Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

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

1. The Committee welcomes the efforts made by the Government, following the civil war which tore the country apart in 1994, to establish a State based on the rule of law and to promote peace and reconciliation, as noted by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Resolution No. 1999/20 on the situation of human rights in Rwanda. The Committee takes this opportunity to request the Government to keep the Office informed of the results of the awareness campaign that it has launched to promote the rule of law, respect for human rights and national reconciliation.

2. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the objectives and the number of persons who have followed the rehabilitation programme that repatriated persons seeking employment or already employed are required to follow. However, it notes that the Government's report makes no reference to the issue of whether measures have been taken to ensure that there is no resulting discrimination in employment and occupation based on any of the seven grounds enumerated in the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would provide the information requested and also if it would indicate whether the process of rehabilitation which it describes is an isolated event or whether it is a continuing process.

3. Since 1985, the Committee has been expressing its concern with regard to the attestation or certificate of good conduct, lifestyle and morals, which is issued by the communal authorities, and which is required for persons to obtain salaried employment and to apply for employment in the public service, although no legal provision or regulations establish the criteria on which this attestation (or certificate) is to be issued or refused. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the liberalization of the recruitment of labour in 1993, without amendment to the regulations which are in force, had the de facto result of rendering null and void the Presidential Order of 17 April 1978, which organized the placement of workers and the supervision of employment. It therefore also nullified a number of formalities prior to recruitment, including the requirement of a certificate of good conduct, lifestyle and morals. Since then, recruitment in the private sector has essentially been based on the vocational skills of the applicants. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the coming into force of the new Labour Code will give a legal basis to the current situation and will automatically result in the repeal of the above Order. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would keep it informed of the progress achieved in the adoption of the new Labour Code and if it would provide a copy of the definitive text.

4. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that the attestation of good conduct, lifestyle and morals is still required from applicants for employment in the public service (despite the absence of legal provisions or regulations establishing the criteria on which this attestation is to be issued or refused) under the terms of section 5 of the Legislative Decree of 19 March 1974 which established the general conditions of service of public officials and section 6 of the Presidential Order of 20 December 1976, which established the conditions of service of personnel in public establishments. In its report, the Government considers that there are no grounds for concern with regard to such a requirement since "its grant by the communal authority, according to the usual practice, requires the opinions of lower bodies which are close to the population". However, the Committee remains concerned. It considers that requesting the opinion of bodies close to the population is not a sufficient guarantee of the effective respect of the principles set forth in the Convention and cannot compensate for the lack of criteria on which these bodies are to base their opinions. The Committee therefore suggests that recourse should be had to information which is less subject to interpretation, such as the person's criminal record. So that it can gain an idea of the scope of the phenomenon, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide statistics on the number of cases in which communal authorities have refused to issue an attestation of good conduct, lifestyle and morals, and on the reasons given for such refusals, as well as the number of appeals made against any such refusals by the communal authorities, including copies of the decisions of the Council of State in such cases. The Committee notes that the general conditions of service of public officials is under examination and requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made with the draft revision of the conditions of service in the public service and to provide it with a copy of the definitive text once it has been adopted.

5. The Committee notes that, following the liberalization of recruitment, the labour administration is no longer responsible for conducting the necessary investigations concerning persons "suspected of carrying out activities prejudicial to the security of the State" and that such investigations are now the responsibility of other state services. Since the Government has not provided information on this point, the Committee once again hopes that the Government's next report will indicate the measures which have been taken to ensure that a person cannot be refused employment for reasons related to the security of the State, except within the limits prescribed by Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, and subject to the right of appeal set out in Article 4, and that it will provide copies of court decisions on this matter.