Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 51, 1961

Cas no 156 (France) - Date de la plainte: 29-NOV. -56 - Clos

1. 17. When the Committee further examined this case at its meeting on 17 and 18 February 1960, it submitted to the Governing Body the recommendations contained in paragraph 98 of its 44th Report (approved by the Governing Body at its 144th Session (1-4 March 1960)), which reads as follows
2. 98. In all the circumstances, the Committee, while not pronouncing on the different versions of the death of Mr. Aïssat Idir given by the complainants and by the Government, recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to draw the attention of the French Government once again to the importance which it attaches to the principle that when trade unionists are accused of political or criminal offences which a government considers to be outside the scope of their trade union activities, they, like all other persons, should be judged promptly by an impartial and independent judicial authority;
   • (b) to express its view that a situation permitting of the further detention of any such person after his acquittal by the competent court of the charges brought against him is not compatible with the principle enunciated above;
   • (c) to request the Government to furnish a speedy reply concerning the present position, in the light of the principles enunciated in subparagraph (a) above, of those of the trade unionists alleged to have been detained, who may still be in detention, including, in particular, Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid and Mr. Rabah Djermane and other persons listed in the I.C.F.T.U's communication dated 3 August 1959; to request the Government also to furnish information to the Governing Body as to the results of the legal or judicial proceedings taken or to be taken in this connection;
   • (d) to request the Government to state on how many occasions the application of the procedure for the periodic examination of cases of persons assigned a forced residence has resulted in the liberation of persons in the list of 36 trade union leaders named by the complainants and to state the names of those of them who may have been liberated;
   • (e) to request the French Government to furnish as a matter of urgency the information requested of it by the Governing Body when it adopted paragraph 293 (c) of the 27th Report of the Committee at its 137th Session (October-November 1957) and concerning which reminders were addressed to the Government in the 28th and 35th Reports of the Committee, adopted by the Governing Body at its 138th Session (March 1958) and its 142nd Session (May-June 1959) respectively;
   • (f) to request the Government to furnish detailed information as to the inquiries made into the alleged shooting of Mr. Rabah Djermane and the alleged maltreatment of other trade unionists referred to in paragraph 63 above and as to the results of such inquiries;
   • (g) to take note of the present interim report of the Committee with respect to the allegations relating to withdrawal of representative status from certain trade union organisations, to the seizure and banning of trade union publications and to restrictions on the activities of trade union leaders, concerning which the Committee has requested the Government to furnish further information, it being understood that the Committee will submit a further report thereon when that information has been received.
     • Consequently, the allegations made with respect to the detention and death of Mr. Aïssat Idir, General Secretary of the General Union of Algerian Workers (U.G.T.A.), are no longer before the Committee. The remaining allegations, with respect to which the Governing Body and the Committee, as indicated in paragraph 98 of the Committee's 44th Report, requested the French Government to furnish further information, are dealt with in the present report.

Allegations relating to the Detention of Mr. Ali Yayia Madlid, Mr. Rabah Djermane and Other Trade Unionists

1. 18. In its communication dated 3 August 1959 the I.C.F.T.U furnishes a list, giving names and trade union offices held, of trade union leaders alleged to have been held in detention for from two to three years and to be still so held as recently as June 1959. The list contains 36 names but the I.C.F.T.U states that this is far from complete. The W.F.T.U, in its communication dated 15 August 1959, declares that a great many trade unionists have been held in prisons or concentration camps, some for more than four years, either without ever having been charged or tried or even after examining magistrates have decided that there are no grounds for prosecution or courts have pronounced their acquittal.
2. 19. The I.C.F.T.U gives further information in its communication dated 10 September 1959 regarding certain of the persons mentioned in its list of detainees.
3. 20. The complaining Organisation declares that Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid, a National Secretary of the U.G.T.A arrested on 23 May 1956 and held ever since in various camps, is in danger of death. After more than three years of detention, declares the complainant, no charge has ever been brought against him, but he is still held in the Paul Cazelles camp, which is so bad from the climatic and health point of view that the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Commission against Concentration Camps have re quested that it be closed, the French authorities having promised in 1957 to close it but never having given effect to that promise.
4. 21. The complainant declares that, according to reports from the U.G.T.A, another of the detainees listed, Mr. Rabah Djermane, a National Secretary of the U.G.T.A held in the same camp, was shot in the stomach by a French soldier in March 1957. In another camp, it is alleged, French soldiers, at about the same time, beat up the trade unionists and other persons detained and shot at a number of them, so that several were seriously wounded and sent to military hospitals, nothing having been heard of them since that time.
5. 22. By a letter dated 21 September 1959, the Director-General transmitted the communication from the I.C.F.T.U dated 10 September 1959 to the French Government, drawing its attention to the fact that the case fell within the category of cases regarded by the Governing Body as urgent cases and requesting a speedy reply in accordance with the procedure laid down for dealing with such cases. The Government furnished observations on the matters raised in the allegations in its communication dated 16 November 1959.
