Definitive Report - Report No 90, 1966

Case No 282 (Burundi) - Complaint date: 31-JAN-62 - Closed

49. This matter was examined by the Committee at its 41st and 42nd Sessions, held in November 1965 and February 1966 respectively. On these occasions it presented two interim reports, which were adopted by the Governing Body at its 163rd Session (November 1965) and 164th Session (February-March 1966).

1. 49. This matter was examined by the Committee at its 41st and 42nd Sessions, held in November 1965 and February 1966 respectively. On these occasions it presented two interim reports, which were adopted by the Governing Body at its 163rd Session (November 1965) and 164th Session (February-March 1966).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 50. The case consists of three series of allegations: first, it was alleged that Mr. Niyirikana, President of the Christian Trade Union of Burundi, and Mr. Mayondo, Counsellor of that organisation, had been executed without trial at Bujumbura on 25 October 1965 and that other trade union leaders had been placed on a list of persons to be executed; secondly, it was alleged that certain leaders and militants of the Christian Trade Union of Burundi had been arrested in July 1964, including Messrs. Gegera, Ntahomarikiye, Monwangari, Nahinana, Baridwegur, Ntwenga, Nigere and Burundi; thirdly, it was alleged that on 15 January 1962 four trade unionists, Messrs. Nduwabike, Ndinzurwaha, Ntaymerijakiri and Baravura had been assassinated at Usumbura by members of the Uprona Party Youth Movement at the instigation of the authorities.
2. 51. At its meeting in February 1966 the Committee deplored the fact that, in spite of the assurances given, all requests addressed to the Government to furnish its observations on the matters raised in the complaints had elicited no reply. In these exceptional circumstances the Committee, having received no co-operation from the Government in respect of a matter of the utmost gravity, decided to request the complainants to furnish any useful information at their disposal concerning recent developments in Burundi.
3. 52. In view of the nature of the allegations made and the information received from various sources concerning events in Burundi, the Committee, also at its meeting in February 1966, felt bound to include in its report the following passage:
   • The responsibility of the International Labour Organisation in the matter is limited to the protection of trade union rights, in respect of which it has responsibility under the I.L.O. Constitution and has accepted responsibility in agreement with the United Nations. It is evident that the tragic events in Burundi extend far beyond the scope of violation of trade union rights and concern directly the fundamental human rights of a considerable sector of the population of Burundi, and that, in these circumstances, the responsibility of the International Labour Organisation for the protection of trade union rights cannot be exercised effectively without parallel action by the United Nations to protect the fundamental human rights of the Burundi population as a whole. In the United Nations responsibility for matters relating to human rights rests with the Commission on Human Rights of the Economic and Social Council, the Economic and Social Council itself and the General Assembly.
   • Having made these remarks the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Director-General to request the Secretary-General of the United Nations to bring the attention of the Commission on Human Rights of the Economic and Social Council to the question of the violation of human rights in Burundi at its forthcoming session, as a matter of urgency.
4. 53. This recommendation having been adopted by the Governing Body at its 164th Session, on 28 February 1966, the Secretary-General of the United Nations was informed by the Director-General, by letter dated 1 March 1966, of the conclusions adopted by the Governing Body, and was invited, in accordance with article II, paragraph 6, and article III of the Agreement between the United Nations and the International Labour Organisation, which came into force on 14 December 1946, to take the necessary measures for the matter to be placed on the agenda of the Commission on Human Rights. By letter dated 4 March 1966 the Government of Burundi was informed of the conclusions of the Committee as adopted by the Governing Body.
5. 54. The matter came before the Commission on Human Rights at its Twenty-second Session, held at New York from 8 March to 4 April 1966. In the debate which then took place the observer for Burundi stated that his Government opposed the inclusion in the agenda of the item proposed by the I.L.O concerning the question of the violation of human rights in Burundi and emphasised that, in the opinion of his Government, the inclusion of the item would constitute an intervention in matters falling within the internal competence of the country, in violation of the United Nations Charter. He added that his Government considered that the I.L.O had adopted its decision as a result of a misunderstanding, since the acts complained of simply constituted penal sanctions applied in accordance with the law against certain persons guilty of serious crimes. However, the observer for Burundi stated that his Government was prepared to conduct detailed discussions with the I.L.O on the point in question, provided that the sovereignty of Burundi was fully respected and that there was no intervention in the internal affairs of his country.
6. 55. In reply the I.L.O representative recalled, without addressing himself to the substance of the question, that the decision of the Governing Body had been unanimous, without reservation or abstention, that serious allegations had been laid before the competent organs of the I.L.O, regarding violations of trade union rights in Burundi, which extended to the execution without trial of trade unionists and that, in spite of repeated requests for information made by the I.L.O, no reply had been received from the Government of Burundi. The I.L.O representative indicated that the statement which had just been made by the observer for Burundi furnished for the first time certain clarifications. He then asked the observer to confirm that his statement to the effect that his Government was prepared to conduct detailed discussions with the I.L.O meant that the Government of Burundi was now prepared to reveal the facts of the matter and to throw some light, as the I.L.O had requested, on the procedure followed and on the sentences which, it was now said, had been imposed, resulting in the execution of the persons concerned. The observer for Burundi confirmed that this interpretation was correct and that his Government was prepared to send a mission to the I.L.O to establish the facts and to discuss the situation. The representative for the I.L.O stated that he would not insist that the item under consideration should be placed on the agenda of the Commission on Human Rights, provided that the report to the Economic and Social Council would take account of the relevant facts so that the Council and the General Assembly might be duly informed of them.
7. 56. The Commission on Human Rights took due note of the statements made by the observer for Burundi and by the representative of the I.L.O and decided, in view of these statements, not to place the matter on its agenda, but to include the text of the above statements in its report.
8. 57. In addition, on 28 March 1966 Ambassador Térence Nsanzé, Permanent Representative of Burundi to the United Nations, on the instructions of his Government, called on the Director-General, who was in New York at the time. He stated, inter alia, on the subject of the execution of trade unionists in Burundi, that two trade union leaders had taken part in an uprising, during the events of October and November 1965, which had threatened to become general, with the most serious consequences for the entire country; therefore, they had been tried, condemned and executed. The Permanent Representative also stated that other persons involved in the uprising had been killed during the action, but that there was no question of execution without trial. The Permanent Representative went on to confirm that a mission from Burundi would visit the International Labour Office in Geneva and on the basis of the above facts would rebut the accusations made against his country and would reassure the I.L.O concerning the past, present and future exercise of trade union freedom in Burundi.
9. 58. The Director-General recalled that it was following the announcement of a forthcoming mission from Burundi to Geneva, under the conditions and for the reasons indicated by the Ambassador, that the I.L.O had agreed not to insist that its communication to the Secretary-General of the United Nations be included in the agenda of the Commission on Human Rights. He expressed the hope that, as a result of the declarations of the Ambassador and of the talks which would take place in Geneva with the delegation of Burundi, it would be possible to re-establish the atmosphere of understanding and collaboration which should mark the relations between Burundi and the I.L.O.
10. 59. The mission from Burundi visited Geneva during the week from 18 to 23 April 1966. It was led by Ambassador Térence Nsanzé, Permanent Representative of Burundi to the United Nations, and also included the following persons: Mr. Isidore Rwamavubi, Director of Political Affairs, the Press and Information in the Burundi Ministry of Foreign Affairs and External Commerce; Mr. Félix Alexis Dédé, Legal Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Charles Mabushi, Deputy Attorney-General. The delegation was received by the Director-General on 20 and 22 April 1966.
11. 60. At the first meeting Mr. Nsanzé assured the I.L.O of his country's devotion to the principles of the I.L.O and emphasised his Government's readiness to undertake " a fruitful and mutually beneficial dialogue ". He was confident that the discussions would take place in an atmosphere impregnated with objectivity and realism. In reply the Director-General indicated that Burundi and the I.L.O had the same aims, namely to understand the problems, to establish the facts, to prepare a formula permitting the resolution of the existing situation and to establish positive relations. The delegation requested the I.L.O to specify in writing the points which it desired to have clarified, and a detailed questionnaire was submitted to it, based on the various requests for information contained in the reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association.
12. 61. The delegation handed its reply to the Director-General at the meeting on 22 April 1966. Before dealing with the specific points raised in the I.L.O's questionnaire, the Government's reply formulated certain general observations which were intended to place the problem in its context and to define its true dimensions " in the climate and atmosphere in which it arose and developed ".
