Interim Report - REPORT_NO350, June 2008

1. 1003. The Committee last examined this case on its merits at its June 2007 session, where it issued an interim report approved by the Governing Body at its 299th Session [see 346th Report, paras 1130–1191].
2. 1004. The complainants submitted additional information in support of their allegations in communications dated 11 July, 3 and 13 September, and 29 November 2007. The Government provided its observations in a communication dated 6 February 2008.
3. 1005. The Islamic Republic of Iran has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 1006. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 346th Report, para. 1191]:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that a full and independent investigation is carried out into the allegations of various types of workplace harassment during the period of the union’s founding from March to June 2005, and to transmit a detailed report in this regard. It further requests the Government, in light of the information revealed by the investigation, to take the necessary measures to ensure that all employees at the company are effectively protected against any form of discrimination related to their trade union membership or their trade union activities.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to undertake a full and independent inquiry into all the dismissals alleged by the complainant, both during the March–June 2005 period and in March 2006, and to take the necessary measures to ensure that any trade unionists who have not yet been reinstated and were found to have been the subject of anti-union discrimination are fully reinstated in their previous positions without loss of pay. It further requests the Government to keep it informed of the employment status of all those workers named in the complaint and indicate for those who have not been reinstated, the reasons why reinstatement has not occurred.
   • (c) The Committee urges the Government to immediately institute a full and independent judicial inquiry into the attacks on union meetings in May and June 2005, in order to clarify the facts, determine responsibilities, punish those responsible and prevent the repetition of such acts and to keep it informed of the outcome.
   • (d) The Committee urges the Government to take the steps necessary to ensure that trade unionists may exercise their freedom of association rights including the right to peaceful assembly without fear of intervention by the authorities.
   • (e) The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure Mr Osanloo’s immediate release from detention and to drop all charges against him relating to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities. In addition, the Committee urges the Government to duly inform Mr Osanloo of any other charges brought against him and ensure that his case is brought to trial without delay and that he enjoys all the guarantees of due process of law, including the right to a full and fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal and the right to appeal, with full rights of representation by legal counsel and adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. The Committee urges the Government to provide full, detailed and precise information respecting Mansour Osanloo’s case and his current circumstances.
   • (f) The Committee requests the Government to provide full and detailed information respecting the situation of Mansour Hayat Gheibi, Ebrahim Madadi, Abdolreza Tarazi, Qlamreza Mirza’l, Abbas Najanci Kodaki and Ali Zadeh Hosseini – all of whom were charged with “disturbing public order” and to transmit any court judgements rendered in this respect.
   • (g) The Committee urges the Government to deploy all efforts as a matter of urgency to amend the labour legislation by allowing trade union pluralism at the enterprise level, so as to bring it into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association, and to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard. The Committee reminds the Government of the availability of the technical assistance of the Office in this regard. In the meantime, the Committee urges the Government to take all measures to ensure that trade unions can be formed and function without hindrance, including through the de facto recognition of the union.

B. The complainants’ new allegations

• Mansour Osanloo
  1007. 1007 In their communication of 11 July 2007, the complainants state that Mr Osanloo, President of the Independent Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs United Bus Company (hereafter referred to as “the union”) – who at the time of their previous communication of 5 December 2006 had been rearrested on 19 November 2006 – was released on 19 December 2006. Mr Osanloo’s wife had agreed to post additional bail of 30 million toman (US$33,000), notwithstanding the bail of 150 million toman stemming from his previous detention. According to the complainants, during his detention Mr Osanloo suffered severe psychological pressure, believing he could have been killed at any time, and spent the first 11 days in solitary confinement with no visitation rights. He was held in a cell approximately 4 square meters in size, constantly observed, blindfolded every time he left the section, and forbidden to speak unless interrogated or even knock on the door; when Mr Osanloo needed the prison guard’s attention he had to place a piece of paper under the door.
  1008. 1008 The complainants state that following his arrest, Mr Osanloo was interrogated by two intelligence service officers. They informed Mr Osanloo that he would immediately be released if he resigned from his trade union’s presidency, but that if he refused to do so new charges would be brought against him every day until he agreed to relinquish his office. The intelligence service officers also offered Mr Osanloo bribes, attempted to secure his collaboration, and suggested that he leave the country. The complainants add that Mr Osanloo was previously approached by an interrogator when in court, on 23 September 2006. The interrogator suggested that he either seek asylum in the United States or accept a payment of US$10,000 to remain silent, or risk returning to jail. Mr Osanloo refused and was rearrested on 19 November 2006.
  1009. 1009 According to the complainants, under national law a judge’s warrant should have been issued within 24 hours of Mr Osanloo’s arrest to lawfully keep him in custody. From the time of Mr Osanloo’s arrest to his release, however, no warrant was ever produced. Furthermore, Mr Osanloo’s hearing, scheduled for 20 November, did not take place and he was only allowed to meet with his lawyer on 3 December 2006 – 13 days after his arrest, and after he had been transferred to the general section of the prison. The complainants indicate that Mr Osanloo learned that his lawyer was advised to tell him to discontinue his trade union activities; the latter also confirmed that Mr Osanloo had not violated any laws. On 5 December 2006, the Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office of Tehran set bail for Mr Osanloo’s release at 30 million toman. The complainants indicate that Mr Osanloo left prison on 19 December 2006, but that the Government had concealed the fact of his release from the general public.
  1010. 1010 The complainants indicate that Mr Osanloo was summoned to court on 24 February 2007, and that the principles of a fair and public trial were breached in the ensuing trial. In respect of the latter, the complainants allege that: neither Mr Osanloo nor his lawyer were allowed to speak; the hearing took place behind closed doors; Mr Osanloo’s 80 supporters were denied access to the courtroom; the prosecutor produced a file over 1,000 pages long, to which Mr Osanloo’s defence lawyer, Parviz Khorshid, was only granted some days to provide a written defence statement; and that the judge took Mr Osanloo aside before his lawyer entered the courtroom and accused him of infidelity.
  1011. 1011 The complainants state that Mr Osanloo was accused of “attempts to jeopardize national security” and “propaganda against the State”, which are the standard accusations used in the Revolutionary Courts, and that, although the charges are baseless, they consider Mr Osanloo’s trade union activities – including his contact with international organizations such as the ILO, the ITUC and the ITF – to be the true reason for his indictment. The complainants add that although the judge promised to render a verdict within seven days of the end of the hearing, Mr Osanloo did not hear from the court until 28 May 2007. On 1 May 2007, Mr Osanloo participated in a May Day rally, during which plain-clothes security officials attempted to detain him but stopped when the crowd started to protest. On 28 May 2007, Branch 14 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court announced the verdict of the 24 February trial: Mr Osanloo was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for “acting against national security” and one year for “propaganda against the system” – a total of five years’ imprisonment. However, no written verdict was given to Mr Osanloo or to Mr Khorshid; the latter objected to the court’s announcement and submitted an official protest.
  1012. 1012 The complainants allege that, on 10 July 2007, Mansour Osanloo was abducted by unidentified plain-clothes assailants as he was leaving a Vahed company bus near his home. According to the complainants, witnesses on the bus stated that Mr Osanloo was severely beaten and taken to an undisclosed location in an unmarked metallic grey Peugeot car – a type of vehicle known to be associated with the Iranian security forces; Mr Osanloo was reported to have been attacked previously and in a similar manner, but was saved by people who came to his assistance. The complainants state that Mr Osanloo sought to obtain help from the bus passengers and other onlookers by identifying himself as a trade union president, but the assailants yelled that they were arresting a thief, as well as a “hoodlum and a thug”, and warned the passengers to stay away. Onlookers nevertheless reported the incident to a local police station. The complainants allege that Mr Osanloo’s wife and family members went to the 128th branch police station in Narmak, where the police refused to confirm whether they had arrested or abducted him. The deputy information officer, however, told them that Mr Osanloo was a spy who received money from abroad. Mr Osanloo’s wife and family members also visited the Prosecutor’s Office, the Court of Justice, and the Ministry of Justice, but were unable to obtain any information on Mr Osanloo’s whereabouts.
  1013. 1013 On 11 July 2007, Mr Osanloo’s lawyers, Mr Ollaei and Mr Khorshid, had a meeting with Mr Saeed Mortazavi, a Revolutionary Court judge. Mr Mortazavi informed the lawyers that his office had not issued an order to arrest Mr Osanloo. The complainants expressed their fears that Mr Osanloo’s life and physical integrity may be endangered, as well as the belief that his abduction was connected with his trade union activities – including his work to gain international solidarity support for the Iranian trade union movement.
  1014. 1014 In their communication of 3 September 2007, the complainants state that, on 12 July 2007, Mr Osanloo’s family received an anonymous phone call informing them that Mr Osanloo had been taken to Evin prison and would be released in a few days. In a statement issued on 12 July 2007, the union described Mr Osanloo’s detention, including the violence employed by the alleged security agents, and stated that the Tehran judicial authorities had said that no type of warrant or summons had been issued for Mr Osanloo’s arrest, thereby rendering the situation more dangerous (a copy of the union’s statement is attached to the communication). The union’s statement also called for international solidarity support from all workers’ organizations within and outside of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  1015. 1015 According to the complainants, on 12 July 2007, Revolutionary Court judge Saeed Mortazavi stated that he had issued an arrest warrant for Mr Osanloo, a fact that he had initially denied. However, no explanation was given for Mr Osanloo’s arrest and continued detention; the complainants state that to their knowledge his arrest was not based on the Revolutionary Court decision of 28 May 2007, but was instead related to new and undisclosed charges.
  1016. 1016 The complainants indicate that Mr Osanloo was not allowed to meet with his lawyers, Mr Khorshid and Mr Yusef Moulaye. Mr Moulaye was later informed that the judiciary had issued a temporary detention order, valid for one month and with the possibility of another month’s extension. He was also informed that all contact between Mr Osanloo and his lawyers or family were prohibited for the entire duration of the preliminary investigation. Mr Osanloo was allowed just one brief phone call to his wife on 13 July 2007. The complainants further state that Mr Osanloo’s unexpected detention caused him to miss eye surgery scheduled for 15 July; the surgery was necessary to treat an injury sustained previously in the exercise of Mr Osanloo’s legitimate trade union activities.
  1017. 1017 The complainants indicate that, on 25 July 2007, Mr Osanloo’s wife and lawyers requested Mr Hassan Haddad, a Tehran Revolutionary Court judge, to grant them permission to visit Mr Osanloo in jail. Mr Haddad’s staff informed them that Mr Osanloo was in Evin prison on charges of “threatening national security” and was therefore not allowed to see his family or lawyers; on the same day, Evin prison guards refused to accept prescription medicine for Mr Osanloo that his sister and a union board member attempted to deliver. Mr Khorshid further attempted to meet with Judge Haddad on 30 July, only to be told again by the judge’s staff that Mr Osanloo was not allowed any visits or phone calls until the investigation was completed.
  1018. 1018 On 12 August 2007, Judge Haddad made several statements regarding Mr Osanloo in an interview with the Iranian news agency, ISNA. The judge stated that he had spoken with Mr Osanloo, as well as the latter’s mother and wife, and that although an agreement with Mr Osanloo had been reached, he failed to respect it. He also stated that Mr Osanloo’s union was illegal, that Mr Osanloo was asked but refused to “change his methods, which created problems from a state security viewpoint”, and that Mr Osanloo was free to do as he pleased, as demonstrated by the fact that he had travelled abroad twice. On the following day, 13 August, Mrs Osanloo published a letter in the two national newspapers, Etemad and Roozna, refuting any allegations that there had been any agreement between Mr Osanloo and the authorities under which he might have accepted to desist from his legitimate trade union activities. The complainants allege that the judge’s statement provoked strong reactions from Mr Osanloo’s family and his trade union colleagues, who viewed it as a repetition of earlier offers from the authorities intended to persuade Mr Osanloo to stop his trade union activities. The complainants add that Judge Haddad’s statement was intended to undermine Mr Osanloo’s popular support in the Islamic Republic of Iran and discourage workers from forming or joining independent trade unions.
  1019. 1019 According to the complainants, in the same television interview Judge Haddad stated that Mr Osanloo had been arrested for “distributing anti-regime pamphlets” that had “nothing to do with trade union activities”. The complainants allege that although Mr Osanloo might indeed have had leaflets in his possession at the time of his detention, they have strong reason to believe that they would have been strictly related to his trade union work, namely his organization’s planning of the forthcoming trade union elections.
  1020. 1020 On 14 August 2007, Mr Osanloo was allowed to meet with his lawyers. Mr Moulaye subsequently informed the ISNA news agency that Mr Osanloo had apparently not been physically assaulted in prison, yet still bore signs of the violence incurred on the day of his detention and was suffering from his eye condition. Mr Moulaye added that Mr Osanloo had demanded that national rules on criminal procedure be followed during his interrogation and stated that he would only answer the interrogators’ questions in the presence of his lawyers.
  1021. 1021 In their 13 September 2007 communication, the complainants state that, on 3 September 2007, Mr Osanloo’s wife and her sister were briefly apprehended after they attempted to meet with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Louise Arbour, who was in Tehran to attend a conference. The two women had approached the UN building in Tehran and were talking with Ms Shirin Ebedi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was herself due to meet with Ms Arbour, when suddenly they were bundled into cars by plain-clothes officers. Mrs Osanloo resisted getting into the car and was punched in the shoulder, while relatives of several detained students who happened to be present were also arrested along with the two women; however Ms Ebedi protested vehemently and a few minutes later all were released.
  1022. 1022 The complainants indicate that, on 6 September 2007, two lawyers for the union submitted a letter to the Director of the Tehran Province Justice Department claiming numerous violations of the Constitution, the rules of criminal procedure, and the Law on Respecting the Legitimate Freedoms and Civil Rights. The letter further stated that Mr Osanloo and the five trade unionists detained on 9 August 2007 were held in solitary confinement, and that Mr Osanloo had shown his attorneys the marks on his body suffered from beatings and stated that the leaflets that were, according to the judiciary, the reason for his detention merely contained the union’s demands for wage increases for its workers. The letter also contained demands for, inter alia, the cancellation of the detention decrees and access to the detainees’ files, though to the best of the complainants’ knowledge these demands were not met.
  1023. 1023 In their 29 November 2007 communication, the complainants allege that, on 30 October 2007, the 36th branch of the Tehran Court of Appeal, without following the proper procedures, upheld the five-year prison sentence issued on 28 May 2007 by the Revolutionary Court against Mr Osanloo for acting against national security and disseminating propaganda against the State. The complainants add that Mr Osanloo, who had previously been transferred to a hospital, was sent back to the general ward of Evin prison against his doctor’s recommendations, and that it was unclear if the 13 months that Mr Osanloo had already spent in prison prior to the decision of the Court of Appeal would be subtracted from his prison term. Furthermore, an additional file against Mr Osanloo had been opened following his latest arrest, but these additional charges were withdrawn after Mr Osanloo’s wife submitted her identity card as a security deposit. The complainants allege, nevertheless, that there is no clarity as to how many files against Mr Osanloo exist, what they include, and how many of them are still open.
  1024. 1024 The complainants state that, on 17 September 2007, Mr Osanloo’s family were allowed to visit him in Evin prison for 30 minutes; they reported that wounds were visible on his face, his eye condition had deteriorated, and that he had developed a kidney condition. Mr Osanloo underwent a medical check in prison, and was informed that surgery on his eye was urgently needed to prevent permanent sight loss. Moreover, Mr Osanloo had to withstand long hours of constant interrogation without his lawyers being present and was not allowed to read newspapers or watch television.
  1025. 1025 The complainants state that as the international trade union movement and human rights groups grew increasingly worried over the prospects for Mr Osanloo’s release, as well as for his physical and psychological integrity, an international trade union solidarity mission was dispatched to the Islamic Republic of Iran. On 7–10 October 2007, Mr Hanafi Rustandi, the Chairperson of the Indonesian Seafarers’ Union (KPI, affiliated to the ITF), accompanied by Mr Syukur Sarto, General Secretary of the Indonesian Trade Union Congress (KSPSI), visited Tehran seeking a meeting with Mr Osanloo. They also hoped that, since they were from Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country, they would be able to help secure the release of the detained trade unionists. The complainants indicate that the visit was pursuant to an invitation extended by the Iranian embassy in Jakarta, which had met a delegation of trade unionists on the occasion of the International Action Day, 9 August 2007. The Indonesian trade unionists were able to enter the Islamic Republic of Iran as tourists.
  1026. 1026 The complainants allege that Mr Rustandi and Mr Sarto were able to meet the families of Mr Osanloo and Mr Madadi, as well as members of the union. However, despite their best efforts, including an attempt to visit the Labour Minister’s residence, they were not received by the Iranian authorities. When Mr Rustandi and Mr Sarto tried to meet Mr Osanloo, they were told that the visit was not possible since Mr Osanloo was just then receiving the urgent medical treatment he needed. The complainants add, however, that on 16 October 2007, they learnt that the trade unionists were given false information and that Mr Osanloo had not, in fact, received the necessary medical assistance; furthermore the Evin prison doctor had admitted that a further delay of treatment would result in Mr Osanloo’s permanent blindness within two weeks.
  1027. 1027 According to the complainants, on 20 October 2007, Mr Osanloo was finally taken from Evin prison to Labafinejad hospital, in Tehran, to receive the much-needed eye surgery. Although the physicians had stated that the outcome of the operation could only be known three to six months later and recommended a period of six weeks to three months for follow-up care and rest, Mr Osanloo was returned to Evin prison on 26 October 2007. Although Mr Osanloo was subsequently taken to the Basir hospital for one day for follow-up treatment, the complainants indicate that they have no further information respecting the follow-up treatment of Mr Osanloo’s eye and the outcome of his operation.
  1028. 1028 The complainants express their regret that no international observers, whether from the ILO or the international trade union movement, were able to visit Mr Osanloo in prison. This was all the more disturbing in the light of repeated reports that he had been tortured with chains and electrical shocks, and suffers from a herniated disc. The complainants reiterate their deep concern over Mr Osanloo’s physical and psychological well-being.
• Ebrahim Madadi
  1029. 1029 In their 11 July 2007 communication, the complainants allege that, on 3 July 2007, Mr Ebrahim Madadi, Vice-President of the union, went to the Western Tehran Labour Department to follow up on the situation of the bus drivers whose employment had been terminated. Mr Madadi, accompanied by trade union member, Mr Seyed Reza Nematipour, was denied access to the building. After 45 minutes, a police officer approached Mr Madadi with an arrest warrant, said to be issued at the initiative of one of the labour department’s legal officials, and arrested Mr Madadi for “causing public disturbance” and took him to the Baharestan police station. Mr Osanloo spoke to the police officer at the time, who confirmed that Mr Madadi had not been violating public order. The complainants indicate that the authorities intended to keep Mr Madadi overnight at the police station, then transfer him to Region 12, Northside City Park Branch 6 the next day. However, trade union members threatened to stage a protest in front of Branch 12 of the Tehran Judiciary if Mr Madadi were kept in custody; on 4 July 2007, Mr Madadi was released.