6. 23. With respect to the arrest and internment of Mr. Ali Yayia, former deputy to Aïssat Idir, the Government gave the following explanations.
7. 24. The behaviour of Mr. Ali Yayia during his detention in the Paul Cazelles camp, where he was assigned his residence, gave rise at the beginning of August to the opening of judicial proceedings and the person concerned was charged at the end of September with wilful assault and endangering the safety of the State.
8. 25. In August 1959, the Government continued, an inquiry made in the Paul Cazelles camp revealed the existence in the camp of an F.L.N cell, which attempted by all possible means to exercise influence over the persons interned there and, among other things, set up a so-called tribunal which subjected internees who were not amenable to the discipline of the organisation to varied punishments, including corporal punishment, one of the heads of this organisation being Ali Yayia Abdel-Madjid, an active leader of the U.G.T.A, who had been assigned a compulsory residence because of his subversive activities on behalf of the rebellion. The Government claimed that the evidence given by internees established clearly the part played by Ali Yayia and that he himself admitted having inflicted penalties on certain of his co-religionists.
9. 26. Proceedings were instituted before the examining magistrate in Blida against Ali Yayia and 27 other persons to whom a residence had been assigned on the ground that they had endangered the external safety of the State and committed wilful assault, after which Ali Yayia was charged on 24 September 1959.
10. 27. The Government contended that the allegations made by the I.C.F.T.U that the measures taken against the U.G.T.A and its principal officials in 1956 were infringements of the Conventions relating to trade union rights ratified by France are the same as those which it made in its first complaint in 1957. In these circumstances the French Government could not be expected to repeat the arguments which it then made and which still remained valid. The Government, however, wished to make certain observations with regard to the question of assignment of forced residence by administrative decision and the question of internment centres.
11. 28. With respect to the first point, the Government declared that the application of common law penal procedures in order to repress anti-national activity in Algeria had had to be supplemented by recourse to measures restricting personal liberty taken on the initiative of the administrative authorities, such as prohibition of continued residence and assignment of a forced residence. Such measures are taken pursuant to the special powers conferred on the authorities responsible for maintaining order in the Departments of Algeria by virtue of the Act of 16 March 1956, which was discussed and voted by the French Parliament and reintroduced on several occasions. These powers are used, stated the Government, without distinction as to persons, against all those who, whatever their status or functions, have deliberately placed themselves outside the law.
12. 29. With respect to the question of internment centres, the Government stated that all persons who have been made the subject of measures assigning a forced residence are assembled in the internment centres. The case of every person so assigned is the subject of a periodic examination by a special commission under the chairmanship of a magistrate of the judiciary and meeting under the auspices of the Delegate-General of the Government in Algeria. The internees are subject to a system which is in no way comparable with a prison régime: they receive mail and visits, they have the chance to take courses and a library is provided in each centre for their use. They are medically examined frequently, declared the Government, and regularly, and in no case are they subjected to forced labour; some of them participate at their own request in the common services of the centres (hospital, accounting) and are remunerated accordingly.
13. 30. The Government went on to state that an anti-tuberculosis hospital centre with one hundred beds had been set up at Beni-Messous; only persons who have been assigned a forced residence are received there and some are examined and cared for who have never been treated previously. The internment centres are visited regularly by the members of the Safeguards Commission as well as by representatives of the International Red Cross. After being liberated, stated the Government, the internees are generally replaced in their former employment on the intervention of the commandant of their centre; local authorities and officers of the Specialised Administrative Sections also collaborate in their occupational reintegration.
14. 31. In conclusion, the Government explained that the Paul Cazelles internment centre was until 1957 a temporary camp under canvas and, as such, was intended to disappear, but the following year the temporary installations were replaced by prefabricated buildings and the necessary collective amenities were successively installed (water, electricity, sanitary installations, etc.) and the centre continued to exist on its original site.
15. 32. When it examined the case at its meeting on 19 November 1959, the Committee, noting the Government's statement that the case of every person assigned a forced residence is the subject of a periodic examination by a special commission, asked the Government to state on how many occasions this examination had resulted in the liberation of persons in the list of the 36 trade union leaders named by the complainants. The Committee also desired to know whether the authorities apply their special powers having regard, as the Government's reply appeared to indicate, to the opinions or affiliations of the trade union leaders. With regard to those of the trade unionists named by the complainants who had not been liberated, the Committee requested information as to whether the Government intended to take steps to ensure that they would be judged in the near future by an impartial and independent judicial authority. Having noted the allegations to the effect that Mr. Rabah Djermane, a National Secretary of the U.G.T.A held in the Paul Cazelles camp, was shot in the stomach by a French soldier in March 1957, and that, in another camp, French soldiers, at about the same time, beat up the trade unionists and other persons detained and shot at a number of them, so that several were seriously wounded, nothing further having been heard of them, the Committee requested the Government to furnish its observations on these allegations. Finally, the Committee requested the Government to furnish as a matter of urgency the information requested by the Governing Body when it adopted paragraph 293 (c) of the Committee's 27th Report at its 137th Session (October-November 1957), to which attention had subsequently been called in the 28th and 35th Reports of the Committee, approved respectively by the Governing Body at its 138th Session (March 1958) and its 142nd Session (May-June 1959).
