Interim Report - Report No 350, June 2008

1. 952. 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 1098–1129].
2. 953. The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) submitted additional information in support of its allegations in communications dated 4 July and 27 August 2007.
3. 954. The Government provided its observations in a communication dated 13 February and 28 April 2008.
4. 955. The Islamic Republic of Iran has not ratified either the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 956. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 346th Report, para. 1129]:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to communicate a copy of the Supreme Court final decision concerning the killing of four innocent persons by the police force during the incidents in Shahr-e-babak and to indicate the measures the Government has taken or envisaged in order to determine responsibility, punish the guilty parties and prevent the repetition of such acts.
   • (b) The Committee urges the Government to keep it informed of measures taken to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations, which might result in a disturbance of the peace.
   • (c) The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the occupations and any trade union affiliation of the six persons convicted as a result of the events in Shahr-e-babak, as well on the specific acts with which they were accused and the grounds on which they were convicted. The Committee requests the Government to communicate the court decisions handed down against these persons.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to ensure the immediate release of any trade unionists who may still be detained in connection with the 2004 May Day celebration and to take steps to ensure that the charges brought against them are dropped and to keep it informed in this respect. Noting that the case of Mr Divangar is currently on appeal, the Committee expects that the Court of Appeal will re-examine this case having regard to the provisions of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and that Mr Divangar will be acquitted of all remaining charges which appear now to be strictly related to his trade union activities. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
   • (e) The Committee requests the Government to institute an independent inquiry into the complainant’s allegation of Mr Divangar’s arrest, detention, alleged severe beating and court summons in August 2005 and to provide full particulars in this regard.
   • (f) The Committee requests the Government to carry out a full and independent investigation into the allegation of the arrest of trade union leaders of the Teachers’ Guild Association in July 2004 and to provide detailed information in this respect.
   • (g) The Committee once again urges the Government to institute an independent inquiry into the allegations that the Intelligence Ministry interrogated, threatened and harassed Messrs Shis Amani, Hadi Zarei and Fashid Beheshti Zad and to keep it informed of the outcome.
   • (h) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the developments with regard to the amendment of the Labour Law and to transmit a copy of the final proposed amendments so that it may examine this case in full knowledge of the facts.

B. The complainant’s new allegations

• Saqez
  957. 957 In its communication of 4 July 2007, the complainant indicates that Mahmoud Salehi had appealed his November 2006 conviction in the Saqez Revolutionary Court, and that his last appeal trial, held on 11 March 2007, was marked by procedural irregularities. Mr Salehi was tried on appeal by the individual who had served as the prosecutor at the time of his initial arrest, in May 2004, and who had also approved Mr Salehi’s sentence of four years’ imprisonment in November 2006.
  958. 958 In accordance with the court’s summons, Mahmoud Salehi, Jalal Hosseini, and Mohsen Hakimi along with their lawyer, Mohammad Sharif, appeared at the Kurdistan Province Court of Appeals on 11 March 2007. After some delay Mr Sharif was informed that Mr Mohammad Mostofi, the presiding judge of division 7, was on leave. In accordance with the required procedure, Mr Sharif informed the court secretary of his and his clients’ presence in the court, and of their intention to leave; the secretary asked them to wait while he alerted the Chief of the court. One hour later, Mr Sharif was informed that the hearing would, in fact, take place, with Judge Sadeghi presiding. At the time of the arrest of seven labour leaders in Saqez at a 2004 May Day rally, a group which included Salehi, Hosseini, and Hakimi, Mr Sadeghi was Saqez’s prosecutor and had therefore signed the labour leaders’ arrest warrants. In the Saqez Revolutionary Court trial of October 2006, Mr Sadeghi was the Chief of Saqez’s Justice Department; the judge who sentenced Salehi and his three colleagues in that trial was a substitute judge, Mr Shayegh, and their sentence was only confirmed after Mr Sadeghi’s approval. Salehi, Hosseini and Hakimi were therefore tried on appeal by the same person who had ordered their initial arrest and confirmed their sentencing in the second trial. No verdict was pronounced at the appeal hearing of 11 March 2007, and the defendants and their lawyer were not informed of the trial’s outcome.
  959. 959 On 9 April 2007, Salehi was visited by a commanding officer in the Saqez security force at the Bakery Workers Association’s solidarity office. The official demanded that Salehi appear at the Prosecutor’s office to discuss issues related to the 2007 May Day celebration with the Governor and Prosecutor of Saqez. As soon as he entered the Prosecutor’s office, however, Salehi was informed that the Kurdistan Court of Appeals had reached a final verdict in his case and had sentenced him to one year imprisonment and a further suspended sentence of three years’ imprisonment. He was arrested on the spot and denied the right to inform his lawyer or relatives. Salehi protested his sentence and arrest and refused to sign the verdict. After the authorities were warned by Salehi’s colleagues and relatives that the citizens of Saqez would be called upon to protest, he was allowed to speak on the phone with his family, which is how his relatives learned that he would be transferred to Sanandaj, the capital of Kurdistan province and 400 kilometres from Saqez. Salehi is currently being held in Sanandaj’s Central Prison.
• Attacks by security forces against a workers’ gathering in support of Salehi
  960. 960 The complainant indicates that on 16 April 2007, security forces violently disbanded a rally in support of Mr Salehi’s release by dozens of workers and labour activists, mostly bakery workers from Saqez, in front of his workplace – the Saqez Workers Consumer Cooperative. Uniformed and plainclothes security officers attacked the workers with sticks and gas spray. Several workers were injured; it was also reported that Salehi’s 17-year-old son, Samarand Salehi, was arrested during the rally. Jalal Hosseini and Mohammad Abdipour were summoned to the Prosecutor’s office to prevent them from attending the gathering, and Abdipour, who was acquitted of all charges in November 2006, was warned that he could not attend the rally under any circumstances because of his sentence. The security forces also closed down the Cooperative’s offices.
• Salehi’s prison conditions
  961. 961 On 18 April 2007, the complainant wrote to the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran to protest the arrests of trade unionists and expressed its concern that Mr Salehi, while in custody, could be denied the medical attention he needs for his kidney condition; no response from the Iranian authorities was received. Salehi’s family, lawyer and supporters were attempting to secure his temporary medical release in order for him to receive treatment outside prison. The Saqez Prosecutor’s Office allowed Salehi temporary leave on 22 May 2007; however the Chief of Sanandaj prison and the Sanandaj Prosecutor’s Office denied the leave and left his release for the Prison Council to decide – which meant that a decision would not be taken for at least another month.
  962. 962 On 28 May 2007, Mr Salehi informed his wife, Ms Najibeh Salehzadeh, that his health condition had become life-threatening (extreme kidney pain and low blood pressure) and asked for an urgent response to address his health problems. On 31 May 2007, the complainant wrote to the ILO Director-General requesting his intervention in this matter.
  963. 963 On 5 June 2007, Najibeh Salehzadeh wrote to the complainant with more details concerning Salehi’s situation in prison. While Salehi’s health continued to deteriorate, his family’s efforts to get him transferred to a hospital were met with delays and rejections by the prison authorities, whereas the authorities that were approached with a request to transfer Salehi to the Saqez prison had responded that they had no mandate to take such a decision. According to his physician’s opinion, given in a letter delivered to the prison authorities on 31 May 2007, Salehi could not be adequately treated in prison; moreover, the prison doctor had also informed Salehi that nothing could be done for him unless he was treated by a specialist.
  964. 964 On 17 June 2007, Mr Salehi was transferred under heavy security to the Tohid Hospital in Sanandaj. After a medical examination, he was returned to prison. To the complainant’s best knowledge, although Salehi’s health continues to deteriorate, he is still being denied adequate medical treatment; he has also developed heart and intestinal problems and is unable to stand on his feet. On 19 June 2007, the prison authorities refused to authorize a visit to Salehi from his lawyer, Mohammad Sharif. Mr Sharif was informed that as the verdict in Salehi’s case had been final, the lawyer did not have any right to intervene on Salehi’s behalf for the duration of his imprisonment. Salehi’s family is also denied visitation rights and can only contact him by telephone. The complainant expresses its deep concern that the denial of proper medical assistance to Salehi is an attempt on behalf of the Iranian intelligence services to force him to halt his trade union activities and that his life could be in imminent danger.
  965. 965 In its communication of 27 August 2007, the complainant indicates that Salehi, who is still being held in the Sanandaj prison despite his life-threatening health condition, was transferred to the Tohid Hospital on 12 July 2007 after having lost consciousness in jail. He received only basic treatment in the hospital and was sent back to prison after 14 hours. Also, Salehi’s lawyer Mohammad Sharif reported that the Government did not intervene with the relevant authorities with regard to the conditions of Salehi’s detention, and that his efforts to secure adequate medical assistance for Salehi had gone unanswered. On 23 August 2007, Salehi was again taken to the Tohid Hospital’s emergency room due to critically low blood pressure; he was returned to prison on the same day.
