Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 187, Novembre 1978

1. 547. The Committee already examined this case, in May 1978, following complaints of violation of trade union rights filed by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), the International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF), the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone International (PTTI), the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the Miners' International Federation, the International Federation of Building and Wood Workers (IFBWW) and the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF). On this occasion it presented interim conclusions which are contained in paragraphs 221 to 248 of its 181st Report. The Governing Body approved this report at its 206th Session (2-3 June 1978).
2. 548. Tunisia 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).
3. 549. Shortly before the Committee's session, the IMF sent a further communication, dated 23 May 1978, which was transmitted to the Government for its observations. The communications received since that date, namely a letter from the IMF dated 18 July 1976 and two communications from the WFTU dated 16 August and 13 October 1978 (the second was also signed by the international Confederation of Arab Trade Unions); a letter from the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) dated 7 October 1978 and two communications from the ICFTU dated 10 and 30 October 1978 have been communicated to the Government.
4. 550. The Government replied by letters dated 1 and 17 August

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 551. The case concerns essentially the 24-hour general strike called on 26 January 1978, which resulted in many deaths and injuries, the arrest of trade union officials - including Habib Achour, General Secretary of the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT) - and the temporary occupation of the UGTT headquarters in Tunis.
2. 552. According to the WFTU, the authorities took violent measures to crush the general strike organised by the UGTT in support of its social and democratic demands; dozens of workers were said to have been killed and hundreds injured. The trade union headquarters had been occupied by the police and 11 members of the UGTT, including its General Secretary, arrested.
3. 553. The ICFTU also protested against the arrest of the regularly elected leaders of the UGTT following the 24-hour general strike which had been lawfully called by its leaders. The complainants added that the gas, water and electricity sectors had been excluded from the strike for humanitarian reasons. On 26 January 1978 the police had barred all means of exit from the UGTT headquarters and had later broken into the premises and arrested all those inside. The Government had called out the army and a number of persons had been killed. Hundreds of others had been arrested. Some of these persons had nothing to do with the trade union movement but had been arrested during the demonstrations and the looting; they had been prosecuted for contempt of the Head of State, unlawful assembly on the public thoroughfare, looting and resisting officers of the law in the performance of their duties. They had been given light sentences or acquittals by the judges of first instance; the hearings were still continuing. Witnesses had stated categorically that the looting had been done by youths not subjected to outside control. A second group of persons, namely employees of the UGTT (secretaries, telephonists and others) had nearly all been released after lengthy interrogations. According to the ICFTU about 100 officials of the UGTT - members of the executive, occupational federations or regional unions - were still in prison. The complainants forwarded a list of detained trade unionists. The prisoners, continued the complainants, had no contact with their lawyers, and their families had been able to communicate with them only in exceptional cases; they had been in the hands of the police since their arrest and had neither come before a magistrate nor been charged with an offence. As the Tunisian Code of Penal Procedure did not specify any limits to the period during which persons might be held for investigation, this situation, according to the complainant, might last for months.
4. 554. The other complainants reported similar incidents in their communications, alleging that prisoners were held incommunicado and even that they had been severely beaten and tortured.
5. 555. The Government rejected the allegations made against it and stated that the UGTT had always been able to enjoy the full exercise of its rights. In particular, the authorities had scrupulously respected the exercise of the right to strike in support of demands of a purely occupational nature. But the strike of 26 January 1978 - decided on at a very restricted meeting and without previous consultation of the UGTT leadership - did not comply with the conditions prescribed by law. Section 376 ff of the Labour Code required that a strike should be in support of purely occupational claims, that ten days' notice of a decision to call a strike should be given and that the competent conciliation bodies must have been approached beforehand. The strike had nothing to do with wage claims nor, according to the Government, had the complainants been able to adduce any occupational claims to support it; the movement was a strictly political one. The strike had been announced and put into effect within a period of four days without previous resort to the conciliation bodies. It aimed at obstructing the operation of institutions and paralysing the national economy, in many cases in services which were essential to the health, safety and well-being of the population. The UGTT's appeal to leave the water, gas and electricity services out of the strike had not, according to the Government, been published - in the form of a communiqué in the Tunisian press - until the day on which the strike took place, doubtless as a result of the requisitioning of the services by the authorities on 25 January.