16. 33. The Government furnished further information in its communication dated 22 January 1960.
17. 34. With respect to the question of the periodic examination of the cases of persons who have been assigned a forced residence, the Government declared that the Review Board appointed to advise the Delegate-General of the Government may recommend the release of internees where it considers such action appropriate after making a complete review of the records of the persons concerned and the accusations laid to their door. Such recommendations are made without regard to whether the persons concerned are trade union leaders or members.
18. 35. With respect to the application of the special powers enabling the authorities to take measures to restrict personal liberty, the Government stated that the central or local authorities having the power to ordain internment (assignation à résidence) by administrative fiat have before them all the material facts required for their complete information. By reason of its very seriousness, any measure in restraint of individual liberty must be taken with a thorough knowledge of the case and must take into account all the facts which may enlighten the responsible authority as to the advisability and duration of the measure in question, having regard solely to the exigencies of law and order and public safety. Accordingly, added the Government, membership of a trade union organisation is never regarded either as an aggravating or as an extenuating circumstance. In assessing the maximum duration of any individual assignment order, the only considerations are the requirements of public order and the security of life and property.
19. 36. The Government declared that the case of each internee is periodically reviewed by a special committee under the chairmanship of a magistrate. The review thus instituted may result in the internee's release, his indictment on a charge of imperilling the safety of the State or his continued detention in an internment centre. Thus, continued the Government, trade unionists who have been the subject of internment measures have either been released after an examination of their cases by the Central Internment Order Review Board or have been committed to prison on a charge of imperilling the external safety of the State, or have been kept in an internment centre on the recommendation of the committee which makes a review of their cases at regular intervals.
20. 37. Further, the Government explained that the Review Board appointed to advise its Delegate-General may recommend the release of internees and that all cases are periodically reviewed by a special committee under the chairmanship of a magistrate. The result of this has been, declared the Government, that " trade unionists who have been the subject of internment measures have either been released after an examination of their cases by the Central Internment Order Review Board or have been committed to prison on a charge of imperilling the external safety of the State or have been left in an internment centre on the recommendation of the committee which makes a review of their cases at regular intervals ".
21. 38. With regard to the allegations relating to the shooting of Mr. Rabah Djermane and to the maltreatment of other trade unionists the Government stated that the information available did not indicate that the persons concerned had been subjected to the treatment in question.
22. 39. At its meeting in February 1960 the Committee recalled that in many previous cases which had come before the Committee, in which it was alleged that trade union leaders or members had been preventively detained, the Committee had expressed the view that measures of detention may involve a serious interference with the exercise of trade union rights, which it would seem necessary to justify by the existence of a serious emergency and which would be open to criticism unless accompanied by adequate judicial safeguards applied within a reasonable period, and that it should be the policy of every government to take care to ensure the observance of human rights and, especially, of the right of all detained persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment.
23. 40. The Committee went on to state that it did not consider that the Government's communication of 22 January 1960 constituted a full reply to its specific request for information, made having regard to the principles set forth above, as to the number of occasions on which the periodic examination of cases had resulted in the liberation of persons in the list of 36 trade union leaders named by the complainants. Nor did the Government state, observed the Committee, whether it intended to take steps to ensure that those still under detention will be judged in the near future by an impartial and independent judicial authority, nor, again, did the Government answer the request made by the Governing Body when it adopted paragraph 293 (c) of the Committee's 27th Report, deciding (in respect of persons alleged in the complaints then being examined, to be held in detention):
24. (c) to draw the attention of the French Government to the importance which it attaches to the principle that when trade unionists are accused of political or criminal offences which a government considers to be outside the scope of their trade union activities they should be judged promptly by an impartial and independent judicial authority; to express the hope that the Government will bear this principle in mind and inform it in due course as to the legal and judicial proceedings which may be taken in the case of those of the persons referred to by the complainants who are still interned and as to the results of such proceedings.
25. 41. Finally, in respect of the allegations relating to the shooting of Mr. Rabah Djermane and the alleged maltreatment of other detainees, concerning which the Committee had requested information at its meeting in November 1959, the Committee observed that the Government restricted its reply to a statement that the information available " does not indicate that the persons concerned have been subject to the treatment in question ".
26. 42. It was in these circumstances that the Committee at its meeting in February 1960 recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 84 of its 44th Report:
27. ......................................................................................................................................................
