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

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Ouzbékistan (Ratification: 1997)

Autre commentaire sur C105

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional tasks) in circumstances related to the application of the Convention:

-section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); the Committee previously noted the Government’s statement that, besides the “intentional actions demeaning the national honour and dignity or insulting the feelings of citizens in connection with their religious beliefs”, this section also makes punishable “manufacturing, storage or dissemination of materials propagating national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity”;
-section 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, as, for example, the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and
-section 217 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations).

The Committee also noted the following provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences, which impose a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days (involving an obligation to perform labour under section 346 of the Code) in circumstances that could be covered by the Convention:

-section 201 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations);
-section 202-1 (inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations);
-section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, for example the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and
-section 241 (violation of the procedure of teaching of religion: teaching without prior authorization or teaching by a person who did not receive a special religious education).

The Committee notes with concern an absence of information on this point in the Government’s report. However, it notes that the Human Rights Committee (HRC), in its concluding observation of 7 April 2010, expressed concern regarding the number of representatives of independent non-governmental organizations, journalists, and human rights defenders imprisoned, assaulted, harassed or intimidated, because of the exercise of their profession. The HRC also expressed concern at the limitations and restrictions on freedom of religion and belief, including for members of non-registered religious groups, and recommended that the Government amend, in particular, section 216-2 of the Criminal Code. The HRC also expressed concern over the existing provisions in section 139 and 140 of the Criminal Code on defamation and insult, which may be used to punish individuals who criticise the existing regime (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3, paragraphs 19 and 24). In this regard, the Committee notes that section 139 (on defamation) provides for a penalty of corrective labour of up to two years, and section 140 (on insult) provides for a penalty of up to one year.

With reference to paragraph 302 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour “as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system”. The range of activities which must be protected, under this provision, from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour thus comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. In the light of the above considerations, the Committee urges the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the sections 139, 140, 156, 216, 216-1, 216-2 and 217 of the Criminal Code, and sections 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(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil or improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years. Noting once again that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to supply information on the application of section 207 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that it is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, Committee noted that section 218 of the Criminal Code punishes the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency with imprisonment. Referring to paragraph 314 of the 2012 General Survey, the Committee recalls that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour is compatible with the Convention only in so far as it is necessary 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 accordingly requests the Government to provide information on the definition of the term “state of emergency”, as referred to in section 218 of the Criminal Code. It also requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 218 in practice in its next report. Lastly, it once again requests the Government to provide information on any provisions imposing penal sanctions on participants in strikes in situations other than a state of emergency, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice.

Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force concerning the execution of criminal sentences, labour relations in the public service and governing strikes.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2014.]