Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Slovakia (Ratification: 1993)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. 1. National Programme. The Committee takes note of the new National Programme for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, for the period 2019–23, which has been developed based on the evaluation of the previous national programmes and provides for objectives and tasks to reduce the crime of trafficking in persons. The Committee takes due note that several ministries are charged with ensuring the fulfilment of the tasks and earmarking the financial resources for their fulfilment every year when preparing the State budget. The evaluation of tasks is negotiated every year by the interdepartmental Expert Group for the Fight against Trafficking in Human Beings, established at the Ministry of the Interior (MoI) and the overall evaluation of the fulfilment of tasks of the National Programme is also negotiated by the Government. The Committee takes note, in this regard, of the detailed information contained in the Situation Report on the fight against trafficking in human beings published by the MoI for 2023, according to which, while the Slovak Republic was considered predominantly as a source country, it can now be considered predominantly as a country of internal (domestic) exploitation, and thus also as a destination country.

The Committee notes that the Government, by Resolution No. 522/2023, approved a new, sixth National Programme for combating trafficking in persons 2024–28, intending to build on the National Programme 2019–23 and considering the recommendations addressed to the Slovak Republic within the monitoring and evaluation mechanisms of international organizations and communities.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the achievements and challenges identifiedbythe interdepartmental Expert Group for the Fight against Trafficking in Human Beings following the implementation of the National Programmes for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, on the measures taken or envisaged in response and on the priorities identified for the future.

2. Identification and protection of victims. The Committee notes, from the website of the Ministry of Interior, that the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) is a structure of cooperating entities through which the governmental authorities fulfil their obligations in terms of protection and enforcement of human rights for individuals who became victims of trafficking in persons, while coordinating their efforts as part of strategic partnership with civil society. According to the Ministry, any entity within the environment of governmental authorities and non-governmental organizations, as well as those from abroad, can initiate identification of victims of human trafficking through the National Helpline for Victims of Human Trafficking. Detected potential victims of trafficking in human beings in the territory of Slovakia or abroad are then referred to the care of non-governmental organizations. The Committee takes note in this regard of the specialized Assistance Programme, which victims of trafficking may enter voluntarily and be provided with the necessary emergency and assistance services based on an individual plan drawn up by a non-governmental organization.

Additionally, the Committee notes that the first objective of the National Programme 2019–23 pertained to assistance and protection and included tasks such as analysing the efficiency of the provided services, updating the programme of assistance and creating binding mechanisms to ensure cooperation between State authorities and private organizations in assistance to victims of trafficking. The Committee also notes, from the 2023 Situation Report, that challenges were identified in 2023 as regards the identification of victims and the number of such victims who enrolled in the Assistance Programme. In both cases, the numbers had decreased in 2023, in comparison with 2022. For instance, in 2023, 11 persons were enrolled in the Assistance Programme, which represents a 50 per cent decrease compared to 2022, when 22 victims entered the Assistance Programme. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the concern expressed by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), in its concluding observations of 31 May 2023, regarding the lack of measures in place to identify victims of trafficking among women in prostitution and to ensure victims are able to report such cases to law enforcement authorities without fear of reprisal (CEDAW/C/SVK/CO/7).

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the tasks of the National Programme aiming at ensuring the effective identification and protection of victims of trafficking in persons, particularly victims of trafficking for prostitution, as well as the challenges faced and priorities established in this regard in the next National Programme. It requests the Government to indicate the number of victims of trafficking who have entered the specialized Assistance Programme, to the extent possible disaggregated by sex and nature of the offence to which they were subjected.

3. Prosecution and penal sanctions. The Committee notes that section 179 of the Criminal Code (Act No. 300/2005) provides for the offence of trafficking in persons and institutes a penalty of imprisonment ranging between four and 10 years, as well as increased penalties in certain aggravating circumstances. Detection and investigation of trafficking in human beings is the responsibility of the National Unit to Combat Illegal Migration of the Bureau of the Border Police and the Alien Police of the Presidium of the Police Force. Criminal investigations are supervised by the Prosecutor´s Offices.

