Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Azerbaijan (Ratification: 2000)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2022, Publication: 110th ILC session (2022)

Written information provided by the Government

1. Regarding the comment on the “broad wording” of articles 147, 169.1, 233 and 283.1 of the Criminal Code

It should be noted that this wording is based on general norm-setting techniques and principles and is commonly used in Azerbaijan for drafting various laws. It is in line with the Constitution and other laws of the country guaranteeing human rights and freedoms.

Article 147 (defamation)

In accordance with article 57 of the Constitution, the citizens have the right to criticize the activity or activities of state bodies. Under the legislation, the prosecution for criticism is prohibited, while insult and defamation cannot be considered criticism.

Article 147 of the Criminal Code does not diverge from similar articles of the Criminal Codes of some ILO Member States, such as Canada (article 298), Germany (article 187), Slovenia (article 160), Sweden (Chapter 5, section 1).

Article 169.1 (violation of the assembly rules)

The purpose of this article is to establish criminal liability for organizing or participating in assemblies, which cause significant violation of civil rights. It should be noted that violation of the rules on holding assemblies is also recognized as a crime in other countries (for example, in Canada).

According to article 49 of the Constitution, everyone, together with others, has the right to assemble peacefully with prior notice to the relevant government authorities, provided that public order is not disturbed. However, a gross violation of public order shall invoke criminal liability.

Article 283.1 (incitement of national, racial, social or religious hatred and hostility)

The criminal elements of the acts under this article are similar to the corresponding articles in the criminal laws of other countries, and the sanctions provided for these acts include fines, community service, restriction of freedom and imprisonment.

The incitement of national, racial, social or religious hatred and hostility is a criminal offense in Germany (article 130), Kazakhstan (article 174), the Republic of Moldova (article 346) and others.

Application of articles 147, 169.1, 233 and 283.1 of the Criminal Code

Articles 147, 169.1, 233 and 283.1 of the Criminal Code are not widely used in practice (according to the statistics of the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan):

- under article 169.1: in 2018–21 there were no cases;

- under article 147: in 2018 – 41; in 2019 – 37; in 2020–21 – approximately 32 court cases. Penalty in the form of correctional work applied in 5 cases out of 110 (only in 4.5 per cent of cases);

- under article 233: in 2018 – 8; in 2019 – 4; in 2020 – 2; in 2021 – 2 cases. Correctional work applied in 0 cases out of 16;

- under article 283.1: in 2018 – 5; in 2019 – 3; and in 2020–21 – 2 cases. Correctional work applied in 0 cases out of 10.

The information on the acts that gave rise to criminal prosecutions and court decisions will be provided at the next stage.

Legislative regulation of correctional work and its application in practice

It should be noted that the correctional work provided for as a punishment under a number of articles of the Criminal Code is not contradictory to Article 1 of the Convention due to the following reasons.

Under criminal law, correctional work is carried out at the place of work. It is defined as a deduction of 5 to 20 per cent of the convicted person’s earnings in favour of the State.

Obviously, correctional work is not provided for as bringing a person to forced or compulsory labour, but as a transfer of money from his earnings in favour of the State while he participates in socially useful work at his workplace.

Fines under articles 169.1, 233 and 283.1, as a rule, are quite high and not paid by convicts within the time period established by law.

Therefore, pursuant to article 44.3 of the Criminal Code in the case of wilful evasion of the payment of a fine, the punishment is replaced with penalties such as community service, correctional work, restriction of freedom or imprisonment.

Given that correctional work is applied in some articles of the Criminal Code as an alternative to the sanctions, without isolation from society, some criminal law experts argue that “correctional work” is a lighter punishment than a fine or imprisonment.

In accordance with Article 1.1 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules), these rules provide a set of basic principles to promote the use of non-custodial measures and alternatives to imprisonment.

Also, the acts under article 169.1 of the Criminal Code presume significant damage to public interest, gross violation of public order and other criminal elements reflecting the gravity of the violation.

If these acts do not result in substantial harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, they are not considered crimes and lead to penalties under article 513 of the Code of Administrative Offences.

Given the above, restricting to only fines the punishments imposed under certain articles of the Criminal Code for public danger, serious harm to the public interest, gross violation of coexistence rules, etc. is not considered acceptable based on the principles of justice, humanity, the Constitution and criminal and criminal procedural legislation.

- As shown below, the use of correctional labour is minimal and has been declining in recent years (according to the statistics of the Attorney-General’s Office):

-- In 2019, 876 (7.6 per cent) of the 11,484 people convicted by the courts were sentenced to correctional work and 157 (1.4 per cent) to community service;

-- ln 2020, 572 (6.2 per cent) of 9,282 individuals were punished with correctional work and 3 (0.2 per cent) individuals with community service;

-- In 2021, 512 (3.5 per cent) of 14,751 individuals were sentenced to correctional work and 73 (0.5 per cent) individuals to community service.

2. Regarding the comment on the use of articles 148, 179, 192, 213, 274, 308, 323 of the Criminal Code for prosecuting journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders and other individuals who express critical views

It should be noted that the Criminal Code does not provide for prosecution and punishment for political views, convictions or other circumstances, but for cases when a person is found guilty of committing a socially dangerous act.

Under article 25 of the Constitution, the State guarantees equality of rights and freedoms to everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, language, gender, origin, property status, occupation, etc.

Under article 71 of the Constitution, the legislative, executive and judicial branches of Government are obliged to observe and protect human and civil rights and freedoms.

Since these articles of the Criminal Code are applied without prejudice to the profession or status of the accused, no relevant statistics on professions are compiled and, thus, cannot be provided.

The following statistics show that the use of the above articles of the Criminal Code is minimal and has decreased in recent years (according to the Supreme Court’s statistics):

[Table not reproduced]

In addition, in order to ensure transparency and public access to court decisions, a link can be accessed to obtain information on the application of the above-mentioned articles of the Criminal Code (https://sc.supremecourt.gov.az/decision/).

3. Legislative guarantees of non-prosecution for political and ideological views

According to the Constitution, the State guarantees the equality of rights and freedoms to all, irrespective of their occupation, beliefs, affiliation with political parties, trade unions and other public associations.

The law also prohibits the restriction of human and civil rights and freedoms on the basis of beliefs or political or social affiliation. No one may be harmed or denied privileges or advantages on the grounds listed above (article 25).

Also, pursuant to the law:

- everyone has freedom of thought and speech;

- agitation and propaganda inciting hatred and enmity on racial, national, religious, social or other grounds shall not be permitted;

- everyone shall have the freedom to seek, receive, transmit, prepare and disseminate information lawfully;

- freedom of the media is guaranteed.

Under the Law on the Freedom of Assembly, the State ensures the exercise of freedom of assembly and takes appropriate measures to hold peaceful and unarmed assemblies.

Under article 6.1 of the Criminal Code, offenders are equal before the law and are prosecuted regardless of their beliefs, membership in political parties, trade unions or other public associations or other circumstances.

Article 154 of the Criminal Code establishes liability for violation of the right to equality.

4. Measures to improve the legislation

In order to humanize the sanctions provided under the Criminal Code and limit their scope, the following reforms and measures to improve the legislation were implemented.

4.1. Law No. 816-VCD of 20 October 2017 “On Amendments to the Criminal Code” was adopted.

As a result of the introduction of about 300 amendments to the Criminal Code, a number of criminal offences were decriminalized, and some acts were transferred from the category of criminal offences to administrative ones.

The amendments also improved the institute of exemption from criminal liability through reconciliation with the victim and established new norms providing for exemption from criminal liability for crimes against property and those related to economic activity.

In addition, in order to reduce cases of imposing a prison sentence:

- a new type of punishment was introduced which is not related to deprivation of liberty – restriction of freedom (articles 147.2, 192.1, 192.2, 221.2, 233 and 314 of the Criminal Code);

- the term of imprisonment for certain crimes was reduced (articles 308.2 and 221.2 of the Criminal Code).

4.2. Law No. 68-VIQD of 1 May 2020 “On Amendments to the Criminal Code” was adopted.

The Law introduced alternatives to deprivation of liberty (fines and restriction of freedom) in sanctions of several articles (articles 192.1, 221.2, 221.3 and 308.1 of the Criminal Code) and also provided for reduction of fines or mitigation of imprisonment sentence for certain crimes.

In addition, the Law decriminalized certain acts, including illegal entrepreneurship (article 192 of the Criminal Code) and tax evasion (article 213), by increasing the threshold of liability from 20,000 to 50,000 Azerbaijani manat.

4.3. The decision of the Milli Majlis of the Republic of Azerbaijan of 5 November 2021 “On declaring an amnesty on the occasion of 8 November – Victory Day” was adopted.

It was established that the Amnesty Act applied to 17,267 persons. This decision is the largest amnesty ever granted in terms of the number of persons covered. According to the Amnesty Act, all persons sentenced to correctional work and community service were discharged from punishment.

5. Steps taken and envisaged

Steps taken

The Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of Azerbaijan (the Ministry), as a leading state body responsible for cooperation with the ILO, has undertaken the following steps:

- Upon receipt of the ILO letter dated 7 February 2022, the Ministry urgently mobilized all relevant state bodies to thoroughly review the issues raised in the observation and direct request of the Committee of Experts.

- An inter-agency Working Group (National Task Force) comprised of respective state bodies and non-state institutions has been set up:

1. Supreme Court

2. Ministry of Justice

3. Attorney General’s Office

4. Ministry of Internal Affairs

5. Presidential Administration

6. Ministry of Foreign Affairs

7. Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of Population

8. Ministry of Economy

9. National Confederation of Employers’ Organizations

10. Azerbaijani Trade Unions Confederation

- The Minister of Labour and Social Protection of Population of Azerbaijan convened and chaired the first meeting of the Working Group on 23 February 2022.

- The Azerbaijani side has engaged in intensive consultations and discussions via its diplomatic mission in Geneva as well as the Ministry and Working Group in Azerbaijan.

- The Azerbaijani diplomatic mission in Geneva has held several meetings with ILO representatives in 2022, including:

- Ms Corinne Vargha, Director of the International Labour Standards Department;

- Ms Deepa Rishikesh, Head of Unit;

- Mr Horacio Guido, Chief of Branch;

- Mr Heinz Koller, Director, Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia.

- The Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Protection addressed a letter to the Director of the International Labour Standards Department on 25 February 2022.

- The Azerbaijani side is currently working on the ratification of the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), in addition to 58 previously ratified ILO Conventions.

- The Azerbaijani side requested and received a Technical Note on Article 1(a) of ILO Convention No. 105 and its application by Azerbaijan.

- The Working Group prepared a comprehensive report in response to the 2022 report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

- The draft of this report was discussed with the ILO Regional Office and National Coordinator. The Regional Office provided its valuable comments and recommendations on 25 April 2022.

- The Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Protection held a Zoom meeting with representatives of the International Labour Standards Department, ILO, on 11 May 2022.

Steps envisaged

- During the report preparation process, the Working Group members have expressed diverging opinions and approaches on the criminal law amendments. Hence, the ILO experts are required to be engaged for the purpose of formulating and discussing the common ground and framework on further criminal law reforms in Azerbaijan.

- The Ministry is preparing a formal request for ILO technical assistance to the ILO Moscow Office in order to engage ILO expertise and additional resources to address the matters raised in the observation and direct request.

- The technical assistance agreement and its scope will be discussed with the Working Group members in order to fully cover the extent of required resources.

- Initial assessment of the needs has identified that not only cases and penalties statistics should be presented to the ILO but also information on the acts that gave rise to the criminal prosecutions, the summary of the court deliberations and decisions delivered under these articles are to be presented to the ILO.

- Also, this assessment showed that in order to fully respond to the observation and direct request, the respective information is large in volume and should be translated into English. This submission requires more time and additional resources.

- Additional information collected from the Working Group members is being submitted to the ILO in addition to the response report initially submitted in April 2022.

6. Conclusion

The fulfilment of all obligations under ILO Conventions ratified by the Republic of Azerbaijan is of particular importance. The Government will continue to make its best efforts to comply with the requirements of all ILO Conventions that it has ratified.

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative, Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Protection of Population – Since the Government has already submitted written information in the form of a report, I will avoid repeating the submission. Instead, I will concentrate on the issues of particular importance that may require the kind attention of the esteemed Committee members and meeting participants. In addition, I will also clarify some aspects of the information provided given the limits imposed on the length of the submitted report.

Since we received the direct request and the observation of the Committee of Experts earlier this year, the Ministry has taken the matter very seriously. The Ministry is a major state agency, responsible for cooperation with the ILO, and here I should emphasize that the ILO is very important to Azerbaijan, which has a track record of 30 years’ productive cooperation with the ILO and one of the highest ratification rates of ILO Conventions in the region. To date, 58 Conventions, including all 8 fundamental Conventions and 45 technical ones, have been ratified and integrated into national legislation. Currently there are plans to ratify another Convention, the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155).

The ILO is a reliable social partner that has supported the Government in the preparation of numerous strategic development documents. For instance, with its support, the National Employment Strategy for the period up to 2030 was developed and adopted. It enabled better management of the labour force and employment in Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan was also one of the first countries to engage with the United Nations Sustainable Development Group Mainstreaming, Acceleration and Policy Support platform, which focuses, among other matters, on inclusive labour markets.

Promoting decent work opportunities and quality jobs, improving working conditions and enhancing social dialogue mechanisms have been identified as country priorities. These priorities were reflected in the ILO’s Decent Work Country Programme for 2016–20 and in a new programme for 2022–26 which is currently under discussion.

There are several priorities under this new programme that are aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the UN Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework and that include international labour standards, mainstreamed in policy and practice through social dialogue, inclusive growth that reduces vulnerability and builds resilience, and stronger institutions for better delivery of public and social services.

Therefore, upon receipt of the observation and the direct request of the Committee of Experts, the Labour Ministry carefully studied those documents. The Ministry swiftly mobilized all relevant bodies, and a National Task Force was set up, consisting of ten state bodies and public institutions. Since the comments were related to the use of the Criminal Code, the Ministry met with the relevant ministries, such as the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Supreme Court and the Attorney-General’s Office. Also, due to the importance of the matter, representatives from the Presidential Administration have joined the working group.

In addition to state bodies, this National Task Force comprises representatives of the National Confederation of Employers’ Organizations, which represents employers, and trade union confederations, which represent employees. The participation of employers’ organizations and trade union confederations was necessary since social dialogue on labour relations is conducted through a tripartite commission on social and economic issues. This tripartite commission has operated as a permanent body with a secretariat since 2016 and was established as an ILO initiative to create a new institutional framework for the social partners.

The three parties involved in the dialogue are the Labour Ministry, the National Confederation of Employers’ Organizations and the Azerbaijani Trade Unions Confederation. It is a major platform for the discussion and coordination of joint actions on important labour-related matters, including, for example, amendments to the Labour Code, issues related to unemployment, minimum wages and others.

I would like to touch upon the application of Article 1(a) of the Convention in Azerbaijan. The Convention guarantees that compulsory labour is not used as a means of punishment for the expression of views. Meanwhile, the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour, including work in the community or correctional work by persons who use violence or incite to violence. In this regard, I would like to inform the esteemed Committee members of the penalties involving labour currently available under the Criminal Code.

These two types of penalty are also common in the legislation and practice of other ILO Member States. The Criminal Code, in article 42, provides for, among other penalties, two types of penalties involving labour: correctional work and work in the community. In this respect, I must mention an important aspect: in the Criminal Code, penalties are categorized as main penalties or additional penalties. Correctional work and work in the community are considered main penalties.

Why is that important? Because they cannot be applied in addition to other penalties, such as imprisonment, the limitation of freedom and others. A person cannot be imprisoned or placed in detention and at the same time be subject to penalties involving labour. Convicted persons in Azerbaijan are either imprisoned or sentenced to correctional work or work in the community, it is either of the two. Therefore, correctional work is classified as a separate category of penalty whose terms of application are clearly set out. It is regulated in detail under another law, separate from the Criminal Code, which is the Code on the Execution of Penalties. The same applies to work in the community, which is another type of penalty involving labour. This is a common type of penalty since it is carried out in the free time of the convicted person when the person is not working or studying. These two types of punishments do not fall under the definition of “forced labour” under the ILO Conventions since correctional work and work in the community are carried out based on a court decision and under the supervision of the public authorities. Furthermore, this is normal practice in many countries including, for example, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Uzbekistan and others, where both types of punishments are used and do not contradict ILO norms and their requirements.

I would like to clarify the regulation of correctional work and how it is applied, because it was highlighted in the observation presented by the Committee of Experts. Under criminal law, correctional work is carried out at the place of work, not in a prison – I would like to repeat, at the place of work, not prison. It is executed as a deduction of 5–20 per cent of the convicted person’s earnings in favour of the State, so this form of penalty does not impose forced labour upon a person but is a transfer of money from his or her earnings to the State while the convicted person participates in socially useful work at his or her workplace, not in prison. There is no isolation for persons subject to this type of penalty. Fines often are relatively high and not paid by convicted persons within the time period established by law. Therefore, under the Criminal Code, in the case of wilful evasion of the payment of a fine, the punishment is replaced by penalties such as work in the community, correctional work, the restriction of freedom or imprisonment. Correctional work is applied under some articles of the Criminal Code as an alternative sanction without isolation from society. Therefore, it may be argued that work in the community is often an even lighter punishment than a fine or imprisonment. Moreover, in some cases, we have to take into consideration the UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures, also called the Tokyo Rules, which also promote the use of non-custodial measures as alternatives to imprisonment.

I would like to draw your kind attention to two very important aspects. If acts under certain articles of the Criminal Code, for example article 169 which is mentioned in the observation, do not result in particular harm to public entities, they are not considered a crime and lead to a penalty under the Code of Administrative Offences, as recommended by the ILO and the Committee of Experts.

I would like also to bring to your kind attention some statistics indicating that the use of correctional labour is minimal and has been declining in recent years. In 2019, correctional work was imposed in 7 per cent of cases and work in the community in only 1.4 per cent of cases. In 2021, it came down to even less than 6 per cent and 3 per cent, respectively. We have provided more information in the report, so I will not take too much of your time regarding these statistics, but I would like also to mention that the observation of the Committee of Experts draws particular attention to four sections of the Criminal Code, that is, the article regarding defamation, the article regarding violations of the rules on assembly, the article regarding violations of public order, and the article on the incitement of national, racial, social or religious enmity. These articles are not widely used in practice. In the last two years, there have been no cases under three of those four articles. For example, under article 147, during the last two years there have been only around 35 cases, so around 15 cases per year, and penalties were applied in only 5 of those cases, meaning that in around 4 per cent of cases some kind of penalty was applied.

So, dear Committee, what should we expect? What should be our way forward? What does Azerbaijan plan to do? Of course, the Government understands that the comments and recommendations of the Committee of Experts are intended to increase the effective implementation of ILO standards in Member States, including Azerbaijan. They also serve, for us, as an assessment of the current situation and for future reforms and improvements to national legislation and practice. Therefore, due to the importance of these recommendations and comments, the Labour Minister met with his high-level counterparts from different ministries and chaired the first meeting of the National Task Force. The Azerbaijani Working Group has been engaging in intensive consultations and discussions with the ILO diplomatic mission in Geneva as well as the capital of Azerbaijan, Baku, and the Azerbaijani diplomatic mission in Geneva has held several meetings with ILO representatives. I personally had Zoom meetings with the ILO experts, who were also requested to provide a Technical Note; that was a comprehensive, detailed document that addressed very sophisticated aspects of the recommendations and comments of the Committee of Experts and also the possible solutions, which we found very valuable. The Working Group also prepared and presented a comprehensive report, and an additional report was submitted. These reports were discussed with the National Coordinator here in Azerbaijan. Also, we discussed it with the ILO Regional Office.

Just a couple of weeks ago, on 19 May, a workshop on the application of the Convention was organized. Representatives of the Ministry, the National Confederation of Employers’ Organizations, trade unions and ILO experts attended this important workshop, and during the report preparation process, and during the workshop, we identified that there are diverging opinions and approaches as to how the criminal laws in Azerbaijan should be amended, so we believe that ILO experts must be engaged for the purpose of formulating and discussing the common ground and framework for further criminal law reforms in Azerbaijan. Also, we identified that the initial assessment of needs showed us that not only should reform be undertaken, but also that statistics on cases and penalties should be presented to the ILO. They are, of course, quite large in volume, so they should be translated from the national language into English, which will require more time and additional resources.

In this regard, the Minister, several weeks ago in May, despatched a formal request for ILO technical assistance to the ILO Regional Office in order to engage ILO expertise and additional resources to address matters raised in the observation and the direct request. Discussion of the technical assistance is planned during the upcoming visit of the Director of the ILO Office for Europe and Central Asia to Azerbaijan which is expected to take place in mid-June. During her visit, we plan to organize a conference on the new Decent Work Country Programme for the next five years, and we also believe that this joint effort will strengthen and support the Government’s activities to comply with the requirements of all ILO Conventions, as the Government undertakes, from time to time, reforms and measures to improve legislation. For example, in October 2017 we had amendments to the Criminal Code, and approximately 300 amendments to the Criminal Code were introduced, a number of criminal offences were decriminalized, and some criminal offences were changed to administrative ones. In May 2020, we had another package of amendments to the Criminal Code, and the last amendments and the amnesty took place just several days ago, on 28 May 2022, when we were celebrating Independence Day and 213 persons were released from criminal punishment. We believe that this is in line with the social reform programme that is currently being implemented in Azerbaijan gradually, in stages, and this reform has already covered approximately 4 million persons in Azerbaijan, or 40 per cent of the population. The last package of reforms entered into force just this January, in 2022, and the budget share of the costs of the reforms has reached 46 per cent, which is a record number for the last three to four years.

Therefore, lastly, I would like to reiterate in particular that the fulfilment of ILO norms and standards is of particular importance, as the Government will continue its best efforts in this direction with the ILO’s productive collaboration, valuable support and constructive dialogue.

Worker members – The abolition of forced labour is a fundamental objective of the ILO. There can be no social justice where there is forced labour. The adoption of the Convention in 1957 was a vital step towards meeting that objective, reinforcing as it did the normative framework created by the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). Both Conventions, of course, rightly take their place among the ILO’s fundamental Conventions. Azerbaijan ratified Convention No. 105 in 2000. The country’s implementation of this Convention has been the subject of recurrent direct requests from the Committee of Experts since 2004.

The issue we discuss today has been the subject of these observations since 2015, and yet – despite repeated opportunities, including its report for this year – the Government has never provided a complete response to these observations.

While we thank the Government for the written information provided to the Committee on 16 May, we regret that Azerbaijan waited until it had its back to the wall before responding to the observations of the Committee of Experts. The persistent lack of response over an issue covered by the fundamental Convention has led directly to the Committee of Experts issuing a double footnote on Azerbaijan in its observations this year – which we can fully understand – and the scrutiny of the Committee now reflects the gravity of the situation.

The observation of the Committee of Experts, repeated a number of times since 2015, relates to several provisions of the Criminal Code that are drafted in such broad terms that they can be used to punish the expression of political opinions or the manifestation of ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic order. These provisions provide for penalties of correctional labour or imprisonment that include an obligation to work for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, which is strictly prohibited under the Convention.

Indeed, while the work imposed on an ordinary offender may have the objective of reintegrating the individual in compliance with the guarantees provided for in Convention No. 29, the same cannot be said for persons convicted merely for expressing their opinion. The latter must be given special protection. And this is set out in the Convention.

The provisions in question are articles 147, 169.1, 233 and 283.1 of the Criminal Code, which respectively punish defamation, the organization of, or participation in, a prohibited public gathering, the organization of collective actions that undermine public order, and incitement to national, racial or religious enmity.

The Azerbaijani Government, having responded at last to the concerns of the Committee of Experts, argues that these provisions do not amount to forced labour, as the penalty of corrective labour is simply the confiscation of 5–20 per cent of the remuneration of the work performed by the person concerned. We cannot agree. Forced labour is defined as any work imposed by the State on a private individual, under threat, including the non-payment of wages even if only a part of them. And, in practice, it seems that these criminal provisions have been applied in an attempt to silence dissenting voices.

We appreciate the statistics provided by the Azerbaijani Government on the number of cases in which labour sentences have been imposed. As the report of the Committee of Experts points out, many European and UN bodies and institutions have observed an increasing tendency to use provisions of the Criminal Code to prosecute journalists, bloggers and human rights defenders, as well as in the punishment of insults, vandalism, state treason and the abuse of power.

The information provided by the Government states that reforms have decriminalized certain offences and made them administrative offences. However, the UN Human Rights Committee has noted that, at the same time, the administrative penalties that can be imposed for minor charges, and which are often mobilized against human rights activists, have increased considerably from 15 days in prison to 90 days.

These criminal provisions and their application in practice are contrary to Article 1(a) of the Convention, and there is an urgent need for Azerbaijan to bring its legislation and practice into line with the Convention. It is clear that the preferred course of action should be the removal of all criminal sanctions for the expression of democratic political views.

In addition, the European Court of Human Rights has, on several occasions, dealt with cases involving the detention and conviction of political opponents. In all the cases mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. In 2018, similar findings were made by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which also concluded that ordinary criminal law provisions are being used to undermine journalists’ freedom of expression. More recently, the report of the Committee of Experts refers to the July 2019 visit of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, who came to the stark conclusion that the right to freedom of expression is still under threat in Azerbaijan.

These elements, taken together, point to an environment that is not conducive to the exercise of civil liberties. Yet, it is clear that the free exercise of these public freedoms is an absolute prerequisite for the exercise of other fundamental labour freedoms that Azerbaijan must respect. These include the rights of association and assembly, through which citizens seek to make their views known and accepted and which may be affected by political coercion of the kind we see in Azerbaijan today.

The large number of international institutions making similar findings cannot, and should not, leave the Government unmoved. It is high time to remedy this situation and to restore an environment conducive to the exercise of civil liberties, which is a precondition for full compliance with international core labour standards, including, of course, the Convention.

In particular, and as a matter of urgency, Azerbaijan should ensure that criminal sanctions for the peaceful expression of dissenting political views, especially where such sanctions are accompanied by an obligation to work, are ended in order to bring its legislation and practice into line with the Convention.

Employer members – This Convention is one of the ILO’s fundamental Conventions and should therefore be subject to particular attention and priority monitoring. We will begin with some procedural matters.

This is the first time that our Committee is examining this individual case, but it is already the third observation made by the Committee of Experts since 2015. Reading the Committee of Experts’ observations, the lack of responses to these observations since 2015 gives the impression that there has not been any substantial progress made in eradicating forced labour as a punishment for certain criminal convictions related to peaceful freedom of expression.

On 28 February 2022, the Government had talks with the Office and, notably, received a Technical Note providing the necessary information to bring its criminal legislation and practices into line with ILO standards. We welcome the decision to request ILO technical assistance, which was announced by the Government during that visit and a few minutes ago.

In the meantime, the Office received written information on 16 May. We have reviewed this information and will come back to that in a moment.

We welcome the fact that the Government has finally taken the observations of the Committee of Experts seriously, because the Convention is, as I said, one of the ILO’s fundamental Conventions, and peaceful freedom of expression is also a fundamental human right. Going forward it would be unthinkable for Azerbaijan, in spite of having ratified this Convention in 2000, to continue failing to submit full reports on the application of this fundamental Convention to the ILO in a timely manner.

Moving on to the content of the case. With regard to the law, since its observations in 2015, the Committee of Experts has noted that several provisions of the Criminal Code provide for heavy sanctions, including punishments of compulsory labour, in cases involving the dissemination of false information, including via the internet, or the organization of public assemblies.

According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the maximum term of imprisonment for misdemeanours, such as resisting the police during peaceful demonstrations, has been increased from 15 to 90 days.

A new offence was recently added to the Criminal Code to criminalize posting slander or insult on an internet information resource by using fake usernames, profiles or accounts. This offence is punishable by imprisonment for up to one year. And recently, imprisonment for up to three years was added to the Criminal Code for cases involving the use of digital online tools to smear or humiliate the honour and dignity of the President.

In practice, several European and United Nations institutions and bodies confirm that these criminal provisions are interpreted very broadly by the courts. These bodies and the Committee of Experts have therefore been able to note that journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders and others are regularly prosecuted for expressing their opinions in a peaceful manner.

According to the report of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe following her visit to Azerbaijan in July 2019, no progress had been made with regard to protecting freedom of expression in Azerbaijan. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that the deprivation of liberty of a journalist, who had been accused of so-called drug crimes and sentenced to nine years in prison, was as a result of his exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Lastly, the European Court of Human Rights has handed down a number of decisions since 2008 stating that convictions on the basis of article 147 of the Criminal Code, carrying a compulsory labour punishment, constitute a violation of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression. The same Court has continued to hear cases pertaining to Azerbaijan relating to the detention and conviction of political opponents.

All these official sources are in agreement that freedom of expression is still not guaranteed in Azerbaijan.

In its written information of 16 May, the Government explains however, using legal and practical arguments, that freedom of expression is in fact guaranteed in the country and that, strictly speaking, nobody is forced to carry out any compulsory labour for the benefit of the State in the discharge of a criminal conviction.

In its 2012 General Survey, the Committee of Experts states that “national constitutions and other legislative texts in practically all countries contain provisions recognizing the rights to freedom of thought and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, as well as freedom from arbitrary arrest and the right to a fair trial in accordance with due process of law”. The General Survey continues by specifying that: “in this connection … the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence”.

Taking into account all the elements gathered recently in Azerbaijan, the Employer members urge the national authorities to guarantee freedom of expression starting by amending the Criminal Code. Only actions that use violence, incite violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence linked to the expression of an opinion can be liable to criminal sanctions. The criminal law must define the offences in more detail and prevent any broad interpretation by the courts. This is a fundamental democratic principle.

The Employer members call on the Government to take immediate and effective steps to ensure that no person who peacefully expresses political opinions or opposes the established political, social or economic system can be given a sentence involving compulsory labour or imprisonment, either in law or in practice.

We understand that the Government has decided to set up an inter-agency working group (a National Task Force) comprised of public bodies, non-state institutions and social partners to review these issues. We also understand that, in order to have more information to work from, an initial assessment of needs has identified that not only are statistics on cases and penalties needed, but information on the acts that gave rise to the criminal prosecutions, the summary of the court deliberations and the decisions delivered in these cases should also be presented to the ILO. We encourage the Government to make an effort in this regard.

Lastly, we welcome the Government of Azerbaijan’s decision to request technical assistance from the Office in order to have guidance on how to bring its legislation and practices into line with the Convention. This is a positive step, which the Employer members strongly encourage. The Government is required to comply with all its reporting obligations from now on and to respond to any questions asked of it by ILO bodies completely and within the required deadlines.

Worker member, Azerbaijan – I would like to give some information on the application of the Convention at the national level. In early February of this year, the Azerbaijani Trade Unions Confederation (AHIK) received information through colleagues from the Bureau for Workers’ Activities (ACTRAV) that the Government had not provided a detailed report on the application of the Convention or the documents required by the direct request from the Committee of Experts. AHIK took the information into consideration during its full examination of the Azerbaijan case and held initial meetings with the social partners and the ILO National Coordinator in Baku.

On 23 February 2022, the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection organized an online ad hoc meeting with the participation of the social partners and the relevant public authorities (the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of the Economy). The participants in the ad hoc meeting agreed to establish a task force working group to address the case relating to the Convention and collect feedback from the relevant agencies.

AHIK has requested the technical support of ACTRAV to conduct awareness-raising and develop the professional skills and knowledge of its members. With that technical support, AHIK held a tripartite workshop on the role of trade unions in the application of the Convention in Baku in May 2022. The workshop was attended by the Chairperson of AHIK, managerial officials of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection and the National Confederation of Employers’ Organizations, as well as Mr Sergeyus Glovackas, ACTRAV Desk Officer for Europe and Central Asia, Mr Gocha Aleksandria, Senior Specialist at the ILO Country Office for Eastern Europe and Central Asia in Moscow, Ms Mélanie Jeanroy, ACTRAV Legal and Labour Law Officer, and the ILO National Coordinator in Baku.

As a trade union, we are strongly committed to improving national legislation and bringing it into line with the Convention while taking account of all the comments raised by the Committee of Experts.

AHIK stands ready to take very seriously any case related to forced labour in its member enterprises and entities. For the time being, no complaints of forced labour have been received by AHIK. All cases related to labour relations and violations of national labour legislation and international labour standards are under AHIK’s ongoing supervision.

In line with the Law on Trade Unions, AHIK has contributed to preparing national labour and social protection legislation and economic policy. AHIK is also contributing to developing a criminal code and the relevant national legislation under its competence and capacities. I would also like to inform the Committee about the outcomes of the seminar entitled “The Role of Trade Unions in Meeting the Requirements of ILO Conventions Nos 29 and 105” that was held in Baku this May.