28. (a) to request the Government to furnish a speedy reply concerning the present position, in the light of the principles enunciated in paragraph 55 above, of those of the trade unionists alleged to have been detained who might still be in detention, including in particular, Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid and Mr. Rabah Djermane and other persons listed in the I.C.F.T.U's communication dated 3 August 1959; to request the Government also to furnish information to the Governing Body as to the results of the legal or judicial proceedings taken or to be taken in this connection;
29. (b) to request the Government to state on how many occasions the application of the procedure for the periodic examination of cases of persons assigned a forced residence had resulted in the liberation of persons in the list of 36 trade union leaders named by the complainants and to state the names of those of them who may have been liberated;
30. (c) to request the French Government to furnish as a matter of urgency the information requested of it by the Governing Body when it adopted paragraph 293 (c) of the 27th Report of the Committee at its 137th Session (October-November 1957) and concerning which reminders were addressed to the Government in the 28th and 35th Reports of the Committee, adopted by the Governing Body at its 138th Session (March 1958) and its 142nd Session (May-June 1959) respectively;
31. (d) to request the Government to furnish more detailed information as to the inquiries made into the alleged shooting of Mr. Rabah Djermane and the alleged maltreatment of other trade unionists referred to in paragraph 63 above and as to the results of such inquiries.
32. 43. The 44th Report of the Committee having been approved by the Governing Body at its 144th Session (1-4 March 1960), the above request for information was conveyed to the French Government by the Director-General in a letter dated 9 March 1960.
33. 44. At its meeting on 20 May 1960 the Committee adjourned its examination of the case as no reply had been received from the French Government.
34. 45. On 23 May 1960 the French Government furnished the following information. The Government states that, as previously mentioned, Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid had been indicted on charges of imperilling the external security of the State and of assault and battery with intent to cause bodily harm. He was first transferred to the Bossuct Centre and was later remanded in custody and lodged in the Blida civil prison on 1 November 1959. At the beginning of February 1960 his counsel reported that his client had been maltreated by the warders responsible for guarding him. The Public Prosecutor attached to the Algiers Court of Appeal instituted an investigation into these allegations. The outcome of the investigation, declares the Government, showed that at no time did Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid " have any reasonable grounds to impugn the behaviour of the prison staff at the Blida Prison ". The Government goes on to state that during his detention he had committed acts of the same nature as those which occasioned his transfer from the Paul Cazelles Centre to the Bossuet Centre in September 1959 and his subsequent indictment. He was moved to the Algiers Penitentiary on 22 February 1960. Finally, the Government declares that on 5 March and 8 April 1960, on the orders of the Public Prosecutor, one of his deputies visited the penitentiary and satisfied himself that the conditions under which Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid was detained were as they should be. Consequently, on 15 April 1960, the Public Prosecutor decided to take no further action on the complaint submitted by counsel for Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid.
35. 46. On 13 June 1960 the Director-General wrote to the French Government, acknowledging the receipt of its above-mentioned communication dated 23 May 1960 and informing the Government of the Committee's decision, on 20 May 1960, to adjourn its examination of the case until its next session. In his letter, the Director-General also asked the Government to furnish the information requested by the Governing Body and the Committee on the different points indicated in paragraph 98 of the Committee's 44th Report (see paragraph 17 above).
36. 47. In a communication dated 12 August 1960 the I.C.F.T.U expressed its dissatisfaction at the failure to take definitive decisions in a matter which it had asked should be treated as a case of urgency. The complainants declare that active trade unionists who have not been charged with any crime, have been languishing in prisons and detention camps for many years. Although more than a year had elapsed since the submission by the complainants on 3 August 1959 of a list of detained Algerian trade unionists, only one or two persons, they contend, have been released. The complainants refer to the case of Mr. Aïssat Idir as constituting proof of the dangers which threaten the detainees. In particular, they refer to the case of Mr. Allal Abdelkader, General Secretary of U.G.T.A, as constituting a violation of the principle set forth in paragraph 98 (b) of the Committee's 44th Report-they state that he was arrested in March 1957 and detained until he was tried by an Algiers military court on 12 January 1959, being sentenced to a term of imprisonment which terminated in March 1960. Nevertheless, allege the complainants, he has again been detained and his whereabouts are unknown.
37. 48. The above communication of the I.C.F.T.U was transmitted to the French Government by the Director-General by a letter dated 14 September 1960. In his letter, the Director-General once again asked the Government to furnish the information requested on the different points indicated in paragraph 98 of the Committee's 44th Report. In a letter dated 8 November 1960, the Government states that, as it has received no further information since the despatch of its letter dated 23 May 1960, it can only refer again to the said communication of 23 May 1960 and to its earlier communications dated 16 November 1959 and 22 January 1960.
