Definitive Report - Report No 45, 1960

1. 59. By a communication dated 12 November 1959 addressed directly to the I.L.O, the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions presented a complaint of alleged infringements of freedom of association against the Government of the Republic of Haiti.
2. 60. As this complaint alleges that a person was arrested, it was dealt with in accordance with the urgency procedure established in respect of such cases by a decision of the Governing Body in November 1958 (140th Session).
3. 61. In accordance with that procedure, the Director-General, by a letter dated 19 November 1959, brought the text of the complaint to the notice of the Government, requesting the Government to forward its observations thereon as a matter of urgency.
4. 62. The Government of Haiti replied by a communication dated 29 December 1959.
5. 63. In the meantime, the complaining organisation addressed to the Director-General a letter dated 2 December 1959, by which it implicitly withdraws the complaint.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 64. In its original communication dated 12 November 1959, the I.F.C.T.U alleged that Mr. Léonville Leblanc, President of the Federation of Christian Workers of Haiti and a participant at the I.F.C.T.UJI.L.O. Seminar in Quito, had been arrested when he returned to Port-au-Prince. In a later communication dated 2 December 1959, the complainants, while maintaining reservations as to the restrictions stated to be imposed on trade unions in Haiti, declare that they have had news of the liberation of Mr. Leblanc and indicate that, as the facts complained of no longer subsist, their complaint has now become purposeless.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 65. The questions raised by the withdrawal of a complaint have been examined in earlier cases by the Committee. In Case No. 66 relating to Greece, the Committee expressed the view that the desire shown by a complaining organisation to withdraw its complaint, while constituting a factor to which the greatest attention must be paid, is not, however, in itself sufficient reason for the Committee to cease automatically to proceed with the examination of the complaint. The Committee considered in that case, having regard to conclusions adopted earlier by the Governing Body, that it is free to evaluate the reasons given to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to investigate whether these appear sufficiently plausible to lead one to believe that the withdrawal was made in complete independence. The Committee observed that cases might exist in which the withdrawal of a complaint by the organisation presenting it would be a result not of the fact that the complaint had become without purpose but of pressure exercised by the government against the complainants, the latter being threatened with an aggravation of the situation if they did not consent to this withdrawal.
2. 66. In the present case, the reason given by the complainants for their desire that the Committee should not examine the complaint further is that the person who was arrested has since been liberated. It would seem therefore that the grievances which gave rise to the complaint no longer subsist.
3. 67. This fact is corroborated by the statements of the Government, which declares, in its reply dated 29 December 1959, that Mr. Leblanc was arrested not by reason of his trade union activities but on suspicion of having, in contravention of the law of Haiti, transported private letters emanating from abroad. When the investigation revealed, however, that there were no grounds for this suspicion, the person concerned was immediately liberated.