The outcomes are the following. The scope of the legal definition of “forced labour” in Convention No. 29 is interpreted much more broadly than in the Labour Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan (article 17, paragraph 1). Here, the very concept of forced labour applies only to the context of labour relations and labour functions, while in the Convention itself it applies to both labour and service, or civil, contractual relations. A proposal was made to bring this norm of the Labour Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan into line with the ILO Convention.

It would be useful to study the experience of Member States with examples of indicators in the field of the abolition of forced labour, as well as the international experience of mechanisms, or procedures, in limiting the scope of certain provisions of the Criminal Code in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. In order to prevent forced labour, it is important for the social partners to organize collective bargaining for all workers, regardless of the organizational and legal form of the workplace, and to promote the right to organize in trade unions.

Employer member, Azerbaijan – The Deputy Minister and my colleague from the trade unions gave brief information about our response to the ILO’s request as well as about what we have been doing in the past two months in the working group. All partners, including the National Confederation of Employers’ Organizations, gave their comments to this working group, and our comments to the working group were reflected in the general document provided by the Government to the Committee. Here we see that the ILO and the Committee of Experts assess forced labour and provide recommendations in relation to the alignment of legislation. I also would like to give some information on the penalties. In our opinion, correctional work and work in the community cannot constitute forced labour. The Worker members said that correctional work can be considered forced labour, but it is actually a monetary sanction, and it is lighter than an ordinary fine. Actually, the penalty of correctional work provided for in the legislation is, in practice, one of the lighter penalties of the Criminal Code, in comparison to imprisonment or sanctions restricting freedom of liberty. Nevertheless, we can work on the definitions and narrow the scope of our definitions of crimes, and we can undertake an analysis of the act. But, generally, as the Deputy Minister indicated in Azerbaijan in the last four or five years we have made some legal reforms that have decriminalized many acts. There are, perhaps, some aspects that we should accept. However, concluding that our general legislation is not in line with the ILO Conventions or other general human rights conventions is not a fair approach.

Government member, France – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The candidate countries Montenegro and Albania, the European Free Trade Association countries Iceland and Norway, Members of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement.

The EU and its Member States are committed to the promotion, protection, respect and fulfilment of human rights, including labour rights. We actively promote the universal ratification and implementation of fundamental international labour standards, including the Convention, and we support the ILO in its indispensable role to develop, promote and supervise the application of ratified international labour standards and of fundamental Conventions, in particular.

Relations between the EU and Azerbaijan are based on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement in force since 1999 and are guided by the joint partnership priorities in place since 2018, which include among its focus areas cooperation on strengthening institutions and good governance.

We thank the Office and give our full support for its constant engagement in promoting labour rights in Azerbaijan. We thank the Committee for the report on the implementation of the Convention in Azerbaijan.

The EU and its Member States deplore the continued use of the provisions of the Criminal Code to prosecute and convict persons who express their political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, leading to penalties of correctional work or imprisonment, both of which involve forms of forced or compulsory labour that the Government, under the Convention, is supposed explicitly to suppress and refrain from using.

We fully echo the call of the Committee of Experts and strongly urge the Government to take immediate and effective measures to ensure that, both in law and practice, no one who, in a peaceful manner, expresses political views or opposes the established political, social or economic system can be sentenced to sanctions under which compulsory labour is imposed.

We are also deeply concerned to note that the Committee of Experts has observed no progress with regard to protecting freedom of expression in Azerbaijan and that journalists, social media activists and opposition political activists who express dissent or criticism of the authorities are convicted and imprisoned under various provisions of the Criminal Code and run the risk of forced labour.

We welcome the written information provided by the Government of Azerbaijan. We take note of the initial steps taken, including the establishment of an inter-agency working group to review the issues raised in the observation and direct request of the Committee of Experts. However, these initial steps by the Government should cover all issues raised in the report, without exceptions. We also take note of the steps envisaged that recognize the fundamental role of the ILO in addressing decent work deficits and the relevance of ILO technical assistance. We would welcome a clear timeline for the abolition of the use of forced and compulsory labour in Azerbaijan, including as a form of political coercion.

The EU and its Member States stand ready to assist Azerbaijan in meeting its obligations and will continue to closely follow the situation in the country.

Government member, Türkiye – We would like to thank the Government for the detailed response that they have provided to the Committee. We take note of Azerbaijan’s efforts to work closely with the ILO and we believe that the ILO can, and should, play a key role here in settling the issues by providing technical assistance in order to support the Government’s efforts to improve working conditions in the country. The Government of Azerbaijan shows willingness to benefit from the technical assistance of the ILO.

As a Member of the ILO, Azerbaijan has ratified 58 Conventions, including all the fundamental and priority Conventions. We commend the positive and significant developments, such as the declining use of correctional labour, the introduction of about 300 amendments to the Criminal Code and the decriminalization of a number of criminal offences, the reduction of fines and the mitigation of prison sentences for certain crimes.

We welcome the fact that the Azerbaijani Constitution and its national legislation enshrine and protect the exercise of freedom of assembly, and that the Government demonstrates its strong desire to continue engaging in social dialogue with the social partners. We also appreciate that Azerbaijan has established an inter-agency working group to review the issues raised in the observation and direct request of the Committee of Experts.

The intensive consultations and discussions with the social partners, the several meetings with ILO representatives and the work on the ratification of the Convention are significant indications of the Government’s strong readiness to strengthen and adapt its current legislative framework to bring it into line with ILO standards. We encourage the Government to continue to undertake the necessary steps in this regard.

We believe that Azerbaijan will continue to work with the ILO and the social partners in the spirit of constructive cooperation regarding the ILO and international labour standards and comply with reporting obligations and the ratified Conventions.

Worker member, Belgium – We are worried by the information contained in the report of the Committee of Experts. We are also concerned that the Government has not complied with its obligation to reply to the various concerns raised regarding failure to comply with the Convention. In particular, the fact that convictions to sentences of compulsory labour are handed down to persons who express their political views or their opposition to the established political, social or economic system is a cause of concern.

In its report, the Committee of Experts notes that several provisions of the Criminal Code establish sanctions of correctional work or imprisonment involving compulsory labour. These criminal provisions are drafted in broad terms and lend themselves to an interpretation that allows criminal sanctions to be imposed for the expression of political views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The report also notes a growing tendency to apply these provisions of the Criminal Code as a basis for the prosecution of journalists, bloggers and human rights defenders who express opinions.

The criminalization of freedom of expression creates an atmosphere of fear. It dissuades human rights defenders and defenders of workers’ rights. It is also seriously prejudicial to freedom of association. We firmly support the call made by the Committee of Experts to the Government to take immediate and effective measures to ensure that in both law and practice no one who in a peaceful manner expresses political views or opposes the established political, social or economic system can be sentenced to penalties under which compulsory labour is imposed.

We understand that certain measures have already been taken by the Government, as reported to the Conference, including the amnesty for persons sentenced to compulsory labour. We also understand that the Government has approached the ILO and the social partners concerning the review of the legislation in question. We urge the ILO to provide technical assistance for this process in order to ensure that civil liberties are guaranteed in law and practice and that there are no further penalties of forced labour in cases of convictions for having expressed opinions that are ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

Government member, Belarus – I would like to thank the delegation of Azerbaijan for their complete report. The report before us contains a number of comments reflecting answers to the questions relating to the application of provisions in the Criminal Code and the penalties applied resulting from the infringement of laws applying to individuals, the State and organizations. The application of correctional work is covered in a number of provisions of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan, and there are also substantive statistics on this issue.

With regard to the complaints raised against the Government concerning the application of such penalties and these provisions to those carrying out strikes, the interpretation of the Committee indicates, regarding the right to carry out strikes, that there can be no direct threat to public order, and they must be carried out in observance of national law. We consider that failure to respect such provisions allows the forces of law and order to impose respect for those laws, so there needs to be a proportionate response in Azerbaijan, and in other countries as well.

We believe that Azerbaijan is not departing from its national laws and that it also fully respects the provisions of the ILO.

Government member, Canada – We thank the Government of Azerbaijan for the recent information provided to address the observations of the Committee of Experts and additional details provided by the Deputy Minister. Protecting the freedom of expression of journalists, social media activists and political protesters is of utmost importance to Canada. Canada believes freedom of expression, both online and offline, is at the core of human individuality and is one of the essential foundations of a safe and prosperous society. We also strongly believe that media freedom remains an important part of democratic societies, and it is essential to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

We are therefore deeply concerned by persistent reports of provisions of the Azerbaijan Criminal Code being used to prosecute and convict persons who express their political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, leading to penalties of correctional work or imprisonment involving compulsory labour, in violation of the Convention.

We therefore urge the Government of Azerbaijan to:

- take immediate action to ensure that, both in law and practice, no one who in a peaceful manner expresses political views or opposes the established political, social or economic system can be sentenced to sanctions under which compulsory labour is imposed;

- review all relevant sections of the Criminal Code identified by the Committee of Experts and clearly restrict the scope of these provisions to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence or repeal sanctions involving compulsory labour;

- avail itself of ILO technical assistance towards these goals. We welcome the Government’s recent stated intention to cooperate with the ILO on this matter. We sincerely hope that the Government, in its next report to the Committee of Experts, will highlight positive developments.

Government member, Switzerland – Forced labour is a violation of human rights. Switzerland is concerned at the broad application of several provisions of the Criminal Code in Azerbaijan which provide for penalties of correctional work. It is concerned at the use of such provisions to penalize the expression of opinions. Switzerland firmly condemns the application of provisions involving compulsory labour, both to penalize persons who peacefully express political opinions or opposition to the political system, or for any other reason. These provisions and this practice are incompatible with the Convention.

While thanking the Government of Azerbaijan for the information provided in writing, Switzerland calls on the Government to continue taking every measure for the elimination of this practice and to provide all the information requested by the Committee of Experts in its report.

Government representative – I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for the invitation to participate in this honourable platform and for the opportunity to present our case. We have attentively taken note of the valuable comments and recommendations expressed by the Committee of Experts and the delegates.

The exchange of views from diverse perspectives once again demonstrates the good spirit of cooperation and constructive dialogue, as well as the commitment of the Azerbaijani Government to adhere to and implement ILO norms and principles. The comments and recommendations are well noted, they will be conveyed to the National Task Force and certainly will also serve as a basis for the planned technical assistance agreements with the ILO in order to tackle the matters raised in the observation and the direct request of the Committee of Experts.

Certainly, the ILO appreciates the understanding of the esteemed speakers today, as they appreciate the efforts and action already undertaken in recent months. However, of course, the scope of the matters already raised indicates that significant effort should continue to be exerted in the coming months. In the written information that was provided by the Azerbaijani side on 16 May, the Government made its best effort to capture and address the crucial aspects given the current circumstances and capacities. Therefore, in our written information, explanations in relation to the legislative wording and drafting were provided. In addition, statistics on cases and penalties were provided. However, based on the feedback expressed today, we well understand that additional information and explanations should be provided, and we will do so. It seems that there are still certain aspects of legislation and practice in the field of criminal law that require additional elaboration, explanation and clarification. Given that, our probable future steps on the Azerbaijani side can be grouped into two directions.