• Arrest and corporal punishment for trade union activities
  966. 966 On 16 May 2007, 11 members of the Nationwide Union of the Unemployed and Dismissed Workers of Iran (NUUDWI) were convicted by the Sanandaj Revolutionary Court of disturbing public peace and order by participating in an illegal gathering, and of displaying “unusual behaviour”. The complainants indicate that the basis for their convictions was their participation in the 2007 May Day union activities, and provides ten of the members’ names as follows: Khaled Savari, Habibollah Kallehkani, Fars Govilian, Sadigh Amjadi, Sadigh Sobhani, Abbas Andaryari, Moheyoddin Rajabi, Tayeb Malayi, Tayeb Chatani and Eghbal Latifi.
  967. 967 On 4 August 2007, the 104th Prosecutorial Branch of the General Penal Court of Sanandaj sentenced the 11 trade unionists to 91 days’ imprisonment and the corporal punishment of ten lashes of the whip, to be administered immediately. The 11 individuals have appealed the verdict, and to the complainant’s knowledge the sentences had yet to be carried out. The NUUDWI had written to the complainant to draw attention to the fact that the sentences were handed down shortly before an International Trade Union Day of Action, organized on 9 August 2007 by the complainant and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) to express solidarity with the workers in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the NUUDWI’s view, the sentences were intended to intimidate Iranian workers so as to dissuade them from joining any actions planned for that day. The complainant indicates that it strongly supports this view and condemns the Iranian judiciary’s despicable attitude. It furthermore contends that it has good reason to believe that some sectors of the country’s executive branch exert influence over the court that had issued the sentences, thus casting doubt on the judiciary’s independence.
  968. 968 On 15 August 2007, the General Penal Court of Sanandaj sentenced Sheys Amani, the president of the NUUDWI’s Board of Directors, and Sedigh Karimi, a union member, to two and a half years’ imprisonment. According to the court ruling, Mr Amani’s sentence could be reduced by up to six months in exchange for payment, while Karimi’s could be reduced by up to one year in exchange for payment. Both Amani and Karimi have already spent several months in prison due to their participation in the 2007 May Day union activities in Sanandaj.

C. The Government’s reply

• Khatoonabad and Shahr-e-babak
  969. 969 In its communication of 13 February 2008, the Government states that it considers the Shahr-e-babak and Khatoonabad incidents to be separate events, and furthermore considers that the latter incident was a destructive riot that could potentially have jeopardized the life and security of innocent people. The Government denies that the Khatoonabad incident implicates any freedom of association principles. The measures taken by the police, which incidentally led to unforeseen and regrettable results, should not be viewed as premeditated measures taken to limit the exercise of freedom of association rights, but rather as a spontaneous reaction to protect public safety and security.
  970. 970 As regards the legal proceedings relating to the violent clashes in Shahr-e-babak, in which four innocent persons were killed, the Government states that the family members of one of the four victims appealed the decision of the military court, which acquitted the police force but recognized the right of the victims’ families to receive compensation. The National Supreme Court rejected the family members’ appeal and upheld the military court’s decision in Verdict No. 31/470 of 28 August 2007. The Government states that the acquittal of the police forces demonstrates that the police had observed the regulations concerning the deployment of force; under article 1 of the Military Force Penal Code, the police were not found to be at fault in coping with the situation. The Government moreover has ensured that the bereaved families would receive due compensation, as determined by the court, and expresses its deepest remorse over the deaths.
  971. 971 The Government contends that none of the ILO standards sanction the resort to public coercion or vandalism in pursuit of trade union activities, but hold rather that workers’ and employers’ organizations must observe national laws and regulations in carrying out their activities. Peaceful trade union strikes and sit-ins may therefore be distinguished from social disturbances leading to the vast destruction of property and the jeopardizing of public safety.
  972. 972 As concerns the Committee’s previous recommendation that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations, the Government indicates that through the National Security Council it has implemented strict rules and regulations regarding the control of demonstrations that might potentially result in disturbance of the peace. The said regulations include the following language: (1) “… when dealing with and controlling public demonstrations, rallies, and social unrest, the disciplinary forces should strictly observe the regulations concerning the use of weapons and anti-riot equipment …”; and (2) ”… this Act forms the basis for security and disciplinary forces practices in controlling unrest and disorder. Any violation of this Act shall be subject to severe disciplinary measures and penalties.”
