Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Brazil (Ratification: 1957)

The Committee notes that the Doctors’ Trade Union of Pernambuco (SIMEPE) refers in its observations received on 2 February 2015 to the technical cooperation agreement signed by the Government of Brazil and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) aimed at facilitating the participation of Cuban doctors in the Mais Médicos (more doctors) programme for Brazil. SIMEPE refers to the lack of transparency in the process to recruiting these doctors, their conditions of employment and their remuneration. They are reportedly employed by the Government under the guise of a training programme, but without Brazilian labour legislation being applicable to them. Furthermore, the union refers to “disciplinary regulations” supposedly containing various restrictions on their freedoms, including their freedom of movement. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government on the operation of the programme “More Doctors for Brazil”, which has among its objectives to strengthen the provision of health services in medically underserved areas and improve education and training of professionals involved. The Government states that if at the beginning of the creation of the programme in 2013, foreign doctors from 40 countries occupied 85 per cent of the demands of the municipalities, in 2015, Brazilian doctors occupy 100 per cent of the vacancies. Therefore there was no need to expand cooperation with PAHO. The Government indicates that Cuban doctors came to Brazil in the framework of the cooperation agreement with PAHO which in turn established cooperation with the Government of Cuba. The latter made available medical career employees of the Ministry of Public Health of Cuba. Doctors remain officials of the Cuban Government that maintain their benefits and labour and social security rights. In Brazil, plus housing and food, doctors receive a training grant. The scholarship, set at 10,500 Brazilian real (BRL) for professional, is paid by the Government of Brazil to the PAHO that forwards it to the Government of Cuba. The transfer costs of the doctors to Cuba or the tickets fees for the transport to the country of origin are granted. Furthermore, the right to come and go is granted through the issuance of visas with multiple entries to the participants. The Government adds that doctors can at any time ask to leave the programme without providing further explanation.

The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the number of professionals involved in the “More Doctors for Brazil” programme broken down by nationality. Please also provide a copy of the agreement signed with PAHO and examples of contracts signed by doctors of different nationalities, including Cubans. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the number of doctors who left the programme and the consequences of such resignation, depending on their country of origin.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on activities undertaken in the framework of the national policy against trafficking in persons and the National Plan to Combat Trafficking in Persons (PNETP). It also asked the Government whether it was planned to supplement sections 231 and 231-A of the Penal Code, under which only trafficking in persons for purposes of sexual exploitation is criminalized, and to indicate whether any judicial proceedings had been initiated on the basis of these provisions.

The Government indicates in its report that the crimes of slave labour and trafficking in persons overlap, particularly where the victims are migrant workers (sections 149 and 231 of the Penal Code, respectively), and that the two concepts are interdependent. Where crime of “reducing a person to a condition akin to slavery” is identified, the crime of trafficking for labour exploitation is also present. In this context, the Ministry of Labour and Employment adopted Instruction No. 91/2001, under the terms of which the labour inspectorate must follow the same procedures for their information and ensure the same rights for victims of slave labour and victims of trafficking for labour exploitation. Moreover, no distinction must be made between national and foreign workers. Labour inspectors therefore coordinate multidisciplinary operations in the rural and urban sectors which seek to identify and release the victims of both crimes. The Government also explains that, in addition to sections 231 and 231-A which criminalize trafficking in persons for sexual exploitation, sections 206 and 207 of the Penal Code concerning the recruitment of labour criminalize practices that may also constitute trafficking in persons.

With regard to the PNETP, the Government indicates that, further to the evaluation of its implementation, a second plan (PNETP II) has been formulated in a participatory process involving various public and private players engaged in action against trafficking in persons. This plan covers the 2013–16 period and comprises 115 measures divided among five operational components, including: (i) improving the regulatory framework to reinforce action against trafficking in persons; (ii) strengthening and integrating public policies and victim support networks; (iii) capacity building; (iv) strengthening the production, management and dissemination of information and knowledge; and (v) awareness-raising and mobilization campaigns. Furthermore, an inter-ministerial group for the monitoring and supervision of PNETP II has been established to oversee implementation of the 115 measures.

The Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information in its next report on the activities undertaken in the context of the five operational components of the National Plan to Combat Trafficking in Persons (PNETP II) and the evaluation of its implementation by the inter-ministerial group established for this purpose. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures taken to raise public awareness of trafficking in persons, particularly persons who are most vulnerable to this kind of exploitation, including migrant workers. Please indicate the steps taken to provide trafficking victims with assistance and protection. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on the judicial proceedings instituted against the perpetrators of trafficking in persons, the convictions handed down, specifying their legal basis, and any obstacles encountered by the prosecuting authorities and the judiciary in this respect.