Interim Report - REPORT_NO127, 1972

1. 257. The complaint of the National Bureau of the National Teachers' Union is contained, in a communication dated 28 January 1971, addressed direct to the ILO, which was' supplemented by a further communication dated 22 April 1971. By an undated joint communication received on 27 May 1971, 18 Mauritanian trade unions made further, allegations concerning infringements of freedom of association in Mauritania. All these communications were transmitted to the Government, which forwarded its observations, thereon in two communications dated 24 May and 4 August 1971, respectively.
2. 258. Mauritania has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but not the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 259. The complainants give the following account of the events said to have taken place. In February 1969 the Fourth Congress of the Mauritanian Workers' Union (UTM) marked the occasion of a split in this Union into two federations, only one of which was to be recognised by the Government. In June 1969 a group of teachers of Arabic met under police protection at the instigation of the Government to elect " a so-called national executive of the Trade Union of Teachers of Arabic at a time when the leaders of this organisation, who had been properly elected in June 1968, were in various parts of the country ". In July 1969 the National Congress of Teachers of Mauritania was held, after being convened in a lawful manner by its outgoing executive, but the executive democratically elected as the outcome of this Congress was refused government recognition.
2. 260. According to the complainants, the Government's attitude towards freedom of association met with nothing but disapproval from the workers and public opinion. Faced with the crisis which resulted, the Government is said to have decided to set up a trade union conciliation board, the majority of whose members were politicians, with the task of bringing about a " reorganisation " through a return to original trade union principles. The complainants state that " the workers, although sceptical about this, were obliged to accept this procedure, which was, to say the least, contrary to trade union principles since it was directed by a political organisation (the Party of the Mauritanian People). This return to the original principles, despite all the diversionary moves, brought no popularity to the trade union team which the Government insisted, and still insists, on imposing on the workers ".
3. 261. According to a timetable decided upon by the above-mentioned board, continue the complainants, the trade unions were required to hold their congresses from 6 August 1970 onwards. The unions of workers in information, printing, docks and ports, banks and offices and mining and extraction declared themselves to be against the integration of trade unions in the Party of the Mauritanian People. It is in fact clear from the text of a report drawn up by the chairman of the board, a copy of which is supplied by the complainants, that the Party of the Mauritanian People-the sole party of the State-wishing to hold discussions with the unions within an institutional framework, " at the last meeting of its National Council ... recommended the integration of the unions within the Party, in the firm belief that there can be no fundamental difference between the interests of the workers and those of the Mauritanian masses organised within the Party ". On 6 September 1970, continue the complainants, the National Teachers' Congress met; events were following the same pattern as in the case of the other unions when, at the end of the proceedings, the police invaded the hall, announcing the decision taken by the Government to suspend the Congress. At the same time the 18 congresses which were to have taken place immediately afterwards were postponed indefinitely by the government authorities.
4. 262. " In the state of confusion maintained by the Government " declare the complainants " the workers realised that they had to organise in some way because they were becoming increasingly at the mercy of arbitrary actions and injustice ... This is how the workers came to set up the body known as the Managing Committee, grouping nearly all the general secretaries of the existing national unions. This is the body which on 10 January 1971 convened a meeting with a view to informing workers of the trade union situation in general and of other special problems facing the labour world. This meeting was broken up with unusual brutality (the use of tear gas, truncheons, etc.) by the police... The meeting was a pretext for the authorities to arrest at their homes some 30 trade union leaders and militants, who were detained at police headquarters for questioning which lasted a week. During this interrogation the trade unionists were subjected to all kinds of physical and mental torture (they were tortured by electricity, made to kneel on a metal bar while carrying a brick, beaten until they bled, and had pepper put on certain sensitive parts of the body, etc.)."
5. 263. The complainants give the following list of trade unionists said to have been thus tortured: Bah o'Hamdeït (Justice), Mohameden o'Baggah (National Education), Diouf Ibrahima (Health), Med. Salem o'Haye (National Education), Mohamed Nagi (National Education), Wane Mamadou Djibril (National Education), Mouvid o'Hacen (National Education), Nagi (Mining) and Diaw Semba (SOMACAT). The complainants also name nine pupils who were allegedly tortured.
6. 264. The complainants list the following as having been among those arrested and kept in custody: Ba Mahmoud, General Secretary of the National Teachers' Union; Mohameden o'Baggali, Assistant General Secretary of the National Teachers' Union; Mohamed Mustapha o'Bedrudin, General Secretary of the Union of Teachers of Arabic; Diouf Ibrahima, General Secretary of the National Health Service Union; Keïta Fodié, General Secretary of the National Public Works Union; N'Diaye Madjigui, General Secretary of the National Union of Office Messengers; Kane Daha, General Secretary of the National Stockbreeders' Union; Mohamedou o'Nagi, member of the Union of Teachers of Arabic; Ba Abdoul Ismaïl, member of the National Executive of the Public Works Union; Sall Hamidou, General Secretary of the Nouakchott Branch of the Teachers' Union; Bah o'Hamdet, General Secretary of the Justice Branch of Nouakchott; Sy Moussa, General Secretary of the Agriculture Branch of Nouakchott; Ba Oumar, General Secretary of the Stockbreeders' Branch of Nouakchott; Wane Mamadou Djibril, member of the Executive of the Teachers' Branch of Nouakchott; Mohamed Salem o'Haye, member of the Teachers' Branch of Nouakchott; Nagi, member of the National Mining Executive and General Secretary of the Nouakchott Branch; N'Diau Mamadou, member of the Bank and Office Workers' Branch of Nouakchott; Ba Bocar Baba, member of the Teachers' Branch of Nouakchott; and Mouvid o'Hacen, member of the Teachers' Branch of Nouakchott.
7. 265. According to the complainants, all the arrested trade unionists have been charged with publishing, distributing or being in possession of documents detrimental to the national interest, participating in an illegal organisation (trade union executive or co-ordinating Committee), or organising and taking part in an unauthorised meeting (the meeting of 10 January 1971).
8. 266. The complainants declare that these arrests forced the workers to go on strike on 15 January 1971 to demand the release of the trade unionists concerned. This strike is alleged to have been repressed by demotions, dismissals and suspensions from work and the dismissal of state officials and employees who took part in the strike.
9. 267. In its observations, the Government acknowledges that a split did take place in the UTM. It adds that the single trade union system was legalised by Act No. 70030 of 23 January 1970, this apparently being the reason why the Government recognised only one of the organisations formed as a result of the split. Under the Act in question, " persons engaged in the same occupation, similar trades or related occupations concerned with the production of articles of a specified type, or exercising the same liberal profession, shall be free to form one single occupational trade union for each category of persons as defined above. Every worker or employer shall be free to join the union for his occupation ". It further appears that only one trade union Confederation is recognised and that no trade union not affiliated to this Confederation is allowed to exist.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 268. The Committee feels bound to recall here the observations that it has already made on other occasions with regard to single trade union systems established by legislation.
2. 269. First of all, the Committee has emphasised the importance that it attaches to the fact that workers and employers should in actual practice be able to form and join organisations of their own choosing in full freedom. The Committee has further pointed out that the International Labour Conference, by including the words " organisations of their own choosing " in Convention No. 87, made allowance for the fact that in certain countries there are a number of different workers' and employers' organisations which an individual may choose to join for occupational, denominational or political reasons, but it did not pronounce upon the question whether it is in the interest of workers and employers to have unified organisations rather than a number of separate ones. But it also recognised thereby the right of any group of workers (or employers) to form breakaway organisations if they think this desirable to safeguard their material or moral interests.
3. 270. The Committee has also recalled that, while it may be to the advantage of workers to avoid a multiplicity of trade union organisations, unification of the trade union movement imposed through state intervention by legislative means runs counter to the principle embodied in Articles 2 and 11 of Convention No. 87. The ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has emphasised on this question that " there is a fundamental difference, with respect to the guarantees of freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, between a situation in which a trade union monopoly is instituted or maintained by legislation and the factual situations which are found to exist in certain countries in which all the trade union organisations join together voluntarily in a single federation, or Confederation, without this being the direct or indirect result of legislative provisions applicable to trade unions and to the establishment of trade union organisations. The fact that workers and employers generally find it in their interests to avoid a multiplication of the number of competing organisations does not, in fact, appear sufficient to justify direct or indirect intervention by the State and, especially, intervention by the State by means of legislation ".
