Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 83, 1965

125. In accordance with the practice which it has followed in certain earlier cases, the Committee has found it convenient to consolidate and consider together the three cases relating to Cuba, which concern the complaints presented by the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions (I.F.C.T.U.), the Economic Corporations of Cuba (in exile) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (I.C.F.T.U.).

1. 125. In accordance with the practice which it has followed in certain earlier cases, the Committee has found it convenient to consolidate and consider together the three cases relating to Cuba, which concern the complaints presented by the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions (I.F.C.T.U.), the Economic Corporations of Cuba (in exile) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (I.C.F.T.U.).
2. 126. Cuba has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

Allegations relating to the Imprisonment of the Trade Union Leader Reinaldo González

1. 127. I.F.C.T.U addressed to the Director-General on 9 February 1962 a telegram containing a request for urgent intervention by the I.L.O on the ground that the Cuban trade union leader Mr. Reinaldo González was in imminent danger of execution. The Director-General brought the contents of this telegram to the notice of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba by two telegrams dated 9 February 1962.
2. 128. By a letter of 22 February 1962 the Director-General transmitted the complaint to the Government of Cuba in accordance with the normal procedure for the examination of complaints of alleged infringement of trade union rights. In his letter he explained to the Government that, as matters involving human life were raised in the complaint, the case came within the category of cases regarded by the Governing Body as urgent, in accordance with the decision taken by it at its 140th Session (November 1958), and that, for this reason, he was requesting the Government to furnish as speedy a reply as possible.
3. 129. It was only on 7 April 1964, after the Committee had repeatedly been obliged to adjourn its examination of the complaint in the absence of the observations it had requested, that the Government sent a first reply. This was analysed by the Committee in its 76th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 159th Session (June-July 1964).
4. 130. In its reply of 7 April 1964 the Government stated that Mr. González had been tried and convicted by the competent courts in conformity with laws that were already in force before the commission of the offences of which he was accused. Mr. González had engaged in subversive activities, accompanied by acts of arson and other forms of wilful damage, and had confessed to having committed these acts and given his reasons for them. As a result of these acts he was serving a term of imprisonment of a length appropriate to the magnitude and harmfulness to the community of his criminal conduct in defiance of law and order.
5. 131. Since Mr. Reinaldo González had been tried by the courts of his country, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish detailed information on the offences he had been accused of, together with information on the judicial proceedings and the text of the judgment handed down, and decided to wait before formulating its conclusions until it had detailed information on the circumstances that had led to his detention and conviction.
6. 132. The Government sent the additional information requested in a letter dated 6 April 1965, with which it enclosed copies of the record of judicial proceedings, the text of the sentence passed on Mr. Reinaldo González and the legal provisions applicable to the case, as well as newspapers publishing the statements made by him to the press.
7. 133. According to the Government, between 29 September and 8 November 1961 a group of persons, including Mr. Reinaldo González, were placed under preventive arrest. They were the object of grave accusations and suspicions respecting their participation in a series of activities directed against the unity and stability of the nation, the security and physical integrity of individuals, and the proper functioning of the economy. These persons were held at the disposal of the competent legal authority, namely the Revolutionary Court of the Havana district. On 21 May 1962 the examining magistrate drew up an indictment against these persons for offences against the unity and stability of the nation, attempted murder and arson and wilful damage, for which penalties are laid down in sections 128 and 431 (3) and (5) of the Social Defence Code, section 8 of Act No. 425 of 7 July 1959, and sections 465 (a) and 468 of the Social Defence Code.
8. 134. The Government goes on to say that the accused Reinaldo González was interviewed by journalists with his own consent on the radio and television systems of the country in connection with the acts he was accused of. On that occasion, he made a public confession of those acts, which were of a highly subversive and counter-revolutionary nature and completely unconnected with trade union problems. The Government adds that at the time of the acts in question Mr. González did not hold trade union office in the country.
9. 135. On 30 April 1962 the public hearing of this case was instituted against more than 50 accused, whose leader had been Mr. González. They all enjoyed the guarantees laid down by the legislation on trials (Act governing trials in the Republic of Cuba under arms of 28 July 1896), and were defended by various lawyers, who had full freedom of action. The ordinary court martial before which the trial took place condemned almost all the accused to various terms of imprisonment in virtue of the proofs that had been offered. Mr. Reinaldo González received a sentence of 30 years' imprisonment for offences against the unity and stability of the nation, offences against the authorities of the State, wilful damage and possession of inflammable substances.