13. 62. The Government recalled, first of all, that, in view of the competence of the I.L.O, its only obligation was to answer for any offences against freedom of association. While recognising that it was sometimes difficult to distinguish clearly between political activities and trade union activities, the Government stated that, in the framework of the tragic events which had occurred in Burundi, no confusion was possible and that aims such as the violent change of the régime, a programme of purges and lynchings and the acquisition of power by force could not be confused with a plan of action deriving from claims of a social character.
14. 63. The Government went on to state that it would faithfully consent to a dialogue and that it was determined not to limit itself to a denial of the accusations made against it; it intended, on the contrary, to justify itself so that the I.L.O might form an opinion after hearing both sides of the case. Regarding the Government's silence up to the present, the reply stated that this was not to be considered an admission of guilt. " However unwise it might have been tactically, the official silence was intended only to afford a breathing space, so that the question might be given mature consideration."
15. 64. Certain reports, the reply continued, had attempted to throw on to the Government full responsibility for the violence which had been committed and even to imply that the Government had deliberately instigated this. In order to establish the exact facts the Government wished to summarise the history of the events of October-November 1965 as follows:
    • The attempted coup d'état soon had the effect of depriving the country for a time of any form of government, which resulted in the almost total disruption of all authority. The Head of State, by a miracle, narrowly escaped an attempt on his life. The Prime Minister was seriously wounded. The rebels temporarily controlled the streets and the situation as a whole. Anarchy, uncertainty and confusion reigned. There was utter chaos; the security forces were desperate; established institutions were adrift....Could a more favourable situation be imagined for the release of the most blind passions and lowest instincts of a population torn by ethnic strife? There could be free play for the private settlement of individual quarrels. The ugly sounds of riots and civil war could be heard. Irresponsible elements satisfied their personal vengeances. The army and police were divided. Whom could one trust in this atmosphere of total confusion and mutual distrust? All the time what remained of authority struggled with difficulty to gain control of the situation. While a handful of loyalist troops undertook the recapture of the capital, the major part of the territory was a prey to disorder and violence. Between the time when loyal forces began to stem the tide and full control of the situation was established there was an inevitable period when matters hung in the balance. At this time other acts of violence were perpetrated. If these were the facts and if this was the atmosphere, how was it possible in addition to insist unremittingly on the shouldering of its responsibilities by a Government which was weakening and was indeed almost in its death throes and which was just beginning, little by little, to recover its breath, its ground and its life? Abuses may doubtless have been committed and errors also. But this may all be explained by the sole anxiety to re-establish rapidly the order which had been disrupted and the desire to restore the situation. In such circumstances history teaches that it is the duty of every State to use its authority and to be firm. It is this firmness which has wrongly been termed a violation of liberty. Could liberty militate against liberty-the liberty of the community? In exceptional circumstances exceptional measures are necessary.
16. 65. Indicating the spirit in which the Government intended to reply to the specific questions which had been addressed to it, the reply of the mission continued as follows:
    • Leaving aside the question of strict legal obligation, we consider it to be a moral obligation and a point of honour to conform to that international conscience of control and solidarity and to that universal spirit of co-operation which is reflected and embodied in what is already called " universal morality ". It is in this spirit and with this faith that one must understand the replies to be given below before the guarantees are presented which will provide concrete evidence of this good will, good faith and willingness to collaborate frankly and closely, under the symbol of international co-operation, in the cause of peace and for the advancement of man. For this reason we have avoided taking refuge behind the inflexibility of texts. We have been guided by the desire to reach constructive solutions and we have preferred the spirit to the letter of our obligations.
17. 66. The Government went on to reply to the questionnaire submitted to the mission at its request at the first meeting with the Director-General, and began with the following general remarks: the Constitution of the Kingdom of Burundi guarantees freedom of association; specific laws govern the manner in which it is exercised; specific regulations define the rights, obligations and spheres of action of every association. As regards freedom of association, the Government states that it has subscribed to the principles of the Constitution of the I.L.O, to the Declaration of Philadelphia and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. " The exercise of trade union rights is therefore guaranteed ", continued the Government, " and in the case in question it has not been impeded or impinged upon ". The Government stated, moreover, that the national Constitution proclaimed the principle that all citizens were equal before the law and before the courts; the rules of procedure laid down in the numerous laws forming the Code of Penal and Civil Procedure assured the equality of everyone before the courts and therefore guaranteed the administration of good and fair justice; there was no privilege or discrimination of any sort either in favour of or against trade unionists; every citizen must conform to the law and no one, whether or not be was a trade unionist, might abuse his freedom to interfere with the freedom of others or to compromise public tranquillity and order; a trade unionist might not use his status as a shield for his reprehensible acts. In this case the elementary principles of regular justice, as set out above, had been respected.