6. 556. Two days before the strike, added the Government, senior officials of the UGTT had organised meetings and mobilised shock troops to ensure its success. On 26 January 1978, when it had been established that the strike had failed throughout the country, the General Secretary of the UGTT had asked the Directorate of the Security Police to withdraw the forces of order from M'Hamed Ali Square (where UGTT headquarters were located) and had threatened disturbances if that were not done within half an hour. After that time had elapsed premises had been sacked, looted and set on fire there had been rioting, and demonstrations of an insurrectional nature had been organised at eight different points in the capital and its southern suburbs. It had then become necessary, continued the Government, to take measures to re-establish order and to protect the freedom and safety of the population in accordance with sections 6 and 7 of the Constitution; the arrests made were justified by the attacks made on public order. The UGTT headquarters had been occupied, according to the Government, because "instruments of destruction" were being kept there and because it had been necessary to pursue the agitators and rioters who had taken refuge on the premises. The former officials were under arrest and were being held at the disposal of the courts; preliminary investigations were to continue in order to determine the charges on which they would be brought before the competent legal instances in accordance with the regular procedure; the trial would take place according to law.
7. 557. Rejecting the allegations that no charges had been brought against the trade union leaders under preventive arrest, the Government stated that all the persons concerned had been apprehended in the act of committing an offence or in accordance with warrants issued by the examining magistrate; this confirmed the existence of charges and explained the arrest of Mr. Achour on Saturday, 28 January, whereas the riots took place on 26 January. It was untrue, continued the Government, to claim that the accused had not come before a magistrate and were still in the hands of the police. Mr. Kersten, General Secretary of the ICFTU, had had to obtain authorisation from the Public Prosecutor to visit Mr. Achour; this proved that the affair was before the courts and that the police were acting under the instructions of the examining magistrate in accordance with the Tunisian Code of Penal Procedure. All the detainees, added the Government, whether or not they were trade union leaders, would be tried in public in the presence of any observer who might wish to attend; they would have the right of defence by counsel of their own choice. The detainees were not completely isolated, according to the Government, otherwise Mr. Kersten would not have been authorised to meet Mr. Achour.
8. 558. The Committee recalled in May 1978 that the right to strike was a legitimate and, indeed, an essential means whereby workers might promote and defend their occupational interests. It should not be restricted solely to industrial disputes likely to be resolved through the signing of a collective agreement; workers and their organisations should be allowed to express in a broader context, if they so wish, any dissatisfaction which they might feel as concerns economic and social matters affecting their members' interests. Nevertheless, the right to strike constituted a fundamental right of workers and their organisations only in so far as it was utilised as a means of defending their interests, and the prohibition of strikes designed to coerce the Government, if they were not occupational in character, did not constitute an infringement of freedom of association on the recommendation of the Committee, the Governing Body, after expressing its concern at the extreme seriousness of the incidents which had taken place, in particular the deaths of a number of persons, drew the attention of the Government and the complainants to the principles and considerations set forth above.
9. 559. The events which took place on 26 January 1978 had led to the arrest of many trade union officials. In such cases the Committee had always endeavoured to determine whether, on the one hand, there exist guarantees that regular judicial procedure will be followed and, on the other, what were the reasons for the arrest. Admittedly, it pointed out, the mere fact of carrying on a trade union activity or holding responsibilities in a trade union did not imply any immunity from ordinary penal legislation. Nevertheless, the Committee must verify for itself whether the persons concerned had been sentenced for common law crimes or for normal trade union activities and, in order to ascertain this, it had frequently requested the governments concerned to transmit to in the texts of judgements given, with the reasons adduced therefor.
10. 560. The Committee mentioned a number of guarantees to which it attached special importance: the right of any trade unionist who is arrested to be informed, at the time of his arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and to be promptly informed of the charges brought against him, the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing, the right to be tried as rapidly as possible by an impartial and independent judicial authority, and the presumption of innocence until he has been proved guilty after a public trial during which he has enjoyed all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
11. 561. While noting the assurances given by the Government, the Committee pointed out certain contradictions between its statements and the allegations presented. On its recommendation, the Governing Body recalled the importance of the principle that any arrested trade unionist must be subject to normal judicial procedure, and must in particular enjoy the guarantees mentioned in the previous paragraph. The Governing Body also requested the Government to supply more detailed information on the charges brought against the trade union officials named in the appendix to the 181st Report, on the specific offences with which they had been charged, on the facilities available to them for their defence, and on when the trials before an impartial and independent judicial authority were to take place; in particular the Government was requested to communicate, at the final stage of the procedure, a copy of the judgements that had been rendered or were to be rendered in each case, with the reasons adduced therefor.