10. 136. The indictment and the judgment against Mr. González and the other persons set forth the acts committed by them. These are listed by the Court as acts of sabotage, acts of terrorism, assault and the fomentation of armed risings, with the purpose of overthrowing the authorities of the State. The condemned persons belonged to an organisation known as the " People's Revolutionary Movement ", of which Mr. Reinaldo González had been appointed national co-ordinator. The acts of sabotage consisted in the starting of fires in various commercial and industrial centres of Havana. The organisation also participated in the planning of the so-called " Operation Liborio ", which was to bring about the simultaneous destruction of the principal shops and hotels in the capital and of the Havana aqueduct and to carry out another series of outrages ending with the elimination of government leaders.
11. 137. The Committee has pointed out in the past that if, in certain cases, it has concluded that allegations relating to the arrest or detention of trade union leaders did not call for further examination, this has been after it has received information from the governments showing with sufficient clarity and detail that the arrests or detentions were occasioned in no way by trade union activities but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere, which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature. In the present case the Committee observes from the information sent by the Government that there appears to be no relationship between the acts for which Mr. Reinaldo González has been sentenced and any trade union activities that he might have been carrying on. In this connection it recalls that the complainants have not referred to any trade union activities for which he might have been imprisoned, and have confined themselves to pointing out that his life was in danger and that he was about to be executed.
12. 138. The Committee also observes, however, from the documents sent by the Government, that Mr. González and the other persons accused with him were tried by a revolutionary court under the extraordinary procedure laid down in the 1896 Act governing trials in Cuba under arms, as a result of which the offences they have been accused of are regarded as " counter-revolutionary ". The Committee recalls in this connection that, in cases where it has established that an exceptional procedure is being followed, it has always reasserted the importance it attaches to the observance in such circumstances of all the guarantees afforded by due legal process.
13. 139. The Committee observes, on the basis of the information supplied by the Government as regards both the documents relating to the trial and the fact that the accused were able to employ the services of a number of defence counsel during the trial, that the Government appears to have provided certain safeguards for the defence, despite the exceptional character of the procedure.
14. 140. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
15. (a) to point out to the Government of Cuba the importance which it attaches to the principle that accused trade unionists, like all other persons, should be entitled to the safeguards of normal judicial procedure;
16. (b) to emphasise to the Government the importance of having such safeguards not only embodied in law but also applied in practice;
17. (c) to decide, on the basis of the evidence furnished by the Government, that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
18. Allegations regarding the Dissolution of Employers' Organisations
19. 141. The Committee examined this aspect of the case at its meeting in June 1964, when it submitted an interim report which appears in paragraphs 313 to 319 of its 76th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 159th Session (June-July 1964). In paragraph 319 of this report the Committee recommended the Governing Body:
20. ......................................................................................................................................................
21. (a) to express its regret that, more than a year after the complaint was brought to its attention, the Government still has not furnished concrete observations concerning the specific allegations made in the complaint;
22. (b) to request the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations as soon as possible, particularly in regard to the measures taken in respect of employers' organisations, the legal enactments invoked in this connection and the procedure followed;
23. (c) to take note of the present interim report, it being understood that the Committee will report further as soon as it has received the information requested from the Government.
24. 142. The complainants submitted their complaint on 16 February 1963, and the Government made its first reply on 7 April 1964.
25. 143. The complainants sent the Committee a lengthy document which argued that the Cuban Government had violated the principles and standards embodied in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 in the case of both employers and workers. As regards employers' right of association, the complainants stated that, as from January 1959, when the present régime came to power, steps were progressively taken to restrict and hamper the operation of the employers' organisations, which were later arbitrarily taken over. Their leaders and members were persecuted and driven into exile; finally, the dissolution of the employers' organisations was ordered, and in most cases took place in 1960 and 1961. The complainants add that these takeovers were carried out by the Ministry of Labour by virtue of Act No. 907 dated 31 December 1961 [sic], which empowered the Minister to order a take-over whenever, in his view, circumstances made it necessary to keep undertakings in production. This Act, which was in force for 16 months and was superseded by Act No. 1021 dated 4 May 1962, was used as a pretext to intervene in the activities of and finally dissolve all the employers' organisations. It should be added that the bulk of the document dealt with other measures of nationalisation and expropriation ordered by the Government.
