Interim Report - Report No 268, November 1989

1. 588. In a communication dated 20 February 1989, the ICFTU lodged a complaint concerning the violation of trade union rights in Romania. The ICFTU submitted further allegations in communications dated 22 May, 12 June and 12 July 1989. The Government submitted its observations in letters dated 12 May and 22 September 1989.
2. 589. Romania has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 590. In its initial communication dated 20 February 1989, the ICFTU states that its complaint is based on the fact that the Romanian authorities have resorted and continued to resort to discriminatory measures, imprisonment, violence, dismissals and demotions, as well as forced labour against individuals who attempt to form trade union organisations outside the official trade union centre, who appeal to fellow workers to join or support such organisations or who disseminate information on such organisations and on the repressive measures suffered. The ICFTU attached to its complaint a report on the trade union situation in Romania.
2. 591. The report states that in recent months the ICFTU has received a considerable volume of information pointing to systematic violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 by the Government of Romania.
3. 592. According to the ICFTU, the most recent case of violation of freedom of association of which it has learned concerns workers from the armaments factory known as "Sixth of March" in Zarnesti, an industrial town near Brasov. On 26 June 1988, 34 workers from this plant held a meeting during which they discussed the establishment of an independent trade union. According to some sources, pamphlets protesting at the working and living conditions were scattered around the plant's premises after the meeting. Within a few days, three of the workers were detained by the police. They were Mihai Torja, Marin Brincoveanu and Marian Lupau. While other participants were threatened, these three workers were summoned to a police station where they were beaten by a captain of the Romanian secret police before being interrogated. Thereafter, all three were dismissed from the "Sixth of March" plant. The ICFTU adds that Mihai Torja, Marin Brincoveanu (and possibly Marian Lupau) were at the time also evening students at the Brasov Polytechnic. As a result of their attempts to establish an independent trade union, Brincoveanu and Torja were expelled from the Polytechnic. This may also have been the case with Marian Lupau.
4. 593. The ICFTU adds that Marin Brincoveanu was forcibly transferred to Hunedoara district and ordered to report for work as a "non-qualified underground worker" at the Barbateni mine. According to available information, he is held there under strict isolation and all letters sent to him are returned by the postal service without any explanation. Mihai Torja was transferred, with demotion, to work at the rolling-stock plant at Zarnesti. He worked there as an unskilled worker until the beginning of 1989, when he was transferred to another department where he now works in his own field. This improvement, according to Mr. Torja himself, came as a result of foreign intervention. According to information provided by Mr. Torja, he was also beaten by a secret service captain during an interrogation carried out at the plant on or around 9 October 1988 in an attempt to extract a false confession from him. Mr. Torja has also been expelled from a mountain-climbing club, together with Bohdan Serban, a worker who also supported the establishment of an independent trade union. Mr. Serban has likewise been transferred from the "Sixth of March" plant to a medical storage facility. Furthermore pressure has also been applied to Mr. Torja's relatives: his mother, for instance, was transferred to another workplace where conditions are much harder. As for Marian Lupau, the ICFTU states that he also was de-qualified and transferred as an unskilled worker to the cellulose plant in Brasov, where he is said to face very hard conditions and is compelled to work on three shifts.
5. 594. Another matter of concern to the ICFTU are the repressive measures taken against a large number of Brasov workers involved in the November 1987 demonstrations. According to the ICFTU, the number, nature and implementation of the sentences imposed on workers who took part in the demonstrations and in a solidarity rally at the Polytechnic differ markedly from the version given by the authorities. The ICFTU alleges that arrests started on the very day of the demonstration, 15 November, and an investigation was launched on the next day, 16 November. At least 200 workers are reported to have been detained for questioning and most of them to have been subjected to violence. An undetermined number of students and workers were also detained at the Polytechnic. The ICFTU recalls that the workers of the Steagul Rosu factory in Brasov were demanding wage increases, a better organisation of labour, trade union freedom and food supplies.