Our first line of action is to collate and provide all available information on the current situation of legislation and practice from the different line ministries engaged in the application of the Criminal Code, including the Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Attorney General’s Office. As I stated in my presentation, since the start of the criminal law reforms over the last three or four years, 300 amendments have been made to criminal processes, and information about the reforms is still fresh. This is new information, which we have to properly share and present for consideration and review by the Committee of Experts. I believe that we may also have to shed more light on the Criminal Code reform.

Our second line of action will be to prepare and present more detailed information, not only on cases and statistics on penalties, but also information on the acts and the facts that give rise to criminal prosecutions, and probably more detailed information on court deliberations and decisions, indicating why those decisions were delivered under the articles of the Criminal Code. This information is currently not available in English, but it is already publicly available so that all local experts and interested parties may easily familiarize themselves with court decisions and court deliberations via the web page of the Supreme Court and the Azerbaijani judicial authorities. Court deliberations are already open to the public, and the process can easily be accessed. However, the volume of this information is quite large, and it needs to be properly translated into English. This requires more time and additional resources.

Also, we will be able to identify within this process outstanding gaps that have not yet been covered by the current reforms but that may serve as a framework for future reform. For this reason, we believe that technical assistance from the ILO would assist in creating a more concrete framework for those reforms, as that would address the matters raised by the esteemed Committee members today. I would also like to share with you that, based on the statements, comments and recommendations expressed today, we believe that – and all Committee members likely also agree – it is not just a straightforward matter of replacing all correctional work, work in the community and penalties with fines or other forms of penalties; this approach requires study, and we will likely require experts, and we will also need to engage with Azerbaijani line ministries, because they are the major drivers behind the criminal law reforms, in order to explain and to bring it into the context and the platform of ILO cooperation.

Therefore, we will work closely with the ILO through the Geneva Office, through the Regional Office that is coming to Azerbaijan in mid-June, and also through technical assistance.

Worker members – We thank the representative of the Azerbaijani Government for the information he was able to provide during the discussion. We also thank the speakers for their contributions. There are, nevertheless, many consistent reports calling into question whether the free exercise of public freedoms is possible in Azerbaijan.

Those public freedoms are essential to the observance of international labour standards and the rights and freedoms that they enshrine. For this reason, the Convention itself provides, in Article 1(a), that the imposition of labour penalties for the expression of political opinions or the manifestation of ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic order is expressly prohibited.

Sadly, it is apparent that Azerbaijani legislation and practice have been in clear contradiction with this provision for many years.

We can, therefore, only call on the Government to amend its legislation as soon as possible to abolish the criminal sanctions imposed on persons expressing peaceful, dissenting political opinions. In order to comply with Article 1(a) of the Convention, Azerbaijan must ensure that any criminal sanctions involving an obligation to work are abolished for such persons.

We also consider it essential that Azerbaijan cancels all the labour sentences currently being served, or still to be served, that were imposed for the expression of political opinions or the manifestation of ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic order. We acknowledge the positive signal sent by the Amnesty Act passed in November 2021 which cancelled correctional labour sanctions for more than 17,000 people and hope that these sanctions will not be imposed in the future so that such an amnesty law will no longer be necessary.

Furthermore, we call on the Government to restore an environment in which the free exercise of public freedoms is fully guaranteed, without which all fundamental labour rights and freedoms cannot be fully guaranteed. To fully restore this environment for the exercise of civil liberties, we call on the Azerbaijani Government to ensure that victims of labour sentences in contravention of the Convention have access to adequate remedies and redress for the harm suffered.

We welcome, however, the initiatives announced by the Government to remedy the situation and hope that these initiatives will be implemented in practice, in consultation with the social partners.

We encourage the Government of Azerbaijan to continue the dialogue with the ILO on this issue and to provide it with all relevant information for a thorough analysis of the compliance of Azerbaijan’s legislation and practice with the Convention. Finally, in order to implement these recommendations, we call on the Government to honour its commitment to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

Employer members – We thank the various speakers, and particularly the Government of Azerbaijan for the written and oral information that has been provided to the Committee concerning the measures taken to bring national law and practice into conformity with the Convention. On the substance, we insist on the fact that the Convention is a fundamental Convention, and as such it requires particular attention from the ILO, governments and the social partners.

Our position in relation to Azerbaijan is clear: there can be no leeway with regard to peaceful freedom of expression, nor with the related fundamental rights. This is an extremely serious case.

With regard to the Criminal Code and its application to persons who express their opinions, the Employers’ group calls on the Government to take immediate and effective measures to ensure that, both in law and practice, no one who peacefully expresses political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system can be sentenced to penalties involving compulsory labour.

We hope that the request for technical assistance to make the necessary legislative reforms, currently promised by the Government, will reach the ILO very soon. This is a unique opportunity to ensure the application of the Convention. The Employers’ group calls on the Government of Azerbaijan to collaborate constructively in carrying out the reform of the Criminal Code and current practices.

Finally, on a point of great importance, we count on the Government to provide the information requested in good time and to comply with the reporting cycle. We insist on the quality and relevance of this information as a basis for assessing the effective progress made in law and practice. We are therefore counting on the positive attitude of the Government so that the case does not come back before the Committee again.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee deplored the continued use of penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee also noted with disappointment that various provisions of national legislation that provide for such penalties have not been repealed or amended in order to bring them into conformity with the Convention.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urges the Government of Azerbaijan to take effective and time-bound measures to:

- ensure that the right to hold or express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system without the threat of penalties involving compulsory labour is fully respected in line with Article 1(a) of the Convention;

- repeal or amend relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, including those leading to penalties of correctional work or imprisonment, in consultation with the social partners, in order to bring them into conformity with the Convention;

- quash convictions and drop all charges brought against individuals for having expressed political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system;

- ensure access to effective judicial remedies for victims of compulsory labour in violation of the Convention; and

- develop an action plan, in consultation with the free and independent employers’ and workers’ organizations, to implement these conclusions without delay.

The Committee invites the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to effectively implement the Committee’s conclusions.

The Committee requests the Government to submit a report to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2022 with information on the application of the Convention in law and practice, in consultation with the social partners.

Government representative – We would like to, once again, thank the Committee members, social partners and governments for their constructive and forward-looking discussion on our case and for the acknowledgment of the developments and the efforts made by the Government relating to the subject matter.

We take good note of the conclusions adopted by the Conference Committee. They will  be conveyed to the national task force. They will also serve as cases for detailed consultations with the large team of experts from the ILO’s Regional Office coming to Azerbaijan on 20–22 June this year. The discussions are planned to take place during the Conference, followed by a series of bilateral meetings that will result in planned steps to be taken in the coming months.

We would like to reiterate that our country is committed to fully respect and implement its obligations under the ILO Conventions, so we will continue to work with the social partners and the relevant stakeholders within the Government, and with ILO technical assistance on legislation and practice related to the implementation of the Convention in Azerbaijan.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee takes note of the information regarding the court decisions handed down under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code provided by the Government in its reply. The Committee observes however that the provided examples of the court decisions do not describe the facts pursuant to which the court decisions were handed down. The Committee therefore requests the Government to continue to supply information on the application of section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, providing in particular, a brief description of the offences and legal reasoning of convictions handed down as well as the penalties imposed, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain the scope of this provision and its compatibility with the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. The Committee takes notes of the examples of the court decisions handed down under section 233 of the Criminal Code provided by the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the Azerbaijan Trade Unions Confederation (ATUC), received on 13 May 2022, the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 25 August 2022, and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2022. It also notes the detailed discussionthat was held by the Committee on the Application of Standards (the Conference Committee) at the 110th Session of the International Labour Conference (June 2022), regarding the application of the Convention by Azerbaijan, as well as of the Government’s report.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 110th Session, May–June 2022)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted the indications by a significant number of United Nations and European institutions and bodies on the use of various provisions of the Criminal Code as a basis for the prosecution of journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders, and other persons who had expressed critical opinions. The Committee notes that the Conference Committee urged the Government to ensure, among others, that the right to hold or express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system without the threat of penalties involving compulsory labour is fully respected in line with Article 1(a) of the Convention.

The Committee takes due note of the adoption by the Government of the Action Plan for 2022–23 containing various measures to address the 2022 conclusions of the Conference Committee. The Committee also notes the Government’s request for ILO technical assistance to conduct a review of the national legislation and practice to ensure the application of the Convention.

The Government further indicates that the sanctions of correctional and public works established for the violation of sections 147 regarding defamation, 169.1 on organization or participation in a prohibited public assembly, 233 on organization of group actions violating public order, and 283.1 regarding inflaming the national, racial or religious enmity of the Criminal Code do not constitute compulsory labour. In particular, according to the Government, the sanction of correctional work which represents a deduction of 5–20 per cent from the convicted person’s earnings does result in the direct involvement of a convicted person in compulsory labour. The Government also points out that the sanction of public works which consists of an obligation to perform socially useful work does not lead to the social isolation of convicted persons and should be performed considering their age, state of health and professional experience.

The Government further underlines that sections 147, 169.1, 233 and 283.1 of the Criminal Code are in line with the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) and Convention No. 105 as the former, in Article 2(2)(c), stipulates that “any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law …” shall not be considered forced or compulsory labour. In addition, the Government points out that sections 147, 169.1, 233 and 283.1 of the Criminal Code are not widely used in practice. According to the statistics of the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan, in 2021, there were approximately 32 court decisions handed down under section 147; no court decision under section 169.1; 2 court decisions under section 233; and 2 court decisions under section 283.1. The Government further indicates that, in 2021, an amnesty was applied to 17,267 convicted persons, which is the largest amnesty in terms of the number of persons covered. In addition, a number of offences were decriminalized following the legislative amendments to the Criminal Code in 2017 and 2020.

With respect to the judgments delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) concerning the detentions and convictions of opposition political activists in Azerbaijan, the Government indicates that in several cases, the convictions have been quashed or the criminal proceedings have been terminated and compensation has been provided to the applicants.

The Committee notes the observations of the ATUC indicating its request to the ILO for technical assistance to conduct awareness-raising and capacity building activities on the application of the Convention. The ATUC further indicates that it has not received any complaints on the use of forced or compulsory labour. The Committee also notes the IOE’s observations indicating that immediate and effective steps are needed to ensure that no person who peacefully expresses political opinions or opposes the established political, social or economic system can be given a sentence involving compulsory labour or imprisonment, either in law or in practice. The Committee further notes that the ITUC expresses its disagreement with the Government’s statement that the sanction of correctional work does not amount to compulsory labour. The ITUC further indicates that despite the decriminalization of certain offences, the administrative penalties which are applied against human rights activists have increased from 15 days to 90 days of imprisonment.

With respect to sanctions of correctional work, public works and imprisonment established by sections 147, 169.1, 233 and 283.1 of the Criminal Code, the Committee notes that they involve compulsory labour for convicted persons. Regarding the sanction of correctional work, the Committee notes that convicts without a job are obliged to seek employment, including by registering with the employment agency, and cannot refuse a job offered to them (section 43 of the Code on the Execution of Penal Sentences). Convicts who have not found a job without a justified reason within a determined period of time are subject to sanctions, including the replacement of the unserved part of correctional work by the sanctions of restriction of freedom or imprisonment (section 51 of the Code on the Execution of Penal Sentences). The Committee notes in this respect that the sanction of correctional work leads to indirect coercion to perform labour under the threat of a penalty and results in compulsory labour. The Committee further observes that public works also involve compulsory labour as they consist of an obligation to perform socially useful work for a period ranging from 240 to 480 hours (section 47 of the Criminal Code). Furthermore, the sanction of imprisonment involves the obligation to perform labour, in accordance with section 95.1 of the Code on the Execution of Penal Sentences. The Committee therefore notes that sanctions of correctional work, public works and imprisonment involve compulsory labour and thus fall under the scope of the Convention.