26. 144. In its reply the Government confined itself to stating that, as regards this case and in view of its obvious political and ideological implications, it felt bound to call the Governing Body's attention to the importance of a nation's right to self-determination and to choose the economic systems and political forms best calculated to promote its progress and culture, in peaceful coexistence with other peoples and different systems.
27. 145. At its meeting in June 1964 the Committee considered that the Government's reply contained no new facts on which it could form a judgment as to the substance of the complaint. The Committee likewise observed that Cuba had ratified Convention No. 87, Article 2 of which states that workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish organisations of their own choosing; Article 3 stipulates that public authorities must refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of such organisations to draw up their Constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes; and Article 4 states that workers' and employers' organisations may not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. The Committee also observed that, according to a statement made by a Cuban Government representative to the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations at the 46th Session of the International Labour Conference in 1962, employers were able to form associations under a royal decree of 1888.
28. 146. Following the recommendation of the Committee in paragraph 319 of its 76th Report, the Government sent in additional information on 6 April 1965. In its communication, the Government dealt with two distinct aspects of the complaint, one of them procedural in character concerning its receivability and the other concerning its substance.
29. 147. As regards the first point, the Government stated that the complaint had been submitted by " self-styled economic associations in exile " and was signed by individuals claiming to represent these associations but whose representative character and authority were dubious or difficult to verify. In the Government's view, it must be assumed that they constituted a small minority of persons who had voluntarily uprooted themselves from their native country, some of them fleeing from justice. These individuals included former owners of firms which had once existed in Cuba and had been affected by revolutionary legislation designed to recover assets embezzled by the deposed régime, or by successive enactments nationalising essential branches of the economy, etc. In short, they were a group of individuals who were no longer employers of labour in Cuba and who, moreover, were living in a country other than that against whose Government the complaint was directed. The Government added that, in deciding which economic and social activities could lawfully be carried on by an authentic organisation of employers, it was necessary to bear in mind that it must have a genuine basis in its own country. Accordingly, employers' organisations which did not, and could not, exist in Cuba, either because their members were no longer in the country or because the socialist revolution had given the country a new economic and social structure, were not entitled to consultative status with the I.L.O. For the Government, it was obvious that the only organisations of producers and employers which were genuinely Cuban in character were those operating in the country within the general framework of a planned socialist economy.
30. 148. The Committee must observe that, under the procedure governing the submission of complaints relating to violations of freedom of association, such complaints must come either from organisations of workers or employers, or from governments. In its First Report the Committee noted that it was sometimes suggested that persons purporting to act on behalf of such an organisation were not entitled to do so because the organisation had been dissolved or because the individuals lodging the complaint had ceased to be resident in the country concerned. The Committee considered that it would be altogether inconsistent with the purpose for which the procedure for the examination of allegations concerning the infringement of trade union rights had been established for it to admit that the dissolution or purported dissolution of an organisation by governmental action extinguished the right of the organisation to invoke the procedure. In such cases there might be difficult questions concerning the exact authority and knowledge of the facts of the persons claiming to act on behalf of the organisation concerned and the reliability of the testimony of persons no longer resident in the country concerned. The Committee stated that it would be prepared to consider such questions on their merits, as necessary, but it would not regard any complaint as being irreceivable simply because the government in question had, or claimed to have, dissolved the organisation on behalf of which the complaint was made, or because the person or persons making the complaint had taken refuge outside the country concerned. In taking this view it had been influenced by the conclusions unanimously approved by the Governing Body in 1937 in the Labour Party of the Island of Mauritius Case when considering a representation under article 24 of the Constitution of the Organisation (then article 23). In the Mauritius case the Governing Body laid down the principle that it would exercise its discretion in deciding whether or not a body was to be regarded as an industrial association for the purpose of the Constitution of the Organisation and would not consider itself bound by any national definition of the term "industrial association". The Committee proposed to follow the same principles when considering the receivability of complaints which came before it. It accordingly took the view that a complaint would not be irreceivable simply because the Government against which it was lodged had dissolved the organisation lodging it.
