Informe provisional - Informe núm. 190, Marzo 1979

1. 301. The Committee examined this case in May and November 1978 following complaints of violation of trade union rights filed by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), the International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF), the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone International (PTTI), the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the Miners' International Federation, the International Federation of Building and Wood Workers (IFBWW), the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) and the Organisation of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU). On each of these occasions the Committee submitted interim conclusions which are contained in its 181st Report (paragraphs 221 to 248) and its 187th Report (paragraphs 547 to 580). The Governing Body approved these reports at its 206th Session (2-3 June 1978) and at its 208th Session (14-17 November 1978), respectively.
2. 302. Tunisia has ratified both 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).
3. 303. Shortly before its November 1978 session, the Committee received a further communication from the ICFTU (dated 30 October 1978), which was transmitted to the Government for its observations, as were the other communications received since then, namely two letters from the ICFTU dated 3 and 18 January 1979 and a letter from the WCL dated 19 January 1979.
4. 304. The Government replied in a letter dated 5 February

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 305. The case concerns essentially the 24-hour general strike called on 26 January 1978, which resulted in many deaths and injuries, the arrest and conviction of trade union officials - including Habib Achour, General Secretary of the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT) - and the temporary occupation of the UGTT headquarters in Tunis.
   • The allegations
2. 306. The complainants began by protesting against the arrest of officials of the UGTT following this strike, which they considered to have been lawfully called by its leaders in support of social and economic demands. They added that the gas, water and electricity sectors had been excluded from the strike for humanitarian reasons. On 26 January 1978 the police had barred all means of exit from the UGTT headquarters and had later broken into the premises and arrested all those inside. The Government had called out the army and a number of persons had been killed. Hundreds of others had been arrested. Some of these persons had nothing to do with the trade union movement but had been arrested during the demonstrations and the looting; they had been prosecuted for contempt of the Head of State, unlawful assembly on the public thoroughfare, looting and resisting officers of the law in the performance of their duties. They had been given light sentences or acquitted by the judges of first instance; the hearings were still continuing. Witnesses had stated categorically that the looting had been done by youths not subjected to outside control. A second group of persons, mainly employees of the UGTT (secretaries, telephonists and others), had nearly all been released after lengthy interrogations. According to the complainants about 100 officials of the UGTT - members of the executive, occupational federations or regional unions - were still in prison. The ICFTU forwarded a list of detained trade unionists. These prisoners, continued the complainants, were held incommunicado; they had no contact with their lawyers, and their families had been able to communicate with them only in exceptional cases. They had been in the hands of the police since their arrest and had neither come before a magistrate nor been charged with any offence. The complainants further alleged that they had even been severely beaten and tortured.
3. 307. The complainants cited the case of Ismail Sahbani, General Secretary of the Metalworkers' Union, who had been arrested with other Tunisian trade unionists during the night of 27 to 28 January after the UGTT headquarters had been cleared by the police. During this operation, continued the complainants, the trade unionists had been made to leave the premises on their knees with their hands on their heads. They had been taken to the premises of the Territorial Security Department (DST), where they were crowded in 18 to a cell without sufficient ventilation or daylight. They were fed only on 29 January with a piece of bread and a handful of chick-peas per person. Most of them were held for two months and 17 days without being able to wash or see daylight. During their detention at the DST they were able to communicate neither with their families nor with their lawyers. According to the complaints, Ismail Sahbani had been severely tortured during this period by being swung by the wrists and ankles, and the following questions were put to him during his interrogation: "Where are the arms hidden? What were the secret instructions given by Mr. Habib Achour for the general strike? Who are the ringleaders? What stand did you adopt at the National Council from 9 to 11 January?" Mr. Sahbani was alleged to have been so severely tortured that he would have been unable to stand for 15 days, and to have been kept in total isolation during his imprisonment. He then appeared before the examining magistrate, who charged him formally and ordered him to be detained in the Tunis civil prison. Counsel for the imprisoned trade unionists had not been able to see the documents, which were with the examining magistrate, and it was very difficult for them to visit their clients in prison as only one visiting room was available. Moreover, the prisoners' families were allowed to visit them only once a week for 10 to 15 minutes. The conditions of imprisonment were such, according to the complainants, that the families had to bring their imprisoned relatives food every day because they got nothing to eat from the prison authorities.
4. 308. The complainants went on to refer to the judgements pronounced in respect of the trade unionists prosecuted. It was alleged that counsel for the defendants, including the lawyer engaged by the WFTU, had been refused entry into Tunisia, contrary to all the legislation in force and to the protocols signed by the President of the Bar of Tunisia with the presidents of the bars of other countries. The complainants referred in particular to the sentencing of UGTT officials to terms of imprisonment by the State Security Court in Tunis: Habib Achour and Abderrazak Ghorbal (UGTT General Secretary for the Sfax region) had been sentenced to ten years' forced labour. According to the complaints, these trade unionists had in fact been found guilty not of subversion, but of exercising their fundamental right to strike. The complainants further alleged that measures had been taken against members of the families of the accused; the son and the son-in-law of Habib Achour had been summarily sentenced for having attempted to be present at the trial and a number of persons had been dismissed.
   • The Government's replies
5. 309. The Government rejected the allegations made against it and stated that the UGTT had always been able to enjoy the full exercise of its rights. In particular, the authorities had scrupulously respected the exercise of the right to strike in support of demands of a purely occupational nature. But the strike of 26 January 1978 - decided on at a very restricted meeting and without previous consultation of the UGTT leadership - did not comply with the conditions prescribed by law. Sections 376 et seq. of the Labour Code required that a strike should be in support of purely occupational claims, that ten days' notice should be given and that the competent conciliation bodies should have been approached beforehand. The strike had nothing to do with wage claims nor, according to the Government, had the complainants been able to adduce any occupational claims to support it; the movement was a strictly political one. The strike had been announced and put into effect within a period of four days without previous recourse to the conciliation bodies. It aimed at obstructing the operation of institutions and paralysing the national economy, in many cases in services which were essential to the health, safety and well-being of the population. According to the Government, the UGTT's appeal to leave the water, gas and electricity services out of the strike had not been published until the day on which the strike took place, in the form of a communiqué in the Tunisian press, and was doubtless prompted by the requisitioning of these services by the authorities on 25 January.