4. 271. While fully appreciating the desire of any government to see the development of a strong trade union movement by avoiding the defects resulting from an undue multiplicity of small and competing trade unions, whose independence may be endangered by their weakness, the Committee has drawn attention to the fact that it is more desirable in such cases for a government to seek to encourage trade unions to join together voluntarily to form strong and united organisations than to impose upon them by legislation a compulsory unification which deprives the workers of the free exercise of their right of association and thus runs counter to the principles which are embodied in the International Labour Conventions relating to freedom of association
5. 272. Lastly, the Committee has declared to be incompatible with the principles embodied in Convention No. 87 a situation in which an individual is denied any possibility of choice between different organisations, by reason of the fact that the legislation permits the existence of only one organisation in the sphere in which he carries on his occupation, thus establishing, by legislation, a trade union monopoly.
6. 273. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that, for the reasons stated in paragraphs 269 to 272 above, the single trade union system established in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania is not in conformity with the recognised principles in regard to trade union rights, and in particular with the standards laid down by the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), ratified by Mauritania;
   • (b) to bring the foregoing conclusions to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
7. 274. The Committee has formed the impression from the evidence at its disposal that the only trade union Confederation recognised by the Government-known by the initials UTM-has extremely close links with the Party of the Mauritanian People.
8. 275. As well as the passage quoted in paragraph 261 above, the report on the trade union situation by the Chairman of the National Trade Union Conciliation Board-the authenticity of which is not challenged by the Government-contains the following remarks:
   • The Party of the Mauritanian People, born of the fusion of the national parties existing on 25 December 1961, is recognised as the sole party of the State (Act No. 65039 of 12 February 1965, amending section 9 of Act No. 61095 of 20 May 1961 to enact the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania).
   • This Constitutional provision has consequences that should be recalled to all citizens of this country who are concerned with republican legality:
9. (1) The general political policy of the country is defined by the Party of the Mauritanian People, to the exclusion of all other groups or organisations, and carried out by the Government.
10. (2) Any attempt to call this policy in question, outside the official party bodies, is unlawful and constitutes an act of rebellion which the Party and the Government have the right to crush by all the means available to the State.
11. (3) Consequently, no trade union or group has the right in Mauritania to express political opinions that are contrary to party policy. If a union or group does so despite everything, it must inform its members that they are putting themselves in an unlawful position where they are liable, sooner or later, to incur the penalties laid down by law.
    • This straightforward and logical reasoning prompted the Mauritanian Workers' Union to sign a Protocol of Agreement with the Party, which in no way undermines the freedom of trade unionists particularly as regards the defence of the militants' occupational interests.
12. 276. The Protocol of Agreement just mentioned states, inter alia:
    • In accordance with the Resolution adopted on 26 June 1966 by the Congress of the People's Party, at Aïoun-El-Atrouss, concerning the definition of the relations that should exist between the Party of the Mauritanian People and the Mauritanian Workers' Union, a delegation of the National Executive of the Mauritanian Workers' Union and a delegation of the Party of the Mauritanian People met on 19 and 22 December 1966 and reached the following agreement:
    • Considering that the People's Party is the sole institutional party of the State;
    • Considering the provisions of articles 7, 8, 22, 28 and 33 of the Statutes of the Party of the Mauritanian People, concerning the role which the People's Party reserves for the trade union within its organisation;
    • Considering the political, economic and social objectives of the People's Party.
    • The Mauritanian Workers' Union recognises the political supremacy of the Party of the Mauritanian People, supports the objectives defined in its Charter, and undertakes to co-operate closely with it.
    • The Party of the Mauritanian People recognises the Mauritanian Workers' Union as the only trade union organisation representing all the workers of Mauritania, recognises the specific nature of its organisation in relation to other parallel movements and supports the social and occupational objectives it has set itself.
