Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2016, Publication : 105ème session CIT (2016)

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



A Government representative recalled the relevant legislative provisions, including section 63 of the Code of Administrative Offences and section 223 of the Criminal Code, and indicated that forced labour was not imposed in cases in violation of the established procedure for the organization of assemblies, meetings or demonstrations. He explained that “corrective labour”, as a penal sanction, corresponded to the exception of Article 2(c) of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). As a matter of fact, under section 50 of the Criminal Code, corrective labour was served following a court judgment, with the payment of the corresponding salary. At the same time, legislation restricted the use of corrective labour for certain categories of citizens. With regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts’ concerning the sanctions for insulting or defamation of the President of Turkmenistan, including through the publication of materials over the Internet (sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code and section 30(3) of the Internet Development and Services Law of 20 December 2014), citizens of Turkmenistan enjoyed freedom of opinion and expression and the right to exchange information. The implementation of the provisions of national law should not be interpreted as a punishment and should thus not fall under the prohibition of Article 1(a) of the Convention. Moreover, the Constitution of Turkmenistan guaranteed freedom of assembly and the right to hold meetings and demonstrations. On 28 February 2015, the Parliament of Turkmenistan had adopted a special law aimed at the implementation of the constitutional rights of citizens of Turkmenistan concerning the organization of assemblies, meetings and demonstrations and other large-scale public events. Administrative penalties were imposed for the violation of procedures established by the legislation, and not for the expression of political views. However, administrative arrests could be applied in exceptional circumstances, only for certain types of administrative offences, and did not include the obligation to perform public work or any other form of forced labour. He emphasized that, at the present time, the Parliament of Turkmenistan was discussing a new Constitution, taking into account international experience in the area of the protection of human rights and freedoms. In the context of the legislative reforms, work was also under way on a draft law that created and appointed a human rights ombudsperson.

With regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts on forced labour during the cotton harvest, he said that the agricultural sector accounted for less than 4 per cent of GDP. At the same time, the country paid great attention to the development and improvement of the agricultural sector, the introduction of modern innovative technologies in order to create jobs, as well as measures to support farms and small and medium-sized businesses. State support and incentives provided to farmers included preferential loans for up to a ten-year period with a rate of interest of 1 per cent per annum. Procurement prices for cotton had also been increased. In accordance with section 8 of the Labour Code, forced labour was prohibited in Turkmenistan. Moreover, in the course of the constitutional reforms, the prohibition of forced labour would be included in the new Constitution. In accordance with the Law on education and the rights of the child, the Government was required to protect the child from all forms of exploitation at work, by measures of a legal, economic, social, medical and educational nature. Students were prohibited from working during the school year in the agricultural and other sectors which were not related to the educational process. He added that of the legislation referred to in the comments of the Committee of Experts, the Law on the legal regime governing emergencies of 1990, had been repealed. With regard to the comments on the imposition of forced labour as a method of mobilizing and using employment for purposes of economic development, the State of Emergency Act did not provide for this type of mobilization for those purposes. In accordance with the Code of Administrative Offences, sanctions, including administrative suspensions, were imposed on employers for up to three months for the failure to prohibit the use of forced labour and the employment of persons under 18 years of age. Official complaints and petitions by citizens concerning the use of forced labour could be reported. In this regard, no information or complaints had been received concerning the use of forced labour. The Government wished to continue cooperation with the ILO on the issues raised by the Committee of Experts. The Government was committed to constructive dialogue and continued collaboration, as demonstrated by recent meetings and official ILO visits to Turkmenistan, as well as activities in Turkmenistan for the implementation of international labour standards.

The Worker members said that Turkmenistan was the ninth largest producer and the seventh largest cotton exporter in the world and that it maintained that status through a system of forced labour under the auspices of the State. The Government had complete control over cotton production and obliged cotton farmers to respect annual quotas. During the harvest season, the authorities obliged public sector workers, under threat of dismissal, to either pick cotton, pay bribes or hire someone to replace them. The authorities also forced private sector enterprises to contribute to the task in cash, in labour or in kind, by quite simply threatening them with the closure of their establishments. Forced labour in the cotton industry took place in the context of widespread human rights violations in the country. The Government was accused of being responsible for hundreds of enforced disappearances and of ordering prison sentences as measures of political retaliation. The Government also denied workers’ rights to freedom of association, assembly and expression, which facilitated recourse to forced labour. Those who tried to gather evidence of forced labour in the cotton industry did so at their own risk and peril, and therefore had to act anonymously to avoid harassment and reprisals. They added that, although the Government had adopted laws against forced labour, it had repeatedly ignored the deep concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts regarding the application of Conventions Nos 29 and 105. In 2016, the Committee of Experts had once again strongly urged the Government to take specific and effective measures without delay to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers in cotton farming. The United Nations Human Rights Council and the Committee on the Rights of the Child had also noted that children were still engaged in cotton picking. Reliable information from NGO reports concerning the 2015 harvest clearly showed that the Government continued to use widespread forced labour, with complete disregard for the demands of the ILO and other United Nations agencies. These various factors demonstrated that the Committee of Experts had good reason to bring this case to the attention of the Conference Committee and to assign it a double footnote.

The Worker members emphasized that the Government used various forms of coercion to ensure implementation of the cotton production plans. The President of Turkmenistan threatened regional governors with dismissal if they did not fulfil their regional cotton production target. Regional and district officials in turn threatened to dismiss the leaders of agricultural associations if they did not meet their quotas. The associations then threatened to seize the land of cotton farmers if they failed to meet their targets. And workers risked dismissal if they refused to participate in the harvest, pay a bribe or hire someone to replace them. During the 2015 harvest, which had arrived late and had a low production output, the President had criticized the regional governors on several occasions for the slow production, and forced them to send more workers to the fields to speed up the process. School directors had sent teachers to pick cotton several days a week throughout the harvesting season in the Dashoguz, Lebap and Mary regions and, across the country, teachers indicated that they had the choice to either work in the harvest, pay a bribe or see the end of their careers. They referred the testimony of a public service employee forced to participate in the harvest as well as a worker hired by a teacher to do the work in their place, highlighting both the bad working conditions and the corrupt practices that accompanied the forced compliance with the targets fixed by the State.

The Worker members also emphasized that the Turkmènes Agricultural University and the Dashoguz Agricultural Institute had forced around 2,000 students to pick cotton, under threat of exclusion from the establishment, and that the school directors in the Akhal and Dashoguz regions did the same with regard to their pupils. They added that the forced labour of parents organized by the Government to ensure compliance with the quotas had led to, at least in the Boldumasaz district (Dashoguz region), recourse to child labour, as the parents feared losing their jobs if they did not fulfil their designated cotton quota. The Government considered any refusal to contribute to the cotton harvest as insubordination, sabotage or contempt for the nation, which entailed the application of administrative sanctions, including dismissal. The high unemployment rate in Turkmenistan heightened the impact of the threats of dismissal in response to refusals to participate in the cotton harvest. They finally indicated that the Government should draw on examples from the Committee’s conclusions relating to similar cases. The Government should, with ILO technical assistance, immediately adopt and implement an exhaustive action plan for the full abolition of forced labour in the country.

The Employer members welcomed the indication by the Government that it was prepared to cooperate with the ILO to address issues of compliance with international labour standards. They noted that the provisions of the Convention on the prohibition of the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, as well as a method for mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development, appeared to be relevant in this case. They recalled that, in the first part of its observation, the Committee of Experts focused on Article 1(a) of the Convention, noting that, under both section 178(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences of 1984 and section 223 of the Criminal Code, any violation of the established procedure for the organization of assemblies, meetings or demonstrations constituted both an administrative and a criminal offence, punishable by a fine, administrative arrest or corrective action. The Government had not provided information on the application of these provisions in practice, and the Committee of Experts had noted that changes had been made to section 178(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences of 1984, while section 223 of the Criminal Code remained unchanged, and sections 176 and 192 of the Criminal Code established penalties for offences that were punishable by a fine, correctional labour of up to two years or imprisonment for up to five years. The Employer members urged the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 63 of the Code of Administrative Offence, sections 176, 192 and 223 of the Criminal Code and to take the necessary measures in both law and practice to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour were imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