6. 310. Two days before the strike, added the Government, senior officials of the UGTT had organised meetings and mobilised shock troops to ensure its success. On 26 January 1978, when it had been established that the strike had failed throughout the country, the General Secretary of the UGTT had asked the Directorate of the Security Police to withdraw the forces of order from M'Hamed Ali square (where the UGTT headquarters are located) and had threatened disturbances if that were not done within half an hour. After that time had elapsed premises had been sacked, looted and set on fire, there had been rioting, and demonstrations of an insurrectional nature had been organised at eight different points in the capital and its southern suburbs. It had then become necessary, continued the Government, to take measures to re-establish order and to protect the freedom and safety of the population in accordance with articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution; the arrests made were justified by the attacks made on public order. The UGTT headquarters had been occupied, according to the Government, because "instruments of destruction" were being kept there and because it had been necessary to pursue the agitators and rioters who had taken refuge on the premises. The former officials were under arrest and were being held at the disposal of the courts; preliminary investigations were to continue in order to determine the charges on which they would be brought before the competent legal instances in accordance with the regular procedure.
7. 311. Rejecting the allegations that no charges had been brought against the trade union leaders under preventive arrest, the Government stated that all the persons concerned had been apprehended in the act of committing an offence or in pursuance of warrants issued by the examining magistrate; this confirmed the existence of charges and explained the arrest of Mr. Achour on Saturday, 28 January, whereas the riots took place on 26 January. It was untrue, continued the Government, to claim that the accused had not come before a magistrate and were still in the hands of the police. Mr. Kersten, General Secretary of the ICFTU, had had to obtain authorisation from the Public Prosecutor to visit Mr. Achour; this proved that the matter was before the courts and that the police were acting under the instructions of the examining magistrate in accordance with the Tunisian Code of Penal Procedure. All the detainees, added the Government, whether or not they were trade union leaders, would be tried in public in the presence of any observer who might wish to attend; they would have the right of defence by counsel of their own choice. The detainees were not completely isolated, according to the Government, otherwise Mr. Kersten would not have been authorised to meet Mr. Achour.
8. 312. The Government also supplied information concerning 29 of the trade unionists named on the list furnished by the complainants. It added that it would not fail to keep the ILO continuously and fully informed concerning the situation of the imprisoned trade unionists. In a later communication it pointed out that the trials in Sfax, Sousse and Tunis had taken place under entirely normal conditions and that the accused had had the benefits of the legal guarantees provided for in the national legislation; the trials had taken place in public; representatives of the national and foreign press, as well as of international and regional trade union organisations, had been present. The Government further pointed out that the fact that the common law courts, to which cases had initially been referred, had refused to deal with them had nothing to do with the Government. It considered that the incidents which had taken place before the State Security Court had been provoked by the defence, which used the trial as a platform and raised issues which had nothing to do with the interests of the accused. The defence had attempted by every means, added the Government, to secure an adjournment and to provoke incidents, at times going as far as unethical practices and disrespect for the Court. The defence did not consult its clients and its intention was to prevent the trial from taking place normally, which according to the Government was tantamount to an offence. If, under pressure from their lawyers, the defendants had refrained in part from replying to the charges brought against them, this was, according to the Government, because there were no arguments in their favour.
9. 313. The verdicts pronounced, added the Government, proved - if it was necessary to do so - the independence and impartiality of the judge as well as the respect for the right of defence. The defendants had been convicted solely because of the gravity of the crimes of which they were accused. Some had been acquitted, for example Mr. Sadok Allouche, a former member of the executive of the UGTT; others had been given suspended sentences of not more than six months, such as Mr. Abdelaziz Bouraoui, who had performed the same functions. Only those responsible for serious crimes had been sentenced to imprisonment. The Government communicated the judgement rendered in Tunis by the State Security Court concerning a number of trade unionists including Messrs. Habib Achour, Abderrazak Ghorbal, Sadok Allouche and Abdelaziz Bouraoui.
10. 314. The Government added that such was the state of health of the accused during the trial that it could be affirmed that both during their detention and during their interrogation they had been treated normally. They had been able to read newspapers and watch television during their preventive detention.
11. 315. Lastly, the Government recalled that Tunisia was a country noted for moderation and respect for human rights; in particular, since it became a Member of the ILO in 1956, it had never had a complaint lodged against it for examination by the Committee on Freedom of Association, and Convention No. 87 had been one of the first international Conventions ratified by Tunisia. The Government added that the trade union movement in Tunisia enjoyed absolute independence and defended, as it had always done, the material and moral interests of its members. As for the Government, it examined closely and supported claims of a trade union character. Dialogue was an established principle in the country and was carried on between the social partners at the level of the central trade union organisations of workers and employers in order to ensure the best living and working conditions for workers and to pursue the work of development that had been undertaken.
    • The initial conclusions of the Committee
12. 316. In May 1978, the Committee recalled that the right to strike was a legitimate and, indeed, an essential means whereby workers might promote and defend their occupational interests. It should not be restricted solely to industrial disputes likely to be resolved through the signing of a collective agreement; workers and their organisations should be allowed to express in a broader context, if they so wished, any dissatisfaction which they might feel as concerns economic and social matters affecting their members' interests. Nevertheless, the right to strike constituted a fundamental right of workers and their organisations only in so far as it was utilised as a means of defending their interests, and the prohibition of strikes designed to coerce the Government, if they were not occupational in character, did not constitute an infringement of freedom of association.
13. 317. The events of 26 January 1978 had led to the arrest of many trade union officials. In such cases the Committee had always endeavoured to determine whether, on the one hand, there existed guarantees that regular judicial procedure would be followed and, on the other, what were the reasons for the arrest. Admittedly, it pointed out, the mere fact of carrying on a trade union activity or holding responsibilities in a trade union did not imply any immunity from ordinary penal legislation. Nevertheless, the Committee must verify for itself whether the persons concerned had been sentenced for common law crimes or for normal trade union activities and, in order to verify this, it had frequently requested the governments concerned to transmit to in the texts of judgements given, with the reasons adduced therefor. The Committee mentioned a number of guarantees to which it attached special importance: the right of any trade unionist who was arrested to be informed, at the time of his arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and to be promptly informed of the charges brought against him, the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing, the right to be tried as rapidly as possible by an impartial and independent judicial authority, and the presumption of innocence until he had been proved guilty after a public trial during which he had enjoyed all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
14. 318. In November 1978, the Committee noted certain divergences between the observations of the Government and the allegations made. It noted with interest, however, that the Government had transmitted a copy of the judgement rendered in Tunis by the State Security Court in respect of several leading trade unionists, including Mr. Habib Achour. It had not been possible for the Committee to examine this judgement in substance at its November session. In addition, the ICFTU had sent new allegations shortly before the Committee met to which the Government had not had the opportunity to reply.
15. 319. In these circumstances, the Committee, concerned at the importance of the issues involved in this case, and desirous of having at its disposal sufficiently precise information to enable it to reach conclusions in the rear future, recommended the Governing Body to invite the Government to communicate its comments or further information on the following points:
    • (a) the allegations that certain trade unionists had suffered ill-treatment whilst in preventive detention (see paragraph 307);
    • (b) the conditions of detention of those trade union leaders who had been tried and sentenced;
    • (c) the result of the appeal against the judgement of the State Security Court (a copy of which had been communicated by the Government);
    • (d) the latest allegations received from the complainants concerning the trials of certain trade union leaders which had taken place before the State Security Court;
    • (e) the situation of the trade unionists named in the appendix to the 181st Report of the Committee in respect of whom no information had been supplied;
    • (f) the court judgements which had not yet been communicated or which would be rendered as regards the trade unionists mentioned above.

B. Most recent developments

• Allegations
  320. 320 The ICFTU appends to its letter of 30 October 1978 the report of its observers at the Tunis trial as well as the text of the evidence given by its General Secretary to the Court. The complainant claims that nothing happened at the trial to shake its firm conviction that the Tunisian trade unionists were innocent of the crime of which they were accused: the inconsistency of the evidence put forward against them demonstrated clearly that they were sentenced for engaging in their trade union activities and that the authorities had not respected the provisions of Convention No. 87.
  321. 321 The above-mentioned report begins by recalling how long Habib Achour and his colleagues had been kept in custody without being charged, and makes certain criticisms with respect to the preliminary investigation procedure: in particular, the defence's request that evidence be taken from certain witnesses and that arrangements be made for certain confrontations was not acceded to. It is further claimed that during the preliminary investigation no serious attempt was made to trace the instructions said to have been issued by these trade union officials inciting workers to violence. According to this report, the inquiries in question were mainly concerned with political issues and appeared to consist in compiling an enormous mass of political documents (articles, motions, memoranda, etc.).
  322. 322 After the court at Sousse had ruled that the case was not within its competence, continue the ICFTU observers, Mr. Achour and his closest colleagues, contrary to what had been stated earlier, were sent for trial before the State Security Court. The report also makes several criticisms with respect to the procedure followed in this court (appointment, shortly before the trial, of a vice-chairman to preside over the hearings; threat by the court to take disciplinary action against counsel who raised political issues or tried to attract attention to themselves; dismissal of counsel following an incident and appointment by the court of 18 lawyers from among those previously chosen by the accused; refusal to allow counsel for the defence an adjournment of the trial sufficiently long to enable them to prepare their brief, etc.). The report adds that there was no proper questioning of the defendants, who refused to submit to interrogation or to answer questions in the absence of the lawyers they had chosen.
  323. 323 The report further notes that Mr. Brown, representative in Europe of the AFL-CIO, emphasised Mr. Achour's patriotism in his statement to the court and recalled that Mr. Achour had interceded with him with a view to persuading the American trade unions to lobby their government so as to obtain aid for the Tunisian Government.
  324. 324 Mr. Otto Kersten, General Secretary of the ICFTU, gave evidence concerning his participation, at the request of the UGTT, in the negotiations between the UGTT and the Tunisian Government. The main grievances voiced at the meeting on 22 January 1978 of the Administrative Committee of the UGTT had been, according to him, as follows:
       • (a) blocking of the talks on the adjustment of wages to take account of the rise in the cost of living, without prejudice to the commitments entered into under the "Social Pact";
       • (b) an obvious intensification of the harassment of trade unionists, and increasingly savage attacks on UGTT offices;
       • (c) determination of the Party to use every possible means to gain control over the UGTT.
  325. He added that the Administrative Committee of the UGTT had decided to call a one-day general strike as a warning; the Executive was given authority to fix the date of the strike and the procedure to be followed, mindful of the need not to compromise the chances of mediation by the ICFTU. Mr. Kersten's talks with the Prime Minister were to no avail. During his visit the headquarters of the UGTT's Regional Federation in Kairouan were attacked, mainly for the purpose, it seemed to him, of frustrating the attempt at mediation. According to Mr. Kersten, the Government was seeking to provoke a clash with the UGTT in order to undermine the prestige of its leaders; if it had made a simple statement of principle so as to allow the talks to be resumed, making it clear that it wished to avoid provocation, the strike could have been averted.
  325. 325 Mr. Kersten went on to state that at a press conference Mr. Achour had forcefully condemned all the manoeuvres being attempted by opposition politicians with a view to exploiting trade union activities for political ends. He added that the leaders of the UGTT had never sought by their actions to undermine the country's institutions; their sole aim was to serve the interests of the workers. After the attack on the offices in Kairouan, the Executive had been compelled to fix the date for this 24-hour strike. In Mr. Kersten's opinion, there was no justification for intervention by the authorities. He claimed to have personally witnessed the measures taken and the recommendations made by Mr. Achour with a view to avoiding the taking of any initiative during the strike which might appear to warrant the intervention of the police.
  326. 326 The report of the ICFTU observers further notes that Mr. Kersten told the court that the Prime Minister had informed him that he considered the strike to be legal and that he did not reproach the UGTT on this count. He added that the trade unionists could not be blamed for the violence that had occurred on 26 January; none of them had been arrested for being responsible for these acts and no weapons had been seized. The report then criticises the fact that other witnesses heard by the examining magistrate - namely several eminent politicians - had not appeared personally before the court and that their testimonies were read by the court. According to the report, this evidence ought to have been introduced during the oral proceedings with the witnesses present so as to be available for examination and cross-examination.