The Committee further recalls that the exceptions from the definition of forced or compulsory labour set out by Article 2(2) of Convention No. 29 do not automatically apply to Convention No. 105. More particularly, the exemption concerning prison labour or other forms of compulsory labour exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law does not apply to convicted persons sentenced to imprisonment or other punishments involving compulsory labour for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Convention No. 105 (2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, paragraph 144).

The Committee strongly urges the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to ensure that, both in law and practice, no one who, in a peaceful manner, expresses political views or opposes the established political, social or economic system can be sentenced to sanctions under which compulsory labour is imposed. The Committee once again requests the Government to review sections 147, 169.1, 233 and 283.1 of the Criminal Code by clearly restricting the scope of these provisions to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the review of the national legislation and practice. The Committee further requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of sections 147, 169.1, 233 and 283.1 of the Criminal Code in practice, including any prosecutions carried out or court decisions handed down, indicating the penalties imposed and the facts that led to convictions.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary sanctions applicable to public officials. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 314.1 of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of correctional work or deprivation of freedom (involving compulsory labour) for the non-performance or improper performance by public officials of their duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to the legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of section 314.1 of the Criminal Code in practice.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report indicating that, under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, nine persons were convicted in 2019; seven persons in 2020; and four persons in the first half of 2021. The Committee recalls that, under Article 1(c) of the Convention, sanctions involving compulsory labour should not be applied as a means of labour discipline. However, the Committee has considered that in cases where sanctions (involving compulsory labour) are imposed on persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger, there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience (2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, paragraph 175). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the application of section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, indicating the facts pursuant to which the court decisions were handed down and the penalties imposed, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain the scope of this provision and its compatibility with the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, pursuant to section 233 of the Criminal Code, sanctions of imprisonment or correctional work (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for the organization of group actions violating public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. The Committee observed that section 233 of the Criminal Code is worded in broad terms and provides for sanctions involving compulsory labour for the peaceful participation in group actions. The Committee further noted that, although the Government had provided information on the number of convictions made under section 233 of the Criminal Code, it had not indicated whether those cases were related to participation in strikes.

The Government indicates that, under section 233 of the Criminal Code, one person was convicted in 2018; three persons in 2019; no one in 2020; and 37 persons in the first half of 2021. The Committee once again observes, however, that the Government has not indicated whether such convictions were related to participation in strikes. It also notes the rise in the number of convictions under section 233 of the Criminal Code. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to indicate whether any case of prosecution or conviction handed down under section 233 of the Criminal Code involved participation in strike action and the penalties imposed.

[The Committee asks the Government to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 110th Session and to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that several provisions of the Criminal Code, which provide for sanctions of correctional work or imprisonment (involving compulsory labour), are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. These provisions include:

• – section 147 regarding defamation, defined as “dissemination, in a public statement … or through the mass media, or a publicly displayed Internet information resource of false information discrediting the honour and dignity of a person”;
• – sections 169.1 and 233, read together with sections 7 and 8 of the Act on freedom of assembly, regarding “organization or participation in a prohibited public assembly” and “organization of group actions violating public order”; and
• – section 283.1 regarding “inflaming the national, racial or religious enmity”.

The Committee further noted the indication by an important number of United Nations and European institutions and bodies of a growing tendency to apply various provisions of the Criminal Code as a basis for the prosecution of journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders and other persons who expressed critical opinions. In particular, the following provisions of the Criminal Code were often used for that purpose: insult (section 148); embezzlement (section 179.3.2); illegal business (section 192); tax evasion (section 213); hooliganism (section 221); state treason (section 274); and abuse of office (section 308). The Committee also observed the introduction in the Criminal Code of section 148(1) on the offence of posting slander or insult on an Internet information resource by using fake user names, profiles or accounts, punishable by imprisonment for up to one year, and the extension of section 323(1) (smearing or humiliating the honour and dignity of the President in public statements, publicly shown products or the mass media) to online activities through the use of fake user names, profiles or accounts, punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. In addition, according to the UN Human Rights Committee, the maximum term of imprisonment under the Code of Administrative Offences for misdemeanours, with which human rights defenders were often charged (for example, hooliganism, resisting police and traffic violations), had been increased from 15 to 90 days.

The Committee notes with regret the absence of information on this point in the Government’s report. The Committee observes from the report of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe following her visit to Azerbaijan in July 2019 that no progress has been made with regard to protecting freedom of expression in Azerbaijan and that journalists and social media activists, who expressed dissent or criticism of the authorities, are continuously detained or imprisoned on a variety of charges, such as disobeying the police, hooliganism, extortion, tax evasion, incitement to ethnic and religious hatred or treason, as well as drug possession or illegal possession of weapons. The Committee also notes that, in its Opinion No. 12/2018, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that deprivation of liberty of the journalist, who had been accused of drug crimes under section 234.4.3 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to nine years in prison, was as a result of his exercise of the right to freedom of expression (A/HRC/WGAD/2018/12, paragraph 59). The Committee further observes that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has continued to hear a number of cases from Azerbaijan concerning the detentions and convictions of opposition political activists, particularly in the following cases: Hasanov and Majidli v. Azerbaijan, applications Nos 9626/14 and 9717/14, judgement of 7 October 2021; Azizov and Novruzlu v. Azerbaijan, applications Nos 65583/13 and 70106/13, judgement of 18 February 2021; Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, application No. 30778/15, judgment of 27 February 2020, among others.

The Committee once again deplores the continued use of the provisions of the Criminal Code to prosecute and convict persons who express their political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, leading to penalties of correctional work or imprisonment, both involving compulsory labour. The Committee therefore once again strongly urges the Government to take immediate and effective measures to ensure that, both in law and practice, no one who, in a peaceful manner, expresses political views or opposes the established political, social or economic system can be sentenced to sanctions under which compulsory labour is imposed. The Committee once again requests the Government to review the abovementioned sections of the Criminal Code by clearly restricting the scope of these provisions to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour.

In light of the situation described above, the Committee is bound to observe that there has been no progress with regard to protecting freedom of expression in Azerbaijan and that journalists, social media activists and opposition political activists who express dissent or criticism of the authorities are convicted and imprisoned under various provisions of the Criminal Code. The Committee once again deplores the continued use of the provisions of the Criminal Code to prosecute and convict persons who express their political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, leading to penalties of correctional work or imprisonment, both involving compulsory labour. The Committee considers that this case meets the criteria set out in paragraph 95 of its General Report to be asked to come before the Conference.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 110th Session and to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee previously noted that, under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by public officials of their duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by correctional work or by deprivation of freedom (which involves compulsory prison labour). It requested the Government to provide information on the application of section 314.1 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not provide any information in this regard. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide information on the subject matter of the court decisions passed under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its scope, including sample copies of such decisions, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is used or not as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. The Committee previously referred to section 233 of the Criminal Code, under which sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) or correctional work may be imposed for the organization of group actions violating public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. The Committee observed that section 233 of the Criminal Code is worded in broad terms and penalizes with sanctions involving compulsory labour the peaceful participation in group actions. It requested the Government to indicate whether section 233 is applicable to participants in unlawful strikes and to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that, from 2014 to 2016, 18 persons were convicted under section 233 of the Criminal Code. However, it is unclear whether these cases are related to participation in strikes. The Committee once again recalls the importance it attaches to the general principle that, in all cases and regardless of the legality of the strike action in question, any sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and that no penal sanctions should be imposed upon a worker for the mere fact of peaceful participation in a strike (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 315). The Committee therefore once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure, both in law and in practice, that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of peacefully participating in strikes. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee once again requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of section 233 of the Criminal Code, indicating whether any offences are related to participation in strike action and the penalties applied.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the attention of the Government to several provisions of the Criminal Code, enforceable with sanctions of correctional work or imprisonment, both involving compulsory labour in accordance with section 95 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences. These provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. These provisions include:

• -section 147 regarding defamation, defined as “dissemination, in a public statement … or through the mass media, of false information discrediting the honour and dignity of a person”;
• -sections 169.1 and 233, read together with sections 7 and 8 of the Act on freedom of assembly, regarding “organization or participation in a prohibited public assembly” and “organization of group actions violating public order”; and
• -section 283.1 regarding “inflaming the national, racial or religious enmity”.

The Committee referred to two judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2008 and 2010, which found that convictions based on section 147 of the Criminal Code constituted a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression. Moreover, the Committee noted that the Government adopted amendments in 2013 to widen the scope of section 147 of the Criminal Code, which introduce criminal liability for defamation committed “through a publicly displayed Internet information resource”, despite the Government’s commitment to decriminalizing defamation. The first criminal conviction on charges of defamation online was handed down on 14 August 2013. Furthermore, the ECHR handed down a judgment on 22 May 2014 concerning a case of imprisonment on charges of “organizing public disorder” (section 233 of the Criminal Code), subsequently replaced by the more serious charge of “mass disorder” (section 220.1 of the Code), of which the purpose, according to the ECHR, was to silence or punish an opposition politician (Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, application No. 151172/13).

The Committee also noted that, as highlighted and condemned by an important number of United Nations and European institutions and bodies, a growing tendency had emerged in recent years to apply various provisions of the Criminal Code as a basis for the prosecution of journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders and others who express critical opinions, under questionable charges which appear politically motivated, resulting in long periods of corrective labour or imprisonment, both involving compulsory labour. In this regard, the Committee observed that the following provisions of the Criminal Code are often used for this purpose: insult (section 148); embezzlement (section 179.3.2); illegal business (section 192); tax evasion (section 213); hooliganism (section 221); state treason (section 274); and abuse of office (section 308). Noting all this information with deep concern, the Committee strongly urged the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views opposed to the established system.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report, regarding section 147 of the Criminal Code that, based on the opinion of the ECHR, the Supreme Court has presented a proposal to the Parliament so that defamation shall only be punishable by fines and that other forms of punishment shall be removed from the Criminal Code. The Government also indicates that, under section 233 of the Criminal Code, four people were convicted in 2014, ten in 2015 and four in 2016.