  1030. 1030 In their 3 September 2007 communication, the complainants state that, on 9 August 2007, Ebrahim Madadi and four other members of the union’s executive board were arrested in front of Mr Osanloo’s house and sent to Evin prison. In their 13 September 2007 communication, the complainants allege that Mr Madadi was taken to Security branch No. 1, interrogated, then sent back to Evin prison. In their communication of 29 November 2007, the complainants indicate that, on 26 September 2007, Mr Madadi’s attorney, Mr Parviz Khorshid, told the ISNA news agency that Mr Madadi had been formally charged with acting against national security. When Mr Khorshid went to the 28th Branch of the Tehran Revolutionary Court to review the case documentation, he was denied access to the file unless he could present his attorney–client retainer – a financial document stipulating the honorarium for representation – to the authorities. The complainants state that as Mr Khorshid and the other union attorneys were working pro bono, a retainer was never prepared.
  1031. 1031 On 30 September 2007, Mr Madadi was brought before the Tehran Revolutionary Court with his hands and feet in chains. The complainants allege that Mr Madadi’s health had seriously deteriorated: his voice was unrecognizable, and he suffered from high blood pressure, diabetes and other ailments. Mr Madadi refused to answer the judge’s questions and issued a verbal statement that Mr Khorshid was his appointed lawyer; access to Mr Madadi’s file nevertheless continued to be denied to Mr Khorshid. On 16 October 2007, Mr Madadi was transferred to Ghezal Hesar prison – a place where hardened criminals, drug addicts and occasionally prisoners of conscience are sent – in the city of Karaj, south of Tehran. On 23 October 2007, he was tried at the 28th branch of the Tehran Revolutionary Court, in the presence of his lawyers, Mr Khorshid and Mr Molaei. Mr Madadi pleaded not guilty and on 30 October 2007 was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on the grounds of acting against national security. The complainants add that the charges relate to Mr Madadi’s participation in solidarity action in support of Mr Osanloo and that, according to Mr Madadi’s defence’s statement to the Tehran Province Court of Appeal – a copy of which is attached to the 29 November 2007 communication – the judges’ decision was “based on assumptions”. Moreover, it is possible that Mr Madadi could later be tried on charges related to his participation in a 2004 strike.
• Arrest and trial of other trade unionists
  1032. 1032 In their communication of 11 July 2007, the complainants state that Mr Golamreza Golam Hosseini, Mr Seyed Davoud Razavi and Mr Abdolreza Tarazi were all arrested in December 2006 after distributing trade union leaflets and translating an ITUC protest letter for the Iranian authorities. Mr Hosseini was released on bail from prison on 9 December 2006; all three union officers are awaiting trial. Although none of the executive board members were in prison at the time of the communication, the complainant alleges that the following 13 board members are awaiting trial and could be rearrested any day: Ebrahim Madadi; Mansour Hayat Gheibi; Ata Babakhani; Ebrahim Noroozi Gohari; Saeed Torabian; Naser Gholami; Abdolreza Tarazi; Golamreza Golamhoseini; Golamreza Mirzaee; Ali Zad Hosein; Yaghob Salimi; Abas Najand Koodaki and Hasan Karimi.
  1033. 1033 The complainants allege that in January and February 2007, a number of union activists, who were suspended from work in the Tehran Bus Company for their trade union activities from December 2005 to January 2006, received letters of employment termination from the Ministry of Labour. As of 20 February 2007, the following workers had their employment terminated: Saeed Torabian; Seyed Davoud Razavi; Mansour Hayat Gheibi; Golamreza Fazeli; Ebrahim Golami; Yaghob Salimi; Ebrahim Madadi; Abdolreza Tarazi; Golamreza Mirzaee; Golamreza Khani; Ashgar Mashhadi; Vahaab Mohammadi; Hassan Deghan; Seyed Reza Nematipoor; Mohammad Namani Poor; Hassan Saidi; Ali Bakshi Sharbiani; Hadi Kabiri; Ata Babakhani; Mahmoud Hozhabri; Soltan Ali Shekhari; Ali Akbar Pirhadi; Yousef Moradi; Davoud Noroozi; Seyed Hassan Dadkhah; Hossein Karimi Sabzevar; Masoud Ali Babaiee Nahavandi; Habib Shami Nejad; Sadegh Khandan; Golamreza Khoshmaram; Amir Takhiri; Masoud Foroghi Nejad; Ali Zade Hossein; Hossein Shahsavari; Homayoon Jaber; Hossein Raad; Ebrahim Noroozi Gohari; Golamreza Golamhosseini; Hasan Karimi and Abbas Najand Koodaki. The complainants add that four other workers were dismissed in June 2007.
  1034. 1034 In their 3 September 2007 communication, the complainants allege that four members of the union executive board were arrested on 9 August 2007 while on their way to a gathering in front of Mr Osanloo’s house: Seyed Davoud Razavi; Yaghob Salimi; Ebrahim Noroozi Gohari and Homayoun Jaberi. Mr Teher Sadeghi and Ms Fatemeh Hajiloo of the Tavana Jab Journal, a periodical concerning the disabled, were also arrested for trying to attend the union gathering. All of the above were taken to Evin prison.
  1035. 1035 The complainants indicate that, on 21 August 2007, Mr Gohari, Mr Razavi and Ms Hajiloo were scheduled to appear before the prosecutor. Mr Gohari was released on 22 August 2007 after his spouse informed the judge that their daughter was to be wed in several days’ time, and on 23 August Ms Hajiloo and Mr Sadeghi were also released.
  1036. 1036 In their 13 September 2007 communication, the complainants indicate that Mr Salimi was released on 28 August 2007 while Mr Razavi and Mr Jaberi were released on bail equivalent to US$50,000 on 8 and 9 September 2007, respectively. On 9 September, Mr Khorshid told the ISNA news agency that Mr Salimi, Mr Gohari, Mr Razavi and Mr Jaberi were formally charged with “actions against national security”.
  1037. 1037 In their 29 November 2007 communication, the complainants state that, on 15 September 2007, Mr Torabian, the spokesperson for the union, was tried in the 14th branch of the Tehran Revolutionary Court on charges of jeopardizing national security, giving interviews to the media and acting as a liaison between the union and the international trade union community. Mr Torabian pleaded not guilty to all accusations and his lawyer Mr Khorshid requested permission to submit his defence statement in one week’s time so that the court could issue a preliminary verdict; the defence statement, a copy of which is attached to the communication, argued that Mr Torabian had never committed any offence punishable under article 500 or 610 of the Islamic Penal Code (“propaganda against the State” and “acting against national security”, respectively) and that the activities characterized by the judiciary as “propaganda against the State” were legitimate trade union activities, such as attending union meetings, participating in protests, distributing union leaflets and speaking to the media, including the foreign media, on matters concerning trade union issues. The defence statement further stressed that Mr Torabian sought to address trade union demands by means envisaged in the Constitution, legislation and official institutions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and only intended to offer criticisms of certain realities – not damage the State.
  1038. 1038 The complainants add that union executive board members Mr Abbas Najand Koodaki and Mr Hayat Gheibi appeared before the 14th branch of the Tehran Revolutionary Court on 15 and 16 October 2007, respectively. The men were summoned to court in connection with trade union protests that had taken place in the winter of 2005. At both hearings, the prosecution read out an indictment accusing each man of acting against national security and propaganda against the State; both men pleaded not guilty. Their attorneys, Mr Nikbaht and Mr Molaei, respectively, were given five to seven days to prepare a defence statement. Mr Jaberi, one of the union activists detained on 9 August 2007, was also summoned before the Revolutionary Court in late October, with no specific reason given. The complainants allege that the continuous trial and imprisonment of the union’s leadership has created a climate of fear among the union’s members; union activists are concerned that additional charges could be brought against them, with more arrests and prison sentences to follow.
  1039. 1039 The complainants also allege that, of the 55 union members suspended from work at the Tehran and Suburbs United Bus Company for having engaged in protests in 2005, 13 have received formal reinstatement orders issued by the disputes resolution boards of the Tehran Labour Department. However, the employer’s management refuses to reinstate the workers unless they sign a letter of commitment, contrary to the law.
  1040. 1040 Finally, the complainants state that Mr Khorshid and Mr Molaei, the lawyers for Mr Osanloo, Mr Madadi and other union members, had tendered their resignation to the Court on 27 November 2007. Their resignation, it is believed, applies to all cases concerning the union officials and activists. The complainants express their deep concern that all the trade unionists brought on charges now lack legal representation.

C. The Government’s reply

1. 1041. In its communication of 6 February 2008, the Government states that the complainant organization was automatically rendered inactive on 1 November 1990, by virtue of the new Labour Law coming into force. The new Labour Law prohibits multiple workers’ organizations in the same enterprise, providing instead that workers in a given unit may be represented by an Islamic Labour Council, a trade union, or individual representatives. An Islamic Labour Council was established at the SVATH (the complainant’s employer) in 1984, and until its unofficial reactivation in 2005, the complainant organization has been dormant with no record of trade union activities. Until a few years ago, the Government adds, the present system of union representation had managed to safeguard workers’ rights in different enterprises throughout the country, including the SVATH.
2. 1042. The Government states that, shortly after the revolution of 1979, many of the worker activists who had played pivotal roles in the revolution began to establish workers’ organizations at the enterprises and in different political parties. The most prominent of these organizations has been the Workers’ House, which was registered as a political party with the Ministry of the Interior in 1981 under registration No. A-420-27 and, under the circumstances then prevailing, received a near-absolute mandate to represent workers, which it managed to retain until recently. The Workers’ House, by gaining a winning majority of the Islamic Labour Councils throughout the Islamic Republic of Iran, possessed the power to formulate the Constitution of the respective Islamic Labour Councils in a manner to entrust the former House, among other things, with the exclusive right of representation of the Iranian workers in different High Labour Councils and international forums. The Government further states that the Political Parties and Councils Law of 1985 and the 1990 Labour Law provide the legal basis for the former organization’s existence.
