Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 122, 1971

Cas no 567 (Israël) - Date de la plainte: 27-NOV. -68 - Clos

1. 55. This case has already been the subject of an interim report by the Committee, appearing in paragraphs 124 to 141 of its 114th Report, which was adopted by the Governing Body at its 177th Session (Geneva, November 1969).
2. 56. The complaint consisted of three sets of allegations: those relating to the arrest of Mr. Mohammed Gadallah, those relating to the attacking of the headquarters of a union and the arrest of three trade unionists and those relating to the arrest of eight trade unionists. The Committee made its final recommendations on the first two sets of allegations in its 114th Report, only the third remaining outstanding after the Committee examined the case in November 1969. Between its November 1969 session and its November 1970 session the Committee adjourned examination of the case pending receipt of the Government's observations in regard to fresh allegations made by the complainants on 24 October 1969 (see paragraph 74 below), which had been transmitted to the ILO by the United Nations on 13 November 1969 and which were communicated to the Government on 24 December 1969; the Government furnished its observations-announced as forthcoming on 17 April 1970-by a communication dated 14 August 1970.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Arrest of Eight Trade Unionists
  57. 57 In a letter dated 8 July 1969 the complainants provided information said to have been supplied by the General Federation of Jordanian Trade Unions, an organisation affiliated to the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions. This information consisted of a list of eight names of persons with details of their trade union functions and the type of action-arrest, imprisonment or exile-taken against them by the Israeli authorities. The names given were: Mahmood Mohammed Sharbiny, Zakiya Khalil Hamdan, Mohammed Jad-Ullah, Mihel Sindaha, Yakoob Farraj, Naim Kublany, Nabil Kublany and Walid Al-Aghbar.
  58. 58 In a communication dated 28 August 1969 the Government announced that it would thoroughly investigate these allegations and offer its comments thereon in due course. Accordingly the Committee, at its session in November of that year, recommended the Governing Body to adjourn in the meantime its examination of this aspect of the case.
  59. 59 The Government forwarded its observations as promised in a communication dated 23 November 1969, offering the following explanations.
  60. 60 Mr. Mahmood Mohammed Sharbiny had been arrested on 25 March 1969 for giving shelter to a criminal who had been party to a bomb explosion in a Jerusalem supermarket, which had killed two people and injured many others among the shoppers-all civilians and mostly women and children. He had been sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
  61. 61 Mr. Zakiya Khalil Hamdan had been expelled to the east bank of the River Jordan on 8 June 1969 for subversive activities.
  62. 62 Mr. Mohammed Jad-Ullah had been arrested on 9 June 1969 for subversive activities (incitement to riot and civil disobedience), but had been released on 9 September of that year.
  63. 63 Mr. Mihel Sindaha had been arrested on 9 June 1969 for subversive activities (incitement to riot and violent illegal demonstration), and had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
  64. 64 Mr. Yakoob Farraj had been arrested on 9 June 1969 for subversive activities (incitement to riot and violent illegal demonstration), and had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
  65. 65 Mr. Naim Kublany had been arrested on 9 June 1969 for subversive activities, his shop having been used as headquarters for the organisation of riots, of which he was one of the principal instigators; he had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
  66. 66 Mr. Nabil Kublany had been one of a group of terrorists intercepted by the Israeli security forces while attempting to enter Israeli territory illegally with a caravan of four camels, loaded with explosives, weapons and ammunition. The group in question had opened fire, and in the ensuing engagement the person concerned had been captured.
  67. 67 As for Mr. Walid Al-Aghbar, the Government declared that his name was not on the list of detained persons and that he was unknown to the Israeli authorities.
  68. 68 At its November 1970 Session the Committee observed that the complainants' allegations were vague and general and gave no details as to any connection which might exist between the action taken against the persons concerned and the trade union responsibilities or activities of such persons. It also appeared to the Committee from the information provided by the Government that the action taken against the persons named by the complainants had had nothing to do with their trade union responsibilities or activities.
  69. 69 Nevertheless, having noted that in the case of three of the persons mentioned by the Government as having received sentences (see paragraphs 63 to 65 above) the exact grounds for the sentences pronounced upon them had not been stated, the Committee, in accordance with its regular practice, asked the Director-General to request from the Government the texts of the judgments handed down in respect of these persons.
  70. 70 This request was brought to the attention of the Government on 26 November 1970, and the Government replied in a communication dated 26 January 1971.
  71. 71 In its reply the Government states that the three persons concerned-Messrs. Mihel Sindaha, Yakoob Farraj and Naim Kublany-were detained in order to prevent them from continuing hostile activities against the civilian population; they were held under an administrative detention order according to Regulation No. 111 of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945, enacted by the British Mandate Authorities and still in force.
  72. 72 Further, the Government provides the following information: Mr. Mihel Sindaha was released on 6 April 1970, and is now in Jordan; Messrs. Yakoob Farraj and Naim Kublany were released on 30 June 1970; the former is working in the Tailors' Union in Jerusalem and the latter is employed by a hospital there.
  73. 73 In these circumstances, since the persons concerned are now free, the Committee considers that it would serve no useful purpose to pursue this aspect of the case, and it therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that it does not call for any further examination.
• Allegations relating to the Arrest or Expulsion of Trade Unionists
  74. 74 By a communication dated 24 October 1969, which arrived too late for the Committee to consider at its session in November 1969, the complainants made fresh allegations concerning action taken against other trade unionists.
  75. 75 Thus it was alleged that the Israeli authorities had imprisoned trade unionist Attia Hegazy, a member of the executive of the General Confederation of Palestinian Workers.
  76. 76 It was further alleged that the Israeli authorities had expelled the following trade union leaders from the Gaza sector: Mohammed Abu el Leil, Ahmad Abdul Kerim, Abu Oda, Mohammed Gabr, Gabr Kueidar, Mohammed Edwan, Mahmood Abut Steit and Hamza Abu Seif.
  77. 77 These allegations were duly brought to the notice of the Government, which submitted its observations thereon by a communication dated 14 August 1970.
  78. 78 The Government declared that, far from having been incarcerated, Mr. Attia Hegazy was working as secretary to the Dir-El-Balach employment exchange, and was living in Khan Yunis.
  79. 79 As regards three of the persons mentioned in paragraph 76 above-namely Messrs. Ahmad Abdul Kerim, Abu Oda and Mahmood Abut Steit-the Government declared that it was they themselves who had applied for authorisation to emigrate to Jordan, that that authorisation had been granted, and that accordingly the allegations concerning those persons were quite without foundation.
  80. 80 Lastly, as regards the other persons mentioned in paragraph 76 above, the Government declared that, despite all its efforts, it had been impossible-so scanty was the information provided by the complainants-to trace them.
  81. 81 When the case came before the Committee at its November 1970 Session it observed that these particular allegations, like those mentioned above, had been put forward in very summary fashion, no information being provided either about the circumstances surrounding the action complained of or about the trade union responsibilities of the persons concerned, connection being established between the action complained of and trade union activities. The Committee noted that in its observations the Government, for its part, had denied that the action alleged had in fact been taken with regard to four of the persons mentioned.
  82. 82 As concerns the remaining five persons, as well as the person mentioned in paragraph 67 above, the Committee-having noted the Government's statements to the effect that, in view of the vagueness of the allegations made by the complainants, it had not been possible to trace the persons concerned-decided to ask the Director-General to request from the complainants all such information as might be useful in facilitating the identification and location of the persons concerned.
  83. 83 No reply has yet been received to this request, which was brought to the attention of the complainants on 26 November 1970. In these circumstances, the Committee does not have sufficient information at its disposal to enable it to reach conclusions on the matter.