Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Rwanda (Ratification: 1981)

1. The Committee is aware of the Government's efforts towards the economic and social reconstruction of the country, including the reintegration of the returnees. The Committee understands that the Government announced that returnees who wanted to seek employment would first have to pass through a one-month programme of re-education, and that returnees already employed had been told to leave their jobs until they had undergone this process. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the re-education process, including the numbers of persons who have undergone the re-education, and the measures taken to ensure that it does not result in discrimination in employment and occupation on the basis of any of the grounds set out in the Convention.

2. With respect to the issuance, by the communal authorities, of a certificate of good conduct, lifestyle and morals and proof of loyalty to the authorities and national institutions required by jobseekers wishing to enter public service (in accordance with section 5 of the Legislative Decree of March 1974 issuing General Regulations for State Employees and section 6 of the Presidential Order of 20 December 1976 issuing Regulations for Personnel in Public Enterprises), the Committee notes that the new draft of the public service regulations which are intended to resolve the question of the criteria on which communal authorities may refuse or grant such certificates is still being examined. It therefore requests the Government to keep it informed of progress on the said draft text and to supply a copy of the definitive text once it has been adopted.

3. The Committee notes, on the other hand, that the Government's report makes no mention of the fact that the labour administration may request a certificate of good conduct, lifestyle and morals from jobseekers who are "justifiably suspected of, or engaged in, activities prejudicial to the security of the State", even though there are no legislative provisions or regulations which define the criteria on which communal authorities may refuse or issue such certificates. Therefore, the Committee reiterates that it would like the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to rectify this omission which could be open to abuse and, also, to ensure that a jobseeker may only be refused employment if justifiably suspected of, or engaged in, activities prejudicial to the security of the State within the limits of Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention and subject to the right to appeal as laid down in Article 4. In this respect, please refer to paragraphs 104 and 134-138 of the Committee's 1988 General Survey on equality in employment and profession.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on other points.