B. Most recent developments

1. 562. In its letter of 23 May 1978, the IMF states that Ismail Sahbani, General Secretary of the Metalworkers' Union, was arrested with other Tunisian trade unionists during the night of 27 to 28 January after the UGTT headquarters had been cleared by the police. During this operation, continues the complainants, the trade unionists were made to leave the premises on their knees with their hands on their heads. They were taken to the premises of the Territorial Security Department (DST) where they were crowded in 18 to a cell without sufficient ventilation or daylight. They were fed only on 29 January with a piece of bread and a handful of chick-peas per person. Most of them were held for 2 months and 17 days without being able to wash or see the daylight. During their detention at the DST they were able to communicate neither with their families nor with their lawyers. According to the IMF, Ismail Sahbani had been severely tortured during this period by being swung by the wrists and ankles. The IMF accuses Messrs. Abdelkader Tabka, Abdslem Dargouth and Mohsen Seghira of being the principal torturers and adds that the following questions were put to Mr. Sahbani during his interrogation: "Where are the arms hidden? What were the secret instructions given by Mr. Habib Achour for the general strike? Who are the leaders? What stand did you adopt at the National Council from 9 to 11 January?" According to the IMF, Mr. Sahbani was so severely tortured that he was unable to stand for 15 days; he was kept in total isolation during his imprisonment.
2. 563. On 10 April, continues the IMF, Mr. Sahbani appeared before the examining magistrate who charged him formally and ordered him to be detained in the Tunis civil prison. Counsel for the imprisoned trade unionists have not yet been able to see the documents, which are with the examining magistrate, and it is very difficult for them to visit their clients in the prison as only one visiting room is available. Moreover, the prisoners' families are allowed to visit them only once a week for to 15 minutes. The conditions of imprisonment are such, continues the IMF, that the families must bring their imprisoned relatives food every day because they get nothing to eat from the prison authorities.
3. 564. In its letter of 18 July 1978, the IMF adds that the French lawyer, François Sarda, engaged by the IMF and the ICFTU to represent Mr. Sahbani and other trade unionists, was refused entry at Tunis international airport on Sunday 16 July and was obliged to return to Paris on the following flight. This measure, continues the complainants, is in contradiction with the assurances given to the ILO by the Government that the UGTT officials who were still in prison would be allowed full facilities for their defence and would be able to choose their own counsel freely.
4. 565. In a telegram of 16 August 1978, the WFTU protests at the speeches for the prosecution pronounced against certain Tunisian trade unionists in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal of Sousse. It adds that counsel for the defendants, including the lawyer engaged by WFTU, have been refused access to Tunisian territory by the police authorities. It considers this measure to be contrary to all the legislation in force and to the protocols signed by the President of the Bar of Tunisia with the presidents of the bars of other countries.
5. 566. In its letter of 1 August 1978, the Government begins by referring to the list of imprisoned trade unionists in the appendix to the 181st Report. It points out that 16 of the names mentioned do not figure in the list drawn up by the ministry of Justice; these 16 persons have therefore never been arrested. As for the former Secretary of the Zaghouan Regional Union, Mr. El Mekki Ben Abderrahmane, he was not sentenced because he was a trade unionist, but because he had committed the offence of issuing an uncovered cheque. In addition, 12 trade unionists received prison sentences ranging from 3 months to 5 years for taking part in an illegal strike and incitement to riot. Six of them, who had applied for a reprieve from the President, were freed on the occasion of the national holiday on 1 June. In the cases of the other prisoners, the preliminary investigation is in its final stages. The Government stresses that the trials will be held in public, that reasons will be adduced for the judgements, which will be given in public, and that all of the accused - whether they are trade unionists or not - will enjoy full facilities to prepare their defence and to choose their counsel freely the Government finally states that it will keep the ILO continuously and fully informed of any new developments in the situation of the imprisoned trade unionists.
6. 567. In its letter of 17 August 1978, the Government rejects the allegation by the IMF that Mr. Sarda was unable to enter Tunisia; this lawyer, when he arrived at Tunis-Carthage airport on 16 July, had neither made any statement nor caused any statement to be made to the effect that he had been sent by the ICFTU, nor did he carry any documents proving that this was the case. The Government continues that the ICFTU subsequently changed its mind and requested authorisation for Mr. Sarda to attend the trials of the former trade unionists implicated in the events of 26 January 1978 as an observer. The Government states that, faithful to its promise to provide the accused with all the guarantees of normal judicial procedure recommended by the ILO, it has acceded to this request and has allowed Mr. Sarda to attend the trials which are to be held in public in the presence of counsel for the accused and all foreign observers who have received regular authorisation to attend them.
7. 568. Other communications were received later. In its letter of 7 October 1978 the OAU protested at the indictment of the Public Prosecutor in the trial of Habib Achour and his colleagues before the State Security Court of Tunis and at the severe attitude adopted by the Government in this case when it had promised to treat the persons involved with clemency.
8. 569. In a telegram dated 10 October 1978 the ICFTU refers to the sentencing of the trade union leaders by the Special State Security Court. According to the ICFTU these trade unionists were found guilty not of subversion but of exercising their fundamental right to strike. The complainants consider that the judgements handed down - especially the sentencing to ten years' forced labour of Habib Achour, Vice-President of the ICFTU, and Abderrozok Ghorbel, Secretary-General of the UGTT of the Sfax region - as completely unjust.