31. 149. On the basis of these precedents, and reiterating the position it has adopted in earlier cases, the Committee takes the view that the arguments put forward by the Cuban Government do not constitute grounds for declaring the complaint to be irreceivable. The complaint was submitted by an industrial association which went into exile as a consequence of the measures taken by the Government. The Committee therefore considers that the present complaint is receivable under the existing procedure.
32. 150. As regards the substance of the complaint concerning the dissolution of employers' associations, the Government declared that an attempt was being made to charge the Revolutionary Government with infringement of the standards guaranteeing freedom of association and protection of the right to organise laid down in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, by means of quotations from a number of Constitutional and statutory provisions now in force in Cuba, solely for the purpose of indicting a whole social and political system. The Government stated that no legislation had been passed forbidding association for lawful purposes by persons who continued to operate as owners of undertakings and places of employment not affected by the nationalisation laws. Evidence of this was afforded by the fact that there was a National Association of Small Farmers in Cuba, a National Association of Food Retailers, associations of small urban shopkeepers, etc., which enjoyed all the usual safeguards. The Government added that, obviously, there could be no question of the continued existence of organisations which belonged to the owners of powerful monopolies, businesses and other concerns which had been nationalised and were now wholly state-managed. Nevertheless, such organisations as used to exist had not been prohibited or dissolved by arbitrary decision of bodies or officials of the public administration, but had been wound up by legislation passed by the Council of Ministers, which, under the Constitution, was the competent body for this purpose. These organisations had ceased to have any de facto existence or to be headed by authorised representatives who could administer them in accordance with the law, and this made it necessary to take them over as a precautionary measure, in view of the activities, sometimes amounting to sabotage, in which their members had engaged to thwart the Government's social and economic measures. Subsequently, with the passing of the nationalisation laws, these organisations lost their raison d'être because they were no longer in harmony with the new character and organisation of the national economy.
33. 151. The Government refers to Act No. 907 of 1960, section 5 (h) of which empowered the Minister of Labour to " intervene in the activities of undertakings, employers' associations or trade unions, where circumstances so require, in order to maintain production or to ensure the exercise of social rights, in every case for reasons which are justified and in conformity with the law, appointing special officials for this purpose ". This power was already vested in him under Act No. 647 of 24 November 1959, at a time when, according to the Government, certain employers were beginning to obstruct the normal operation of workplaces, upsetting the economic balance of the country in one way or another through lockouts and the temporary or permanent closing down of their undertakings, provoking labour disputes, ordering mass dismissals, etc. The Revolutionary Government ordered intervention in the activities of undertakings when it considered it to be necessary, and later on, in order to ensure the full economic development of the country, it promulgated Act No. 890 of 13 October 1960, whereby industrial and commercial undertakings were nationalised by forced expropriation.
34. 152. In this matter the Committee considers that a distinction needs to be drawn between two different aspects: on the one hand, the measures taken against employers' organisations and, on the other, those concerned with nationalisation and expropriation.
35. 153. In regard to the latter, the Committee observes that by means of such measures private ownership of almost every means of production has been abolished in Cuba. These measures derive from certain political and economic concepts which in themselves do not fall within the competence of the Committee, and it would not be appropriate for it to express an opinion on these concepts or on the manner in which the nationalisation and expropriation in question has been carried out.
36. 154. With respect to the measures taken against employers' organisations, however, the Committee observes that it appears from the information furnished by the Government and by the complainants that the former ordered intervention in the affairs of the organisations in question, invoking Act No. 647 of 24 November 1959 and Act No. 907 of 1960, prior to and during the time when the major part of the nationalisation and expropriation was taking place. These Acts permitted of the taking of administrative measures for intervention in the affairs of employers' organisations, which led finally to their dissolution.
37. 155. On the one hand, Cuba has ratified Convention No. 87, Article 3 of which stipulates that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of workers' and employers' organisations to draw up their Constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives, to organise their administration and to formulate their programmes, while Article 4 of the same Convention lays down that such organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. On the other hand, the Royal Decree of 1888, which also applies to employers' organisations, does not seem to provide for intervention in the affairs of such organisations or their dissolution by administrative authority.
38. 156. In earlier cases of government intervention in the affairs of occupational organisations the Committee has observed that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of such organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their administration and activities." The Committee has taken the view that the principles established in Article 3 of Convention No. 87 do not prevent supervision or control of the internal acts of a trade union if those internal acts do not violate legal provisions or rules. Nevertheless, it is of the greatest importance that, in order to guarantee an impartial and objective procedure, control should be exercised by the relevant judicial authority. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has also observed that a measure allowing for the suspension of trade union officials by administrative decision when they had been responsible for a breach of the provisions of the legislation in force was contrary to Article 4 of the Convention." As concerns the dissolution of industrial associations, the Committee on Freedom of Association has drawn attention to the importance which it attaches to the generally accepted principle contained in Article 4 of the Convention, which stipulates that workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. It has also stressed that any decision to suspend or dissolve such an organisation should be confirmed by a court verdict. Merely to grant an organisation the right of appeal to the courts against a measure taken by administrative authority does not have the same value, nor does it always constitute a sufficiently satisfactory alternative. There may be a danger that such measures will appear to be arbitrary, even though they are issued only temporarily or for a limited time as a preliminary to subsequent court action. The Committee has emphasised the importance which it attaches to the judges being able to obtain information concerning the background of a case, to enable them to decide whether or not the provisions on which the administrative measures appealed against are based constitute a violation of the rights accorded to occupational organisations by Convention No. 87. In this respect it has recalled the statements made by it and by the Committee of Experts in regard to refusal to register an organisation; in effect, if the administrative authority has a discretionary right to register or cancel the registration of a trade union, the existence of a procedure of appeal to the courts does not appear to be a sufficient guarantee; the judges hearing such an appeal could only ensure that the legislation had been correctly applied. The same problem may well arise in the event of the suspension or dissolution of an employers' organisation.
39. 157. In the light of the aforementioned provisions of Convention No. 87, and of the views expressed in this connection by both the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, the Committee considers that the Government of Cuba has failed to observe the principles in question.
40. 158. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
41. (a) to point out that the dissolution or exile of a workers' or employers' organisation does not preclude such organisation from submitting to the International Labour Organisation a complaint of alleged infringement of trade union rights;
42. (b) as regards the nationalisation and expropriation measures taken by the Cuban Government:
43. (i) to state that these are outside the Committee's competence and that it would not be appropriate for it to express an opinion thereon, or on the manner in which they were carried out;
44. (ii) to point out, however, that even though such measures do not in themselves constitute a violation of freedom of association, they should not serve as a pretext or justification for acts which in themselves imply a violation of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87);
45. (iii) to draw the attention of the Government to the infringements of the said Convention and of the right of organisations to draw up their Constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, and to the stipulation that such organisations should not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority, which, for the reasons indicated in paragraph 156 above, it considers to have taken place in Cuba.
46. Allegations relating to the Detention of Trade Union Officials
47. 159. I.C.F.T.U submitted its complaint on 17 December 1964. It was communicated to the Government, which furnished its observations on 6 April 1965.
48. 160. In its complaint I.C.F.T.U states that a large number of trade union officials in Cuba are still in prison, the majority of them having been given extremely heavy sentences, in many cases based on a vague accusation of "counter-revolutionary activities ". Among these are Luis Miguel Linsuain, Alberto Garcia, Antonio Dagas, José Lauro Blanco, Basilio Medina Luna, Julio Padrón, Gabriel Hernández Custodio, Leandro Barreras, Ramón del Bosque, Norberto Abreu, Javier González, Angel Custodio, Angel Hernández, Francisco Aguirre Vidaurreta, Sara Carranza, Ada González Gallo, Carmen Méndez Linares, Juan Manuel Reines, Arnoldo Muller Carbone, Diego Herrera Rubio, Carlos Rubiera Frito, Henry Martinez López, Jorge Blanco Ferrando, Ulises Diaz González.