6. 595. The ICFTU adds that on 27 November 1987 two local officials informed foreign media representatives that at least 24 of those arrested were still being held at that time. Independent sources indicated that the number still detained was between 50 and 60 and that the authorities were seeking the organisation which they suspected to have organised the workers' actions at the Steagul Rosu and Tractorul factories. It was reported that several small strikes had erupted at Steagul Rosu and Tractorul in protest at police investigations. During the following months, participants in these events were reportedly the victims of forced or corrective labour, imprisonment and disappearances. According to a Romanian human rights activist, who refused to be identified publicly for fear of retaliation, the January 1988 amnesty did not cover political opponents (including the workers' rights activists of Brasov). On 20 June 1988, this source stated that between 50 and 80 of those arrested after the events had not been seen since. These allegations seem consistent with the information available to Amnesty International, according to which up to 60 workers are believed to have been sentenced to terms of between six months and three years of corrective labour, under section 166 of the Criminal Code (anti-socialist propaganda) and are forced to work for reduced wages. They are also subjected to constant surveillance and restrictions on their freedom of movement. One of the 60 has been identified as Werner Sommerhauer. According to Romanian workers who have sought asylum abroad, many of their colleagues involved in the events in Brasov have been dismissed while others have been sent to work in the salt mines. The ICFTU quotes, in this connection, a statement issued in February 1988 by the Political Executive Committee of the Romanian Communist Party according to which an undetermined number of workers had been "assigned to work in a useful activity for purposes of re-education and prevention of further anti-social acts". Some sources state that six people were shot and over 100 wounded by the armed forces during the demonstration and that 425 were imprisoned and 215 dismissed. The ICFTU considers that the Brasov demonstrations could not have taken place without a significant degree of co-ordination between the workers involved. Therefore, the possibility that a number of Brasov workers actually attempted to form an organisation of their own choosing can certainly not be ruled out, according to the ICFTU. The Confederation reports that eight of the workers who vanished after the November 1987 events have been identified, including one who, after having been interned in a psychiatric institution for two months, died on 4 January 1988 in a mysterious railway accident.
7. 596. The ICFTU also refers in its complaint to the "Libertatea" trade union organisation, established in May 1988 by a number of people who have previously been sentenced for publicly opposing the regime's policies. They are: Gheorghe Nastacescu, sentenced in 1983 to three years' imprisonment for throwing leaflets, amnestied in January in 1988; Carol Olteanu, sentenced to ten years for activities against the State, amnestied in January 1988; Iulius Filip, detained for over five years for having addressed a message of support to the Solidarity Congress in Poland in September 1981, repeatedly re-arrested since his release - for example, on 17 July 1988 while on his way to meet supporters of the Libertatea trade union organisation, when he was reportedly detained for four days and severely beaten; Radu Filipescu, sentenced to ten or 12 years' imprisonment in September 1983 for distributing leaflets against the socialist State, released following international pressure on 18 April 1986 but regularly detained and beaten since that time - for example, in December 1987 when he expressed his solidarity with the Brasov workers during an interview with French television; Victor Vasile Totu, sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for having posted slogans against the regime; and Iancu Marin and Constatin Costica Purcaru. The programme of the Libertatea trade union organisation calls for a number of measures to be adopted in various fields of the country's social, political and economic life. In the social field, the organisation demands the repeal of the Labour Code, recognition of the right to an adequate salary, observance of the right to an eight-hour working day, freedom of work, the right to strike and the right to establish independent trade unions.
8. 597. The ICFTU cites a number of other instances of Romanian workers being subjected to reprisals: Dumitru Iuga, sentenced to ten or 12 years' imprisonment for having set up an organisation of workers and students (seven other workers were sentenced to five years in jail but were released the same year, while Mr. Iuga himself is still detained); Valer Sabau, arrested in May 1988 for distributing leaflets; and Nicolae Litoiu, arrested in September 1981 and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment for propaganda against the State.
9. 598. The ICFTU further cites information about several Romanian dissidents who have been subjected to detention, beating or house arrest because of their support for freedom of association. One such case is that of Mrs. Doina Cornea and her son Leontin Juhas, who were detained on 12 December 1987 for distributing leaflets in Cluj. After her release, Mrs. Cornea was put under house arrest and isolated. She was harassed and beaten by the police in Cluj on at least two occasions, in September and November 1988. As a result of international pressure, police surveillance of Mrs. Cornea was reduced between 5 and 26 January 1989 but she is now again under constant surveillance.