9. 570. The WFTU, in its letter of 13 October 1978 (jointly signed by the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions) complains about the manner in which the trial was carried out and about the infringements of the right to defence. It draws attention to the sentencing of Habib Achour and two of his colleagues to ten years' forced labour and adds that 27 other leaders of the UGTT were also sentenced to terms of imprisonment. According to the WFTU these persons have been sentenced for having requested that the legitimate claims of the workers be satisfied. They were said to have been tortured physically and morally during the entire period of their detention. One of them is said to have died and the health of others is said to have deteriorated. The WFTU adds that measures were taken against the members of the families of the accused; the son and the son-in-law of Habib Achour were summarily sentenced for having attempted to be present at the trial and a number of persons were dismissed.
10. 571. In a further communication (dated 30 October 1978) the ICFTU presents detailed allegations or the trial of Habib Achour and his colleagues, and states that these persons are innocent of the crimes of which they were accused. This communication has been sent to the Government for observations.
11. 572. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 1 November 1978. It points out that, according to the statements it made in its previous communications, the trials which took place at Sfax, Sousse and Tunis took place under entirely normal conditions and that the accused had the benefits of the legal guarantees provided for in the national legislation. The trials took place in public. Representatives of the national and foreign press, as well as international and regional trade union organisations, were present. The Government emphasises that the fact that the common law court, which originally dealt with the cases, refused to deal with them, had nothing to do with the Government. It considers that the incidents that took place before the State security court were provoked by the defence which used the trial as a platform and put forward questions which had nothing to do with the interests of the accused. The defence used every means, adds the Government, to postpone the matter and to provoke incidents, at times going as far as unethical practices and disrespect for the Court. The defence did not consult its clients and its intention was to prevent the trial from taking place normally. According to the Government this was tantamount to an offence. If, under pressure from their lawyers, the defendants refrained in part from replying to the charges brought against them, this was, according to the Government, because there were no arguments in their favour.
12. 573. The Government goes on to refute that the strike of 26 January 1978 took place in conformity with the Tunisian Labour Code. It was political in character and its purpose was to create difficulties for the national institutions and to paralyse the economy of the country, including the essential services. Nationals and foreigners have helped the Court to establish the truth about what happened by their evidence. The Government points out that certain trade union leaders, under the guise of trade union activity, were bent on a campaign to smear the institutions of the land and did not respect proper trade union practices.
13. 574. In addition, adds the Government, such was the state of health of the accused during the trial that it can be affirmed that both during their detention and their interrogation they were treated normally. They were able to read newspapers and watch television during their preventive detention.
14. 575. The verdicts pronounced, adds the Government, prove - if it is necessary to do so - the impartiality and independence of the judges as well as the respect for the right of defence. The defendants were convicted solely because of the gravity of the crimes of which they were accused. Some were acquitted, for example Mr. Sadok Allouche, former executive member of the UGTT; others were given suspended sentences of not more than six months, such as Mr. Abdelaziz Bouraoui who performed the same functions. Only those responsible for serious crimes were sentenced to imprisonment.
15. 576. The Government also recalls that Tunisia is a country noted for moderation and respect for human rights, in particular since it became a member of the ILO in 1956. It has never had a complaint lodged against it for examination by the Committee on Freedom of Association and Convention No. 87 is one of the Conventions ratified by Tunisia. The trade union movement in Tunisia enjoys absolute independence and defends, as it has always done, the moral and material interests of its members. As for the Government, it examines closely and supports claims of a trade union character. Dialogue is an established principle in the country and is carried out between the social partners at the level of the central trade union organisations of workers and employers in order to ensure the best living and working conditions to workers and to pursue the work of development that has been undertaken.
16. 577. The Government communicated the judgement rendered in Tunis by the State Security Court concerning a number of trade unionists including Habib Achour, Ghorbal, Sadok Allouche and Abdelaziz Bouraoui, former leaders of the central trade union organisation.

C. Conclusions of the Committee

1. 578. The Committee is called upon to examine the cases of certain trade union leaders who were prosecuted following the general strike of 25 January 1978 and the incidents which took place on that occasion. From the latest information available it appears that many trade unionists were tried, some being acquitted, others being given sentences the severity of which varies. The Committee notes with interest that the Government has transmitted a copy of the judgements (in their original language) rendered in the cases of several leading trade unionists, including Habib Achour.
2. 579. The Committee has noted certain divergences between the observations of the Government and the allegations made in this connection, an analysis of the judgements will be of special value in the examination of this case. However, the Committee has not been able to examine the judgement rendered at Tunis by the State Security Court in substance at its present session in addition, the ICFTU has sent new allegations on 30 October 1978 to which the Government has not had the opportunity to reply.