  973. 973 Police and anti-riot forces have received very strict instructions to apply disciplinary force and deploy firearms only in exceptional cases, and the slightest breach of the relevant regulations would be subject to severe penalties. The Deputy Minister of the Interior for Security and Disciplinary Affairs, who also chairs the National Security Council, has also recently circulated instructions and guidelines to the governors and chiefs of the provincial security councils to caution them against the application of disciplinary violence in controlling demonstrations. Moreover, the Government has discussed the possibility of technical cooperation projects to train the police forces in how best to deal with trade union demonstrations with the ILO.
  974. 974 The Government states that the six persons convicted as a result of the events in Shahr-e-babak – Mohammad Fahim Mahmoodi, Abbas Meimandinia, Hossein Moradian, Momen Pourmahmoodieh, Saeed Zadegangi and Ali Asghar Soflaei – were either unemployed or food sellers; none had any record of trade union affiliation or of having engaged in trade union activities. Moreover, it has no information linking the said events with trade union activities and no workers’ organization had claimed responsibility for organizing the said events. Taking into account the spontaneous nature of the incident, and the role ethnic solidarity may have played in causing the protests, the court downgraded the serious offences committed by the six individuals in order to reduce the recurrence of social unrest in Shahr-e-babak. Accordingly, the sentences of 4–9 months’ imprisonment for Abbas Meimandinia, Hossein Moradian, Momen Pourmahmoodieh, Saeed Zadegangi and Ali Asghar Soflaei for destruction and defacement of public and private property were suspended for three years. The sentences were handed down by the Court of First Instance on 8 June 2004 and suspended under Verdict No. 93 of the Appellate Court, dated 14 January 2005. As regards Mohammad Fahim Mahmoodi, his sentence of imprisonment was commuted to a penalty of 1 million rials (approximately US$100). A copy of Verdict No. 93 is attached to the Government’s communication.
• Saqez
  975. 975 As concerns the charges against several trade unionists relating to their participation in the 2004 May Day rally, the Government states that in the autumn of 2006 the Court of First Instance handed down sentences of four years’ imprisonment to Mahmoud Salehi and Jalal Hosseini, and sentences of two years’ imprisonment to Borhan Divangar and Mohsen Hakimi (also known as Mohsen Kamgouyan), respectively. In Verdict No. 1817, the Appellate Court suspended three years of Salehi’s four-year sentence for a three-year period; in Verdict Nos 1818, 1819, and 1820 of 16 March 2007, the Appellate Court suspended the entire sentences of Hosseini, Divangar and Hakimi for a period of three years. Copies of Verdict Nos 1817–1820 are attached to the complaint. The verdicts further stipulate that: (1) any new crimes committed during the suspension period would nullify the suspension and cause the 2006 sentences to be applied; and (2) the parties concerned may not organize any illegal assembly or gathering disturbing the public order, whether union-related or not, and may not contact anti-revolutionary groups or people electronically, via the Internet or using telecommunication technology.
  976. 976 According to the Government, the suspension of the four trade unionists’ sentences demonstrates the leniency with which their cases have been treated. The Appellate Court’s verdicts, however, also prohibit the individuals concerned from violating the boundaries of conventional trade union activities and associating themselves with political groups wishing to endanger the sovereignty, integrity and security of the Government.
  977. 977 The Government states that Borhan Divangar is living abroad and that Mahmoud Salehi is serving his one-year term of imprisonment. As regards Salehi’s treatment, the Government indicates that, contrary to what has been falsely and maliciously promoted in various media, Salehi has been constantly examined by renowned doctors for his different diseases and has had ample access to special medical treatment throughout his imprisonment term. Salehi’s family and friends were allowed to visit him in prison in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations, and other parties, including members of the European Parliament and Mr Hanafiroustandi, the head of the Indonesian Trade Union Confederation and an ITF delegate, were reported to have met with Salehi’s wife and friends.
  978. 978 As regards the arrest and detention of Borhan Divangar in August 2005, the Government states that Divangar and several other trade unionists were arrested at a May Day 2004 rally for violating civil codes of conduct and causing public disorder. After initial investigations, the detainees were all released on bail while their cases were waiting to be heard by the relevant court of justice. Upon his release on bail, Divangar illegally left the country to join his anti-Government and subversive comrades abroad; he is presently a member of the Central Communist Workers’ Committee known as “Hekmatist”. The provincial security and disciplinary authorities dismiss the allegations that Divangar was unlawfully interrogated, threatened or harassed.
• Teachers’ Guild Association
  979. 979 According to the information received from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Mahmoud Beheshti Langarudi was arrested in 2004 on the charges of organizing an illegal assembly and closing the public school. He was reportedly released on bail on 24 July 2004. The Public Prosecutor in Branch No. 2 renounced the allegations against Langarudi and acquitted him of all of them. Ali-Asghar Zati was arrested on charges of congregating to conspire against national security, collaborating with the opposition and subversive groups and violating national rules and regulations. Some of the allegations brought against him were later withdrawn. His case was then referred to the public courts through a bill of indictment for violating national rules and regulations. The respective court ruled that he had violated the national law; his sentence is not related to his trade union activities.
• Sanandaj Textile Factory
  980. 980 According to an independent inquiry and the latest information received from the Labour Office of Kerman Province, Shis Amani requested the termination of his employment at the workplace, under the pretext of hardship of labour conditions, and is reported to have received all legal allowances and benefits due him amounting to 70 million Rials (approximately US$7,200). Amani had established a Committee to organize the Free Workers’ Associations in Iran without legal registration and is reported to have consistently persuaded the provincial workers’ associations and production units to go on strike. Amani encouraged strikes at the Shahou Spinning Factory and the Parris Spinning Factory, both located in Sanandaj, in 2005 and 2007 respectively. He has seemingly also been behind many pseudo-union activities leading to social insurgencies and is reported to have played an active role in threatening the workers of the Tehran Bus Company (SVATH) who were unwilling to go on strike.
  981. 981 Hadi Zarei, a member of the Islamic Labour Council of the textile plant, requested the termination of his employment soon after the strikes finished. He received his severance pay and all other legal allowances and benefits totalling 130 million rials (approximately US$13,000).
  982. 982 Fashid Beheshti Zad, one of the main instigators of the social crises in Kurdistan Province, is reported to be associated with opposition and subversive groups abroad. Zad has pretended to be detained and spread false reports of being threatened and harassed by security forces; he is also said to have caused disturbances at the workplace and been involved in persuading workers in different production units to go on strikes repeatedly, including strikes at the Shahou Spinning Factory in 2005 and the Parris Spinning Factory in 2007. During independent inquiries, the provincial security and disciplinary offices denied the allegations of interrogations, threats and harassment of Shis Amani, Hadi Zarei and Fashid Beheshti Zad.
  983. 983 The Government indicates that it has been closely and effectively cooperating with the Social Dialogue and International Labour Standards Departments of the ILO. The proposed amendments to the Labour Law were examined by an ILO mission in February 2007. The meetings of the Government’s representatives with ILO officials in Geneva and Tehran since 2003 clearly demonstrate the Government’s determination to resolve the existing difficulties, including ambiguities and shortcomings in Chapter VI of the Labour Code concerning freedom of association. The redrafted Chapter VI of the Labour Law provides proper grounds for the implementation of freedom of association and further paves the way for the expansion of trade union activities; the Government hopes to amend these provisions in cooperation with the social partners and the relevant parliamentary commissions.
  984. 984 In a communication dated 28 April 2008, the Government informs of the release of Mr Salehi from prison on 6 April 2008. In a communication of 28 May 2008, the Government indicates that the Chief of the Judiciary, Ayatollah Sharoudi, had visited Kurdistan Province and met with NUUDWI member Sedigh Karimi. Following this meeting, Sharoudi decreed the immediate release of the 11 NUUDWI members who had been arrested and detained in connection with the May Day 2007 demonstrations. The Government adds that Sheys Amani, the President of the NUUDWI’s Board of Directors, was among the 11 individuals released. All of the above had been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and had served nearly one month of their terms (33 days in the case of Sheys Amani) prior to their release. Finally, the Government states that the adviser and the representative of the Chief of the Judiciary in the Committee of Amnesty, who had previously met with ILO officials in the International Labour Standards Department, were reported to have played an instrumental role in securing the 11 individuals’ early release.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 985. The Committee recalls that this case concerns allegations of the violent police repression of strikes, protests and the May Day 2004 rally in Saqez; the arrest, detention and conviction of several trade union leaders and activists for their trade union activities; the arrest of trade union leaders of the Teachers’ Guild Association; intervention in a strike at the Sanandaj Textile Factory and subsequent harassment of the workers’ representatives; and the proposal and adoption of legislation that would restrict the trade union rights of a large number of workers.
2. 986. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to communicate a copy of the Supreme Court’s final decision concerning the killing of four innocent persons by the police force during the incidents in Shahr-e-babak, and to indicate the measures the Government has taken or envisaged in order to determine responsibility, punish the guilty parties and prevent the repetition of such acts. From the factual record summarized in the Supreme Court’s decision, the Committee takes note of the following:
   • – On 24 January 2004, 200 persons gathered in front of the Sarcheshmeh Copper Complex in Khatoonabad – a town in Shahr-e-babak – to protest the recruitment of non-native workers at the complex.