10. 599. The ICFTU states that the practice adopted by the authorities after a strike is to make impressive concessions on wages or commodity supplies so as to induce the strikers to resume work. After a few weeks, workers are arrested, sentenced to prison terms, transferred or assigned to corrective labour or simply disappear. This practice was observed after the strikes in 1981 in the Motru Basin, in 1983 in Northern Transylvania and more recently in November 1986 in Cluj and Turda and in February 1987 in Iasi (Moldavia) where 150 of the most active strikers were dismissed.
11. 600. Finally, the ICFTU is extremely concerned about the physical safety of some of its Romanian sources (whom it cites by name), who are currently living in exile in the West and have received death threats. It encloses a partial list of Romanian exiles who have been victims of murders or assassination attempts that it believes to have been carried out by the Romanian secret service.
12. 601. In its communication dated 22 May 1989, the ICFTU alleges that three independent trade unionists mentioned in its complaint - Mihai Torja, Bohdan Serban and Ioan Voicu - were arrested in Cluj while attempting to meet Mrs. Doina Cornea. They are reported to have been severely beaten, in particular one of them (probably Mr. Serban) is said to have been extremely brutally treated during an 18-hour interrogation carried out in the secret police premises of Cluj. According to Mrs. Cornea, there are reasons to fear for his life as a result of the injuries inflicted during his questioning. Mrs. Cornea herself is still under house arrest and prevented from meeting anyone.
13. 602. In its communication dated 12 June 1989, the ICFTU states that Mrs. Cornea was severely beaten by an armed militia officer on 18 May 1989. She and her husband are forbidden to leave their apartment more than twice a week, and then only under strict surveillance. Only her son, who has just been demoted and transferred from his job, is now allowed to bring food to his parents' apartment. The ICFTU cites the names of the officers who are said to be responsible for the beating inflicted on Mrs. Cornea and independent trade unionists.
14. 603. In its communication dated 12 July 1989, the ICFTU states that Mrs. Cornea's son, Leontin Juhas, continues to suffer severe discrimination in his employment. Mr. Juhas has been accused of violating unpublished Decree No. 408 of 1985, which makes it mandatory to report any unauthorised contacts with foreigners to the police. He was in fact in his parents' apartment when they were visited by foreign diplomats who had come to discuss the human and trade union rights situation in the country. According to the most recent information in the possession of the ICFTU, Mr. Juhas has been dismissed. He has been offered a post of "itinerant engineer" 120 kilometres from his residence, which does not correspond to his professional qualifications. He has therefore refused the post, on the grounds that regular advertisements are issued for positions corresponding to his qualifications in his home town, though his applications are always turned down. Since he is deprived of work, Mr. Juhas runs the risk of being charged with parasitism under Decree No. 153 of 1970 and Act No. 25 of 1976, and of being sentenced to compulsory labour.

B. The Government's replies

1. 604. In its communication dated 12 May 1989, the Government states that the ICFTU's allegations have been brought to the attention of the competent authorities so that the necessary inquiries can be carried out. In the view of the Government, however, an initial examination of the ICFTU's communication calls for certain observations.
2. 605. The Government notes that the allegations contained in the communication have been reflected in the press. They are allegations that are habitually circulated by circles noted for their hostilty towards Romania and other socialist countries. According to the Government, the absence of any reliable sources and, especially, the lack of any evidence in support of the allegations contained in the communication cast very serious doubt on the genuineness of the situations described and raise many questions as to the real goals of the complainants. The assertion that the communication is also based on statements by persons residing in Romania, but whose identity cannot be revealed for fear of reprisals, cannot be taken seriously.
3. 606. Given the subject of the communciation, namely the manner in which Romania is applying Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, the inquiries being conducted by the Romanian authorities are intended first of all to determine the relevance of the situations described to the provisions of these Conventions. From this standpoint, according to the Government, the preliminary findings are that the various allegations are totally unfounded.