The Committee also notes that, according to the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders on his mission to Azerbaijan of 20 February 2017, in November 2016 the National Assembly approved amendments to the Criminal Code proposed by the Prosecutor General, which introduce section 148(1) (posting slander or insult on an Internet information resource by using fake user names, profiles or accounts), punishable by imprisonment for up to one year, and the extension of section 323(1) (smearing or humiliating the honour and dignity of the President in public statements, publicly shown products or the mass media) to online activities through the use of fake user names, profiles or accounts, punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment (A/HRC/34/52/Add.3, paragraph 46). The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) also expresses its concern in its concluding observations of November 2016 that the maximum term of imprisonment under the Code of Administrative Offences for misdemeanours, with which human rights defenders are often charged (for example, hooliganism, resisting police and traffic violations), has been increased from 15 to 90 days. It is now equal to the minimum term of detention under the Criminal Code, which may amount to de facto criminal sanction (CCPR/C/AZE/CO/4, paragraph 20). Moreover, the findings of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention during its mission to Azerbaijan in May 2016 indicate that human rights defenders, journalists, political opponents and religious leaders who criticize the Government and its policies face limitations on their work and personal freedom. At least 70 such individuals were reportedly detained on charges that included drugs- and arms-related offences, hooliganism and tax evasion. Lawyers who assisted in bringing cases of human rights defenders to the ECHR had been detained on charges of tax evasion, illegal entrepreneurship and abuse of authority (A/HRC/36/37/Add.1, paragraph 80).

The Committee further notes that the ECHR has continued to hear a number of cases from Azerbaijan concerning the detentions and convictions of individuals expressing opinions not in line with those of the ruling political establishment, particularly in the following cases: Yagublu v. Azerbaijan, application No. 31703/13, judgment of 5 November 2015; Huseynli and others v. Azerbaijan, application Nos 67360/11, 67964/11 and 69379/11, judgment of 11 February 2016; and Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, application No. 69981/14, judgment of 12 March 2016, among others. However, the rulings of the ECHR, including the one concerning Mr Ilgar Mammadov handed down in 2014, are not executed by the Government. Moreover, in his third-party intervention in the cases heard by the ECHR, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights concludes that there is a clear pattern of repression in Azerbaijan against those expressing dissent or criticism of the authorities. It concerns human rights defenders, journalists, bloggers and other activists, who may face a variety of criminal charges which defy credibility. These criminal prosecutions also constitute reprisals against those who cooperate with international institutions (CommDH(2016)6, paragraph 46; CommDH(2016)42, paragraph 44).

Noting the absence of any improvement in the situation as described above, the Committee deplores the increasingly restrictive legislation, as well as the increased administrative charges and criminal prosecutions brought by authorities to suppress the peaceful expression of political or ideological views opposed to the established system, despite numerous calls for action by the United Nations and European institutions and bodies. The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the fact that legal guarantees of the rights to freedom of thought and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, as well as freedom from arbitrary arrest, constitute an important safeguard against the imposition of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political or ideological views, or as a means of political coercion or education (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 302). The Committee therefore strongly urges the Government to take immediate and effective measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views opposed to the established system, in both law and practice. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the abovementioned sections of the Criminal Code are amended, by clearly restricting the scope of these provisions to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the application of the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offences in practice does not lead to punishment involving compulsory labour in situations covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee previously noted that, under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by public officials of their duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by correctional work or by deprivation of freedom (which involves compulsory prison labour). It requested the Government to provide information on the application of section 314.1 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions. Noting that the Government does not provide any information in this regard, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the subject matter of the court decisions passed under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its scope, including sample copies of such decisions, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is used or not as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 233 of the Criminal Code, under which sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) or correctional work may be imposed for the organization of group actions violating public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. It requested the Government to indicate whether section 233 is applicable to participants in unlawful strikes and to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.

The Committee observes that section 233 of the Criminal Code is worded in broad terms and penalizes with sanctions involving compulsory labour the peaceful participation in group actions. The Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the general principle that, in all cases and regardless of the legality of the strike action in question, any sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and that no penal sanctions should be imposed upon a worker for the mere fact of peaceful participation in a strike (General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 315). The Committee therefore once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure, both in law and in practice, that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of peacefully participating in strikes. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of section 233 of the Criminal Code, including copies of relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties applied.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the attention of the Government to several provisions of the Criminal Code, enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, in accordance with section 95 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences, which are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide information on the application of the following sections of the Criminal Code:

• – section 147, which provides that defamation, defined as “dissemination, in a public statement … or through the mass media, of false information discrediting the honour and dignity of a person”, is punishable with correctional work or imprisonment, both involving compulsory labour;
• – sections 169.1 and 233, read together with sections 7 and 8 of the Act on freedom of assembly, which provide that “organization or participation in a prohibited public assembly” and “organization of group actions violating public order”, respectively, are punishable with correctional work or imprisonment, both involving compulsory labour; and
• – section 283.1 of the Criminal Code, which provides that “inflaming the national, racial or religious enmity”, is punishable with imprisonment, involving compulsory labour.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided information on the application in practice of the sections of the Criminal Code referred to above, and mainly reiterates the information previously provided to the Office. The Committee previously referred to two judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008 and 2010, which found that convictions based on section 147 of the Criminal Code, involving compulsory labour, constituted a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, application No. 40984/07, judgment of 22 April 2010, and Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan, application No. 35877/04, judgment of 18 December 2008). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, as a result of these decisions, the Supreme Court has presented to Parliament proposals in order to repeal criminal responsibility for defamation, according to which defamation should only incur punishment in the form of a fine. The Committee notes that, as highlighted by the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review, the criminal defamation legislation remains in place which has in practice a chilling effect on freedom of expression and has contributed to widespread self-censorship in the country (A/HRC/WG.6/16/AZE/3). Moreover, the Committee notes that, although the Government requested the assistance of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) to draft a law on protection against defamation, the Government adopted amendments in 2013 to widen the scope of section 147 of the Criminal Code. These amendments introduce criminal liability for defamation committed “through a publicly displayed Internet information resource”, despite the Government’s commitment to decriminalizing defamation and the ongoing cooperation with the Venice Commission (CDL-AD(2013)024). The Committee notes that the first criminal conviction on charges of defamation online was handed down on 14 August 2013.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that, on 22 May 2014, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a judgment concerning a case of imprisonment on charges of “organizing public disorder” (section 233 of the Criminal Code), subsequently replaced by the more serious charge of “mass disorder” (section 220.1 of the Code), in which it stressed that the actual purpose of the impugned measures of imprisonment was to silence or punish an opposition politician for criticizing the Government and attempting to disseminate what he believed was the true information that the Government was trying to hide (Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, application No. 151172/13, judgment of 22 May 2014).

In this regard, the Committee notes that, as highlighted by an important number of United Nations and European institutions and bodies, a growing tendency has emerged in recent years to apply various provisions of the Criminal Code as a basis for the prosecution of journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders and others who express critical opinions, under questionable charges which appear politically motivated, resulting in long periods of corrective labour or imprisonment, both involving compulsory labour (A/HRC/WG.6/16/AZE/3; Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)183 adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 25 September 2014; CommDH(2013)14; CommDH(2015)5). In this regard, the Committee observes that the following provisions of the Criminal Code are often used for the following offences, all of which are punishable with corrective labour, deprivation of liberty or imprisonment, all involving compulsory labour: insult (section 148); embezzlement (section 179.3.2); illegal business (section 192); tax evasion (section 213); hooliganism (section 221); state treason (section 274); and abuse of office (section 308).

The Committee notes that, in September 2015, both the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the European Parliament in its resolution of 10 September 2015, strongly condemned the unprecedented repression of civil society and independent voices in Azerbaijan who have been deprived of their liberty simply for exercising their right to freedom of expression, association or peaceful assembly, as well as for defending the rights of others, and thus urged the state authorities to end the practices of selective criminal prosecution and imprisonment of journalists, human rights defenders and others who criticize the Government (2015/2480(RSP) and OHCHR Press Release, 8 September 2015). In this regard, the Committee notes that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, together with several United Nations Special Rapporteurs and the Chair-rapporteur of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, as well as the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) also indicated that they were alarmed at the wave of politically motivated repression of activists in reprisal for their legitimate activities, and condemned the politically motivated prison sentence of Ms and Mr Yunus to eight-and-a-half and seven years’ imprisonment, respectively, as well as Ms Khadija Ismayilova to seven years’ imprisonment on charges, inter alia, of state treason, illegal entrepreneurship, tax evasion and abuse of office (OHCHR Press releases, 8 September 2015, 20 August 2015 and 19 August 2014, OSCE Press releases, 1 September 2015 and December 2014).

Noting all this information with deep concern, the Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the fact that legal guarantees of the rights to freedom of thought and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, as well as freedom from arbitrary arrest, constitute an important safeguard against the imposition of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political or ideological views, or as a means of political coercion or education (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 302). The Committee therefore strongly urges the Government to take all necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views opposed to the established system, for example by clearly restricting the scope of these provisions to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect, as well as information on the subjects of the court decisions handed down under the provisions of the Criminal Code referred to above, indicating the penalties imposed.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the updated text of the Code of Administrative Offences, of 11 July 2000, communicated by the Government with its report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that, under section 169.1 of the Criminal Code, “organization or participation in a prohibited public assembly” is punishable with correctional work or deprivation of freedom for a term of up to two years (which involves compulsory prison labour, in accordance with section 95 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences). It also noted that similar penal sanctions are provided for in section 233 of the Criminal Code for the “organization of group actions violating public order”. Noting also the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Act on the Freedom of Assembly, of 13 November 1998, concerning the restriction and prohibition of public assemblies in order to ensure public order and to defend public interests, the Committee requested information on the application in practice of sections 169.1 and 233 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions which could define or illustrate their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

The Committee recalled, referring also to the explanations contained in paragraph 154 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, that Article 1(a) of the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The freedom of expression of political or ideological views may be equally restricted by way of prohibition of various kinds of meetings or assemblies, which is also contrary to the Convention, if such prohibition is enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications in the report that there were no cases of application of section 169.1 in 2009, but five persons were convicted under section 233 during the same year, two of them being sentenced to imprisonment. The Committee requests the Government once again to provide information on the subject matter of the court decisions passed under section 233 of the Criminal Code, indicating the penalties imposed. Please also supply information on the application in practice of sections 169.1, as soon as such information becomes available.

In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the Criminal Code provision which makes punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) the “inflaming of the national, racial or religious enmity” (section 283.1) and sought information on the application of this provision in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that there were three cases of application of section 283.1 in 2007. The Government indicates in its latest report that no cases of application of this section were reported in 2009. The Committee observes that the above section provides for the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their application in practice. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to supply, in its next report, information on the subject matter of the court decisions passed under this section, indicating the penalties imposed.

The Committee has noted that section 147 of the Criminal Code prohibits defamation, which is defined as “dissemination, in a public statement … or through the mass media, of false information discrediting the honour and dignity of a person”. Defamation is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to six months (which involves compulsory prison labour, as explained above). The Committee has noted that, in recent years, two cases, in which penalties involving compulsory labour had been imposed in application of the abovementioned section 147 were brought before the European Court of Human Rights which held that the convictions based on national law constituted a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the freedom of expression. The Committee requests the Government to supply, in its next report, information on the subject matter of the court decisions passed under the above provision of the Criminal Code, indicating the penalties imposed. It hopes that the necessary measures will soon be adopted with regard to section 147 with a view to ensuring that no penal sanction involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a means of political coercion and punishment of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system, so as to bring national law into conformity with Article 1(a) of the present Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this end.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee previously noted that, under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by public officials of their duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by correctional work or by deprivation of freedom (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that 11 persons were convicted under this section in 2009, four of them were sentenced to correctional work. The Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the subject matter of the court decisions passed under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its scope, including sample copies of such decisions, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 233 of the Criminal Code, under which sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) or correctional work may be imposed for the organization of group actions violating public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. It requested the Government to indicate whether section 233 is applicable to participants in unlawful strikes and to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications in the report that there was one conviction under this section in 2006 and three cases of conviction under this section in 2007. The Government indicates in its latest report that five persons were convicted under section 233 in 2009, two of them were sentenced to imprisonment. As the Committee has noted in its 2007 and 2009 observations addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), section 233 is applicable to strikes in public transport, which are prohibited under section 281 of the Labour Code.

