Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2012, publiée 102ème session CIT (2013)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Roumanie (Ratification: 1957)

Autre commentaire sur C029

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. 1. Law enforcement measures. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a new national strategy of action against trafficking in persons (2012–16) has been elaborated and that currently, it is under an inter-ministerial consultation procedure.

The Committee also notes the statistics provided by the Government on the number of convictions for trafficking in persons, according to which in 2011, 98 persons were convicted to imprisonment from one to five years, 82 were convicted to imprisonment from five to ten years, and ten persons were convicted to imprisonment from ten to 15 years. Lastly, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the National Agency against Trafficking in Persons is a specialized structure in the field of prevention, surveillance and evaluation of the trafficking phenomenon. This structure has 15 subordinated regional anti-trafficking centres, with a role of coordination of the anti-trafficking activity within their zones of competence. Noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to pursue its efforts to prevent, suppress and combat trafficking in persons, and to continue to provide information in its future reports on the measures taken. It also requests the Government to provide a copy of the national strategy of action against trafficking in persons (2012–16), once it is adopted.

2. Protection and assistance for victims of trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government regarding the assistance provided to victims of trafficking in persons. Protection and assistance services are offered to victims of trafficking in persons, either in governmental centres of assistance and protection of victims, set up under Law No. 678/2001 concerning the prevention and combating of trafficking in persons, or in centres and shelters of non-governmental organizations. Under the provisions of Law No. 678/2001, the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection ensures that the victims of trafficking have a place to live in as a family, under a protected system, with a view to reintegrating these persons. After admission to the centre, the coordinator of the shelter appoints a case manager responsible in making an individual social rehabilitation and reintegration plan for the victim. Social and psychological counselling, judicial and medical assistance, material and financial support are offered to the victims. Offering assistance to the victims is not conditional on their participation in the criminal trial. Moreover, the Government indicates that the National Agency against Trafficking in Persons is implementing the Programme of Victims Coordination – Witnesses which allows victims to participate in criminal trials. This programme aims at maintaining permanent contact with the victims, as well as informing and preparing them in relation to certain aspects they may face during the criminal trial. Due to this programme, the number of victims of trafficking who have participated in criminal investigations, prosecutions and court procedures increased (96 per cent out of the total number of identified victims in 2011). The Committee notes with interest the various measures taken by the Government and requests it to continue to take measures to strengthen mechanisms for the identification of victims of trafficking in persons and to intensify its efforts to provide protection and assistance, including legal assistance, to victims of trafficking. Please continue to provide information on the number of persons benefiting from these services.

Article 2(2)(c). 1. Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. In its previous comments, the Committee noted a contradiction between section 56 of the Penal Code (Penal Code of 1968 as amended), according to which the regime for the implementation of prison sentences is based on the obligation of convicted prisoners to perform useful work, and section 57 of Act No. 275/2006 concerning the implementation of sentences and measures ordered by the judicial authorities in the course of criminal proceedings, according to which persons sentenced to imprisonment who are fit to work may, with their consent, perform work which is related to their qualifications and abilities. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that section 56 of the Penal Code has been repealed, and replaced by section 53(3) of the Penal Code adopted in 2009, under which persons sentenced to imprisonment may give their consent to perform useful work. The Committee pointed out that the provisions of section 53(3) quoted by the Government did not appear to correspond to those of section 53 of the Penal Code of 2009. The Committee requested the Government to specify the provisions of the new Penal Code of 2009 under which work done by persons sentenced to imprisonment is voluntary.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Penal Code of 2009 does not include provisions on work performed by prisoners. These provisions are stipulated in the draft law on the enforcement of punishments involving deprivation of liberty, which is currently under examination. The Government further indicates that Chapter VI of this draft law regulates the work performed by convicted persons and introduces two new elements compared to the previous regulation: (i) the possibility for the convicted person to volunteer to perform work in the community interest (building schools or churches), as well as; (ii) boosting the interest for work of the convicted person.

The Committee takes note of section 78 of the abovementioned draft law which provides for the right to work for all convicted persons. It notes that the work of convicted persons is performed inside or outside the penitentiary establishment for private companies (section 83) and is remunerated according to a certain scale. The Committee observes however that free formal and informed consent of convicts to work for private enterprises does not appear to be asked for. The Committee points out that under the previous section 57 of Act No. 275/2006 concerning the implementation of sentences and measures ordered by the judicial authorities in the course of criminal proceedings, persons sentenced to imprisonment who were fit to work could, with their consent, perform work.

The Committee therefore recalls once again that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention strictly prohibits that prisoners are hired to, or placed at the disposal of, private enterprises. However, work for private enterprises can be held compatible with the Convention, if prisoners voluntarily enter a normal employment relationship with private employers and perform work in conditions approximating a free employment relationship. This arrangement necessarily requires the free formal and informed consent of the person concerned, as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a labour relation, such as wages and social security. The Committee therefore hopes that, in light of the above considerations, the Government will take the necessary measures in order to ensure that, under the terms of the new draft law on the enforcement of punishments involving deprivation of liberty, the work of convicted prisoners for private enterprises will be carried out only when these prisoners express their free, formal and informed consent. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the draft law on the enforcement of punishments involving deprivation of liberty, once it has been adopted. The Committee also requests the Government to supply copies of contracts concluded between a private enterprise and a penitentiary institution concerning the work of convicted prisoners.

2. Sentence of community work. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the conditions for the performance of work in the community interest are laid down in Ordinance No. 55/2002. The Committee noted that the penalty of community work prescribed by this Ordinance constitutes an alternative penalty to the payment of a fine. This penalty is pronounced by a judicial body with the consent of the person concerned and the work is performed on behalf of public legal entities.

The Committee notes the absence of information from the Government on this point. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to clarify whether the penalty of work in the community interest may also constitute an alternative to the penalty of imprisonment and, if so, to specify the provisions which govern it.