Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Uzbekistan (Ratification: 1997)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to certain sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional labour) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely: section 139 (defamation); section 140 (insult); section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); sections 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); and section 217 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations). The Committee also noted that similar offences are provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences, which provides for a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days, involving compulsory labour (section 346 of the Code) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely: 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); and section 241 (violation of the procedure of teaching of religion). It also noted the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), in August 2014, alleging that the Government continued to repress and arbitrarily detain independent journalists and human rights activists seeking to document state-sponsored forced labour. The Committee further noted that the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, in its concluding observations of July 2015, indicated that it remained concerned about consistent reports of continuous harassment, surveillance, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and prosecutions on trumped-up charges of independent journalists, government critics and dissidents, human rights defenders and other activists, in retaliation to their legitimate work (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3 and CCPR/C/UZB/CO/4). Similar concerns were raised by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders in the March 2015 report (A/HRC/28/63/Add.1). The Human Rights Committee also expressed concerns about reports that freedom of expression on controversial and politically sensitive issues was severely restricted in practice, as well as about reports of arbitrary restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly in law and in practice, including, inter alia, the disruption of peaceful assemblies by law enforcement officers and arrests, detentions, beatings and sanctioning of participants (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/4).

The Committee notes that the Government’s report merely repeats the sanctions prescribed under section 201 of the Administrative Liability Code and section 217 of the Criminal Code and does not provide any information with regard to its previous comments. The Committee notes with concern the persistent lack of information on this issue in the Government’s report, and once again draws the Government’s attention to the fact that sanctions involving compulsory labour are incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee once again urges the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above sections of the Criminal Code and 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). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil, or the 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.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that forced labour cannot be used as a means of maintaining labour discipline. The Government indicates that according to section 181 of the Labour Code, sanctions for breaches of labour discipline involve: a reprimand; a fine, not exceeding 30 per cent of the average monthly salary; or a termination of the labour contract.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 218 of the Criminal Code punishes with imprisonment the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency. It recalled that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour should be limited to the need 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. Noting the absence of information in the Government’s report, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 218 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 no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee also reiterates its request for information on any provisions under which penal sanctions could be imposed for participation in strikes in situations other than a state of emergency, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice.