Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2009, publiée 99ème session CIT (2010)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - République de Moldova (Ratification: 1993)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1, subparagraph a, of the Convention. Sanctions for expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 285(1) of the Criminal Code, “organization or leadership of large scale disturbances” is punishable with deprivation of freedom for a term of up to ten years. It noted that section 346 of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment for a term of up to three years for “inflaming of the national, racial or religious enmity”. The Committee has noted that under section 253 of the Execution of Sentences Code, sanctions of imprisonment involve an obligation to perform labour.

The Committee points out, referring also to the explanations contained in paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence or incite to the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising. But sanctions involving compulsory labour are incompatible with the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system. Since political opinions and views are often expressed not only through different communications media, but also at various kinds of meetings and manifestations, the prohibition of certain kinds of meetings by way of sanctioning “large scale disturbances” or “violation of public order” may give rise to political coercion falling within the scope of the Convention.

The Committee noted that the above provisions of the Criminal Code provide for penal sanctions involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their application in practice. It therefore requested the Government to communicate copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate the scope of these provisions. Having noted the Government’s indication in its 2006 report concerning technical difficulties in obtaining the information requested, the Committee hopes that the Government will however be in a position to supply such information with its next report, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether sections 285(1) and 346 of the Criminal Code are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1, subparagraph c. Sanctions for violation of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 329 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to public interests, is punishable by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to three years (which involves compulsory prison labour). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

Article 1, subparagraph d. Sanctions for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that section 358(1) of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) for the organization of or active participation in group actions breaking violently public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. Similarly, section 285(1) referred to under Article 1(a) above, stipulates that “organization or leadership of large scale disturbances resulting in the obstruction of normal operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations” is punishable with deprivation of freedom for a term of up to ten years (which involves compulsory prison labour).

While noting the Government’s views concerning the reasons for restricting the right to strike expressed in its 2006 report, the Committee refers to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Moldova, and draws the Government’s attention to the explanations in paragraphs 182–189 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it recalled that the imposition of restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour is only possible in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), or with respect to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or in the situations of force majeure. However, as the Committee previously noted, section 369 of the Labour Code imposes restrictions on the right to strike (enforceable with penal sanctions in accordance with section 370) in a wider range of circumstances, particularly by defining in an unduly extensive manner categories of workers prohibited from participating in strikes, which is not in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that measures will be taken to ensure that the above provisions imposing restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour are limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or to the cases of force majeure, and that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for participation in peaceful strikes in other services. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Supply of legislation. The Committee requests the Government to communicate, with its next report, a copy of the regulations governing service on board seagoing vessels, to which reference is made in section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Code, as well as any other provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.