Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2013, publiée 103ème session CIT (2014)

Repetition

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 recalled that, by defining the offence of vagrancy too broadly – the simple fact of not working may constitute an offence – and by placing such persons at the disposal of the Government, these provisions afford a direct and indirect means of exacting compulsory labour, which is contrary to the Convention. The Committee also noted that these provisions make vagrancy punishable by a prison sentence of two to six months but do not refer to breaches of public order or unlawful activities on the part of vagrant persons.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that article 687 of the revised Penal Code (Law No. 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012) defines vagrancy as behaviour of a person who has no fixed abode and has no regular occupation or profession, in the way it impairs public order and, accordingly, vagrancy will be punishable when it disrupts public order. The Government further indicates that it has undertaken measures to help vagrant and idle people to get skills through vocational training so they can get employed or self-employed and give up their vagrant and idle lives. While noting that the new Penal Code seems to repeal Decree of 23 May 1896 on vagrancy and begging, and limits the punishment of vagrancy to cases of breach of public order, the Committee asks the Government to indicate whether this implies that Presidential Order No. 234/06 of 21 October 1975 establishing rehabilitation and production centres, is no longer in force and therefore that vagrant people are no longer “at the disposal” of the Government for a period of time during which work is compulsory.

2. Freedom of career members of the armed forces to leave the service. Referring to its previous comments regarding the resignation of members of the armed forces, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that their resignation may not be accepted amongst other grounds when the competent authorities deem it necessary for the person to continue to serve in the army.

The Committee recalls 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 (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, paragraph 290). As the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee once again requests the Government to 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 indicate the number of applications to resign by military staff that has been refused, indicating the grounds for refusal.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. In its previous comments, the Committee noted 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 requested the Government to ensure that any work or service undertaken by prisoners for private bodies is carried out in conditions approximating a free labour relationship.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 50 of Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service provides that a prisoner may be requested or can himself/herself request to perform work, but he/she cannot be forced to perform work. Besides, if such activities are income generating, 10 per cent of what the person earns is allocated to him/her and strict compliance is required to respect occupational health and safety and social security provisions of the labour law. Noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report samples of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private companies using prison labour, as well as information on their working conditions. Please provide a copy of Law No. 34/2010 on the establishment, functioning and organization of Rwanda Correctional Service.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. Over a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that sections 2(2), 3 and 13 of Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 on community work go well beyond the exception allowed in Article 2(2)(e) for minor communal services. It requested the Government to take the necessary measures to review the abovementioned Act, in order to meet the criteria that exclude minor communal services from the scope of the Convention.

The Committee notes that the Government once again indicates that community works aim at promoting development activities in the village’s communities to improve the social conditions of the population. This includes maintenance work, and the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community, which is performed in the direct interest of the community, and the community at village level determines what must be done.

Noting this indication, the Committee nevertheless observes that section 13 of the abovementioned legislation still appears to go beyond the exceptions allowed by the Convention, as it provides for penalties for failure to take part in community work. The Committee therefore, recalls once again 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 with regard to the need for such services (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, paragraph 281). The Committee therefore, once again, expresses the hope that Act No. 53/2007 of 17 November 2007 on community work will be repealed in the near future and the legislation will be brought into compliance with the Convention. It asks the Government to provide in its next report information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 25. Application of really adequate penalties. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 167 of Act No. 13/2009 of 25 May 2009 issuing regulations on labour in Rwanda, anyone convicted of forced labour is liable to a prison term of three months to five years and a fine of 500,000 to 2 million Rwandan francs (RWF) (approximately US$800 to US$3,000). It requested the Government to provide information on any prosecutions for use of forced labour and any penalties imposed.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there has been no case of prosecutions with respect to the use of forced labour and any penalties. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information in its future reports on any prosecutions for the use of forced labour and any penalties, as soon as available.