   • – The police force used tear gas and fired air shots at the crowd, which responded by throwing stones at the police. The protestors eventually dispersed upon being addressed by the Deputy of the Kerman Disciplinary Force.
   • – At the time of the protest, some youths attacked the premises of the Governor’s Office and Police Station No. 11, breaking windows and damaging some of the facilities.
   • – The police force tried to disperse them with air shots, but subsequently ignored its orders and resorted to shooting, killing four as a consequence and injuring others.
   • – The parents of one of the deceased lodged a complaint; however, the prosecution of the disciplinary forces involved was stopped by the Military Prosecutor and the matter was referred to the Military Court, which acquitted the police force but issued a decision ordering compensation for the victims’ families.
   • – The families of the deceased appealed the Military Court verdict to the Supreme Court, alleging that the Military Court lacked competence over the matter and that the shootings were acts of homicide.
3. 987. The Committee observes that in its judgement the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and upheld the Military Court’s decision. While noting the Government’s indication that the Supreme Court’s verdict demonstrates that the police had observed the regulations on the deployment of force, the Committee nevertheless observes that in its decision, the Supreme Court had refused to address the issue of the culpability of the police forces, stating that that matter fell outside of its competence; its dismissal of the victim’s family’s claim was therefore on jurisdictional grounds. The Committee notes, moreover, that the summary in the decision indicates that the police force ignored its orders by resorting to shooting. In these circumstances, the Committee can only deplore the continued absence of any judgement against those responsible for the incident and emphasizes once again that a situation of impunity reinforces the climate of violence and insecurity and is extremely damaging to the exercise of trade union rights [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 52].
4. 988. As regards the six persons convicted as a result of the events in Shahr-e-babak, the Committee notes that according to the Government, the individuals concerned were either unemployed or food sellers, with no record of trade union affiliation. They were each given sentences of imprisonment, for periods ranging from four to nine months, and the sentences were subsequently suspended for a period of three years by the Appellate Court in Verdict No. 93 of 2005. Observing that the information currently at its disposal does not suffice to establish a relationship between their arrests and the industrial unrest in Khatoonabad, the Committee considers that, unless new information is brought forward by the complainant, this matter does not call for further examination.
5. 989. As regards police interventions more generally and the Committee’s requests that the Government keep it informed of measures taken to ensure that the competent authorities received adequate instructions so as to eliminate the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations, which might result in a disturbance of the peace, the Committee takes note of the Government’s indications that: (1) it has implemented strict rules and regulations regarding the control of demonstrations that might potentially result in disturbance of the peace; (2) the police and anti-riot forces have received very strict instructions to apply disciplinary force and deploy firearms only in exceptional cases; (3) it has also recently circulated instructions and guidelines to the governors and chiefs of the provincial security councils to caution them against the application of disciplinary violence in controlling demonstrations; and (4) it has discussed with the ILO the possibility of technical cooperation projects to train the police forces in how best to deal with trade union demonstrations. The Committee requests the Government to provide full documentation of the measures referred to, including copies of the instructions circulated to the police and the provincial security councils.
6. 990. The Government’s indications notwithstanding, the Committee notes with grave concern the complainant’s recent allegations that the security forces violently disbanded a 16 April 2007 rally in support of Mr Salehi’s release from prison by attacking the participants with sticks and gas spray. Further noting the complainant’s allegations that Mahmoud Salehi’s son, Samarand Salehi, was arrested at the rally, that Jalal Hosseini and Mohammad Abdipour were summoned to the Prosecutor’s office to prevent them from attending the gathering, and that the security forces closed down the offices of the Saqez Workers Consumer Cooperative, in front of which the rally was held, the Committee deeply regrets the Government’s failure to provide information in this regard and urges it to immediately institute independent inquiries into all of these serious new allegations.
7. 991. The Committee further recalls that it had previously requested the Government to ensure the immediate release of any trade unionists who may still be detained in connection with the 2004 May Day celebration and to take steps to ensure that the charges brought against them are dropped. Noting that the case of Mr Divangar was on appeal, the Committee also expected that the Appellate Court would re-examine his case having regard to the provisions of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and that Mr Divangar would be acquitted of all remaining charges, which appeared to be strictly related to his trade union activities. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Appellate Court, in decisions handed down on 16 March 2007, had suspended the sentences of Borhan Divangar, Mohsen Hakimi and Jalal Hosseini while commuting Salehi’s imprisonment sentence from four years to one. The Committee further observes from the decisions provided that, when initially reviewing on 9 April 2006 the convictions of Messrs Hosseini, Abdipour, Salehi and Hakimi in 2005 by the Court of First Instance for jeopardizing national security by participating in an assembly, the Appellate Court, found that these charges had not been proven and remanded the cases of the individuals concerned to the Court of First Instance. When reviewing the cases of Messrs Divangar, Hakimi, Hosseini and Salehi on 16 March 2007, the Committee notes that the Appellate Court, while finding that each of the individuals concerned had failed to submit a “justifiable objection” to the lower court’s judgements, had reduced their original sentences as it “did not believe in the full enforcement of the punishment”. The decisions transmitted by the Government do not indicate the specific acts for which the concerned individuals were convicted in the Court of First Instance on remand nor do they specify the precise grounds for dismissing the plaintiff’s objections.