  327. 327 Both the Public Prosecutor's address and the judgement, continues the report in question, repeated the substance of the charges set out in a document published in March 1978 by the Destourian Socialist Party (known as the "little blue book"). Mr. Achour was accused of having been planning for many years manoeuvres designed to culminate in a political conspiracy against the Government; he was accused of having agreed to the "Social Pact" only to repudiate it afterwards, and having adopted an attitude in his trade union activities which became increasingly tough and increasingly violent as the events of January 1978 approached. It was alleged that he had carried on these activities in collusion with a former minister who had fallen into disgrace and with a neighbouring country which he had moreover visited. These trips were, according to the report, justified by Mr. Achour as being taken in complete agreement with the Government. All these accusations, notes the report, were based on numerous texts, articles, motions, etc., which had been widely published in the press; some of these articles adopted a tough line and called for a "political change", but in the opinion of the authors of the report the public expression of the views of trade unions cannot be termed a conspiracy. According to the trade unionists of the UGTT their attitude was warranted by the aggression to which they had been subjected by the Party in power and its militia. As further justification they pointed to a threat to murder Mr. Achour; it must be added, the person who made this threat has been sentenced to four months' imprisonment. The prosecution and the court apparently did not consider this threat worth taking into account. The UGTT further complained that the Party in power was attempting to gain control over the UGTT; the prosecution took the view that this was merely an excuse and that the matter should have been taken up in the courts.
  328. 328 According to the prosecution, continues the report, the UGTT had broken off the negotiations with the authorities with a view to restoring the situation to normal and called a strike which was illegal because the conciliation procedures had not been followed and the period of notice stipulated by law had not been given; the report notes that the UGTT leaders conceded the point that they had not followed the procedures. The prosecution added that there were no economic or social grounds for the strike; the UGTT's argument was that when a trade union was defending itself it was not engaging in politics, and that the limited scope of the strike showed clearly that it was not part of a political conspiracy. According to the prosecution, the UGTT's leaders were responsible for the violence that had occurred on 26 January; the report expresses the opinion that on this count the prosecution was unable to produce any proof whatsoever, but based its arguments on circumstantial evidence; the trade unionists maintained that the non-peaceful demonstrations and looting were the work of agents provocateurs and that the army was to blame for the deaths and injuries. The fact that the deaths had been caused by the armed forces was, according to the report, practically not disputed except for one or two cases which were subject to confused discussion. The preliminary investigation had not gone very thoroughly into this issue. The UGTT pointed out that no trade unionist had been arrested for violence, that no weapons had been seized and that there was no proof that any instructions to commit violence had been given; there had hardly been any trade unionists among the dead and the injured, which showed that they had not been on the streets.
  329. 329 The report goes on to state that the prosecution based its arguments on the following points. In the first place, small cast-iron balls had been ordered for use as weapons; two of the accused had admitted this to the police, though they claimed that they had been coerced into making this admission. The new General Secretary of the UGTT alleged that he had heard one of the accused talking about the balls with Mr. Achour. The balls had been confiscated at the factory; only one, attached to a chain, had been found on the UGTT's premises. The second point related to the alleged seizure of weapons on the UGTT's premises; these were in fact nothing more than sticks which were not produced in court. The report goes on to state that Mr. Achour was also accused of having telephoned to the Ministry of the interior to say that if the police cordon round the UGTT's premises was not removed within half an hour the situation would deteriorate. Mr. Achour did not contest the fact that he had telephoned, but denied that he had threatened violence. The Public Prosecutor demanded the death sentence for all the accused.
  330. 330 The counsel for the defence appointed by the court then asked to speak, continues the report, to explain why the accused were unable to plead. After judgement was pronounced the accused filed an appeal against it.
  331. 331 In a further communication dated 3 January 1979 the ICFTU alleges that on 11 December 1978 the Tunisian authorities transferred Messrs. Habib Achour and Abderrazak Ghorbal to the prison at Nador (near Bizerte), where conditions are particularly bad, despite the promises of leniency made by the Government. The two of them are in a tiny underground cell, very damp and with such a low ceiling that it is impossible to stand upright. Under such conditions of detention, continues the ICFTU, it is feared that their lives are in danger. The ICFTU appends to its letter the text of the appeal against the arrest in the State Security Court raised in the Division of Appeal of this jurisdiction. The appellants put forward several arguments, besides the unconstitutional nature of the court, relating to the procedure, and expand on the basic criticisms of the questioned arrest. The latter, according to the appellants, was based on false deductions and distortion of the facts (particularly in order to discover the existence of a conspiracy); they consider that the arrest relies on statements made in the press and on the accused's legal trade union activities.
  332. 332 The ICFTU, on its part, appends to its letter of 18 January 1979 a handwritten text drafted by Said Gagui, Secretary General of the National Federation of Food and Tourism Workers, who has since died. The text declares that he is determined to give evidence on the physical and mental torture that he had undergone and on the conditions of his detention; it notes the suffering that he continued to endure after his provisional release and his sentencing by the State Security Court. He was arrested around 1 a.m. on 27 January at the UGTT headquarters that had been under police siege since 25 January, that is, before the general strike. It states in his conviction that if the trade union leaders had not been neutralised, they would have been in a position to assume their responsibilities in the preparation and running of the strike in a calm and disciplined manner according to the directives of the UGTT. The text goes on that he has submitted to several interrogations under particularly brutal, degrading and inhumane conditions; it describes the tortures carried out on him when he was already weakened by prison conditions, lack of sleep and malnutrition and he mentions the names of three persons who were primarily responsible for the ill-treatment. It adds that he was provisionally released when the authorities certified the critical state of his health.
  333. 333 The WCL emphasises in its complaint of 19 January 1979 the following facts: the transfer of Habib Achour to a more severe place of detention and the conditions of his incarceration in a cell in which he is unable to stand upright; the death of a union leader, the ill-treatment and torture undergone. The complainant particularly requests that a commission of inquiry be sent to the country.
• Judgement pronounced by the State Security Court in Tunis (9 October 1978)
  334. 334 As stated above, the Government has supplied a copy of the judgement pronounced in Tunis by the State Security Court. After stating the names of the defendants and various particulars concerning them and outlining the charges, the judgement summarises the facts, the preliminary investigation proceedings and the hearings of the court in this case. The main points in this first part of the judgement are taken up again in the statement of the reasons for judgement, which is briefly summarised below.