The Committee notes that the National Programme 2019–23 identified as a priority the improvement of the quality of detection and investigation of the crime of trafficking in persons with the objective to punish perpetrators. It established tasks for its achievement, including better defining the concepts of trafficking for the purpose of force labour as opposed to bad working conditions, establishing joint controls of business entities that can be affected by trafficking in persons, and deepening international police cooperation through joint investigation teams. The Committee further notes that the 2023 Situation Report reveals various statistics regarding prosecutions of cases of trafficking in persons, including that, in 2023, the NUFIM initiated 20 prosecutions in cases of trafficking under section 179 of the Criminal Code and that a total of 18 perpetrators were charged in 12 cases.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure the continued improvement of the efficiency of investigations and prosecutions in cases of trafficking in persons. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of investigations carried out and prosecutions initiated under section 179 of the Criminal Code, as well as on the number of convictions and nature of the penalties applied.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. It notes, in particular, the adoption of the new Criminal Code (Act No. 300/2005, Coll., as amended by Act No. 650/2005, Coll. and Act No. 692/2006, Coll.), which repealed the Criminal Code of 1961 (Act No. 140/1961, as amended). It also notes Act No. 528/2005 on the execution of sentences of community work, as well as the Government’s explanations concerning the application of this penalty, which can be imposed by the court of law, with the consent of the offender, in lieu of a sentence of imprisonment.

Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. Work of prisoners for private enterprises. The Committee previously noted that, under the legislation in force, convicts are under obligation to perform labour and penitentiary institutions may create conditions for the use of prison labour by private enterprises. The Committee referred in this connection to sections 2(8) and 6 of Decree No. 26/2003 on the employment of convicted persons, under which prison labour or services can be provided to the private users of prison labour, on a contract basis, through the Accessory Economic Activities Centres set up by the penitentiary institutions.

The Committee recalled that, in order to be compatible with Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, which expressly prohibits that prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private enterprises, the work of prisoners for private users of prison labour should be carried out in conditions approximating a free labour relationship. This necessarily requires the formal and informed consent of the persons concerned and, further, since such consent is given in a context of lack of freedom with limited options, there should be indicators which authenticate such free given consent. The Committee has considered that the most reliable indicator of the voluntariness of labour is the work performed under conditions approximating a free labour relationship, which include wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and occupational safety and health. In addition, there may be also other factors that can be regarded as objective and measurable advantages which the prisoner gains from the actual performance of the work and which could be considered in determining whether consent was freely given and informed (such as the learning of new skills which could be deployed by prisoners when released; the offer of continuing the work of the same type upon their release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively in a controlled environment enabling them to develop team skills) (see
paragraphs 59–61 and 113–122 of the Committee’s General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour). In other words, work by prisoners for private enterprises does not come under the scope of the Convention if such work is performed voluntarily and no compulsion is involved.

As regards conditions of work of convicted prisoners, the Committee has noted the provisions of Acts Nos 475/2005 and 221/2006, which govern the execution of prison sentences, as well as the Government Regulation No. 384/2006 concerning remuneration of working convicts. The Committee also notes the Government’s indications in the report concerning the applicability to convicted persons of a number of provisions of the Labour Code governing working hours and rest periods, overtime work, occupational safety and health and employers’ accountability for damages caused by occupational accidents and diseases.

As regards the prisoner’s consent to perform labour for private enterprises, the Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the formal consent to perform the assigned work is given by the convicted person when such person is included into a particular workplace, and that no case of prisoners’ refusal to work has been recorded during the last three years within the framework of the whole prison system. The Government indicates in its latest report that convicted persons give the formal consent to work when being assigned to a workplace by the Assigning Commission and, before being assigned to work, convicts must be properly and demonstrably informed of their rights and obligations, of safety and health requirements, etc. According to the Government, convicted persons can say before the Assigning Commission whether they wish to perform the assigned work, and particular work assignments are recorded in their personal files.

