and bodies for the execution of sentences involving deprivation of freedom, according to which compulsory labour may be exacted from convicted prisoners at enterprises of any organizational or legal form, even if such enterprises do not belong to the executive penal system and are located out of the place of correctional institutions; compulsory labour is exacted in this case on the basis of a contract concluded between the administration of institutions for the execution of sentences and the enterprises concerned.

The Committee recalls in this connection that Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention exempts from its provisions “any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations”. While this Article strictly prohibits that prisoners be hired to or placed at the disposal of private undertakings, the Committee has accepted, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 97‑101 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that schemes existing in certain countries under which prisoners may, particularly during the period preceding their release, voluntarily enter a normal employment relationship with private employers, do not fall within the scope of the Convention. As the Committee has repeatedly pointed out, only work performed in conditions of a free employment relationship can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition in Article 2, paragraph 2(c); this necessarily requires the formal consent of the person concerned and, in the light of the circumstances of the consent, i.e. the basic obligation to perform prison labour, and other restrictions on the prisoner’s freedom to take up normal employment, there must be further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a labour relation, such as a level of wages and social security corresponding to a free labour relationship, to remove the employment from the scope of Article 2, paragraph 2(c), which unconditionally prohibits that persons who are under an obligation to perform prison labour be hired to or placed at the disposal of private companies.

The Committee reiterates its hope that, taking into account these considerations, the Government will take the necessary measures in relation to the abovementioned legislation to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that it will provide, in its next report, information on law and practice regarding the work of prisoners for private enterprises.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters.

Trafficking in persons

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to a communication dated 2 September 2002 of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) submitting comments concerning the problem of trafficking in persons for the purpose of sexual and labour exploitation.

The ICFTU alleged that thousands of persons were trafficked from the Russian Federation to other countries, including Canada, China, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Spain, Thailand and the United States. The victims often find themselves in debt bondage as they owe the traffickers recruitment and transport costs which are then inflated with charges for food, accommodation and interest on the debt. It is also alleged that internal trafficking within the Russian Federation is taking place; women are generally forced to work as prostitutes while men are trafficked into agricultural or construction work. There are also said to be confirmed cases of children being trafficked for sexual exploitation.

The ICFTU considered that the absence of specific anti-trafficking legislation and the lack of specialized training in law enforcement were serious impediments to preventing people from being subjected to trafficking and forced labour, and that the lack of adequate resources available for providing support and assistance to victims who have returned to the Russian Federation leaves them vulnerable to being re-trafficked.

The Committee has noted from the Government’s reply that the Criminal Code contains provisions punishing trafficking in minors (section 152), as well as abduction (section 126) and various sexual crimes (sections 132 and 133). It has noted with interest the ratification by the Russian Federation of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182). The Committee has also noted that the Russian Federation has signed the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its supplementing Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.

The Committee has noted the Government’s indications in the report concerning the practical measures to combat trafficking in women taken in cooperation with the neighbouring States, e.g. within the framework of the Council of the Baltic Sea States, and joint police operations conducted to liberate girls who were trafficked and illegally detained in Turkey, Greece and Italy in 2000-02. The report also contains information on the development of a network of shelters and other measures to protect the victims of trafficking, as well as on the awareness-raising campaign launched in collaboration with the media and NGOs.

The Committee has noted the elaboration of a draft Law on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings which provides for a system of bodies to combat trafficking and contains provisions concerning prevention of trafficking, as well as protection and rehabilitation of victims. As regards punishment of perpetrators, the Committee has noted the Government’s indications concerning the amendments introduced to the Criminal Code, which define crimes related to trafficking and provides for severe sanctions of imprisonment. The Committee hopes that the new Law on combating trafficking will soon be adopted, and that the Government will supply a copy thereof for examination by the Committee. The Committee would also appreciate it if the Government would continue to provide information on the practical measures taken or envisaged to combat trafficking in human beings with a view to eliminating it.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Prison labour

The Committee previously noted that section 37 of the Correctional Labour Code, as amended on 12 June 1992, provides that every convicted person is under an obligation to work, such work being exacted from them by the administration of correctional institutions either at state enterprises, or at enterprises of other forms of ownership, on a contract basis. It also noted the provision of section 21 of Act No. 5473-I, of 21 July 1993, on the institutions and bodies for the execution of sentences involving deprivation of freedom, according to which compulsory labour may be exacted from convicted prisoners at enterprises of any organizational or legal form, even if such enterprises do not belong to the executive penal system and are located out of the place of correctional institutions; compulsory labour is exacted in this case on the basis of a contract concluded between the administration of institutions for the execution of sentences and the enterprises concerned.

