Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2011, publiée 101ème session CIT (2012)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Bulgarie (Ratification: 1999)

Autre commentaire sur C105

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Compulsory prison labour

The Committee previously noted that, under the old Implementation of Penal Sanctions Act (now repealed and replaced by the new Implementation of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act, 2009), prisoners were obliged to perform work assigned to them by the prison administration, and the non-performance of the obligation to work was punishable with disciplinary sanctions. It also noted the Government’s indication in its previous report that the voluntary nature of prison labour would be introduced in the forthcoming amendments of the Act. However, the Committee notes, referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), that under section 96(1) of the new Implementation of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act, 2009, persons deprived of their liberty shall be obligated to perform the work assigned to them by the prison administration, the non compliance with this obligation being punishable with disciplinary sanctions under sections 100(2)(1 and 5) and 101 of the Act. It therefore appears from the above legislative provisions of the new Act that convicted prisoners are obliged to perform prison labour under the menace of a penalty, even if they have the right to be given suitable work, in accordance with section 77(1) of the Act.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for holding or expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under the Penal Code, sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour under the abovementioned provisions) may be imposed, inter alia, for the propagation of “anti-democratic ideology” (section 108(1)), for arousing dissension on religious grounds by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 164), for using religion and church in a propaganda against authorities, by speech, press, action or otherwise (section 166), and for conducting a public assembly, meeting or manifestation, in violation of legislation (section 174(a)(2)). The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It observes that the above penal provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views and, in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they fall within the scope of the Convention.

While noting the Government’s statement in the report that there have been no convictions under the above sections of the Penal Code during the reporting period, the Committee reiterates its hope that the Government will provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, as soon as such information becomes available, as well as information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure conformity with the Convention in this regard.

Article 1(c). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 228(1) of the Penal Code, under which sanctions of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour, as explained above) may be imposed for issuing poor-quality, non-standard or incomplete products. It recalled that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. While noting the Government’s statement in the report that there have been no convictions under this provision during the reporting period, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the application of section 228(1) in practice, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, as soon as such information becomes available, as well as information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure compliance with the Convention on this point.

The Committee previously noted that, under section 107 of the Penal Code, creating difficulties or disorder in the functioning of industry, transport, agriculture or other branches of the economy or individual enterprises, by obstructing their normal work or by non-performing regular duties, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to ten years and, in the most serious cases – up to 15 years (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee previously noted the Government’s explanations concerning the interpretation of this section, which, according to the Government, is only applicable in the case of sabotage, but not in the cases of violation of labour discipline or participation in a strike. While noting the Government’s statement in the report that there have been no convictions under this section during the reporting period, and that the inspectorate at the Supreme Judicial Council has no information available on the implementation of this provision, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the application in practice of section 107 of the Penal Code referred to above, as soon as it becomes available, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.