The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to repeal or amend section 233 of the Criminal Code, so as to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour can be imposed for a peaceful participation in strikes, as required by the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the subject matter of the court decisions passed under this section in relation to participants in unlawful strikes, indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Communication of texts. The Committee notes the Law on Mass Media, 1999, as amended, the Law on Political Parties, 1992, as amended, and the Law on Civil Service, 2000, as amended, supplied by the Government with its report. The Committee again requests the Government to communicate, with its next report, a copy of the updated text of the Code of Administrative Offences, of 11 July 2000.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 1. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 169.1 of the Criminal Code, “organization or participation in a prohibited public assembly” is punishable with correctional work or deprivation of freedom for a term of up to two years (which involves compulsory prison labour, in accordance with section 95 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences). It also noted that similar penal sanctions are provided for in section 233 of the Criminal Code for the “organization of group actions violating public order”. Noting also the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Acton the Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998, concerning the restriction and prohibition of public assemblies in order to ensure public order and to defend public interests, the Committee requested information on the application in practice of sections 169.1 and 233 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions which could define or illustrate their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It refers to the explanations contained in paragraph 154 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it has observed that the Convention prohibits neither punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence, nor judicial imposition of certain restrictions on persons convicted of crimes of that kind. But, sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The freedom of expression of political or ideological views may be equally restricted by way of prohibition of various kinds of meetings or assemblies, which is also contrary to the Convention, if such prohibition is enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications in the report that there were no cases of application of section 169.1 in 2006 and 2007, but one person was convicted under section 233 in 2006 and six persons were convicted under the same section in 2007. The Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the court decisions passed under section 233 of the Criminal Code, indicating the penalties imposed. Please also provide information on the application in practice of section 169.1, as soon as such information becomes available.

2. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the Criminal Code provision which makes punishable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) the “inflaming of the national, racial or religious enmity” (section 283.1) and sought information on the application of this provision in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention. Noting the Government’s indication in the report that there were three cases of application of section 283.1 in 2007, the Committee requests the Government to supply, in its next report, information on the court decisions passed under this section, indicating the penalties imposed.

3. The Committee notes that section 15 of the Law on Political Parties provides for criminal liability for the violation of the legislation on political parties. The Committee requests the Government to describe the nature and the scope of such liability, indicating the relevant legislative provisions and applicable penalties.

4. The Committee notes that section 61(5) of the Law on Mass Media provides for criminal and administrative liability for the violation of the provisions of the Law, in particular, where a publisher or editor produces or disseminates a publication prohibited by a court decision. The Committee requests the Government to describe the nature and the scope of such liability, indicating the relevant legislative provisions and applicable penalties.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee previously noted that, under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by correctional work or by deprivation of freedom (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee notes the Government’s indications in the report that 19 persons were convicted under this section in 2006 and 30 persons were convicted under this section in 2007. The Committee requests the Government once again to provide, in its next report, information on the court decisions passed under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its scope, including sample copies of such decisions, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. The Committee previously noted that section 233 of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) or correctional work for the organization of group actions violating public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. It requested the Government to indicate whether section 233 is applicable to participants in unlawful strikes and to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications in the report that there was one conviction under this section in 2006 and three cases of conviction under this section in 2007. The Government indicates that section 233 is not applicable to participants in unlawful strikes, but they can be made liable under this section if they commit acts representing a social danger. However, as the Committee noted in its 2007 observation addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Azerbaijan, section 233 is applicable to strikes in public transport, which are prohibited under section 281 of the Labour Code.

The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in order to repeal or amend section 233 of the Criminal Code, so as to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour can be imposed for having participated in strikes, as required by the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the court decisions passed under this section, indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. It notes, in particular, the Disciplinary Rules for Maritime Transport Workers, supplied by the Government with its report.

Communication of texts. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would communicate, with its next report, copies of the laws governing the press and other media, legislation concerning political parties and the law governing the civil service. Please also supply a copy of the Code of Administrative Offences, of 11 July 2000, which has been indicated in the Government’s report, but has not been received in the ILO.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 1. The Committee previously noted that, under section 169.1 of the Criminal Code, “organization or participation in a prohibited public assembly” is punishable with correctional work or deprivation of freedom for a term of up to two years (which involves compulsory prison labour, in accordance with section 95 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences). It also noted that similar penal sanctions are provided for in section 233 of the Criminal Code for the “organization of group actions violating public order”. Noting also the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Act on the Freedom of Assembly, of 13 November 1998, concerning the restriction and prohibition of public assemblies in order to ensure public order and to defend public interests, the Committee requested information on the application in practice of sections 169.1 and 233 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions which could define or illustrate their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications in the report that in 2005, there were no cases of application of section 169.1, but three persons were convicted under section 233. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the court decisions passed under section 233 of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its scope. Please also provide information on the application in practice of section 169.1, as soon as such information becomes available.

2. The Committee previously noted that the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) for “inflaming of the national, racial or religious enmity” (section 283.1) and sought information on the application of this provision in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention. Noting the Government’s indication in the report that there were no cases of application of section 283.1 in 2005, the Committee hopes that the information on its practical application will be supplied, as soon as it becomes available.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary sanctions applicable to public officials. The Committee previously noted that, under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by correctional work or by deprivation of freedom (which involves compulsory prison labour). The Committee notes the Government’s indications in the report that 20 persons were convicted under this section in 2005. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the court decisions passed under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, which could define or illustrate its scope, including sample copies of such decisions, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for participating in strikes. The Committee previously noted that section 233 of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) or correctional work for the organization of group actions violating public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. It requested the Government to indicate whether section 233 is applicable to participants in unlawful strikes and to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions. The Committee notes the Government’s indications in the report that there were three cases of conviction under this section in 2005. Referring to its comments made under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Azerbaijan, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the court decisions passed under section 233 of the Criminal Code and indicate any measures taken or envisaged in order to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour can be imposed for having participated in strikes.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

1. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: Correctional Labour Code and legislation concerning the execution of penal sentences; the laws governing the press and other media; legislation concerning political parties; the law governing the civil service; and any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping. Please also provide additional information on the following points.

2. Article 1(a) of the Convention.  The Committee notes that, under section 169.1 of the Criminal Code, “organization or participation in a prohibited public assembly” is punishable with correctional work or deprivation of freedom for a term of up to two years (which involves compulsory prison labour). It also notes that similar penal sanctions are provided for in section 233 of the Criminal Code for the “organization of group actions violating public order”. Noting also the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Act on the freedom of assembly, of 13 November 1998, concerning the restriction and prohibition of public assemblies in order to ensure public order and to defend public interests, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of sections 169.1 and 233 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions which could define or illustrate their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes that the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) for “inflaming of the national, racial or religious enmity” (section 283.1). The Committee asks the Government to provide information, in its next report, on the application of this provision in practice, supplying copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.

3. Article 1(c). The Committee notes that, under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by correctional work or by deprivation of freedom (which involves compulsory prison labour). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, please supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

Please also supply with the next report a copy of the discipline regulations concerning sea and river transport, to which reference is made in section 184 of the Labour Code, 1999, as well as any other provisions applicable to seafarers in cases of breaches of labour discipline such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience.

4. Article 1(d). The Committee notes that section 233 of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) or correctional work for the organization of group actions violating public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. The Committee requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, whether section 233 is applicable to participants in unlawful strikes and to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions. Referring also to its comments made under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Azerbaijan, the Committee requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged in order to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour can be imposed for having participated in strikes.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: Correctional Labour Code and legislation concerning the execution of penal sentences; the laws governing the press and other media; legislation concerning political parties; the law governing the civil service; and any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping. Please also provide additional information on the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee notes that, under section 169.1 of the Criminal Code, "organization or participation in a prohibited public assembly" is punishable with correctional work or deprivation of freedom for a term of up to two years (which involves compulsory prison labour). It also notes that similar penal sanctions are provided for in section 233 of the Criminal Code for the "organization of group actions violating public order". Noting also the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Act on the freedom of assembly, of 13 November 1998, concerning the restriction and prohibition of public assemblies in order to ensure public order and to defend public interests, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of sections 169.1 and 233 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions which could define or illustrate their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

2. The Committee notes that the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) for "inflaming of the national, racial or religious enmity" (section 283.1). The Committee asks the Government to provide information, in its next report, on the application of this provision in practice, supplying copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c). 3. The Committee notes that, under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by correctional work or by deprivation of freedom (which involves compulsory prison labour). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, please supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

4. Please also supply with the next report a copy of the discipline regulations concerning sea and river transport, to which reference is made in section 184 of the Labour Code, 1999, as well as any other provisions applicable to seafarers in cases of breaches of labour discipline such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience.

Article 1(d). 5. The Committee notes that section 233 of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) or correctional work for the organization of group actions violating public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. The Committee requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, whether section 233 is applicable to participants in unlawful strikes and to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions. Referring also to its comments made under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Azerbaijan, the Committee requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged in order to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour can be imposed for having participated in strikes.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: Correctional Labour Code and legislation concerning the execution of penal sentences; the laws governing the press and other media; legislation concerning political parties; the law governing the civil service; and any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping. Please also provide additional information on the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee notes that, under section 169.1 of the Criminal Code, "organization or participation in a prohibited public assembly" is punishable with correctional work or deprivation of freedom for a term of up to two years (which involves compulsory prison labour). It also notes that similar penal sanctions are provided for in section 233 of the Criminal Code for the "organization of group actions violating public order". Noting also the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Act on the freedom of assembly, of 13 November 1998, concerning the restriction and prohibition of public assemblies in order to ensure public order and to defend public interests, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of sections 169.1 and 233 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions which could define or illustrate their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

2. The Committee notes that the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) for "inflaming of the national, racial or religious enmity" (section 283.1). The Committee asks the Government to provide information, in its next report, on the application of this provision in practice, supplying copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c). 3. The Committee notes that, under section 314.1 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to state interests, is punishable by correctional work or by deprivation of freedom (which involves compulsory prison labour). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, please supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

4. Please also supply with the next report a copy of the discipline regulations concerning sea and river transport, to which reference is made in section 184 of the Labour Code, 1999, as well as any other provisions applicable to seafarers in cases of breaches of labour discipline such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience.

Article 1(d). 5. The Committee notes that section 233 of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) or correctional work for the organization of group actions violating public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. The Committee requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, whether section 233 is applicable to participants in unlawful strikes and to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions. Referring also to its comments made under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Azerbaijan, the Committee requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged in order to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour can be imposed for having participated in strikes.