38. 49. The Committee considers that the reply from the French Government dated 23 May 1960, which is confined to a number of details given with a view to refuting the contention that Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid had been maltreated while in detention, does not constitute a reply to the points on which the Governing Body, as indicated in paragraph 42 above, requested the Government to furnish information. It would seem to reveal the explanation that, although proceedings were instituted before an examining magistrate against Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid and 27 others on the grounds of having endangered the external safety of the State and of wilful assault, after which Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid was charged on 24 September 1959 (see paragraph 26 above), he has even now, apparently, not been brought to trial. In this connection, the Committee has before it allegations in a communication dated 12 August 1960 from the I.C.F.T.U, to which the Government has not replied, according to which the 36 persons named in its complaint dated 3 August 1959 (including Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid) have never, with the exception of one, been brought to trial, and only one or two have been released. Finally, the I.C.F.T.U makes a new allegation with regard to the one person, Mr. Abdelkader, General Secretary of U.G.T.A, who appears to have been tried, stating that, although the term of imprisonment to which he was sentenced by a military court terminated in March 1960, he has again been detained.
39. 50. The 36 detained persons named in the complaint of the I.C.F.T.U are: Messrs. Akeb Mohamed, Ali Yayya Abdelnour, Ali Yahia Madjid, Abdelkader, Benaïssa Attalah, Bourouiba Boualem, Djermane Rabah, Flissi Mohammed, Lassel Mustapha (all National Secretaries of U.G.T.A.), Zitouni Messaoudi and Bourouiba Mahieddine (director and reporter of L'Ouvrier algérien), Abdellaziz Haddadi (officer of the Algerian Railwaymen's Union), Babali Mustapha (Treasurer of the Algerian Electricity and Gas Workers' Union), Habib Mohamed (Secretary of the same union), Bourouiba Hacen and Gaïd Tahar (officers of the Algerian Teachers' Union), Laredj Djelloul and Maine Mohamed (Secretaries of the Algerian Miners' Union), Zefouni Mahfoud (Secretary of the Algerian Tobacco Workers' Union), Harkati Hamida (officer of the Algerian Tramway Workers' Union), Benzireg Mohamed (Secretary of the Algiers Bank Employees' Union), Ben Tayed Chebahi (Secretary of the Algiers Building Workers' Union), Chikbouni Abdelhamid (Secretary of the Algiers Commercial Employees' Union), Laïmech Slimane (Secretary of the Algiers Dockers' Union), Benbouabib Mahfoud (Secretary of the Algiers P.T.T. Workers' Union), Aït Said (Secretary of the Oran Regional Union), Ben Slimane Hamida, Bouhadjar Ahmed, Bouziane Mohamed and Trani Ouldene (officers of the Oran Local Union), Fahassi Omar, Fes Youcef and Zetouni Rabah (Secretaries of the Maison Carrée Regional Union), and Bendaoud Mohamed and Sari Meziane (officers of the Maison Carrée Metal Workers' Union).
40. 51. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
41. (a) to note with regret that the French Government has not furnished information as to the legal and judicial proceedings which might be taken in the case of those of the complainants referred to in the complaints who were still interned and as to the results of such proceedings, in accordance with the request of the Governing Body when it adopted paragraph 293 (c) of the 27th Report of the Committee at its 137th Session (October-November 1957), concerning which reminders were addressed to the Government in the 28th and 35th Reports of the Committee, adopted by the Governing Body at its 138th Session (March 1958) and its 142nd Session (May-June 1959) respectively, and which the French Government was yet again asked by the Governing Body to furnish, as a matter of urgency, when it adopted paragraph 98 (e) of the Committee's 44th Report at its 144th Session (1-4 March 1960);
42. (b) to note with regret that the Government also has not furnished full information on the other points on which the Governing Body requested information when adopting subparagraphs (e) to (f) of paragraph 98 of the Committee's 44th Report;
43. (c) to draw the attention of the Government yet again to the importance which the Governing Body attached to the principle that when trade unionists are accused of political or criminal offences which a government considers to be outside the scope of their trade union activities, they, like all other persons, should be judged promptly by an impartial and independent judicial authority;
44. (d) to note that, while the Government declared in its communication dated 16 November 1959 that proceedings had been instituted before an examining magistrate against Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid and 27 other persons on the ground that they had endangered the external safety of the State and committed wilful assault, Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid thereafter having been charged on 24 September 1959, no further information has been furnished by the Government as to what has ensued following the bringing of this charge against Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid and the institution of proceedings in 27 other cases before an examining magistrate;
45. (e) to request the Government to furnish a reply, as a matter of particular urgency, concerning the present position, in the light of the principle enunciated in subparagraph (c) above and of its own statements referred to in subparagraph (d) above, of those of the trade unionists alleged to have been detained who may still be in detention, including, in particular, Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid and Mr. Rabah Djermane and other persons listed in the I.C.F.T.U's communication dated 3 August 1959 and whose names are given in paragraph 50 above; to request the Government also to furnish information to the Governing Body, as a matter of urgency, as to the results of the legal or judicial proceedings taken or to be taken in this connection;
46. (f) to request the Government once again, and having regard to the specific allegation in the I.C.F.T.U's communication dated 12 August 1960:a copy of which was transmitted to the Government on 14 September 1960-that only one or two at most of the 36 persons referred to in paragraph 50 above have been released, to state on how many occasions the application of the procedure for the periodic examination of cases of persons assigned a forced residence has resulted in the liberation of persons in the said list of 36 persons and to state the names of those of them who may have been liberated;
47. (g) to draw the attention of the Government to the Governing Body's view that a situation permitting of the further detention of any person after he has served a sentence imposed upon him is not compatible with the principle enunciated in subparagraph (c) above, and to request the Government, having regard to that view, to reply specifically to the allegation in the I.C.F.T.U's communication dated 12 August 1960 that Mr. Abdelkader, General Secretary of U.G.T.A, after having served a sentence imposed upon him by a military court and which terminated in March 1960, has again been detained;
48. (h) to request the Government yet again to furnish as a matter of urgency the information referred to in subparagraph (a) above;
49. (i) to request the Government to furnish detailed information as to the inquiries made into the alleged shooting of Mr. Rabah Djermane and the alleged maltreatment of other trade unionists referred to in paragraph 21 above and as to the results of such inquiries.