While noting these explanations, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how the requirement of a formal consent of a prisoner to work for private enterprises is ensured, so that such consent is free from the menace of any penalty, and to supply copies of relevant documentation or provisions. Please also supply a copy of Decrees of the Ministry of Justice Nos 664/2005 and 437/2006 issuing rules concerning the execution of sentences of imprisonment, referred to in the Government’s report.

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

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. It notes, in particular, Decree No. 26/2003 on the employment of convicted persons, as well as model contracts concluded between penitentiary institutions and private users of prison labour concerning the work of prisoners both inside and outside the institution, provided by the Government with its report.

Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. Work of prisoners for private individuals or companies. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under the legislation in force, convicts are under obligation to perform labour, and that penitentiary institutions may create conditions for employment of convicts on the basis of contractual relations with private companies or individuals. The Committee notes that, under sections 2(8) and 6 of Decree No. 26/2003, prison labour or services can be provided to the private users of prison labour, on a contract basis, through the Accessory Economic Activities Centres set up by the penitentiary institutions. The institution shall act as an employer of convicts assigned to work at the Centres, their working conditions being analogous to the institutions’ employees or to the employees of the private user of the convicts’ works or services (section 6(3) of the Decree); the work of prisoners is performed under permanent supervision by the penitentiary institution (section 2(8) of the Decree). As regards the remuneration of convicts, section 20(1) contains a reference to the provisions of Decree No. 499/2002 concerning the amount and conditions of remuneration of convicted persons.

While noting this information, the Committee again recalls that, under Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is excluded from the scope of the Convention if two conditions are met, namely: "… that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations". Referring once again to the explanations in paragraphs 96 et seq. of its General Report to the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference, 2001, the Committee notes from the provisions of Decree No. 26/2003 and the Government’s indications in the report that, in conformity with the first condition set out in Article 2(2)(c), the work is carried out "under the supervision and control of a public authority". However, as regards the second condition, namely, that the person "is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations", the Committee observes that contracts for the hiring of prison labour to private enterprises in Slovakia correspond in all respects to what is prescribed by Article 2(2)(c), namely, that a person be "hired to" a private company. It is in the very nature of such hiring agreements to include mutual obligations between the prisons administration and the private enterprise.

As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, to be compatible with Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, the work of prisoners for private users of prison labour should be carried out in conditions approximating a free employment relationship; this necessarily requires the formal consent of the persons concerned, as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, such as wages and social security, etc. (see paragraphs 119 and 128-143 of the Committee’s General report to the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference, 2001). In other words, work by prisoners, even for private enterprises, does not come under the scope of the Convention if there is no compulsion involved.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s view that, under the present conditions, the prisoner’s consent to perform labour is not needed. It notes that, under section 2(2) of Decree No. 26/2003 referred to above, a convicted person assigned to work shall not become a party to labour law relations nor to any other relations of a legal nature. However, the Government indicates in its latest report that the formal consent to perform the assigned work is given by the convicted person when such person is included into a particular workplace, and that no case of prisoners’ refusal to work has been recorded during the last three years within the framework of the whole prison system. The Committee requests the Government to clarify this situation, indicating, in particular, how the requirement of a formal consent of a prisoner to work for private enterprises is ensured, both inside and outside the penitentiary institution, and supplying copies of relevant provisions. Please also supply a copy of Decree No. 499/2002 concerning the amount and conditions of remuneration of convicted persons referred to above.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes with regret 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:

Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that under section 11 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice promulgating regulations concerning execution of penal sanction of deprivation of freedom, of 6 May 1994 (Collection of Laws, No. 125/1994), convicts are under obligation to perform labour and that unjustified refusal to perform labour shall be considered as a breach of discipline. It also noted that, under the legislation in force, prisons create conditions for employment of convicts either using their own capacities or by virtue of a contract with a different business entity or organization (section 26 of Act No. 59/1965 on execution of incarceration, of 17 June 1965) and that in the course of such activities penitentiary institutions may cooperate with juridical and physical persons on the basis of contractual relations (section 1(1) of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice of 31 October 1996, Collection of Laws, No. 341/1996).

