4.8 The State party concedes that the ILO Committee of Experts monitoring Chilean legislation on unemployment benefits considered a loss of benefits imposed if a person refused to carry out community relief work to be “equivalent to a penalty in the sense of the Convention.” It distinguishes the schemes, however, on the basis that, in Chile, payment of unemployment benefits was conditional upon payment of contributions for 52 weeks of the preceding two years, while in Australia benefits are not conditional upon any prior contribution. In addition, Chilean unemployment benefits are timebound, while in Australia they are not. In the State party’s view, therefore, the Committee of Experts’ comments on Chile are not presently relevant. “…minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interests of the said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic obligations incumbent on members of the community, provided that the members of the community or their direct representatives shall have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services.” 4.12 It is also relevant that article 11 sets out a minimum age of 18 and prior medical examinations for those required to perform compulsory labour, while article 12 states that the maximum labour period shall not exceed sixty days per year. Article 13 provides that the working hours in question should correspond to those of voluntary labour, and article 14 sets out cash remuneration not less than prevailing for similar work in the district. Article 15 applies workers’ compensation and incapacitation legislation to both forms of labour. The State party argues that the Work for Dole programme generally satisfies the minimum standards of the Convention. It is quite proper, as recognized in the abovementioned ILO instruments, to place reasonable conditions on social security payments. By participating in the Work for Dole programme, longterm unemployed persons enhance their skills, employability and thus future self-sufficiency. Unemployment benefits in Australia are not dependent on prior contributions, nor are they timebound. Nobody is forced to accept them, but if an individual does choose to do so, compliance with participation in a Work for Dole programme is a reasonable condition. 4.9 Turning to the relatively scarce jurisprudence arising under the similar terms of article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the State party refers to the case of Van der Mussele v. Belgium.5 The European Court there held that a law student, voluntarily choosing to enter the legal profession, could not be held to have been required to perform forced labour by a requirement to undertake a certain amount of pro bono work during his clerking apprenticeship in order to register as advocates. In the Court’s view, the service did not impose a burden so excessive or disproportionate to the advantages attached to future exercise of the profession that it could be treated as not having been voluntarily accepted beforehand. Given that the governing ideas of the exceptions to article 4 were the general interest, social solidarity and what is in the ordinary or normal course of affairs, the requirement of service was not disproportionate or unreasonable. 4.10 In X v. The Netherlands, 6 the European Commission of Human Rights found that a suspension for 26 weeks of a builder’s unemployment benefit due to the builder’s refusal, on grounds of alleged overqualification, of a job offer made to him did not amount to forced or compulsory labour. The Commission reasoned that nobody was forced, by penalty, to accept a job offer made by competent public authorities. Rather, acceptance of such an offer was simply a condition to receipt of unemployment benefits, a refusal being penalized only by temporary loss of those benefits. 4.13 The State party argues that the present communication raises issues of compulsory rather than forced labour, given the absence of any physical or mental constraint. Applying the Van der Mussele test developed by the European Court, the author’s participation in the Work for Dole programme does not even reach the threshold of compulsory labour, as neither the necessary intensity of penalty or of involuntariness are involved. The State party points out that it carefully considered the programme’s compatibility with its international obligations, as borne out by statements made during the second parliamentary reading of the draft Bill: 4.11 The State party observes that the Covenant’s exception for “any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations” is not specifically defined, but should be interpreted against the backdrop of the minimum standards contained in ILO Convention No. 29. That Convention, in article 2, paragraph 2 (e), excludes: 5 6 “The Government is cognizant of its international obligations. It has taken advice of the Attorney-General’s Department that a work for the dole initiative should not contravene our international obligations, provided that the work offered under work for the dole is ‘suitable’ and ‘reasonable’ for that person. The fact that payment of unemployment allowance is not based on any prior mandatory contribution, coupled with Series A, 70 (1983). No. 7602/76, 7 DR 161 (1976). 70