Definitive Report - REPORT_NO284, November 1992

1. 264. The Committee examined this case at its February 1992 meeting and presented an interim report to the Governing Body (see 281st Report of the Committee, paras. 442 to 462, approved by the Governing Body at its 252nd Session (March 1992)). In a communication dated 30 March 1992 the complainant organisation stated that it was withdrawing its complaint. At its last meeting, the Committee took note of this communication but nevertheless took the decision to examine the substance of the case at its next meeting (see 283rd Report, para. 11, approved by the Governing Body at its 253rd Session (May-June 1992)).
2. 265. The Islamic Republic of Mauritania has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 266. In a complaint lodged 25 June and 16 August 1991, and in a communication dated 2 September 1991 providing additional information, the Organisation of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU) alleged that the Government flagrantly violated Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. It stated that in order to ensure the failure of the general strike called for 19 and 20 June by the Union of Workers of Mauritania (UWM) - the national trade union confederation - the Mauritanian authorities published false information through the state media, exerted pressure, intimidated a large number of trade union leaders and falsified documents produced by the UWM's directorate.
2. 267. The complainant organisation further alleged that the Mauritanian Government arrested some 20 members of the UWM's National Executive Office and that these people allegedly signed under duress a press release demanding that the UWM's Executive hold a special meeting, during which they were to repudiate the strike upon which they had freely decided.
3. 268. A third allegation concerned the arrest and torture of members of the Nouakchott and Nouadhibou regional trade union executive offices, with the aim of forcing them to support a puppet executive committee established by the Mauritanian authorities to serve their purposes. The OATUU further alleged that on 22 June 1991 the Government made public the petition that some of the UWM's National Executive Office members had been forced to sign by the police, declaring the expulsion of Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud Ould Mohamed Radhi, the secretary-general of the UWM's Executive Committee legally elected by the organisation's congress. It further alleged that the authorities illegally occupied the headquarters of the UWM's National Workers' Education Centre in Nouakchott.
4. 269. In a communication dated 30 October 1991, the Government stated that the gravity of the accusations directed against it by the complainant was clearly out of all proportion to the tenuous nature of the evidence. It was of the opinion that the accusations were based solely on the allegations of the UWM's former secretary-general, Mr. Radhi, who was suspended by a two-thirds majority of the trade union confederation's National Executive Office because the general strike launched at his initiative was called in violation of the statutes and by-laws of the UWM and because of the strictly political nature of his speeches and behaviour.
5. 270. As regards the allegation concerning the publication through the state media of a press release announcing that the strike called for 19 and 20 June 1991 had been cancelled, the Government stated that this accusation was entirely unfounded and that the overwhelming majority of trade unionists had in fact issued their own press releases to the effect that they were dissociating themselves from an irregular strike and from the political drift of their trade union confederation.
6. 271. As regards the allegation according to which members of the UWM's Executive Offices were arrested and forcedly brought from Nouadhibou to Nouakchott, and regarding the allegation of torture of members of the Nouakchott and Nouadhibou regional trade unions, the Government stated that no trade unionists had been arrested or tortured.
7. 272. The Government concluded by pointing out that freedom of association has never been challenged in Mauritania and that no intimidation of any kind had been resorted to against trade unionists or other citizens during the period referred to by Mr. Radhi and the complaint. The Government pointed out that during that period it had been preparing to hold a referendum on a draft Constitution embodying all the liberties recognised by civilised nations. The draft, which was overwhelmingly approved by the Mauritanian people and promulgated in July 1991, guaranteed freedom of association and stipulated, in article 13, "that a person may not be arrested, detained, judged or sentenced except by a competent court of law and according to a regular procedure" and that "any form of physical or moral violence is prohibited". The Government added that the promulgation of the Constitution's text was followed by orders authorising the free establishment of political parties and introducing freedom of the press.
8. 273. As regards the allegation that the state media had made public a petition that some members of the UWM's National Executive Office had allegedly been forced to sign by the police, declaring the expulsion of the secretary-general elected by the organisation's congress, the Government pointed out, first of all, that it was not a petition but a press release issued by the legal body of the UWM, the National Executive Office (with a two-thirds majority), appointing an interim secretary-general pending the convening of the confederation's congress, in accordance with its statutes and by-laws. It noted that the state media then merely published the news, and stated that if the former secretary-general had wanted to challenge the validity of the decision taken by the UWM's National Executive Office he could have done so before the labour tribunal, but failed to do so.
9. 274. Finally, the Government denied the allegation of illegal occupation of the UWM's National Workers' Education Centre. It concluded its observations by reaffirming its commitment to freedom of association which, it stated, would no doubt develop and blossom in a pluralistic democracy which the Islamic Republic of Mauritania had irreversibly chosen.
10. 275. In the light of the interim conclusions, at its March 1992 Session, the Governing Body approved the following recommendation:
11. In view of the contradictory nature of the information provided by the complainant organisation and the Government, the Committee requests the OATUU to communicate the comments it deems appropriate on the reply given by the Government.
12. B. Additional communication from the complainant
13. 276. In a communication dated 30 March 1992, the OATUU stated that it had decided not to pursue its complaint against the Government of Mauritania and that it was therefore formally withdrawing its complaint, in accordance with the wishes of the new UWM directorate.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 277. The Committee notes that the present case relates to allegations concerning the violation of the fundamental rights of the UWM and its members, and interference in the free functioning of the trade union organisation. It further notes that the complainant has withdrawn its complaint, stating that its action was in accordance with the wishes of the new directorate of the UWM.
2. 278. The Committee recalls, first of all, that in previous cases where the withdrawal of a complaint had been submitted, the request had been given due consideration but was not in itself reason enough to drop automatically consideration of the case. In the present case, the OATUU states that their withdrawal is in accordance with the wishes of the new leaders of the UWM. However, the Committee notes that the allegations made by the complainant organisation referred to violations against the former directorate of the UWM. Therefore, the Committee considers that there are insufficient grounds for abandoning examination of the substance of the case.
3. 279. The Committee notes that the allegations made in the present case referred to repressive measures taken by the Government following a 48-hour general strike organised by the national trade union confederation in June 1991, and referred in particular to arrests and the ill-treatment of trade union leaders and the illegal occupation of trade union premises by the authorities.
4. 280. As the Government has denied these allegations in general statements, and the OATUU has refrained from providing additional information, the Committee is not in a position to come to conclusions in full knowledge of the facts on the specific allegations presented in the present case. However, it feels it should draw general conclusions on the different aspects of this case based on the principles that it has formulated in the past concerning allegations of a similar nature.
5. 281. As regards the general strike which was to be held on 19 and 20 July 1991, the Committee recalls that it has always recognised the right to strike by workers and their organisations as a legitimate means of defending their economic and social interests. Such interests concern not only better working conditions or collective claims of an occupational nature, but also the seeking of solutions to economic and social policy questions and problems facing the undertaking which are of direct concern to the workers (Digest of decisions and the principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, paras. 362 and 368).
6. 282. As regards the allegations of the arrest and ill-treatment of trade union leaders, the Committee feels that the arrest - even if only briefly - of trade union leaders and trade unionists for exercising legitimate trade union activities constitutes a violation of the principles of freedom of association and that the Government should take steps to ensure that the authorities concerned have appropriate instructions in order to eliminate the danger which arrest for trade union activities implies and to ensure that no detainee is subjected to ill-treatment (Digest, paras. 88, 97 and 84).
7. 283. As regards the allegation of the illegal occupation of the headquarters of the UWM's National Workers' Education Centre, the Committee has, on numerous occasions, pointed out that the occupation of trade union premises may constitute a serious interference by the authorities in trade union activities and that an indispensable corollary of the inviolability of trade union premises is that the public authorities may not insist on entering the premises without a judicial warrant authorising them to do so (Digest, paras. 202 and 203).
8. 284. In general terms, the Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the principles whereby a genuinely free and independent trade union movement can only develop where fundamental human rights are fully respected and guaranteed and that trade union rights can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threat of any kind against trade unionists; and that it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected (Digest, paras. 68 and 70).