Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2014, publiée 104ème session CIT (2015)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Ouzbékistan (Ratification: 1997)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain sections of the Criminal Code, which provide for various sanctions involving an obligation to work (such as deprivation of freedom, arrest and correctional tasks) in circumstances covered by the Convention, namely:

• – section 156 (incitement of national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity); the Committee previously noted the Government’s statement that, besides the “intentional actions demeaning the national honour and dignity, or insulting the feelings of citizens in connection with their religious beliefs”, this section also makes punishable “manufacturing, storage or dissemination of materials propagating national, racial, ethnic or religious enmity”;
• – sections 216 and 216-1 (creation or participation in the activity of prohibited social associations and religious organizations);
• – section 216-2 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, as, for example, the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and
• – section 217 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of assemblies, meetings, street processions or demonstrations).

The Committee also noted the following provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences, which impose a sanction of “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days (involving an obligation to perform labour under section 346 of the Code) in circumstances that could be incompatible with the Convention:

• – section 201 (violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations);
• – section 202-1 (inclining to the participation in the activity of illegal social associations and religious organizations);
• – section 240 (violation of legislation on religious organizations, for example the performance of illegal religious activity, evasion of the registration of the charter and conversion of believers from one confession to another); and
• – section 241 (violation of the procedure of teaching of religion: teaching without prior authorization or teaching by a person who did not receive a special religious education).

In this connection, the Committee previously noted that the Human Rights Committee (HRC), in its concluding observations of 7 April 2010, expressed concern regarding the number of representatives of independent non governmental organizations, journalists, and human rights defenders imprisoned, assaulted, harassed or intimidated, because of the exercise of their profession. The HRC also expressed concern at the limitations and restrictions on freedom of religion and belief, including for members of non-registered religious groups, and recommended that the Government amend, in particular, section 216 2 of the Criminal Code. The HRC also expressed concern over the existing provisions in sections 139 and 140 on defamation and insult, which may be used to punish individuals who criticise the existing regime (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3, paragraphs 19 and 24). In this regard, the Committee noted that section 139 on defamation provides for a penalty of corrective labour of up to two years, and section 140 on insult provides for a penalty of up to one year.

The Committee reiterates its concern with regard to the absence of information on this point in the Government’s report. The Committee notes, however, that the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), in its observations submitted in August 2014, states that the Government continued to repress and detain individuals seeking to document state-sponsored forced labour. In this regard, the ITUC provides information on the arrest and detention of independent journalists and human rights activists advocating farmers’ interests.

The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the fact that sanctions involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, are incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. Therefore, the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour under this provision comprise the freedom to express political or ideological views, as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens peacefully seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. In light of the above considerations, the Committee once again urges the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above sections of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a failure to fulfil, or improper fulfilment by an official of his duties as a result of a negligent or unscrupulous attitude towards service, which has caused large-scale damage or material harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional tasks for a term of up to three years. Noting once again that the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee reiterates its request for information on the application of section 207 of the Criminal Code in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that no sanctions involving the obligation to work are imposed as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 218 of the Criminal Code punishes with imprisonment the participation in prohibited strikes under conditions of a state of emergency. It recalled that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour should be limited to the need to cope with cases of force majeure in the strict sense of the term – namely, when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered – provided that the duration of the prohibition is limited to the period of immediate necessity. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the definition of the term “state of emergency”, as referred to in section 218 of the Criminal Code, as well as on the application in practice of such section, so as to enable it to ascertain that, in accordance with the Convention, no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for peaceful participation in strikes. The Committee also reiterates its request for information on any provisions under which penal sanctions could be imposed for the participation in strikes in situations other than a state of emergency, as well as information on the application of such provisions in practice.

Communication of texts. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force concerning the execution of criminal sentences, labour relations in the public service and governing strikes.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]