The Committee recalls in this connection that Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention exempts from its provisions "any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations". While this Article strictly prohibits that prisoners be hired to or placed at the disposal of private undertakings, the Committee has accepted, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 97-101 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that schemes existing in certain countries under which prisoners may, particularly during the period preceding their release, voluntarily enter a normal employment relationship with private employers, do not fall within the scope of the Convention. As the Committee has repeatedly pointed out, only work performed in conditions of a free employment relationship can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition in Article 2, paragraph 2(c); this necessarily requires the formal consent of the person concerned and, in the light of the circumstances of the consent, i.e. the basic obligation to perform prison labour, and other restrictions on the prisoner’s freedom to take up normal employment, there must be further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a labour relation, such as a level of wages and social security corresponding to a free labour relationship, to remove the employment from the scope of Article 2, paragraph 2(c), which unconditionally prohibits that persons who are under an obligation to perform prison labour be hired to or placed at the disposal of private companies.

The Committee reiterates its hope that, taking into account these considerations, the Government will take the necessary measures in relation to the abovementioned legislation to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that it will provide, in its next report, information on law and practice regarding the work of prisoners for private enterprises.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Trafficking in persons

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to a communication dated 2 September 2002 of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) submitting comments concerning the problem of trafficking in persons for the purpose of sexual and labour exploitation.

The ICFTU alleged that thousands of persons were trafficked from the Russian Federation to other countries, including Canada, China, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Spain, Thailand and the United States. The victims often find themselves in debt bondage as they owe the traffickers recruitment and transport costs which are then inflated with charges for food, accommodation and interest on the debt. It is also alleged that internal trafficking within the Russian Federation is taking place; women are generally forced to work as prostitutes while men are trafficked into agricultural or construction work. There are also said to be confirmed cases of children being trafficked for sexual exploitation.

The ICFTU considered that the absence of specific anti-trafficking legislation and the lack of specialized training in law enforcement were serious impediments to preventing people from being subjected to trafficking and forced labour, and that the lack of adequate resources available for providing support and assistance to victims who have returned to the Russian Federation leaves them vulnerable to being re-trafficked.

The Committee has noted from the Government’s reply that the Criminal Code contains provisions punishing trafficking in minors (section 152), as well as abduction (section 126) and various sexual crimes (sections 132 and 133). It has noted with interest the ratification by the Russian Federation of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182). The Committee has also noted that the Russian Federation has signed the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its supplementing Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.

The Committee has noted the Government’s indications in the report concerning the practical measures to combat trafficking in women taken in cooperation with the neighbouring States, e.g. within the framework of the Council of the Baltic Sea States, and joint police operations conducted to liberate girls who were trafficked and illegally detained in Turkey, Greece and Italy in 2000-02. The report also contains information on the development of a network of shelters and other measures to protect the victims of trafficking, as well as on the awareness-raising campaign launched in collaboration with the media and NGOs.

The Committee has noted the elaboration of a draft Law on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings which provides for a system of bodies to combat trafficking and contains provisions concerning prevention of trafficking, as well as protection and rehabilitation of victims. As regards punishment of perpetrators, the Committee has noted the Government’s indications concerning the amendments introduced to the Criminal Code, which define crimes related to trafficking and provides for severe sanctions of imprisonment. The Committee hopes that the new Law on combating trafficking will soon be adopted, and that the Government will supply a copy thereof for examination by the Committee. The Committee would also appreciate it if the Government would continue to provide information on the practical measures taken or envisaged to combat trafficking in human beings with a view to eliminating it.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. It has noted, in particular, Presidential Decree No. 1237 "on matters relating to the performance of military service", of 16 September 1999, communicated with the Government’s report, as well as the Government’s explanations concerning the right of career military personnel to leave the service.

Prison labour

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments on this subject. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee previously noted that section 37 of the Correctional Labour Code, as amended on 12 June 1992, provides that every convicted person is under an obligation to work, such work being exacted from them by the administration of correctional institutions either at state enterprises, or at enterprises of other forms of ownership, on a contract basis. It also noted the provision of section 21 of Act No. 5473-I, of 21 July 1993, on the institutions and bodies for the execution of sentences involving deprivation of freedom, according to which compulsory labour may be exacted from convicted prisoners at enterprises of any organizational or legal form, even if such enterprises do not belong to the executive penal system and are located out of the place of correctional institutions; compulsory labour is exacted in this case on the basis of a contract concluded between the administration of institutions for the execution of sentences and the enterprises concerned.