13. 277. Notwithstanding the split which has since taken place in the UTM, it certainly appears that the links which bind the segment of the UTM recognised by the Government to the Party of the Mauritanian People continue to be based on the principles set forth in the passages quoted in the two preceding paragraphs.
14. 278. The Committee feels bound to recall in this connection the observations it has had occasion to make concerning the possible relations between trade unions and political parties.
15. 279. It has emphasised, for instance, that in the interest of the normal development of the trade union movement it would be desirable for the parties concerned to have regard to the principles enunciated in the resolution concerning the independence of the trade union movement adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 35th (1952) Session, to the effect that the fundamental and permanent mission of the trade union movement is the economic and social advancement of the workers and that when trade unions, in accordance with the national law and practice of their respective countries and at the decision of their members, decide to establish relations with a political party or to undertake Constitutional political action as a means towards the advancement of their economic and social objectives, such political relations or actions should not be of such a nature as to compromise the continuance of the trade union movement or its social or economic functions irrespective of political changes in the country.
16. 280. The Committee has also reaffirmed the principle, expressed by the International Labour Conference in the resolution concerning the independence of the trade union movement, that governments should not attempt to transform the trade union movement into an instrument for the pursuance of political aims or attempt to interfere with the normal functions of a trade union movement because of its freely established relations with a political party.
17. 281. In these circumstances, in view of the facts cited in paragraphs 274 to 277 above, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the considerations set forth in the two preceding paragraphs.
18. 282. The complainants make a number of allegations in relation to the right of assembly. First of all they allege that the National Teachers' Congress, held in September 1970, was interrupted by police who informed the participants that the Congress was suspended by decision of the Government. They also allege that 18 congresses of other organisations were postponed indefinitely by the government authorities (see paragraph 261 above).
19. 283. In its observations, the Government declares that " the unions of Mauritanian workers convene their congresses freely and have complete control over their congresses. The manner in which all congresses were conducted in 1970 shows clearly that occupational associations enjoy full freedom ".
20. 284. The Committee recalls that it has always considered, on the one hand, that freedom of assembly for trade union purposes constitutes one of the fundamental elements of trade union rights 4, and, on the other hand, that freedom from government interference in the holding and proceedings of trade union meetings constitutes an essential element of trade union rights and that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
21. 285. In view of the importance that should be attached to the principles recalled above, and in view of the specific nature of the allegations made, the Committee considers that the Government's reply is too general for it to be able to formulate its recommendations in full knowledge of the facts.
22. 286. The Committee accordingly recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to indicate whether or not it is correct, firstly, that the Teachers' Congress of September 1970 was interrupted by the police, and secondly, that the congresses of 18 other organisations were postponed indefinitely on government orders.
23. 287. The complainants further allege that a meeting convened by the " Trade Union Managing Committee ", grouping the general secretaries of nearly all the national trade unions, was brutally broken up by the police.
24. 288. In its observations the Government makes the following comments: " A number of persons purporting to be members of a trade union body (not recognised and calling itself the Trade Union Managing Committee) organised a meeting in a public place at 3 p.m. on 10 January 1971, despite the fact that the request for permission to hold this meeting had been expressly rejected by the Governor of the district in letter No. 001 dated 6 January 1971. This offence is covered by the Decree of 23 October 1935 which forbids the holding of meetings in public places."
25. 289. The Committee considers that the right to organise public meetings is an important element in trade union rights. In this connection, the Committee has always drawn a distinction between demonstrations in pursuit of purely trade union objectives, which it has regarded as falling within the exercise of trade union rights, and those designed to achieve other ends.
26. 290. In the present instance, according to the information supplied by the complainants, it would appear that - even though it was convened by a body not recognised by the Government-the purpose of the meeting in question was to inform the workers about the trade union situation, in which case it came under the heading of a normal trade union activity.
27. 291. The Committee has considered in a number of earlier cases that the prohibition of demonstrations or processions on the public highway in the busiest parts of a city, when it is feared that disturbances might occur, does not constitute an infringement of trade union rights.