18. 67. The Government's reply dealt next with the various specific allegations made in the complaints. In regard to the allegation that Mr. Niyirikana, President of the Christian Trade Union of Burundi, and Mr. Mayondo, Counsellor of that organisation, were executed without trial at Bujumbura on 25 October 1965, the Government made the following observations.
19. 68. With regard to the reasons for the arrest of the persons concerned, the Government stated that they were convicted of offences against the internal security of the State, attempted crimes against persons and their property, racial hatred, massacres, looting, arson, incitement to insurrection and military rebellion, and insubordination. The Government pointed out that these were offences against the common law or political offences and were in no way connected with the exercise of trade union rights.
20. 69. The Government indicated that a proper preliminary examination was made of the matter which resulted in the formulation of the charges set out above. This was clear from the reasons set forth in the judgment, a copy of which had been furnished by the Government to the I.L.O.
21. 70. Following the decree instituting a state of emergency and a military régime to deal with the exceptional situation, the Government continued, the accused were summoned before the War Council, a special court created for this situation in conformity with the legislation in force regarding a state of siege. The Government pointed out that this tribunal was not set up solely to try the trade unionists but to try all those implicated in the attempted coup d'état of 19 October 1965 and the events deriving from it.
22. 71. The Government explained that a war council is a military court, instituted under the Law of 29 June 1962 applying to the Kingdom of Burundi the legislation and regulations promulgated by the power exercising trusteeship (Belgium) and providing for a military régime and summary justice in times of grave disorder. The competence of this court extends to the repression of all political offences and offences against common law. Its composition is as follows: three military judges appointed by ministerial order under the decree establishing the military régime and state of emergency, a public prosecutor and a clerk of the court.
23. 72. The Government stated that the installation of the military régime and state of emergency resulted in the temporary transfer of the powers of the ordinary common law courts to the military court. The procedure followed before this special court was by definition an exceptional procedure. The Government stated, however, that since the progressive return to normal life the military and emergency regime had been dissolved and therefore had come to an end at the same time as the peculiar circumstances which had given rise to it. The Government affirmed that recourse to this emergency procedure was intended only to restore public calm, order and tranquillity, to put a stop to violence and to bring life back to normal.
24. 73. The Government further stated that the publication of proceedings is one of the fundamental principles of the national legislation and that sessions in camera are ordered only for cases where morality is concerned. In the event, continued the Government, since the affair did not concern morality but public order, all hearings were held in public.
25. 74. The Government stated that the accused had the choice between being represented by counsel for their defence and defending themselves; the Government stated that they chose the latter alternative, which, it added, is quite current practice in the country.
26. 75. The Government stated that in Burundi one of the basic principles of the right of defence demands that every accused is presumed innocent until proved to be the contrary; it follows that the principle of actori incumbit probatio was strictly applied and that, in the case in question, the burden of proof fell on the prosecution.
27. 76. The Government further stated that in cases heard in camera all judgments must be pronounced in public hearings and that no departure from this rule was, to any event, permitted. In the case in question, stated the Government, all the judgments were of public knowledge as from their pronouncement; the formula "judged as well as pronounced in open court ", prescribed on pain of nullity for the pronouncement of any judgment, was proof of this fact.
28. 77. From the judgment itself, the text of which, as stated earlier, had been communicated to the I.L.O, it was evident that the persons concerned had been judged at the same time as nine other persons who were not trade unionists, and had been condemned for having committed the acts mentioned in paragraph 68 above as part of an attempt to overthrow the Government.
29. 78. The Government further stated that, apart from the two trade unionists, Messrs. Niriyikana and Mayondo, judged and executed not as trade unionists but as members of a subversive political organisation and after sentence, no trade unionists had been executed or threatened with execution.
30. 79. Concerning the allegations that Messrs. Gabriel Gegera, Mathieu Ntahomarikiye, Léon Monwangari, Lucien Nahinana, Uoachim Baridwegur, Venant Ntwenga, Emile Nigere and Anaclet Burundi, all leaders or militants of the Christian Trade Union of Burundi, were arrested in July 1964, the Government made the following observations.