The Committee recalls in this connection that Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention exempts from its provisions "any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations". While this Article strictly prohibits that prisoners be hired to or placed at the disposal of private undertakings, the Committee has accepted, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 97-101 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that schemes existing in certain countries under which prisoners may, particularly during the period preceding their release, voluntarily enter a normal employment relationship with private employers, do not fall within the scope of the Convention. As the Committee has repeatedly pointed out, only work performed in conditions of a free employment relationship can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition in Article 2, paragraph 2(c); this necessarily requires the formal consent of the person concerned and, in the light of the circumstances of the consent, i.e. the basic obligation to perform prison labour, and other restrictions on the prisoner’s freedom to take up normal employment, there must be further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a labour relation, such as a level of wages and social security corresponding to a free labour relationship, to remove the employment from the scope of Article 2, paragraph 2(c), which unconditionally prohibits that persons who are under an obligation to perform prison labour be hired to or placed at the disposal of private companies.

The Committee reiterates its hope that, taking into account these considerations, the Government will take the necessary measures in relation to the abovementioned legislation to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that it will provide, in its next report, information on law and practice regarding the work of prisoners for private enterprises.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Trafficking in persons

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to a communication dated 2 September 2002 of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) submitting comments concerning the problem of trafficking in persons for the purpose of sexual and labour exploitation.

The ICFTU alleges that thousands of persons are trafficked from the Russian Federation to other countries, including Canada, China, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Spain, Thailand and the United States. The victims often find themselves in debt bondage as they owe the traffickers recruitment and transport costs which are then inflated with charges for food, accommodation and interest on the debt. It is also alleged that internal trafficking within the Russian Federation is taking place; women are generally forced to work as prostitutes while men are trafficked into agricultural or construction work. There are also said to be confirmed cases of children being trafficked for sexual exploitation.

The ICFTU considers that the absence of specific anti-trafficking legislation and the lack of specialized training in law enforcement are serious impediments to preventing people from being subjected to trafficking and forced labour, and that the lack of adequate resources available for providing support and assistance to victims who have returned to the Russian Federation leaves them vulnerable to being re-trafficked.

The Committee has noted from the Government’s reply that the Criminal Code contains provisions punishing trafficking in minors (section 152), as well as abduction (section 126) and various sexual crimes (sections 132 and 133). It has noted with interest the ratification by the Russian Federation of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182). The Committee has also noted that the Russian Federation has signed the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its supplementing Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.

The Committee has noted the Government’s indications in the report concerning the practical measures to combat trafficking in women taken in cooperation with the neighbouring States, e.g. within the framework of the Council of the Baltic Sea States, and joint police operations conducted to liberate girls who were trafficked and illegally detained in Turkey, Greece and Italy in 2000-02. The report also contains information on the development of a network of shelters and other measures to protect the victims of trafficking, as well as on the awareness-raising campaign launched in collaboration with the media and NGOs.

The Committee has noted with interest the elaboration of a draft Law on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings which provides for a system of bodies to combat trafficking and contains provisions concerning prevention of trafficking, as well as protection and rehabilitation of victims. As regards punishment of perpetrators, the Committee has noted with interest the Government’s indications concerning draft amendments to be introduced to the Criminal Code, which defines crimes related to trafficking and provides for severe sanctions of imprisonment. The Committee hopes that these amendments, as well as the new Law on combating trafficking, will soon be adopted, and that the Government will supply copies thereof for the examination by the Committee. The Committee would also appreciate it if the Government would continue to provide information on the practical measures taken or envisaged to combat trafficking in human beings with a view to eliminating it.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Freedom of career military personnel to leave the service.  The Committee previously noted the Government’s statement that the armed forces of the country now engage their military personnel completely on the basis of employment contracts, except the persons drafted for compulsory military service, and that warrant officers and petty officers as well as rank and file personnel perform their duties on the basis of fixed-term contracts concluded for a period of three to five years. It notes Decree No. 722, of 16 May 1996, of the President of the Russian Federation (as amended by Decree No. 1356, of 11 November 1998) with respect to the transition to staffing military posts with citizens entering military service under contract, as well as Decree No. 4, of 4 November 1999, of the President of the Russian Federation with respect to matters relating to the performance of military service under contract, supplied by the Government with its latest report.

The Committee notes that, under Decree No. 4, the right to define the procedure for concluding and drawing up contracts resides with the Ministry of Defence. The Committee notes that a portion of Order No. 99 was attached to the Government’s report but requests the Government to supply, with its next report, a full text of Order No. 99, of 11 March 1999, of the Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation regarding the provisional procedure for the conclusion of contracts for military service by citizens of the Russian Federation, the appointment of servicemen to military posts and their removal from military posts, the assignment of military rank and discharge from military service.

