Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 74, 1964

1. 118. The complaint of the Union of Independent Indigenous Trade Unions of Somaliland is contained in a brief communication, dated 5 May 1963, addressed directly to the I.L.O. The complainants were informed by a letter dated 22 May 1963 of their right to submit within one month additional information in support of their complaint, but have not availed themselves of that right. The complaint was communicated to the Government for its comments in a letter dated 22 May 1963.
2. 119. At its 34th and 35th Sessions (May and November 1963) the Committee decided, in the absence of the Government's comments, to adjourn the examination of the case. The Government was informed of these decisions of the Committee by two letters dated 6 June and 20 November 1963 respectively.
3. 120. The Government furnished its observations in a communication dated 7 February 1964.
4. 121. France has declared the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), applicable without modification to French Somaliland; on the other hand, it has made no declaration concerning the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 122. The complainants allege that on Labour Day, 1 May 1963, Messrs. Ahmed Cavalier, Ibrahim Taher and Ismail Gouled, leaders of the Union of Independent Indigenous Trade Unions of Somaliland, were arrested by the French authorities. The complaint is signed " Mohamed Dahan, Adviser to the Union of Independent Indigenous Trade Unions of Somaliland (Djibouti), Secretary for Political Affairs of the Democratic Somali Union Party".
2. 123. In its observations the Government indicates, firstly, that the signatory of the complaint, Mr. Mohamed Dahan, was never one of the leaders of the Union of Independent Indigenous Trade Unions of Somaliland and that the organisation in question disappeared after a brief existence. The Government further indicates that the Democratic Somali Union has never existed, even in only a formal manner, since it has not been the subject of any declaration.
3. 124. The Government then states that the trade union situation in Djibouti is a very special one, characterised by "indifference of the mass of the workers to trade unionism, and appointment of trade union leaders at meetings called general assemblies which are attended not by trade unionists representing particular occupations but by the supporters of a particular candidate, who may or may not be trade unionists or wage earners ".
4. 125. The Government states that trade union activities, including the general assemblies held in places open to the public, have always been permitted in the Territory. The last such assembly was held on 26 April 1963 under the auspices of the Territorial Union of Trade Unions of French Somaliland; in actual fact, states the Government, the assembly was organised by the People's Movement Party, which advocates independence for French Somaliland and the incorporation of French Somaliland in the Somali Republic. At that assembly, states the Government, some trade union delegates who are influential members of the People's Movement Party called on the population to hold a mass demonstration in the street on 1 May, with or without the agreement of the Administration.
5. 126. " It must be emphasised ", says the Government, " that, since Labour Day is not associated in the Territory with the commemoration of great social conflicts such as other countries have experienced, demonstrations held on that day could, in the absence of proper trade unions and taking into account the unlawful presence in Djibouti of many aliens from the Somali Republic, be used solely for political ends."
6. 127. The Government then states that the political situation prevailing at that time indicated that there might be serious incidents and that the Governor, who is the head of the Territory and has responsibility for the maintenance of public order, therefore prohibited all demonstrations on the public highway on 1 May 1963. A minority of trade union representatives with political tendencies decided to disregard this prohibition, and this led to the arrests which have been mentioned in connection with the present case.
7. 128. The Government states, in conclusion, that the persons concerned have been freed.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 129. Having regard to the lack of specific evidence adduced in support of the complaint, it is difficult to determine whether the demonstrations which took place on 1 May 1963-and which had been prohibited for security reasons-were really held in order to celebrate Labour Day or whether they were of a political character. In any event, it is fairly clear that the arrests made during the demonstrations were designed, according to the statements made by the Government, to safeguard public order.