Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2010, publiée 100ème session CIT (2011)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. 1. Punishment of vagrancy. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the Decree of 23 May 1896 on vagrancy and begging, read together with Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 establishing rehabilitation and production centres, the mere fact of living as a vagrant is punishable by a period “at the disposal” of the Government during which work is compulsory. The Committee took the view that by defining the offence of vagrancy too broadly – the mere fact of not working constitutes grounds enough for a vagrancy charge – and by placing such persons at the disposal of the Government, these provisions afford a direct and indirect means of exacting labour, which is contrary to the Convention. The Committee also noted that these provisions make vagrancy punishable by a prison term of from two to six months but do not refer to breaches of public order or unlawful activities on the part of vagrant persons.

In its report the Government states that these provisions will be reviewed in the light of the current revision of the Penal Code. The Committee reiterates the hope that as part of this revision process, the Government will take the necessary steps to reconsider this matter with a view to ensuring that only idle persons who breach the public order by unlawful acts are liable to the penalties set in the legislation.

2. Freedom to leave employment. Referring to sections 116, 117 and 118 of Act No. 22/2002 issuing the general conditions of service of public servants, the Committee asked the Government in its previous comments whether public servants may be denied the right to resign. The Committee notes the standard training contract sent by the Government in its report which states that the public employee must repay the amount disbursed by the public administration to finance training/studies if he/she resigns before completing two years of service. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information in its future reports on the practical application of the abovementioned provisions, including statistics on the numbers of acceptance and denial of applications to resign, and in particular the grounds for refusal.

With regard to applications to resign from military personnel, the Government states that their resignation may be denied amongst other grounds when the competent authorities deem it necessary for the person to continue to serve in the army. Referring to the explanations in paragraph 46 of the General Survey of 2007 on the Eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that career military personnel may not be denied the right to leave the service in peace time within a reasonable period, for example, by means of notice of reasonable length. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will provide information in its next report on the measures taken or envisaged to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. In the meantime, it again asks the Government to inform the number of applications to resign by military staff that have been refused, indicating the grounds for refusal.

Article 2(2)(a). Work exacted under compulsory military service laws. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that there is no compulsory military service and hence no legislation on the matter.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. The Committee notes Ministerial Decree No. 001/08/08 of 14 February 2008 setting forth the activities of prison inmates, and the Government’s statement that prison work may also be carried out for the benefit of private bodies. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that according to Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only provided that: (i) the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority; and (ii) the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The Committee has always made it clear that these two conditions apply together: the fact that a prisoner remains at all times under the supervision and control of a public authority does not in itself relieve the Government of the duty to fulfil the second condition, namely that the prisoner shall not be hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations.

The Committee refers the Government to paragraphs 59–60 and 114–120 of its General Survey of 2007, on the eradication of forced labour, in which it points out that convict labour for private parties is compatible with the Convention only where it is not akin to compulsory work but, on the contrary, is carried out with the free consent of the prisoner and in conditions approximating a free labour relationship. The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will be taken both in law and in practice to ensure that any work or service undertaken by prisoners for private bodies is carried on in conditions approximating a free labour relationship, in other words with the formal consent of the prisoners concerned and with the guarantee of other safeguards that are essential to a free labour relationship, such as remuneration, occupational safety and health and social security. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee asks the Government to provide samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private operators using prison labour, together with information on the working conditions of prisoners working for private bodies.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. In its previous comments the Committee took note of a communication from the Association of Christian Trade Unions (UMURIMO) containing allegations about the imposition of community work on the population and asserting that the provisions of the Act of 2007 on community work are not consistent with the Convention insofar as anyone fit for work is required to perform community work. The Committee asked the Government to provide examples of the tasks performed by way of community work and to specify the penalties that apply in the event of refusal.

The Committee noted that section 2(2) of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 establishing the community work regime provides that the purpose of community work is to promote the construction of infrastructure for the development of the country, as an addition to the input from the national budget; section 3 of the same Act lays down an obligation for all persons to perform such work, and section 13 provides for penalties for failure to take part in it. The Committee observes that these provisions appear to go well beyond the exception allowed in Article 2(2)(e) for minor communal services. It points out that minor communal services may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only if certain criteria are met: (i) the services must be “minor services”, i.e. relating primarily to maintenance work and, in exceptional cases, to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself; (ii) the services must be performed in the direct interest of the community and not relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; and (iii) the members of the community itself, i.e. the community which has to perform the services, or their “direct” representative (e.g. the village council) must have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services (General Survey of 2007, paragraph 65). The Committee accordingly asks the Government to reconsider the abovementioned provisions of Act No. 53/2007 on community work with a view to meeting the criteria that exclude minor communal services from the scope of the Convention.

Article 25. Application of really adequate penalties. The Committee notes section 167 of Act No. 13/2009 of 25 May 2009 issuing regulations on labour in Rwanda under which anyone convicted of forced labour is liable to a prison term of from three months to five years and a fine of from 500,000 to 2 million Rwandese francs. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any prosecutions for illegal use of forced or compulsory labour and any penalties imposed.