Prison labour.  The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments on the subject. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee previously noted that section 37 of the Correctional Labour Code, as amended on 12 June 1992, provides that every convicted person is under an obligation to work, such work being exacted from them by the administration of correctional institutions either at state enterprises, or at enterprises of other forms of ownership, on a contract basis. It also noted the provision of section 21 of Act No. 5473-1, of 21 July 1993, on the institutions and bodies for the execution of sentences involving deprivation of freedom, according to which compulsory labour may be exacted from convicted prisoners at enterprises of any organizational or legal form, even if such enterprises do not belong to the executive penal system and are located out of the place of correctional institutions; compulsory labour is exacted in this case on the basis of a contract concluded between the administration of institutions for the execution of sentences and the enterprises concerned.

The Committee recalls in this connection that Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention exempts from its provisions "any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations". While this Article strictly prohibits that prisoners be hired to or placed at the disposal of private undertakings, the Committee has accepted, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 97 to 101 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that schemes existing in certain countries under which prisoners may, particularly during the period preceding their release, voluntarily enter a normal employment relationship with private employers, do not fall within the scope of the Convention. As the Committee has repeatedly pointed out only work performed in conditions of a free employment relationship can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition in Article 2, paragraph 2(c); this necessarily requires the formal consentof the person concerned and, in the light of the circumstances of the consent, i.e. the basic obligation to perform prison labour, and other restrictions on the prisoner’s freedom to take up normal employment, there must be further guarantees and safeguards covering the  essential elements of a labour relation, such as a level of wages and social security corresponding to a free labour relationship, to remove the employment from the scope of Article 2, paragraph 2(c), which unconditionally prohibits that persons who are under an obligation to perform prison labour be hired to or placed at the disposal of private companies.

The Committee reiterates its hope that, taking into account these considerations, the Government will take the necessary measures in relation to the abovementioned legislation to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that it will provide, in its next report, information on law and practice regarding the work of prisoners for private enterprises.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee has noted a communication dated 2 September 2002 of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) submitting comments on the observance of the Convention, a copy of which has been forwarded to the Government on 2 October 2002 for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein.

The communication of the ICFTU concerns the problem of trafficking of persons for sexual and labour exploitation. While pointing out that there are no accurate statistics, the ICFTU alleges that there is little doubt that thousands of persons are trafficked from the Russian Federation to other countries, including Canada, China, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Spain, Thailand and the United States. It is also alleged that internal trafficking within the Russian Federation is taking place; women are generally forced to work as prostitutes while men are trafficked into agricultural or construction work. There are also said to be confirmed cases of children being trafficked for sexual exploitation.

The ICFTU refers to allegations that organized criminal gangs operate through false employment agencies offering good jobs abroad, and that women, who make up 63 per cent of the registered unemployed, are particularly vulnerable to these offers. On arrival, their papers are taken away and traffickers use coercion and violence to control them. The victims often find themselves in debt bondage as they owe the traffickers recruitment and transport costs which are then inflated with charges for food, accommodation and interest on the debt.

The ICFTU indicates that there is currently no specific law against trafficking in the Russian Federation. Traffickers are most often prosecuted for document fraud, if at all. It is pointed out that widespread corruption, lack of resources, and a lack of understanding of trafficking issues mean law enforcement agencies rarely investigate cases. The ICFTU notes that law enforcement authorities are said to have acknowledged that they rarely open a case following such complaints because often no domestic laws were broken, and because law enforcement authorities are evaluated according to the number of cases they close.

In its communication the ICFTU refers to figures from Russian consulates showing that only very small numbers of victims of trafficking seek assistance from government officials, and to information which appears to indicate that only a very limited number of consular officials are aware of and receptive to the problems faced by trafficked women. The ICFTU also points out that for those women and men who manage to escape and return to the Russian Federation, there is limited support available to them. It indicates that there is no direct government assistance available to victims in the form of counselling, medical assistance, or training, despite their having endured mental and physical abuse.

The ICFTU considers that the absence of specific anti-trafficking legislation and the lack of specialized training in law enforcement are serious impediments to preventing people from being subjected to trafficking and forced labour, and that the lack of adequate resources available for providing support and assistance to victims who have returned to the Russian Federation leaves them vulnerable to being re-trafficked.

The Committee requests the Government to present its comments on the allegations made by the ICFTU.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments.

Freedom of career military personnel to leave the service.  The Committee previously noted the Government’s statement that the armed forces of the country now engage their military personnel completely on the basis of employment contracts, except the persons drafted for compulsory military service, and that warrant officers and petty officers as well as rank and file personnel perform their duties on the basis of fixed-term contracts concluded for a period of three to five years. It notes Decree No. 722, of 16 May 1996, of the President of the Russian Federation (as amended by Decree No. 1356, of 11 November 1998) with respect to the transition to staffing military posts with citizens entering military service under contract, as well as Decree No. 4, of 4 November 1999, of the President of the Russian Federation with respect to matters relating to the performance of military service under contract, supplied by the Government with its latest report.