3. 1043. According to the Government, it has consistently refrained from taking the side of any of the workers’ organizations and continues to treat them fairly and indiscriminately, so long as they abide by the existing laws and regulations. However, the Government may upon instructions from the judiciary intervene to safeguard the rights of an organization whose rights have been violated by another.
4. 1044. Upon the establishment of a new Government in 2006, the need to strengthen collaborations with representative organizations of the social partners became apparent. The Government indicates in this respect that it held extensive discussions on, inter alia, the redrafting of the Labour Law, the need for the development of equitable industrial relations and the promotion of the principle of freedom of association in the context of national circumstances.
5. 1045. According to the Government, the history of industrial relations in the Islamic Republic of Iran is one full of competition and controversies between Islamic Labour Councils and other trade unions, which had maintained that the right of representation must not be monopolistically conferred upon the Workers’ House. Having received numerous complaints concerning the need to hold an independent labour representation election, the Government had appointed inspectors to ensure the soundness and equitability of the election of the Confederation of the Islamic Labour Councils, held at the premises of the Workers’ House in the city of Isfahan in 2005. The Government asserts that in this context, and contrary to the assertions of the complainant, it contended that the Workers’ House had rigged the said elections. This led to heated and continued legal disputes; the case was finally heard at the High Administrative Court of Justice, which annulled the latter organization’s election and thus marked the termination of their monopoly of trade union activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to the Government, the above intervention demonstrates that it does not use the Workers’ House as an instrument for the alleged control and manipulation of workers’ activities, but rather acts to safeguard the interests of workers’ organizations that are being marginalized or discriminated against. The Government states that it is bound to implement its openly acknowledged strategies to ensure freedom of association and the proliferation of independent workers’ and employers’ organizations, by amending the Labour Law and removing the existing obstacles to the achievement of these objectives.
6. 1046. As concerns the complainant’s allegation that the Workers’ House has not intervened on behalf of workers who had been persecuted or jailed for their trade union activities – in spite of several requests from the complainant – the Government states that this allegation stems from an underlying rivalry between the two organizations. The reason for the failure of the Workers’ House to support the complainant organization may be attributed to the latter’s non-observance of national laws and regulations and its resort to international campaigns and propaganda, which are neither recognized nor appreciated by other workers’ organizations. The Government states that the Workers’ House could not reasonably be expected to extend any support to the complainant, as it had been strongly reprimanded by the latter for allegedly interfering in its affairs; moreover, the Workers’ House maintains that the complainant has been sowing discord amongst the various workers’ organizations, so as to diminish their bargaining power vis-à-vis employers, and that its trade union activities are merely a pretext for furthering political objectives. The Workers’ House further contends that the complainant organization is an illegal entity, as the Labour Law prohibits multiple workers’ organizations where a democratically elected Islamic Labour Council already exists.
7. 1047. The Government maintains that although the Islamic Labour Councils affiliated to the Workers’ House could perhaps have better safeguarded the interests of the complainant’s members, they did succeed in concluding a collective bargaining agreement that led to a 14 per cent increase in the wages of the employees of the SVATH. The tripartite document on freedom of association, signed by the Government and the social partners in the presence of the ILO mission in October 2004, is another example of fruitful collective bargaining by the Islamic Labour Councils. A year after this agreement, the complainant organization issued a statement indicating that its members may go on strike and that the authorities would be responsible for the consequences arising out of such action.
8. 1048. The Government states that it promotes the principle of collective bargaining as a mechanism to protect the welfare and the interests of the workers, and in certain cases has positively addressed the requests of workers who after having negotiated a pension scheme, regretfully lost those pensions right. The Government, moreover, is determined to amend the relevant clauses of the Labour Law so as to take into account the provisions of ILO Convention No. 98.
9. 1049. As regards the alleged failure of the Islamic Labour Council in representing the interests of the complainant’s members, the Government states that there had been sporadic failures in the due fulfillment of trade union activities, and that improvements in addressing workplace issues were required. The Islamic Labour Council nevertheless did engage in such activities as: holding biannual representation elections; engaging in regular collective negotiations with the SVATH that led to a 47 per cent increase in wages over the period 1997–2005 and the classification of 70 per cent of jobs as hard and hazardous work, allowing 3,000 workers to opt for early retirement; fighting against the conclusion of temporary labour contracts; and demanding and completing a job classification scheme. The company, moreover, had demonstrated a willingness to engage in collective bargaining and had furthermore decommissioned many of the old buses and replaced them with 380 new ones, in keeping with one of the complainant’s demands. The Government indicates that, as members of the Islamic Labour Council are chosen for a certain number of terms only, members of the complainant organization could have applied for seats on the Council; additionally, they could have resorted to individual representations in order to further their interests.
10. 1050. According to the Government, the prohibition on multiple workers’ organizations in any given enterprise is a grave shortcoming in the Labour Law that contradicts the principle of freedom of association and severely impedes its strategy for promoting worker representation in different enterprises. It is therefore of great importance to ensure that the proposed amendments to the Labour Law, which were the result of constructive consultations with the social partners and the ILO, are rapidly discussed and approved by the Parliament.
11. 1051. The Government indicates that it received a request for the reactivation of the complainant organization a week after the conclusion of the tripartite agreement on freedom of association in Tehran in October 2004. The Government informed the complainant of the prohibition on multiple workers’ organizations in the same enterprise and, in view of the existence of Islamic Labour Councils in different sections of the SVATH, duly rejected the request. Moreover, the elections held by the complainant organization failed to abide by the provisions of the Labour Law; in particular, the complainant had failed to organize a general assembly representing a quorum of the workers in the enterprise and did not register with the Ministry of Labour. The Government states that the complainant chose to confront and challenge the Workers’ House-affiliated Islamic Labour Councils by holding unauthorized worker assemblies, despite being notified of its obligation to fulfil the legal requirements for holding an election. This provoked the anger of members of the Islamic Labour Councils, leading to a series of clashes between the rival associations and ultimately to the arrest and detention of members from both sides.
12. 1052. The Government contends that the complainant exaggerates both the gravity of its situation and the size of its membership. Although the complainant claims to enjoy the support of 8,000 of the 16,828 SVATH workers, only 500 persons participated in its 3 June 2005 event; the fact that 242 workers were questioned for their alleged participation in social disturbances in support of the complainant is another indication of the complainant’s over-estimation of the number of its members and supporters.
13. 1053. The Government states that it categorically denies the complainant’s allegations as to the existence of any political or judicial opposition to the establishment of independent trade unions. It has instead devised a practical proposal, introduced last year, for an amicable and viable solution to the problem of the establishment of the complainant organization. The Government indicates that it is determined not to allow the question of the complainant organization’s status and the future of free and independent trade union activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran to be tied to the court ruling of Mr Mansour Osanloo; as explicitly expressed in the court ruling, he was brought to trial not because of his trade union activities, but rather for what the judiciary and the security officials regard as anti-government activities.
14. 1054. As to the allegation that it had mismanaged the conflict between the complainant and the Islamic Labour Councils, the Government states that it welcomes the SVATH’s dismissal of the complainant’s management, as the latter had not effectively handled the conflict with its rival organization.
15. 1055. Allegations concerning the continuous repression, arrest and detention of union activists are over-inflated. In the case of Mr Parviz Faminbar, who the complainant alleges was transferred and frequently summoned for questioning by the employer, the Government states that workers everywhere are regularly invited, consulted and questioned, if necessary, by the respective authorities as to their performance and technical behaviour in order to increase the operational efficacy of their respective enterprise, which would ultimately ensure their interests. In this respect, the summoning of Mr Faminbar for questioning might be more leniently interpreted as an invitation for such consultations as well. Being responsible for the transportation system of one of the biggest cities of the world, the municipality of Tehran, as the employer, should have the right to learn about the concerns of its staff and to let them know about management shortcomings and problems as well. Changing the service district or transferring some drivers, including union members Mr Ali Rafil, Mr Parviz Faminbar and Mr Moosa Paykar, so as to cope with the unforeseen transportation problems of millions of people in Tehran should not, therefore, be regarded as the compulsory transfer or harassment of labour union activists. As regards the allegations that Moosa Paykar received threatening phone calls, the Government indicates that the employer denies having any role in such harassment.
16. 1056. As concerns the allegations of the harassment of several trade unionists from March to June 2005, the individuals allegedly interrogated by the employer – Abdollah Haji Romanan, Abdolreza Tarazi, Ahmad Farshi, Ali Zadeh Hosseini, Ayat Jadidi, Ebrahim Madadi and Mansour Osanloo – were at times summoned for questioning, but were not subject to any harassment whatsoever.
17. 1057. According to the Government, the SVATH maintains that Mansour Osanloo had voluntarily asked for his transfer to the civil staff department in 1990 and consequently quit his job as a driver. Moreover, his position as the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the complainant organization is constantly and seriously challenged by the Islamic Labour Councils established at the company, which contend that a government employee must not be able to head a workers’ organization.
18. 1058. In respect of the 17 members of the complainant organization dismissed between March and June 2005, the Government states that the employer cites the non-observance of the professional code of practice and continued disciplinary defaults as the reasons for the dismissals. The individuals concerned lodged complaints with the Dispute Settlement Board of the Ministry of Labour, which were duly processed in November 2005. Upon hearing their cases, the Board called for their reinstatement and immediate settlement of their back wages and benefits.
19. 1059. As regards the complainant’s previous allegation of an attack on its founding meeting, on 9 May 2005, the Government states that those who had disrupted the meeting were members of the Workers’ House and the company’s Islamic Shora. Government officials were in no way involved in the incident. The gravity of the unfortunate situation is an indication of the seriousness of the competition amongst the rival workers’ organizations in the SVATH, and, contrary to what had been alleged by the complainant, police forces were not deployed to suppress the trade union activists, but intervened solely in order to maintain discipline and to prevent the spread of social unrest. Mr Osanloo, Mr Madadi and other members of the union’s leadership had lodged complaints against the attackers with the judicial authorities, which will be duly heard by the relevant court of justice. The Government adds that it condemns the occurrence of such harsh trade union conflicts, and that the Ministry of Labour continues to encourage all workers’ organizations to jointly and peacefully strive for the promotion of freedom of association in the context of national circumstances and possibilities. The Government expresses the hope that its new strategy for the development of trade union rights and a plurality of workers’ organizations may soon meet the legitimate expectations of the workers to freely choose their organizations, so as to prevent such insurgencies again. It adds, however, that any attempt towards that end is subject to the approval of the redrafted Labour Law by the Parliament.
20. 1060. As concerns the previous allegation that the complainant’s general assembly was violently disbanded on two further occasions – on 13 May and 1 June 2005 – the Government states that the former incident was not serious in its initial stages; the disciplinary and security forces intervened only when the situation subsequently grew more aggravated. With regard to the latter incident, in which the complainant’s assembly was allegedly attacked with firebombs, the Government states that only a small fire was reported to the district firefighters; on closer examination, it was determined that the small fire had nothing to do with the alleged Molotov cocktail attack. Furthermore, independent reports and police observations regarding the 1 June 2005 assembly cast serious doubt over the size of the assembly, which according to the complainant comprised nearly 8,000 supporters. The Government states that the presence of such a large number of workers would have automatically disrupted the function of the SVATH, leaving millions of people without transportation.
21. 1061. As regards the complainant’s allegation of the arrest of several members in September and December 2005, the Government states that it approves of the arrests of 7 September 2005. The arrests, which occurred during a protest against unpaid wages, were made on grounds of disturbing public order. The Government maintains that the protest was illegitimate, as the controversy over wages had to a large extent already been duly and amicably settled. According to the reports of the police, those arrested were released promptly and, although they were found to be at fault for disturbing public order, were treated leniently and reinstated in their respective jobs. According to judiciary reports, Mr Osanloo was kept in prison for his continued attempts to jeopardize national security under the pretext of labour union activities.
22. 1062. The Government concedes that very often, arrested people, irrespective of the grounds for their arrest, are also transferred to Evin prison, among other prisons in the vicinity of Tehran. However, it categorically denies the rumours about the said prison, which are unfounded; situated near Tehran, Evin prison has become a general prison, where prisoners of all walks of life are kept together. The Government denies all rumours of torture being practiced in Evin prison and states that it would welcome an independent visit to the prison, particularly its vocational training centre and workshops, where prisoners acquire advanced vocational training to facilitate their absorption into society as skilled workers upon the termination of their terms in prison.
23. 1063. According to the Government, 242 people were involved in the protests of September and December 2005. Among the participants, 27 people were transferred and 63 people were reinstated; the cases of others who were found guilty of disturbing public order and damage to public property will be fairly heard and leniently addressed as well. A report released by the General Directorate of Tehran’s Labour Administration shows that 63 workers found guilty of continued disciplinary misconduct, breaches of professional codes of practice and damages to SVATH property were all reinstated in their jobs due to the indulgence of the Dispute Settlement Board of the Ministry of Labour. The judiciary, meanwhile, officially reported that out of 242 people taken into custody, 230 persons were released after the completion of preliminary investigations and only 12 people were dismissed from their jobs. The latter group were also later reinstated in their jobs due to the constructive and conciliatory intervention of the Ministry of Labour aimed at protecting workers’ rights and the welfare of their families.
24. 1064. As regards the dismissal of workers in March 2006 following a protest, the Government states that the dismissal and reinstatement of the workers is decided by the tripartite Dispute Settlement Board, which, after extensive discussions, ruled for the reinstatement of ten workers and the termination of the contracts of 47 others.
25. 1065. As regards the strike of January 2006, the Government states that workers seldom resort to strike without prior examination of the peaceful and legal means to meet their demands. The reasons behind the one-day strike on 28 January 2006 was not, contrary to what the complainant alleged, the release of Mansour Osanloo, but rather the welfare and the need for improvement of the labour conditions of the SVATH drivers. Having not yet thoroughly examined his allegations at that juncture, the independent judiciary could not reasonably agree with his immediate and unconditional release either. The Mayor of Tehran, like other government officials, is bound to uphold the Labour Law, which prohibits multiple workers’ organizations in the same enterprise; therefore he could not recognize the legitimacy of the complainant organization. The Government admits that there had been some “disturbances” in the 28 January 2006 strike, but it denies that the situation was as serious as alleged by the complainant: there were no reports of beatings, threats of shooting, or of the complainant’s members union being labelled as subversives and saboteurs. The Government indicates that it approves of the arrest of 100 union members on 27 January and rejects the allegations of the arrest of hundreds of drivers and their wives and children and their transfer to the Evin prison. The allegation that a 12-year-old daughter of one of the union members was arrested, beaten and thrown into a police car at night shows that some ill-intentioned parties may use any disreputable means to justify their end.
26. 1066. The Government maintains that freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of political conscience are underscored in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and are to be duly observed. Therefore, it has always welcomed the interventions and campaigns of the political parties, NGOs, and trade associations for safeguarding the interest of workers. As freedom of association and collective bargaining are essential for global and sustainable growth and development, it also welcomes the dialogue and cooperation with the international trade unions to help improve the status of trade unions in the Islamic Republic of Iran; towards that end, it followed the results of the meetings of ITUC members with the Iranian diplomatic representatives in Geneva on 15 February 2007. The Government contends, however, that holding unfriendly global campaigns to exercise pressure on independent and sovereign States may bear little result for the cause of freedom of association in those countries, unless the bedrock of trade union activities is compatible with national circumstances and industrial relations are developed in due course.
27. 1067. The Government denies the complainant’s previous allegation that, following the detention of numerous participants in the strikes of January 2006, the authorities issued an announcement indicating that the detainees would only be released if they signed a pledge to stop participating in union activities. Contrary to the complainant’s allegations, the Government does not consider those participating in the complainant organization’s activities to be opponents of the Islamic Republic system to be prosecuted, but rather seeks to vigorously promote the principles of freedom of association by pushing for the approval of the redrafted Labour Law. The promotion and protection of workers’ and employers’ organizations is at the top of the stated strategies of the Ministry of Labour. Towards this end, the Ministry has solicited articles on such topics as: the development of workers’ and employers’ organizations; the identification of effective tools for collective bargaining; collective bargaining among the Government and the social partners, and its effects on the sustainability of enterprises; the strengthening of reconciliation strategies among the social partners and municipalities; positive interaction between the Government and the social partners; the promotion of cooperation between the social partners, the ILO, and international workers’ and employers’ organizations; and the promotion of decent work indices.
28. 1068. Through extensive discussions on the above topics, the Ministry of Labour seeks to prepare the grounds for the implementation of its objectives for the promotion of free and independent trade union activities. The ever-increasing number of independent trade unions and trade union federations in all sectors of the labour market is a clear indication of the Government’s commitment to this goal. To further illustrate the point, the number of workers’ organizations registered with the Workers and Employers Department of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs increased from 3,037 in 2005 to 3,214 in 2006 and 3,837 in 2007, showing an increase of 19.38 per cent. The Government and the SVATH management are also determined to promote independent trade unions in sectors of the SVATH where no workers’ organization already exists, namely in the electric bus, repair and maintenance and the inspection of services sectors.
29. 1069. The Government states that in spite of the fact that the complainant staged illegal protest rallies on 22 February 2006, the Ministry of Labour nevertheless received the complaints of the dismissed workers and attempted to reinstate them. In a letter to the Mayor of Tehran in July 2006, the Minister of Labour reiterated the need for the immediate settlement of the problems of the SVATH workers and the reinstatement of the dismissed ones. Consequently 132 workers were reinstated after examination of their cases by the tripartite Dispute Settlement Board of Tehran. The Minister also underscored the need to fulfil the legitimate trade union demands of SVATH workers; in compliance with the Minister’s directives, the Labour Department of Tehran initiated a series of negotiations leading to the due settlement of the back wages of the dismissed workers. In demonstrating a positive attitude, the Government hopes to dispel the complainant’s misunderstanding that it seeks to control and harness free trade unions.
30. 1070. As regards the complainant’s previous allegation that 46 workers were dismissed in March 2006, including Mr Osanloo and four other members of the complainant’s executive Committee, the Government states that the dismissal of such workers as Mr Madadi is decided by the tripartite Dispute Settlement Board. Mr Osanloo’s dismissal, however, should have been issued by the Administrative Default Board of the Government, due to his status as a government staff member. For this reason, Mr Osanloo had been penalized by the same Board twice in the past. As regards the other dismissed employees, the Government indicates that the Dispute Settlement Board ruled for the reinstatement of ten workers and the termination of the contracts of 47 other workers; the latter group is still exploring legal means for their reinstatement.
