Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2020, Publicación: 109ª reunión CIT (2021)

Convenio sobre el trabajo forzoso, 1930 (núm. 29) - Serbia (Ratificación : 2000)

Otros comentarios sobre C029

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

The Committee notes the observations of the Serbian Association of Employers (SAE) and the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS) communicated with the Government’s report.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that in 2015, 15 criminal charges were filed under section 388 of the Criminal Code on human trafficking, involving 27 offenders and 32 victims. The Committee further noted that from 2012 to 2016, 165 persons were identified as victims of human trafficking, including for the purposes of sexual and labour exploitation. The Committee noted that support provided to victims of human trafficking included legal, financial and in-kind assistance, psychological services and support for integration into the community.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that under section 388 of the Criminal Code on human trafficking, in 2017, there were 18 reports received for investigation, which led to 14 convictions with prison sentences; while in 2018, there were 33 reports received for investigation, which resulted in 19 convictions, including 17 prison sentences. The Government further indicates that in 2019, support was provided in total to 195 victims of human trafficking. In particular, 48 victims of human trafficking were provided with accommodation and 79 witnesses or victims of human trafficking received legal representation by the Centre for Protection of Human Trafficking Victims in court proceedings. The Committee takes note of the opening of the Shelter for Human Trafficking Victims for women and girls over the age of 16 in 2019. The Government indicates that this Centre is in the process of concluding protocols of cooperation with the Centre for Social Work in Leskovac concerning the opening of a shelter for victims of human trafficking, as well as with the City of Novi Sad and the Department for Women’s Entrepreneurship of the Chamber of Commerce and the Industry of Serbia, regarding the provision of employment support for victims of human trafficking.

The Committee notes the indication by CATUS that, despite the measures taken by the Government to combat trafficking in persons, there remains a need to strengthen the capacity of social protection institutions and labour inspection. CATUS also indicates a small number of cases of human trafficking brought under section 388 of the Criminal Code. In this regard, it highlights the need for better training of law enforcement officers on differentiation of human trafficking offences from other similar criminal acts.

The Committee notes the 2017 report of the Group of Experts against trafficking in human beings concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Serbia (paragraph 190) indicating a decreased number of criminal investigations into cases of human trafficking and cases when human trafficking offences were qualified as other offences carrying lesser penalties.

While taking due note of the measures adopted by the Government, the Committee requests it to strengthen the capacities of the authorities responsible for enforcing the law to ensure that all persons who commit acts of trafficking in persons are investigated and prosecuted, and sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties are imposed on them. It also requests the Government to continue providing information on the application of section 388 of the Criminal Code in practice, including the number of prosecutions, convictions and the specific penalties imposed. The Committee further requests the Government to continue providing information on the measures taken to ensure protection and assistance to the victims of human trafficking, including their access to financial compensation.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour for private enterprises. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that convicted persons shall willingly accept the work, regardless of whether the work is performed inside or outside the institution and that the work of convicted persons is only possible with their consent. The Committee further noted that according to section 8 of the Rulebook of work of a convicted persons (No. 145/2014), the expert team shall propose to the institution’s manager that convicted persons engage in work based on various factors, including the expressed wishes of the convicted persons. According to section 12 of the Rulebook, the recruitment of a convicted person to a third entity shall be performed based on a contract concluded between the institution and a third entity.

The Committee notes the copy of a contract provided by the Government on the recruitment of convicted persons to a third entity and the copies of the written consent of convicted persons to work outside the institution. The Committee notes that the contract includes the provisions on the conditions of work for convicted persons, such as hours of work, rest periods and remuneration. The Committee further notes section 102(a) of the Act on the execution of criminal sanctions (Nos 55/2014 and 35/2019), which sets out that the performance of work by convicted persons outside the institution is subject to approval by a judge, based on the submitted draft contract between the institution and a third entity which determines the conditions of work for convicted persons. The Committee notes the indications of CATUS that in practice, the remuneration received by a convicted person may be less than that foreseen for performance of the same work. The Committee notes that in accordance with section 105 of the Act on the execution of criminal sanctions, remuneration for work received by a convicted person shall be at least 20 per cent of the minimum wage. In paragraph 118 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee noted the expressed view concerning the wage levels that “the labour provided by prisoners differs markedly from labour provided in the free market” since “there is frequently no continuity by the prisoner of the work; it may be interrupted by other prison programmes; the length of prison sentences vary considerably; and there may be increased costs in the private companies having to continuously train new prisoners when they commence the work”.