Definitive Report - REPORT_NO51, 1961

1. 5. When it examined the case at its 25th Session (May 1960), the Committee submitted to the Governing Body the interim report contained in paragraphs 8 to 27 of its 46th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 145th Session (27-28 May 1960).
2. 6. The case contained three series of allegations relating respectively to the suspension and dismissal of officials and public employees on grounds of strike action, the arrest of trade unionists who had taken part in the strike and the shooting of strikers. With regard to the first two series of allegations, the Committee submitted its final observations and conclusions. With regard to the third set of allegations relating to the shooting of strikers, the Committee considered, in view of the seriousness of the allegations, that it would be appropriate to obtain further observations on this aspect of the case from the two complaining organisations.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Shooting of Strikers
  7. 7 According to the communications from the complainants which were before the Committee at its meeting in May 1960, workers on strike were gathered together on 8 October 1959 in front of the Employment Exchange and, when they wished to enter it, they were forbidden admission by the forces of public order. The workers then withdrew, it is alleged, and formed into a spontaneous procession through the streets of the town where they again came up against the forces of public order, which fired on the crowd, causing, according to the I.F.C.T.U, 17 casualties, one of whom was seriously wounded, and according to the W.F.T.U, 23 casualties and one death.
  8. 8 In reply to this allegation the Government wrote as follows: " While it is true that demonstrations designed to disturb public order were organised in Abidjan in October 1959, it is incorrect that there were any deaths or casualties on this occasion. As the head of the Government of the Ivory Coast said in October 1959, these demonstrations led to neither death nor injury."
  9. 9 At its meeting in May 1960 the Committee observed that it was here faced with two contradictory statements. According to the complainants, the demonstrations mentioned above caused injuries, and even one death; according to the Government-which was quite categorical in its statements-there was neither one nor the other. The Committee noted that compared with the categorical statement by the Government the allegations of the complainants were couched in fairly vague terms which did not exactly correspond in the communications of the I.F.C.T.U and the W.F.T.U. In these circumstances the Committee observed that it might normally have considered that the complainants had not produced sufficient proof in support of their allegations and have recommended the Governing Body to decide that they did not, for this reason, call for further examination. However, in view of the seriousness of the allegations, the Committee considered it more appropriate to ask the two complaining organisations for further information in support of their allegations, particularly with regard to the names and descriptions of the persons stated to have been killed or injured.
  10. 10 The further information in question was requested from the W.F.T.U and the I.F.C.T.U by two letters dated 2 June 1960. Only the latter organisation replied-by a communication dated 28 July 1960.
  11. 11 In its communication dated 28 July 1960 the I.F.C.T.U declares that it is unable to furnish exact information concerning the persons stated to have been injured in the course of the incidents referred to above. It explains this lack of information by the fact that the persons concerned did not wish to have hospital treatment for fear of being arrested and that, consequently, none of them was able to produce a medical certificate. With respect to the 17 persons alleged originally by the I.F.C.T.U to have been injured (the W.F.T.U in the same allegations puts the figure at 23), the latest communication from the I.F.C.T.U gives the names only of five persons, whose condition moreover does not appear to be very serious because most of them, according to the complainants, have resumed their work.
  12. 12 The Committee observes that, whereas the two complaining organisations had been requested to furnish specific additional information in support of the serious allegations that they had made, only the I.F.C.T.U has replied. The Committee also notes that the information furnished by the I.F.C.T.U, although it adds certain details, nevertheless remains somewhat vague and makes reference only to a few injuries of no great seriousness.
  13. 13 In these circumstances the Committee could hardly consider that the complainants have offered sufficient proof of the matters alleged. Consequently, having regard to the categorical denial of the Government in this connection and while recalling the importance which it attaches to the fact that any use which is made of the police or the armed forces in the event of a strike, when exceptional circumstances so require, should be limited to the maintenance of public order and should not be for the purpose of breaking the strike, which might constitute a violation of trade union rights, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that it would be inappropriate to pursue further this aspect of the case.
  14. 14 In its latest communication dated 28 July 1960 the I.F.C.T.U also adds a number of details with respect to the other allegations made, which it wishes to have inserted in the dossier relating to the matter. These details do not really add new elements which would justify a reopening of those aspects of the case to which they relate and concerning which, as indicated in paragraph 6 above, the Committee submitted final conclusions which have been approved by the Governing Body.
  15. 15 On the other hand, with respect to the same aspects of the case, a memorandum of the Government of the Ivory Coast which was communicated to the Office in July 1960 indicates that the trade unionists who had been imprisoned in October 1959 were all conditionally liberated in April 1960. The Committee has taken note with satisfaction of this statement and brings it to the notice of the Governing Body, which took the view in May 1960 that the penalties inflicted on the persons concerned appeared to have been severe.