Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Republic of Moldova (Ratification: 2000)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its 2010 and 2011 reports on the various measures taken to combat trafficking in persons, including statistics and data on cases of human trafficking which have been investigated during the period of 2009–10. The Government indicates that the number of trafficking cases identified by the Minister of Interior has decreased from 251 crimes of trafficking in 2007 to 140 in 2010. The Committee also notes that during 2010, 80 criminal cases were prosecuted under section 165 of the Criminal Code (trafficking in human beings). In its reports, the Government has described the activities of the Centre for Combating Trafficking in Persons, which has organized a series of awareness-raising and training workshops for law enforcement officers. While noting the statistical information concerning the offences of human trafficking provided in the report, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of the abovementioned section 165 of the Criminal Code, supplying sample copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed on perpetrators.

Article 2(2)(a). Compulsory military service. The Committee previously noted that under article 44(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and section 7(5)(a) of the Labour Code, compulsory military service or alternative (civic) service are excluded from the prohibition of forced labour. The Committee noted the respective provisions of the Law on the compulsory military service in the defence forces, No. 1245 of 18 July 2002, and the Law on the alternative service, No. 633 of 9 July 1991. It also noted the Government’s statement in its 2006 report that the legislation in force does not contain express provisions to ensure that services exacted for military purposes are used for purely military ends but this derives from the provisions governing military service. Since the Government’s latest report contains no new information on this issue, the Committee recalls that, under Article (2)(a), compulsory military service may be exempted from the scope of the Convention only if used for purely military ends, and again requests the Government to indicate the provisions, which, in the Government’s view, provide for guarantees to ensure that services exacted for military purposes are used for purely military ends, thus giving effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 2(2)(c). Work of prisoners for private individuals, companies or associations. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 253 of the Execution of Sentences Code, every convicted person is under an obligation to work, such work being exacted from them either at enterprises, workshops and auxiliary facilities of the penitentiary system or outside the penitentiary institution, under a contract concluded between the administration of a penitentiary institution and individuals or legal entities concerned. The Committee also noted that, under section 253, the obligation of convicted persons to work may include work outside the penitentiaries with private individuals or entities.

The Committee recalled in this connection that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention exempts from its provisions “any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations”. While this Article strictly prohibits prisoners from being hired to or placed at the disposal of private undertakings, the Committee has pointed out that, when convicted prisoners voluntarily consent to such work without being subjected to pressure or menace of any penalty, such work does not fall within the scope of the Convention (see e.g. paragraphs 59–60 of the Committee’s 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour). The Committee has considered that the most reliable indicator of voluntariness of labour in the prison context is the work performed under conditions approximating a free labour relationship, including wages (subject to deductions and attachments) and occupational safety and health.

As regards conditions of work of convicted persons, the Committee previously noted that, under section 254 of the Execution of Sentences Code, hours of work and rest periods, as well as occupational safety and health are governed by the general labour legislation. By virtue of section 255 of the Code, convicted persons’ remuneration is also governed by labour legislation; their monthly wages cannot be lower than the legally established minimum wage, and deductions from wages on the basis of execution documents cannot exceed 75 per cent of their monthly earnings. Section 258 of the Code provides for the convicted persons’ old-age pension rights.

While having noted that, under the above provisions, prisoners’ conditions of work may be considered as approximating those of a free labour relationship, the Committee observed that, under the legislation in force, the formal consent of prisoners to work for private enterprises does not appear to be asked for. Since the Government’s report contains no new information on this subject, the Committee reiterates its hope that, in the light of the above considerations, the Government will take the necessary measures in order to ensure that, both in legislation and in practice, the work of prisoners for private individuals, companies or associations will be carried out only with their formal, free and informed consent, such consent being free from the menace of any penalty including the loss of rights or privileges. The Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Article 25. Penal sanctions for the exaction of forced or compulsory labour. The Committee previously noted the provisions of section 168 of the Criminal Code imposing penal sanctions for the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour and sought information on any legal proceedings which have been instituted as a consequence of the application in practice of this section. Since the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above section 168 in practice, indicating the penalties imposed and supplying copies of the relevant court decisions.