Definitive Report - REPORT_NO112, 1969

1. 118. This case consists of allegations according to which Mr. Mohammed Abdelkader Awab, a member of the national executive of the Moroccan Federation of Labour (UMT) and Workers' delegate of Morocco to the 52nd Session of the International Labour Conference (Geneva, June 1968), was arrested and sentenced to a year's imprisonment for having published, in the Moroccan Federation of Labour newspaper L'Avant-Garde, the text of the speech he had made at a plenary sitting of the Conference. When it first examined the case at its session in November 1968, the Committee took note of the observations submitted by the Government on the matter but considered that further information would be necessary in order to enable it to form its conclusions in the light of the facts, and in particular recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to furnish the text of the judgment sentencing Mr. Awab and of the grounds given therefor. When it again examined the case at its session in February 1969, the Committee took note of the text of the judgment which had been supplied by the Government and reached the conclusions summarised below.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 119. The Committee noted that the text of the judgment of the court of first instance confirmed that Mr. Awab had indeed been sentenced to one year's imprisonment. The Committee accordingly recommended the Governing Body to express its serious concern at the arrest and sentencing of Mr. Awab, which " indeed appear to be the outcome of the speech which he made at a plenary sitting of the 52nd Session of the Conference, these measures appearing to jeopardise freedom of speech for delegates at the Conference, as well as the immunities which guarantee this freedom ".
2. 120. The Committee further took note of the fact that an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance had been lodged both by the accused and by the Public Prosecutor, and, therefore, before making its final recommendations to the Governing Body in this respect, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to supply the text of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Mr. Awab when it was pronounced, together with the grounds adduced therein.
3. 121. Lastly, the Committee recalled that when the Governing Body had discussed the case at its 173rd Session (November 1968), the Workers' Vice-Chairman of the Governing Body, on behalf of his group, had made a statement in which, first, he deplored the facts of the case from the standpoint both of freedom of association and of the freedom of speech of Conference delegates, and, secondly, he drew attention to the resolution concerning action by the International Labour Organisation in the field of human rights and in particular with respect to freedom of association, adopted by the Conference at its 52nd Session, appealing to the Government of Morocco to consider giving effect to paragraph 4 (g) of that resolution, which called for an amnesty or pardon for all trade unionists under arrest or sentence.
4. 122. The request for additional information, of which mention is made in paragraph 120 above, was brought to the attention of the Government by a letter dated 10 March 1969. On 17 March 1969 a telegram was received by the Director-General from the Moroccan Federation of Labour to the effect that Mr. Awab's sentence had been confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Rabat, and the same information has been published in the press. By a communication dated 20 May 1969 the Government transmitted the text of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Rabat, from which it appears that the sentence of Mr. Awab to a year's imprisonment has been confirmed, he having been found guilty of the offences of spreading and publishing false news and slanderous accusations tending to disturb public security.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 123. In conclusion, the Committee feels bound to repeat the observations which it was prompted to make as a result of its earlier examinations of this case, noting in the first place that this case appears to call into question the vital principle of freedom of speech, and drawing attention in this connection to the fact that the Declaration of Philadelphia, which forms an integral part of the ILO Constitution, proclaims that " freedom of expression " is " essential to sustained progress ".
2. 124. The Committee recalls that article 40 of the Constitution of the Organisation stipulates that delegates to the Conference must enjoy such " immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the Organisation ".
3. 125. The Committee further recalls that, for its part, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialised Agencies, to which Morocco is a party, provides in Article V, section 14, that " in order to secure for the representatives of members of the specialised agencies at meetings convened by them complete freedom of speech and complete independence in the discharge of their duties, the immunity from legal process in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in discharging their duties shall continue to be accorded, notwithstanding that the persons concerned are no longer engaged in the discharge of such duties ". Section 17 of the same Article of the Convention, according to which this provision is not applicable in relation to the authorities of the State of which the person is a national or of which he is or has been a representative, does not appear to make sufficient allowance for the special situation of employers' and workers' representatives to meetings of the International Labour Organisation, and the question arises as to whether, in the light of the general principle laid down in article 40 of the Constitution, steps should be envisaged to ensure that such persons are fully protected.
4. 126. The Committee further points out that delegates of employers' and workers, organisations to the Conference constantly refer in their speeches to matters which are of direct or indirect concern to the Organisation, and expresses the view that there would be a risk of the functioning of the Conference being considerably hampered and the freedom of speech of the delegates of workers' and employers' organisations being paralysed if these delegates were under the threat of criminal prosecutions based, directly or indirectly, on the contents of their speeches at the Conference.
5. 127. Lastly, the Committee wishes to emphasise that the right of Conference delegates to express freely their point of view on questions within the sphere of competence of the Organisation implies that the delegates of employers' and workers' organisations have the right to inform their members in their respective countries of their speeches.