  335. 335 The judgement states that the accused are charged with deliberately perpetrating an attack with the intention of changing the structure of the State, and premeditating the offence of inciting citizens to take up arms against one another and spread disorder, murder and pillage over the national territory. Abderrazak Ghorbal is further charged with incitement to civil insurrection, not followed up by action, and with five breaches of the Press Code. All these offences are said to have been committed during the general strike of 26 January 1978 or during the other strikes which preceded it.
  336. 336 The court declares that various ideological trends have infiltrated into Tunisia from abroad through the UGTT, all of which have in common their hostility to the regime. These trends have diverted the officials of this trade union Confederation away from trade union activities and into a form of political opposition camouflaged by labour claims. According to the judgement, the UGTT, for example, repudiated the Social Pact concluded on 19 January 1977 between the Government and the national organisations. The judgement also refers to Habib Achour's journeys to a neighbouring country where he met, inter alia, a Tunisian opposition leader and high officials of the country in question, as well as to the contacts he had with another member of the opposition. The judgement mentions in connection with these different points statements by political and trade union leaders, including in particular the adoption of an attitude different from that of the Government as concerns the problem of the Middle East, and quotes extracts from national and foreign newspapers; it draws attention in particular to a statement made by Habib Achour: "I do not believe we can end this political crisis so long as political power remains in the hands of three people", whom he names.
  337. 337 After these contacts, continues the judgement, strikes broke out in industry after industry, launched, despite the Social Pact, on a variety of pretexts in support of demands to which the establishments concerned could not accede. It adds that the UGTT sought to interfere with prerogatives vested in the State, by proclaiming its preferences and views on appointments to and removals from high responsibility posts. As concerns the threats made by an individual to kill Habib Achour - with a toy revolver - the matter has been dealt with by the courts, and did not warrant action of the kind undertaken on 26 January 1978; according to the judgement, the latter was in fact intended as a cover for the political designs of these trade union officials with regard to the regime, which they wished to overthrow. The court declares the general strike to have been illegal, and lays emphasis on the failure of the attempt at mediation by leading Tunisian figures because of Mr. Achour's refusal to cancel the order to strike and his insistence on treating the representatives of the State as equals. The Prime Minister did indeed state that instructions have been given to the security services not to intervene to break up the strikes, while ensuring security, but - continues the judgement - the stirring up of fervour about social issues and the denigration of the regime led to a situation in which the strike overstepped the bounds of a work stoppage, the demonstrators went out into the streets and there were deaths, injuries and material damage. The court expresses the opinion that the UGTT, with moral support from outside sources, had undertaken a psychological preparation of its members for an uprising with a view to overthrowing the regime; moreover, as with any insurrection, an attempt was made on 26 January 1978 to occupy the radio and television building.
  338. 338 The court notes that the General Secretary of the ICFTU has proclaimed his solidarity with Mr. Achour, which renders his evidence less credible, and that the representative for Europe of the AFL-CIO claims to know nothing about the strike or the circumstances which gave rise to it. The judgement goes on to state that Mr. Achour had asked that members of the political bureau of the Party and other leading figures be called to give evidence; although this request was irreceivable because no indication had been given as to the purpose of their giving evidence and because the request had not been made in writing, two of these persons did in fact give evidence to the examining magistrate.
  339. 339 The judgement goes on to refer to a number of provisions of the Penal Code relating to crimes against the internal security of the State. The facts show, in the opinion of the court, that a conspiracy was involved here: the number of defendants and their manoeuvres to spread disorder, murder and pillage - which came to fruition on strike days, and which were designed to bring about a change of government, as is clear from the inflammatory statements of Habib Achour and other defendants - are factors pointing to a conspiracy against the internal security of the State. This conspiracy, in the opinion of the court, was very clearly discernible both on account of the material nature of the acts committed (attacks, depredations, looting and arson) and on account of the purpose underlying these acts (the undermining of the Government). The judgement refers back in particular to Habib Achour's strong criticism of three members of the Government, as quoted above.
  340. 340 The court emphasises that it allowed defence counsel sufficient time to examine the documents in the case and that it was the lawyers themselves who had withdrawn from the case during one of the hearings and had left the court. It recalls that it appointed defence counsel to replace them from among the lawyers originally chosen, and sets forth lengthy procedural arguments in this connection. It adds that there was no legal ground nor any valid reason for the defendants' refusal to answer questions during the trial.
  341. 341 The court expresses the opinion that Habib Achour planned the conspiracy during his trips abroad and worked on it while in the country. It analyses the more or less important role played by the other defendants (referring in particular to the making of cast-iron balls to be used as instruments of violence), and notes that in the case of some of them there is no evidence to prove their involvement in the conspiracy. It refers to the prosecution's call for the death penalty in respect of the crime in question, but notes that in the case of some of the accused there are considerations to be borne in mind concerning their background and their patriotism, and also that some of them have no criminal record.
  342. 342 In these circumstances, the court pronounces judgement in the following terms:
       • (a) sentence is imposed as follows:
       • (i) on Habib Achour and Abderrazak Ghorbal: ten years' forced labour;
       • (ii) on Sadok Besbes, Hassen Hamoudia and Khereddine Salhi: eight years' forced labour;
       • (iii) on Mohamed el Salah Gaddour, Mustapha Gharbi, Taieb Baccouche and Saleh Brour: six years' forced labour;
       • (iv) on Mohamed Ezzeddine, Abdelaziz Bellaid, Ismail Sahbani, Mohamed Chakroun, Néji Chaari and Abderrazak Ayoub: five years' forced labour;
       • (v) on El Hadj Dami: six months' imprisonment;
       • (vi) on Abdelaziz Bouraoui, Abdelsalem Jrad, Said Guagui, Said El Haddad, Allala El Amri, Noureddine Bahri, Ahmed El Kehlaoui and Mohamed Salah Kheriji: a suspended sentence of six months' imprisonment;
       • (b) the following are acquitted: Sadok Allouche, Messaud Klila, Bechir Mabrouk, Mohamed Chelli, Hussein Ben Rehouma and Azouz Dhaouadi.
  343. The Government's reply
  343. 343 In its letter of 5 February 1979, the Government communicates its answer to the different questions raised by the Committee in November 1978. It also transmits a list - annexed hereto - of trade unionists arrested at the time of the 26 January 1978 events which indicates their current situation. It considered that in view of all these elements, the complaints ought to be rejected.
  344. 344 The Government states that the allegations according to which certain trade unionists had undergone ill-treatment whilst under preventative detention are completely devoid of any supportive basis; during the proceedings in Sousse, Sfax and Tunis, observers and foreign journalists were able to witness that all the accused, unionists or nor.-unionists, were in a good state of health and did not show any signs of ill-treatment.
  345. 345 With respect to the conditions of detention of sentenced and convicted union leaders, the Government continues that they are the same as those reserved for those convicted by the Courts, indeed they are even better: those concerned receive newspapers, can listen to the radio and the television; their families can visit them on a regular basis. Besides the regular medical controls of the prison services, they also have the possibility of being visited by doctors of their own choice whenever it is necessary.
  346. 346 The special Division of Appeal from the State Security Court confirmed the judgement of 9 October 1978 of this jurisdiction. The Government specifies that the Appeal Division does not pronounce judgement on the facts, it only decides questions of law. Therefore the confirmation of the judgement proves that the Court has scrupulously applied the law including the provisions relating to judicial guarantees.
  347. 347 The Government states that the complainant organisations are busying themselves trying to clear the dependants by asserting that their only wrong was to have asked for the satisfaction of the workers' legitimate claims, without even proving the existence of these claims or indicating their contents. It repeats that the general strike of 26 January 1978 was illegal; apart from the fact that it did not concern definite professional demands, it had been decided upon without respect for the need to give previous notice of strikes and without previous recourse to conciliation procedures as is required by the Labour Code. According to the Government, this action was of a strictly political nature; moreover the ICFTU observers recognised that certain of the published articles were undeniably hard and "most certainly" called for "a political change".
  348. 348 The Government stresses that it did not, at any stage, interfere to create a mere mockery of the trial or to deprive the defendants of any guarantee provided for in the legislation in force. On the contrary, the Government maintains that certain elements in the defence wished to use the judicial guarantees to disturb the normal running of the trial with the sole purpose of diverting the public's attention and of creating doubt and suspicion about the existence or effective application of these judicial guarantees. In support of these statements the Government quotes certain remarks of ICFTU observers in their report. It stresses that the refusal of a defendant to answer (in front of the observers and foreign journalists) questions put by the chairman of a judicial process does not constitute evidence of his innocence and that refusal by an attorney (before the same people) to defend his client does not evidence a lack of judicial guarantees. On the contrary, the tribunals have shown their complete and scrupulous respect for these rights provided for in national laws as well as in international instruments. The Government wishes to prove this respect by the presence of observers and journalists at the different proceedings. The denial of competence by the criminal division of the Court of Appeal at Sousse is, in its eyes, another proof of the independence of the judiciary and also shows the political nature of the 26 January 1978 strike. The appointment of 18 attorneys to defend the accused (when the first lawyers decided to abandon the defence of their clients) by the Court of State Security further evidences, according to the Government, the determination of the judiciary to give the defendants their full judicial rights; in this regard it quotes certain provisions in Law No. 68-17 of 2 July 1968 supporting the creation of the State Security Court.
  349. 349 Finally the Government communicates information on the outcome of the proceedings in Sousse and Tunis, which information is annexed. It points out that most unionists' cases were held to be without grounds for prosecution and the unionists were either acquitted or given suspended sentences (it stresses that this shows the total independence and perception of the judiciary). In addition, 71 detainees (of whom 60 were sentenced by the common law courts following the events of 26 January 1978 and 5 were sentenced for illegal association by the State Security Court) were given conditional freedom in November 1978. Regarding the 101 people who had been brought before the criminal Division of the Court of Appeal in Sousse, the State Security Court, ruling in Chambers, decided that only 12 (two of whom were still in preventative detention) ought to be prosecuted before the Court; it proclaimed no grounds for prosecution for the other 89. The Government states that it will not fail to furnish the Committee with the judgements pronounced by the State Security Court against the accused who have not been sentenced yet.
  350. 350 The Committee was informed that Mr. Bolin, Deputy Director-General of the ILO, visited Tunis from 4 to 6 February 1979. With the Government's agreement he saw Habib Achour in prison. He established that the conditions of detention were, in general, the same as those for ordinary detainees but that he enjoyed certain advantages and he was, along with Abderrazak Ghorbal, separated from other prisoners. During the discussions the Deputy Director-General also asked for information on the situation of the other unionists who had been arrested.

C. Conclusions of the Committee

1. 351. According to the Government, the strike was not organised in conformity with the provisions of the Labour Code. The latter, as amended, prescribe that any decision in this regard should be proceeded by ten days' notice given by the interested party to the other party and to the regional conciliation office (or, lacking that, to the regional work inspector: section 376B). When conflict extends over several provinces or over the whole of the Republic, the subject of the conflict is submitted to the Central Conciliation Commission (section 378). If these provisions are not respected the strike is illegal (section 387) and punishable by fines and imprisonment; the applicable procedure is that for flagrant misdemeanours (section 388). Although the non-performance of the above obligations was not a determining element in the sentencing of Habib Achour and his principal collaborators, the Committee calls attention to the fact that in the ICFTU observers' report, the leaders of the UGTT admitted that the strike did not observe the provisions.
2. 352. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the objectives of the general strike of 26 January 1978 are defined quite differently by the Government and the complainants. The latter reject the authorities' claim of conspiracy and maintain that the trade union leaders were sentenced for having carried out their union activities. According to them, the charges rest on a number of texts, articles, motions, etc. which occasionally call for political change, but, they add, the public expression of union positions cannot be considered as a conspiracy only one iron ball was found in the UGTT premises. Rejecting union responsibility for the violence carried out on 26 January, the complainants state that arrangements had been made and recommendations given so as to avoid, during the strike, any initiative which would justify police intervention. They consider that the non-peaceful manifestations and pillaging were carried out by provocation and that the army was responsible for the deaths and injuries.
3. 353. Finally, the complainants quote the principal grievances drafted by the UGTT, namely: blocking of discussions on the readjustment of salaries in terms of the rising cost of living (whilst respecting the undertakings given in the framework of the "Social Pact"); escalation of provocation against trade unionists and attacks on the UGTT headquarters; and wish to take over the UGTT.