The Committee notes that, under Decree No. 4, the right to define the procedure for concluding and drawing up contracts resides with the Ministry of Defence. The Committee notes that a portion of Order No. 99 was attached to the Government’s report but requests the Government to supply, with its next report, a full text of Order No. 99, of 11 March 1999, of the Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation regarding the provisional procedure for the conclusion of contracts for military service by citizens of the Russian Federation, the appointment of servicemen to military posts and their removal from military posts, the assignment of military rank and discharge from military service.

Prison labour.  The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments on the subject. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee previously noted that section 37 of the Correctional Labour Code, as amended on 12 June 1992, provides that every convicted person is under an obligation to work, such work being exacted from them by the administration of correctional institutions either at state enterprises, or at enterprises of other forms of ownership, on a contract basis. It also noted the provision of section 21 of Act No. 5473-1, of 21 July 1993, on the institutions and bodies for the execution of sentences involving deprivation of freedom, according to which compulsory labour may be exacted from convicted prisoners at enterprises of any organizational or legal form, even if such enterprises do not belong to the executive penal system and are located out of the place of correctional institutions; compulsory labour is exacted in this case on the basis of a contract concluded between the administration of institutions for the execution of sentences and the enterprises concerned.

The Committee recalls in this connection that Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention exempts from its provisions "any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations". While this Article strictly prohibits that prisoners be hired to or placed at the disposal of private undertakings, the Committee has accepted, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 97 to 101 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that schemes existing in certain countries under which prisoners may, particularly during the period preceding their release, voluntarily enter a normal employment relationship with private employers, do not fall within the scope of the Convention. As the Committee has repeatedly pointed out only work performed in conditions of a free employment relationship can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition in Article 2, paragraph 2(c); this necessarily requires the formal consentof the person concerned and, in the light of the circumstances of the consent, i.e. the basic obligation to perform prison labour, and other restrictions on the prisoner’s freedom to take up normal employment, there must be further guarantees and safeguards covering the  essential elements of a labour relation, such as a level of wages and social security corresponding to a free labour relationship, to remove the employment from the scope of Article 2, paragraph 2(c), which unconditionally prohibits that persons who are under an obligation to perform prison labour be hired to or placed at the disposal of private companies.

The Committee reiterates its hope that, taking into account these considerations, the Government will take the necessary measures in relation to the abovementioned legislation to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that it will provide, in its next report, information on law and practice regarding the work of prisoners for private enterprises.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

I. The Committee notes with interest that the Russian Federation has recently ratified the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105).

II. The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of the Convention. 1. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. With regard to the freedom of all military personnel (including personnel other than officers) to leave the service on their own initiative, after a reasonable time, the Committee notes with interest the Government's statement that the armed forces of the country now engage their military personnel completely on the basis of employment contracts, except the persons drafted for compulsory military service, and that warrant officers and petty officers as well as rank and file personnel perform their duties on the basis of fixed-term contracts concluded for a period of three to five years. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the relevant legislative provisions.

2. In its previous comments the Committee noted the Government's indication that recruitment of supplementary labour force by agricultural enterprises during the harvest season can only take place according to an individual agreement and asked the Government to provide samples of such agreements, as well as copies of applicable legislative provisions. In its report the Government indicates that the practice of recruiting students for agricultural works has actually been discontinued and that no complaints have been received in this regard by the Ministry of Labour. The Committee takes due note of this indication. It requests the Government to continue supplying in its future reports information on the evolution of law and practice in this matter.

3. The Committee notes that section 37 of the Correctional Labour Code, as amended on 12 June 1992, provides that every convicted person is under an obligation to work, such work being exacted from them by the administration of correctional institutions either at state enterprises, or at enterprises of other forms of ownership, on a contract basis. It also notes the provision of section 21 of Act No. 5473-I, of 21 July 1993, on the institutions and bodies for the execution of sentences involving deprivation of freedom, according to which compulsory labour may be exacted from convicted prisoners at enterprises of any organizational or legal form, even if such enterprises do not belong to the executive penal system and are located out of the place of correctional institutions; compulsory labour is exacted in this case on the basis of a contract concluded between the administration of institutions for the execution of sentences and the enterprises concerned.

The Committee recalls in this connection that Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention exempts from its provisions "any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations". While this Article strictly prohibits that prisoners be hired to or placed at the disposal of private undertakings, the Committee has accepted, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 97 to 101 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that schemes existing in certain countries under which prisoners may, particularly during the period preceding their release, voluntarily enter a normal employment relationship with private employers, do not fall within the scope of the Convention. As the Committee has repeatedly pointed out, only work performed in conditions of a free employment relationship can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition in Article 2, paragraph 2(c); this necessarily requires the formal consent of the person concerned and, in the light of the circumstances of the consent, i.e. the basic obligation to perform prison labour, and other restrictions on the prisoner's freedom to take up normal employment, there must be further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a labour relation, such as a level of wages and social security corresponding to a free labour relationship, to remove the employment from the scope of Article 2, paragraph 2(c), which unconditionally prohibits that persons who are under an obligation to perform prison labour be hired to or placed at the disposal of private companies.

