Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2000, publiée 89ème session CIT (2001)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Bélarus (Ratification: 1995)

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in its report on the application of the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention.  1.  The Committee notes that the new Criminal Code of 1999 provides for sanctions of imprisonment or limitation of freedom for the "organization of group actions violating public order" (section 342). It notes that confinement in prison involves compulsory labour under procedures and conditions defined by the Correctional Labour Code (section 37). It also notes that limitation of freedom, which consists in placing a convicted person under surveillance, is assigned for a term of up to five years and also involves compulsory labour (section 55(1) of the Criminal Code). The Committee asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned section 342 of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its conformity with the Convention. Please also supply a full updated text of the Correctional Labour Code.

2.  The Committee notes that the violation of the Act on the Press and other Media, 1995, as amended, is punishable by administrative and penal sanctions (sections 46 and 49). It asks the Government to clarify, in its next report, the scope of administrative or criminal liability for violation of the Act, indicating, in particular, administrative and penal sanctions which may be imposed.

3.  The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of Presidential Decree No. 5 (March 1997) concerning the right to assemble, as well as information on its application in practice.

Article 1(c).  4.  The Committee notes that, under section 428 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 or other grave consequences to legitimate rights and interests of persons or to state interests, is punishable by imprisonment or limitation of freedom, which involves compulsory labour. In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that the abovementioned provision of the Criminal Code 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.

Article 1(d).  5.  With reference to its comments made under Convention No. 87 ratified by Belarus, the Committee notes that, according to section 397 of the Labour Code those who participate in a strike deemed unlawful by a court of law may be held liable pursuant to disciplinary and other procedures prescribed by law. It asks the Government to clarify the scope of such liability in case of participation in a strike declared unlawful pursuant to section 395 of the Labour Code and to indicate what sanctions are applicable for participation in unlawful strikes. Please state whether section 342 of the Criminal Code, which provides for sanctions of imprisonment or limitation of freedom for the organization of group actions violating public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations, is applicable to participants in unlawful strikes and, if so, supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any relevant court decisions. Please also state whether section 310 of the Criminal Code, which provides for similar sanctions for the intentional blocking of transport communications, may be invoked in case of an unlawful strike in the transport sector and, if so, supply information on its application in practice.