4. 607. The Government supports its view with a number of examples. As regards the so-called Libertatea trade union, the Government observes that, as in many other countries, Romanian legislation provides that a trade union may be established by persons working in the same enterprise, institution or organisation. This is in fact the very reason for the creation of trade union organisations, i.e. the promotion and defence of the common interests of workers in the same economic unit or sector. It is apparent from the communication, however, that the persons referred to reside and work in various different towns and are employed in different sectors and enterprises. Consequently, the claim that the persons concerned wished to set up a trade union cannot be taken seriously into consideration. The Government emphasises that, inasmuch as these basic conditions were not fulfilled, the so-called trade union could not possibly exist either in law or in fact since the persons mentioned in the communication, being from different occupations and places of residence, could not have set it up.
5. 608. The Government further observes that the ICFTU communication refers to situations and persons who have no connection whatever with trade union activities, such as Doina Cornea and Leontin Juhas. The communication itself makes it quite clear that these two persons have no links either with the workers of Romanian enterprises or with trade union activities.
6. 609. According to the Government, the ICFTU's communication also contains allegations that are quite irrelevant to the exercise of trade union rights in Romania, such as the allegations concerning former Romanian citizens now living in Western countries. These allegations refer to events that are said to have occurred in the territory of the latter countries and not in Romania. Since there is no connection between these events and the Romanian authorities, any such insinuation is, in the Government's view, tendentious and entirely without foundation.
7. 610. As to other persons whose names are cited in the ICFTU's communication as being resident in Romania, such information as the Government has so far been able to obtain shows that, in the case of at least four of the 13 persons mentioned, the allegations are incorrect since they have left Romania for the United States, with the consent of the Romanian authorities.
8. 611. Finally, the Government states that, in a spirit of co-operation and in order to clear up any misunderstanding, the Romanian authorities intend to conduct a detailed investigation of the allegations and that their findings will be communicated to the ILO as soon as possible.
9. 612. In its communication dated 22 September 1989, the Government observes that the report sent by the ICFTU contains assertions of a general nature, illustrated here and there by random examples or references which for some people are not very convincing. According to the Government, these baseless assertions and accusations are intended to provide a distorted picture of the situation in Romania, as part of a political and ideological campaign directed at objectives other than the promotion of trade union rights. In the Government's opinion, the very language used shows that the authors of the report, far from being anxious to clarify certain situations, subscribe to a political creed that is based on prejudice and bad faith.
10. 613. Regarding the alleged attempt to establish a trade union at the "Sixth of March" factory in Zarnesti, the Government states that, judging from the inquiries conducted at the factory and from discussions with the workers, the events described in the ICFTU's communication are totally unfounded. There has been no official or informal discussion by the factory work collective about establishing a trade union outside the existing trade union organisation. Moreover, the judicial authorities of the department of Brasov, whose jurisdiction includes Zarnesti and who are responsible under Romanian law for registering such occupational organisations, have received no request for the establishment of a trade union at the "Sixth of March" factory in Zarnesti or anywhere else in the department of Brasov.
11. 614. As to the persons cited in the complaint, the Government notes that no worker named Torja Mihai has ever been employed in the "Sixth of March" factory. It has established, however, that there is a person named Torjo Mihai working in a rolling-stock plant in Brasov. There has been no confirmation, either, of anyone named Lupau Marian at the "Sixth of March" factory, though a Lupou Marian has been working for several years in a cellulose and paper plant in Zarnesti. Neither of them, however, is under arrest or has suffered any penal or other sanction for political or trade union activities.
12. 615. With respect to the allegation that workers have changed their place of work, the Government notes that, just as in any other country, this can come about in Romania at the initiative of the workers concerned or of the economic units. When it takes place at the initiative of the economic unit, the law stipulates that the transfer must be with the agreement of the worker concerned, who retains all the rights he had acquired in his previous post. Occasionally, because of their behaviour (lack of discipline or poor output), certain persons cease to be accepted by the work collectives to which they belong. In cases such as these, the work collective can, in circumstances stipulated by law, request that the persons be sent elsewhere. The latter are then offered another place of work or else look for work themselves. The termination of Marin Brincoveanu's contract with the "Sixth of March" factory in Zarnesti is a case in point. He is now working in the department of Hundeoara. His recruitment in his new place of work was decided with his agreement and in accordance with his occupation and qualifications, and his transfer had nothing whatsoever to do with political or trade union activities.