The Committee hopes that, taking into account these considerations, the Government will take the necessary measures in relation to the above-mentioned legislation to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that it will provide, in its next report, information on law and practice regarding the work of prisoners for private enterprises.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

1. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. With regard to the freedom of all military personnel (including personnel other than officers) to leave the service on their own initiative, after a reasonable time, the Committee notes with interest the Government's statement that the armed forces of the country now engage their military personnel completely on the basis of employment contracts, except the persons drafted for compulsory military service, and that warrant officers and petty officers as well as rank and file personnel perform their duties on the basis of fixed-term contracts concluded for a period of three to five years. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the relevant legislative provisions.

2. In its previous comments the Committee noted the Government's indication that recruitment of supplementary labour force by agricultural enterprises during the harvest season can only take place according to an individual agreement and asked the Government to provide samples of such agreements, as well as copies of applicable legislative provisions. In its report the Government indicates that the practice of recruiting students for agricultural works has actually been discontinued and that no complaints have been received in this regard by the Ministry of Labour. The Committee takes due note of this indication. It requests the Government to continue supplying in its future reports information on the evolution of law and practice in this matter.

3. The Committee notes that section 37 of the Correctional Labour Code, as amended on 12 June 1992, provides that every convicted person is under an obligation to work, such work being exacted from them by the administration of correctional institutions either at state enterprises, or at enterprises of other forms of ownership, on a contract basis. It also notes the provision of section 21 of Act No. 5473-I, of 21 July 1993, on the institutions and bodies for the execution of sentences involving deprivation of freedom, according to which compulsory labour may be exacted from convicted prisoners at enterprises of any organizational or legal form, even if such enterprises do not belong to the executive penal system and are located out of the place of correctional institutions; compulsory labour is exacted in this case on the basis of a contract concluded between the administration of institutions for the execution of sentences and the enterprises concerned.

The Committee recalls in this connection that Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention exempts from its provisions "any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations". While this Article strictly prohibits that prisoners be hired to or placed at the disposal of private undertakings, the Committee has accepted, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 97 to 101 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that schemes existing in certain countries under which prisoners may, particularly during the period preceding their release, voluntarily enter a normal employment relationship with private employers, do not fall within the scope of the Convention. As the Committee has repeatedly pointed out, only work performed in conditions of a free employment relationship can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition in Article 2, paragraph 2(c); this necessarily requires the formal consent of the person concerned and, in the light of the circumstances of the consent, i.e. the basic obligation to perform prison labour, and other restrictions on the prisoner's freedom to take up normal employment, there must be further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a labour relation, such as a level of wages and social security corresponding to a free labour relationship, to remove the employment from the scope of Article 2, paragraph 2(c), which unconditionally prohibits that persons who are under an obligation to perform prison labour be hired to or placed at the disposal of private companies.

The Committee hopes that, taking into account these considerations, the Government will take the necessary measures in relation to the above-mentioned legislation to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that it will provide, in its next report, information on law and practice regarding the work of prisoners for private enterprises.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

1. Further to its previous comments the Committee notes with interest the adoption of Act No. 3324-I of 17 July 1992 (CT. 1977) on the discharge from active military service of officers on their own request. The Committee notes that officers, who have not yet attained the age of retirement, are discharged at their own request, if they have served at least five years as an officer since they left the military school.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the possibilities for military personnel other than officers to leave the service on their own initiative, after a reasonable time, including copies of applicable provisions.

2. Article 25 of the Convention. In its previous direct request the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which auxiliary labour of students and other persons for agricultural tasks is being organized, including copies of any relevant decisions and regulations.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that in the former USSR there existed an administrative practice for recruiting scholars, students and workers for agricultural work during harvesting. In the Russian Federation these last months (1992-93) that practice is dying out and no complaint in this regard was referred to the Ministry of Labour. Today recruitment of supplementary labour force by agricultural enterprises during the harvest season, can only take place according to an individual agreement. The Government mentions in this connection that students wishing to participate in the harvest retain their stipendium; their work is paid by the svokhzes and kolkhozes following an agreement that takes into consideration the wages paid for such kind of work.