31. 80. The reason for arresting six of the eight persons mentioned above-Messrs. Gegera, Ntahomarikiye, Nahinana, Ntwenga, Nigere and Burundi--resided in the fact that they had participated in an uprising against the internal security of the State. " This fact ", the Government pointed out, " was confirmed by one of the principal leaders of the movement, Mr. Gervais Nyangoma, in his letter of 8 September 1965, in which he recognised that the persons responsible for the complaint had not been injured in their capacity as trade unionists but as individuals. In fact in 1964, at the instigation of Mr. Paul Mirerekano, a rebel movement was started. Its basic objective was to overthrow the established régime and to snatch power by force. To this end the conspirators, among whom were the six persons arrested, had included in their programme the physical liquidation of a certain number of political figures and certain high State officials. This attempted coup d'état was also crushed."
32. 81. The Government stated that only the six persons mentioned in the preceding paragraph had been arrested in 1964. Mr. Uoachim Baridwegur, now the Minister of Social Affairs, had not been involved in the affair. Mr. Léon Monwangari, who was prosecuted for embezzlement, had not been troubled, since he succeeded in escaping to Rwanda.
33. 82. The Government further stated that, for different reasons, certain persons mentioned in the complaints were now in prison. Mr. Monwangari was detained on suspicion of embezzlement. Messrs. Burundi and Ntwenga were detained on suspicion of having provoked fires at Kamenge on 4 July 1965. Messrs. Gegera, Ntahomarikiye and Nahinana were detained on suspicion of having been involved in the events of October 1965 as subversive agents.
34. 83. " It is evident ", stated the Government, " that a decision to detain on suspicion constitutes or presupposes an act of prosecution." The Government pointed out that since the end of martial law and the state of emergency, proceedings had been instituted against the persons concerned before the ordinary courts in accordance with jurisdictional rules in force. It indicated that judgments had not yet been handed down in these cases but that the proceedings were following their normal course.
35. 84. In reply to a question put by the Office as to whether other trade unionists besides the eight mentioned by the complainants had been arrested, the Government indicated that Mr. Maurice Kirotame, Secretary-General of the Christian Trade Union of Burundi, had been arrested; it stated, however, that this was for reasons other than the exercise of trade union activity.
36. 85. Concerning the allegations relating to the assassination of four trade unionists in January 1962, the Government, after recalling that the events in question took place at a time when Belgium was still responsible for the international relations of Burundi, pointed out that the four trade unionists who died were the victims of reprisals produced in an atmosphere of public rage following the assassination of Prince Louis Rwagasagore, Prime Minister of the autonomous Government. Nevertheless, stated the Government, since independence this case had been on file, and arrests had been made; the question was, however, still pending before the competent authorities.
37. 86. By way of conclusion, the Government's reply is expressed in these terms:
    • Since our purpose, as we have explained in our message of introduction, has no other significance than to clear the great atmosphere of tension which has burdened our relations, we considered it useful to submit for the examination of our Government a certain number of measures designed to clarify the situation. These are assurances which we believe susceptible of restoring confidence and creating an atmosphere of healthy understanding and most effective co-operation.
38. (1) The mission gives the Organisation the assurance that its Government, in order to demonstrate in a concrete manner its desire for the greatest co-operation, would agree to study, with the top ranks of the Organisation and those of member States, the possibility of being represented by a permanent delegate to the I.L.O.
39. (2) The mission gives the assurance that its Government will agree, within a reasonable period, to ratify or to apply the International Labour Conventions to which it is not yet a party with a view to ensuring better application of International Labour standards and respect for trade union freedom.
40. (3) The mission gives the assurance that its Government will agree to receive, as soon as possible, an I.L.O on-the-spot mission in Burundi, and to facilitate, as may be necessary, future contacts.
41. (4) The mission gives the assurance that its Government will do everything in future to keep the I.L.O informed of all decisions, of all measures which may be taken in respect of the organisation, exercise and regulation of trade union activity and freedom. This information will be supplied spontaneously or at the request of the Organisation. The mission gives the assurance that its Government will receive any suggestion sympathetically.
42. (5) The mission gives the assurance that its Government has the firm intention of preparing as soon as possible an amnesty Bill to be applicable to all political detainees without distinction.
43. (6) Martial law and the state of emergency have already been ended. This action was calculated to ease and calm opinion. The return to normal conditions constitutes an effective guarantee for all those before the court.
    • The mission is of the opinion that such measures are necessary and constitute a real pledge for the safeguard of freedom and the establishment of better relations between its Government and the Organisation.