4. 354. However, according to the Government, the stoppage of work was of a political nature aimed at causing trouble in the functioning of institutions and at paralysing the country's economy. The Government particularly points out that on 26 January 1978 Mr. Achour had asked the head of state security to remove the law enforcement troops who surrounded the UGTT headquarters within half an hour or there would be trouble; once the time limit was up there were occurrences of pillage, fires and rioting as well as insurrectional manifestations organised in eight different parts of the capital. It was therefore necessary to undertake appropriate measures to restore order.
5. 355. In the same way the State Security Court terms the general strike as illegal. Habib Achour and his collaborators were sentenced for having conspired against the State. According to the decision, ideological currents of different trends have infiltrated into Tunisia through the UGTT and form part of its hostility to the present regime; these currents have diverted the leaders of the Central from their union activities towards a political opposition camouflaged with workers' demands. The Court calls attention to Habib Achour's visits outside Tunisia and particularly his meetings with political personalities of the opposition. It quotes extracts from national and foreign newspapers, in particular a statement by Mr. Achour: "I believe that we will not overcome this crisis whilst political power remains in the hands of three people", and he names these individuals. The number of defendants and their manoeuvres aimed at causing disorder, murder and pillage are, according to the decision, constituent elements of a conflict against the internal security of the State and it became clear that a conspiracy had formed in view of the reality of the acts (depredations, etc.) and the motive for them (to injure the Government).
6. 356. Certain demands made by the UGTT (adjustment of salaries) had a strictly professional character. Others concerned the defence of the trade union movement against, so the complainants say, the provocations and attempts to control the UGTT made by the authorities. On the other hand, the authorities consider that they were the object of manoeuvres aimed at overthrowing the Government under the cover of workers' demands. The Committee is of the opinion that the facts before it are too contradictory to allow it to decide on this point in full cognisance of the facts of the case. The same applies to the different opinions expressed on the manner in which the court proceedings were carried out.
7. 357. The general strike led to the arrest of numerous trade unionists and to the conviction of several of them inter alia by the State Security Court. In this regard the Government has supplied information on all the arrested unionists who were mentioned by the complainants. The Committee notes that many of them are now set free (either because there were nonsuit, they have suspended sentences or are under conditional freedom). Eleven unionists cited by the complainants are still awaiting sentence and two of these are at liberty.
8. 358. The sentences imposed have nevertheless deprived the national trade union movement of the majority of its major leaders. This cannot but be deeply felt by the militant unionists who elected them, and by all their numerous sympathisers. Such serious tensions must have left painful memories with the whole population. More than a year has passed since these events and the Committee is of the opinion that measures of clemency could well contribute to a lessening of these feelings which are still present.
9. 359. Finally, some of the allegations are based on the conditions of detention of the imprisoned unionists and on the ill-treatment that some of them had been subjected to (in particular, the cases of Ismail Sahbani and Said Gagui). The Committee has stressed in other cases' that on the course of detention, unionists must benefit from the guarantees provided for in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights; those responsible for any ill-treatment of detainees ought to suffer exemplary punishment for preventing these practices from occurring; the sanctions applied ought to be accompanied by detailed instructions so that those concerned will be warned. In this case, the Government states that the allegations are completely devoid of factual basis and that the observers and foreign journalists present at the proceedings in Sousse, Sfax and Tunis, saw for themselves that all the accused, unionists or not, were in a fine state of health and did not show any signs of ill-treatment. It adds, whilst giving details, that the conditions of detention of the convicted leaders are the same as those reserved for criminals sentenced by tribunals, indeed even better than those. The Committee notes this information. It also notes that Habib Achour and Abderrazak Ghorbal are treated like ordinary detainees although they are separated from the other prisoners.

Z. ANNEX

• APPENDIX
• Surname and first name Function Sentence Date of Observations the decision
• Habib Achour Secretary-General of the Execu- 10 years' forced labour 9.10.78
• tive Committee of the UGTT
• Khereddine Salhi Member of the Executive Committee 8 years' " "
• of the UGTT
• Abdelaziz Bouraoui " " 6 months' suspended "
• sentence
• Mustapha Gharbi " " 6 years' forced labour
• Sadok Besbes " " 8 years' " "
• Taieb Baccouche " " 6 years'' "
• Sadok Allouche " " Charge dismissed
• Mohamed Ezzeddine " " 5 years' forced labour
• Abdelhamid Bellaid " " 5 years' " "
• Hassen Hamoudia " " 8 years' " "
• Houcine Ben Gaddour " " 6 years' " "
• Abderrazak Ayoub Secretary-General of the UR 5 years' " "
• (Regional Federation) of Tunis
• Abderrazak Ghorbal " of Sfax 10 years' " "
• Habib Ben Achour " of Sousse Awaiting judgement
• El Mekki Ben Abderahman " of Zaghouan 8 months' imprisonment 11.2.78
• El Kéfi El Amri " of Kasserine 18 months' 25.4.78
• released conditionally
• Ahmed Triki Deputy Secretary General of the UR 2 years' 26.7.78
• (Regional Federation) of Sfax
• Mohamed Chaabane " " " "
• Mafedh Gamoun " " Charge dismissed 8.11.78
• Mohamed Ben Aicha " " " "
