ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards

Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 1993, Publicación: 80ª reunión CIT (1993)

Convenio sobre el trabajo forzoso, 1930 (núm. 29) - Suiza (Ratificación : 1940)
Protocolo de 2014 relativo al Convenio sobre el trabajo forzoso, 1930 - Suiza (Ratificación : 2017)

Otros comentarios sobre C029

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

1. Internment of anti-social persons. In earlier comments, the Committee referred to the provisions of the Civil Code which were adopted on 6 October 1978 and came into force on 1 January 1981, concerning deprivation of freedom for purposes of assistance, and asked the Government to provide information on measures taken at the cantonal level to limit the grounds for internment in accordance with the Civil Code, and to supply the relevant texts adopted by the various cantons, including any that repeal provisions establishing idleness as grounds for penalties or enabling the cantonal authorities to oblige administratively interned persons to work.

The Committee notes that in its last report the Government refers to its earlier information to the effect that the new section 397a of the Civil Code gives an exhaustive list of the grounds for internment and renders null and void any cantonal provision conflicting with it; such provisions are rendered void automatically and definitively even though most cantons formally repealed their earlier legislation when they issued the provisions implementing the federal law.

The Committee takes note of the implementing legislation adopted by the Cantons of Berne, the Jura and Lucerne which the Government provided with its last report. It hopes that the Government will be able to supply such legislation from other cantons in its future reports together with information on any difficulties encountered in giving practical effect to these provisions, including any judicial decisions relevant to the application of the Convention.

2. Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. In earlier comments, the Committee noted the Government's indications that, in practice, prisoners are employed in private activities outside the prison only with their consent. It also noted that according to an inquiry by the Federal Office of Justice concerning payment for prisoners' work, the prisoners' pay does not constitute a payment equivalent to the value of the labour performed but a factor in the serving of sentences.

The Committee also noted that the Penal Code was in the process of being revised and that the requirements of the Convention would be taken into account in the preliminary draft of the new provisions.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that the revision of the Penal Code is being carried out by a committee which was to publish the results of its work towards the end of 1992.

The Committee recalls that Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention expressly forbids persons from whom labour is exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law from being hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The only work which can be considered as exempt from this prohibition is work carried out in conditions of a free labour relationship. This necessarily requires the formal consent of the person concerned and the corresponding safeguards in respect of wages and social security enabling the work to be considered as a genuinely free labour relationship.

The Committee hopes that the Government will report on the state of progress of the revision of the Penal Code and that the amendments envisaged will take account of the provisions of the Convention.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer