Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 325, June 2001

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 34. At its meeting in November 2000 [see 323rd Report, paras. 201-213] the Committee examined this case, which concerned the arrest and detention of a trade union member, Mr. Nguelani. On that occasion, recalling that the arrest of trade unionists against whom no charge is brought involves serious restrictions on freedom of association, the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that Mr. Nguelani was duly compensated by the authorities for his loss of salary during preventive detention and requested the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
2. 35. In a communication dated 31 January 2001, the Government states that, as regards the arrest of Mr. Nguelani, national law does not grant trade union immunity in criminal cases and that there is no indication that his detention ordered by a judge on grounds other than trade union activity was used as a pretext to justify restriction of his exercise of freedom of association. Concerning his being placed in preventive custody for four months, the Government points out that this was within the law, since in criminal cases preventive custody is limited to six months.
3. 36. As regards compensation for loss of his salary, the Government points out that national law provides that compensation may be awarded to a person who has been held in preventive custody during proceedings culminating in dismissal of the case, discharge or acquittal, where such detention caused manifestly unusual and particularly serious prejudice to the accused. The time limit for appeal is six months following the decision of dismissal, discharge or acquittal. In this case, according to the Government, it was up to Mr. Nguelani to claim this right within the prescribed time limit, failing which it would be time-barred. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, neither he nor his trade union confederation had availed themselves of this right.
4. 37. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and, in particular, the fact that according to it there was no indication that the detention of Mr. Nguelani ordered by a judge on grounds other than trade union activity had been used as a pretext to justify restriction of his exercise of freedom of association. However, the Committee recalls that in its previous examination of the case it had observed from the written statement made by the plaintiff, Ms. Oyane, which had been certified by Boové town hall and transmitted by the Government, that she affirmed that the labour inspector had strongly urged the plaintiffs to bring a charge against the CGSL representative for embezzlement of the sums paid, inter alia, for CGSL membership. This written statement had concluded by severely censuring the improper conduct of the labour inspector. The Committee had also noted that as a result of this charge, the CGSL representative had been held in preventive custody for four months, that his request for release on bail had been refused, and that the case had finally been dismissed. In these circumstances, although the Government refuses to see a link between Mr. Nguelani’s legitimate trade union activity and the charges brought against him which led to his detention, the Committee can only reiterate the conclusions it had formulated during its previous examination of the case, i.e. that the arrest of trade unionists against whom no charge is brought involves restrictions on freedom of association.