Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 83, 1965

1. 262. This case already came before the Committee at its 38th and 39th Sessions, in November 1964 and February 1965 respectively. The case consisted of two sets of allegations: one relating to the dissolution of the Inter-Union Federation of Haiti and the other to the arrest of trade union leaders and militants. The Committee submitted its final conclusions to the Governing Body with regard to the first set of allegations in paragraphs 210 to 220 and 224 (a) of its 78th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 160th Session (November 1964). With respect to the second set of allegations the Committee felt it necessary at both the November 1964 Session and the February 1965 Session to seek further information from the Government before submitting its final recommendations to the Governing Body, and made a recommendation to this effect to the Governing Body, which approved it. The paragraphs which follow deal only with the allegations which remain outstanding.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 263. The complainants allege that, parallel with the action taken to dissolve the Inter-Union Federation of Haiti (U.I.H.), the Government arranged for the arbitrary arrest of a number of trade union leaders and militants. The persons arrested included Mr. Ulrick Joly, President of U.I.H, Messrs. Claude François and Léon Gabriel, members of the Executive Committee of the said organisation and presidents of the cement and sugar workers' unions, respectively, Messrs. Alcius Cadet and Arnold Maisoneuve, of the boat-breakers' union, and, lastly, union officials Messrs. Prossoir and Guerrior.
2. 264. In its observations the Government stated that the inquiry carried out by the Haitian police into the activities of these persons had shown that for some time past they had been engaging in subversive activities with a view to overthrowing the Constitutionally established régime. To be more precise, these persons, militants of U.I.H, acting on orders from political groups abroad, were waging what was clearly a terrorist campaign, including the organisation of acts of aggression against representatives of the State, as, for instance, at Fort-Liberté, where the local civil authorities narrowly escaped an ambush prepared by the leaders of U.I.H.
3. 265. When it examined the case at its November 1964 Session the Committee observed that it was quite clear from the observations submitted by the Government and from the text of the judgment ordering the suspension of the activities of U.I.H, which was appended to the Government's observations, that that organisation, as such, had been engaging in activities exceeding the bounds of normal trade union activities. At its session of February 1965 the Committee considered, in the light of the additional explanations furnished by the Government, that the leaders of the organisation whose activities have been suspended, seemed to have been guilty, as individuals, of illegal acts of a political and not a trade union nature.
4. 266. Noting, however, that, while it mentioned a police inquiry in its observations, the Government did not specify whether the action taken against the persons concerned had been the outcome of court proceedings or not, the Committee, recalling the importance it has always attached to the observance of adequate judicial safeguards in cases where trade unionists are accused of political offences or unlawful acts, including the right of all detained persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment, considered that before it could submit its final recommendations on the case it needed to know whether the action taken against the persons named by the World Federation of Trade Unions (W.F.T.U.) was in implementation of a sentence and, if so, by what authority sentence was pronounced.,
5. 267. The Committee consequently recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be so good as to furnish it with the additional information indicated above, and this recommendation was approved by the Governing Body. This request was made to the Government by a letter dated 8 March 1965, and the Government replied by a communication dated 26 March 1965.
6. 268. The Government's reply consists of an extract from the records of the Registry Civil Court in Port-au-Prince, according to which, since the investigation into the activities of the persons named by W.F.T.U had shown that there were " sufficient charges and evidence against them ", the examining magistrate decided, on 7 January 1965, " to remand the accused to the court of competent jurisdiction ".

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 269. In the past the Committee has always followed the practice of not proceeding to examine matters which were the subject of pending national judicial proceedings offering all the guarantees of normal judicial procedure, which seems to be the case in the present instance, where such proceedings might make available information of assistance to the Committee in appreciating whether or not allegations were well founded. In many cases, moreover, the Committee has asked governments to communicate the texts of the judgments given and the grounds therefor.