31. 1071. As concerns the arrest of 13 members of the complainant organization at a 1 May 2006 rally, the Government contends that in order to maintain discipline and to ensure public safety, the police must be informed of and approve of the time and places of different assemblies, public demonstrations and rallies. Although nearly all workers’ organizations in Tehran accepted to attend the general assembly and the rallies of 1 May 2006, a small number of the complainant’s members violated the law by attempting to hold their own private protest in SVATH premises without prior notice given to the police and without the management’s approval. Their subsequent attempts to break into the premises led to clashes with the guard, subsequent damage to SVATH properties and the disruption of rush hour traffic.
32. 1072. As concerns the situation of Mr Osanloo, the Government indicates that all suspects and detainees, regardless of their alleged perpetrated crimes, have the undeniable right of access to a lawyer of their own choosing. During his terms in prison Mr Osanloo, like other prisoners, had the right to see and consult his lawyers. His family could also see him according to the time schedule of the prison for public visits. At certain junctures, however, the hearing judge might have limited his visits to ensure proper judiciary processing of the relevant court file and limit access to possible accomplices. As stated in the court verdict respecting his case, he is not imprisoned because of his trade union activities, but rather for his visit to and collaboration with the Iranian opposition groups struggling to topple the legitimate, democratically elected and popular Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mr Osanloo has also accepted some of these accusations. According to the judge, Mr Osanloo’s admitted participation in opposition and subversive groups’ assemblies, both in the Islamic Republic of Iran and abroad in 2003–04, where schemes to overthrow the popular Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran were discussed and examined, bear no relation to his trade union activities.
33. 1073. As regards the complainant’s previous allegation that, during his detention from 22 December 2005 to 9 August 2006, Mr Osanloo was denied access to his lawyers until June 2006, the Government states that Mr Osanloo was denied access to his lawyer for a short period only, when preliminary investigation and interrogations were conducted and his lawyer was officially filing his defence with the judiciary.
34. 1074. The Government indicates that it appears that Mr Osanloo’s eye problem started before the conflict between the competing workers’ organizations. Fortunately his condition was not serious when he was admitted to the hospital following the heated conflict of 9 May 2005. While in prison, like all other prisoners, Mr Osanloo’s health is ultimately entrusted to the organization of the prisons. The Government states that it rejects the allegations of Mr Osanloo’s ill-treatment; during his confinement he has received the best medical care both within and outside the prison and had the best eye surgeons operate on him in the most modern hospitals of Tehran.
35. 1075. Admitting that there are some legal and procedural limitations at the initial stages of the examination of serious cases before the courts, the victims may lodge complaints of mistreatment, and any prison staff found to have violated the human and civil rights of prisoners will be summoned for interrogations and tried in court. If found guilty, the said parties would be demoted, transferred and duly punished. The Government adds that even judge’s verdicts are subject to such scrutiny; if a judge is found to have issued a wrong verdict, he or she would be subject to appropriate disciplinary penalties.
36. 1076. As regards the previous allegation that Mr Osanloo endured spells of solitary confinement and several interrogations during his period of detention in Evin prison from 22 December 2005 to 9 August 2006, the Government states that legal interrogations of suspects, including the punishment of confinement, should not be regarded as organized harassment but rather as lawful, corrective, and disciplinary treatment.
37. 1077. Although detainees are not accorded the right to family visits during the preliminary stages of interrogations, Mr Osanloo was given the chance to see his family members and friends in the hospital during his regular medical examinations after the surgery. In a report of 5 November 2006, which had been issued nine days after Mr Osanloo’s delivery to the general ward of Evin prison, the chief of the prison acknowledged that upon his arrival Mr Osanloo had been confined to bed in the prison’s medical center. In a letter sent to Dr Movahadi, the Evin prison’s head doctor, Mr Osanloo further attested to receiving periodic diagnostic examinations and regular treatment for chronic backache, kidney malfunctions, and a failing heart. At the recommendation of the prison’s medical commission, he had also been repeatedly dispatched out of the prison to receive eye treatment in highly specialized hospitals. According to the latest report, at the request of Mr Osanloo and with the approval of the judicial authorities, he has been granted a 45-day medical leave and was consequently transferred to the specialized Labaefi Nejad Hospital on 24 January 2008. According to his wife, the initial admission examination found him to be in good general health. He is to receive special treatment for his heart, back and kidney diseases and will receive further operations. He is also scheduled for a four-week recovery leave, which may be extended by the respective medical commission if deemed necessary.
38. 1078. As regards the complainant’s previous allegation that the bail for Mr Osanloo’s release on 9 August 2006 was set at the exhorbitant amount of 100 million toman (US$165,000), the Government states that as a positive gesture, and in response to the repeated requests of the ITUC, the Minister of Labour wrote a personal letter to the chief of the judiciary and asked him to agree to release Mansour Osanloo on bail. The bail amount, however, is determined by the judiciary and is always commensurate with the severity of the charges against the accused. The bail amount alleged by the complainant is moreover an exaggerated one, as it was only set at the cost of a 100 m2 apartment in Tehran.
39. 1079. As concerns the complainant’s previous allegation that Mr Osanloo was arrested again on 19 November 2006 for failing to appear in court, the Government confirms that he was arrested for failing to appear in court to hear his pending charges. However, as concerns the complainant’s allegation that the judge had set Mr Osanloo’s bail at 30 million toman on condition that his wife alone act as guarantor – terms which she refused – the Government states that the judge made further concessions on the bail amount, yet failed to convince Mrs Osanloo to put up bail.
40. 1080. The Government maintains that allegations of Mr Osanloo’s arrest on 1 May 2007, and of another arrest at the order of the Minister of Labour are baseless accusations. It further denies the allegations of arrests and acts of violence committed by the police during protests by the complainant, contending that the said allegations are solely intended to generate and put international pressure on the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
41. 1081. The Government indicates that the judiciary hopes to ease the return of Mr Osanloo to his normal life. As has been repeatedly shown in the cases of the complainant’s other members, none of the official parties to the conflicts wishes to see the workers out of their jobs or in prison. Mr Osanloo, even while in prison, still has the right to appeal to the High Court of Appeal. According to the Government, the SVATH has acknowledged that it may not recognize the complainant organization and negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with them unless the Labour Law is amended to allow for multiple workers’ organizations in the same enterprise and approved by the Parliament. The Government states that it is strongly pushing for the requested amendments to Chapter VI of the Labour Law and has sought ILO technical assistance on the same as well. According to article 8 of the Procedure for the Establishment of Trade Unions, Trade Federations and Confederations, if any of the aforesaid organizations lose their membership quorum, they are automatically dissolved and their registrations deemed null and void. According to article 24 of the same procedure, the dissolution of an organization will not release it from its obligations under any collective bargaining agreement it is a party to.
42. 1082. As regards the complainant’s previous allegation that the Ministry of Labour had indicated that the difficulty in obtaining Mr Osanloo’s release rested not with the Ministry of Labour, but with the judicial authorities of the Islamic Republic and, more specifically, with the Information Ministry – the Government states that, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the administrative, legislative and judiciary bodies function independently of each other. The Ministry of Labour is by virtue of its mandate responsible, inter alia, for the protection of the labour force’s rights and interests, the management of industrial relations and the social welfare of workers and their families. Towards that end, it intervenes whenever it considers that the rights of the workers are violated or their interests are at stake. Although the Government wishes to prepare the grounds for the implementation of the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining, it must have the approval of the Parliament and the consensus of other workers’ organizations, namely the Workers’ House, which has long maintained an unyielding monopoly in the trade union arena and resists any revision to the provisions of the Labour Law that would diminish their representational advantage.
43. 1083. The Government indicates that according to the judiciary one of the biggest impediments to Mr Osanloo’s release is his continued attempt to recast his trade union activities as a dissident political struggle. The judiciary, along with both friendly and competing workers’ organizations, interpret the complainant organization’s publicly stated demand for the release of all political dissidents from prison, as a contentious and provocative political statement. Such statements and declarations, which are repeatedly made at virtually all the complainant’s events, cast doubt on the complainant’s motives and the legitimacy of its motivations. Nevertheless attempts have been made by the Government to hold technical workshops for the police and the judges with experts from the ILO’s Standards Department to better address trade union cases and enable them to more professionally distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate trade union activities.
44. 1084. The Government states that the trend towards independent trade unions in the Islamic Republic of Iran could have progressed more rapidly were it not for the political tone and intentions of some of the complainant’s members and their insistence on a global campaign against their legitimate government. It nevertheless has always done everything within its means to defend the complainant’s legitimate rights. The Ministry, for instance, reported the problems of the SVATH workers to the 37th Session of the Civil Rights Observation and Inspection Board held in January 2005, where it was agreed that the Ministry shall continue to closely follow the trade union rights of the complainant’s members and ensure due process in their hearings before the judiciary.
45. 1085. As regards the 8 November 2006 detainment of Mr Osanloo and nine other union board members in Tabriz, while en route to an ILO workshop, the Government indicates that, upon learning of the incident, the Minister of Labour personally intervened to seek and expedite the release of the individuals concerned and ensure their participation in the workshop.
