Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Kazakhstan (Ratification: 2001)

Article 1 subparagraph a, of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.
1. The Committee previously noted the Criminal Code provisions imposing various sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as deprivation of freedom, restriction of freedom, compulsory participation in public works and correctional labour) for the following acts:

–           “incitement of social, national, tribal, racial or religious enmity” (section 164);

–           “creation or participation in the activity of illegal public association” which proclaims or carries out in practice racial, national, tribal, social, class or religious intolerance (section 337); and

–           “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of rallies, meetings, picketing, street marches or demonstrations”, if such acts entailed disruption of transport or caused considerable damage to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations (section 334).

The Committee noted that the sanctions of deprivation of freedom and restriction of freedom involve compulsory labour under procedures and conditions defined by the Code governing the execution of penal sentences (sections 99 and 47).

    The Committee recalls that Article 1, subparagraph a, of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 152–166 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Such views may be expressed orally or through the press or other communications media or through the exercise of the right of association or participation in meetings and demonstrations. Since freedom of expression of political views is closely linked to the right of association and of assembly through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, any prohibitions enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour which affect the constitution or functioning of political parties or associations, or participation therein, or organization of meetings and demonstrations, may raise questions of their compatibility with the Convention.

The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to provide information on the application of the abovementioned sections 164, 334 and 337 of the Criminal Code in practice, including sample copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their conformity with the Convention.

2. The Committee previously noted that, under section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, “violation of the procedure for the organization and conducting of public gatherings, meetings, street marches and demonstrations” is punishable with “administrative arrest” for a term of up to 15 days, which involves an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities, by virtue of section 322 of the above Code. Referring to its comments in point 1 of this direct request, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 181-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, including copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

3. The Committee notes that, according to section 22 of the Law on Social Associations, of 31 May 1996, individuals (including officials in state agencies and members of the governing body of a social association) may be held liable for violation of the provisions of this Law. The Committee asks the Government once again to clarify the scope of such liability, indicating the applicable sanctions.

Article 1, subparagraph c. The Committee previously noted that, under section 316 of the Criminal Code, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his/her duties as the result of unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by correctional labour, or by compulsory participation in public works, or by detention under arrest. In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 316 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on its application in practice. Since the Government’s report contains no information on this issue, the Committee requests the Government to supply such information in its next report, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of section 316 and indicating the penalties imposed.