In relation to Article 1(b) of the Convention, they recalled that the Committee of Experts observed that the “needs of economic development”, pursuant to section 7 of the Law on the legal regime governing emergencies of 1990, did not satisfy the definition of emergency in relation to Article 1(b) of the Convention. The Committee of Experts noted with deep concern the widespread use of forced labour in cotton production. In particular, individuals were forced to pick cotton, in fulfilment of state-established cotton production quotas, under threat of penalty. The Government forced farmers to deliver established annual cotton production quotas and thousands of workers to pick cotton under threat of loss of land, loss of employment and loss of wages. Businesses were forced to send employees to pick cotton under threat of extraordinary audit, tax inspections and fire inspections, while transport companies were forced to contribute by transporting workers to the cotton fields, without compensation, and under threat of confiscation of their licence by the police. They recalled that the Convention, by providing for the abolition of any form of forced labour in five specific cases, was intended to supplement Convention No. 29, and they emphasized that they had long opposed the use of forced labour for economic development. They strongly urged the Government to take effective measures without delay to ensure the complete elimination of the use of forced labour in relation to the cotton harvest and further requested the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken in this connection and the concrete results achieved. In this regard, they encouraged the Government to request the technical assistance of the ILO. They expressed concern with regard to the direct request, in which the Committee of Experts, noting that section 16 of the Civil Service Act prohibited strikes by civil servants, directly requested the Government to provide information on sanctions that may be imposed on workers participating in strikes in the civil service. Acknowledging that participation in peaceful strikes, where such industrial action was recognized at the national level, should not result in the imposition of forced labour, they stated that this provision of the Convention did not recognize a general right to strike and that, as a result, sanctions for workers who went on strike, which did not impose forced labour, did not fall under the scope of the Convention. In conclusion, they highlighted the seriousness of the case and expected the Government to take the necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving forced labour were imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinions opposed to the established system and to take effective measures without delay to ensure the elimination of the use of forced labour of workers in relation to the cotton harvest.

The Worker member of Turkmenistan referred to a tripartite agreement signed between the Government and the social partners to actively promote social dialogue and move away from unfortunate situations that still existed in the country. Recently adopted laws and regulations were discussed in a tripartite setting, and national workers’ organizations were actively participating in the process of amending the legislation, including the Constitution. The new Constitution would include a specific provision banning forced labour, which they supported. He also welcomed the fact that a human rights ombudsperson position would be created. Labour inspection was effective in all regions of the country and workers’ organizations also carried out monitoring with labour inspectors and discussed existing practices. Cotton was an important industry which generated employment. A campaign has been launched by trade unions and the labour inspectorate which had resulted in more than 100 inspections being carried out in 2015, and some 50 complaints had been examined. However, trade unions had received no complaints with regard to forced labour. Trade unions were becoming more effective in their work and had a greater influence in the labour sphere. Trade unions were working towards guaranteeing the rights of workers, in collaboration with the labour inspection services, with the aim of improving the quality of work and ensuring that workers were paid decent wages. Collective agreements were also being signed in this regard.

The Employer member of Turkmenistan stated that farmers and producers in agriculture engaged voluntarily in cotton cultivation under preferential conditions and incentives, such as the reduction of the cost for fertilizers, the availability of loans and the exemption from the payment of taxes and other fees. Although the Committee of Experts had noted that private companies were forced to participate in the production of cotton, she was not aware of complaints of such practices and encouraged the Committee of Experts to consider each case individually. She concluded by hoping that the Committee would take her views into consideration.