• Sadok Guedissa " " " "
• Mizouni El M'Hemmedi " of Kasserine 3 months' imprisonment 2.5.78
• Said Guagui Secretary-General of the Food 6 months' suspended 9.10.78
• Workers' Federation sentence
• Messaoud Klila Secretary-General of the Railway Charge dismissed "
• Workers' Federation
• Abdessalem Jrad Secretary-General of the Transport 6 months' suspended "
• Workers' Federation sentence
• Ismail Sahbani Secretary-General of the Metal 5 years' forced labour "
• Workers' Federation
• Allala El Amri Secretary-General of the Petro- 6 months' suspended "
• chemical workers, Federation sentence
• Béchir Mabrouk Secretary-General of the Building charge dismissed "
• Workers' Federation
• El Hadj Dami Secretary-General of the Public 6 months "
• Works Federation
• Said El Haddad Secretary-General of the Electri- 6 months' suspended "
• city and Gas Federation sentence
• Noureddine Bahri Secretary-General of the Teachers' Federation "
• Mohamed Salah Kheriji Secretary-General of the National " "
• Union of Secondary School Teachers
• Ahmed El Khalooui Secretary-General of the National " "
• Union of Technical School Teachers
• Azzouz Dhaquadi Secretary-General of the National charge dismissed "
• Union of Nat. Education Workers
• Ben Rhouma Secretary-General of the National " "
• Union of Public Servants in
• National Education
• Salah Chelli Secretary-General of the Local " "
• Federation of La Goulette and
• Secretary-General of the General
• Union of Tunisian Dock Workers
• Salah Lahmar Secretary-General of the " 25.9.78
• Local Federation of Enfidha
• Habib Gsouri " of Sbeitla 3 years 200D 16.5.78
• Mohamed Charaa Deputy Secretary-General of the Charge dismissed 9.9.78
• Petrochemical Workers' Federation
• Mohamed Chakroun Deputy Secretary-General of the 5 years' forced labour 9.10.78
• Metal Workers' Federation
• Néji Chaari Secretary-General of the General Union " "
• of the RTT (Radio and Telecommunications)
• Mouldi Chouikha Secretary-General of the Local 8 months 200 D 1.2.78
• Federation of Menzel Temime
• Mokhtar Louati Secretary-General of the RTT Union 4 months 19.4.78
• Abdelkader Sallami Deputy Secretary-General of the 8 months "
• RTT Union
• Moncef Fekih " " "
• Mohammed Ayab Active trade unionist at Sfax " "
• Mohammed Dami " " "
• Jameleddine Ezzeddine Deputy Secretary-General of the 6 months "
• RTT Union
• Abderrazak Boucetta " " 4 months "
• Salah Essid Secretary-General of the SOGITEX Awaiting judgement
• Union at Bir Kassaa
• Mohamed Neffati Secretary-General of the DHIA " "
• Union at Charguia
• Abdelmajid Saadgoui Secretary-General of the SOTUVER " "
• Union
• Ezzeddine Krichen Deputy Secretary-General of the Charge dismissed 9.9.78
• Harbour Office Union
• El Borni El Allagui Secretary-General of the Primary 3 years 200 D 16.5.78
• School Teachers' Union of Sbeitla
• Ahmed Chaabane Shop Steward at the Société 3 months' imprisonment "
• Industrielle at Mégrine
• Touhami Haydri Shop Steward at the Société le " "
• Carrelage at Tunis
• Rachid Slouga Secretary-General of the Union at Awaiting judgement "
• Abou El Kassem Chebbi Hospital at
• Tunis
• Nagib Bouslah Union Official at the SOGITEX, " "
• Bir Kassaâ
• Ali Mahdi Secretary-General of the Regional Charge dismissed 8.11.78
• Union of Secondary School
• Teachers at Sousse
• Ali Ben Salah Secretary-General of the Regional " "
• Union of Primary School Teachers
• at Sousse
• Moncef Gmar Deputy Secretary-General of the Awaiting judgement "
• Regional Union of Primary School
• Teachers at Sousse
• Belgacem Kharchi Secretary-General of the Charge dismissed 9.9.78
• Pennaroya Union, Mégrine
• Ahmed Lajili Secretary-General of the Regional 10 months' imprisonment 21.12.78
• Union of Forestry porkers at
• Tozeur
• Mohamed Rassaoui Secretary-General of the Union at Charge dismissed "
• the Hôtel Continental at Tozeur
• Lamine Chérif Secretary-General of the Regional " "
• Union of Agricultural Technical
• Workers at Tozeur
• Mohamed Ayoub Secretary-General of the Super- " "
• visors' Union at Tozeur
• Bouraoui Attia Sousse correspondent of the news- " "
• paper Ech-Chaâb
• El Ajmi Hfaiedh Secretary-General of the Regional " "
• Union of Building porkers at Sousse
• Amor Delajoura Shop Steward at the Hôtel Awaiting judgement "
• Boujjafer at Sousse
• Rachid Thabet Member of the Secondary School Charge dismissed 25.9.78
• Teachers' Union
• Ajimi Mathlouthi " " 8.9.78
• Abdelaziz Ben Aicha Shop Steward at the Mellouli " 19.9.78
• Works at Sousse
• Brahim Farhat Shop Steward at the STERC Company " 8.11.78
• at Sousse
• Sadok Morjane Member of the Primary School " 2.9.78
• Teachers' Union at Sousse
• Mohamed Belajouza Worker at Sousse " "
• Mohamed Naceur Djelassi Worker of the SIMET Company at Released on bail "
• Tunis
• Ali Trabelsi " " "
• Médi Eddeb Member of the Petrochemical Charge dismissed 9.9.78
• Workers' Federation
• Salem El Haddad Secretary-General of the Secondary Not charged "
• School Teachers' Union at Monastir
• Ali El Mathlouthi Shop Steward at the Cork Works at Charge dismissed "
• Mégrine
• Jilani El Gabsi Shop Steward at the Fonderies " "
• Réunies at Mégrine
• Mongi El Ayari " " "
• Saad Belloumi Trade unionist at Sousse Not charged "
• Mohamed Ennaoui Chauffeur, Shop Steward at the SNT Awaiting judgement "
• Amar Hamaidi Deputy Secretary-General of the Charge dismissed "
• Union at the SOTUVER
• Ouanès Sahnoun Secretary at the Local Federation 8 months' imprisonment "
• at Menzel Temime
• Gader Lamaa Committee member of the Local " "
• Federation at Menzel Temime
• Hédi Jomâa Veteran trade unionist at Sousse Charge dismissed 25.9.78
• Hédi Tenjal Member of the Male Nurses' Union at Sousse "
• Néji Ermadi Officer worker on the newspaper " 8.9.78
  • Ech-Châab
• Abdelaziz Ejaouadi Member of the Building Workers' Not charged
• Federation
• Ali Ben Romdhane Agricultural trade union leader "
• Mahdi Ben Abderahmane Trade union leader at Saghouan 8 months' imprisonment
• Mohamed Kouki Active trade unionist at Sousse Deceased
• Hédi Der Active railway trade unionist Charge dismissed
• Salah B'Rour Private secretary to the 6 years' forced labour 9.10.78
• Secretary-General of the UGTT
• Hamadi Bouhelfi Private chauffeur to the Awaiting judgement
• Secretary-General of the UGTT