Definitive Report - REPORT_NO76, 1964

1. 41. By a communication dated 26 June 1963 addressed directly to the I.L.O and later supplemented by a communication dated 15 July 1963, the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions (I.F.C.T.U.) made allegations that trade union rights had been infringed in Mali.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 42. The complaint, and additional information, were transmitted to the Government for its observations by two letters dated 3 and 19 July 1963 respectively.
2. 43. By a communication dated 3 October 1963 the National Union of Believing Workers of Mali-the body implicated in the complaints of the I.F.C.T.U.-furnished additional information concerning the facts alluded to in the affair.
3. 44. By a communication dated 1 November 1963 the Government submitted certain preliminary observations on the matter.
4. 45. At its 35th Session (November 1963) the Committee decided to postpone the examination of the cases pending the receipt of full information from the Government. This decision of the Committee was communicated to the Government by a letter dated 20 November 1963.
5. 46. The Government forwarded its observations on the case by communication dated 6 February 1964.
6. 47. The complainants alleged that Mr. Martin Diarra, Secretary-General of the National Union of Believing Workers of Mali, was arrested on 11 May 1963 at Bamako. He is said to have been charged, judged by the Court of Appeal and sentenced to one month's imprisonment with no suspension.
7. 48. In the additional information that the complainants communicated on 15 July 1963 they stated that Mr. Martin Diarra had appealed to the High Court of Justice.
8. 49. By a communication dated 3 October 1963 emanating from the National Union of Believing Workers of Mali and signed by Mr. Martin Diarra himself, the Committee was informed of his release on 23 June 1963. This release was confirmed by the Government in its communication dated 1 November. The communication also stated that the High Court of Justice, with which the appeal had been lodged, had given judgment in favour of Mr. Diarra in a public session of 26 August 1963, finding him not guilty and quashing Order No. 141 of the Court of Appeal of 31 May which had sentenced him at the request of the Public Prosecutor. The text of the decision of the High Court of Justice has been supplied by the National Union of Believing Workers.
9. 50. The International Federation of Christian Trade Unions, which is the original complainant, in its communication dated 20 May 1964 confirmed the news of the release of Mr. Diarra and the fact that no charges had been held against him by the Mali courts. In view of this the I.F.C.T.U, while expressing its apprehension as to the scrupulous application of freedom of association by the Government of Mali, states that it wishes to withdraw its complaint.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 51. The withdrawal of the complaint by the I.F.C.T.U raises a point of procedure which the Committee has already been called upon to consider in the past. In Case No. 66, relating to Greece, the Committee expressed the opinion that the desire shown by a complaining organisation to withdraw its complaint, while constituting a factor to which the greatest attention must be paid, is not however, in itself, sufficient reason for the Committee to cease automatically to proceed with the examination of the complaint. In this respect it was guided by the conclusions approved by the Governing Body in 1937 and 1938 with regard to two representations submitted by the Madras Labour Union for Textile Workers and by the Société de Bienfaisance des Travailleurs de l'Ile Maurice, in accordance with article 23 of the Constitution of the Organisation (now article 24). The Governing Body at that time established the principle that, from the moment that a representation was submitted to it, it alone was competent to decide what effect should be given to it, and that "the withdrawal by the organisation making the representation is not always proof that the representation is not receivable or is not well founded".
2. 52. As in the case mentioned above, the Committee considers that, in implementing this principle, it is free to evaluate the reasons given to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to investigate whether these appear sufficiently plausible to lead one to believe that the withdrawal was made in complete independence.
3. 53. In the present case the complainants justify their withdrawal by the fact that, on the one hand, the person in question has been released, and that, on the other hand he has been cleared of all charges by the highest national judiciary instance. Moreover, since the organisation from which both the withdrawal and the complaint itself emanated is an international occupational organisation, there is every reason to presume that it acted in complete independence.