13. 616. Regarding the repressive measures allegedly taken against workers in Brasov, the Government states that on 2 December 1987 the general assembly of workers of the "Steagul Rosu" factory in Brasov itself discussed the problems that had arisen in the factory as a result of serious violations of legal provisions concerning the remuneration of staff, the arbitrary and abusive levelling of earnings, etc. On this occasion the meeting decided to dismiss certain members of the factory's senior management, including the manager himself. The action taken by the authorities included the application of provisions of the penal law against those who were responsible for disorderly conduct in November 1987. Subsequently, all those involved in the disorderly conduct of 15 November 1987 benefited from the amnesty decreed in January 1988, since when none of the persons involved has been arrested or convicted by reason of the November 1987 disorders. The allegation that there are workers in Brasov under arrest for carrying out trade union activities is therefore totally unfounded, according to the Government.
14. 617. With regard to the allegations concerning the Libertatea trade union, the Government recalls that, under current Romanian legislation, a trade union may be established by workers employed in the same occupation or in similar or allied occupations, on a local basis. The Government states that this is the very basis and raison d'être of the constitution of trade union organisations as associations for promoting the common interests of a number of workers employed in the same unit or branch. The law on trade unions moreover provides that occupational unions must be registered in accordance with the law. No official Romanian body has received a request for registration from any such trade union. The Government adds that the so-called trade union referred to in the ICFTU's communication exists neither de facto nor de jure in Romania. In the Government's opinion, the ICFTU's interpretation of the concept of trade union is to say the least strange, inasmuch as its so-called members come from different workplaces and, above all, from different towns.
15. 618. According to the Government, the real situation of the persons cited as founders of this organisation casts very serious doubts on the intention behind the communication and on the sources of information used. Inquiries have shown that some of those referred to (Carol Olteanu, Gheorghe Nastasescu, Iulius Filip, Victor-Vasile Totu and Constantin Purcaru) emigrated to the United States with their family in 1987, 1988 and 1989. It has been impossible to identify another of the persons cited (Iancu Marin), as the ICFTU's communication gave no indication of his domicile or place of work. He does not appear in any of the files of the judicial authorities as having been arrested or convicted. Radu Filipescu, who is notorious for his illegal activities which are quite unrelated to freedom of association, is currently free and working as an engineer in a large electronics plant in Bucharest.
16. 619. The Government considers that the other alleged instances of workers being detained have nothing whatsoever to do with the exercise of trade union freedoms or with the right of association for occupational purposes. In the Government's view, therefore, the complainant's reference to the latter is an abuse of the right to submit complaints of violation of the provisions of Convention No. 87. The allegations are totally unfounded. None of the three persons mentioned has been arrested or convicted for trade union activities. Valer Sabau and Nicolae Litoiu are working in enterprises in Baia Mare and Dumbravesti Prahova, respectively. As to Dumitru Iuga, he is in fact serving a prison sentence, but for common law offences. He will be released before the end of 1989.
17. 620. Regarding the alleged acts of "repression" against people who support freedom of association, the Government states that the cases and situations referred to have nothing to do with trade union activities or with the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Reference to them by the mass media of certain countries is part of a campaign of hostility against Romania. Neither Doina Cornea, who is a pensioner, nor her son are engaged in trade union activities. They are both free, as evidenced by the visits they have had from foreign diplomats accredited in Romania and from their conversations with them.
