Informe provisional - Informe núm. 337, Junio 2005

918. The complaint is contained in communications from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 12 February, 2 and 4 May and 7 July 2004.

1. 919. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 2 May and 11 August 2004.
2. 920. The Islamic Republic of Iran has not ratified either the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 921. In its communication dated 12 February 2004, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) informed of the killing of at least four workers and of injuries inflicted on 40 or more workers by riot police during a strike on 24 January 2004 in the village of Khatoonabad and the city of Shahr-e-Babak (Keman Province, in the south-east of the Islamic Republic of Iran). The names of four of the dead workers are reportedly as follows: Mahdavi, Javadi, Momeni and Riyahl. Unofficial figures report between seven to 15 dead and up to 300 wounded.
2. 922. According to the information available to it, the ICFTU stated that the workers concerned by these events were a mixed group of unskilled workers, construction workers and other skilled workers employed in the construction of the Nazkhaton’s copper smelting plant in the village of Khatoonabad. Their employer, a subcontractor that had built the smelting plant for the National Iranian Copper Industries Company had reportedly promised permanent contracts to the 1,500 workers who had participated in the construction and preparation of the smelting plant. However, once the construction had finished, the employer only kept 250 workers. The workers therefore went on strike and organized a sit in at the plant in the days up to 24 January 2004.
3. 923. The sit in lasted eight days before violence broke out. Many workers and their families had attended the protest and had been blocking the main road leading to the plant and the main entrance of the plant. They were demanding permanent employment and were protesting against the use of temporary contracts, layoffs and deferred payment of salaries and benefits.
4. 924. The ICFTU continued that, due to the persistence of the sit in and the protest, it appeared that the Provincial Security Council, on which the Governor of Kerman Province and the Governor of Shahr-e-Babak City both had seats, decided to dispatch more security forces to the area. Special police forces were thus brought in from Kerman City by helicopter.
5. 925. There are conflicting reports as to how the confrontation began. According to the Government’s press agency, the confrontation began when 300 motorbike riders started attacking government property, banks and other buildings. A similar explanation was given by Governor Selfollah Shahad-Nejad. However, he contended that the confrontation began when a group of 100-150 motorbike riders took advantage of the tension to start attacking the Governor’s residence, banks and private property and that these attacks led the police to open fire. The Governor stated that some of the wounded sustained their injuries in clashes with baton-wielding riot police; he also claimed that some were hurt by flying objects thrown by the workers themselves.
6. 926. Another version given by Mansour Soleymani Meymandi, a reformist Member of Parliament for the city of Shahr-e-Babak, suggested that the local authorities had brought in special police forces in helicopters in order to break the strike, and that these special police forces had attacked the workers in the village of Khatoonabad. The confrontation had then spread to the city of Shahr-e-Babak, where the four workers were killed and dozens more severely injured. Mr. Meymandi gave this information during a session in Parliament on 25 January 2004.
7. 927. Reports from Iranian workers’ organizations in exile supported Mr. Meymandi’s understanding of the events. However, the organizations contend that the workers were shot dead in front of the plant, and that the outbreak of violence in the city of Shahr-e-Babak was caused by special police forces dispatched there.
8. 928. The General Secretary of the Teheran-based organization, ‘Workers’ House’, Mr. Ali Reza Mahjoub, also confirmed that the police had attacked the workers during the sit in.
9. 929. In an interview on 25 January 2004, the Governor of Kerman Province confirmed that special guards from Kerman City had been brought in to break the strike and ensure free access to the plant. In view of the abovementioned reports, this statement gives the ICFTU reason to believe that the confrontation began when the police used force in an attempt to break the strike. In addition, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s head of security forces, General Mohammad Bagher Ghallbaf, later confirmed that the police had fired the shots that killed the striking workers.
10. 930. The ICFTU indicated that it was informed that some of the wounded were hospitalized in Surcheshmeh and in the city of Shahr-e-Babak; some of them were reported as being in a critical condition.
11. 931. After the confrontation, local people gathered in from of the residences of the dead workers, demanding that those responsible for their deaths be held to account. Protests and clashes with police reportedly continued over the following days, leading to the arrest of workers and their relatives. According to one of the abovementioned exiled workers’ organizations, security forces had conducted extensive house-to-house searches. The other exiled workers’ organization reported that a number of those arrested had been tortured.
12. 932. Official sources confirmed the arrests. The commanding officer of the security forces of Kerman Province, General Isa Darayee, disclosed that 80 people had been arrested during the incident, and 15 had been kept for interrogation. The present status of any such detained workers was unknown to the ICFTU at the time of writing.
13. 933. Different public authorities have reportedly ordered separate investigations into the matter. The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mohammad Khatami, has ordered an investigation by a delegation from the Presidential Office. The Interior Ministry has reportedly also ordered an investigation into the matter by a delegation of its own and a delegation from the Kerman Governor’s General Office is also reported as investigating the matter.
14. 934. The ICFTU provided new allegations in its communication dated 2 May 2004 about police interventions in a Labour Day march. On 1 May 2004, hundreds of workers and their families staged a peaceful rally and march in the city of Saqez (Kurdistan Province), in order to celebrate Labour Day. The event was organized by “the First of May Council”, an organization of workers in Saqez, consisting of labour activists acting independently from the Government and the workers’ organizations it controls.
