Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 217, Junio 1982

Caso núm. 940 (Sudán) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 17-AGO-79 - Cerrado

1. 106. The Committee has examined this case on two previous occasions, at its February 1980 and May 1981 meetings, when it presented interim reports to the Governing Body. Since then, the Government has sent a communication dated 15 April 1982.
2. 107. Sudan has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 108. The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) had alleged that the Government was violating its international obligations by carrying out mass arrests of trade union leaders, exercising pressure on them and preventing them from continuing their activity as representatives of the workers. According to the complainant, those arbitrarily arrested include trade union leaders Gassem Amin, Saoudi Darraj, Mahjoub Sayed Ahmed, Ali El Mahi, Mokhtar Abdallah and Hassan Gassem El-Sayed. Other trade unionists, the WFTU alleged, had also been imprisoned. The Government had replied that the arrests of the listed trade unionists had nothing to do with their trade union activities, but were due to political activities they had undertaken against the State. It stated that some of them had been released from detention because of human considerations and that others would follow "when the reasons for their detention are over". At its meeting in February 1980, the Committee noted that some of the trade union leaders had been released and requested the Government to supply further information on the situation of the six detainees mentioned by the complainant.
2. 109. In its further reply the Government stated that four of the arrested persons had already been released from detention, and that their arrests had had nothing to do with their trade union activities, but had been due to unlawful political activities which these persons had undertaken against the State.
3. 110. At its May 1981 meeting, the Committee noted the Government's observation that four of the arrested persons had been released from detention. However, it regretted the lack of specificity in the Government's reply as regards the allegations, e.g. the reply neither indicated the names of the trade union leaders who had been released, nor if those whom the complainant mentioned by name had been tried or sentenced. The Committee recalled the importance of the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the Government considers have no relation to their trade union functions, and once again asked the Government to supply the relevant information relating to the present situation of each of the trade union leaders mentioned by the complainant.

B. The Government's reply

1. 111. In its letter of 15 April 1982, the Government states that "the six trade unionists referred to in the complaint have already been discharged".

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 112. The Committee notes the Government's brief reply that the six trade unionists mentioned by name in the complaint have been "discharged", which the Committee understands to mean released from detention. In view of the lack, once again, of precision in the Government's reply, the Committee considers it necessary to recall that the purpose of the whole procedure for the examination of complaints is to promote respect for trade union rights both in fact and in law and that whereas the procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments should in turn recognise the importance of replying in detail to the allegations in order to make it possible to examine them objectively.
2. 113. The Committee, while noting the Government's earlier statement that four of the arrested trade union leaders had been released and its recent statement that all six have Low been "discharged", must point out that at it appears that at least two of the leaders mentioned by the WFTU had been in detention since August 1979. The Committee further observes that, in the absence of precise information from the Government, none of the trade union leaders concerned would appear to have benefited from any form of trial. In this respect, it would point out, as it has already done in this case, that one of the fundamental principles of trade union rights, and indeed human rights in general, is the right of all detained persons to receive a prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the Government considers have no relation to their trade union functions. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, the Committee considers that it does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

• Recommendations of the Committee
  114. 114 In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present report, and in particular the following conclusions:
       • (a) The Committee recalls that the purpose of the whole procedure for the examination of complaints submitted to the Committee is to promote respect for trade union rights both in law and in fact, and that whereas the procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments in turn should recognise the importance of sending detailed replies to the allegations in order to make it possible to examine then objectively.
       • (b) Regarding the alleged arbitrary arrests of trade union leaders and unionists to prevent them from continuing their trade union activities, the Committee notes that they have now all been released and accordingly considers that the case does not call for further examination.