18. 621. With respect to the allegations that for the past ten years there has been a virtually permanent state of social unrest and disorder in Romania and that the authorities have constantly engaged in "acts of repression", the Government claims that these assertions are purely speculative and based on the opinion of certain persons acting in bad faith. That these allegations are baseless is demonstrated by Romania's pace of economic development and its achievements over the past ten years in developing every branch of the national economy. During that period Romania has managed to pay off its external debt and to raise the wages of all categories of workers on two occasions, while at the same time keeping prices virtually at the same level and maintaining a rapid pace of development. Achievements such as these could have been possible only with the participation and conscientious contribution of all Romanians in the execution of the country's development programmes and plans.
19. 622. The Government asserts that the question of the security of the ICFTU's "sources in exile" has nothing to do with Romania or with the texts of the Conventions referred to or the activities of the International Labour Organisation. In the Government's opinion, if the ICFTU has any reason to concern itself with this matter, it should contact the authorities of the States where the persons concerned are living.
20. 623. In conclusion, the Government expresses its surprise at the flimsy evidence on which an international trade union organisation such as the ICFTU allows itself to be talked into defending certain totally unfounded points of view and presenting facts that have been distorted. The Government also considers that, if it is to maintain its prestige within the international community, the ILO should not circulate slanderous information concerning a member State. Taking a responsible view of its role in the promotion and implementation of international labour standards, the Government therefore considers that the ILO should be quite strict in its examination of the admissibility and reliability of such communications.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 624. Before proceeding to examine the substance of the case, the Committee believes that, with regard to the general observations formulated by the Government, it should make it clear that it is dealing here with a complaint that is receivable since it has been presented by an international workers' organisation having consultative status with the ILO. The complaint contains a number of allegations concerning the exercise of trade union rights. It was therefore the International Labour Office's duty to transmit the contents of the complaint to the Government so that it could submit its observations. It is now for the Committee, on the basis of the information in its possession presented both by the complainant organisation and by the Government, to determine whether or not the allegations are justified. The Committee must also recall that, even if the Government against which the complaint is directed considers that the allegations are political in nature or present certain political aspects, it must examine the matters raised to establish whether they affect the exercise of trade union rights.
2. 625. The Committee notes that the allegations made by the ICFTU concern acts of reprisal and repression (arrest, detention, conviction, violence, dismissal) allegedly perpetrated against workers who created or encouraged the creation of organisations independent of the existing trade union structure or who participated in protest movements or strikes. Specifically, the ICFTU refers to action taken against workers in the "Sixth of March" factory in Zarnesti following an attempt to establish independent trade unions in June 1988; against workers in Brasov following demonstrations organised in November 1987; against the founders of the Libertatea trade union organisation allegedly constituted in May 1988; and against various workers who are said to have supported the struggle for freedom of association. The ICFTU also cites several instances of strikes which it claims gave rise to sanctions. 626. Concerning the "Sixth of March" factory in Zarnesti, the complainant organisation alleges that, following a meeting to establish an independent trade union, three workers were detained for interrogation and then dismissed. The Government, for its part, claims that no request has ever been made to register a trade union in this factory. It states that the contract of one of the three persons cited by the ICFTU, Marin Brincoveanu, was terminated by the "Sixth of March" factory for reasons related to his behaviour, without indicating exactly why he was obliged to leave his place of work. The Government confirms that the two other persons (with a slight difference in the spelling of their surnames), Mihai Torjo and Marian Lupou, are currently employed in a rolling-stock plant in Brasov and a cellulose and paper plant in Zarnesti, as indicated by the ICFTU. The Government does not specify, however, whether these two workers were previously employed by the "Sixth of March" enterprise in Zarnesti.
3. 627. While noting the information supplied by the Government, the Committee must observe that this information is not sufficiently detailed for it to be able to come to a decision on the allegations in full knowledge of the facts. It therefore requests the Government to supply precise information as to whether Marin Brincoveanu was summoned to the police station and maltreated and as to why his employment contract was terminated. It also requests the Government to make the necessary inquiries to determine whether Mihai Torjo and Marian Lupou were previously employed in the "Sixth of March" factory in Zarnesti and, if so, to indicate exactly why they left the enterprise. The Committee also requests the Government to supply information on the arrest and beating of Mr. Serban, and information as to why he might have been transferred.