44. 87. In addition to the above conclusions, which had been communicated in writing to the I.L.O, the head of the Burundi mission wished to make the following comments:
    • We have noted the obvious interest we all have in the situation which existed in Burundi. We have wished to analyse the problem with all possible objectivity and impartiality. Moreover, we have taken account of the fact that your assistance, the assistance of the Office supported by that of the Governing Body and reinforced by that of the Organisation as a whole, is a paramount condition for the success which we have a right to expect. We must here before you and by your intervention address ourselves to the entire Organisation in order to express our conviction that, as far as Burundi is concerned, we shall try, subject to circumstances rendering it possible, to give effect to the promises we have just made. I would like to inform you, on behalf of the Government, in the name of the supreme authority of Burundi, His Majesty King Mwambutsa IV-who saw me before the first meeting which we had here and who instructed me to tell you that he was closely concerned with the problem and that he relied on your co-operation-that on the part of Burundi the cooperation was complete. We have greatly appreciated your patience and we recognise you as an advocate of authenticity and justice. It is for that reason that you have waited to hear both sides of the story which permitted you to appreciate the events which unfortunately had been distorted by certain press publications, by certain international organisations. Now, we have the firm hope that these organisations will be able to receive correct information and the assurances which we have given you. We know that the International Labour Organisation strongly maintains impartiality. It is for this reason that henceforth we both have a duty which will lead you, for your part, to ask those organisations which have distorted the events to be good enough to place the matter and the facts in their correct perspective. After submitting this questionnaire to you, we would like to receive from you some guarantee, which will be a kind of encouragement, that you will do everything possible to contribute to the realisation of these assurances and to plead for truth and authenticity. This favourable atmosphere, which is a sine qua non for achieving this final goal, depends not only on Burundi but on the Organisation itself. We will not fail to communicate to our Government the good will, the determination with which you have collaborated with us, and we have the firm conviction that you will not spare any efforts to achieve that final success which will put Burundi on the road to close co-operation with the I.L.O in those fields within the competence of your Organisation.
45. 88. Replying to the representative of Burundi, the Director-General said that he was sure that since the first contact in New York a good distance had been travelled and confidence had been established. The fact that since the meeting in New York the representative of Burundi had agreed to come to Geneva with an important delegation to discuss the matter, the fact that he had been prepared to examine the questions put to him and to give the information requested of him, and the fact that he had made the kind of statement which had just been heard in the name of the Government of Burundi all constituted impressive evidence of a desire on the part of Burundi to work on a co-operative basis in the interest of creating a better international atmosphere for the accomplishment of common objectives. The Director-General, therefore, expressed his thanks and asked the representative of Burundi to convey to his Government and to His Majesty King Mwambutsa 1V his appreciation for what had been done and especially for the statement of the representative of Burundi concerning the importance that His Majesty and the Government attached to the resolution of the matter and to making the real facts available to public opinion and to other international organisations and to the United Nations itself, so that it might be possible to enter a new period of collaboration in which Burundi could be assisted in every way possible to enjoy a calmer and happier era.
46. 89. The Director-General added that the Organisation and he himself wished nothing more than to give help to Burundi from these points of view. He promised not only to convey faithfully to the Committee on Freedom of Association of the Governing Body the letter of the reply received from the mission sent by Burundi but also to inform it of the atmosphere in which the discussions had taken place. It appeared to him that the statements made by the representative of Burundi were very important. The reply given and its conclusions were of great interest and importance and would be transmitted to the competent organs of the I.L.O. The Director-General said that he would also give an assurance that he personally would see to it that the members of the Committee were informed of the deliberate and careful manner in which the mission from Burundi had dealt with their requests. He expressed the hope that a trail had been blazed which would make it possible to study the matter in a new perspective and thus open a new chapter of positive and constructive co-operation and create a better situation in Burundi. In conclusion the Director-General added that such questions, which relate to human rights, were the very basis of civilisation and its future. When an attitude was adopted such as had been encountered that morning, he said, it became possible to go on consolidating ever more firmly the foundations of the edifice of civilisation so as to serve the highest interests of humanity. " We are here, you and l," he went on, " not only serving Burundi, but in these efforts, I hope, the world at large." The Director-General expressed the hope that, having passed beyond this phase in the discussions, it would become evident that relations between Burundi and the I.L.O were those existing between an Organisation of which Burundi is a member State and a member State whose interests it is the mission of that Organisation to serve. It was evident, therefore, that the I.L.O looked forward with pleasure to serving that member State, Burundi, in the accomplishment of its objective of improving the welfare of its people. He assured the representative of Burundi that his country could count on the I.L.O to be at its side and to give its aid in this matter as a loyal and devoted secretariat. The Director-General thought it important to say this because he did not regard himself as being there as a prosecutor, or to render judgment, but to serve the interests of the Organisation as a whole. In sending a mission to the I.L.O, Burundi was simply discharging its obligations as a Member of the I.L.O, while he himself, as Director-General, was responding to the desires of the member States as a whole, one of which was Burundi. The Director-General concluded by emphasising that each of them was serving the other, in accordance with the obligations enunciated in the I.L.O. Constitution.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 90. In view of the foregoing the Committee observes first of all that, although belatedly -a fact which has troubled the relations between the I.L.O and Burundi-that country has now undertaken to co-operate fully in establishing the facts, as is manifested by the very specific and detailed observations which it has presented on all the aspects of the complaints made to the I.L.O and in reply to all the points raised in the questionnaire put to the mission by the I.L.O.