The Committee would appreciate if the Government would provide samples of such agreements as well as copies of applicable legislative provisions and to continue to provide information on the evolution of practice in this matter.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

With reference to its previous comments the Committee notes with satisfaction that section 209 of the Penal Code, concerning persons "leading a parasitic way of life", was repealed by Act No. 1867 of 5 December 1991.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

1. Legislation concerning persons "leading a parasitic way of life". In its previous observations, the Committee referred to the provisions of section 209 of the Penal Code concerning persons "leading a parasitic way of life". Noting that the fundamental principles of penal legislation were currently under review, the Committee expressed the hope that the Government would be able to envisage adopting measures to clearly exclude from the legislation any possibility of compulsion to work that is not in conformity with the Convention, either by repealing section 209 of the Penal Code or by limiting the scope of these provisions to persons engaging in illegal activities. The Committee hoped that the Government would supply information on developments in this direction, as well as on the application in practice of the provisions of section 209, including copies of any judicial decisions that define the scope of the terms of "unearned income" and "means obtained through unlawful methods".

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that in the period July 1989-June 1991, no decisions on issues concerning the Convention were made by the courts. The Government also indicates that new statutory instruments have been adopted to improve the legislation and bring it into more complete compliance with the provisions of the Convention, and that the general trend in the development of labour legislation from the point of view of the Convention is marked by a re-examination of the principle of the obligation to work as a principle capable of opening the door to certain forms of forced labour. Thus in Article 1 of the Fundamental Principles governing Employment Legislation in the USSR and its Union Republics, dated 15 January 1991, it is stated that "administrative coercion in any form to engage in work is not permitted, with the exception of cases provided for in the legislation. Voluntary unemployment on the part of citizens may not serve as grounds for taking administrative, criminal or other proceedings against them".

The Committee notes these indications with interest. It notes that the principles referred to have also been included in the Employment Law of the Russian Federation. Referring also to its general observation concerning the Russian Federation, the Committee hopes that in the ongoing review of the principles of penal legislation, section 209 of the Penal Code is being re-examined in the light of the developments in labour legislation referred to by the Government of the USSR, and that the Government will supply full information on any measures taken or envisaged to amend or repeal section 209 of the Penal Code.

2. Freedom to leave the service. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government of the USSR according to which the right of career members of the armed services and persons working in other special services of the State bodies (Ministry of the Interior, militia, etc.) to leave the service on their own initiative is governed by the General Military Service Act of the USSR of 12 October 1967, as amended and supplemented, and the regulations governing the terms of recruitment, discharge and service of particular categories of personnel. The Government of the USSR also indicated that an examination was being made of draft regulations on the service of the officer corps of the armed services, which provide, inter alia, that career officers who have served for ten years may terminate their service in the armed forces at their own request.

The Committee requested the Government to supply copies of the legislative texts referred to and of the regulations on the service of the officer corps in the armed forces, once adopted.

In the absence of information on these matters in the Government's report, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any developments in this regard and to supply copies of the relevant provisions of the following legislative texts or of any more recent texts having taken their place:

- Act of the USSR dated 12 October 1967 relating to the General Obligation to Perform Military Service; - Ordinance of the USSR Council of Ministers dated 18 March 1985 relating to Adoption of the Regulations Governing Performance of Military Service by the Officers of the USSR Armed Forces; - Ordinance No. 241 dated 18 March 1985 of the USSR Council of Ministers relating to Amendment of the Decision of the Government of the USSR Providing for the Rights of Servicemen in the USSR Armed Forces; - Ordinance No. 934 of the USSR Council of Ministers dated 2 October 1985 relating to Adoption of the Regulations on Performance of Military Service by Ensigns and Non-Commissioned Officers in the USSR Armed Forces.

The Committee hopes that, in the drafting of any new provisions in this field, statutory effect will be given to the freedom of career members of the armed forces to leave the service in time of peace on their own initiative after a reasonable period, either by giving notice or at specified intervals.

3. Article 25 of the Convention. The Committee has taken note of the comments made by the Malopolski Regional Direction of the Independent Self-Governing Trade Union "Solidarity" (Solidarnosc) in a letter received in February 1991 and by the Local Committee of the Kharkov City Trade Union Organisation of Engineering Workers in communications received in March and April 1991 and in February 1992. Copies of these communications were transmitted to the Government of the USSR or, for the last one received, to the Government of the Russian Federation, as well as to the Government of Ukraine, which alone has commented on the allegations. In these communications it is alleged that forced labour has been used over many years everywhere in the former USSR in building factory and residential buildings, on vegetable production bases and in the execution of practically all kinds of agricultural tasks.

In agriculture, the application of forced labour is stated to have been based on decisions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted every year in violation of the labour legislation in force and Convention No. 29; such work is said to have been imposed on children of school age, with prolonged separation from their families, on students, workers and employees. Refusal to take part in such work was considered as an opposition against the fulfilment of decisions of the Government of the USSR and was openly prosecuted by the administration: school children were given bad evaluations, depriving them of the possibility to complete the last degree of middle school or to be admitted to institutions of higher education; students were deprived of their scholarships, place in a student's hostel and even could be relegated from the institute; workers and employees were exposed to disciplinary sanctions, a lowering of remuneration for their principal, professional work, lessening of trade union privileges and dismissal from employment.