The Government member of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Norway and Republic of Moldova, said that the EU was engaged in the promotion of the universal ratification and implementation of the core labour standards, including the Convention, as part of the Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, adopted in July 2015. The EU was concerned about the serious human rights situation in Turkmenistan, characterized by the lack of freedom of expression, including on the Internet, freedom of association and freedom of movement, as well as restrictions imposed on civil society organizations and arbitrary detentions. In this context, the EU policy concerning Turkmenistan, which was intended to promote respect for human rights, the rule of law and democratic principles in that country, was maintained. In this regard, he welcomed the recent adoption of the National Human Rights Action Plan and encouraged the Government to step up its efforts for implementation. The EU was concerned about the comments of the Committee of Experts regarding the application in practice of section 63 of the Code of Administrative Offences, sections 176, 192 and 233 of the Criminal Code and the Internet Development and Services Law of 20 December 2014. It was also deeply concerned by the widespread use of forced labour in cotton production in Turkmenistan, which not only affected farmers, but also the public and private sectors at large. Workers were under threat of losing their jobs, salary cuts, loss of land and extraordinary investigations and, despite being illegal, child labour continued in cotton production. In this context, the Government was called upon to amend its legislation to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to ensure in practice that no penalties involving compulsory labour were imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinions or views opposed to the established system. The Government was encouraged to provide all the information requested by the Committee of Experts, to intensify its efforts to completely eliminate compulsory labour in cotton farming and to ensure a stronger enforcement of the law regarding child labour in cotton production. Finally, he indicated that the EU was willing to assist Turkmenistan to meet its obligations in this regard and would continue to monitor the situation in the country closely.

The Government member of Belarus congratulated the Government on strengthening its legislation to apply the provisions of the Convention. Reforms carried out by the Government were facilitating progressive change, particularly in the agricultural sector. In this regard, he referred to the preferential loans granted to farmers, which were exempt from taxes and fees. He also referred to the adoption of legislation guaranteeing the constitutional right to peaceful assembly. A new draft Constitution, reflecting international experience in the protection of human rights and freedoms, was before Parliament, and there were plans to appoint a human rights ombudsperson. He therefore suggested that the Committee should no longer consider the application of the Convention by Turkmenistan, although the ILO should continue to work with the Government.

The Worker member of France emphasized that the observations of the Committee of Experts highlighted the violation in Turkmenistan of the fundamental freedoms of expression and association, which guaranteed democracy, peace and the rule of law. Cotton production generated considerable revenue for the State and for an elite few who were closely connected to the political authorities. The use of forced labour was unfortunately very common in this context. Cotton production contributed to political repression and the absence of the rule of law made any opposition futile and dangerous. All media in Turkmenistan were state-controlled and used for propaganda. Access to social networks and foreign media was prohibited and any form of opposition on the Internet or in the media was punishable by forced labour. In the regard, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) had raised concerns that the Internet Development and Services Law of 20 December 2014 imposed too many restrictions on access to the Internet and the repression that could result from this Law. In addition, a United Nations document submitted to the Human Rights Council during the Universal Periodic Review of Turkmenistan indicated that all attempts to organize independent trade unions had met with resistance from the authorities. The absence of independent trade unions, as denounced by the International Trade Union Confederation, led to numerous violations of workers’ rights, with forced labour being an extreme example.

However, the country was not closed to all foreign presence, as foreign, European and French multinationals, particularly in the construction and communication sectors, were concluding more local contracts. At a time when the International Labour Conference was discussing decent work in supply chains, it should be recalled that, while States were responsible for the ratification and implementation of international labour standards, enterprises could not ignore existing international standards on human and labour rights. In particular, they were obliged to take into account the United Nations Ruggie principles and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, revised in 2011, which encompassed the concepts of the exercise of influence and business relationships. It was therefore essential for the representatives of foreign public authorities present in the country to ensure that international principles were respected and for enterprises to ensure that their activities did not directly or indirectly support the violation of human rights and forced labour. France, which was about to inform the ILO Director-General officially of its ratification of the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, needed to be particularly vigilant in that regard. The Bill on the extraterritorial responsibility of parent companies currently being debated by the French Parliament should be adopted as quickly as possible, in accordance with the recommendations of the National Advisory Commission on Human Rights in France. She supported the requests by the Committee of Experts for the Government to take the necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour could be imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinions or views opposed to the established system.