The Committee has noted the Government’s indications in its latest report that, since November 1996, there has been no employment of prisoners by state-owned companies (in the sense of prisoners being included on the employer’s staff) because of a lack of interest of these companies to employ prisoners. As regards cooperation of prison authorities with juridical and physical persons, including the rendering to them of services in the form of the prisoners’ labour, the Government indicates that such activities are carried out on the basis of a contract between the prison establishments and private parties; the work of prisoners is performed under permanent supervision by prison services and the role of employer in relation to prisoners is performed by the prison administration. The Government considers that in this situation the prisoner’s consent to perform labour is not needed.

While noting this information, the Committee recalls that, under Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is excluded from the scope of the Convention if two conditions are met, namely: "… that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations".

The Committee has always made it clear that the two conditions are cumulative and apply independently, i.e. the fact that the prisoner remains at all times under the supervision and control of a public authority does not in itself dispense the government from fulfilling the second condition, namely that the person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations (see paragraph 119 of the Committee’s General Report to the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference, 2001). As regards the meaning of the terms "hired to or placed at the disposal of", the Committee refers to paragraphs 96 and 121-123 of the abovementioned General Report.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to describe the organization of prisoners’ work for private persons and entities, both inside and outside prison premises and to supply specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour. The Government is also requested to indicate any measures taken to ensure that any work or service by prisoners for private persons is performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship; such measures should include the formal consent of the person concerned, as well as - given the absence of alternative access to the free labour market - further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, such as wages and social security (see also paragraphs 112-125 of the Committee’s General Report to the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference, 1998).

The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken by the Government to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

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:

Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that under section 11 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice promulgating regulations concerning execution of penal sanction of deprivation of freedom, of 6 May 1994 (Collection of Laws, No. 125/1994), convicts are under obligation to perform labour and that unjustified refusal to perform labour shall be considered as a breach of discipline. It also noted that, under the legislation in force, prisons create conditions for employment of convicts either using their own capacities or by virtue of a contract with a different business entity or organization (section 26 of Act No. 59/1965 on execution of incarceration, of 17 June 1965) and that in the course of such activities penitentiary institutions may cooperate with juridical and physical persons on the basis of contractual relations (section 1(1) of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice of 31 October 1996, Collection of Laws, No. 341/1996).

The Committee has noted the Government’s indications in its latest report that, since November 1996, there has been no employment of prisoners by state-owned companies (in the sense of prisoners being included on the employer’s staff) because of a lack of interest of these companies to employ prisoners. As regards cooperation of prison authorities with juridical and physical persons, including the rendering to them of services in the form of the prisoners’ labour, the Government indicates that such activities are carried out on the basis of a contract between the prison establishments and private parties; the work of prisoners is performed under permanent supervision by prison services and the role of employer in relation to prisoners is performed by the prison administration. The Government considers that in this situation the prisoner’s consent to perform labour is not needed.

While noting this information, the Committee recalls that, under Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is excluded from the scope of the Convention if two conditions are met, namely: "… that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations".

The Committee has always made it clear that the two conditions are cumulative and apply independently, i.e. the fact that the prisoner remains at all times under the supervision and control of a public authority does not in itself dispense the government from fulfilling the second condition, namely that the person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations (see paragraph 119 of the Committee’s General Report to the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference, 2001). As regards the meaning of the terms "hired to or placed at the disposal of", the Committee refers to paragraphs 96 and 121-123 of the abovementioned General Report.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to describe the organization of prisoners’ work for private persons and entities, both inside and outside prison premises and to supply specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour. The Government is also requested to indicate any measures taken to ensure that any work or service by prisoners for private persons is performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship; such measures should include the formal consent of the person concerned, as well as - given the absence of alternative access to the free labour market - further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, such as wages and social security (see also paragraphs 112-125 of the Committee’s General Report to the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference, 1998).

The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken by the Government to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments.

Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that under section 11 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice promulgating regulations concerning execution of penal sanction of deprivation of freedom, of 6 May 1994 (Collection of Laws, No. 125/1994), convicts are under obligation to perform labour and that unjustified refusal to perform labour shall be considered as a breach of discipline. It also noted that, under the legislation in force, prisons create conditions for employment of convicts either using their own capacities or by virtue of a contract with a different business entity or organization (section 26 of Act No. 59/1965 on execution of incarceration, of 17 June 1965) and that in the course of such activities penitentiary institutions may cooperate with juridical and physical persons on the basis of contractual relations (section 1(1) of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice of 31 October 1996, Collection of Laws, No. 341/1996).

The Committee has noted the Government’s indications in its latest report that, since November 1996, there has been no employment of prisoners by state-owned companies (in the sense of prisoners being included on the employer’s staff) because of a lack of interest of these companies to employ prisoners. As regards cooperation of prison authorities with juridical and physical persons, including the rendering to them of services in the form of the prisoners’ labour, the Government indicates that such activities are carried out on the basis of a contract between the prison establishments and private parties; the work of prisoners is performed under permanent supervision by prison services and the role of employer in relation to prisoners is performed by the prison administration. The Government considers that in this situation the prisoner’s consent to perform labour is not needed.

While noting this information, the Committee recalls that, under Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is excluded from the scope of the Convention if two conditions are met, namely: "… that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations".

The Committee has always made it clear that the two conditions are cumulative and apply independently, i.e. the fact that the prisoner remains at all times under the supervision and control of a public authority does not in itself dispense the government from fulfilling the second condition, namely that the person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations (see paragraph 119 of the Committee’s General Report to the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference, 2001). As regards the meaning of the terms "hired to or placed at the disposal of", the Committee refers to paragraphs 96 and 121-123 of the abovementioned General Report.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to describe the organization of prisoners’ work for private persons and entities, both inside and outside prison premises and to supply specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour. The Government is also requested to indicate any measures taken to ensure that any work or service by prisoners for private persons is performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship; such measures should include the formal consent of the person concerned, as well as - given the absence of alternative access to the free labour market - further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, such as wages and social security (see also paragraphs 112-125 of the Committee’s General Report to the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference, 1998).

The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken by the Government to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

1. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. It notes, in particular, the provisions of Act No. 207/1995 concerning alternative (civil) service, supplied by the Government with its report.

2. Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. The Committee notes that under section 11 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice promulgating regulations concerning execution of penal sanction of deprivation of freedom, of 6 May 1994 (Collection of Laws, No. 125/1994), convicts are under obligation to perform labour and that unjustified refusal to perform labour shall be considered as a breach of discipline. It also notes that, under the legislation in force, prisons create conditions for employment of convicts either using their own capacities or by virtue of a contract with a different business entity or organization (section 26 of Act No. 59/1965 on Execution of Incarceration, of 17 June 1965) and that in the course of such activities penitentiary institutions may cooperate with juridical and physical persons on the basis of contractual relations (section 1(1) of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice of 31 October 1996, Collection of Laws, No. 341/1996).

The Committee recalls that, under Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, prisoners must not be hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. As the Committee has pointed out in paragraphs 112-125 of its General Report to the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference (1998), only when performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship can work by prisoners for private companies be held compatible with the explicit prohibition of the Convention; this necessarily requires the formal consent of the person concerned , as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, such as the payment of normal wages and social security, etc.