2. 91. Having noted, according to the information referred to above, that certain trade unionists, for various reasons, are still in detention (see paragraphs 82 and 83 above), the Committee would be glad if the Government would be good enough to keep the Governing Body informed as to the fate of the persons in question and, particularly, as to the results of the judicial procedures which it has stated are pending.
3. 92. The Committee further notes, on reading the material furnished by the Government, that the facts of the utmost gravity which gave rise to the complaints appear to form part of a series of events related to an insurrection.
4. 93. However, while noting the statement of the Government that the period of acute crisis recently experienced in Burundi led to recourse being had to exceptional procedures, the Committee must point out that exceptional measures always entail a danger of serious infringement of fundamental rights.
5. 94. The Committee notes, first, that martial law and the state of emergency have been ended and, particularly as regards the judicial régime, that the situation appears to be returning to normal, and, secondly, that the Government envisages an amnesty which would be applicable without distinction to all political detainees.
6. 95. Having noted the above information given by the Government, the Committee would be grateful if the Governing Body could be kept informed of all measures taken in respect of an amnesty for persons in detention, and in particular the trade unionists specifically mentioned in the complaints, as well as any other trade unionists who may be detained.
7. 96. The Committee takes note of the several undertakings given by the Government, and particularly those envisaging the ratification of the Conventions relating to freedom of association and a possible I.L.O mission to Burundi.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 97. With regard to the case as a whole, and taking account of all the elements in the matter, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) while regretting that the Government has delayed so long in doing so, to note that the Government of Burundi has now agreed to co-operate fully with the I.L.O, particularly concerning the establishment of the facts in the event of complaints of violation of trade union rights;
   • (b) having noted, according to the information given by the Government, that certain trade unionists, for various reasons, are still in detention, to request the Government to be good enough to keep the Governing Body informed as to the fate of the persons in question, and particularly as to the results of the judicial proceedings which it states are pending;
   • (c) to note that the facts of the utmost gravity which gave rise to the complaints made to the I.L.O seem in general to have formed part of a series of events related to an insurrection;
   • (d) while noting the statement of the Government that the period of acute crisis experienced in Burundi led to recourse being had to exceptional procedures, to point out that exceptional measures always entail a danger of serious infringement of fundamental rights;
   • (e) to note, on the one hand, that martial law and the state of emergency have been ended and, particularly as regards the judicial régime, that the situation appears to be returning to normal and, on the other hand, that the Government envisages an amnesty which would be applicable without distinction to all political detainees;
   • (f) having noted the above information furnished by the Government, to request the latter to be good enough to keep the Governing Body informed as to any measures taken regarding an amnesty of detained persons, and in particular of trade unionists mentioned by name in the complaints, as well as any other trade unionists who may be detained;
   • (g) to take note of the various undertakings given by the Government, as indicated in paragraph 86 above, and particularly those envisaging the ratification of the Conventions relating to freedom of association and a possible I.L.O mission to Burundi;
   • (h) to request the Director-General to invite the Secretary-General of the United Nations to be good enough to bring to the notice of the Economic and Social Council for information the action taken following the discussion which took place in the Commission on Human Rights on 14 March 1966 and the terms of the present report.