4. 628. The Committee notes further that, according to the Government, no penal sanction has been imposed on Mihai Torjo and Marian Lupou for political or trade union activities. The Committee would point out in this respect that the allegations did not refer to any conviction but to violent interrogations in police stations or in the enterprise. It therefore requests the Government to indicate whether these persons were called in for questioning and, if so, in what circumstances.
5. 629. Regarding the November 1987 demonstrations in Brasov, the Committee notes that the Government does not deny that these events actually took place since it refers in its reply to sanctions imposed on persons responsible for disorderly conduct. According to the Government, these sanctions were covered by the amnesty that was decreed in January 1988 and those held in custody have therefore been released. So that it can examine these allegations thoroughly, the Committee requests the Government to supply precise information on the number of arrests and convictions involved and the grounds on which these convictions were based. It also requests the Government to send its observations on the allegations concerning the six deaths said to have occurred during the demonstrations and on the alleged dismissal of 215 workers.
6. 630. As to the allegations concerning the establishment of an independent trade union organisation known as Libertatea, the Committee notes the Government's statement that no request has been made for registration and that, since the persons described as members of the organisation are from different places of work and different towns, there could be no question of its being a trade union.
7. 631. On this point the Committee must point out that workers should have the right under Article 2 of Convention No. 87 to constitute organisations of their own choosing, including organisations grouping together workers from different workplaces and different cities. It also considers that the absence of any request for registration by the organisation does not necessarily mean that workers have not sought to set up such an organisation, especially since Romanian legislation contains serious barriers to the free establishment by workers of trade unions of their own choosing. The Committee recalls in this respect that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, commenting on the application of Convention No. 87, has referred to section 164 of the Labour Code, which provides that trade unions must operate on the basis of the by-laws of the General Confederation of Trade Unions, and to article 26 of the Romanian Constitution and section 165 of the Labour Code, which establish a close link between trade unions and the Romanian Communist Party. In the opinion of the Committee of Experts, these provisions on the one hand would not appear to permit a trade union to formulate its own by-laws in complete independence from the General Confederation of Trade Unions and, on the other, would appear to make it legally impossible to establish organisations that are independent of the Party. In this respect, the Committee on Freedom of Association must recall the importance that it attaches to the principle laid down in Article 2 of Convention No. 87, ratified by Romania, that workers and employers are entitled to establish organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation. It draws the Government's attention to the need to bring its legislation into conformity with the letter and spirit of Convention No. 87, and it draws this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
8. 632. With regard to the fate of the founders of the Libertatea organisation, whom the complainant alleges were arrested, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, some of the persons cited by the complainant have emigrated to the United States, in some cases prior to the date of the establishment of the organisation given in the complaint (1988), that it has proved impossible to identify one of the people concerned, and that another (Radu Filipescu) is free but notorious for his llegal activities. In order to be able to determine clearly whether or not these allegations are well founded, the Committee considers that it should obtain from the Government information on the circumstances of the emigration of the people cited as founders of the Libertatea organisation and on the grounds for any arrest and sentencing of Radu Filipescu, as well as on the allegation that he is regularly detained and beaten.
9. 633. Regarding the action allegedly taken against workers who have supported the struggle for freedom of association, the Committee notes that two of the persons concerned (Valer Sabau and Nicolae Litoiu) are free, according to the Government, and that a third (Dumitru Iuga) is in prison for common law offences. The Committee requests the Government to supply precise information on the grounds for Dumitru Iuga's conviction.
10. 634. Furthermore, the Government has indicated that Mrs. Cornea and her son, Mr. Juhas, are not engaged in any trade union activities. The complaint itself also does not show that these persons were involved in trade union activities. The Committee accordingly considers that the allegations presented on this matter do not fall within its competence. It is for other international bodies having general competence in the field of human rights to examine this affair.
11. 635. Finally, with regard to the allegations concerning the imposition of sanctions following the taking of strike action, the Committee notes that they are expressed in very general terms, except in the case of a strike organised in Iasi in Moldavia in February 1987, where the IFCTU alleges that 150 workers were dismissed. The Committee requests the Government to communicate its observations in this respect.