Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2019, Publication: 108th ILC session (2019)



Written information provided by the Government

Belarus has staunchly and consistently supported the prohibition and eradication of forced labour.

The prohibition of the use of forced labour is enshrined in the country’s most important legislative instruments.

Article 41 of the Constitution prohibits forced labour, with the exception of work or services required under a court ruling or in accordance with the legislation on emergencies and the martial law.

The prohibition of forced labour is also covered in article 13 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus.

The Government of Belarus has paid great attention to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. Taking into account the position of the Committee of Experts, it was decided to repeal Presidential Decree No. 9 of 7 December 2012 “On Additional Measures for the Development of the Wood Processing Industry” (hereinafter referred to as Decree No. 9). Presidential Decree No. 182 of 27 May 2016 has been adopted, according to which Decree No. 9 was declared invalid.

In order to study the legislation of Belarus and the practice of its application for compliance with the provisions of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the technical advisory mission of the International Labour Office visited Belarus from 19 to 23 June 2017. The Government of Belarus provided the mission with all the necessary assistance in organizing their work. The mission’s report on the results of its work was submitted to the Committee of Experts.

Taking into account the analysis of the norms of national legislation and the results of consultations with the ILO mission, the Government of Belarus considers that Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2 April 2015 “On the Promotion of Employment of the Population” (as amended on 25 January 2018) and the Law of 4 January 2010 “On the Procedure and Modalities for the Transfer of Citizens to Medical Labour Centres and the Conditions of Staying in Them” (as amended on 1 September, 2017), which are mentioned in the CEACR’s conclusions of 2019, do not conflict with the provisions of Convention No. 29. These documents are aimed at addressing such socially important tasks as the promotion of employment of the population and the fight against drunkenness and drug addiction. The approaches used in these regulatory legal acts meet the requirements of justice and are socially justified.

Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2 April 2015 “On the Promotion of Employment of the Population” (as amended on 25 January 2018)

Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2 April 2015 “On the Prevention of Dependency on Social Aid” has undergone conceptual changes.

On 25 January 2018, Presidential Decree No. 1 was adopted, according to which Decree No. 3 was redrafted in a new version and given a new title – “On the Promotion of Employment of the Population”.

Now Decree No. 3 does not include any provisions on the payment, by unemployed citizens who are able to work, of a fee for financing public expenditures, or rules imposing administrative measures in the event of non-payment of the tax.

The main task of the updated Decree No. 3 is to create more favourable conditions for citizens’ employment in the regions of the Republic. Decree No. 3 is aimed at providing citizens who want to find a job with maximum assistance in finding employment, stimulating employment and self-employment of the population, as well as creating conditions to stimulate legal employment.

As part of the implementation of Decree No. 3, the local authorities have significantly intensified their activities in order to assist all the interested citizens in finding a job.

At the level of each region, all available opportunities exist so that all citizens who, for whatever reason, do not work but want to work, will be assisted in finding employment.

The local authorities assist citizens in finding vacant and newly created jobs, organize training for popular professions and provide an opportunity to participate in paid public works. Citizens are informed about the benefits of legal employment.

In order to coordinate the work aimed at the promotion of employment, 150 Permanent Commissions (hereinafter referred to as the Commissions) have been established and carry out their activities in the regions. The Commissions include deputies, heads and specialists of local administrations, representatives of trade unions and other non-governmental organizations.

Unemployed citizens, including those who lead an antisocial lifestyle, are invited to attend the meetings of the Commissions in order to be provided with assistance in finding a job.

Between January and March 2019, the Commissions held more than 1,500 meetings; 2,200 citizens were offered jobs, of whom 764 people agreed with the proposed options and were employed.

More than 4,500 people were sent to the labour, employment and social protection agencies to be provided with assistance in finding employment, of whom 2,300 were registered as unemployed.

There are 248 special agencies in the Republic which are sending jobseekers to participate in paid public works; 8,400 citizens took part in such works on the basis of referrals from the labour, employment and social protection agencies.

A large-scale information campaign is being carried out to assist citizens in finding employment. Information about the labour market situation, employment and self-employment opportunities, retraining, legal aspects of labour relations, upcoming job fairs and new workplaces is constantly covered in the media (leading state print and electronic publications, television and radio).

Active work is being done to create new jobs and provide employment for citizens. In order to create favourable conditions for that, a number of documents have been adopted providing for measures to improve the business climate, create conditions for the revitalization of business activities, stimulate business activity and attract investment.

As a result of this work, there is a positive trend in the creation of new enterprises (the growth rate is 108.7 per cent) and the registration of new individual entrepreneurs (the growth rate is 108.8 per cent).

The measures taken have led to positive results: the unemployment rate of citizens of working age, calculated in accordance with the ILO methodology, has decreased (February 2019 – 4.5 per cent; 2018 – 4.7 per cent; 2017 – 5.6 per cent).

An important task, the solution of which is promoted by the implementation of Decree No. 3, is the creation of conditions that encourage citizens (including those involved in the shadow economy) to engage in legal employment with the payment of taxes.

To this end, Decree No. 3 contains a direct financial incentive: citizens who are able to work and classified as not involved in the economy, are to pay for a range of housing and communal services at prices (tariffs) that ensure full reimbursement of economically justified costs for the provision of these services, i.e. that are not subsidized by the State from the budget (hereinafter – full tariffs).

From 1 January 2019, this refers to hot water supply; from 1 October 2019, to gas supply (if individual gas heaters are installed) and heat supply.

Decisions on payment by citizens of services at full tariffs (or exemption from such payment) are taken by the Commissions.

Before making a decision on the matter, the Commission carefully analyses the situation of each citizen and works with each person individually to assist him or her in finding a job (the Commission offers vacancies, sends them to the state employment service agencies, organizes training for the profession in demand). When making a decision, the Commission also takes into account the difficulties that the person encounters in their personal life.

It should be noted that many groups of people are excluded from the category of citizens not involved in the economy, to whom provisions on payment of services at full tariffs apply. In addition to all citizens who are legally employed and legally engaged in other types of activities, groups of people who do not have a job for objective reasons or due to special life circumstances are totally excluded from the category of citizens not involved in the economy.

Thus, the category of citizens who are not involved in the economy excludes the registered unemployed, the disabled, legally incapable persons, pensioners, spouses of military personnel and diplomatic workers, persons raising children under 7 years of age (a disabled child under 18 years of age, three or more minor children), students in full-time education, people whose employment has been terminated (six months from the date of dismissal), graduates of educational institutions (until the end of the calendar year), citizens under medical and dispensary supervision, people who work or receive education abroad and many others.

As of May 2019, 6.4 per cent of citizens of the average annual population of working age are classified as not involved in the economy. At the same time, only 0.8 percent of able-bodied citizens, who are owners of housing units and pay for housing and communal services (hereinafter referred to as HCS), were included in the lists of citizens who are charged for hot water services at full tariffs.

As for the difference in tariffs for hot water for citizens who are considered to be involved and not involved in the economy, the payment for HCS for a standard apartment (48 sq. metres, three persons), in which only one able-bodied citizen who is not involved in the economy lives, taking into account the full tariff for hot water, from 1 January 2019 increased by 6.33 roubles (US$3). When two able-bodied citizens who live in the apartment are not involved in the economy, the payment for HCS increased by 12.66 roubles (US$6).

Thus, the main goal of the implementation of Decree No. 3 is to provide all citizens who are able to work and want to work with maximum assistance in finding suitable legal employment.

Those citizens, who do not work for some objective reason or due to special life circumstances, as well as those who are in difficult life situations, are supported by the State and pay for HCS at subsidized tariffs.

The introduction of full tariffs for HCS for citizens who are not involved in the economy is an exclusively stimulating measure aimed at those people who are very likely involved in the shadow economy and, accordingly, hide their income.

The Law of 4 January 2010 “On the Procedure and Modalities for the Transfer of Citizens to Medical Labour Centres and the Conditions of Staying in Them” (as amended on 1 September 2017)

The Law of the Republic of Belarus “On the Procedure and Modalities for the Transfer of Citizens to Medical Labour Centres and the Conditions of Staying in Them” (hereinafter referred to as the Law) regulates issues related to the transfer of citizens suffering from chronic alcoholism, drug addiction or substance abuse to medical labour centres.

It should be emphasized that forced social isolation as well as medical and social rehabilitation of citizens in the medical labour centres is a necessary measure, which is taken to prevent unlawful behaviour of persons who are suffering from addiction to psychoactive substances, and provide them with the necessary assistance for adaptation in society.

Not all individuals experiencing these problems may be transferred to medical labour centres, but only those who have repeatedly, three times or more in the course of a year, disturbed public order and been found in a state of intoxication from alcohol or caused by the use of drugs or other intoxicating substances. One further condition is that the individuals have already been warned about the possibility of returning to the centre if they commit further violations, but have nevertheless committed administrative offences for similar violations within a year of that warning.

In addition, citizens may be sent to the medical labour centres if they are obliged to compensate the child-rearing expenses incurred by the State and have violated work regulations two times during the year through alcohol or other substance abuse, and have furthermore been warned of the possibility of being sent to the centre, and yet have reoffended within a year of that warning.

Citizens are sent to medical labour centres for a period of 12 months following a court ruling. The court may decide to extend the period of time spent in the centres or to curtail it by up to six months.

Before being transferred to the centres, all persons undergo a medical examination in outpatient addiction treatment organizations to establish whether they have appropriate indications and do not have any contraindications to be placed in the centre.

Citizens are placed in the centres for their medical and social rehabilitation, which includes providing them with medicines, medical and psychological assistance, raising their cultural level and creating conditions for self-education, restoring and maintaining family ties, and other measures.

For citizens who lead an anti-social way of life, one of the most important means that ensure their social reintegration is labour activity. According to the Law, medico-social readaptation activities also include vocational guidance, vocational training, retraining, advanced training and labour.

Citizens placed in the centres are employed at republican unitary production enterprises subordinate to the Department for the Execution of Punishments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the Department) and other organizations located at the territory of the centres. Decisions regarding their employment are made based on their age, ability to work, state of health, specific skills and qualifications. Citizens placed in the centres are paid and granted leave from work and social leave in accordance with labour laws.

Vocational training, retraining and advanced training of such citizens are carried out for one or several professions in production workshops of the centres, at republican unitary production enterprises subordinate to the Department, in vocational schools located in the territory of the centres, in other organizations at the location of the centres.

Citizens placed in the centres are systematically informed by the personnel about employment opportunities and professions that are in demand on the labour market. They are encouraged to receive a profession while they are staying in the centre. State labour, employment and social protection agencies are also involved in vocational guidance of the citizens placed in the centres.

The centres are successfully implementing such a form of work as the “School of Readaptation”. Meetings with representatives of government agencies and public organizations are organized to motivate the citizens placed in the centres to lead a law-abiding way of life, to encourage them to get a profession and to clarify some issues that may arise when they leave the centre.

In the framework of the “School of Readaptation”, representatives of the labour, employment and social protection agencies on a quarterly basis provide relevant information on employment issues (registration as unemployed and receiving unemployment benefits, availability of vacancies, employment due to reservation, opportunities for training and retraining, support in business organization, participation in paid public works, moving to another locality for the purpose of employment, etc.).

In the Republic, work is constantly being carried out to develop the best practices for the rehabilitation and readaptation of citizens suffering from alcohol addiction.

The state institution “Republican Scientific and Practical Centre for Mental Health” conducted a study in order to develop a comprehensive programme of medical rehabilitation for persons placed in the centres. Taking into account the results of the study, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Internal Affairs have launched a pilot project, in which the method of comprehensive medical rehabilitation and occupational therapy is applied.

The comprehensive rehabilitation method allowed the achievement of a number of positive results: normalization of the affective sphere, stopping thirst for alcohol, correction of long-term effects caused by prolonged alcohol abuse, increased motivation to work.

In the future, it is planned to use this method in all the medical labour centres. This will increase the efficiency of psychosocial rehabilitation of citizens suffering from alcohol addiction, improve the quality of their life and help them to restore their social status.

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative – Thank you for giving us the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Committee information on the observance by Belarus of the Convention.

The basis for this discussion are the comments made by the Committee of Experts. In the comments, the Committee of Experts picked up two legal documents from our country. One, a Presidential Decree No. 3, of 2 April 2015, on preventing social dependency. Since January 2018, that has been carrying a new name on promoting employment. The Committee of Experts also commented on a Law of 4 January 2010 on people in labour therapy and rehabilitation centres and the conditions of staying in them.

I would like to draw particular attention to the fact that the Committee of Experts in their comments did not raise the question to the effect that the legal texts in their entirety or in any particular part infringed the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee of Experts looked at extracts from the Government’s answer and also took information from the Belarussian Congress of Democratic Unions which gave a different picture than we gave. The basic recommendation of the Committee of Experts to the Government was that it continue to provide information on the application of this Decree and the Law.

We believe that this confirms that the Government of Belarus has carried out a very thorough analysis of the situation and taken the necessary measures to ensure that all the comments of the Committee of Experts made earlier are taken into account. Therefore, taking into account the report of the Committee of Experts, this statement will provide comments on the application of Decree No. 3 and the Law of 2010.

The Presidential Decree about preventing social dependency has had conceptual changes made to it. In January 2018, Decree No. 1 was adopted and that redrafted Decree No. 3 and changed its name. It is now called, “Promoting employment”. So, the provisions of the decree on preventing social dependency relating to financial levies have been repealed.

Provisions about people who are able-bodied but are not working paying a levy for the financing of state services and provisions about them being administratively liable if they do not pay the levy have been withdrawn.

The new decree is designed to help those who want to find work, to get a job and get involved in legal employment and self-employment. As part of implementing the decree we have stepped up the work done by local authorities in every region of the country so that they can help any citizens for whatever reason who are not working at the moment but want to work to find a job.

The local authorities have directed and continue to direct people who want to work to vacant and new jobs, help them to train for professions where there is a demand for labour and also help them to do paid community service. They also provide information about the advantages of being legally employed.

In order to coordinate the work done to boost employment in all regions of the country we have 150 standing commissions. The members are MPs, people from local administration, specialists, representatives of unions and other NGOs. In the course of this year, these commissions have helped 4,000 people to find a specific job – 8,000 were directed to employment services in order to get further assistance in seeking work.

We are working actively in order to set up new jobs and get people into them. We have adopted various roles and enacted provisions to make this easier, to improve the business climate and to create conditions conducive to the development of entrepreneurship. As a result, we have seen new businesses established and running and we have seen more people registered as being self-employed. The increase there has been about 109 per cent. As a result of this, and as you would expect, the level of unemployment has come down. This year unemployment stands at only 4.5 per cent; by comparison in 2017 it was 5.6 per cent.

Implementing Decree No. 3 has also helped to create conditions which encourage people to find a legal job and pay their taxes. Decree No. 3 provides direct material incentives for this. People who are able-bodied and capable of working but who are not working have various types of utility and public services at a level which will enable recovery of the cost of providing them without any state subsidy. Since 1 January of this year, that has applied to the water supply and from 1 October this year it will apply to the supply of gas and heating. Decisions about citizens paying the full rate for these utilities are taken by the commissions to which I referred earlier. Before taking a decision, they very carefully analyse the situation of each individual citizen and they work to help them find a job as well. They also take into account any difficult personal circumstances that somebody might be facing. We exclude from this category of people, people who are not working for genuine reasons or because of their living circumstances – that means physically and mentally disabled people, pensioners, the spouses of diplomats and serving soldiers, people who are raising children under the age of 7 and disabled children up to the age of 18, three or more minors, students who are studying by day, people who have only lost their job or been dismissed for under six months, recent graduates, people who are being treated in hospital or as outpatients, and those who are studying abroad or working there. I would also like to say that people who are registered in the employment service as unemployed are also not included in this category of people who are not wanting to work.

In May this year that category included just over 6 per cent of the population of working age. When a decision is taken to include a person on this list and a person who has to pay in full for certain utilities at the full rate, we must take into account the fact that this accounts for under 1 per cent of the total.

For such people, the increase in the amount they pay for their services is just over 6 Belarusian roubles, that is approximately US$3. So the main goal of Decree No. 3 is to help all those able-bodied people who want to work to find a job in the legal economy and to do it. People who for genuine reasons are not working because of their circumstances or are in difficult circumstances are offered support by the State and pay for the utilities and public services at a level which is subsidized by the State. Therefore, we are taking an appropriate approach to those citizens who need financial support from the State. That is understood, if somebody does not need to work or does not want to because they do not want to pay their taxes then that is fine but they can pay for their utilities or public services at the full rate – use the service, pay what it costs.

Now turning to our law on labour therapy and rehabilitation centres and the conditions of staying in them; this law deals with issues related to those people who are chronic alcoholics, drug addicts or abusers of other substances, and therefore in these centres.

Let me emphasize that the enforced isolation of citizens is a measure that is necessary to prevent criminal behaviour by people who are dependent on psychotropic substances and to ensure that they can get the necessary assistance to help them reintegrate into society. We can send to these centres only those people who have repeatedly three or more times in a year caused public disorder when they were under the influence of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances.

One of the conditions for this is also that after such offences these people were already warned about the possibility of being sent to a rehabilitation centre but have been found administratively liable for further offences in the following 12 months. They can be sent to these centres for only 12 months on the decision of a court and the court can extend that time or reduce it down to six months. Medical treatment is provided. People in these centres are helped to recover and be socially reintegrated. They are provided with medical treatment with psychological assistance and they are given the opportunity to educate themselves. Furthermore, we help them to reconnect with their families. Often they have lost contact with them. Work is also one of the things involved. According to the law, medical and social rehabilitation includes vocational guidance, vocational training, retraining, skills acquisition and improvement and work. People in these centres do work consistent with their age, their ability, their health and any qualifications they may have. Payment for their work and the provision of holidays is provided in accordance with the labour legislation. Vocational training, retraining and skills acquisition in various professions in jobs is provided in production units and workshops in the centre.

Since the law has been in operation since 2010, over 7,000 people have received such retraining in these centres and this has been successful. People in these centres have regular meetings with representatives of NGOs and state officials to see how motivated they are, to check their behaviour and to provide them with work and training. People in the centres are regularly provided with updated information on getting a job by the employment service, for example they are taught how to register as unemployed and receive welfare benefits, about where there are jobs available, where and how they can continue with their vocational training, the State support that is available for the organization of entrepreneurial activity and other issues.

In Belarus, work is done constantly on improving best practices in rehabilitating and assisting people who are dependent on alcohol. For example, we have a national centre on psychiatric health which is doing research into the development of a comprehensive programme for the medical rehabilitation of people who are in these centres. On the basis of the research done, the Ministry of Health, together with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, has started to implement a pilot project to ensure that in many of these centres we follow a method for comprehensive medical rehabilitation which includes work. The effect has been positive as far as the psychological and emotional states of people in the centres are concerned. We are working on that too. We have a new method which is proving effective and we intend to introduce it in all the centres.

It is clear that what was stated by the Committee of Experts about the Presidential Decree on promoting employment in Belarus and our law on the labour therapy and rehabilitation centres and the conditions they are in prove that these are not out of step with the provisions of the Convention. Our laws are aimed at dealing with social issues such as unemployment and fighting alcoholism and drug addiction. The approaches we have taken in our law and in practice are in accordance with the principles of justice and we believe they are socially justified.

Employer members – I would like to thank the distinguished Government representative for her submissions before the Committee. This additional information has been a helpful explanation of the two primary issues that continue to exist in this case. This case involves a fundamental Convention, Convention No. 29 on the prohibition of forced labour and has been subject to observations by the Committee of Experts in 2015, 2017 and most recently in 2018. The case has been discussed in the Committee in 2016 and in 2018, and an ILO technical advisory mission visited the country in June 2017.

We recall that the Convention deals with the commitment of a member State to suppress the use of forced labour, and forced labour is defined as work “which is exacted under menace of penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily”. Clearly, there have been a number of aspects of this case that have been discussed in prior years, including the former Decree No. 1 that has been repealed, as well as a variety of other decrees. This case now really deals with two issues, and that is, first, the Presidential Decree No. 3 and second, the Law No. 104/3 of 2010. I thank the Government delegate for her explanation today, the elaboration on the changes that Decree No. 3 has undergone, and the explanation of the conceptual changes made to the Decree to shift its focus to the promotion of employment. So, to shift the focus from imposing an administrative levy or if there was an inability to pay to require work if an individual was not working, rather a conceptual shift instead to the promotion of employment for those who are unemployed. The Employers’ group welcomes the Government’s submission that the provisions regarding the administrative liability or levies have been withdrawn from Decree No. 3 and that the focus now of this Decree is designed to help those individuals who want to find work to do just that.