8. 992. The Committee deplores the fact that, in spite of its previous request, the Government has not dropped the charges against Messrs Hosseini, Divangar, Hakimi and Salehi and has only reduced the sentence of Mahmoud Salehi to one year in prison. It notes with deep concern, moreover, that the suspension of these trade unionists’ sentences is subject to a three-year probationary period, during which they may not organize any “illegal assembly or gathering disturbing the public order, whether union-related or not, or contact anti-revolutionary groups or people electronically, via the Internet or using telecommunication technology”. Recalling that it had previously noted the lack of sufficient information to justify the trade unionists’ convictions for organizing illegal assembly and congregating to conspire to commit crimes [see 346th Report, para. 1122 and 342nd Report, paras 683–684], and noting moreover that the Government has once again failed to provide detailed information in that respect, the Committee is compelled to emphasize once again that, in cases where the complainants alleged that trade union leaders or workers had been arrested for trade union activities, and the Government’s replies amounted to general denials of the allegation or were simply to the effect that the arrests were made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security or for common law crimes, the Committee has followed the rule that the Government concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests, particularly in connection with the legal or judicial proceedings instituted as a result thereof and the result of such proceedings, in order to be able to make a proper examination of the allegations [see Digest, op. cit., para. 111]. Moreover, the Committee is inclined to consider that the conditions attached to the suspension of the trade unionists’ sentences are intended to dissuade them from pursuing legitimate trade union activities – particularly the organizing of peaceful rallies. It requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay 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, 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. While noting with interest the recent release of Mr Salehi, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that any remaining charges against Messrs Hosseini, Divangar, Salehi and Hakimi are immediately dropped and that their sentences are annulled and to keep it informed of developments in this regard.
9. 993. As regards Mahmoud Salehi, the Committee expresses deep concern over the complainant’s allegation that he had been denied adequate medical treatment during his time in prison. While noting the Government’s general denial of any mistreatment suffered by Mr Salehi, the Committee urges the Government to institute an independent inquiry into the allegations of the denial of medical treatment to Mr Salehi with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, punishing those responsible, compensating him for any damages suffered and preventing the repetition of such acts.
10. 994. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to institute an independent inquiry into the allegation of Mr Divangar’s arrest, detention, severe beating and court summons in August 2005. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government’s response in this regard amounts only to a general denial of these allegations, as well as the statement that Mr Divangar had “illegally left the country to join his anti-Government and subversive comrades abroad”. Stressing once again that the detention of trade unionists and violence exercised against them is unacceptable and constitutes a serious violation of civil liberties, the Committee urges the Government to institute without delay an independent inquiry into the complainant’s allegation of Mr Divangar’s arrest, detention and alleged severe beating and to provide full particulars in this regard.
11. 995. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to carry out a full and independent investigation into the allegation of the arrest of trade union leaders of the Teachers’ Guild Association in July 2004 and to provide detailed information in this respect. The Committee notes with interest that, according to the Government, Mahmoud Beheshti Langarudi, the union’s General Secretary, was acquitted of all charges related to his 2004 arrest by the Public Prosecutor in Branch No. 2. As concerns Ali-Asghar Zati, the union’s spokesperson, the Government states that he was arrested on charges of congregating to conspire against national security, collaborating with the opposition and subversive groups, and violating national rules and regulations; although some charges were later withdrawn, he was found guilty of violating the national law by the Public Court. The Committee deplores the fact that the Government has not provided any specific information regarding Zati’s arrest and conviction – it adds only that his sentence was not related to trade union activities – and therefore requests it to provide a copy of the decisions rendered by the Public Courts and the other judgements.
12. 996. The Committee further notes with deep concern the new allegations of the arrest and conviction of trade unionists in connection with trade union activities. In particular, the Committee notes the following allegations:
    • – On 16 May 2007 11 members of the NUUDWI were convicted by the Sanandaj Revolutionary Court of disturbing public peace and order by participating in an illegal gathering, and of displaying “unusual behaviour”. The complainant states that the basis for their convictions was their participation in May Day 2007 activities and provides ten of the convicted union members’ names as follows: Khaled Savari, Habibollah Kallehkani, Fars Govilian, Sadigh Amjadi, Sadigh Sobhani, Abbas Andaryari, Moheyoddin Rajabi, Tayeb Malayi, Tayeb Chatani and Eghbal Latifi.
    • – On 4 August 2007, the 104th Prosecutorial Branch of the General Penal Court of Sanandaj sentenced the 11 trade unionists to 91 days’ imprisonment and the corporal punishment of ten lashes of the whip, to be administered immediately. The concerned parties appealed their convictions, and the sentences had yet to be carried out.
    • – The NUUDWI had written to the complainant to draw attention to the fact that the sentences were handed down shortly before an International Trade Union Day of Action, organized on 9 August 2007 by the complainant and the ITF to express solidarity with the workers in Iran; in its communication, the NUUDWI expressed the view that the sentences were intended to intimidate Iranian workers so as to dissuade them from joining the activities planned for that day.
    • – On 15 August 2007, the General Penal Court of Sanandaj sentenced Sheys Amani, the President of the NUUDWI’s board of directors, and union member, Sedigh Karimi, each to prison terms of two and a half years. According to the court rulings, Mr Amani’s and Mr Karimi’s sentences could be reduced by six months and one year, respectively, in exchange for payment. Both men have already spent several months in prison due to their participation in the 2007 May Day activities in Sanandaj.
13. 997. The Committee, while noting with interest the recent intervention for the release of the 11 members of the NUUDWI, deeply regrets the information that they had been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment in connection with the May Day 2007 activities. Further noting that Sheys Amani, the President of the NUUDWI Board of Directors, was among the 11 individuals released, the Committee requests the Government to confirm that all charges against Mr. Amani and the other NUUDWI members have been dropped, and their sentences annulled, as well as to ensure that they receive full compensation for any damages resulting from their period of incarceration and to keep it informed of developments in this regard.
14. 998. In view of the numerous arrests and legal proceedings against trade unionists—those related to the Saqez May Day rally of 2004, the sentencing of Mr Zati of the Teachers’ Guild Association, the numerous other charges brought against trade unionists in other cases concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran before the Committee [see, e.g., Case No. 2508, 346th Report paras 1130–1191] and, finally, these latest allegations – and moreover in light of the Government’s repeated failure to provide full information in respect of these serious allegations, the Committee cannot but conclude that the situation obtaining in the country appears to be characterized by regular violations of civil liberties and a systematic use of the criminal law to punish trade unionists for engaging in legitimate trade union activities. The Committee urges the Government, in light of the above, to immediately drop all charges and annul the sentences against Mr Zati and to keep it informed of developments in this regard.
15. 999. The Committee recalls that it had previously urged the Government to institute an independent inquiry into the allegations that the Intelligence Ministry interrogated, threatened and harassed Shis Amani, Hadi Zarei and Fashid Beheshti Zad and to keep it informed of the outcome. The Committee notes that the Government once again states that Shis Amani and Hadi Zarei both voluntarily resigned, and also indicates that Fashid Beheshti Zad is associated with opposition and subversive groups. The Committee further notes with regret that, although it states that during independent inquiries the provincial security and disciplinary offices denied the allegations of interrogations, threats and harassment, the Government provides no detailed information or documentation concerning these independent inquiries. The Committee urges the Government to provide full information respecting these independent inquiries, including copies of any reports produced thereunder.
16. 1000. As concerns the allegations relating to the proposal and adoption of legislation that would restrict the trade union rights of a large number of workers (i.e. the exemption from the labour legislation of workshops of less than ten employees and proposals to exempt temporary workers) the Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to keep it informed of developments regarding the amendments to the labour law and to transmit a copy of the final proposed amendments. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs is engaged in further consultations to enrich the proposed amendments, which would shortly be submitted to Parliament. Recalling that for several years now it has been taking note of the Government’s efforts to amend the labour legislation so as to bring it into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association [see Case No. 2508, 346th Report, para. 1190], the Committee expects that the labour law will soon be amended so as to ensure the freedom of association rights of all workers and, in particular, temporary workers and workers in enterprises hiring less than ten employees. It requests the Government to transmit a copy of the proposed amendments as soon as they are finalized.
17. 1001. 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, as well as those raised in the other cases concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran pending before the Committee.