The Government member of Switzerland said that her Government supported the statement made by the EU. The use of forced labour for the cotton harvest could not be justified on grounds of economic development and, as the Committee of Experts had emphasized, there were no situations of emergency or force majeure within the meaning of ILO Conventions that could, in this context, justify recourse to forced labour. She encouraged the Government to promote the free and informed consent of workers to enter at any time into an employment relationship, and to ensure their right to leave their employment at any time without fear of reprisals or loss of benefits. Lastly, she expressed the hope that the Government would put in place concrete measures in both law and practice to eliminate forced labour.

The Employer member of the United States condemned the widespread use of forced labour in cotton production in the country. This situation affected broad categories of society, including business and private and public sector workers, farmers, teachers, doctors and nurses, who were forced to work in cotton production under threat of losing their jobs, experiencing salary cuts, loss of land and enduring extraordinary investigations, in violation of the Convention. He said that, consistent with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, many multinational companies were partnering in their supply chains with groups dedicated to eradicating forced labour in the cotton industry. As these efforts were proving insufficient, he appealed to the Committee to add its unique institutional voice to the collective effort to hold the country accountable to its international obligations and called for the initiation of a tripartite monitoring programme to ensure compliance by the Government with its international obligations. Without a free press and a robust civil society, the ability of companies to identify and monitor potential violations of human rights in their supply chains was hampered. Despite the fact that articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution of Turkmenistan guaranteed the right to hold and express opinions, as well as the right to hold meetings and demonstrations in the manner established by the law, the Committee of Experts had noted that penal sanctions were routinely imposed, including through compulsory labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In this regard, he also referred to the observation of the OSCE on the Internet Development and Services Law of December 2014 and the concerns at the severe restrictions on freedom of expression in the country expressed in the framework of the United Nations Universal Periodic Review. Echoing the call for action made by the Committee of Experts, he strongly urged the Government to take measures without delay to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour by public and private sector workers in cotton farming and requested the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to this end in both law and practice, as well as the concrete results achieved.

The Worker member of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Nordic workers, said that according to Human Rights Watch, Turkmenistan was one of the most closed and repressive countries in the world. The Government had arrested and imprisoned people based on politically motivated grounds and used “corrective labour” as punishment for violations of legal procedures, restricting the organization of assemblies, meetings and demonstrations, and thus denying freedom of association and expression. There were few, if any, signs of free, democratic and independent trade unions in Turkmenistan. She emphasized that well-functioning social dialogue was not only an important tool for eliminating labour rights abuses, such as forced labour, but also the best mechanism to promote better living and working conditions and peace and social justice. Moreover, democracy was among the enabling conditions for a well-functioning social dialogue. An appropriate institutional framework to allow tripartite discussion on important issues, such as the abolition of forced labour, was also required. She expressed the view that there was practically nothing of the above in Turkmenistan. She asserted that more information and cooperation from the Government was needed and she urged the Government to change its laws and legal practice. She emphasized that forced labour should be abolished urgently and the need to engage in social dialogue with free and independent social partners.

The Government member of the Russian Federation welcomed the detailed information provided by the Government. Important socio-political reforms were being undertaken leading to a more effective implementation of the Convention. He noted with satisfaction the constructive cooperation between the Government and the ILO, including joint seminars and other activities contributing to the implementation of international labour standards at the national level. He was of the view that this level of cooperation with the ILO confirmed the readiness of the Government to comply with its obligations under international law. In this regard, he urged the Office to continue to provide technical assistance to the Government in relation to the implementation of the Convention.

