Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 76, 1964

1. 89. The complaint by the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions (I.F.C.T.U.) is contained in a communication dated 16 March 1964 addressed to the Secretariat of the United Nations. In accordance with the existing procedure the latter transmitted the complaint to the I.L.O by a letter dated 2 April 1964. By a letter dated 27 April 1964 the Director-General informed the complainant organisation of its right to submit additional information in support of its complaint within one month. By a letter of the same date the Director-General transmitted the complaint to the Government for its observations concerning this matter. However, a communication dated 20 May 1964 from the I.F.C.T.U informed the Director-General that it intended to withdraw its complaint.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 90. Without giving further details the I.F.C.T.U alleged that Mr. Ernest Zagba, one of the principal leaders of the believing trade unions in the Congo (Leopoldville), had been arrested at Paulis.
2. 91. In its second communication the I.F.C.T.U stated that, having learnt that Mr. Zagba had been released on 3 March 1964, it wished to withdraw its complaint, which no longer had any point.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 92. The withdrawal of its complaint by the I.F.C.T.U raises a point of procedure which the Committee has already dealt with in the past. In Case No. 66, concerning Greece, the Committee expressed the opinion that the desire expressed by a complainant organisation to withdraw its complaint, although representing a factor to which the greatest attention should be paid, was not in itself sufficient reason for the Committee automatically to cease examination of that complaint. The Committee considered on that occasion that it should follow the conclusions approved by the Governing Body in 1937 and 1938 with regard to claims submitted by the Madras Labour Union of Textile Workers and by the Société de Bienfaisance des Travailleurs de l'Ile Maurice, under article 23 of the Constitution of the I.L.O which has since become article 24. At that time the Governing Body stated the principle that, once a complaint had been submitted to it, it had sole competence to decide what action should be taken and that " the withdrawal by the organisation making the representation is not always proof that the representation is not receivable or is not well founded". The Committee considers that, on the basis of this principle, it is free to assess the reasons given to account for the withdrawal of a complaint and to find out whether they are adequate to permit the conclusion that such withdrawal was completely spontaneous.
2. 93. In the present instance the reasons given for withdrawal of the complaint, namely the almost immediate release of the person who had been arrested, seem satisfactory justification. Moreover, since the withdrawal, like the actual complaint, comes from an international occupational organisation, there is every reason to presume that its decision was completely spontaneous.