46. 1086. Finally, as concerns the 3 December 2006 arrest of Seyed Davoud Razavi, Abdolreza Tarazi, and Golamreza Golam Hosseini, the Government states that their arrest was due to their participation in an unlawful assembly held by dissident groups, and bore no relation with their trade union activities.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1087. The Committee notes the observations submitted by the Government and the complainants’ new allegations, which concern: the repeated arrest and detention of union President Mr Osanloo and union Vice-President Mr Madadi, and their sentencing to prison terms of five and two years respectively; as well as the repeated arrest, detention, indictment and dismissal of numerous other trade union members, including members of the union’s executive board. The allegations are summarized as follows:
   • – The arrest, detention, trial and sentencing of Mansour Osanloo. Following his release from detention in Evin prison on 19 December 2006, Mr Osanloo was summoned to court on 24 February 2007. At trial, the prosecutor produced a file over 1,000 pages long, to which Mr Osanloo’s lawyer Mr Parviz Khorshid was only granted some days to provide a written defence statement. On 28 May 2007, the Tehran Revolutionary Court handed down a sentence of five years’ imprisonment for acting against national security and disseminating propaganda against the system. A written copy of the verdict was not given to Mr Osanloo’s lawyers, and the complainants state that, to the best of their knowledge, Mr Osanloo’s conviction was based on his trade union activities, including participation in protests and the distribution of union leaflets demanding better wages and working conditions. On 10 July 2007, pending his appeal of his conviction in May by the Tehran Revolutionary Court, Mr Osanloo was abducted by plain-clothed assailants, beaten, and taken to Evin prison; although an arrest warrant had been issued, no explanation of the grounds for his arrest and detention was provided. Mr Osanloo remains in detention in Evin prison, and in the intervening period has been subject to interrogations and allowed just one visit each from his family and lawyers. He has also been denied the course of treatment following eye surgery recommended by his physicians. The Tehran Court of Appeal upheld Mr Osanloo’s conviction and five-year prison sentence, and the complainants fear that additional charges may follow.
   • – The arrest, detention, trial and sentencing of Ebrahim Madadi. On 3 July 2007, while at the Western Tehran Labour Department to follow up on the situation of the bus drivers whose employment had been terminated, Mr Madadi was arrested on grounds of “causing public disturbance”, detained overnight at the Baharestan police station, and released the following day. On 9 August 2007, Mr Madadi was arrested while participating in a gathering in front of Mr Osanloo’s home and taken to Evin prison. According to his lawyer, Mr Parviz Khorshid, Mr Madadi had been formally charged with acting against national security in September 2007. Mr Madadi was detained in Evin prison until being transferred to Ghezal Hesar prison on 16 October 2007. On 30 October 2007 he was sentenced by the Tehran Revolutionary Court to two years’ imprisonment on the charge of acting against national security; the complainants indicate that the grounds for Mr Madadi’s conviction related to his participation in actions in support of Mr Osanloo, and that further charges relating to his participation in a 2004 strike could later be brought against him.
   • – The termination of employment, as of 20 February 2007, of the following trade union members: Saeed Torabian, Seyed Davoud Razavi, Mansour Hayat Gheibi, Golamreza Fazeli, Ebrahim Gholami, Yaghob Salami, Ebrahim Madadi, Abdolreza Tarazi, Golamreza Mirzaee, Golamreza Khani, Ashgar Mashhadi, Vahaab Mohammadi, Hassan Deghan, Seyed Reza Nematipoor, Mohammad Namani Poor, Hassan Saidi, Ali Bakshi Sharbiani, Hadi Kabiri, Ata Babakhani, Mahmoud Hozhabri, Soltan Ali Shekhari, Ali Akbar Pirhadi, Yousef Moradi, Davoud Noroozi, Seyed Hassan Dadkhah, Hossein Karimi Sabzevar, Masoud Ali Babaiee Nahavandi, Habib Shami Nejad, Sadegh Khandan, Golamreza Khoshmaram, Amir Takhiri, Masoud Foroghi Nejad, Ali Zade Hossein, Hossein Shahsavari, Homayoon Jaber, Hossein Raad, Ebrahim Noroozi Gohari, Golamreza Golam Hosseini, Hasan Karimi, Abbas Najand Koodaki. Four additional workers were dismissed in June 2007.
   • – The indictment of union executive board members Ata Babakhani, Naser Gholami, Abdolreza Tarazi, Golamreza Golam Hosseini, Gholamreza Mirzaee, Ali Zad Hosein and Hasan Karimi. The abovementioned union officials were arrested in December 2006 after distributing trade union leaflets and translating an ITUC protest letter for the Iranian authorities; all are presently awaiting trial.
   • – The arrest of trade union officials Mr Seyed Davoud Razavi, Mr Yaghob Salimi, Mr Ebrahim Noroozi Gohari, and Mr Homayoun Jaberi on 9 August 2007, while on their way to a gathering in front of Mr Osanloo’s house, and their subsequent indictment on charges of “acting against national security”.
   • – The 15 September 2007 trial of union executive board member Saeed Torabian for “propaganda against the State” and “acting against national security”. Defence lawyer Khorshid’s statement at trial asserted that the activities characterized by the judiciary as “propaganda against the State” were legitimate trade union activities, such as attending union meetings, participating in protests, distributing union leaflets and speaking to the media on union-related issues.
   • – The trials of union executive board members Abbas Najand Koodaki and Hayat Gheibi on 15 and 16 October 2007, respectively, and for charges of “propaganda against the State” and “acting against national security” in connection with their participation in protests organized by the union in 2005.
2. 1088. The Committee recalls that, in its previous conclusions, it had requested the Government to ensure that a full and independent investigation was carried out into the allegations of various types of workplace harassment during the period of the founding of the Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company (the union) from March to June 2005. In this respect, the Committee regrets to note that, although it had previously requested the Government to provide a detailed report respecting this matter, the Government confines itself to stating that while some of the individuals concerned were summoned for questioning, the questioning related to their work performance and they were not subject to any harassment whatsoever. The Committee further observes that the general explanation given by the Government in respect of all the allegations of anti-union discrimination in this case revolves around the current legislative impossibility for the union to exist while an Islamic Labour Council has already been created at the Tehran bus company.
3. 1089. In these circumstances, the Committee must first emphasize that workers should not be punished for legitimate trade union activity simply because their actions are contrary to legislation which itself is contrary to the fundamental principles of freedom of association. The Committee recalls in this regard its urgent request to the Government during its previous examination of this case to deploy all efforts as a matter of urgency to amend the labour legislation so as to bring it into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association, particularly as concerns the right of workers and employers to form and join the organization of their own choosing, regardless of the pre-existence of another type of representation in the same workplace, sector or at national level. In the meantime, the Committee had urged the Government to take all measures to ensure that trade unions can be formed and function without hindrance, including through the de facto recognition of the union. The Committee regrets to note from the Government’s latest reply that effective measures have not been taken to ensure that workers and employers can exercise their fundamental rights to freedom of association without sanction until the necessary legislative changes have been made. While noting the Government’s indication that it remains determined to amend the Labour Law to address this issue, the Committee observes that it has been taking note of the Government’s efforts in this regard for a number of years.
4. 1090. While noting the Government’s latest statement of its ongoing efforts to amend the labour legislation, the Committee is bound once again to urge the Government to deploy all efforts as a matter of urgency so as to allow for trade union pluralism and requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard. The Committee further reminds the Government once again of the availability of the technical assistance of the Office and urges the Government, in the meantime, to take all measures to ensure that trade unions can be formed and function without hindrance, including through the de facto recognition of the union.
5. 1091. Returning more specifically to the allegations of workplace harassment, the Committee once again recalls that the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and must ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination are examined in the framework of national procedures which should be prompt, impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 817]. It once again requests the Government to ensure that a full and independent investigation is carried out immediately into the allegations of various types of workplace harassment during the period of the union’s founding from March to June 2005, and to transmit a detailed report in this regard. It further requests the Government, in the light of the information revealed by the investigation, to take the necessary measures to ensure that all employees at the company are effectively protected against any form of discrimination related to their trade union membership or their trade union activities.
6. 1092. As regards its previous request to the Government to undertake a full and independent inquiry into all the dismissals alleged by the complainant, both during the March–June 2005 period and in March 2006, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the 17 trade unionists dismissed from March to June 2005 were reinstated with back wages and benefits. The Government also refers to efforts undertaken by the Ministry of Labour to obtain the reinstatement of 75 people who had been dismissed following protests in September and December 2005. The Government further indicates that the Dispute Settlement Board had ruled in favour of the reinstatement of ten of the workers dismissed in March 2006, while ruling in favour of the termination of the contracts of 43 others. The Committee, while noting this information, observes with grave concern that union members continue to be dismissed from the Tehran Bus Company on a regular basis. The Committee requests the Government to transmit copies of the Dispute Settlement Board’s rulings concerning the 43 workers whose contracts were terminated and to take the necessary measures for their reinstatement with back wages should it be found that they were dismissed for their legitimate trade union activity. The Committee also urges the Government to undertake a full and independent inquiry into the allegations of dismissals during the months of February and June 2007, and take the necessary measures to ensure that any trade unionists who have not yet been reinstated and were found to have been the subject of anti-union discrimination are fully reinstated in their previous positions without loss of pay. Finally, it requests the Government to keep it informed of the employment status of all those workers named in the complaint and indicate, for those who have not been reinstated, the precise reasons for their dismissal and the status of any reconsideration of their employment relationship.
7. 1093. As concerns its previous request that the Government immediately institute a full and independent judicial inquiry into the attacks on union meetings in May and June 2005, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that members of the Workers’ House were responsible for instigating the attacks, and that on both occasions the police were deployed solely to maintain discipline and prevent the spread of social unrest. While further noting that members of the union’s leadership had lodged complaints against the attackers with the judicial authorities, the Committee expresses its deep concern that, while condemning the occurrence of such harsh trade union conflicts, the Government has only indicated that these complaints will be duly heard by the relevant court of justice. The Committee remains perplexed that no judgement has yet been rendered in this case that concerns acts which took place three years ago, while the trials and convictions of the union leaders appear to have occurred in relative record time. In light of the gravity of these allegations, the Committee once again urges the Government to institute a full and independent judicial inquiry immediately into these attacks, in order to clarify the facts, determine responsibilities, prosecute and punish those responsible and thus prevent the repetition of such acts. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments, as well as of any court judgements rendered in this regard.
8. 1094. The Committee notes the Government’s observations relating to the allegations concerning Mr Osanloo’s arrest and detention that were contained in its previous report, where it noted in particular that: (1) Mr Osanloo was detained for roughly nine months, in Evin prison’s high security “section 209”; (2) his first meeting with his lawyers came six months after his arrest, on 24 June 2006; (3) he was subjected to frequent interrogations and periods of solitary confinement; (4) he was released on 9 August 2006, with bail set at the exorbitant amount of 150 million toman (US$165,000); (5) Mr Osanloo was rearrested on 19 November 2006 (see 346th Report, para. 1187).
9. 1095. The Committee notes the Government’s general indication that Mr Osanloo, during his terms in prison, had the right to see and consult his lawyers. The Government concedes, however, that at certain junctures the hearing judge might have limited his lawyers’ visits to ensure “proper judiciary processing of the relevant court file and limit access to possible accomplices”, and also refers to the possibility of legal and procedural limitations at the initial stages of examination. As concerns the allegations of interrogations and solitary confinement, the Government contends that “legal interrogations of suspects, including the punishment of confinement, should not be regarded as organized harassment but rather as lawful, corrective, and disciplinary treatment”. Finally, the Government contests the categorization of the bail amount as exorbitant and states that it corresponds to the cost of a 100 m2 apartment in Tehran.
10. 1096. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government’s observations in respect of these serious allegations are brief and of a vague and general nature, while apparently acknowledging that Mr Osanloo’s access to lawyers was limited and that he was subjected to interrogations and solitary confinement, all alleged to be justified as part of proper judiciary processing and normal disciplinary treatment. The Committee must once again recall in this regard that the apprehension and systematic or arbitrary interrogation by the police of trade union leaders involves a danger of abuse and could constitute a serious attack on trade union rights. Moreover, measures of preventive detention may involve a serious interference with trade union activities which can only be justified by the existence of a serious situation or an emergency and which would be open to criticism unless accompanied by adequate judicial safeguards applied within a reasonable period [see Digest, op. cit., paras 74 and 76].
11. 1097. In light of the information available to it, the Committee can only conclude that Mr Osanloo’s detention from 22 December 2005 to 9 August 2006 and the treatment received during this period constitute not only interference with his trade union activities, but a grave violation of his civil liberties as well. Recalling that detained trade unionists, like all other persons, should enjoy the guarantees enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, according to which all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person [see Digest, op. cit., para. 54], the Committee urges the Government to immediately institute an independent inquiry into the allegations of ill-treatment suffered by Mr Osanloo during his period of detention from 22 December 2005 to 9 August 2006, with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, punishing those responsible, compensating Mr Osanloo for any damages suffered and preventing the repetition of such acts.
12. 1098. As regards the serious new allegations relating to the renewed arrest, detention and sentencing of Mr Osanloo and Mr Madadi following trials in which their lawyer was denied access to them and given insufficient time to prepare, the Committee notes the Government’s indication – only in respect of Mr Osanloo – that he was convicted for collaboration with Iranian opposition groups and that his attempts to recast his trade union activities as a dissident political struggle remain an impediment to his release. The Committee further notes the judgements rendered by the Revolutionary Court of Tehran (17 April 2007) and the Appellate Court of Tehran (23 September 2007) in respect of Mr Osanloo which were provided by the Government. The Committee notes from these judgements that Mr Osanloo was convicted of propagandizing against the Government and gathering and conspiracy against the national security of the country and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in a four-page ruling.
13. 1099. The Committee notes with serious concern that the Government has provided no reply to the allegations that Mr Osanloo was interrogated by intelligence service officers during his November–December 2006 detention who informed him that new charges would be brought against him every day until he agreed to relinquish his trade union presidency. No reply was provided either in respect of the serious allegations that his February 2007 hearing took place behind closed doors and that neither he nor his lawyer were allowed to speak, while his lawyer was given only a few days to provide a written defence statement to an over 1,000-page file produced by the prosecutor. The Committee further observes with concern that the judgement only cursorily refers to the defence statement without providing any analysis or consideration of what might have been set out therein.
14. 1100. The Committee observes that the judgement in the Osanloo case, while referring to reports of the Ministry of Information and indications that he was arrested in November 2005 for allegedly encouraging workers and bus drivers of the Tehran Vahed Bus Company to strike and take actions against national security, goes on to condemn Mr Osanloo for his participation in a Republican Alliance Seminar outside of the country in January 2005 and his subsequent participation in a meeting organized by “anti-revolution activists” where, according to the confessions reflected in his file concerning his internal activities, he made interviews with anti-revolutionary and foreign radios stating that “we are living in a dictatorial country and we fear our lives and those of our families and colleagues. We are living and striving in a life-and-death situation … Perhaps these supports [foreigners’ support] were the power that prevented us from being taken to prisons and being murdered … these steps are so firm that even the heads of the current black period hand in hand with hoodlums and the so-called workers’ associations affiliated to expediency party cannot stop them”.
15. 1101. While political matters which do not impair the exercise of freedom of association are outside the competence of the Committee and it is not competent to deal with a complaint that is based on subversive acts [see Digest, op. cit., para. 208], the Committee must express its deep concern at the evolution of the arrests and detentions of Mr Osanloo within the context of his presidency of a non-recognized, albeit legitimate, trade union and his systematic persecution for legitimate trade union activities, as recognized in the judgement of the Revolutionary Court itself which refers to his November 2005 arrest for encouraging workers to take strike action. In these circumstances, and given the extremely tenuous nature of the charges brought against him for what would appear to be a simple expression of free speech and the lack of reply of the Government in respect of the allegations that Mr Osanloo was warned that new charges would be brought against him if he did not relinquish his trade union presidency, the Committee cannot but conclude that the five-year prison sentence is, in reality, a punishment for Mr Osanloo’s trade union activity.
16. 1102. In light of the above and the Government’s own indication that the judiciary hopes to ease the return of Mr Osanloo to his normal life, and emphasizing that Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to adequate time and the necessary facilities for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with counsel of their own choosing [see Digest, op. cit., para. 118], the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure Mr Osanloo’s immediate release and the dropping of any remaining charges. Further noting the disparity between the complainant’s allegations and the Government’s response concerning Mr Osanloo’s health, the Committee also requests the Government to provide full particulars as to his current state of health and to ensure that he is provided all necessary medical attention as a matter of urgency.
17. 1103. As regards the alleged arrest and sentencing of Mr Madadi for his participation in actions in support of Mr Osanloo, the Committee regrets that the Government has provided no information, nor has it transmitted the judgement from the Revolutionary Court in his case of October 2007. In light of its conclusions above concerning Mr Osanloo, the Committee also urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure Mr Madadi’s immediate release and the dropping of any remaining charges brought against him. Additionally, the Committee once again urges the Government to provide full, detailed and precise information respecting his trial, including copies of the court judgement, and to conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations of ill-treatment to which he has been subjected while in detention and, if they are found to be true, to compensate him for any damage suffered and to ensure that he is immediately provided any necessary medical treatment.
18. 1104. As concerns the arrest and detention of trade unionists at protests held in September and December 2005 and January and May of 2006, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government provides little specific information in regard to these serious allegations. The Government indicates that although there had been a few “disturbances” at the January 2006 protest, it rejects the allegations of violence employed by the authorities at the above events. Otherwise, the Government confines itself to stating that the above protests were illegitimate, and that those arrested were guilty of disturbing public order but treated leniently by the authorities. While noting that the limited information at its disposal does not permit it to determine whether the actions of the authorities were justified or not, the Committee is nevertheless compelled to recall that workers should enjoy the right to peaceful demonstration to defend their occupational interests, and that the police authorities should be given precise instructions so that, in cases where public order is not seriously threatened, people are not arrested simply for having organized or participated in a demonstration [see Digest, op. cit., paras 133 and 151].
19. 1105. Furthermore, the Committee deplores the fact that since its previous examination of the case, many other trade unionists have been arrested, detained, tried (Saeed Torabian, Abbas Najand Koodaki, and Hayat Gheibi), or are awaiting trial. Observing furthermore that the charges against these trade unionists are the same as those for which Mr Osanloo and Mr Madadi were convicted, the Committee is bound to observe that the situation obtaining in the country appears to be characterized by regular violations of civil liberties and what appears to be a systematic use of the criminal law – in particular articles 500 and 610 of the Islamic Penal Code concerning “propaganda against the State” and “acting against national security”, respectively – to punish trade unionists for engaging in legitimate trade union activities. In these circumstances, the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to ensure that trade unionists may fully exercise their freedom of association rights, including the right to peaceful assembly, without fear of sanction by the authorities, and to ensure in particular that trade unionists are not arrested or detained and that charges are not brought against them for engaging in legitimate trade union activities. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the charges against the following union members are immediately dropped: Ata Babakhani, Naser Gholami, Abdolreza Tarazi, Golamreza Golam Hosseini, Gholamreza Mirzaee, Ali Zad Hosein, Hasan Karimi, Seyed Davoud Razavi, Yaghob Salimi, Ebrahim Noroozi Gohari, Homayoun Jaberi, Saeed Torabian, Abbas Najand Koodaki and Hayat Gheibi and that if any of these trade unionists are currently being detained that they be immediately released. The Committee further requests the Government to provide any court judgements rendered in respect of these workers.
20. 1106. The Committee is compelled to express its deep concern with the seriousness of the situation and calls the Governing Body’s special attention to the grave situation relating to the trade union climate in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It requests the Government to accept a direct contacts mission in respect of the matters raised in the present case and in the other cases concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran pending before the Committee.