Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2016, Publicación: 106ª reunión CIT (2017)

Convenio sobre la abolición del trabajo forzoso, 1957 (núm. 105) - Federación de Rusia (Ratificación : 1998)

Otros comentarios sobre C105

Observación

2020
2016
2013
2012

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political or ideological views. 1. Law of 24 July 2007 on combating extremism. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption of the Law of 24 July 2007, to amend certain legal acts with a view to increasing liability for “extremist activities”, which includes acts based on racial, national or religious hatred or enmity. It noted that under sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code, the following acts are punishable with sanctions of the privation of liberty (which involves compulsory labour); public appeal to perform extremist activities (as defined in section 1 of the Law on combating extremist activity); establishment of an extremist group or organization; and participation in such a group or organization prohibited by a court decision. Regarding the definition of the term “extremist activities”, the Committee emphasized that if legislative restrictions are formulated in such broad and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social and economic system, such penalties are not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee recalled that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. However, the Committee emphasized that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting opinions diverging from established principles. Even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities remain protected by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to or call for violent means to these ends. Accordingly, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to ensure that no sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. It requested the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the laws concerning “extremism” in practice, including information on any prosecutions, and convictions pursuant to sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code and the Law on combating extremist activity. The Committee also requested the Government to provide the list of the banned organizations, for which persons’ participation may be penalized with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that section 280, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code establishes liability of public appeals for the performance of extremist activities and that paragraph 2 establishes liability for the same deeds committed with the use of the mass media or information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet. The Government indicates that the Law of 24 July 2007 is of a blanket nature and that the provisions of Federal Act No. 114-FZ of 25 July 2002 on counteracting of extremist activity (FZ No. 114) must be followed when categorizing a crime. Thus, the definition of extremist activities is strengthened in section 1 of FZ No. 114. The Committee notes that public appeals, as evoked in section 280 of the Law of 2007, are the expression of any form of appeal to other persons with the aim of provoking them to undertake extremist activities and that the public nature of appeals must be decided by the courts, which will take into account the places, the means, the environment and other circumstances of the cases. The Committee also notes from the Government’s report that the penalties provided for by section 280, paragraph 1, of the Law of 2007 consist of a fine for a period of up to two years, or compulsory labour for a term of up to three years, or deprivation of liberty for a term of up to four years or an arrest for a term of four to six months. The Committee notes that according to the Government’s indication, section 60, paragraph 3, of the Law of 2007 states that in imposing punishment, the court shall take into consideration the nature or degree or social danger of the crime and the personality of the convict, including any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and also the influence of the imposed penalty on the rehabilitation of the convicted person. The Committee further notes that according to the Government, compulsory labour is an alternative penalty to deprivation of liberty and that the provisions of the Law of 2007 concerning compulsory labour will be applicable from 1 January 2017. It further notes that the list of penalties established under section 280 allows courts to impose alternative penalties to deprivation of liberty. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that in 2014, 50 persons were convicted under section 280, four persons under section 282.1 and 36 persons under section 282.2. In the first half of 2015, 280 persons were convicted under section 280, three persons under section 282.1 and 17 persons under 282.2. For this period, the Government indicates that all penalties were fines amounting to 300,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and that deprivation of liberty only concerned four persons, while other types of penalties were not imposed. The Committee notes that according to the Government the aforesaid provisions are not tools for the criminal prosecution of persons expressing particular political views or in opposition to the established political, social and economic system.

The Committee notes that in its concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of the Russian Federation on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 28 April 2015 (CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, paragraph 20), the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations expresses concern that the vague and open-ended definition of “extremist activity” in the Federal Law on combating extremist activity does not require an element of violence or hatred to be present and that no clear and precise criteria on how materials may be classified as extremist are provided in the law.

The Committee recalls once again that the expression or manifestation of opinions diverging from the established political, economic or social system is protected by the Convention against the imposition of penalties involving compensatory labour. However, the Convention does not prohibit the imposition of such penalty as a sanction for persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence falls outside its scope. The Committee therefore requests, once again, the Government to ensure that no sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons, who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the circumstances under which the sentenced person consents to compulsory labour as an alternative penalty to imprisonment, as well as to continue to provide information on the application of the laws on extremism in practice, including on any prosecutions and sentences pursuant to sections 280, 282.1 and 282.2 of the Penal Code and the Law of 2007 on combating extremism. Please also provide relevant court cases in this regard as well as a copy of the list of banned organizations for which persons’ participation may be penalized with sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

2. Federal Law No. 65-FZ of 8 June 2012 amending Federal Law No. 54 FZ of 9 June 2004 on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and picketing and the Code on Administrative Offences. The Committee notes the restrictions introduced in Federal Law No. 65-FZ of 8 June 2012 (Assemblies Act) amending Federal Law No. 54-FZ of 19 June 2004 on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and picketing and the Code on Administrative offences. More specifically, the Committee notes that the Law of 8 June 2012 amended section 20.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences which establishes a penalty of community service for a period of up to 50 hours for the organizing or holding of a public event without submitting notice thereof under the established procedures. Section 20.18 establishes administrative arrest for a term up to 15 years for the organization of the blocking, as well as active participation in the blocking, of transport lines. The Committee also notes the introduction of community work as a new sanction in section 3.13: Community work shall entail unpaid work of public utility performed by a physical individual having committed an administrative infringement, carried out during free time outside their principal work, duties or studies. Community work shall be imposed by a judge for a period of between 20 and 200 hours and shall be performed for no more than four hours a day.

The Committee notes that in April 2015 the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations expresses concern about consistent reports of arbitrary restrictions on the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly, including arbitrary detentions and prison sentences for the expression of political views. The Human Rights Committee is further concerned about the strong deterrent effect on the right to peaceful assembly of these new restrictions introduced in the Assemblies Act (CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, paragraph 21). In this regard, the Committee also notes the comments made by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on this matter (11 March 2013, CDL-AD(2013)003, paragraphs 24–25, 30–31, 36 and 47).

In the light of the above comments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the circumstances under which the sentenced person consents to community work. Please provide information on the application in practice of sections 20.2 and 20.18 of the Code on Administrative Offences, indicating the number of prosecutions, the sanctions imposed and the grounds for prosecution.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.