28. 292. In order to obtain the necessary information, the Committee feels bound to recommend the Governing Body to request the Government, firstly, to indicate the exact grounds which, in its opinion, justified the prohibition and breaking up of the meeting of 10 January 1971 and, secondly, to be good enough to supply the text of the Decree of 23 October 1935 in its reply.
29. 293. The complainants allege that the above-mentioned meeting served the Government as a pretext for arresting a certain number of trade unionists whose names they give (see paragraphs 262, 264 and 265 above).
30. 294. In its reply, as regards this aspect of the case, the Government comments in these terms: " Following this meeting, 15 persons were arrested under committal orders dated 15, 16, 19 and 23 January 1971 respectively, on three counts: administration of a non-authorised association, the possession and distribution of pamphlets, and participation in the organisation of a forbidden demonstration. These offences are punishable under Acts Nos. 64098 of 9 June 1964 and 63109 of 27 June 1963 and the Decree of 23 October 1935."
31. 295. The Committee wishes to recall the importance it has always attached to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the government considers have no relation to their trade union functions. Where it has appeared to the Committee from the information available to it that the persons concerned were brought to trial before the competent judicial authorities with all the safeguards of normal judicial procedure, and that they were sentenced for acts unconnected with trade union activities or outside the sphere of normal trade union activities, the Committee has considered that the case did not call for further examination.It has, however, emphasised that the question whether the grounds on which sentence was pronounced relate to a criminal offence or to the exercise of trade union rights is not one which can be determined unilaterally by the government concerned, but one for the Committee to decide, after it has examined all the evidence at its disposal, and in particular the text of the judgement.
32. 296. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough, firstly, to indicate whether all the trade unionists listed in paragraph 264 above have been brought to trial and, if so, to specify the nature of the judicial body by which their case was heard and to supply the text of the judgement pronounced, together with the grounds adduced therefor; and secondly, to supply the text of the pamphlets mentioned by it as having been distributed at the meeting of 10 January 1971.
33. 297. In reply to the allegations concerning the torture said to have been inflicted upon certain trade unionists and other persons arrested (see paragraphs 262 and 263 above), the Government states that the persons arrested have not been subjected to any ill-treatment. " There is no violence in our country " declares the Government " since violence is contrary to our religious principles. Although the State must protect itself against acts which disturb law and order, we consider that torture is of no avail and it could not be used by the Government."
34. 298. Where allegations have been brought to its attention relating to ill-treatment and other punitive measures inflicted on workers who took part in strikes or demonstrations, the Committee has pointed out the importance that it attaches to the right of trade unionists, like all other persons, to enjoy the guarantees afforded by due process of law in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
35. 299. In the present case, the Committee notes that the Government replies in categorical but none the less general terms to allegations which, for their part, are quite specific. As stated above, the complainants have given the names of trade unionists said to have been tortured, described the ill-treatment said to have been meted out to them and even named their alleged torturers: the police officers Denebja and Lekrema.
36. 300. In these circumstances, the Committee feels bound to recommend the Governing Body to request the Government to indicate whether its reply should be taken as implying that an inquiry has already been carried out into the allegations of torture made by the complainants.
37. 301. As concerns the allegations that civil servants and state employees who went on strike in protest against the arrest of trade unionists were suspended or dismissed from their employment (see paragraph 266 above), the Government states that since these persons failed to comply with the law, their strike was illegal, as a result of which it was punishable by the administrative penalties prescribed in the legislation.
38. 302. The Government adds that " the right to strike is a means whereby workers may defend their rights if their employer fails to respect the laws and regulations in force, but it must in no circumstances be used as a means of crude political blackmail ".
39. 303. It is the Committee's view that the prohibition of strikes designed to coerce the Government, if they are non-occupational in character, does not constitute an infringement of freedom of association. The Committee has, moreover, acknowledged that recognition of the principle of freedom of association in the case of public officials does not necessarily imply the right to strike."
40. 304. In the present case, while recognising that the persons in question may have considered that they had valid grounds for taking the action they did-it being true that the strike in question was the outcome of measures taken earlier by the authorities-the fact remains that the law provides that such action lays them open to administrative penalties.
41. 305. In these circumstances, subject to the observation made in the preceding paragraph, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.