Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2018, publiée 108ème session CIT (2019)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Bélarus (Ratification: 1956)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the efforts made by the Government to combat trafficking in persons, including through the adoption of Law No. 350-3 of 7 January 2012 on Combating Human Trafficking. Section 181 of the Criminal Code further prohibits trafficking for both labour and sexual exploitation and prescribes penalties ranging from three to 15 years’ imprisonment in addition to the forfeiture of offenders’ assets. The Committee also noted from the Government’s report to the Human Rights Committee (HRC) of the United Nations of 2017 that the majority of trafficking-related cases were prosecuted under section 171 of the Criminal Code on organization and/or use of prostitution or the creation of conditions for prostitution. Moreover, the Amendment Act to the Law on Combating Human Trafficking had been adopted in 2014, which defines the basis for identification and rehabilitation of victims. Pursuant to the Amendment Act, the Council of Ministers adopted Regulation No. 484 of 2015 establishing unified procedures of victim identification and protection.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that, in 2017, internal affairs bodies detected 1,578 crimes relating to trafficking in persons and other related offences. Seventy-eight cases were registered for prosecution under section 171 of the Criminal Code (procurement), 26 cases under section 171-1 (enticement into prostitution), one case under section 181 (trafficking in persons), 1 case under section 181-1 (use of slave labour) and one case under section 182 (abduction for the purposes of exploitation). Fifty-one suspects were tried in criminal cases relating to trafficking. In 2018, from January to August, internal affairs bodies detected 1,303 crimes relating to trafficking in persons and other related offences. Sixty-eight cases were registered related to procurement, 22 cases related to enticement into prostitution, four cases related to trafficking in persons, four cases related to use of slave labour and four cases related to abduction for the purposes of exploitation. Forty-five suspects were tried in criminal cases relating to trafficking.

The Committee also notes the Government’s information that, in 2017, the authorities identified 131 victims of trafficking in persons, of which 119 females and eight males were subjected to sexual exploitation, while two females and one male were subjected to labour exploitation. Moreover, during the first eight months of 2018, the authorities identified 97 victims of trafficking in persons, of which 91 were subjected to sexual exploitation, while six were subjected to labour exploitation. The Government also indicates that various free assistance and protection services were provided to victims of trafficking, including temporary accommodation, legal assistance, health care, psychological support, and assistance in jobseeking. For child victims under 3 years of age, services were provided at eight children’s homes operated by the Ministry of Health, while children aged 3 to 18 were sent to children’s social shelters operated by the Ministry of Education. Regarding adult victims, protection and assistance were provided at crisis rooms operated by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. As of 1 July 2018, there are 133 operational crisis rooms in the country. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the application of sections 171 and 181 of the Criminal Code and Law No. 350-3 of 7 January 2012 on Combating Human Trafficking in practice, including on the number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and specific penalties applied. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information on the implementation of the Amendment Act to the Law on Combating Human Trafficking and its implementing Regulation No. 485 in practice, including the number of victims identified and the type of assistance provided to them.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1). Compulsory labour imposed on parents whose children have been removed. The Committee previously noted that Presidential Decree No. 18 of 24 November 2006 on supplementary measures for state protection of children from “dysfunctional families” authorizes the removal of children whose parents are leading “an immoral way of life”, or are chronic alcoholics or drug addicts, or in some other way unable to properly perform their obligations to raise and maintain children. Such parents who are unemployed or who are working but are unable to pay full compensation to the State for the maintenance of their children in state child-care facilities are subject to a court ruling on employment, with an obligation to work (section 9.27 of the Code on Administrative Offences and section 18.8 of the Procedural Executive Code of Administrative Offences). Such a court ruling is a ground for dismissal of the person concerned from her or his previous place of work (section 44(5) of the Labour Code). Parents who avoid such work may be held criminally responsible, pursuant to section 174(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code, and shall be punishable by community service or corrective labour for a period of up to two years, imprisonment for up to three years, as well as restrictions or deprivation of freedom, all involving compulsory labour.

The Committee noted the Government’s statement that the main objective of Decree No. 18 is to improve the situation in “dysfunctional families” so that children can return to live with their parents safely. In order to create circumstances enabling the concerned parents to renounce their antisocial, often immoral lifestyles, it is important for them to have a job. However, many of such parents are unemployed and have lost vocational skills for a long period; it is thus difficult for them to find work on their own as employers are not interested in hiring such persons. In this respect, Decree No. 18 establishes a mechanism whereby a court can order concerned parents to take up employment. Job placements are arranged at workplaces defined in coordination with the local authorities, such as employment and social protection agencies, which have a list of over 6,770 enterprises providing secure workplaces for such individuals. Moreover, one of the conditions in the selection of work is that the wage level is sufficiently high, in order to compensate for the expense of maintaining their children.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, since the entry into force of Decree No. 18, there has been an annual reduction in the number of children whose parents lose their parental rights and are obliged to cover the cost of state care for their children. Between 2007 and 2017, the number of children whose parents lost their parental rights reduced almost by half, from 4,451 in 2007 to 2,303 in 2017. Each year, around 2,000 children who have been placed in State care are returned to their parents. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the application of Decree No. 18 in practice in its future reports, indicating the number of persons who are deprived of parental rights and who are obliged to take certain employment by a court ruling, as well as the number of children who are returned to their parents.

Article 2(2)(a). Non-military work of conscripts. The Committee noted that section 10 of Law No. 100-3 of 4 January 2010 on the status of military servicemen, provides that military conscripts can be requested to perform duties which are not specific to military service in cases stipulated by regulations. The Committee further noted that the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, indicated in his 2014 and 2015 reports, that conscripts were still obliged to carry out unpaid work unrelated to their military service activities. The Committee recalled that work or service exacted by virtue of compulsory military service laws is only excluded from the scope of the Convention on condition that it is of a purely military nature.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that Law No. 100-3 of 4 January 2010 was amended on 17 July 2018. According to its section 10, the right to work is exercised by military service persons through their contractual military service, in the manner prescribed by law. Moreover, according to Ministry of Defence Decision No. 71 of 29 November 2014, service persons in the armed forced may engage in work, service or other duties not pertaining to the military in some circumstances, for example, to participate in specialized training or to fight fires or natural disasters.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that work of prisoners outside prison premises is allowed in accordance with the legislation in force, and that private companies are entitled to conclude contracts on the use of labour of prisoners with the administration of a correctional institution. The Committee also noted the provisions of the Criminal Enforcement Code, concerning the obligation of convicts to work at the enterprises determined by the administration of correctional institutions, including private enterprises, the refusal to work being punishable with sanctions. The Committee expressed the firm hope that measures would be taken to ensure that any work or service by convicted persons for private enterprises is performed only with the free, formal and informed consent of the persons concerned.

The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated information that, under the national legislation in force, a convict’s conditions of work can be considered as approximating those of a free labour relationship, including wages, social security and occupational safety and health. The Government also indicates that convicted persons sentenced to imprisonment are engaged in work only in the premises of the prison under the strict supervision and control of the State authorities. The Committee once again recalls that, the exception provided for in Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention only refers to work exacted from convicted persons, provided that the said work is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired or placed at the disposal of private entities. Moreover, work by prisoners for private entities can be held compatible with the Convention only where the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that the prisoners concerned accept such work voluntarily, by giving their free, formal and informed consent and without being subjected to pressure or the menace of any penalty (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 291). The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures, both in law and in practice, to ensure that work may only be performed by prisoners in private enterprises with their free, formal and informed consent, and that such consent is free from the menace of any penalty. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.