The Worker member of the United States said that for years the Government had been using social control as one of its methods to repress the workers in the country, particularly through cotton production and picking. The Government forced farmers and individuals to fulfil cotton production and picking quotas. Tens of thousands of workers from sectors, including education, health care and culture and sporting institutions, as well as manufacturing, construction and transport companies, were pulled out of their normal work day and forced to pick cotton, or to pay a bribe or hire a replacement worker to pick cotton instead. Farmers who fell short of the production quota faced the penalty of losing their lease to farm the land. The cotton pickers in the fields worked under the threat of loss of pay or termination from their employment. As a result of the mass mobilization of public sector workers to pick cotton, many services were disrupted, including education and health-care services. As a consequence, many teachers and technical school staff quit their jobs. It particular, it was deplorable that workers from the very critical industries of education and health care were ripped out of schools and hospitals to pick cotton in the fields for the sole purpose of garnering profits for the government elite. She emphasized that the practice was even more unacceptable of officials forcibly mobilizing students to the cotton fields under the guise of internships. In addition, pressure to fulfil cotton picking quotas resulted in children not attending school, but instead picking cotton alongside their parents, who feared losing their jobs if quotas were not met. Finally, she emphasized that these shocking human rights violations could not persist any longer and urged the Government to undertake serious reform in order to ensure the abolition of forced labour, as required by the Convention.

The Government member of Kazakhstan highlighted the positive measures taken by the Government. In this regard, he welcomed the efforts made to formulate a new Constitution, taking into account international experience in the areas of human rights and freedoms, and which would include a provision banning forced labour. He also welcomed the current work to establish a position of human rights ombudsperson. He referred to the measures to promote and support the agricultural sector, including preferential loans, as well as the promotion of new and innovative technologies in the sector. The active participation of the Government in regional and international organizations was also to be welcomed.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran commended the Government of Turkmenistan for its commitment to fully complying with its international obligations, including the elimination of forced labour, through appropriate legislative and practical measures. The Government should be encouraged to pursue its efforts and the Office to provide assistance if needed.

The Government member of Azerbaijan recalled the difficulties faced by all countries of the former Soviet Union in their transition process, as well as their achievements in adopting new legislation expressly prohibiting forced labour, ensuring socio-economic development, the full development of the human potential of their peoples and the steady growth of wages. The growth of the textile industry in Turkmenistan, which allowed the increased participation of women in the labour market, bore witness to the achievements of the country. Economic development would further support the full application of international labour standards in the country.

The Government representative expressed his gratitude to the speakers who had taken part in the discussion and reaffirmed his confidence in such a constructive dialogue to ensure the full application of the rights enshrined in the Convention.

The Employer members welcomed the information provided by the Government regarding legal reforms, such as the repeal of section 7 of the 1990 Law on the legal regime governing emergencies, with the stated aim of banning forced labour in law. However, further information was required with regard to: the repeal of the above provision; the changes to section 178(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences of 1984; and the status of section 223 of the Criminal Code; as well as how these stated changes were administered in practice. The Government’s stated intention of continuing to cooperate with the ILO in order to apply Convention No. 105 was duly noted. Moreover, the Employer members appreciated that, in view of the economic circumstances, it might be very helpful for the Government to continue to work with the ILO in order to fully understand the obligations under the Convention. The Government was requested to take effective measures in both law and practice to ensure that no penalties involving forced labour could be imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinions which were opposed to the established system in order to achieve compliance with Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Employer members also requested the Government to take measures without any delay to ensure that no individuals, including farmers and/or public and private sector workers, were required to work for the state sponsored cotton harvest and that no threat of punishment or penalty was permitted for the failure to fulfil state production quotas under the pretext of economic development. The Government was also requested to confirm the repeal of section 7 of the 1990 Law on the legal regime governing emergencies and to request ILO technical assistance in order to develop a national action plan to eliminate any form of forced labour in relation to the cotton harvest and to continue its cooperation with the ILO.

The Worker members agreed with the Employer members. In Turkmenistan, forced labour occurred in a climate of generalized violation of human rights, including the denial of freedom of association and expression. Anyone who tried to combat the phenomenon had to do so clandestinely and risked intimidation, arrest and detention. The forced mobilization of farmers and other workers to produce and harvest cotton violated both the national legislation banning forced labour, including section 8 of the Labour Code and Convention No. 105. The Committee of Experts noted “with deep concern the widespread use of forced labour in cotton production which affects farmers, businesses and private and public sector workers, including teachers, doctors and nurses, under threat of losing their jobs, salary cuts, loss of land and extraordinary investigations”. The Committee strongly urged the Government “to take effective measures without delay to ensure the complete elimination of the use of compulsory labour of public and private sector workers in cotton farming”. The Worker members urged the Government to cooperate with the ILO and the social partners to devise a plan to eliminate the use of forced labour, including child labour. The Government was thus requested to bring an end to the practice of forcing farmers to grow cotton and mobilizing workers from the public and private sectors for harvesting. The Worker members also called upon the Government to: immediately cease threatening those who failed to meet production and harvest quotas, apply the national legislation banning forced labour, instruct government officials not to use force to oblige people to work in cotton fields and punish those who did so. The Government was also requested to seek ILO technical assistance in ending forced labour in the cotton industry and to allow independent journalists and human rights activists to go about their work freely and to express their concern at the use of forced labour in the cotton industry without fear of reprisals. They also called for the drafting and implementation of a national plan of action to guarantee respect for internationally recognized labour rights in the cotton industry, inter alia, by ending the compulsory quota system for production and harvesting of cotton and, where appropriate, to ensure the liberalization of the purchasing price of cotton and financial transparency in related expenditure and income. Moreover, they noted that, while the Employer members questioned the Committee’s direct request to the Government under Article 1(d) of Convention No. 105, it was the view of the Worker members, as well as eminent jurists and regional and national high courts, that the right to strike was protected by the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). This had been recognized by both Employers’ and Workers’ groups in a joint statement: “the right to take industrial action in support of legitimate industrial interests is recognized by the Constituents of the ILO”. The international recognition of the right to take industrial action required the Worker and Employer representatives to address the mandate of the Committee as defined in its 2015 report. The Committee’s mandate to “determine the legal scope, content and meaning of the provisions of the Conventions” had been approved by the ILO Governing Body, and the Committee of Experts could thus request any information it deemed relevant through a direct request on the application by a State of its obligations under a ratified Convention.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed on issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee welcomed the Government’s stated commitment to continuing to cooperate with the ILO in its efforts to apply Convention No. 105. The Committee noted with concern the allegations of the widespread use of forced labour in relation to the annual state-sponsored cotton harvest in Turkmenistan.

Taking into account the discussion of the case, the Committee urged the Government to:

• - In compliance with Article 1(a) of Convention No. 105, take measures in law and practice to ensure that no penalties involving forced labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinions opposed to the established system.
• - In compliance with Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, take effective measures in law and in practice to ensure that no one, including farmers and public and private sector workers, is forced to work for the state-sponsored cotton harvest, and threatened punishment for the lack of fulfilment of production quotas under the pretext of “needs of economic development”. In this regard, repeal section 7 of the Law on the Legal Regime Governing Emergencies of 1990.
• - Prosecute and sanction appropriately any public official who participates in the forced mobilization of workers for the cultivation or harvest of cotton in contravention to Convention No. 105.
• - Seek technical assistance from the ILO in order to comply with the Convention in law and practice and to develop a national action plan to eliminate forced labour in connection with the state-sponsored cotton harvest.
• - Allow the social partners, and civil society organizations, to monitor and document any incidences of forced labour in the cotton harvest without fear of reprisals.

The Government representative expressed his gratitude on behalf of the delegation and reiterated the commitment of Turkmenistan to consistently fulfil its international obligations under the ratified ILO Convention. He indicated that concluding observations and recommendations are to be carefully examined. However, he mentioned that the Committee in its conclusions referred to the Law of 1990 that had already been abrogated in 2013. The Government representative reiterated the readiness to a constructive dialogue and further cooperation with the ILO.