50. Allegations relating to Withdrawal of Representative Status from Certain Trade Union Organisations
51. 52. In its communication dated 10 September 1959 the I.C.F.T.U refers to the allegations examined by the Committee in paragraphs 252 to 266 of its 27th Report with reference to the withdrawal of representative status in 1956 from a number of Algerian trade union federations. The present allegations of the complainant relate more especially to the case of one of these federations-the U.G.T.A. The complainant alleges that in the reply which was submitted to the Committee when it examined the case in its 27th Report the French Government sought to justify this measure and to minimise its implications.
52. 53. The complainant declares that the information furnished by the French Government in 1957 was to the effect that an Order of 22 December 1956 granted representative status to four federations, excluding the U.G.T.A, the General Federation of Algerian Trade Unions (U.G.S.A.) and the Algerian Workers' Trade Union Federation (U.S.T.A.). (The position of U.G.S.A. had already been affected by a circular of 6 October 1956 and Decree No. 56-276 of 26 November 1956.) For the true story of the matter as it affected the U.G.T.A, declares the complainant, it is necessary to consider events which took place earlier in 1956.
53. 54. The complainant states that the U.G.T.A was founded on 26 February 1956 and was recognised as representative 20 days later and obtained 72 per cent of the votes in the election of members of the Disciplinary Council of the R.D.T.A. (Algerian Tramways). It then put up candidates in the elections for the Works Committee of the R.D.T.A. This poll was held on 30 April 1956. The complainant alleges that the ballot boxes were sealed up without the votes being counted and that, during a meeting of the former Works Committee on 14 May 1956, the tramways branch manager gave as the only explanation of the cancelling of the ballot the fact that the elections had been suspended for three months and the terms of office of the outgoing delegates extended for the same period. In support of this statement, continues the complainant, he produced no written instruction from the Office of the Governor-General, and the delegates' protest was recorded in the minutes of the meeting. In the view of the complainant, the arbitrary nature of this measure is proved by the fact that the Government itself mentions no official texts dated prior to 6 October 1956, several months after the events alleged above. By that time, adds the complainant, the U.G.T.A's leaders had been arrested, its funds confiscated, its premises occupied by the army and its newspaper seized and banned, so that in practice it could no longer function or institute any proceedings against administrative measures taken against it.
54. 55. The complainant goes on to declare that during the trial of Mr. Aïssat Idir and other trade union leaders in January 1959 attempts were made to show that the U.G.T.A had been subversive, but the prosecutor himself recognised that it was a lawful organisation. In the complainant's view the dismissal of the " felonious association " charge against Mr. Aïssat Idir, General Secretary of the U.G.T.A, refutes the Government's argument that the administrative measures taken against the U.G.T.A were justified by the fact that the U.G.T.A was an offshoot of the F.L.N and that its activities were therefore unlawful.
55. 56. Referring to the Committee's statement in paragraph 266 of its 27th Report that it would appear that the organisations from which representative status had been withdrawn had " engaged in political activities of a nature and scope exceeding those normally associated with the activities of trade unions ", the complainant expresses the view that there is no contradiction between the terms of the resolution concerning the independence of the trade union movement adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 35th Session in 1952-cited by the Committee in the paragraph mentioned-and " the right, nay the duty, of a trade union organisation to pronounce on occasion on political questions of direct concern to the interest of its members ". The U.G.T.A, declares the complainant, " had taken a stand in favour of Algerian independence, being convinced that only political independence would make it possible to put an end to the economic and social exploitation against which it was struggling ".
56. 57. Finally, contends the complainant, the recommendations contained in paragraph 265 of the Committee's 27th Report should be reconsidered because they have remained without effect, no " procedure offering every guarantee of impartiality " having been instituted to restore to the U.G.T.A the possibility of recovering its premises, records and confiscated funds so that it may function freely as an organisation with representative status.
57. 58. At its meeting in February 1960 the Committee observed that in its reply dated 22 January 1960 the Government states that the U.G.T.A, U.G.S.A. and U.S.T.A had never been dissolved and that they continued to be lawful because their Constitutions and rules conformed fully to statutory requirement. The Constitutions and rules of all three federations, according to the Government, state that they are constituted " within the framework of the laws and institutions " and that they " shall refrain from any controversy of a political or religious nature ". The Government added that the conditions for representative status are defined by the Act of 11 February 1950 for the purposes which that Act seeks to attain, and that " the fact that a trade union is not recognised as being representative constitutes no impediment to the execution of trade union rights ".
58. 59. The Committee noted that, while the actual question of the withdrawal of representative status from the three organisations in question was examined by the Committee in paragraphs 252 to 266 of its 27th Report, the complainant in the present cases adduces a number of further points on which the Committee has never pronounced and on which the Government has made no observations. Thus, in addition to the contention that the recommendations made in the Committee's 27th Report have had no effect, the complainant refers (see paragraph 54 above) to events in 1956 (prior to the withdrawal of representative status) connected with the election of union representatives on certain bodies, and also to the confiscation of the funds of the U.G.T.A. Before considering these allegations further, therefore, the Committee decided to request the Government to furnish its observations on the points in question.
59. 60. In its communication dated 23 May 1960 the Government states that it has no information to add to the details previously given.
60. 61. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish further observations on the specific points raised in the allegations analysed in paragraphs 52 to 57 above.
61. Allegations relating to the Seizure and Banning of Trade Union Publications
62. 62. The complainant begins by referring to the fact that when the Committee examined allegations of a similar nature in paragraphs 276 to 280 of its 27th Report, the Government's observations and the Committee's considerations were confined to the case of Le Travailleur algérien, the organ of the U.G.S.A. The complainants are now concerned with the alleged seizure and banning of L'Ouvrier algérien, organ of the U.G.T.A. They state that one of the main accusations against Mr. Aïssat Idir was that, as the " responsible editor ", he had signed articles in favour of Algerian independence and the struggle of the F.L.N, but that his acquittal by the military court demonstrates that these articles were not considered punishable; Mr. Aïssait Idir, moreover, was the one trade unionist in the trial not charged with being a member of the F.L.N. Hence, concludes the complainant, the reasons for the seizure and banning of the newspaper were recognised as unwarranted and this measure was a violation of the organisation's trade union right of publication.
63. 63. The Government stated in its communication dated 22 January 1960 that the majority of the issues of the newspaper had been confiscated on the orders of the local administrative authorities, these measures being justified by the nature and contents of its articles, viz. " repeated incitement to violence and insurrectional strikes, the dissemination of orders from the rebel forces, slanderous charges against government officials and civil servants, and (even more frequently) the publicity given in its columns to acts which gravely imperilled public order and the security of life and property ".
64. 64. At its meeting in February 1960 the Committee observed that, as the complainants contend, the only case considered in detail by the Committee in its 27th Report was that of Le Travailleur algérien, organ of the U.G.S.A. Only a brief reference was made to the confiscation of L'Ouvrier algérien on some occasions. The Committee reached its conclusions in paragraphs 278 to 280 of its 27th Report, after considering reasons for its banning given by the Government-these reasons in many respects being substantially similar to those given in the present case. But in the case of Le Travailleur algérien the Government's arguments were supported by a number of extracts from issues of that newspaper, and this was a material factor in enabling the Committee to form its appreciation of the matter, as it had been in an earlier case in which the Committee had had to pronounce on similar issues. Before formulating its conclusions in the present case, therefore, the Committee decided to request the Government to furnish extracts from banned issues of L'Ouvrier algérien, in the light of its observations as cited in paragraph 63 above.
65. 65. In its communication dated 23 May 1960 the Government states that it has no information to add to the details previously given.
66. 66. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish extracts from banned issues of L'Ouvrier algérien in the light of its observations as cited in paragraph 63 above.
67. Allegations relating to Restrictions on the Activities of Trade Union Leaders
68. 67. In the complaint now before the Committee the I.C.F.T.U confines its allegations to one particular instance. It is alleged that Mr. Delouvrier, the French Delegate-General, in a statement on 7 August 1959, declared that he had received many requests to visit Mr. Aïssat Idir at the Maillot hospital, but that he had " screened " them, " refusing in particular to allow a visit by the representative of the I.C.F.T.U, whose attitude had been particularly violent ". This reference, declares the complainant, was to Mr. Bernasconi, General Secretary of the Swiss Trade Union Federation, delegated by the complainant to contact Mr. Aïssat Idir. The complainant declares that this constituted a violation of the right of national trade union organisations freely to maintain contact with the international organisations to which they are affiliated.