15. 935. At about 5 p.m., the marchers were attacked by the Government’s security forces, including plain-clothes agents of the security service. Over 40 participants were reportedly detained and taken into custody. Among those arrested were Mahmoud Salehi, a well-known labour leader who had previously been arrested and imprisoned for ten months in 2001, Jalal Hosseini, a local labour leader, and Mohsen Hakimi, a well-known activist and a member of the Iranian Writers’ Association.
16. 936. The security forces subsequently raided Mahmoud Salehi’s home and his computer and documents were confiscated. Families of the arrested workers and other citizens are said to have gathered outside the Security Ministry’s offices to demand the release of all those arrested.
17. 937. The ICFTU expressed its concern over the fact that Mr. Salehi and Mr. Hakimi had been met two days before their arrest by an ICFTU mission which visited the Islamic Republic of Iran earlier in the week. The mission had been closely monitored by the security service. The ICFTU further believes that the search of Mr. Salehi’s house and confiscation of his computer are directly related to his contacts with the ICFTU.
18. 938. The ICFTU provided further details of these arrests in its communication dated 4 May 2004. Mr. Mahmoud Salehi, who was arrested on 1 May 2004, was a well-known labour leader from the “Trade Association of Saqez Bakers”. Two local labour leaders, Mr. Jalal Hosseini and Mohammad Abdlpoor were also arrested, as well as Mohsen Hakimi and two or three workers.
19. 939. The workers had gathered for a peaceful celebration of 1 May and – whilst no formal meeting was held, nor any speeches made – the police arrested around 50 people. Some sources indicate that, out of the 50, the six or seven people mentioned above had been transferred to a prison in Sanandaj (capital of Kurdistan Province). The families have been asked the sum of 200,000,000 tomans (around US$250,000) for their bail. The families of the arrested (in particular Ms. Manizheh Kazerani, wife of Mr. Mohsen Hakimi) have tried unsuccessfully to contact the judicial and intelligence authorities in Saqez and Sanandaj and have no information about the whereabouts of their relatives.
20. 940. The ICFTU also gathered further information from several workplaces where workers were not free to organize, such as the Iran Khodro auto company (the largest of its kind in the Middle East, with more than 34,000 workers). Since July 2001, workers have tried unsuccessfully to affirm their trade union rights, but management and officials of the Ministry of Labour prevented even the formation of the Islamic Labour Council. Workers of the company as well as of its subcontractors (such as Ehya-Gostar Sabz) have been regularly fired after their protests, as recently happened for the non-payment of wages. Other cases involve, for example, the Saman company in Mashad, where employees are forced to work overtime (with shifts of 14 hours per day) or the well-known cases of oil workers who are not allowed to organize.
21. 941. Finally, in its communication dated 7 July 2004, the ICFTU informed that summons were served on or around 30 June 2004 to four labour leaders, Mahmoud Salehi, Jalal Hosseini, Borhan Divangar and Mohammad Abdlpoor, on charges of collaboration with the banned leftist political organization “Komala” based in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Kurdistan. They were to appear in court on 24 August.
22. 942. These four leaders were among the around 50 workers arrested while celebrating Labour Day in the city of Saqez. Most were quickly released, but the four of them and three more labour leaders and activists (Mohsen Hakimi, Esmail Khodgam and Hadi Tanom) were only released on bail on 12 May after heavy international pressure, including that of the ILO.
23. 943. At the time of their arrest, they were mainly accused of illegal assembly, but at the time of their release, no known charges had been brought against them. The fact that they were only released on bail would seem to suggest that some kind of charges had been brought against them and had been upheld after their release. The current charges of illegal political activity are different from the initial reasons for their arrest and it would therefore seem that they are merely an indirect way of victimizing the leaders for their labour rights activism and in particular their attempt to celebrate Labour Day.
24. 944. The ICFTU asserted that the four labour leaders were independent labour activists and did not, to the best of its knowledge, have any links with political parties. The ICFTU remained deeply worried that their prosecution was directly related to their contacts with the ICFTU mission on 29 April 2004, only two days before their arrest, as this mission had been closely monitored by the Iranian security service.
25. 945. In a communication dated 7 February 2005, the complainant provided additional information concerning the arrests following Labour Day celebrations in Saqez. In addition to the four arrested labour leaders referred to in its earlier communication, the complainant stated that it had since learned that Mohsen Hakimi, Esmail Khodkam and Hadi Tanoumand, who were also arrested while celebrating Labour Day, were subsequently also served summons on charges of collaboration with the “infidel” and the banned political organization “Komala”. The complainant emphasized that, at the time of their arrest, these labour leaders and activists had been told that they were arrested for having organized a gathering without legal permission and that they had not been involved in any political activity between the time of their arrest on 1 May 2004 and the time they were charged with these other offences on or around 30 June 2004. The complainant thus strongly considered that the charges brought merely represented an indirect way of victimizing these leaders for their labour rights activism, in particular their attempt to celebrate Labour Day. It affirmed that these seven labour leaders were independent labour activists and did not, to its knowledge, have any links with political parties.
26. 946. The complainant organization provided detailed information on the professional and trade union background of each of the seven arrested labour leaders, as well as on their current roles within the trade union movement. The complainant organization added that Borhan Divangar and Mahmoud Salehi had informed it that they were being continuously harassed for the exercise of their trade union activities. