Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 1995, Publicación: 82ª reunión CIT (1995)

The Committee notes with interest the detailed information supplied by the Government in answer to its previous direct request.

1. Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest that under section 82 of the preliminary draft prepared by the Committee of Experts concerning the general part and the third book of the Penal Code, supplied by the Government with its report, the consent of the person detained (serving a custodial sentence) is required in order for him to be employed in private activities. It also notes that under section 83(1), the detained person is remunerated according to his performance and that, under section 83(3), the Federal Council settles the details. The Committee refers to the explanations set out in paragraphs 97-101 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, and hopes that arrangements will be made to ensure that detained persons working for a private employer have guarantees as to the payment of normal wages and social security, enabling the work to be considered as a free labour relationship. The Committee hopes that the Government will shortly be able to report that such measures have been adopted.

2. Deprivation of freedom for purposes of assistance. The Committee notes with interest the legislation adopted by four cantons to implement section 397(a) SS.CC, and the publication by Marco Borghi (in collaboration with Luisa Biaggini) on interdisciplinary research for the evaluation of the effectiveness of legislation on the deprivation of freedom for purposes of assistance, which the Government sent with its report.

It notes that the evaluation of the results and the conclusions of the interdisciplinary research refer, amongst other things, to the failure to comply with the legislator's intent that the law should provide legal protection for all persons interned against their will; inadequate substantiation of decisions concerning committal; insufficient legal aid; failure to comply with the legislator's intent that the law should be exhaustive in terms of the reasons and necessity for committal, illustrated by a decision which, while admitting the complainant's view that a work colony was not the most appropriate means of treating his alcoholism, came to terms with it on the grounds that the establishment was not inadequate (pp. 107-108, note 57). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on developments in law and practice in this area, including any measures that might have been taken or are envisaged to follow up the conclusions of the research carried out by Professor Marco Borghi and his colleagues.