49. 161. The complainants consider that the imprisonment of the above persons-whose former trade union functions are indicated in the complaint-is a device to deprive the Cuban workers of their leaders and to impose on the trade union movement officers endorsed by the régime in power, thus strengthening the Government's hold over the workers' organisations. Furthermore, the complainants state their conviction that the sentences of imprisonment were not imposed for commission of any real offences; they believe there are good reasons for supposing that the convictions stemmed from improper proceedings, which have been described by the International Law Commission; some of that body's conclusions are quoted in the complaint. The Commission had also referred to the inhuman treatment alleged to have been suffered by persons retained in Cuban prisons.
50. 162. Lastly, the complainants state that, having regard to the conditions now prevailing in Cuba, they well understand that the suspicions of infringement of Convention No. 87 by the methods used by the present Government in eliminating trade union officers cannot be verified without an impartial investigation carried out on the spot, for which the I.L.O seems the most appropriate agency. Accordingly, it requests the Governing Body to set up an investigating commission which would ascertain the degree of equity or inequity and of partiality or impartiality shown by the courts towards the imprisoned leaders; discover how the prisoners are treated; and, in the light of any facts so ascertained, make recommendations regarding future action in their regard.
51. 163. In its reply the Government maintains that the complaint has two different aspects which should be handled separately so that the position in respect of each may be duly determined. One aspect, it states, is the complainants' request-an improper request-for dispatch of an investigating commission. The Government considers that I.C.F.T.U cannot rely on articles 24, 25 and 26 of the I.L.O. Constitution to request that such a commission be set up. According to article 26, it points out, the right to do this lies only with a Member of the Organisation which has filed a complaint against another Member because the latter is, in its view, not securing effective observance of a Convention that both have ratified; and the same procedure may be requested by a delegate to the Conference or adopted by the Governing Body on its own motion. In the present case, the Government argues, none of the above assumptions applies, and the complainant organisation neither has the quality nor fulfils the conditions required for compliance with its request.
52. 164. As regards the alleged infringements of freedom of association in Cuba the Government declares that the complainants have made subjective and tendentious statements on the development of the trade union movement there and claims to pass judgment respecting the administration of justice in Cuba on the strength of a report which they mention. The Government has, it says, now called on the competent services for the requisite information about the alleged arrest or conviction of the persons mentioned, and reserves the right to provide additional information and any necessary evidence on the subject.
53. 165. Lastly, the Government rejects the opinions and suspicions of the complainant organisation on the conditions prevailing in Cuba as regards the exercise of trade union rights. In respect of compliance with the standards set in Convention No. 87 the Government refers to the position it has taken on examination of its relevant laws and regulations by the I.L.O organs which supervise the application of international instruments.
54. 166. The Committee observes that, against the complainants' statements under this head-according to which many of the trade unionists mentioned by them were convicted on the strength of vague accusations of " counter-revolutionary activity " and there should be an investigation on the spot by an I.L.O commission so as to ascertain the manner in which the said trade unionists were tried-the Government maintains that such a request is not receivable under the inquiries procedure laid down by the Constitution of the I.L.O. The Committee considers that in the present case the question is not one of applying the Constitutional provisions cited by the Government, which the complainants do not invoke, but of following the normal procedure established by the Governing Body with respect to complaints of infringement of freedom of association.
55. 167. The Committee observes further that the Government has called on its competent services for the requisite information on the judicial proceedings against the trade unionists to whom the complaint refers, and that it reserves the right to provide additional information and the necessary evidence.
56. 168. On many occasions when allegations that trade union leaders or workers had been arrested or detained on account of trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests or detentions were made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security, or for common law crimes, the Committee has followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests or detentions, and the exact reasons therefor. If, in certain cases, the Committee has concluded that allegations relating to the arrests or detentions of trade union militants did not call for further examination, this has been after it has received information from the governments showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the arrests or detentions were in no way occasioned by trade union activities but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature. In cases where trade unionists have been sentenced the Committee has also followed the practice of asking governments to communicate the texts of the judgments, with their grounds.
57. 169. In these circumstances, before expressing a view on the complainants' request for a fact-finding commission, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to ask the Government to furnish as soon as possible detailed information on the acts for which the persons mentioned in the complaint were convicted, and the texts of the judgments handed down in each instance with their grounds; and meanwhile to postpone consideration of this aspect of the case.