In its communication received February 1992, the Organisation of Engineering Workers alleges that this practice continues in the Russian Federation and transmits a copy of an article published 21 September 1991 in the "Komsomolskaya Pravda" by a correspondent from Sverdlovsk (now Ekaterinburg) which refers to an unexplained epidemy among students taking part, as every year, in the potato and onion harvests; the Committee notes that the article contains no allegations of forced labour.

In their comments on the application of the Convention, the above-mentioned trade union organisations further allege that the use of forced labour of free citizens for the execution of unqualified work in industry and on building sites is arbitrarily imposed by local administration without any base in decisions of higher authority (such as alleged to be taken with regard to agriculture). The Committee notes that the concrete allegations in this respect centre on one enterprise in the city of Kharkov, outside the Russian Federation.

The Committee requests the Government to comment in its next report on the allegations made. In this connection, the Committee hopes that detailed information will be supplied on the manner in which auxiliary labour of students and any other persons for agricultural tasks is being organised, including copies of any relevant decisions and regulations. Furthermore, the Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to supply in its next report full particulars on measures taken to ensure, in conformity with Article 25 of the Convention, that the penalties imposed by law for the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour are really adequate and are strictly enforced.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. With reference to its previous request regarding the freedom of workers to leave their employment, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report according to which the right of career members of the armed services and persons working in other special services of the State bodies (Ministry of the Interior, militia, etc. ...) to leave the service on their own initiative is governed by the General Military Service Act of the USSR of 12 October 1967, as amended and supplemented, and the regulations governing the terms of recruitment, discharge and service of particular categories of personnel. The Government also indicates that an examination is being made of draft regulations on the service of the officer corps of the armed services, which provide, inter alia, that career officers who have served for ten years may terminate their service in the armed forces at their own request.

The Committee notes this information with interest. It requests the Government to supply a copy of the legislative texts referred to in its report and of the regulations on the service of the officer corps in the armed forces, once adopted.

2. The Committee looks forward to the Government's sending with its next report a copy of the reply by the Public Prosecutor of the USSR, which was referred to as being attached to its last report, but was not received by the ILO.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

1. Resignation of members of collective farms. The Committee notes with satisfaction that the freedom of members of collective farms to leave the farm, announced on 28 May 1987 in a communiqué of the Presidium of the Union Council of Collective Farms, has been written into the text of the new Model Collective Farm Rules adopted by the General Congress of Members of Collective Farms on 23 March 1988. According to these Model Rules, any member of a collective farm is entitled to resign by giving three months' notice; neither the management nor the general assembly of the members of a collective farm have the right to refuse applications to resign, which take effect after the three-month period, even in the absence of a reply. In addition, the management is obliged to hand out the work-book to the former member of the collective farm on the day on which the resignation takes effect. The Committee also notes with interest that by virtue of section 10 of Act No. 49 of 26 May 1988 respecting co-operatives, voluntary membership and free withdrawal are among the principles governing the activity of co-operatives.

2. Legislation concerning persons "leading a parasitic way of life". In its previous observations, the Committee referred to the provisions of section 209 of the Penal Code of RSFSR and to the corresponding provisions in force in the other Republics of the Union concerning persons "leading a parasitic way of life". The Committee requested the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the provisions of section 209 and the corresponding provisions in force in other Republics, including copies of any judicial decisions that define the scope of the terms of "unearned income" and "means obtained through unlawful methods".

In its report, the Government refers to the Order of 13 December 1984 of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR on the manner of applying section 209 of the Penal Code of the RSFSR, which the Committee had already noted. Referring to the examples of court practice quoted previously, the Government indicates that there have been no other similar decisions in court practice during the period covered by the report. The Committee notes this indication.

The Committee has noted with interest the report submitted by the Government to the Human Rights Committee in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document CCPR/52/Add.6 of 2 October 1989) which refers in particular to the legislative programme approved by the Supreme Soviet for the defence of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens. In this connection, the Committee notes that the fundamental principles of penal legislation are currently under review.

The Committee hopes that on the occasion of the planned legislative changes, the Government will be able to envisage adopting measures to clearly exclude from the legislation any possibility of compulsion to work that is not in conformity with the Convention, either by repealing section 209 of the Penal Code of the RSFSR (and the corresponding provisions that are in force in the other Republics), or by limiting the scope of these provisions to persons engaging in illegal activities. The Committee hopes that the Government will supply information on developments in this direction.