The Committee therefore asks the Government to supply, in its next report, information on the measures taken to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard, as well as a copy of Order No. 2/1993 of the Ministry of Justice concerning the performance of work by prisoners, to which reference is made in section 30(2) of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice of 27 April 1994 (Collection of Laws, No. 114/1994).

3. In its previous comments the Committee noted the Government's indication in its report received in October 1996 concerning decisions of courts of law (including the Supreme Court) involving questions relating to the application of the Convention. It reiterates its request to the Government to supply copies of these decisions.

4. The Committee in requesting the above information also draws the attention of the Government to its general observation on the Convention made in its report to the 87th Session of the International Labour Conference (1999), the Committee requests the Government to include in its next report information as to the present position in law and practice as regards:

(i) whether there are prisons administered by private concerns, profit-making or otherwise;

(ii) whether any private prison contractors deploy prisoners to work either inside or outside prison premises, either for the account of the contractor or for that of another enterprise;

(iii) whether private parties are admitted by the prison authorities into prison premises of any kind for the purpose of engaging prisoners in employment;

(iv) whether employment of prisoners outside prison premises, either for a public authority or for a private enterprise, is allowed;

(v) the conditions in which employment under any of the above conditions takes place, in respect of remuneration (indicating the level and comparing it with any minimum wage normally applicable to such work), benefits accruing (such as pension rights and workers' compensation), observance of occupational safety and health legislation and other conditions of employment (e.g. through labour inspection), and how those conditions are determined;

(vi) what the source of any remuneration is (whether from public or private funds) and for what purposes it must or may be applied (e.g. for the personal use of the prisoner or if it is subject to compulsory deductions);

(vii) for whose benefit is the product of prisoners' work and any surplus profit deriving from it, after deduction of overheads, and how it is disbursed;

(viii) how the consent of the prisoners concerned is guaranteed, so that it is free from the menace of any penalty, including any loss of privileges or other disadvantages following from a refusal to work.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its reports received in 1993 and 1996. It notes, in particular, the adoption of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic of 1 September 1992, which provides in its article 18 for the prohibition of forced labour. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply, in its next report, additional information on the following points:

1. Article 2, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention. The Committee notes the provision of article 18, paragraph 2(b), of the Constitution, which excludes military service or other service assigned by law in lieu of compulsory military service from the prohibition of forced labour. It also notes the provision of article 25, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, which stipulates that no one must be forced to perform military service if this runs counter to his conscience or religious belief. The Government refers in its latest report to Act No. 207/1995 concerning alternative (civil) service which lays down detailed provisions on the subject. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, a copy of the above-mentioned Act, so that the Committee could examine its conformity with this Article of the Convention.

2. Article 2, paragraph 2(c). The Committee notes that work exacted in accordance with the law from persons serving a term of imprisonment or condemned to other punishment in lieu of imprisonment is excluded from the prohibition of forced labour, in virtue of article 18, paragraph 2(a), of the Constitution. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide, in its next report, information on provisions governing prison labour and supply copies of relevant texts (such as, for example, legislation concerning execution of penal sentences, prison rules or regulations).

3. The Committee notes the provision of article 18, paragraph 2(d), of the Constitution, which excludes from the prohibition of forced labour "activities laid down by law to protect life, health, or the rights of others". Since such activities appear to be different from work or service excluded from the prohibition of forced labour in virtue of paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c) of the same article of the Constitution (i.e. work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, compulsory military service, work or service exacted in cases of natural catastrophes, accidents or other danger threatening human life, health or property of great value), the Committee asks the Government to describe the above-mentioned activities, indicating, in particular, whether any laws or regulations have been adopted in order to implement the above-mentioned provision of article 18, paragraph 2(d), of the Constitution. In the affirmative, please supply copies of relevant texts, as well as the information on their application in practice.

4. The Committee notes the Government's indication in the latest report concerning decisions of courts of law (including the Supreme Court) involving questions relating to the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would supply the texts of these decisions, as required by point III of the report form.