Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2019, Publicación: 109ª reunión CIT (2021)

Convenio sobre la abolición del trabajo forzoso, 1957 (núm. 105) - Uzbekistán (Ratificación : 1997)

Otros comentarios sobre C105

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

The Committee notes the observations of the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) received on 30 August 2019.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to certain sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional labour) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely: section 139 (defamation); section 140 (insult); section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); sections 216 and 216-1 (creation or participation in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations); section 216-2 (violation of legislation on religious organizations); and section 217 (violation of the procedure for organizing and conducting assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations). The Committee also noted that similar offences are provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences, which provides for a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days, involving compulsory labour (section 346 of the Code) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely: section 201 (violation of the procedure for organizing and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations); section 202-1 (participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations); section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations); and section 241 (violation of the procedure for teaching religion).

The Committee noted the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), alleging that the Government continued to repress and arbitrarily detain independent journalists and human rights activists seeking to document state-sponsored forced labour. The Committee further noted that the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, in its concluding observations, indicated that it remained concerned about consistent reports of continuous harassment, surveillance, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and prosecutions on trumped-up charges of independent journalists, government critics and dissidents, human rights defenders and other activists, in retaliation to their legitimate work. Similar concerns were raised by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. The Human Rights Committee also expressed concerns about reports that freedom of expression on controversial and politically sensitive issues were severely restricted in practice, as well as about reports of arbitrary restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly in law and in practice, including, inter alia, the disruption of peaceful assemblies by law enforcement officers and arrests, detentions, beatings and sanctioning of participants. Noting the absence of information in the Government’s report, the Committee once again urged the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above sections of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes the observations made by the IUF that free press is restricted and censorship is exerted over state media, and freedom of assembly and public protests are strictly limited through regulations.

The Committee notes from the Government’s report that according to the information provided by the Supreme Court, in 2018, five cases were brought against six people under section 201(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, out of which four people were fined and proceedings against two people were dropped. In the first half of 2019, five cases were brought against eight people under the same section of which six were fined, one case was dropped and one person was subject to administrative sanction. The Government further indicates that no cases were brought or sanctions applied under the provisions of the Criminal Code during 2018–19. The Committee also notes from the ILO Third Party monitoring of child labour and forced labour during the 2018 cotton harvest in Uzbekistan that in 2018, the Uzbekistan media started reporting activities on forced labour issues and journalists were encouraged to cover forced labour issues. Moreover, local independent human rights activities were free to conduct their activities without any government interference. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of sections 139, 140, 156, 216 and 216-1, 216-2 and section 217 of the Criminal Code as well as sections 346, 201, 202-1, 240 and 241 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 218 of the Criminal Code punishes with imprisonment the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency. It recalled that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour should be limited to the need to cope with cases of force majeure in the strict sense of the term – namely, when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered – provided that the duration of the prohibition is limited to the period of immediate necessity. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of section 218 of the Criminal Code in practice.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that no cases were brought or sanctions applied under the Criminal Code during 2018–19. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of section 218 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee also reiterates its request for information on any provisions under which penal sanctions could be imposed for participation in strikes in situations other than a state of emergency, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice.