Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 3, 1952

Analysis of the Complaints

1. A. Complaint presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions
2. 22. The complaint presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions alleges the two following points which in the view of the complainants constitute infringements of the exercise of trade union rights:
3. (a) The headquarters of the Central Council of the United Trade Unions of Iran was occupied by the authorities in 1949, its property confiscated and the organisation itself dissolved.
4. (b) Hundreds of active trade union members were arrested, summarily tried by court-martial and sentenced to penalties ranging from three to ten years' imprisonment. No definite charges were brought against the accused except their trade union activities. Mr. R. Rousta, Secretary of the United Trade Unions was condemned to death in absentia although no definite accusation was brought against him.
5. B. Complaint presented by the French General Confederation of Labour
6. 23. The complaint presented by the French General Confederation of Labour alleges that the Iranian authorities have committed an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights by causing 21 trade union leaders, including two secretaries of the Council of Amalgamated Trade Unions of Iran, to be arbitrarily imprisoned and deported to unhealthy islands, for trade union activities.
7. Analysis of the Reply and Supplementary Reply
8. 24. The Government of Iran in its first reply maintained that the allegations levelled against it by the World Federation of Trade Unions were not correct, and further added that the Labour Code of Iran contains precise provisions concerning freedom of association and that the various Technical Missions of the I.L.O which have recently visited Iran have confirmed this fact as well as the existence of various trade union organisations in the country. The Government added no further details on the points raised in the complaint presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions and made no reference at all to the complaint presented by the French General Confederation of Labour.
9. 25. At its first session (10-12 January 1952), the Committee on Freedom of Association asked the Director-General to request the Iranian Government for further information before the Committee made its recommendations to the Governing Body.
10. 26. By a letter of 24 January 1952, the Director-General requested further information on the following points:
11. (a) allegations concerning the occupation of the headquarters of the Central Council of the United Trade Unions of Iran, the dissolution of the organisation and the confiscation of its property ;
12. (b) allegations concerning the condemnation of a number of militant trade unionists, including Mr. Reza Rousta (with regard to this point, the Committee expressed a desire, in particular, to obtain a text of the judgment pronounced on Mr. Reza Rousta) ;
13. (c) allegations concerning the deportation of 21 trade union leaders.
14. 27. In its reply, dated 29 February 1952, the Iranian Government gave the following details concerning the three questions which had been referred to it.
15. 28. With regard to the allegation concerning the dissolution of the Central Council of the United Trade Unions, the Government states that any association seeking to overthrow the régime of Constitutional monarchy or to establish a régime of communist ideology is prohibited. Any person who establishes or acts as an official of such an association or who is a member thereof will be punished under Article 60 of the Penal Code. The Central Council of the United Trade Union Movement was affiliated to the Tudeh party which is prohibited by the Government. The officers of the Central Council engaged in subversive and illegal acts, as is proved, according to the Government, by the documents annexed to the letter. Proceedings having been commenced against these officers, the other members showed their good faith by leaving the Central Council to form other trade unions. With regard to the Council's property, the Government states that it has proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the law.
16. 29. With regard to the allegation concerning the sentence on Mr. Reza Rousta, the Government produces an extract from the indictment. It observes that certain of the charges come within the competence of the military courts while others are in the competence of the ordinary courts. Mr. Rousta, being a fugitive, was condemned in absentia by the military court, but, under the terms of the Penal Procedure Act, it has not yet been possible for him to be judged by the ordinary courts. Mr. Reza Rousta was charged in the indictment with having:
17. (a) co-operated with the leaders of the Azerbaidjan Democratic Party (a separatist movement) and aided the rebels endangering the safety of the State in two departments of the country ;
18. (b) maintained intelligence relations with a foreign army and worked in its interests;
19. (c) incited citizens to commit illegal acts against the safety of the State in Mazandaran and Gorgan ; caused the wilful destruction of property of the railways and mines, severed communications between the departments mentioned and the capital and thus endangered the integrity of the Territory ;
20. (d) organised bands of terrorists ;
21. (e) committed assassinations and offences with the purpose of inciting citizens to civil war and revolt ;
22. (f) been guilty of false pretences and fraud by misappropriating one day's wages and one month's contributions to the prejudice of members of the C.C.S.U by squandering moneys paid by individuals as insurance premiums, and of removal of Government property ;
23. (g) encouraged and incited soldiers to accept service with the rebels in Azerbaidjan and endangered public order and the safety of the State;
24. (h) made arbitrary arrests and detentions, inflicting corporal punishment and torture on citizens.
25. 30. With regard to the alleged deportation of trade union leaders, the Government states that the alleged facts are imaginary or refer to sentences pronounced at common law and having no connection with trade union rights. To sum up, the Government repeats its formal denial of the allegations of the complainants and emphasises that the proceedings taken against the trade union leaders were on account of acts falling within the penal law, but that the trade union movement has not been the subject of repressive measures and legally constituted trade unions are enjoying full freedom.
26. 31. In support of its statements, the Government annexed to its reply, in addition to the indictment already mentioned, a series of documents concerning both the evolution and the present situation of the trade union movement in Iran, which were available to members of the Committee.

C. C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 32. With regard to the allegation concerning the occupation of the headquarters of the Central Council of the United Trade Unions, its dissolution and the confiscation of its property, the Government was requested " to refute these different points in greater detail and in the event of measures of this kind having been taken, to indicate the reasons for the same ".
2. 33. It is clear from the Government's reply that this organisation disintegrated following the proceedings taken against its leaders. The Government states that its assets have been dealt with in scrupulous accordance with the rules of Iranian law.
3. 34. With regard to the allegation concerning the condemnation of Mr. Reza Rousta, the Government was requested " to annex the text of the judgment given by the courts in support of its denial ". The Government has observed that the accusation relates to common law offences, falling partly within the competence of the military courts and partly within the competence of the ordinary courts. Mr. Rousta being a fugitive, the proceedings before the ordinary courts are in suspense but the military courts have judged him in absentia. The judgment condemning him given by the military court was based on an indictment, one of the counts in which charged him with having acted on behalf of a foreign army. The Committee considers that this allegation is so purely political in character that it is undesirable to pursue the matter further.
4. 35. With regard to the allegation relating to the deportation of 21 trade union leaders, the Government points out that the complainant has confined himself to a general accusation and has furnished no substantiating evidence and, in these circumstances, the Committee considers that the complainant has not offered sufficient evidence to justify reference of the matter to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission.
5. 36. Furthermore, the Government has produced certain documents in support of its argument that the proceedings taken against the leaders of the Central Council of the United Trade Unions were initiated solely with a view to maintaining public order and were not directed against the trade union movement. It declares, moreover, that legally constituted trade unions are enjoying the full protection of the law.