Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2002, Publicación: 91ª reunión CIT (2003)

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

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee has noted the provision of section 15 of the Law on Assemblies, Meetings, Street Marches, Demonstrations and Picketing, of 30 December 1997, concerning the responsibility for violation of the established procedure for their organization and holding. The Government indicates in its report that section 167-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences and section 342 of the Criminal Code are applicable in case of such violation. The Committee has noted that section 167-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences makes such violation punishable with a fine or administrative arrest for a term of up to 15 days (which involves an obligation to perform labour, in accordance with section 306 of the same Code). Also, the Committee previously noted that section 342 of the Criminal Code provided for sanctions of imprisonment or limitation of freedom for the "organization of group actions violating public order" (both sanctions involve compulsory labour, in accordance with section 37 of the Correctional Labour Code and section 55(1) of the Criminal Code). The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned section 167-1 of the Code on Administrative Offences and section 342 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with the Convention.

2. The Committee has noted the provisions establishing administrative and penal sanctions for the violation of the Act on the Press and other Media, 1995.

3. Article 1(c). The Committee previously noted that, under section 428 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm or other grave consequences to legitimate rights and interests of persons or to state interests, is punishable by imprisonment or limitation of freedom, which involves compulsory labour. The Government indicates in its report that criminal punishment for an official’s neglect applies only if it amounts to a criminal deed and not merely a disciplinary fault. The Committee points out, referring to paragraphs 110-116 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that only sanctions relating to breaches of labour discipline that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services or which are committed in the exercise of functions which are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger, are not covered by the Convention. The Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the application of section 428 in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

4. Article 1(d). The Committee previously noted that, according to section 397 of the Labour Code, those who participate in a strike deemed unlawful by a court of law may be held liable pursuant to disciplinary and other procedures prescribed by law. The Government indicates in its report that section 342 of the Criminal Code, which provides for sanctions of imprisonment or limitation of freedom (involving compulsory labour) for the organization of group actions violating public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations, as well as section 310 of the Criminal Code, which provides for similar sanctions for the intentional blocking of transport communications, are applicable to participants in unlawful strikes. With reference to its comments made under Convention No. 87 ratified by Belarus, and referring also to paragraphs 122 and 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee recalls that restrictions on the right to strike enforced with sanctions involving compulsory labour must be limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term (namely, those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that sanctions involving an obligation to work cannot be imposed for participation in strikes. It again requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of sections 310 and 342 of the Criminal Code, including copies of the relevant court decisions.