We appreciate the statistics of the people who have been assisted as a result of the Decree involving the promotion of employment, and also find it very positive that there is a focus within this new Decree on the promotion of entrepreneurship, so the promotion of employment and the promotion of entrepreneurship. In our view, this aspect of the case has really moved from a concern about the contravention of Decree No. 3 as non-compliant with the Convention. It has moved away from that kind of an assessment and this now in the Employers’ view seems that Decree No. 3 now is in compliance in that it does not exact forced labour. So, we would suggest that this case has now moved into the monitoring phase in which what we would be doing is ensuring that the Decree does not revert back to a scenario where there is, in fact, forced labour exacted but rather stays within the conceptual framework of the promotion of employment. The Employers’ group would, therefore, suggest that the Government be encouraged to report on the implementation of Decree No. 3 in practice only during the regular reporting cycle, not in a special manner, in order to confirm these changes and upon the receipt and confirmation of this information, this aspect of the case could be closed in our view.

The situation is a little less straightforward with respect to the Law of 2010 where we understand that citizens suffering from chronic alcoholism, drug addiction or substance abuse may be sent to medical labour centres as a result of a decision by the court and that such people who are interned in medical labour centres have an obligation to work. I appreciate the Government Minister’s submission on the effort to focus on both vocational guidance, vocational training and work as a component of medical rehabilitation, and the study and the learning that is being done on the connection between work and rehabilitative efforts. So, I say this is a little less clear because it is possible that a situation that has been described could result in forced labour but there is no evidence at this moment that that is, in fact, the outcome, and so in our view, this aspect of the case has also moved into the monitoring phase. In this regard, we would encourage the Government to provide information so that the Committee of Experts can assess that, in fact, the application in practice of this Law is not resulting in the exaction of forced labour. So, in this regard, we would also suggest that the reporting of this aspect – because it simply has moved into a stage where it could result in a violation, not it is resulting in a violation – that the obligation of the Government has shifted to, once again, its regular reporting cycle. So, of course it is important that the Government remain committed to ensuring that it is not exacting forced labour in contravention of the Convention’s obligations, but we think that the current status of the matter is very positive and we would certainly encourage the Government to continue to focus on the promotion of employment and the promotion of entrepreneurship in the country.

Worker members – The case of Belarus is not unknown to our Committee. In 2016, it was a double-footnoted case indicating the gravity and persistence of the problems in Belarus. In 2018, the same problems had to be raised again as no significant improvement had been noted in the country, despite the technical advisory mission of the International Labour Organization that visited the country in June 2017.

The case of Belarus is also known to all of the ILO supervisory mechanisms. For example, Belarus was the subject of a Commission of Inquiry in 2003 in relation to violations of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). Once again this year, we are having to address the situation in Belarus in relation to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), as there is every indication that the situation has not improved.

The first Article of the Convention provides that “Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period.” Forced or compulsory labour can take different and varied forms, with the result that the Convention was updated through the adoption of the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, so as to cover the new forms of forced labour.

Presidential Decree No. 3, previously called the Decree “on the prevention of dependency on social aid”, now rebaptized as the Decree “on the promotion of employment of the population”, provided for a special tax to finance government expenditure. Any person who had not worked for at least 180 days in the last year had to pay the tax. We described the tax as a veritable levy on the poor. If a person was unable to pay the tax, she or he was liable to an administrative penalty in the form of a fine or administrative detention with compulsory community service.

It appears that in the meantime Presidential Decree No. 3 has indeed been amended. We expressed the hope last year that this amendment of Decree No. 3 would bear witness to a real desire to combat unemployment, and no longer to take measures against the unemployed. We fear that this hope is disappointed. And we do not consider that this aspect of the case is now in conformity with the Convention, in contrast with the Employers’ group.

Presidential Decree No. 3, as amended by Decree No. 1, provides for a new form of financial penalty. Citizens who are able to work contained on the list of persons who are not working will have to pay a higher price for public services, which will not exceed the economically justified cost of such services. The list of people who are not working will be drawn up by the Permanent Commissions established to coordinate the application of Presidential Decree No. 3, as amended.

We therefore observe that we are still in the same logic that prevailed before the amendment of Decree No. 3. Only the arrangements governing the financial penalty have been somewhat modified. The Government of Belarus does not appear to have changed its policy as outlined by the President in 2017, which we criticized when the case of Belarus was examined last year by our Committee. It is also important to note that this financial penalty applies to services that are of prime necessity.

The definition of citizens who are able to work is very broad and appears to be left to the discretion of the Permanent Commissions, as there is no means of appealing their decisions. Some 250,000 persons are concerned by this new form of financial penalty. The information provided by the Government prior to the Conference enumerates a number of categories of persons excluded from the concept of “unemployed persons who are able to work”, and who are not therefore liable to the financial penalties. No reference is made in the information provided to the legal provision which enumerates these categories. It would be useful for the Government to provide this information to the Committee of Experts so that it can examine these provisions. It seems to us that these measures go beyond measures for the promotion of employment and impose excessive penalties on persons in difficulty.

We reiterate the call we made last year to the Government of Belarus to review this policy and to make real efforts to combat precarity and poverty, rather than penalizing the poor and vulnerable. We are still convinced that a policy of this type aggravates the problem of gender inequality, which should be a matter of special attention.

There is also another worrying issue in Belarus, namely the medical labour centres. The objective of these medical labour centres is to receive persons who are not leading a life that is in accordance with Government’s idea of a healthy lifestyle. It also appears that the Permanent Commissions are authorized to determine the need to send to these centres citizens who are leading an antisocial way of life. Once again, we see the arbitrary nature that can be taken on by the concept of an “antisocial way of life”.

According to the Government, these are only persons suffering from chronic alcoholism, drug addiction or substance abuse and who have repeatedly, three times or more in the course of a year, been subject to administrative procedures for offences committed under the influence of these substances. They must also have received one warning of the possibility of being sent to a centre if they commit further violations within a year of the warning. Following these administrative procedures, and if all the conditions are met, they may be sent to a medical labour centre following a court ruling.

The category targeted appears to us to be a particularly vulnerable group of citizens of Belarus who are in need of real medical and social assistance, rather than being forced to work. The time spent in the medical labour centres can be very long, between 12 and 18 months. Those who are sent to the centres are under the obligation to work. The Government describes these centres as centres in which many services are provided to the persons sent there to facilitate their reintegration.

However, the information that is reaching us paints a much more sombre picture of the situation: the centres are more like detention centres that fall outside the context of criminal prosecutions and which have no link to the offences that are committed; rehabilitation services are not compulsory, but work is imposed as an obligation; persons in the centres can be placed in a disciplinary cell for ten days if they refuse to work; the use of physical force is also authorized to compel internees to work.

As we can see, this picture is much less flattering than the situation that the Government has just described. In 2017, a little fewer than 7,000 persons suffering from addictions were subject to forced labour in the centres.

The Government also provides figures on the numbers who have received vocational training in the medical labour centres since the entry into force of the Law of 2010. The number is 2,945 persons. As we know that in 2017 alone slightly under 7,000 persons were detained in such centres, the figure of 2,945 persons since 2010 who have benefited from vocational training seems marginal and leads us to doubt even more the rehabilitation role that the Government attributes to the centres.

It appears from the information provided by the Government prior to the Conference that these medical labour centres fall under the responsibility of the Department for the Execution of Punishments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In light of the objectives that are claimed for the centres, they should instead come under the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. The persons at whom the centres are targeted would merit real social support and medical care, rather than being forced to work.

It would also appear that when children are sent to public establishments, their parents have to reimburse the expenses incurred by the State for their maintenance. If they are unable to pay such sums back, and they suffer from any form of addiction, they may also be detained in a medical labour centre.

Last year, we raised the issue of parents who already have work, who run the risk of having work imposed on them by the Belarus authorities. Such a decision by the authorities may even have the effect that the persons concerned are dismissed from their jobs, which leaves them totally at the mercy of the arbitrary decisions of the Belarus authorities. It is therefore very clear that such a conviction is senseless, counterproductive and disproportionate.

The many and persistent failings in relation to the Convention in Belarus are a matter of particular concern. We cannot finish our intervention without highlighting the link between the flagrant lack of freedom of association in Belarus and forced labour practices. Freedom of association is essential in order to enable workers to organize and to ensure respect for their fundamental rights.

In this regard, we wish to recall that recommendations were issued concerning the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 following the Commission of Inquiry. Many of them have not been fully implemented to this day. It is therefore urgent for the Government to give full effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Employer member, Belarus – We believe that the purpose of the practical steps taken by the Government of Belarus to implement the recommendations, which it received from the ILO in 2018, is to solve the problems which were raised before and help us all to achieve progress and mutual understanding. An advisory mission of the International Labour Office has provided technical assistance which we accepted. Furthermore, the ILO has worked together with state officials, employers’ and workers’ organizations.

Decree No. 3 on preventing social dependency has been thoroughly overhauled. On 25 January last year, its new drafting was adopted and its name was changed; it is now entitled the Law on Promoting Employment. It contains comprehensive measures to provide maximum assistance to those in Belarus who wish to work but currently do not find a job. The main role in doing that has been given to the local authorities, MPs and unions. It contains no provisions providing for forced and/or compulsory labour. The issue of a special levy to finance state services is not now in contradiction with the provisions of the Convention.

All workers, whatever their employment status in Belarus, are guaranteed the fundamental rights of workers – wages sufficient to ensure satisfactory living conditions; legally guaranteed working hours; health and safety at work. The Decree also aims at creating circumstances where working in the shadow economy illegally is no longer profitable. Laws have been adopted to make it simpler to get into business in Belarus and that has also helped people to find employment.

As Employers, we recognize our social responsibility in helping to get certain categories of people in Belarus into work and helping them to be reintegrated into society. For that purpose, we have Decree No. 18 on state protection of children from disadvantaged families referred to in the comments by the Committee of Experts. We encourage work, yes, but paid work. We are not in a situation where work is being forced upon people as a punishment; it is to help people return to a dignified healthy lifestyle and to find employment.

As Employers, we have been cooperating with the State even as we understand that sometimes it is very difficult to find this particular group of people paid employment. They need work which is appropriate to their state of health and, in so far as that is possible, on the basis of whatever qualifications they may have obtained in the past. As and when necessary, they are also provided with vocational training, retraining and help to obtain further qualifications. Despite the fact that this does put additional burdens and responsibility on businesses and companies, we do feel that, for the time being and given the state of our society, Decree No. 18 and its provisions remain necessary.

The employers of Belarus would like to stress that, at the moment, we do not believe that the laws, rules and regulations of Belarus contain any elements which would say we are engaging in forced labour. They are there to help us tackle social issues, such as protecting children, fighting alcohol dependency and drug addiction, and promoting employment and that is fully in line with Article 1 of the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122).

We remain firmly attached to close cooperation with the International Labour Organization and this Committee in the hope that we can make further progress on the basis of mutual understanding and respect.

Worker member, Belarus – I represent the delegation of Belarusian workers and we are deeply shocked that Belarus is on the list of cases because the issue of forced labour apparently is not one that applies to Belarus. We have a prohibition in the Constitution and the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus. Trade unions today have the authorities to ensure that the law is being applied. Technical inspections are possible and on the basis of our work in this area we can state confidently that in our country there is no basis for forced labour, nor is there any factual evidence demonstrating that it is taking place.

With regard to the Committee of Experts’ comments we have closely read the report, but with regard to two questions raised by the Committee of Experts, I would like to say the following: Decree No. 3 – we, the Workers, have full information in this regard and I can say confidently that there are no grounds for a consideration of the case of Belarus in this context, both in terms of law and practice. We note that the Belarusian Government has taken into account the Committee of Experts’ recommendations in this area. Decree No. 3 has adopted provisions exclusively for the promotion of employment and the Employer representatives have also participated in consultations allowing also to draw attention to another aspect.

Firstly, today there is no talk of administrative penalties on unemployed citizens and secondly, it is necessary to consider that the standing committees are carrying out activities in order to benefit local individuals and help them in finding employment. In practice, we can see that they are created and working in each town and region of our country. The main role of the standing commissions is to help in the finding of employment and there are many cases that we can demonstrate where standing commissions have provided practical help in finding work. What is important is that these commissions work locally where people live so that they can understand the situation of each individual and each case is considered on its individual merits. Any individual who does not have work is offered a number of possibilities. Individuals can continue free education and training or they can get state support, including for accommodation. I would particularly like to emphasize that individuals can also turn down all of the proposals which are offered and in such cases they are not denied any services, they just pay the full cost of these services without state compensation and this is a very low increase in the price which does not have a significant impact on individuals’ budgets. In order to counter the level of activity in the informal economy, this provides an incentive to transition to the formal economy. To give an example: if you have an apartment where no one is working, the increase in bills for that month would only be US$3, whereas the average income is $500. But I would particularly like to emphasize that the socially vulnerable category of individuals who cannot work are exempt from such payments and the Decree lists a range of categories who do not have to pay for services economically at justified costs. Such individuals are subjected to the decision of the authorities about whether they can be exempted if they find themselves in a difficult situation. We have many examples of this in practice.

The results of the work of the standing commissions is something that we see in trade unions as being effective. We see a comprehensive individual review of the problems of each individual in the commissions and we see the fact that the measures being taken are having a positive effect. Unemployment fell in 2017 to 5.6 per cent, and in February 2019 the level of unemployment was 4.5 per cent. I would like to ask the question: What is wrong with these approaches? What is being done wrong? Decree No. 3 in law and in practice promotes employment. This helps individuals achieve a job legally and leave the informal economy. Consequently, they have a legal wage, a pension and social security. For us trade unions this is particularly important.

This law in no way forces labour upon individuals. It simply promotes employment for all citizens equally. Secondly, it assists social reintegration for individuals in medical labour centres. Unfortunately, like for any country, there are citizens in Belarus who suffer from substance abuse and they find it difficult to integrate in society. This affects individual families and those who are close to them. Such individuals benefit from assistance and one thing that benefits reintegration into society is useful occupation. In light of this view, helping people reintegrate in normal life is something that these medical labour centres can help in. It only treats or only helps those individuals who have repeatedly committed offences and suffer from some form of substance abuse. The reference to these centres only takes place following a court decision. Quite often we see families themselves refer individuals to the authorities so that they can get such rehabilitation treatment. It is necessary that such individuals are given a health check, they are given medical and health support, and given state financial support. The citizens, during the period in the centres, are paid a minimum wage. This is a generally established approach and the individuals, while they are in the centres, do not lose touch with their families or friends. They can carry out vocational training. They can improve their qualifications which helps them to reintegrate on their return to society. So, in this way, we see a comprehensive approach, a multi-faceted approach that helps individuals overcome their problems.

What I would like to draw attention to is that the overriding objective is the rehabilitation and reintegration of individuals suffering from alcohol abuse or drug addiction. The main objective is to get them back into society. There is nothing here which relates to forced labour. This is an approach which is bearing fruit. Positive results. People going back to their workplaces and their families. This is work which is useful for individuals, families and society as a whole. So, in conclusion, allow me to say that the Federation of Trade Unions has no complaints about forced labour. Nor do we know of any cases of forced labour. We do not believe there are grounds for considering this case.

We are working actively with the international organizations. We see the Government fully taking into account of the recommendations that have been made by the ILO and is working hard to put them into practice. So what I suggest is that we take a positive, practical, objective approach on the basis of confirmed information, and that we take a balanced and objective decision accordingly.

Government member, Romania – I am speaking on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The candidate countries the Republic of North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania as well as the EFTA country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement. The European Union and its Member States are committed to the promotion of universal ratification of the eight fundamental ILO Conventions and their implementation as part of our strategic framework on human rights. Compliance with the Convention is essential in this respect.

The European Union is committed to support Belarus to take tangible steps to respect universal freedoms, rule of law and human rights including labour rights. In this respect, notwithstanding the fact that the European Union has withdrawn tariff preferences from Belarus with its Generalized Scheme of Preferences, this scheme for serious and systematic violations of ILO fundamental Conventions, an active dialogue with Belarus has been engaged in the multilateral context of the Eastern Partnership, as well as bilaterally through the European Union–Belarus Coordination Group and the EU–Belarus Human Rights Dialogue. This dialogue is to be strengthened through the EU–Belarus Partnership Priorities which are currently being negotiated.

Cases of forced labour remain a persistent phenomenon in Belarus. That practice has been denounced in different forums such as the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Council, which have made several recommendations to eliminate it. We note with regret that this case is being addressed at the Committee for the third time since 2016. In 2016, the Committee had urged the Government to constructively engage with the ILO at the highest levels to resolve this issue before the next sitting and to avail itself of the ILO’s technical assistance.

We welcome the fact that an ILO mission took place in 2017, that the Government has positively engaged with the Office and that some progress has been achieved. We welcomed the Government’s decision to discontinue the implementation of Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2 April 2015. This Decree has now been replaced by Presidential Decree No. 1 of 25 January 2018. We took note of the fact that, according to the Committee of Experts’ report, the former levy to finance government expenditure on persons who have not worked for 183 days in a year has been replaced by an obligation for unemployed citizens who are able to work to pay higher prices for various utility services. We believe that further investigation and examination needs to take place to report whether this new system could unduly penalize already vulnerable persons. We would like to request more information from the Government on that issue, since approximately 250,000 persons are targeted by these new provisions. We call on the Government to ensure that the implementation of this Decree does not go beyond employment promotion and that no excessive penalties are imposed on persons already living in a difficult situation in order to oblige them to perform work.

We also note in the report that medical labour centres remain an issue in the country in application of Law No. 104-3 of 2010. Indeed, section 16 of this law allows the use of physical force in order to coerce interned persons to perform labour. According to the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions, human rights defenders evaluate these medical labour centres as detention or imprisonment outside the framework of criminal prosecution, where medical measures are provided on a purely voluntary basis, while work is imposed as an obligation. Placement in those centres is applied to persons facing administrative charges for having repeatedly disturbed public order under the influence of alcohol and other intoxicating substances but also to people who have committed disciplinary offences at work under the influence of alcohol or intoxicating substances. It also applies to parents judged “dysfunctional” who have to reimburse state expenditure on the maintenance of their children placed under state care.

Against this background, we would like to request more information from the Government on the implementation of Law No. 104-3, including the number of persons sent to those centres in 2018, the reasons why they were sent and the judicial process leading to those sentences. We also highlight the need for the Government to provide medical and psychological support to all persons in need in these centres, as this is critical for their rehabilitation and reintegration at work and in society.

We welcome Belarus’ engagement and cooperation with the ILO Office and encourage the Government to continue to avail itself of the ILO’s assistance to ensure that the provisions and practices previously mentioned do not amount to forced labour.

The European Union and its Member States remain committed to their policy of critical engagement with Belarus and will continue supporting the country in meeting its obligations towards full respect of the fundamental international labour Conventions, including Convention No. 29.

Government member, Nicaragua – We thank the Government representative for the information provided to the Committee. We welcome the efforts made by the Government to ensure the effective application of the Convention, and to enforce and support the prohibition and eradication of forced labour. We emphasize that the prohibition of the use of forced labour in Belarus is set out in the highest legislation in the country, which demonstrates its determined commitment to complying with all of its obligations under the Convention and the relevant international instruments.

We note with satisfaction the opening of the country to genuine and constructive dialogue, as well as the high level of cooperation between Belarus and the ILO in relation to the application of the Convention, including receiving a technical advisory mission from the International Labour Office in July 2017.

Belarus has addressed the concerns raised by the Committee of Experts in its report and has taken practical measures in this respect. We firmly believe that Belarus is on the right track in terms of compliance with the Convention, and we call for recognition of the many measures taken by the Government of Belarus, to which we offer our firm support.

Observer, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – I represent the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP). We thank the Committee of Experts for the analysis of Belarus and the application of the Convention. The situation in Belarus in our view is still very complicated. Labour relations are not governed by the Labour Code but the decrees of the President. One of the decrees means that all workers are put on short-term contracts. Instead of a civilized form of recruitment you get some kind of transition to forced labour because workers cannot leave their jobs voluntarily.

Another system is the excessive punishment for workers in the form of a fine which again has the characteristics of forced labour. Thus, for small offences, workers can be deprived of three-quarters of their salary which is already one of the lowest in Europe. And, the so-called social parasitism decree which makes citizens subject to discrimination in terms of payment for local basic services.

There are still forced labour practices in medical labour centres where they send alcoholics. The name of these centres should not lead one to believe that there is any medical therapy there. That is not the case. The system is essentially a continuation of the totalitarian regimes of the last century’s 30s which housed drug addicts and alcoholics. We also see families whose children have been taken away subject to forced labour because they have to carry out work. We see the re-education of undesired social elements. So, again, we see this case before the Committee which is important because there are still many elements of forced labour. We see the use of instruments being used to impose excessive fines. At the same time, further challenges are being put to the principles of the ILO. We have one of the worst systems in the world and we would like the ILO to call on the Government to put an end to the practices of many years and respect the rights of trade unions and the citizens by respecting the provisions of the Convention and the ILO.

Government member, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela welcomes the presentation by the Government representative. We welcome the fact that the Government of Belarus is highly committed to the prohibition and eradication of forced labour within the framework of the Constitution, national legislation and the Convention. There can be no doubt about the importance that the Government of Belarus is according to the comments of the Committee of Experts, and even in 2017 the Government accepted and provided the necessary collaboration for an ILO technical advisory mission which visited the country to examine the law and practice with a view to full compliance with the Convention.

We emphasize the specific changes made by the Government of Belarus to the legislation and decrees within the framework of the Convention, and to raise employment levels and to establish the conditions to improve the climate for entrepreneurship. We have noted the official policies of the Government of Belarus for the rehabilitation and reintegration of citizens who suffer from alcoholism and drug addiction. The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela hopes that the conclusions of this Committee, resulting from this debate, will be objective and balanced, so that the Government of Belarus can achieve full compliance with the Convention.

Worker member, China – We have noted that Belarus has made great progress in this area. It has continued to improve its labour legislation, bringing it into accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention. In January 2018, Belarus adopted Presidential Decree No. 1 aiming to promote employment and self-employment to respect the rights of workers and safeguard people’s economic and labour rights. Belarus has established a social dialogue platform at the national level allowing trade unions to express the views of workers through mechanisms such as the National Council on Social and Labour Issues and the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. Belarus has also worked with the ILO in a constructive manner. In February 2019, ILO representatives participated in the conference “Tripartism and Social Dialogue in the World of Work” and the meeting of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere on the conclusion and application of tariff agreements in the Republic of Belarus.

Government member, Cuba – My delegation wishes to place emphasis on the elements reported by the Government of Belarus, which has provided information on the legislative measures adopted to give effect to the recommendations made at the time by the Committee of Experts. We welcome the measures adopted which demonstrate the good will of the Government of Belarus to comply with its commitments and obligations in relation to the Convention. We recognize the measures applied and the spirit of cooperation shown with the ILO, and that the measures adopted are intended for the good of the population.

Worker member, Russian Federation – I am taking the floor on behalf of the workers of the Russian Federation, and we fully share the concerns which have been expressed in the report of the Committee of Experts with regard to the situation of the Convention in the Republic of Belarus. We pay particular attention in Russia to the state of the law in Belarus, because it is a closely related State to the Russian Federation. We see that the situation of workers is worsening and that could be easily transferred to our own legal system.

At the last International Labour Conference, we expressed our concerns with regard to the labour relation systems in the Republic of Belarus, and the activities of the Government establishing the system for unemployed citizens who can be subject to fines and even administrative arrest. Following protests, these provisions were partially corrected.

In the new decree, since January 2019, citizens on a special list have to pay a higher price for communal services, which violates the principles of the Convention, and can be subject to further measures in the decree such as financial penalties. Also, there is a further category of workers who can be put in medical labour centres, where they are subject to mandatory labour.

The Republic of Belarus imposes short-term contracts on workers, not allowing unlimited contracts to be assigned nor any formalization of the labour relationship. At the same time, instead of allowing the state inspectorate to identify such cases as being in violation of the Law, Degree No. 1 of 2019 actually claims measures that allow this situation to continue.

We believe that it is necessary to recognize the burden that is being placed on the workers, and the delegates of the Russian Federation’s workers believe that those individuals who have been persecuted for demonstration are being treated unfairly, and this creates a precondition for the violation of freedom of association in Belarus, which we have noted time and again in this hall.

The delegation of Workers of the Russian Federation calls on the Government of Belarus to take into account the comments of the Committee and to bring its law and practice into line with the Convention, in accordance with the conclusions of the Committee of Experts.

Government member, Uzbekistan – We welcome the open-minded attitude and active cooperation of the Republic of Belarus with the ILO on its compliance with the Convention. This is illustrated by the fact that in 2017 the Belarusians welcomed a technical advisory mission from the ILO to Minsk and cooperated fully with it in its work.

In response to comments made by the Committee of Experts, the Belarusian authorities have taken specific measures removing provisions from the law about able-bodied citizens who do not work having to pay more for their utilities and being brought to administrative responsibility if they do not. In our opinion, Belarus has achieved a lot in bringing down unemployment and in helping people who have no job to return to legal, working activity.

Government member, Viet Nam – Viet Nam welcomes the commitment and efforts of Belarus in the promotion of employment and the eradication of forced labour. We note that the prohibition of the use of forced labour is enshrined in the Constitution, the Labour Code and other legal acts of Belarus. We welcome the positive development in Belarus reflected through the increase of new enterprises and individual entrepreneurs and the decrease of the number of unemployed citizens of working age.

We appreciate the consideration of and practical steps taken by the Belarus Government given to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. Viet Nam encourages Belarus to further its cooperation with the ILO, dialogue with related stakeholders, and continue its commitment to the implementation of its relevant international obligations.

Employer member, Uzbekistan – Please allow me on behalf of the Confederation of Employers to welcome the efforts of Belarus at the government level and in the area of social dialogue, and support the measures that have been taken to review the issue. The Minister of Labour in Belarus has provided a detailed report on practical measures taken in accordance with the law of the country and fully in line with the provisions of the Convention and already reflected in the new draft of the decree from January 2019.

Furthermore, I would like to thank and support the Employer members for their constructive position on this issue. We highly value the openness, transparency, technical objectivity and the expert approach of the team of the International Labour Organization which we can fully support, and in their cooperation with the Government of Belarus in demonstrating the importance of tripartite consultation with the involvement of state bodies and the active involvement of levels of government. We believe that it is appropriate to record our positive attitude to the cooperation that is taking place and I would like to do so on behalf of my Confederation.

Government member, Lao People’s Democratic Republic – On behalf of the Government delegation from Lao People’s Democratic Republic, I welcome the progress made in the efforts of the Government of the Republic of Belarus to fulfil its obligation under the Convention and support the prohibition and elimination of forced labour. Lao People’s Democratic Republic also welcomes the high-level with long-standing cooperation of Belarus with the ILO on the application of ILO Conventions, especially Convention No. 29.

We appreciate that the Government of Belarus has tried its most efforts in eliminating forced labour through implementing its most important legislation framework including the Labour Code and many other legal acts, and many practical steps are taken in this regard. The numerous actions taken by the Government of Belarus should be recognized.

We have a strong belief that the Government of Belarus – who already has a firm commitment to and long-standing cooperation with the ILO – the Belarus Government will very soon comply with the Convention. We extend our support to the Government of Belarus, and call for the case of Belarus on the application of the Convention to be removed in the near future.

Government member, Switzerland – Switzerland supports the statement made by the European Union and wishes to add some points. Switzerland welcomes the Government’s collaboration with the International Labour Organization, and the progress achieved in the application of the Convention.

Switzerland wishes once again to express its concern with regard to the provisions of the national legislation of Belarus imposing compulsory labour on certain categories of workers. We note in particular that section 16 of Law No. 104-3 of 4 January 2010 on the procedure and modalities for the transfer of citizens to medical labour centres, which authorizes the use of physical force to oblige internees to work, is very problematic. Forced labour is a violation of human rights.

Switzerland therefore calls on the Government to continue its efforts for the elimination of this practice and to provide all the information requested by the Committee of Experts in its report. Belarus should also pursue its collaboration with the ILO with a view to bringing its law and practice into conformity with international labour standards.

Government member, India – We welcome the delegation of Belarus and thank it for providing the latest comprehensive update on the issue under consideration. India welcomes the continued willingness and commitment of the Government of Belarus to fulfil its international labour obligations and to eradicate forced labour. We appreciate the positive and significant steps taken by the Government of Belarus, including by taking into account the observations of the Committee of Experts to amend its internal laws. These include the presidential decrees related to the Convention, issued after consultations with relevant stakeholders, especially the social partners, to realize the goals enshrined in its Constitution. We understand that the efforts of Belarus need to be in accordance with its national context and social economic priorities. In fulfilling its labour-related obligations, we request the ILO and its member States to fully support the Government of Belarus and provide any technical assistance that it may seek in this regard. The Committee should be a forum for constructive tripartite discussions aimed at improving compliance with international labour standards through a transparent, credible and objective process. We take this opportunity to wish the Government of Belarus all success in its endeavours.

Government member, Kazakhstan – Kazakhstan notes the willingness of the Government of Belarus to follow international recommendations to apply the principles of the ILO and put into practice the recommendations of the Committee of Experts on the Convention. In light of the measures taken by the Government to ensure and promote employment and promote entrepreneurship and reduce the financial burden on the population, we support the conclusions of the Employer members and many other delegations, recognizing that the measures taken by Belarus take into account the recommendations of the Committee of Experts in law and in practice and meet the requirements of the provisions of the Convention.

Government member, Islamic Republic of Iran – My delegation thanks the distinguished Government representative of Belarus for providing information on the latest situation of the application of Convention No. 29. We appreciate the efforts of the Government in fulfilling its obligations concerning this fundamental Convention. We are pleased to learn that prohibition of the use of forced labour in Belarus is enshrined both in the Constitution and in the Labour Code of the country.

My delegation is of the opinion that the Government has demonstrated its strong will and determination to make progress vis-à-vis the concerned issues. We invite the Committee to give due consideration to the efforts made by the Government. While supporting the measures taken by the Government of Belarus concerning the application of the Convention, we encourage the Government to continue to do so and the Office to render further necessary assistance to the Government in this respect.

Government member, Russian Federation – We are grateful to the Government representative for her exhaustive report on measures taken by her country to comply with its obligations under the Convention. We already looked at this question in this Committee last year. At the time, the Russian delegation suggested that we note the information provided by the Government with satisfaction, assess it positively and close the case. However, unfortunately, the same question has popped up on the agenda this year. I would like to emphasize that the Government of Belarus has done a great deal of work and continues to do so, taking into account the comments and recommendations made by the Committee thereby showing a high level of openness and constructive cooperation with the International Labour Organization.

In 2017, Belarus hosted a technical advisory mission from the International Labour Office and the Organization’s representatives were given all necessary support and assistance to do their work. Specific steps have been taken to comply with the recommendations too. For example, Presidential No. 9 of 7 December 2012 which led to a rebuke from the Committee of Experts has been repealed. Major changes have been made to Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2 April 2015 too. It has now been renamed by the way, it is called “promoting employment”. It no longer contains provisions compelling able-bodied citizens who do not work to pay a levy to the State and to risk being made administratively liable if they do not. These steps have been based on a comprehensive analysis of Belarusian legislation in the course of the discussion which took place in the Committee. We note the wide-ranging work done by Belarus to help people look for work and get a job and also to make it easier for people to bring their business out of the shadow economy and work legally. The State assists those citizens who cannot work for genuinely objective reasons because of their living circumstances or because they have family difficulties. Belarus has demonstrated in acts its readiness to comply with its international commitments under ILO Conventions. It has shown a high level of cooperation with the ILO and it is particularly important that it has been working in close cooperation with its social partners. We are certain that will continue. We do not see any further grounds for later consideration of this issue involving Belarus in the Committee.

Government member, Myanmar – Myanmar welcomes the positive steps taken by the Belarusian Government in promoting employment, as well as eliminating forced labour or compulsory labour in the country. We take note of the Government’s efforts to promote employment in the country by taking systematic measures extensively. We recognize the Belarus cooperation with the ILO in implementing many Conventions, including Convention No. 29. Myanmar acknowledges the Government’s efforts to ensure social reintegration of citizens who lead an antisocial way of life, through labour activity, by providing the medical, social re-adaptation activities, including vocational guidance and vocational training.

We are also appreciative of the Government’s efforts to create new jobs for its people by adopting a number of laws to provide measures to improve the business climate, stimulate business activities and attract investment. Moreover, Myanmar welcomes the Government’s efforts to assist citizens in finding employment and to raise awareness regarding decent work by carrying out an information campaign through the media. We are encouraged to see that these effective measures have led to positive results. The unemployment rate of citizens of working age has decreased from 5.6 per cent in 2017 to 4.5 per cent in February 2019.

We take note of the Government’s legislative reforms, including the amendment of relevant laws which contribute to the elimination of forced labour or compulsory labour.

In conclusion, Myanmar expects that Belarus will be able to eliminate forced labour by continuing its current measures, further cooperation with the ILO and consultation with its social partners.

Government representative – Once again, allow me to thank you for giving us the opportunity once again to speak here and explain the position of the Government of Belarus on the matters being considered. And thank you also to all the participants in the discussion. We have analysed or we will analyse closely everything that is being said in this room. All of the constructive proposals will be taken into account in our future work.

I am not going to comment in detail about what has been said here today, especially those points which go beyond the scope of the Convention. A number of speakers addressed the issue of short-term contracts. This is something that we have already discussed in detail. As we have already seen, the Committee of Experts has looked at this. They have identified there is no violation of the provisions of the Convention. Once again, allow me to address those points which I believe are the most important.

First of all, I would like to draw attention to the members of the Committee on the relation of the Government of Belarus to the comments of the Committee of Experts. The legal act which the Committee of Experts referred to has now been changed. This is Decree No. 9 on additional measures for employment. The Report of 2017 noted with satisfaction the changes, and we can also say, perhaps more importantly, that there are no questions from the Committee of Experts about the Convention being violated by the Decree. The Committee of Experts asked the Government to continue reporting on the application of the Decree.

I would particularly like to emphasise that as a review of the issues pointed out last year, there have been further requests to the Government to provide further information which we have always done. We provided detailed information in our report which was addressed to the Committee of Experts in autumn last year. I would also like to recall that in 2017, in Belarus, there was a mission from the ILO which looked at the application of the Convention. It was provided with all necessary information. So we are convinced that the rules of the Decree, or the provisions of Decree No. 3 and the other related measures, including the specific revisions identified by the Committee of Experts, do not contravene the provisions of the Convention. There are a number of social missions which are served by these instruments such as the campaign against substance abuse, and the promotion of employment.

Once again, the provisions relating to penalties have been removed. The clear objective of these texts is to promote employment. There are no financial penalties. There are exclusively measures to provide help, and those who failed in – and there are certain higher prices paid for local services. With regard to the labour therapy centres, we are talking about people in need of medical help, and these centres provide social, medical and psychological services as well as rehabilitation. Occupational rehabilitation is also one of the elements of this treatment, and we need to recognize the positive effects of this. The level of alcohol consumption in the country is falling. We are willing to continue, and we will continue to inform the ILO of the application of these legal texts.

Worker members – I would like to thank all the speakers, and particularly the Government representative for the information that she provided our Committee.

We call on the Government to take all the necessary measures to bring an end to forced labour and to refrain from adopting legislation which could give rise to forced labour. Through the imposition of financial penalties on persons without employment, the Government of Belarus is running the risk of further marginalizing an already vulnerable group. We invite the Government to establish a real policy to combat unemployment and precarity and to cease its policy of taking action against persons without employment and those in a precarious situation.

It is therefore necessary to bring an end to the financial penalties, in whatever form they may take, that are imposed on the persons contained on the lists of those without employment who are able to work. If the Employers’ group is still not convinced that this measure is still in violation of the Convention, which appears clear to the Workers’ group, the suggestion made by the representative of the European Union to undertake an in-depth investigation to assess the new system should at least be accepted.

We also request the Government to provide information to the Committee of Experts on the number of persons contained on the lists of persons without employment who are able to work established by the Permanent Commissions and to indicate the criteria used to determine when a person is “able to work”. The information provided prior to the Conference is not adequate in this regard. We therefore invite the Government to provide this information in time for the next session of the Committee of Experts, including details of the legal provisions that define these categories.

If the financial penalties against persons without employment and the compilation of lists of persons without employment who are able to work are not abolished, at the very least a judicial appeal procedure should be introduced against the decisions of the Permanent Commissions.

As requested by the Committee of Experts, we call on the Government to provide information on the effect given in practice to Law No. 104-3, including on the number of persons placed in medical labour centres and on the forced labour involved in the context of their rehabilitation.

We further request the Government to provide information on the jurisdictions that are competent to hand down a conviction to perform community work.

In order to be able to have a better understanding of the violations noted in medical labour centres, we ask the Government to provide information on the controls undertaken by the inspection services in the centres and their outcome.

We also request the Government to provide information to the Committee of Experts on what the Government representative called “labour therapy” in order to assess if, among other matters, the requirement of consent set out in the Convention is met in this context.

Moreover, we ask the Government to provide written information indicating the ministry that is competent for the medical labour centres and the exact functions that it is required to undertake.

With a view to bringing an end to all forms of forced labour, we request the Government of Belarus to prosecute any person who exacts forced labour and, if found guilty, to establish dissuasive civil and penal sanctions.

In order to accelerate the implementation of these recommendations, we request the Government to receive a direct contacts mission led by the ILO.

Employer members – I would like to begin by thanking the Government representative and those other members of our Committee that took the floor. I think that this was a very useful discussion of the case before us. I would like though to remind the members of the Committee that we are discussing Convention No. 29 in relation to forced labour and therefore references to Convention No. 87 or other international labour standards are out of place in this discussion as they do not form the basis for our consideration of this case.

I would recall that article 41 of Belarus’s Constitution, and article 13 of the Labour Code as a starting legal framework, prohibit forced labour. So this is an important starting point as we discussed in our opening comments. This case has evolved and I would suggest that the understanding of the Belarus Government in respect of its obligations under the Convention have also evolved.

The Employers understand that at the current time, Decree No. 3 has been revised to focus on the promotion of employment and we understand that the provisions regarding administrative liability or levies or the requirement of compulsory work have been withdrawn from Decree No. 3, therefore allowing this focus to be truly on the promotion of employment. Therefore, in our understanding, the potential that this Decree can result in compulsory or forced labour, that issue has been removed. So, we, at the outset of our closing remarks, note in a very positive way the refocus and the conceptual change to focus on employment promotion – an effort that we believe to be valuable and important.

I heard some of the interventions focus on this question of whether there is fairness in respect of either the imposition of financial sanctions if one does not work or the fairness of having to pay a full rate of public utilities without state subsidy if one does not work. We would submit though that neither of those situations constitutes forced labour. And so, at the end of the day, that is not an issue we think that merits further discussion and as a result we do not agree with the concept of an in-depth, detailed survey to assess this new system. We do not believe that is necessary at this time. Rather, we believe that the Government’s obligations would be to report on the implementation in practice of Decree No. 3 in compliance with the regular reporting cycle only.

Turning to the issue of the Law of 2010 and individuals referred to medical centres in which the Employers’ group understands that the focus of these centres is on the medical rehabilitation of those citizens suffering from addiction and that this happens as a result of a court decision or a court order. We understand that taking into account the social issues that this process is trying to address, part of these rehabilitative efforts include compulsory vocational skills training and compulsory work.

The Employers’ group in this respect encourages the Government to submit information on the implementation of Law 104-3 of 2010 in practice, so that the Committee of Experts can have a better understanding of how compulsory work is deployed within the context of the medical centres. And here again we view that the Government’s obligation would be to provide this information in connection with its regular reporting cycle.

So our view of this case is different than the Workers’ perspective in this matter and we view this rather as an example of a government that has made efforts taking into account the feedback that has been provided in the technical missions as well as the discussion in our Committee and the observations of the Committee of Experts, that this is in fact evidence of a government attempting to come into compliance with its full obligations under the Convention and we believe it should be encouraged in this respect. Therefore, for these reasons, we also do not support a direct contacts mission as a result of this case at this time.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted the Government’s amendment in 2018 of Decree No. 3 and noted that the articles regarding administrative penalties, levies or compulsory work have been deleted and, instead, focuses on employment promotion. However, the Committee noted with concern the possible exaction of forced labour as a result of the operation of the other Presidential Decrees, which have not been amended.

The Committee recalled that the Government must take all necessary measures to suppress the exaction of forced labour.

The Committee noted that the Law of 2010 authorizes courts to require a citizen to participate in a rehabilitation programme in a medical centre. This may require citizens to participate in vocational skills training and compulsory work.

In relation to the application of the Law of 2010, the Committee calls on the Government to ensure that no excessive penalties are imposed on citizens in order to oblige them to perform work.

The Committee requests that the Government provide information regarding the implementation of the Law of 2010 in relation to circumstances of compulsory work that may be required by citizens.

The Committee calls on the Government to continue to accept technical assistance to guarantee the full compliance of national law and practice with the Convention.

The Committee requests that the Government provide information on the legislative framework to the Committee of Experts in the course of the regular reporting cycle.

Government representative – I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the participants in the discussion relating to Belarus on Convention No. 29, including the social partners, representatives of the Government, governmental and non-governmental organizations and others who are interested in the course of the discussions.

In our view the discussion was a constructive exchange of views between experts at different levels and we are satisfied with the conclusions of the Committee so it is with satisfaction that we note that in the report of the Committee of Experts and in the conclusions of the CAS there is no direct mention that the legal documents of the country of Belarus are in violation of the Convention. However, we will closely analyse the comments of all participants in the discussion and the conclusions of the Committee. All constructive proposals and comments will be given due consideration in our future work. We will continue to inform the ILO of the developments in legislation and practice relating to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. Belarus is going to continue to be an advocate of observing its commitments arising from membership of the International Labour Organization.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2018, Publication: 107th ILC session (2018)



The Government has provided the following written information.

Belarus has staunchly and consistently supported the prohibition and eradication of forced labour. The prohibition of the use of forced labour is enshrined in the country’s most important legislative instruments. Article 41 of the Constitution prohibits forced labour, with the exception of work or services required under a court ruling or in accordance with the Law on Emergencies and Military Status. The prohibition of forced labour is also covered in article 13 of the Labour Code, which defines forced labour as work which a worker is required to perform subject to the threat of violence, which includes: means of political leverage or indoctrination or punishment for the exhibition or expression of political views or ideological beliefs contrary to the established political, social or economic system; methods for mobilizing and exploiting the workforce for the needs of economic development; means of promoting workplace discipline; and means of punishing people for their participation in strikes. However, the following are not deemed to be instances of forced labour: work performed as a result of a legally valid court ruling under the supervision of the authorities responsible for upholding the Law governing the execution of court rulings; work to be carried out as a consequence of legislation on military service or emergency situations. The Government has paid great attention to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. It has analysed all of the regulatory instruments referred to by the Committee of Experts, including the aims and purposes of adopting the instruments and the practice of applying them, with the aim of harmonizing the provisions of those instruments with the requirements of Convention No. 29. As a result of this work, taking into account the position of the Committee of Experts with regard to Presidential Decree No. 9 of 7 December 2012 on supplementary measures for the development of the wood processing industry, the decision was taken to start to repeal Decree No. 9. That decision has now been implemented. Presidential Decree No. 182 of 27 May 2016 has been adopted, which makes Decree No. 9 invalid. This information was received positively by the Committee of Experts which expressed satisfaction with the measures taken by the Government with regard to Decree No. 9, as reflected in paragraph 56 of the Report of the Committee of Experts. As regards the other regulatory instruments mentioned during the discussion at the Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2016, additional study of the situation was required. This task was entrusted to the Technical Advisory Mission of the International Labour Office, which visited the Republic of Belarus from 19 to 23 June 2017. The Government of the Republic of Belarus provided the Mission with all the necessary assistance in organizing their work. The Mission’s report on the results of its work was submitted to the Committee of Experts. In the Government’s opinion, the normative documents mentioned in the conclusions of the Committee of Experts are not at variance with the provisions of Convention No. 29. Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2 April on the prevention of dependency on social aid has undergone conceptual changes. On 25 January 2018, the Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus No. 1 was adopted, in accordance with which Decree No. 3 was redrafted in a new version and given a new title – “On the Promotion of Employment of the Population”. Now Decree No. 3 does not include any provisions on the payment, by unemployed citizens who are able to work, of a fee for financing public expenditures, as well as the rules on bringing to administrative responsibility for failure to pay the fee. The main task of the updated Decree No. 3 is to create more favourable conditions for citizens’ employment in the regions of the republic. In this regard, significant increase in the activity of local authorities in assisting citizens in finding a job is envisaged. At the level of each region, all the available opportunities will be used to ensure that all citizens who, for some reason, do not work anywhere but want to work will be assisted in finding a job. Measures of active policy in the labour market will be used: training and retraining for professions that are in demand in the labour market; advisory and legal assistance in organizing private business with the provision of financial support from the State; and temporary employment of citizens, including through participation in paid public works.

The second important issue, which the new version of Decree No. 3 is designed to solve, is to create conditions that will stimulate citizens involved in the shadow economy to work legally with the payment of taxes. The Decree contains a direct material incentive for citizens to start working legally. Today, many public services in Belarus are provided to citizens at low tariffs, since the State subsidizes them from the budget. Therefore, it was decided that citizens who are able to work and who are classified as not involved in the economy in accordance with the procedure determined by the Government, will be provided with certain services at a higher, not subsidized tariff. At the moment, the procedure according to which citizens will be treated as not involved in the economy is determined by the Government. The Government has also determined the types of services that will be provided at prices ensuring full reimbursement of economically justified costs for the provision of these services, which include utilities such as: hot water, gas supply in the presence of individual gas heating appliances, as well as heat supply. This approach will be implemented starting from 1 January 2019, and as concerns gas and heat supply – starting from 1 October 2019. Presidential Decree No. 18 on supplementary measures for state protection of children from dysfunctional families was adopted on 24 November 2006. One of the most sensitive issues in any society is the situation of children from dysfunctional families and families in which parents lead an anti-social way of life, are alcoholics or drug addicts. Unfortunately, the critical issue regarding children whose parents are alcohol abusers, drug addicts or substance abusers is their very survival and the maintenance of their life and health. According to Decree No. 18, children are in a socially vulnerable situation if parents – or one parent – lead an immoral way of life that is harmful to the children, or if they are chronic alcoholics or drug addicts, or in some other way are unable to perform properly their obligations to raise and maintain children. These children are subject to state protection and are placed in state childcare facilities. The Decree defines a system by which state bodies may identify dysfunctional families and take decisions to place children in childcare facilities. Decree No. 18 focuses on working with parents. It is important to enable parents from dysfunctional families to turn away from their anti-social and, often immoral, way of life. This is the only way in which children can return to their biological families. However, many of these parents do not have work. Many of them lost their occupational skills long ago. It is extremely complicated for them to find work independently, because employers are not interested in workers of this kind. Decree No. 18 therefore provides for a work placement mechanism for parents from dysfunctional families whose children have been placed in state childcare facilities following a court order. Job placements are arranged at workplaces defined in coordination with the local authorities. Since, in accordance with Decree No. 18, a portion of the citizen’s wage is deducted to compensate for the expenses associated with maintaining their children, one of the conditions in the selection of a workplace is that the wage level is sufficiently high. At the same time, if parents whose children have been placed in state childcare facilities have a job or find themselves work independently and can cover the costs of maintaining the child, no court decision is required. The main purpose of Decree No. 18 is to improve family situations so that children can safely return to their parents. During the time that Decree No. 18 has been in force (between 2007 and 2017), a total of 40,068 children have been recognized as needing state support, of which 23,255 children (more than 58 per cent) have been returned to their families and their parents.

The Law of 4 January 2010 “On the Procedure and Modalities for the Transfer of Citizens to Medical Labour Centres and the Conditions of Their Stay” regulates issues related to the transfer of citizens suffering from chronic alcoholism, drug addiction or substance abuse to medical labour centres. Not all individuals experiencing these problems may be transferred to medical labour centres, but only those who have repeatedly, three times or more in the course of a year, disturbed public order and been found in a state of intoxication from alcohol or caused by the use of drugs or other intoxicating substances. One further condition is that the individuals have already been warned about the possibility of returning to the centre if they commit further violations, but have nevertheless committed administrative offences for similar violations within a year of that warning. In addition, citizens may be sent to medical labour centres if they are obliged to compensate the child-rearing expenses incurred by the State and have twice violated work regulations during the year through alcohol or other substance abuse, and have furthermore been warned of the possibility of being sent to the centre, and yet have reoffended within a year of that warning. Citizens are sent to medical labour centres for a period of 12 months following a court ruling. The court may decide to extend the period of time spent in the centres or to curtail it by up to six months. Citizens placed in medical labour centres are required to undergo a medical examination to establish whether they suffer from chronic alcoholism, drug addiction and substance abuse. Social and medical rehabilitation measures may be used in relation to them, including the provision of medicines and of medical and psychological assistance. For citizens who lead an anti-social way of life, one of the most important means that ensure their social reintegration is through work. According to the Law, medico-social readaptation activities also include vocational guidance, vocational training, retraining, advanced training and labour. Over the years of the implementation of the Law, since 2010, 2,945 citizens have undergone vocational training in medical labour centres, and 876 citizens have taken part in continuing professional training programmes on the job. Employment of citizens who are placed in medical labour centres is carried out, taking into account their age, working capacity, state of health, specialization and qualifications. They are paid and granted leave from work and welfare-related forms of leave in accordance with labour laws. The Government considers that Decrees Nos 3 and 18 do not conflict with Convention No. 29. These regulatory instruments are aimed at addressing such socially important tasks as promoting employment of the population, protecting children and combating drunkenness and drug addiction. The approaches laid down in these instruments meet the requirements of justice and are socially justified.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative welcomed the opportunity to provide information on the application of the Convention by Belarus. In her opinion, the comments of the Committee of Experts were balanced, which could be explained by the fact that during consultations with ILO experts during the Technical Advisory Mission, the Government had been able to explain in detail its position on each legislative text and the Government’s voice had been heard. The Committee of Experts had not pointed to violations of the Convention, but rather had requested the Government to continue to provide information on the implementation of the legislation in practice. Three legislative texts were mentioned by the Committee of Experts. In that respect, she indicated that Presidential Decree No. 3 on the prevention of dependency on social aid had been fundamentally altered. On 25 January 2018, Presidential Decree No. 1 had been adopted, pursuant to which a revised version of Decree No. 3 had been issued under a new title – “On the Promotion of Employment of the Population”. As part of the implementation of the new Decree, ambitious and complex measures would be taken that went beyond the remit of the regional employment services. Other interested parties would need to be involved and their work coordinated. To that end, a permanent committee would be set up in each region, bringing together representatives of the executive authorities, local councils and public associations. The main way in which people would be encouraged to take up lawful labour activities was through a large-scale public information campaign to explain the guarantees offered by labour and social legislation. She further recalled that in 2016, when the Conference Committee had first discussed Presidential Decree No. 18 of 24 November 2006 on supplementary measures for state protection of children from “dysfunctional families”, the Government had provided detailed information on the objective pursued by the legislation and its application in practice. Decree No. 18 had also been discussed in detail with the experts of the ILO Technical Advisory Mission. Thus, the Office had already been given all the necessary information. She recalled that Decree No. 18 provided for a mechanism to employ parents whose children had been taken into State care. Job placements were arranged at workplaces identified in coordination with the local authorities. The list of organizations where such parents could be employed was drawn up and periodically reviewed in accordance with the decisions of the regional executive committees and the Minsk municipal executive committee. Finally, the Committee of Experts had examined Law No. 104-3 of 4 January 2010 on the procedures and modalities for the transfer of citizens to medical labour centres and the conditions of their stay, and the information submitted by the Government in this regard. In 2016, the Committee had suggested that the Government engage in a detailed discussion with ILO experts regarding the legislative texts mentioned in the Committee’s conclusions. This discussion had taken place. No violations had been identified.

The Worker members indicated that the case had been double footnoted and discussed at the 2016 session of the Committee and an ILO Technical Advisory Mission requested by the Committee had taken place in June 2017. Belarus was again on the agenda of the Committee, not because of an overall improvement, but for shortcomings with regard to its application of the Convention. Firstly, the repeal of Decree No. 9, which had prevented workers in the wood processing industry from exercising their right to freely leave their jobs, was noted as a positive point. In that regard, more information needed to be provided on the practical consequences of the withdrawal of the Decree, and on whether it had indeed led to improvements in the sector. However, many important points still posed serious problems of compliance with the Convention. Urgent action was still needed in order to bring the legislation into line with the Convention. Decree No. 3 provided that Belarusian citizens who had not worked for at least 183 days in the past year should pay a special tax to finance public expenditure. The Government had justified this measure on the grounds that these citizens, as they did not work, did not pay taxes on their labour income during the period in question. Those who were not able to pay this special tax were liable to sanctions, either in the form of a fine or administrative detention involving compulsory community service, following a decision by the civil court, not the criminal court. Moreover, the functioning of the labour centres where the persons concerned performed work was very opaque. No form of external control seemed to be applicable to what took place within them. It was thus important for health and safety inspectors to be able to carry out checks on the working conditions in these centres. In reality, this policy represented an additional punishment, which simply criminalized poverty. Not only were workers affected by poverty, but they also had to suffer the sanctions of the public authorities who made workers pay for their own policy failures. As previously noted, this was, in effect, a poverty tax. The Government was thus called upon to review this policy and to make real efforts to combat financial insecurity and poverty rather than penalizing the vulnerable and the poor. The difference was fundamental. The Government had announced that Decree No. 3 had been withdrawn and replaced by Decree No. 1 of 2018. According to the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP), Decree No. 1 still contained numerous discriminatory provisions against persons who were out of work, in particular by depriving them of free or reduced prices for certain services. The policy also aggravated gender inequality. When Decree No. 3 had still been in force, peaceful protests had taken place. It was of particular concern that citizens, including members of independent trade unions, who had participated in these peaceful protests, faced reprisals in the form of administrative sanctions and legal prosecutions. The restrictions on the right to peaceful protest and the repressive measures taken, were the direct consequence of the absence of the freedom of organization of trade unions, as had been already pointed out in the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry in 2004. It was to be hoped that a new regulation respecting the fundamental rights of unemployed citizens would be adopted following the repeal of Decree No. 3, and that the regulation would focus on combating unemployment and not the unemployed. The Government was urged to restore trade union rights in full and to consult all social partners in a meaningful dialogue when drafting new regulations. Another regulation that conflicted with the Convention was Law No. 104-3 of 2010, which provided for procedures and modalities for transferring citizens suffering from addiction to medical labour centres. In these centres, people were sent to work for a period of 12 to 18 months. The Government had responded that not all addicts were sent to these centres. Such individuals needed to have been arrested several times for disturbing the peace and served with a prior warning before they were sent to such a centre. According to the information provided by the Government, over 8,000 people had been sent to medical labour centres since 2016. The Government had painted a very flattering picture of these medical labour centres as examples of rehabilitation programmes for people suffering from addiction. However, the reality was quite different. These centres appeared to be places where vulnerable people were forced to work, when they should really be receiving genuine medical and social support.

There was also Decree No. 18 of 2006, which was designed to enable the withdrawal of children from the custody of parents with an immoral lifestyle, who suffered from addiction or who were unable to raise and care for their children. Such parents were expected to contribute to the costs incurred by public institutions for the care of their children. Parents who found themselves in such a situation and were unable to reimburse the costs might be sentenced to work. Even parents who were already working faced the risk of work being imposed on them. This decision might even lead to the persons in question being dismissed from their jobs, thus leaving them entirely subject to the arbitrariness of the public authorities. Such a sentence was senseless, counterproductive and disproportionate. Moreover, parents who did not comply with the sentence were liable to criminal sanctions that could include a period of up to two years of community service or corrective labour. Apparently, there was a list of 6,770 companies willing to offer employment to people who were the subject of such decisions. It would be useful to have more information about the conditions under which these companies could make use of such a vulnerable labour force. The BKDP had also reported one case in which Presidential Decree No. 18 was used for political purposes: parents whose political views opposed the authorities had been deprived of the custody of their children, despite living in a normal and healthy situation. It was hoped that the Government could provide more information in that regard. It was notable that most issues regarding compliance with the Convention found their source in Presidential Decrees. It appeared that decrees occupied a higher place in the hierarchy of the Belarusian legal system than laws. This concentration of powers seemed to lead to too many authoritarian excesses that were putting Belarus at odds with many international standards, including Convention No. 29. The Government was thus invited to involve the social partners in matters relating to social legislation. Decree No. 29, which had been pointed out by the Commission of Inquiry in 2004 as being especially problematic, was still of great concern to the Worker members. The Decree ordered employers to transfer all workers to fixed-term labour contracts, and in fact nullified the provisions of the Labour Code, which prohibited temporary contracts for any person whose job was of a permanent nature. According to Decree No. 29, a worker was not free to leave fixed-term employment and could request early termination of the agreement only on the basis of a limited number of specific reasons, such as illness or the violation of labour laws by the employer. In practice, the legitimacy of the reason was determined by the employer. That suggested that a person working under temporary employment conditions could not leave his or her job during the term of the contract without the agreement of the employer. This Decree was also used as a tool for anti-union discrimination. Transfer to less desirable forms of employment had been used to punish activists and members of independent trade unions, and a disproportionate number of trade union activists and members had not had their contracts renewed when they expired. There was a clear link between the flagrant lack of freedom of association in Belarus and the use of forced labour.

The Employer members noted that this case was about the relationship between social measures and the general prohibition of forced labour. The Convention required member States to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in the shortest possible period, although recourse to forced labour could be had during a transitional period for public purposes, as an exceptional measure. On the basis of the Committee of Experts’ observation, this case had been reviewed by the Committee in 2016 as a double-footnoted case, designating very serious violations. It was to be noted with satisfaction that, as observed by the Committee of Experts, Decree No. 9 had been repealed. Another text reviewed in 2016 had been Decree No. 3, which had put in place the payment of labour taxes, and if those were not paid, compulsory work. The information provided to the Committee of Experts, and now to this Committee, indicated that a new conceptual framework had been adopted to amend Decree No. 3. The new framework shifted the focus from fiscal measures to the promotion of employment and the reduction of illegal employment. It should be recalled that the Technical Advisory Mission had strongly recommended that the text to amend Decree No. 3 should be prepared in consultation with the social partners. The Employer members requested further information on the new conceptual framework with a view to understanding its potential relationship to forced labour and urged the Government to provide a full report on the amendment process as well as its practical and legal implications. With regard to Law No. 104-3, the Employer members had previously acknowledged the Government’s indication that work in medical labour centres was intended to reintegrate individuals into society and to provide them with career guidance and skills training. At that time, the Government had been asked to provide further information regarding the obligation to work during confinement. While taking note of the complex links between social measures and the obligations under the Convention, the Employer members asked the Government to provide practical information on the placing of individuals in such centres. Decree No. 18 authorized the removal of children from their families and instituted a corresponding requirement for those parents to pay for the care of those children. Such parents who were unemployed or unable to pay were subject to an obligation to work, pursuant to a court ruling. They noted that further information would advance understanding of the practical functioning of this Decree, as it was important to ensure that its application did not exceed the purpose of rehabilitation and that it was not used as a method to exact forced labour. The Employer members asked the Government to review whether the provisions created conditions of forced labour in practice, and requested its continued cooperation with the ILO.

The Worker member of Belarus noted with satisfaction that the Committee of Experts had noted significant progress made towards compliance with the Convention. He questioned the inclusion of his country, once again, among the cases examined by the Committee. In keeping with the relevant international standards, the national legislation prohibited forced labour. In practice, there were no cases of compulsory labour in the country. Regarding several legislative texts examined by the Committee of Experts, it was important to highlight that Decree No. 3 had been amended by new Decree No. 1 in January 2018, following broad public consultations, and on the basis of the observations of ILO experts and the opinion of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and its member organizations. The amended Decree focused on two tasks: the promotion of employment and the encouragement of a transition from the informal to the formal economy. That would further allow the Government to better understand in which regions labour markets faced difficulties and to establish targeted national plans of action to create jobs. At the local level, interdepartmental commissions were being created to assist individuals to find suitable work. These commissions included representatives of trade unions and other public organizations. The legalization of the shadow economy was a significant concern, as every citizen needed to pay taxes. Tax evasion and the concealment of income were crimes in any country. All countries had developed tools and strategies to confront this phenomenon through creation of conditions in which citizens would be employed legally. Decree No. 1 required able-bodied citizens, who had no objective reason to avoid work, to pay for communal services at full rates, without state subsidies. It did not provide for administrative or criminal penalties that had been criticized previously. The new text established simplified processes for creating businesses, which provided additional opportunities for self-employment, and for the registration of activities of the self-employed and of small and medium-sized enterprises. Thus, no further discussion was required by the Committee on this subject. Regarding Decree No. 18, the objective of which was to protect the children removed from “dysfunctional” families, he recalled that any obligation to work in order to reimburse the State for the fees covering the care and education of children was decided by the courts. Finally, regarding Law No. 104-3, citizens suffering from chronic alcoholism, drug addiction or substance abuse and who had been involved repeatedly in administrative and other offences were sent to special institutions for medical and social rehabilitation. This measure was also applied exclusively on the basis of a court ruling and was under the control and supervision of relevant public bodies; it therefore did not create conditions of forced labour.

The Employer member of Belarus referred to the practical steps taken by the Government, which included the repeal of Decree No. 9, the acceptance of the ILO technical assistance provided by the Technical Advisory Mission and the revision of Decree No. 3 by a new Decree adopted on 25 January 2018. The new Decree defined a set of measures to improve assistance for finding employment for those who wanted to work. The main role in implementing such measures was assigned to local authorities. The new Decree did not provide for the use of forced or compulsory labour, nor for the payment of a special fee to finance public expenditure. Rather, it created a situation in which it became unprofitable to work illegally. That was not in contradiction with the Convention. The employers in Belarus realized their social responsibility in the processes of the labour and social rehabilitation of certain categories of citizens referred to in Law No. 104-3 and Decree No. 18. The Law established a way to resolve problems of alcoholism and drug addiction. Along with measures of a medical nature, labour was one of the means of rehabilitation. Decree No. 18 provided for the State protection of children of “dysfunctional” families, ensuring their rights and legitimate interests. Parents who did not work and could not reimburse the State for the costs of the care of their children were subject to employment by a court decision. Both within the framework of the Law, and within the framework of the Decree, labour was not used as a punishment, but as an aid for rehabilitation. Employers provided such citizens with work, taking into account their state of health and, if possible, profession. They organized their vocational education or retraining, and participated in creating the necessary housing and living conditions. Despite the fact that this imposed an additional burden, employers in Belarus considered that both legislative texts were necessary. The existing legislation did not contain elements of forced labour and was supported and understood by the majority of the population as it aimed at addressing such socially important tasks as the protection of children, combating alcohol and drug addiction, and promoting employment. Employers in Belarus were committed to collaborating with the ILO and the Committee on a basis of mutual understanding and respect.

The Government member of Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Norway, reiterated that cases of forced labour remained a persistent phenomenon in Belarus. This case was being discussed for the second time since 2016, when the Committee had urged the Government to constructively engage with the ILO at the highest levels to resolve this issue before its next sitting and to avail itself of ILO technical assistance. She welcomed the fact that the ILO mission had taken place in 2017. With regard to compulsory labour imposed by the national legislation, she welcomed the fact that Decree No. 9 had been revoked and that Decree No. 3 had been suspended. She noted with concern, however, that a new Decree, replacing Decree No. 3 had been adopted in January 2018. She requested the Government to provide information on the purpose of the new Decree and to ensure that its provisions did not lead to situations amounting to compulsory labour. Decree No. 18 was also a matter of concern. In that respect, she called on the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the implementation of the Decree did not go beyond the purpose of rehabilitating “dysfunctional” families, and in particular, that it was not used for political purposes. In line with the Committee of Experts’ recommendations, she encouraged the Government to consider revising the provisions respecting the direct deduction of wages from persons in order to compensate for the expenses of maintaining their children in State child-care facilities. Finally, she noted that, pursuant to Law No. 104-3, persons interned in medical labour centres had an obligation to work or were otherwise subject to punishment, such as solitary confinement. She thanked the Government representative for the information provided on the implementation of this Law and on the number of persons who had been placed in these facilities and encouraged the Government to continue providing such information and to indicate whether the decision regarding the internment was of a judicial or an administrative nature.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) said that the Government had failed to comply with the Committee’s previous request to abandon forced labour practices and to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. The edicts, decrees and laws which had introduced forced labour had not been repealed. Those that had been amended had not changed in essence. Decree No. 29, which imposed fixed-term labour contracts on all workers, continued to operate. Excessive use of such contracts amounted to an escalation of forced labour as the employees could not resign before the expiry of their contracts. Decree No. 5 was still in force. It introduced a stringent criteria for hiring and a disproportionate system of punishment and fines, which in practice meant that workers’ employment relations became coercive. There was now a threat that the provisions of Decrees Nos 5 and 29 would be included in the Labour Code, as the Government had introduced a draft law to that effect. The system of forced labour in medical labour centres, where alcoholics were sent, continued to function. Parents whose children had been removed were still being forced to work. The practice of compulsory “subbotnik” was flourishing. Decree No. 3, which had obliged the unemployed to pay a fee to the State, which had caused mass protests in the spring of 2017, had not been repealed. This Decree had become Decree No. 1, which had replaced the fee with an obligation imposed upon citizens to pay for state-provided services. Forcing the unemployed to work was a violation of the Constitution of the country, which provided for the right, and not the duty, to work. He concluded by emphasizing that compulsory labour did not solve problems, but rather created them.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that forced labour should be eliminated in every part of the world. He welcomed the fact that, in its 2018 report, the Committee of Experts had noted with satisfaction the information provided by the Government, as a 2012 presidential decree contested by the Committee of Experts had been rendered null and void in 2016. He acknowledged the wide range of legislation that had been referred to, as well as the fact that Decree No. 3 and Decree No. 18 provided for strategies based on the criteria of justice and were geared towards society. Taking into account the Government’s willingness and commitment, the Committee should bear in mind the positive aspects to be taken from the explanations and arguments given in the present case. He trusted that the Committee’s conclusions would be objective and well-balanced. If that were the case, the Government would be able to consider and assess them within the framework of the implementation of the Convention, and there would be no need for the case to be reconsidered by the Committee.

The Worker member of Turkey stated that forced labour practices had been diversified under the influence of global competition and neo-liberalism and that practices of overworking and low wages had increased. Evaluation of the forced labour situation in a country and the final decision, should be based first and foremost on the views of the representatives of the labour force in a country. In the context of globalization, it was the joint and unavoidable responsibility of all the social partners to tackle the problem of forced labour. The information provided by the FPB, the main organization representing the workers in Belarus, should be the main elements taken into account by the Committee. It appeared that no information or document had clearly indicated that forced labour existed in the country.

The Government member of Turkmenistan welcomed the provisions that had been introduced into national legislation in order to eliminate forced labour. The legislative activities, aimed at clarifying and further amending Decree No. 3, was a positive response to the previous recommendations of the Committee. The Government’s collaboration with the ILO and the social partners with a view to implementing international Conventions and protecting labour rights was welcome. The 2017 ILO technical mission to Belarus had demonstrated the commitment of the Government to comply with its obligations. Therefore the issue of the implementation of the Convention in Belarus should be removed from the agenda of the Committee.

The Worker member of Germany indicated that the right to work protected the freedom not to work, as well as the right to choose a profession freely. The prohibition of forced labour, as provided for in the Convention safeguarded that freedom. The Government was violating that prohibition to a considerable extent, especially with respect to persons living in precarious conditions, such as young people, people addicted to narcotic substances, and so-called “dysfunctional” families. University graduates funded from State sources would be assigned to work for one to two years after their studies. Those who did not complete this work might be required to compensate the State. The European Commission had already criticized this practice. People addicted to alcohol or other substances were admitted to so-called medical labour centres for a period of up to a year and a half, if they committed offences under the influence of the substances. They were de facto imprisoned there, and were obliged to work under often inhumane conditions. It was completely disproportionate to deprive them of their freedom merely on the basis of administrative violations. Inhumane conditions at these centres, in some cases, amounted to attempted suicide in protest. Children whose parents were alcoholics, drug addicts, or were considered to have “an immoral lifestyle” might be enrolled in care facilities operated by the State. If their parents were unemployed or unable to pay the full cost for the care, they would be compelled to work by a civil court. Such a court decision might be grounds for termination of an existing employment relationship. If they refused to comply with the decision, they faced criminal consequences, which could in turn result in forced labour. Children were also victims in such cases, as they were also traumatized by the separation from their parents. Although the Government had now withdrawn Decree No. 3, there was still a constant threat of forced labour. This situation was in stark contradiction with the basic principles of the Convention. She called on the Government to bring its law and practice into line with the Convention.

The Government member of the Russian Federation considered that the Government of Belarus had taken into account the comments and recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies and interacted constructively with the ILO and the social partners. Decree No. 9 had been repealed. The Government had also carried out a comprehensive analysis of the national legislation. In 2017, Belarus had hosted an ILO technical advisory mission. The Government’s efforts to introduce elements of active labour market policies and to create conditions that would encourage people to take businesses out of informality could not be ignored. Those measures were aimed at the future and were in conformity with modern trends in the world of work. The steps taken by the Government deserved the most positive assessment. The speaker called on the Committee to take note of the information provided by the Government with satisfaction.

An observer representing IndustriALL Global Union expressed his deep concern at the developments taking place in Belarus. The problematic issue remained Decree No. 3, as revised by Decree No. 1 of 2018. The Government claimed that the new Decree would be beneficial to the people. However, it was difficult to understand how the revision could be considered as a positive improvement, as the new Decree returned to the same logic of punishing unemployed workers who would have to the pay full cost of public services subsidized by the State. In addition, the new Decree established a mechanism to collect the private information of workers, which could be further shared at all levels of the State structure. The absence of proper protection of privacy would likely lead to a higher number of violations of workers’ rights. In fact, the newly adopted Decree would force employees to stay in jobs even if the conditions were precarious and the pay was low. Moreover, since August 2018, there had been an obvious effort to eliminate independent trade union organizations, including member organizations of IndustriALL. The Chairperson of the Radio and Electronic Industry Workers’ Union, Mr Gennady Fedynich, was subject to prosecution, and faced up to seven years of imprisonment. Although the case had been officially announced as only related to economic reasons, about 800 members of the union had been summoned and questioned as part of the investigation. In addition, Mr Fedynich was part of IndustriALL’s delegation to the 107th Session of the International Labour Conference, but was not able to participate in the present sitting, as he had been banned from travelling abroad. In light of that case and the union’s active participation in the protests against Decree No. 3, the criminal prosecutions were a clear case of retaliation for the previous union engagement in the protests. They were an attempt to eliminate those who opposed the new Decree. He thus expected and demanded that the Government respect, and guarantee fundamental trade union rights in the country.

The Government member of India appreciated the comprehensive update provided by the Government, and welcomed its willingness and commitment to constructively engage and cooperate with the ILO and to fulfil its obligations. He requested the Government to continue pursuing its efforts to amend the relevant laws in consultation with the relevant stakeholders, especially the social partners, and to continue providing information on any progress made in this regard. He also called on the ILO and its member States to fully support the Government and to provide any technical assistance that it might seek in this regard. The Committee should be a forum for constructive discussion aimed at improving compliance with international labour standards. He reiterated the need for ensuring greater transparency, inclusiveness, objectivity, fairness and credibility in the ILO supervisory mechanism as part of the Centenary Standards Initiative.

An observer representing the General Confederation of Trade Unions acknowledged that steps towards implementation of international labour standards had been taken by the Government in coordination with the social partners, including trade unions. Legislative processes took time. The constructive dialogue that had been established between the Government and the ILO had led to positive outcomes beyond the application of the Convention and extended to the application of other Conventions. They included the expansion of the mandate of the national tripartite council, the development of a mechanism for collective bargaining in enterprises with several trade unions, and the repeal of the 10 per cent membership requirement for establishing a trade union. These advances did not, however, mean that all the problems had been resolved. Inconsistencies in the application of the Convention and the lack of conformity between certain national provisions and those of the Convention that had been identified by the Committee of Experts, illustrated the need to pursue dialogue between the ILO and the Government. He therefore welcomed the willingness of the ILO to provide technical assistance and trusted that a positive resolution would be forthcoming.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran noted that the prohibition of forced labour in Belarus was enshrined in both its Constitution and its Labour Code. The ILO Technical Advisory Mission had visited the country in 2017. Decree No. 1 had been adopted. The Government had demonstrated its willingness to improve the situation. He supported the measures taken by the Government and encouraged it to continue taking further measures. He requested the ILO to provide any further assistance to the Government in this respect.

The Worker member of Sudan pointed out that analysis of local labour laws showed that there were no provisions which would lead to forced labour. Therefore, the legislation was fully in line with international labour standards. Belarus was also fully in compliance with all the international Conventions that it had ratified. The ILO Technical Advisory Mission had visited the country in 2017 and provided the necessary technical assistance, which had led to the improvement of the relevant legislation. He thanked the Government for all its efforts in that regard and for the information provided to the Committee.

The Government member of Switzerland expressed concern at the provisions in the national legislation requiring certain groups of workers to perform compulsory labour. He took note of the work of the Technical Advisory Mission in June 2017. The changes noted or made in practice showed that things were moving in the right direction. The Government had assured the mission that public consultations, including with the social partners, would be held in line with the amended version of Decree No. 3. The Government was also invited to continue its efforts to bring its lawa and practice into line with international labour standards, with the involvement of all stakeholders, to continue working with the ILO and to provide all the information requested on medical labour centres.

The Government member of China welcomed the information provided by the Government. Since the examination of the case by the Committee in 2016, progress had been made in implementing the Convention, including the improvement of legislation related to forced labour and of the capacity for law enforcement. For example, Decree No. 9 had been repealed. Decree No. 3 had been suspended and revised. To amend other relevant laws and regulations, the Government had undertaken to seek the views of the social partners and the public. It was the obligation of member States to apply ratified international labour Conventions. To strengthen their capacity in this regard, enhanced dialogue and technical assistance was the most effective approach. He hoped that the ILO would further its cooperation with the Government and provide the necessary technical assistance to solve the problem regarding the application of the Convention.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation indicated that special attention was paid in the Russian Federation to labour rights in Belarus because changes in Belarusian legislation that worsened the situation of workers could have an impact on the Russian legal system. He recalled the concerns raised in 2016 regarding the regulation of labour relations in Belarus and the Government’s intention to institute a fee for non-working citizens which, if unpaid, could entail more serious measures, including administrative arrest. Fixed-term employment contracts that offered workers no guarantee of permanent employment were the norm, and employers commonly refused to conclude a contract in writing with employees. Yet rather than giving the State Labour Inspectorate the authority to identify and suppress such cases, Decree No. 1 would, as of 1 January 2019, unjustly inflate utility payments for housing for formally unemployed citizens. Given the shortage of jobs offering decent working conditions in Belarus, such measures would place an additional burden on workers. Fears regarding Decree No. 3 had proved justified. As a result of the civil protests in February 2018, the Decree had been suspended, but trade union activists who had participated in the protests were still being persecuted on what were considered unreasonable legal grounds, setting the stage for violations of workers’ rights of freedom of association. He called on the Government to take into account the conclusions of the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts, and to make the necessary amendments to bring the legislation into line with the provisions of the Convention.

The Government member of Kazakhstan considered that Belarus was on the path of rapid development of social dialogue at all levels of social partnership. ILO membership allowed the Government to study and apply international practices in resolving social and labour disputes, developing social partnerships, and improving and regulating the labour market. The Government cooperated with the ILO on various issues, including employment. The information provided by the delegation of Belarus was complete. The ILO mission in 2017, as well as the latest legislative changes, inspired confidence that the Government would continue its interaction with the social partners and the ILO to resolve all the issues raised by the Committee. Decent working conditions could only be created through negotiations and legislation that was in conformity with international labour standards.

The Government member of Cuba thanked the Government for the information provided. She emphasized that the advisory mission of June 2017 was proof that the Government was willing to collaborate with the ILO. She trusted that the Government would continue its efforts to improve working conditions and ensure better protection for children and families, while also considering the legislative amendments that were necessary.

The Government representative thanked the members of the Committee for the discussion and indicated that all constructive suggestions and comments would be taken and examined. Belarus was a consistent supporter of the prohibition and eradication of forced labour. The prohibition of forced labour was enshrined in the Constitution as well as in section 13 of the Labour Code. Any exception to this principle could be permitted only by the courts pursuant to the Law on emergency and martial law. She reiterated that Decree No. 9 had been repealed, as the Committee of Experts had noted with satisfaction, and thus, this case should be considered resolved. She recalled that Decree No. 29 had been the subject of criticism by the Committee in 2016. The contents of the Decree had been studied by the experts during the Technical Advisory Mission, who had informed the Committee of Experts of their conclusions. Having analyzed all the necessary information, the Committee of Experts had chosen not to comment on Decree No. 29. The contents of an employment contract, its terms and working conditions, were determined by agreement between the parties, namely the employer and the employee. Neither party had the right to coerce the other party or impose unacceptable conditions. The terms of an employment contract should take into account the mandatory minimum guarantees established by labour law. Such an approach corresponded to internationally recognized practices. The comments of the Committee of Experts had become the basis for additional and thorough analysis by the Government of the application of the national legislation. The Government had also studied three regulatory acts – Decrees Nos 3 and 18; and Law No. 104-3 – and had provided detailed information on their application, which covered very limited categories of citizens who, without the active involvement of the State and society, could not return to normal life. Providing those individuals with an opportunity to work was one of the most important and effective means of their social rehabilitation and reintegration. That approach was consistent with the position of the Committee of Experts, which had been indicated in the 1979 and 2007 General Surveys on the Convention, in particular regarding the long-term unemployed who did not want to work and, for that reason, had no livelihood. In conclusion, she assured the members of the Committee that the Government would continue to be a staunch and consistent supporter of the principles of the ILO. The Government valued its interaction with the ILO, and was ready for further cooperation to improve social and labour relations in Belarus.

The Employer members acknowledged the submissions commending the constructive interaction between the Government and the ILO and the development of social partnership and of the labour market. They took note of the amendments to certain legislative texts, the Government’s explanation of the conceptual changes to Decree No. 3, as amended by Decree No. 1, and the repeal of Decree No. 9 by Edict No. 182 of 27 May 2016. Taking into account the submissions regarding the social and rehabilitative value of work, they urged the Government to continue to take all the necessary measures to suppress the use of forced labour, and to refrain from enacting legislation that could amount to the use of forced labour. They asked the Government to provide the Committee of Experts with information confirming the amendment of Decree No. 3 by Decree No. 1, as well as details on the operation of the new legal framework and its effect in practice. They further requested the Government to submit information on the implementation of Law No. 104-3 in practice, including on the number of persons placed in medical centres and the compulsory work that formed part of this rehabilitation.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for the information provided to the Committee. However, they expressed regret that the Government did not appear to realize the serious shortcomings in its regulation in relation to the Convention. In view of the limited progress on the points addressed, a number of recommendations that had been made in 2016 needed to be reiterated. The Government was urged to take all the necessary measures to end forced labour and to refrain from adopting legislation that could give rise to forced labour. Many groups of the population were likely to be subject to sanctions imposing compulsory work. Particularly vulnerable groups were those who had not worked more than 183 days over a given period, those who suffered from addiction and parents who were unable to take care of their children. In this regard, the Government was called upon to ensure that its decrees and legislation fully complied with the Convention, in particular Decree No. 1 amending Decree No. 3, Law No. 104-3, Decree No. 18 and Decree No. 29. This task should be carried out in close cooperation with all the social partners in Belarus. The Government was thus invited to consult all the social partners when developing regulatory measures to ensure their compliance with the Convention. More attention needed to be paid to the situation in medical labour centres. The Government was therefore asked to provide the Committee of Experts with information on the supervisions carried out by the labour inspectorates in these centres. In order to eliminate all forms of forced labour, those who had imposed forced labour should be prosecuted and, if found guilty, punished with dissuasive civil and criminal sanctions. While the repeal of Decree No. 9 had been confirmed, the effects of the repeal were not yet clear. It would be useful to obtain information in this regard in order to assess whether there had been any improvement in light of the Convention. Moreover, the situation regarding freedom of association in Belarus was extremely worrying. The exercise of this freedom was severely restricted, which did not allow workers to make their voice heard effectively. In order to implement all the above recommendations, the Government was urged to seek ILO technical assistance. In order to speed up the process of bringing Belarusian legislation and practice into line with the Convention, it was also urged to accept a direct contacts mission by the ILO.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

Further to the Committee’s 2016 conclusions and the Government’s actions as a result, the Committee noted the Government’s explanation of the conceptual changes to the framework of Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2 April 2015 as amended by Decree No. 1 of 25 January 2018 and the repeal of Decree No. 9 of 7 December 2012 by Presidential Decree No. 182 of 27 May 2016. However, the Committee noted with concern the possible exaction of forced labour as a result of the operation of the other Presidential Decrees, which have not been amended.

Taking into account the Government’s submissions and the discussion that followed, the Committee recommended the Government to:

- continue to take all measures to supress the use of forced labour and refrain from enacting legislation that may amount to the use of forced labour in full compliance with Convention No. 29;

- provide to the Committee of Experts information related to the operation of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 182 in law and its effect in practice;

- provide to the Committee of Experts information confirming the amendment of Presidential Decree No. 3 by Presidential Decree No. 1, including information related to the operation of this new framework in law and practice;

- continue to provide information on the implementation of Law No. 104-3 in practice including the number of persons who are placed in medical centres and the compulsory work that forms part of this rehabilitation; and

- continue to accept technical assistance to ensure continued measures to achieve compliance with Convention No. 29 in law and practice.

The Committee encouraged the Government to continue to constructively engage with the ILO to work to suppress the use of forced labour and to report on these measures at the next meeting of the Committee of Experts.

The Government representative indicated that her Government was committed to compliance with international labour standards and would send additional information to the Committee of Experts to facilitate a better understanding of measures taken to implement the Convention. She underlined that the purpose of the measures taken by her Government was to combat certain undesirable phenomena such as alcoholism and drug addiction through assistance, rehabilitation and support services to protect children.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2016, Publication: 105th ILC session (2016)



The Government provided the following written information:

Belarus has staunchly and consistently supported the prohibition and eradication of forced labour. The prohibition of the use of forced labour is enshrined in the country’s most important legislative instruments. Article 41 of the Constitution prohibits forced labour, with the exception of work or services required under a court ruling or in accordance with the Law on Emergencies and Military Status. The prohibition of forced labour is also covered in article 13 of the Labour Code, which defines forced labour as work which a worker is required to perform subject to the threat of violence, which includes: means of political leverage or indoctrination or punishment for the exhibition or expression of political views or ideological beliefs contrary to the established political, social or economic system; methods for mobilizing and exploiting the workforce for the needs of economic development; means of promoting workplace discipline; means of punishing people for their participation in strikes. However, the following are not deemed to be instances of forced labour: work performed as a result of a legally valid court ruling under the supervision of the authorities responsible for upholding the law governing the execution of court rulings; work to be carried out as a consequence of legislation on military service or emergency situations.

Convention No. 29 was one of the first to be ratified by Belarus immediately after it became a member of the International Labour Organization (ILO). The Convention entered into force for Belarus on 21 August 1956. In line with its obligations under article 22 of the ILO Constitution, Belarus regularly reports on legislation and its application to the Committee of Experts. Before this year, Belarus had not received any comments from the Committee of Experts regarding Convention No. 29. 2016 is the first year in which Belarus has received comments from the Committee of Experts regarding Convention No. 29, and the first in which Belarus has been included in the list of countries for examination of that Convention by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. The Government has paid great attention to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. It has analysed all of the regulatory instruments referred to by the Committee of Experts, including the aims and purposes of adopting the instruments and the practice of applying them, with the aim of harmonizing the provisions of those instruments with the requirements of Convention No. 29. As a result of this work, taking into account the position of the Committee of Experts with regard to Presidential Decree No. 9 of 7 December 2012 on supplementary measures for the development of the wood processing industry, the decision was taken to start to repeal Decree No. 9. That decision has now been implemented. Presidential Decree No. 182 of 27 May 2016 has been adopted, which makes Decree No. 9 invalid.

The Government considers that the remaining three regulatory instruments mentioned by the Committee of Experts are not at variance with the provisions of Convention No. 29. Presidential Decree No. 18 on supplementary measures for state protection of children from dysfunctional families was adopted on 24 November 2006. One of the most sensitive issues in any society is the situation of children from dysfunctional families and families in which parents lead an anti-social way of life, are alcoholics or drug addicts. Unfortunately, the critical issue regarding children whose parents are alcohol abusers, drug addicts or substance abusers is often not simply their regular diet or attendance at school, but their very survival and the maintenance of their life and health. Broad public discussion was held prior to the adoption of Decree No. 18. Many Belarusian citizens have requested the State and society to play a more active role in tackling this important social issue. According to Decree No. 18, children are in a socially vulnerable situation if parents or a biological parent lead an immoral way of life that is harmful to the children, or if they are chronic alcoholics or drug addicts, or in some other way are unable to perform properly their obligations to raise and maintain children. These children are subject to state protection and are placed in state childcare facilities. The Decree defines a system by which state bodies may identify dysfunctional families and take decisions to place children in childcare facilities. Decree No. 18 focuses on working with parents. It is important to enable parents from dysfunctional families to turn away from their anti-social and, often immoral, way of life. This is the only way in which the children can return to their biological families. However, many of these parents do not have work. Many of them lost their occupational skills long ago. It is extremely complicated for them to find work independently, because employers are not interested in workers of this kind. Decree No. 18 therefore provides for a work placement mechanism for parents from dysfunctional families whose children have been placed in state childcare facilities following a court order. Job placements are arranged at workplaces defined in coordination with the local authorities. Since, in accordance with Decree No. 18, a portion of the citizen’s wage is deducted to compensate for the expenses associated with maintaining their children, one of the conditions in the selection of a workplace is that the wage level is sufficiently high. At the same time, if parents whose children have been placed in state childcare facilities have a job or find themselves work independently and can cover the costs of maintaining the child, no court decision is required. The main purpose of Decree No. 18 is to improve family situations so that children can safely return to their parents. During the time that Decree No. 18 has been in force (between 2007 and 2015), a total of 33,832 children have been recognized as needing state support, of which 19,162 children (more than 58 per cent) have been returned to their families and their parents. The Act of 4 January 2010 on the procedure and modalities for the transfer of citizens to medical labour centres and the conditions of their stay governs issues related to the transfer of citizens suffering from chronic alcoholism, drug addiction or substance abuse to medical labour centres. Not all individuals experiencing these problems may be transferred to medical labour centres, but only those who have repeatedly, three times or more in the course of a year, disturbed public order and been found in a state of intoxication from alcohol or caused by the use of drugs or other intoxicating substances. One further condition is that the individuals have already been warned about the possibility of returning to the centre if they commit further violations, but have nevertheless committed administrative offences for similar violations within a year of that warning. In addition, citizens may be sent to medical labour centres if they are obliged to compensate the child-rearing expenses incurred by the State and have twice violated work regulations during the year through alcohol or other substance abuse, and have furthermore been warned of the possibility of being sent to the centre, and yet have reoffended within a year of that warning. Citizens are sent to medical labour centres for a period of 12 months following a court ruling. The court may decide to extend the period of time spent in the centres or to curtail it by up to six months. Citizens placed in medical labour centres are required to undergo a medical examination to establish whether they suffer from chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, substance abuse or have any illness which might disrupt their stay in the centre. Citizens are placed in medical labour centres so that social and medicinal rehabilitation measures may be used in relation to them, including the provision of medicine and of medical and psychological assistance. For citizens who lead an anti-social way of life, one of the most important avenues to ensuring their social rehabilitation is through work. Under the Act, measures for medical and social reintegration also include career guidance, vocational training, retraining, the acquisition of additional qualifications and work. Finding work for citizens in medical labour centres depends on their age, fitness for work, state of health, specialization and qualifications. They are paid and granted leave from work and welfare-related forms of leave in accordance with labour law. The Act includes a provision on the possibility of using incentives for those who conscientiously fulfil obligations required of them, show initiative in their work or mastery of their profession; it also provides for disciplinary action for the refusal to accept work or the decision to discontinue it. The possibility of applying punitive measures is necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Act are enforced in practice. Taking into consideration the population category of individuals sent to medical labour centres and their social and behavioural attitudes, it is practically impossible to carry out the social reintegration programme without specific restrictive measures. The Act has been considered by the Constitutional Court of Belarus as part of initial mandatory checks. In a decision of 24 December 2009, the Constitutional Court reached the conclusion that the Act was in line with the Constitution of Belarus with regard to the content of provisions, its form and the method of its adoption. The Constitutional Court in particular deemed that arranging work for citizens sent to medical labour centres on the basis of a court decision was legally justified, since work constitutes one of the means for the social and medical reintegration of citizens, alongside medical and other measures.

The main purpose of Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2 April on the prevention of dependency on social aid is to enable Belarusian citizens to fulfil their constitutional obligation to contribute to the financing of government expenditure. The social dimension is given great emphasis in the state policy of Belarus. The State spends considerable sums on supporting and developing the social infrastructure and many key services are provided to Belarusian inhabitants free of charge, such as education and health services. Belarusian inhabitants pay a significantly lower real price for public transport services and municipal utilities. Each year, some 50 per cent of the country’s consolidated budget is spent on social goals. Obviously, the availability of funds and the possibility of achieving these high social standards depend on the common input of all Belarusian inhabitants. However, in recent years, a fairly large number of people have been recorded in reality as having considerable income flows which they conceal using various underhand schemes. Many of these citizens say that they do not work anywhere at all and have no income and therefore do not pay any taxes. At the same time, they are fully entitled to services provided by the State, including those which are free of charge. To make the situation fairer, Decree No. 3 compels all persons of working age who have been in Belarus for more than six months during the calendar year to contribute to the financing of government expenditure. This contribution may be through the citizen carrying out work on an employment or civil law contract, or any other activity which provides for the receipt of legal earnings. In this case, taxes are levied on the earnings accordingly. Citizens who do not carry out an income-earning activity and do not pay taxes are required to pay an annual levy to the tax authorities equal to the sum of 20 times the base reference value. In 2016, the base reference value was 210,000 Belarusian rubles, and the annual levy was therefore 4,200,000 Belarusian rubles. This is equivalent to approximately US$200. Decree No. 3 does not provide for the compulsory labour of citizens, but deals with their financial contribution. Under Decree No. 3, it is taken into consideration that some citizens may perform independent, income-earning activities throughout the course of a year, or work on an employment contract only for a short period of time, that is, less than 183 days per year. The following procedures have been established for these cases: if the amount paid in taxes is over 20 times the base reference value, the citizen is exempt from paying the levy. However, if it totals less than 20 times the base reference value, the individual is required to pay the levy, although the figure is reduced by the amount paid in taxes. The Decree establishes an exemption from paying the levy for population groups which may have difficulties earning income due to reasons beyond their control. These categories include: citizens registered as unemployed; persons with disabilities; and one of the parents of a family bringing up a child of up to seven years of age, a child with disabilities or three or more minors, and a number of other categories. Decree No. 3 covers working relations since 1 January 2015. The levy for 2015 must be paid no later than 1 July 2016. People who do not pay the levy themselves are sent a notification by the tax office by 1 October 2016 for payment of the levy by 15 November. Non-payment or partial payment of the levy results in a fine of two to four times the base reference value, or up to 15 days of administrative detention. The courts decide on the specific penalty. Under the provisions of Decree No. 3, citizens must perform community service during the period of the administrative detention. In view of the above, the Government of Belarus emphasizes that the country’s regulatory and legal instruments do not contain elements of forced labour. They are designed to address socially significant tasks, such as the protection of children and the prevention of alcoholism, drug addiction and tax evasion.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative welcomed the opportunity to explain the position of her Government and referred to the information supplied in writing. She assured the Committee that her Government would pursue its cooperation with the ILO to fully apply the Convention.

The Employer members recalled the importance of the Convention and the obligations that it created for the ratifying States. Welcoming the Government’s detailed intervention, they noted the indication that national legislation prohibited forced labour and was fully in line with the Convention. Noting that this case had been designated as a double footnoted case by the Committee of Experts, thus denoting its serious nature, the Employer members recalled in detail the observations made by the Committee of Experts on the specific provisions under its examination. With regard to Presidential Decree No. 9 of 7 December 2012 on additional measures for the development of the wood industry, the Employer members understood that the Government had repealed section 1.2 of the Decree through Presidential Decree No. 182 and urged the Government to provide detailed and up-to-date information to the Office on this Decree. They noted positively this development, as well as the Government’s indication that it would continue to cooperate with the ILO regarding the implementation of Presidential Decree No. 182. Turning to the question of Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2 April 2015 on the prevention of dependency on social aid, the Employer members expressed appreciation of the careful balance struck between, on the one hand, the Government’s obligation with respect to social action, education, health care and transportation, most of which was provided to its citizens free of charge or at less than the actual cost and, on the other hand, the necessity of labour taxes paid by workers to support the system. They encouraged the Government to provide the Committee of Experts with information on how the Decree was enforced and on the individuals affected by the Decree, so that it could include this additional information in its observations and the Conference Committee could consider this information in relation to its assessment of the application of the Convention in law and practice. They recalled that, by virtue of ratification, the Government had an obligation to suppress the use of forced labour in all areas in both law and practice.

Concerning Law No. 104-3 of 4 January 2010 on the procedures and modalities for the transfer of citizens to medical labour centres and the conditions of their stay, the Employer members noted the Government’s indication that work was one of the measures through which individuals were reintegrated into society and that career guidance and skills training were provided to them. They requested further information on the nature of the administrative charges filed and on court decisions regarding these issues. They therefore encouraged the Government to provide the Committee of Experts with additional information, including on the status of court decisions that could result in an individual being sent to a medical labour centre and might involve an obligation to work during that period, as well as on the enforcement of these rules and the number of persons affected. Recalling Article 2(2) of the Convention, the Employer members considered that the issues needed to be examined more closely with more information provided by the Government. In relation to Presidential Decree No. 18 of 24 November 2006 on supplementary measures on state protection of children from “dysfunctional families”, the Employer members noted the Government’s explanation that the Decree had been a result of a broad civil process aimed at attempting to solve the social problem and that work placement was a component of the civil process. They also considered that additional information was required from the Government on the issues raised by the Committee of Experts in order to more fully assess situations in which persons were forced to work under the Presidential Decree and to better assess the application of the Convention in both law and practice. The Employer members recalled that, having ratified the Convention, Belarus was under the obligation to ensure that it suppressed the use of forced labour in law and practice and that the Government did not create legal mechanisms by which the State could exact forced labour from its citizens. They encouraged the Government to review all the facets of its national law and practice in order to assess whether these provisions created situations in which forced labour was permitted or required in the country and to work closely with the ILO to ensure full compliance with the Convention in both law and practice.

The Worker members observed that, according to the Committee of Experts, certain new provisions introduced in the national legislation could lead to situations amounting to forced labour. Presidential Decree No. 29 of 1999 had ordered the conversion of all employment contracts into fixed-term contracts and repealed the provision of the Labour Code prohibiting the conclusion of temporary contracts for permanent posts. A form of modern bondage had been introduced, as a temporary employment contract did not allow workers to leave their job before the end of the contract, except in the event of illness or inability to perform the work concerned, or in the event of a violation of labour law or collective agreements by the employer, or for other valid reasons that were not specified. Not only did the Government have no intention of amending the existing legal system, but it also continued to introduce new forms of exploitation. The Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP) and certain human rights activists had protested against these “innovations”, which in fact consisted of the restoration of practices dating from the Soviet era. In its report Forced labour and the pervasive violation of workers’ rights in Belarus, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) provided a detailed examination of various forced labour practices. Decree No. 9 of 7 December 2012 suppressed in practice the right of workers in the wood processing industry to leave their employment freely. The Government indicated that the Decree had been repealed on the Friday before the beginning of the Conference. It was to be hoped that the Government would pursue its efforts to abolish forced labour in this sector in practice. Moreover, Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2 April 2015 on the prevention of dependency on social aid imposed an obligation on citizens who did not participate in the financing of Government expenditure for a year or participated in that funding for less than 183 days in the year, to pay an annual levy with a view to covering Government expenditure. Hence, the Decree applied in practice to thousands of people who did not have an income, without necessarily having an anti-social lifestyle, but who were unable to find decent jobs in their respective occupations. In this regard, an exception had been provided for citizens with disabilities, minors and men and women who had reached retirement age. The levy therefore had to be paid even by those who had chosen not to work, particularly for family reasons. Failure to pay the levy was punishable by a fine or administrative detention of up to 15 days. During the period of detention, citizens were obliged to carry out work in the public interest. Any person who refused to carry out work in the public interest was subject to additional coercive measures. Moreover, a period of detention did not release the person concerned from the obligation to pay the levy. Persons suffering from chronic alcoholism, drug addiction or substance abuse and who had faced administrative charges for committing administrative violations under the influence of alcohol, drugs or psychotropic, toxic or otherwise intoxicating substances could be sent to “medical labour centres” and be subject to compulsory labour or to imprisonment of up to ten days. This “rehabilitation” was applied to thousands of people (4,000 to 5,000 each year), who in reality needed medical or social assistance. There was virtually no public supervision of the medical labour centres or the working conditions in them, as they were closed institutions guarded by the police. Furthermore, it was reported that some of the centres had contracts with private sector companies for certain types of work. Confinement in the centres was decided by civil, not criminal, courts, so that the exception provided for by Article 2(1)(a) of Convention No. 29 did not apply. Presidential Decree No. 18 authorized the removal of children whose parents were leading “an immoral way of life”, or were chronic alcoholics or drug addicts, or in some other way unable to properly perform their obligations to raise and maintain children. The aim of the measures introduced by the Decree was to force persons deprived of their parental rights to be financially responsible for the education of their children under the threat of a penalty. Such persons were obliged to pay a monthly sum of money to compensate the Government for the care of their children in state childcare facilities. Those who did not pay or were unable to pay were subjected to compulsory labour by court ruling. Employers, the police and government bodies responsible for employment worked together to monitor attendance at work. Parents who avoided such work might be held criminally responsible and be sentenced to community service or corrective labour for a period of up to two years, or even to imprisonment for up to three years.

Further situations of forced labour had been revealed by human rights activists, including the situation of conscripts obliged to do work that was not purely of a military nature, not only in the public interest, but also for the private sector. Compulsory labour was also imposed on prison inmates; young graduates from public educational institutions were obliged to work for one or two years at the end of their studies; and all enterprises and workers could be called upon to participate in unpaid days of work (subbotniki). The Worker members fully endorsed the appeal made by the Committee of Experts inviting “the Government to take all the necessary measures to repeal or amend the provisions in its national legislation which could lead to situations amounting to forced labour”, bearing in mind the clear connection with the absence of freedom of association and forced labour. Forced Labour would not be brought to an end as long as workers were not fully able to exercise their right to organize.

The Employer member of Belarus wished to clarify the purpose of the legislative texts referred to by the Committee of Experts. The aim of the Presidential Decree on social dependency was to ensure a fair balance between those contributing to the State budget by paying taxes and those who claimed benefits without contributing. The Presidential Decree on the state protection of children organized the protection of children whose parents were unable to care for them. The law on medical labour centres provided for the medical and social rehabilitation of alcoholics and drug addicts. All these measures were taken for the purposes of social protection and could not be considered contrary to Convention No. 29. Furthermore, taking into account the position of the Committee of Experts, Presidential Decree No. 9 had been repealed.

The Worker member of Belarus pledged the full support of his organization to the ILO’s efforts to eliminate all forms of forced labour. Forced labour was prohibited in Belarus by both the Constitution and the Labour Code. Through its participation in social partnership, the Federation of Trade Unions contributed to the enforcement of labour rights and the analysis of the comments of the Committee of Experts had led to the repeal of Presidential Decree No. 9. Presidential Decree No. 3 gave effect to the constitutional obligation for all citizens to pay taxes. Many people worked in the grey or informal economy without paying taxes. The small contribution, which was less than 5 per cent of the average wage, required only from persons able to work did not in any way contravene Convention No. 29. Presidential Decree No. 18 aimed at protecting children’s rights by ensuring the social rehabilitation of their parents. It provided that such measures could only be decided by a court and was not therefore contrary to the Convention. Preventive medical-labour measures also required a court decision, which was in accordance with the Convention.

The Government member of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania and Norway, said that the EU attached great importance to relations with Belarus and its people, as well as to improvements in respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law in the country. Compliance with Convention No. 29 was essential in that respect. He noted with concern the observations of the Committee of Experts, which included references to the concluding observations of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, as well as the report submitted by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus. The EU, in the same way as the Committee of Experts, called on the Government of Belarus to repeal or amend the provisions in its national legislation which could lead to situations amounting to forced labour. He welcomed the information received regarding the repeal by the Government of Belarus of Presidential Decree No. 9. The EU remained committed to its policy of critical engagement with Belarus and was ready to assist the country in meeting its obligations under the ILO’s fundamental Conventions.

The Government member of Turkmenistan commended the Government of Belarus for its efforts to implement the Convention and welcomed the enhanced provisions introduced in the national legislation to that end, as well as the intensification of cooperation with the ILO. In view of these positive developments, the issue of application of Convention No. 29 in Belarus should be removed from the agenda of the Committee.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) recalled that the Conference Committee had repeatedly discussed the situation of freedom of association in Belarus. This case concerning Convention No. 29 amounted to an escalation in the violation of workers’ rights. Presidential Decrees Nos 3, 5, 9 and 29 aimed at imposing labour discipline by instilling a culture of fear among workers. The worst example was Decree No. 3, under which the unemployed were considered guilty rather than deserving of assistance, in a context in which unemployment stood at 37 per cent and unemployment benefits were as low as US$13. Decree No. 29 appeared to impose the norm of temporary labour contracts on all workers. When included in the Labour Code, the provisions of Decree No. 5 would result in the imposition of heavy fines for vaguely defined breaches of labour discipline. Belarus was engaging in a very dangerous experiment of developing totalitarian labour standards that set the worst example for the region.

The Government member of Switzerland indicated that his country supported the statement of the European Union. It was a cause of concern that certain legislative provisions in force in Belarus contained elements which could lead to situations amounting to forced labour, in particular legislative provisions that imposed compulsory labour on certain categories of vulnerable persons. The fact of imposing a burden, whether financial or in the form of compulsory labour, on individuals who were unable to work a certain number of days per year constituted a sort of “tax on precarity” which was likely to make difficult personal and family situations even worse. The provisions imposing compulsory labour on persons living with substance dependency who were interned in “medical labour centres” or who had been deprived of the custody of their child merely added to their suffering. Such persons would need genuine medical and social care, rather than the imposition of a penalty in the form of compulsory labour. Switzerland endorsed the position of the Committee of Experts and called on the Government of Belarus to amend the elements in its legislation which could lead to situations amounting to forced labour, some of which targeted the most vulnerable members of society.

The Worker member of Malaysia expressed support for the measures taken by the social partners in Belarus to address the observations made by the Committee of Experts, which had resulted in a positive outcome for the workers. Emphasizing that Presidential Decree No. 9 had been abolished as a result of rapid action by the social partners, he expressed the hope that all other legislative issues would be resolved in the same manner through cooperation among the social partners.

The Government member of the Russian Federation said that his delegation had listened with great interest to the explanations provided by the Government of Belarus. They bore witness to the openness of the Government to constructive dialogue with the ILO as a means of fulfilling its international obligations, as demonstrated by the repeal of Presidential Decree No. 9. The present Committee should refrain from artificially inflating the present case.

The Worker member of Poland referred to the pressure, particularly on pensions and health-care systems, resulting from the decrease in the “able-bodied” labour force. In 2000, the regime had tolerated shadow activities by citizens because the economy was supported by high subsidies. However, as the economy had worsened, the Government had sought new sources to remedy the budget deficit. Government data showed about five hundred thousand Belarusians (10 per cent of the active population) to be “spongers”, who benefited from free education, health care and reduced fees for public services while contributing nothing to the state budget. At the same time, many Belarusians were leaving the country for better jobs abroad, resulting in a lack of skilled workers in some industries in Belarus. The 2015 policies of President Lukashenka targeting several groups of citizens, mainly “spongers”, had had the effect of exacerbating forced labour in Belarus in various sectors and forms. Some examples were given in reports by United Nations agencies, such as the practice of subbotniki, which required government employees and workers in state enterprises and many private businesses to work occasionally on Saturdays and to donate their earnings to finance government projects. As 70 per cent of the Belarus economy was state-owned, the State was responsible for guaranteeing decent and safe working conditions, wages and protection for workers. The Government penalized with those who exacted forced labour, yet it was the main offender. The solution to forced labour lay in respecting human and workers’ rights and international labour standards, introducing adequate employment policies and programmes, enabling people to work in friendly environments so that they could pay taxes and make economic growth possible, while reducing the “shadow economy”. Forced labour was not the solution and workers were not a commodity.

The Government member of Kazakhstan said that the Government of Belarus had made strong efforts to combat all forms of forced labour. Measures to prevent trafficking and labour exploitation formed a central part of state policy. He noted that the Government had reviewed its legislation and implemented a number of changes, in accordance with the comments of the Committee of Experts. As a result, Presidential Decree No. 9 had now been repealed, and other measures were also currently being undertaken. He expressed his confidence that the Government would soon finalize the measures it was adopting to ensure full conformity with the Convention.

The Government member of Uzbekistan welcomed the will demonstrated by Belarus to fulfil its obligations under Convention No. 29 and to develop constructive cooperation with the ILO for the implementation of international labour standards. He supported the measures taken by the Government to eradicate forced labour, which was prohibited under the Constitution and in the Labour Code. Belarus was an active supporter of international efforts to combat exploitation and had joined the global partnership against slavery and trafficking. Belarus was not on the list of countries to be considered under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the examination of the present case by the Committee should be ended.

The Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicated that, for the workers of his country, it was important to use the opportunity to support the position of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FSB), as it was not the first time that the application of a Convention by Belarus had been discussed by the Committee. The country would certainly remain on the list of individual cases the following year, as that it was a political case, as was the Venezuelan case and those other countries that adopted an independent position. The Committee had examined the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 in the past, and this year it was examining the application of Convention No. 29. On these occasions, the number of the Convention was of no consequence and the country would remain on the list, unlike the serious cases of other countries, which genuinely needed the urgent help of the ILO. In Belarus, a civilized European country, there was no place for forced labour. It was a country with a long and tragic history, strong trade unions and social dialogue. There were excellent relations between Venezuelan workers and the FSB, the most representative workers’ organization in Belarus, which carried out trade union activities. There were also Belarussian workers in Venezuela, who participated in the construction of housing and factories under cooperation agreements between the countries. This was not the first time that the case of Belarus had been discussed by the Conference Committee, without any note being taken of the positive changes in the country. In this Committee, there were always different opinions on the situation in the country, and there was a tendency to examine the same cases from different angles or to compare cases which were different in nature. The case was examined as if the situation were the same as in other countries whose cases had been discussed in the Committee the previous year. While there might be some specific cases which appeared similar because they fell under the same Convention, in this particular case there were no acts of sexual exploitation, child labour, trafficking in persons, or forced migrant labour. In Belarus, as in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, there were excellent labour laws and well-developed social dialogue. On many occasions, the country had demonstrated its willingness to make changes and its dedication to ILO principles. He expressed the hope that the Committee would take into account all the above and remain impartial in this case.

The Government member of China observed that the Government of Belarus had implemented numerous measures in response to the requests of the Committee of Experts, including the repeal of Presidential Decree No. 9. Affirming that member States were under a serious obligation to fully implement ratified Conventions, he noted that the Government had taken a considerable number of measures to fulfil this obligation. He considered that the ILO should provide all possible assistance for this endeavour.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation fully shared the conclusions of the Committee of Experts regarding the application by Belarus of Convention No. 29. He recalled that his Government cooperated with Belarus under an arrangement whereby an integration process was underway which might affect labour relations. It was regrettable that some practices in Belarus had been described as positive measures by the Employer representative of the Russian Federation, and particularly Presidential Decree No. 3 on the prevention of dependency on social aid. In 2012, a Coordination Council had been established between the trade unions of the Russian Federation and Belarus with the view to coordinating actions, including in the area of preventing the extension between countries of violations of labour rights. He noted in this regard that Presidential Decree No. 9, which had been the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts, had been repealed a few days earlier. While the repeal of the Presidential Decree was admittedly considered to be a positive result of many years of work by the international community, the whole range of measures contained in the national legislation adopted the previous year did not allow for optimism. This was due to the fact that Presidential Decrees Nos 3, 5 and 29 remained in force. Presidential Decree No. 3 on the prevention of dependency on social aid of April 2015 established taxes for the unemployed which, in the event of non-payment, resulted in serious sanctions leading to administrative detention. Presidential Decree No. 5, adopted in 2015, had also had the effect of increasing the number of unemployed in the country, as it provided employers with the power to impose heavy disciplinary measures on employees amounting to dismissal at short notice. It was therefore important not to refer to individual cases, but to examine the problems arising out of the system as a whole, which was giving rise to forced labour and making it commonplace. He called on the Government to take into account the conclusions of the Committee of Experts and to make the necessary amendments to legislation that was not in conformity with the Convention.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela welcomed the Government’s statement concerning compliance with Convention No. 29. The updated information demonstrated the commitment to bring the national legislation into line with the provisions of the Convention. In light of this information, the comments made by the Committee of Experts on Presidential Decree No. 9 were no longer applicable, as it had been repealed by Presidential Decree No. 182 of 27 May 2016. In view of the willingness and commitment shown by the Government, the Committee should keep in mind the positive aspects of the explanations and arguments submitted. He trusted that the Committee’s conclusions, arrived at through debate, would be balanced and objective, which would surely enable the Government of Belarus to consider and assess them within the framework of compliance with the Convention, and he also trusted that there would be no need for the case to be considered again by the Committee.

The Government member of Azerbaijan said that the prohibition of forced labour was reflected in the legislation of Belarus and in the Labour Code, and that there was a social protection system for workers. The adoption of Presidential Decree No. 3 should not be considered as use of forced labour, but rather as a measure for the return to work of the unemployed. Referring to the information sent to the Committee by the Government, she said that the Decree provided social protection benefits and employment benefits. It also provided for capacity building and skills development, and could provide a psychological boost, which was a social assistance measure. Presidential Decree No. 18 on additional measures for state protection of children from “dysfunctional families” contained measures against the exploitation of human beings. The Government had taken account in detail of issues concerning human trafficking and had taken measures to repeal Presidential Decree No. 9. In conclusion, she asked for the application of Convention No. 29 by Belarus to be taken off the Committee’s agenda.

The Government member of India commended the Government for its efforts to review all of the laws and regulations cited by the Committee of Experts, to ensure their conformity with the Convention. He particularly welcomed the repeal of Presidential Decree No. 9, pursuant to the recommendation of the Committee of Experts, which demonstrated the Government’s commitment to ensuring compliance with ratified Conventions. The Government had also taken other action to prevent the occurrence of forced labour, such as the adoption of Presidential Decree No. 18 providing supplementary measures for state protection of children from “dysfunctional families”, and Presidential Decree No. 3 on the prevention of dependency on social aid. He considered that the Government’s prompt action in response to the comments of the Committee of Experts should be fully credited and expressed strong support for the Government’s efforts to promote social justice and eliminate forced labour in all its forms.

The Government member of Cuba thanked the Government member of Belarus for the information provided, which illustrated the current situation in the country relating to the issues under discussion. If the ILO’s supervisory machinery was to reinforce a culture of compliance with ILO Conventions and other standards, it was particularly important to ensure that considerations not directly related to major problems concerning employment, social welfare and respect for rights at work did not have the effect of undermining the climate of cooperation and respectful dialogue that should prevail in the Committee. She hoped that the efforts made by the Government would be recognized and supported by more technical assistance from the ILO. The approach of dialogue was essential to promoting genuine international cooperation.

The Government representative emphasized that forced labour was prohibited by the legislation, including the Labour Code and labour relations laws. The recruitment of labour was based on the principle of free will including the freedom to conclude labour contracts. The types and terms of labour contracts were determined by the parties to the contract, taking into consideration the minimum guarantees established in the legislation. However, in practice, employers tended to opt for fixed-term contracts, as the most convenient type of contract, and employees were in agreement with this type of contract. She emphasized that, while the Government had established rules that created different types of labour contract, the parties concerned were not compelled to choose any particular type of contract. This principle was established in Presidential Decree No. 29. Furthermore, in the case of fixed-term contracts, the legislation requires the employer to provide additional guarantees, such as leave for five days and a salary increase of up to 50 per cent. In any case, employees who entered into labour contracts, whether fixed term or not, were considered to have entered into a formal employment relationship which entitled them to all the benefits guaranteed by national law, as opposed to workers in the informal economy. She observed that an earlier intervention indicating that the level of unemployment was 37 per cent was not accurate. She indicated that the level of registered unemployment in Belarus was 1 per cent in 2015, and 1.2 per cent in the current year of 2016. World practice demonstrated that women and men were currently subject to exploitation when they did not conclude formal employment relations with the employer. They thus became the victims of violence and deception. It should be acknowledged that the problem of trafficking over the past decade had been identified as a global challenge. In this regard, Belarus had been one of the first countries which had initiated the discussion on this issue at the United Nations Millennium Summit. In 2005, Belarus had also proposed to join the international action taken under the Global Partnership against Slavery and Trafficking in Human Beings in the 21st century. This initiative by Belarus had marked the beginning of the practical action taken by the United Nations, including the adoption of the resolution against trafficking by the General Assembly. In 2013, Belarus had adhered to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, making it the only country to have done so which was not a member of the Council of Europe. This active participation at the international level was supported by concrete action at the national level. In 2012, Belarus had adopted a law against trafficking which established a mechanism to identify and protect victims of trafficking. The result of the systemic work against trafficking had been a reduction in the level of trafficking in the country. For example, in 2005, 159 cases of trafficking had been identified, while in 2010 the number of cases identified was 39, with only one case detected in 2015. The comments of the Committee of Experts had led the Government to ensure additional protective measures in its national law and practice. Accordingly, Presidential Decree No. 9 had been repealed in its entirety. The text repealing Presidential Decree No. 9 had already been provided to the Office. Detailed information had also been provided on the three other Decrees with gave rise to concern, including Presidential Decree No. 3. However, there was a need to provide clarification on certain provisions of these Decrees, in light of the comments made by previous speakers. For example, the fees established by Presidential Decree No. 3 had been incorrectly described as a labour tax. They were a tax on income which bore no relation to forced labour. Certain groups were excluded from the payment of the tax, including pensioners, the disabled, families with children, the unemployed and other vulnerable groups. It had been claimed that the deadline for the payment of the tax was set for November 2016. Hence it would only be after the deadline of November 2016, that information could be provided on the application of this tax in practice. In the Government’s view, Presidential Decree No. 3 and the other laws were not in contradiction with the principles of Convention No. 29, as they related to a category of persons who needed special assistance from the State and from society for their rehabilitation into normal life. Work was one of the measures used for rehabilitation and reintegration. This approach was considered to be consistent with the comments made by the Committee of Experts in 1979 and 2007 on action to combat long-term unemployment. In conclusion, she once again reassured the Committee of Experts that the Government will be a firm and consistent supporter of ILO principles. She referred to the good experience of collaboration with the ILO and expressed determination to develop the system of industrial relations in Belarus.

The Worker members considered that the situation of forced labour in Belarus was related to the lack of progress made by the Government in guaranteeing the right to freedom of association under Convention No. 87, and they urged the Government to implement the recommendations made by the various ILO supervisory mechanisms in this regard. The Presidential Decrees imposed compulsory work, while several legislative texts and the effect given to them constituted a framework for the generalized use of forced labour, in flagrant violation of Convention No. 29. In order to ensure that workers had the right to end their employment relationship and to avoid them being forced to work, the Worker members urged the Government to amend its legislation, including Presidential Decree No. 29 of 26 July 1999 on supplementary measures to improve labour relations and strengthen labour discipline, and to amend or repeal Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2 April 2015, Presidential Decree No. 18 of 24 November 2006 and Law No. 104-3 of 4 January 2010. They also called on the Government to review section 10 of the Law on the status of conscripted personnel, which provided for the use of conscripts to perform work and other tasks not specific to military service, and to stop the use of subbotniki, which was a procedure through which workers were mobilized throughout the country to perform unpaid work. They also urged the Government to review the use of compulsory labour for individuals in preventative detention and to amend section 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure that labour contracts were concluded directly with prisoners. Emphasizing the gravity of the situation and the flagrant human rights violations in Belarus, the Worker members considered that the Government should accept an ILO direct contacts mission, without hindrance, to correctional institutions, independent trade unions and civil society organizations. They also called for the situation in Belarus to be placed in a special paragraph of the Committee’s general report.

The Employer members welcomed the Government’s submissions and noted the efforts detailed therein to closely review its laws, an exercise which had yielded positive developments with regard to bringing the legislation into closer conformity with the Convention. They encouraged the continued analysis of relevant laws and regulations to identify inconsistencies in law and practice with the Convention.

Recalling the request by the Committee of Experts for further information on the operation of several laws, including Presidential Decree No. 18 of 2006, they urged the Government to suppress the use of forced labour in practice and to refrain from enacting legislation that could result in forced labour contrary to the Convention. They called upon the Government to continue its review of all legislation, including the Criminal Code and the sections of the Labour Code prohibiting forced labour, and to work constructively with the ILO in this respect.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed on issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee noted with interest the Government’s explanation of the steps taken to repeal Presidential Decree No. 9 of 7 December 2012 by Presidential Decree No. 182. However, the Committee noted with deep concern the possible exaction of forced labour as a result of the operation of the other Presidential Decrees discussed by the Committee of Experts.

Taking into account the discussion of the case, the Committee urged the Government to:

• -take all measures to suppress the use of forced labour, and refrain from enacting legislation that may amount to the use of forced labour;
• -prosecute and, if guilty, impose dissuasive civil and criminal sanctions on those responsible for the exaction of forced labour;
• -provide to the Committee of Experts information confirming the repeal of Presidential Decree No. 9 by Presidential Decree No. 182 and information related to the operation of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 182 in law and its effect in practice;
• - provide to the Committee of Experts additional information on the operation in law and practice of: (1) Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2 April 2015; (2) Presidential Decree No. 18 of 24 November 2006; and (3) Law No. 104-3 of 4 January 2010;
• - ensure that Decrees and national legislation are in full conformity with Convention No. 29, including:
  • – Presidential Decree No. 3;
  • – Law No. 104-3;
  • – Presidential Decree No. 5;
  • – Presidential Decree No. 18.
• - accept technical assistance of the ILO in order to ensure that the Government ensures compliance with the obligations in Convention No. 29 in both law and practice.

In light of the serious issues raised in this case, the Committee strongly urged the Government to constructively engage with the ILO at the highest levels to resolve these issues before the next sitting of the Committee.

The Government representative attentively took into account all the comments and indicated his readiness to carefully analyse them at the national level.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

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

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. It has noted, in particular, the provisions of the Act on Military Duty and Military Service, as amended on 19 July 2006, concerning the conclusion and termination of military service contracts, as well as the provisions governing conditions for payment of unemployment benefits, in relation to the participation in paid public works. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would communicate, with its next report, a copy of the Decree of the Council of Ministers on the organization and implementation of public works, of 16 May 1997 (No. 513), as amended by Decree No. 488 of 8 April 1999.

Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. Work of prisoners for private enterprises. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that employment of prisoners for private enterprises outside prison premises is allowed in accordance with the legislation in force, and that private parties are entitled to conclude contracts on the use of labour of prisoners with the administration of a correctional institution. The Committee noted the provisions of the Execution of Penal Sentences Code, 2001, concerning the obligation of convicts to work at the enterprises determined by the administration of correctional institutions, including private ones, the refusal to work being punishable with sanctions (section 98 of the Code). It also noted that conditions of work of convicts (including hours of work and rest periods, occupational safety and health and social security) are established in accordance with the labour legislation of Belarus, and their wage rates shall not be lower than those established by the labour legislation for the performance of corresponding types of work (sections 99 and 100 of the Code).

The Committee recalled that, to be compatible with Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, which expressly prohibits convicted prisoners from being hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, such work should not involve compulsory labour and should be carried out with the freely given consent of the persons concerned. The Committee also refers in this connection to the explanations given in paragraphs 59–60 and 114–120 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it pointed out that, in the context of a captive labour force having no alternative access to the free labour market, the most reliable indicator of the voluntariness of labour is the work performed under conditions approximating a free labour relationship, which include wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and occupational safety and health. There may be also 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 the work of the same type upon their release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively in a controlled environment enabling them to develop team skills).

While noting that, under the legislative provisions referred to above, prisoners’ conditions of work may be considered as approximating those of a free labour relationship, the Committee reiterates its hope that measures will be taken, both in law and in practice, to ensure that any work or service by prisoners for private enterprises is performed only with the voluntary consent of the prisoners concerned, so that such consent is freely given and informed and is free from the menace of any penalty, including any loss of privileges or other disadvantages following from a refusal to work. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments.

Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Freedom of career military servicemen to leave their service. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 26 of the Universal Military Duty and Military Service Act and point 59.7 of the Regulations respecting the military service of officers (Order No. 360 of 1993 of the Minister of Defence), according to which career military officers may be discharged from service at their own request only if their family situation and other circumstances prevent them from performing their military duties. The Committee recalled, referring to paragraphs 33 and 72 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that career military servicemen who have voluntarily entered into an engagement may not be denied the right to leave the service in peacetime within a reasonable period, either at specified intervals or with previous notice, subject to the conditions which may normally be required to ensure the continuity of the service.

The Committee has noted from the Government’s latest report received in 2004, that the new amended text of the Universal Military Duty and Military Service Act of 22 July 2003 contains in section 59 a provision allowing servicemen who undergo their military service on a contract basis, to be discharged from service at their own request before the expiration of the term of their contract, when there are good reasons preventing them from performing their service. The Committee requests the Government to provide particulars concerning the procedure for the conclusion and termination of military service contracts, as well as other existing procedures for the appointment of servicemen to military posts and their discharge from military service, and to supply copies of relevant provisions of the Universal Military Duty and Military Service Act, as amended on 22 July 2003, and other provisions governing these issues.

2. Conditions for payment of unemployment benefits. The Committee previously noted the provision in the national legislation according to which the payment of unemployment benefits is suspended in the event that an unemployed person fails, without a valid reason, to carry out a monthly standard of participation in paid public works assigned by the state employment service (section 18-1, point 2, of the revised Act on Employment of Population of 6 January 1999). The Committee also noted the Government’s repeated statement that, under section 9.1 of the Act on Employment of Population, participation in paid public works does not constitute an obligation on the part of unemployed persons. The Committee has noted the recommendations issued by the Ministry of Labour concerning the procedure of the organization and financing of socially useful paid public works, supplied by the Government with its report. Paragraph 1 of these recommendations contains a reference to the Decree of the Council of Ministers respecting the organization and implementation of public works of 16 May 1997, No. 513, as amended by Decree No. 488 of 8 April 1999, which govern the organization of public works and participation therein. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would communicate copies of these Decrees, as well as information on their application in practice, in order to enable the Committee to assess their conformity with the Convention.

Article 2(2)(c). Work of prisoners for private employers. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that employment of prisoners for private enterprises outside prison premises is allowed in accordance with the legislation in force, and that private parties are entitled to conclude contracts on the use of labour of prisoners with the administration of a correctional institution. The Committee noted the provisions of the Execution of Penal Sentences Code, 2001, concerning the obligation of convicts to work at the enterprises determined by the administration of correctional institution, including private ones, the refusal to work being punishable with sanctions (section 98 of the Code). It also noted that conditions of work of convicts are established in accordance with the labour legislation of Belarus and their wage rates shall not be lower than those established by the labour legislation for the performance of corresponding types of work (sections 99 and 100 of the Code).

The Committee recalled that, to be compatible with Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, which expressly prohibits convicted prisoners from being hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, such work should be carried out in conditions approximating a free employment relationship; this necessarily requires the voluntary consent of the prisoner as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free employment relationship, such as wages and social security (see paragraphs 82-146 of its General Report submitted to the 89th Session of the ILC (2001)).

The Committee therefore hopes that measures will be taken, both in law and in practice, to ensure that any work or service by prisoners for private employers is performed only with the voluntary consent of the prisoners concerned, so that it is free from the menace of any penalty, including any loss of privileges or other disadvantages following from a refusal to work. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Government is requested to continue to provide information concerning conditions of work of prisoners working for private enterprises, their wages and social security provisions, including specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee has noted the Government’s report, including the information supplied in response to the Committee’s general observation of 2000 concerning measures to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons for the purpose of exploitation.

Article 1 and Article 2(1) of the Convention

1. Freedom of career military servicemen to leave their service. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 26 of the Act on universal conscription and military service and point 59.7 of the Regulations respecting the military service of officers (Order No. 360 of 1993 of the Minister of Defence), career military officers may be discharged from service at their own request if their family situation and other circumstances prevent them from performing their military duties. According to the Government’s explanations in its previous report received in 2000, the discharge from service under these provisions is possible only on compassionate grounds, when there are good reasons preventing the officers from military service, like for example serious illness of children or near relatives, the need of taking continuous care of them, removal to their place of residence, etc. It logically follows from these explanations that in the absence of such good reasons the discharge of officers at their own request is not possible.

Referring to paragraphs 33 and 72 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee recalled that career military servicemen who have voluntarily entered into an engagement may not be denied the right to leave the service in peacetime within a reasonable period, either at specified intervals or with previous notice, subject to the conditions which may normally be required to ensure the continuity of the service. Since the Government’s latest report contains no new information on this subject, the Committee reiterates its hope that appropriate measures will be taken with a view to amending the existing legislation in order to ensure compliance with the Convention on this point and that the Government will provide, in its next report, information on measures taken or envisaged to this end.

2. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the provision in the national legislation according to which the payment of unemployment benefits is suspended in the event that an unemployed person fails, without a valid reason, to carry out a monthly standard of participation in paid public works assigned by the State employment service (section 18-1, point 2, of the revised Act on Employment of Population, of 6 January 1999). The Committee also noted the Government’s repeated statement that, under section 9.1 of the Act on Employment of Population, participation in paid public works does not constitute an obligation on the part of unemployed persons. Referring also to the Government’s indication in its previous report that the organization of public works and participation therein is regulated by Decree No. 488 of 8 April 1999 of the Council of Ministers with respect to the organization and implementation of public works, the Committee again requests the Government to supply a copy of this Decree, as well as information on its application in practice.

Article 2(2)(c). The Committee previously noted that employment of prisoners for private enterprises outside prison premises is allowed in accordance with the legislation in force, and that private parties are entitled to conclude contracts on the use of labour of prisoners with the administration of a correctional institution. The Committee has noted the provisions of the new Execution of Penal Sentences Code, 2001, concerning the obligation of convicts to work at the enterprises determined by the administration of correctional institution, including private ones, the refusal to work being punishable with sanctions (section 98 of the Code). It has also noted that conditions of work of convicts are established in accordance with the labour legislation of Belarus and their wage rates shall not be lower than those established by the labour legislation for the performance of corresponding types of work (sections 99 and 100 of the same Code).

The Committee recalls again that under Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is excluded from the scope of the Convention if two conditions are met, namely: "… 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".

The Committee has always made it clear that the two conditions are cumulative and apply independently, i.e. the fact that the prisoner remains at all times under the supervision and control of a public authority does not in itself dispense the Government from fulfilling the second condition, namely that the person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations (see paragraph 119 of the Committee’s General Report to the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference, 2001).

As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, work for private companies can be compatible with the Convention only where prisoners work in conditions approximating a free employment relationship; this necessarily requires the voluntary consent of the prisoner as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free employment relationship, such as wages and social security (see paragraphs 97-99 of the Committee’s General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, paragraphs 122-125 of its General Report submitted to the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference (1998) and paragraphs 82-146 of its General Report submitted to the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference (2001)).

The Committee therefore again requests the Government to indicate whether and how the consent of the prisoners to work for private enterprises is obtained. Please also supply copies of contracts concluded between a private company and the administration of a correctional institution and of any contracts between prisoners and companies.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its previous direct request.

Articles 1 and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. The Committee previously noted that, under section 26 of the Act on universal conscription and military service and point 59.7 of the Regulations respecting the military service of officers (Order No. 360 of 1993 of the Ministry of Defence), career military officers may be discharged from service at their own request if their family situation and other circumstances prevent them from performing their military duties. According to the Government’s explanations in its latest report, the discharge from service under these provisions is possible only on compassionate grounds, when there are good reasons preventing the officers from military service, like, for example, serious illness of children or near relatives, the need of taking continuous care of them, removal to their place of residence, etc. It logically follows from these explanations that in the absence of such good reasons the discharge of officers at their own request is not possible.

2. The Committee recalls in this connection, referring to paragraphs 33 and 72 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that career military servicemen who have voluntarily entered into an engagement may not be denied the right to leave the service in peacetime within a reasonable period, either at specified intervals or with previous notice, subject to the conditions which may normally be required to ensure the continuity of the service. The Committee hopes that appropriate measures will be taken with a view to amending the existing legislation in order to ensure compliance with the Convention on this point. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Article 2(2). 3. The Committee previously noted that, under point 1 of Decree No. 7 of the President of the Republic of Belarus on complementary measures to guarantee employment of 17 March 1997, the payment of unemployment benefits is suspended in the event that an unemployed person fails, without a valid reason, to carry out a monthly standard of participation in paid public works assigned by the state employment service. The Government indicates in its report that the said Decree is not applicable and that the organization of public works and participation therein is regulated by the revised Act on Employment of Population (text of 6 January 1999) and the Decree of the Council of Ministers respecting the organization and implementation of public works of 8 April 1999, No. 488. The Committee notes, however, that the revised text of the Act on Employment of Population referred to by the Government contains a similar provision concerning the suspension of unemployment benefits in case of failure to participate in public works (section 18-1, point 2). Having noted the Government’s repeated statement that, under section 9.1 of the Act on Employment of Population, participation in paid public works does not constitute an obligation on the part of unemployed persons, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, a copy of Decree No. 488 referred to above, as well as information on its application in practice.

Article 2(2)(c). 4. The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government concerning prison labour in Belarus. It has noted, in particular, the Government’s statement that employment of prisoners outside prison premises, both for public authorities and for private enterprises, is allowed in accordance with the legislation in force, and that private parties are entitled to conclude contracts on the use of labour of prisoners with the administration of a correctional institution, in accordance with the legislation in force. It has also noted the Government’s indication that, according to the internal regulations of a correctional institution, coercive measures can be applied to prisoners in case of their refusal to work.

5. The Committee recalls in this connection that under Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is exempted from the scope of the Convention only if the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, work for private companies can be compatible with the Convention only where prisoners work in conditions approximating a free employment relationship; this necessarily requires the voluntary consent of the prisoner as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free employment relationship, such as wages and social security (see paragraphs 97-99 of the Committee’s 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, paragraphs 122-125 of its General Report submitted to the 86th Session of the ILC (1998) and paragraphs 82-146 of its General Report submitted to the 89th Session of the ILC (2001)). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether and how the consent of the prisoners to work for private enterprises is obtained and what are the wages, social security and other conditions of work of prisoners working for private enterprises. Please also supply copies of contracts concluded between a company and the administration of a correctional institution and of any contracts between prisoners and companies, as well as a copy of the Executive Penal Code, to which reference is made in the Government’s report, and of any other legislation or regulations relating to prison labour.

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

Article 1 and Article 2(1) of the Convention. 1. The Committee notes the information concerning provisions governing discharge from service of various categories of members of the armed forces supplied by the Government in its report. It notes that, under section 26 of the Act with respect to universal conscription and military service, persons performing military service under contract may be discharged from service at their own request if their family situation and other circumstances prevent them from performing their military duties. Similar provisions are laid down in a number of regulations concerning various categories of servicemen (point 59.7 of the Regulations respecting the military service of officers (Order No. 360 of 1993 of the Minister of Defence), point 46.9 of the Regulations respecting the military service under contract of ensigns and warrant officers (Order No. 450 of 1993 of the Minister of Defence), point 65g of the Regulations respecting the military service under contract of soldiers, sailors, sergeants and sergeant majors (Order No. 159 of 1994 of the Minister of Defence)).

2. The Committee refers to paragraph 33 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it is stated that career servicemen may not be denied the right to leave the service either at reasonable intervals or by means of notice of reasonable length. The Committee asks the Government to state what guarantees to this effect are provided in the national legislation or practice. Please also supply information on the application of the above-mentioned provisions in practice. Please indicate, in particular, the duration of service of officers and other career service personnel which can be specified in the contracts.

Article 2(2). 3. The Committee notes that, under point 1 of Decree No. 7 of the President of the Republic of Belarus on complementary measures to guarantee employment of 17 March 1997, the payment of unemployment benefits is suspended in the event that an unemployed person fails, without a valid reason, to carry out a monthly standard of participation in paid public works assigned by the State employment service. The procedures for establishing the monthly standard of participation for unemployed persons in paid public works and the execution of such works are to be defined by the Council of Ministers. The Government states in its report that paid work under the auspices of the State employment service in accordance with the Decree does not constitute forced labour, since under section 9.1 of the Employment Act of 1991 participation in paid public works does not constitute an obligation on the part of unemployed persons and no sanctions are provided for in the legislation in the event of failure by such persons to take part in such works. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the above provisions of the Decree No. 7 and copies of relevant texts adopted by the Council of Ministers.

Article 2(2)(c). 4. The Committee understands that the new draft Correctional Labour Code is under elaboration and will be submitted to the National Assembly after the adoption of the new Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. It requests the Government to supply copies of these Codes as soon as they are adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

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

1. In its previous direct request the Committee noted from the 302nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association (ILO, Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXIX, 1996, Series B, No. 1) that a complaint against the Government of Belarus had been presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), the Free Trade Union of Belarus and the Belarussian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (Case No. 1849). It noted from paragraph 177 of the Committee's report that, according to the ICFTU, the Mayor of Minsk was reported to have said in a meeting with 34 metro workers that the President of the Republic, Mr. Lukashenko, issued an order stating that metro workers dismissed in retaliation for striking must find employment for two months at a collective farm and receive a favourable recommendation before being considered for employment anywhere else.

The Government states in its reply that the above allegations are based on unproven facts. It also states that neither in 1995 nor later did the President of the Republic of Belarus issue such an order.

The Committee takes note of this information.

2. In its earlier comments the Committee noted the Government's statement to the effect that there was no legislation in the Republic of Belarus concerning discharge from service of various categories of members of the armed forces, and that this matter was regulated by the legislative provisions of the former USSR. It requested the Government to provide information on any new developments regarding the adoption of legislation on this subject by Belarus.

The Government indicates in its reply that such information is being summarized and will be supplied shortly.

The Committee reiterates its hope 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. The Committee notes from the Government's report received in August 1997 that forced labour can be exacted only as a penal sanction for certain crimes under the Criminal Code, as well as in the form of participation in remunerated public works ordered by the bodies of the State Employment Service under Decree No. 7 of the President of the Republic of Belarus "On complementary measures to guarantee the employment of the population", of 17 March 1997. The Committee requests the Government to supply, with its next report, a copy of the above-mentioned Decree No. 7, as well as copies of updated texts of the Criminal Code and the Correctional Labour Code.

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

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

1. The Committee notes from the 302nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association (ILO, Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXIX, 1966, Series, No. 1) that a complaint against the Government of Belarus was presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), the Free Trade Union of Belarus and the Belarussian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (Case No. 1849). It notes from paragraph 177 of the Committee's report that, according to the ICFTU, the mayor of Minsk is reported to have said in a meeting with 34 metro workers that the President of the Republic, Mr. L. Lukashenko, issued an order stating that metro workers dismissed in retaliation for striking must find employment for two months at a collective farm and receive a favourable recommendation before being considered for employment anywhere else; as indicated in paragraph 183 of the report, the ICFTU also points out that the Procurator-General gives Presidential Decrees priority over the Constitution and laws; and according to paragraph 190 of the report, the Government has not denied the facts as described by the complainants. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the Presidential Order referred to by the mayor of Minsk, as well as information on any measures taken or contemplated in this regard to ensure the observance of the Convention.

2. In its earlier comments the Committee noted the Government's statement to the effect that there was no legislation in the Republic of Belarus concerning discharge from service of various categories of members of the armed forces, and that this matter was regulated by the legislative provisions of the former USSR. It requested the Government to provide information on any new developments regarding the adoption of legislation on this subject by Belarus. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate, in its next report, whether such legislation has been adopted and, if not, whether any measures are taken or envisaged to this end. It reiterates its hope 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.

[The Government is requested to report in detail in 1997.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

Further to its previous comments the Committee notes with satisfaction that section 204 of the Penal Code concerning persons "leading a parasitic way of life" was repealed by Act No. 1233-XII of 14 February 1991.

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

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

1. Legislation concerning persons "leading a parasitic way of life". In its previous observations, the Committee referred to the provisions of section 204 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 204 of the Penal Code, or by limiting the scope of this provision to persons engaging in illegal activities. The Committee hoped that the Govermment would supply information on developments in this direction.

In its report, the Government supplies detailed statistics on the annual numbers of criminal proceedings under section 204 of the Penal Code against "persons leading a parasitic way of life", which declined from 1,308 cases in 1985 to two in 1990 and one in the first six months of 1991. Furthermore, under the law of Belarus on the employment of the population, which came into force on 1 July 1991, administrative coercion in any form to engage in work is not permitted, with the exception of cases provided for in the legislation. In conformity with this law, the Government considers that section 204 of the Penal Code can be repealed, and the Council of Ministers has tabled a bill to this effect for consideration by the Supreme Soviet at its session beginning 15 October 1991.

The Committee notes these indications with great interest. It hopes that section 204 of the Penal Code as well as the Order of 30 January 1985 on its manner of application, mentioned in the Government's report, and any supplementary provisions in this field will soon be repealed, and that the Govermment will supply a copy of the text adopted to this end.

2. Freedom to leave the service. The Government indicates in its report that the discharge from service of members of the USSR armed forces stationed in the Republic of Belarus is regulated by the following instruments of the Union:

- 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 Government adds that currently, there is no Belarussian legislation with respect to the different categories of members of the armed forces as regards discharge from service. Discharge from the service is decided by the USSR Ministry of Defence.

The Committee takes due note of these indications. It requests the Government to send with its next report copies of the legislative texts referred to in its reports, as well as information on any new developments regarding the adoption of legislation on these matters by Belarus. 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.

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

1. In its previous comments, referring to section 204 of the Penal Code, the Committee noted that a decision given on an appeal by the Deputy Attorney-General of the USSR by the Plenary of the Supreme Court of the Byelorussian SSR overturned the conviction for leading a parasitic way of life of a 19-year-old graduate, who had refused various jobs offered to her and lived at her parents' expense. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would communicate a copy of the above decision and of any further decisions defining the scope of section 204 of the Penal Code.

In the absence of the texts requested, the Committee hopes that the Government will soon provide a copy of the decision in question, as well as copies of other decisions defining or illustrating the scope of section 204 of the Penal Code. 2. In its general direct request of 1981, the Committee referred to paragraphs 67-73 of its General Survey of 1979 on the Abolition of Forced Labour, concerning restrictions on the freedom of workers to leave their employment. It noted that in a number of countries the status of certain persons in the service of the State, including career members of the armed forces, is governed by statutory provisions under which the right to leave the service is subject to authorisation. In some cases a link is made between the length of training received and that of service normally required before resignation is accepted. Since such restrictions may have a bearing on the application of the Conventions on forced or compulsory labour, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on national legislation and practice concerning the situation of the various categories of career members of the armed forces and of other persons in the service of the State, with regard in particular to the freedom to leave the service on their own initiative after a reasonable time, either at specified intervals or by giving notice.

The Committee noted the Government's statement that the Labour Code of the Byelorussian SSR permits workers to terminate their labour contracts of indefinite duration by giving one month's notice in writing, and requested the Government to indicate the extent to which these provisions also apply to career members of the armed forces. Noting that the Government's report contains no information on the matter, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will soon provide the information requested.

3. Since 1964, the Committee has been asking the Government to provide the texts of the Administrative Code of the Byelorussian SSR, of any regulations issued under the Code and any laws or regulations governing the performance of community services, mentioned by the Government in a previous report. The Committee noted earlier the Government's statement that a number of points of the Administrative Code had been amended and that a new edition was in the process of being prepared. In its last report, the Government refers to the Administrative Offences Code and indicates that it is being amended. Pending these amendments, the Committee asks the Government to provide copies of the Administrative Offences Code, as presently in force, and of the other documents requested. It also asks the Government to indicate whether the Administrative Offences Code has replaced the Administrative Code.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied 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 Collective Farms Model 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' written 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 section 204 of the Penal Code of the Byelorussian SSR concerning persons "leading a parasitic way of life". The Committee notes with interest the report submitted by the Government of the USSR 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 the 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 204 of the Penal Code or by limiting the scope of this provision to persons engaging in illegal activities. The Committee hopes that the Government will supply information on developments in this direction.