69. 68. At its meeting in February 1960 the Committee observed that, in its communication dated 16 November 1959, the Government stated that the I.C.F.T.U had been given permission early in 1959 to send an observer to the trial of Aïssat Idir and that permission to visit him had been given to Mr. Garrigues, representing the Counsel, Maitre Rolin, in Algiers, as well as to Mr. Vust, delegate of the International Red Cross. The Government, however, made no reference to the case of Mr. Bernasconi nor to the statement regarding him alleged to have been made by Mr. Delouvrier on 7 August 1959. In these circumstances the Committee decided to request the Government to furnish its observations on this aspect of the matter.
70. 69. No observations on this aspect of the case have been received from the Government.
71. 70. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish its observations on these allegations.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 71. In all the circumstances the Committee, considering that the French Government's statement that it can only refer to its previous communications, as it has not received any further information, does not enable it to proceed satisfactorily with the discharge of the duty entrusted to it by the Governing Body, recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to note with regret that the French Government has not furnished information as to the legal and judicial proceedings which might be taken in the case of those of the complainants referred to by the complainants who were still interned and as to the results of such proceedings, in accordance with the request of the Governing Body when it adopted paragraph 293 (c) of the 27th Report of the Committee at its 137th Session (October-November 1957), concerning which reminders were addressed to the Government in the 28th and 35th Reports of the Committee, adopted by the Governing Body at its 138th Session (March 1958) and its 142nd Session (May-June 1959) respectively, and which the French Government was yet again asked by the Governing Body to furnish, as a matter of urgency, when it adopted paragraph 98 (e) of the Committee's 44th Report at its 144th Session (1-4 March 1960);
   • (b) to note with regret that the Government also has not furnished full information on the other points on which the Governing Body requested information when adopting subparagraphs (e) and (f) of paragraph 98 of the Committee's 44th Report;
   • (c) to decide, with respect to the allegations relating to the detention of Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid, Mr. Rabah Djermane and other trade unionists:
   • (i) to draw the attention of the Government yet again to the importance which the Governing Body attaches to the principle that when trade unionists are accused of political or criminal offences which a government considers to be outside the scope of their trade union activities, they, like all other persons, should be judged promptly by an impartial and independent judicial authority;
   • (ii) to note that, while the Government declared in its communication dated 16 November 1959 that proceedings had been instituted before an Examining Magistrate against Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid and 27 other persons on the ground that they had endangered the external safety of the State and committed wilful assault, Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid thereafter having been charged on 24 September 1959, no further information has been furnished by the Government as to what has ensued following the bringing of this charge against Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid and the institution of proceedings in 27 other cases before an Examining Magistrate;
   • (iii) to request the Government to furnish a reply, as a matter of particular urgency, concerning the present position, in the light of the principle enunciated in subparagraph (c) (i) above and of its own statements referred to in subparagraph (c) (ii) above, of those of the trade unionists alleged to have been detained who may still be in detention, including, in particular, Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid and Mr. Rabah Djermane and other persons listed in the I.C.F.T.U's communication dated 3 August 1959 and whose names are given in paragraph 50 above; to request the Government also to furnish information to the Governing Body, as a matter of urgency, as to the results of the legal or judicial proceedings taken or to be taken in this connection;
   • (iv) to request the Government once again, and having regard to the specific allegation in the I.C.F.T.U's communication dated 12 August 1960:a copy of which was transmitted to the Government on 14 September 1960-that only one or two at most of the 36 persons referred to in paragraph 50 above have been released, to state on how many occasions the application of the procedure for the periodic examination of cases of persons assigned a forced residence has resulted in the liberation of persons in the said list of 36 persons and to state the names of those of them who may have been liberated;
   • (v) to draw the attention of the Government to the Governing Body's view that a situation permitting of the further detention of any person after he has served a sentence imposed upon him is not compatible with the principle enunciated in subparagraph (c) (i) above, and to request the Government, having regard to that view, to reply specifically to the allegation in the I.C.F.T.U's communication dated 12 August 1960 that Mr. Abdelkader, General Secretary of U.G.T.A, after having served a sentence imposed upon him by a military court and which terminated in March 1960, has again been detained;
   • (vi) to request the Government yet again to furnish as a matter of urgency the information referred to in subparagraph (a) above;
   • (vii) to request the Government to furnish detailed information as to the inquiries made into the alleged shooting of Mr. Rabah Djermane and the alleged maltreatment of other trade unionists referred to in paragraph 21 above and as to the results of such inquiries.
   • (d) to request the Government to furnish further observations on the specific points raised in the allegations relating to withdrawal of representative status from certain trade union organisations analysed in paragraphs 52 to 57 above;
   • (e) to request the Government to furnish extracts from banned issues of L'Ouvrier algérien in the light of its observations as cited in paragraph 63 above;
   • (f) to request the Government to furnish its observations on the allegations relating to restrictions on the activities of trade union leaders analysed in paragraph 67 above.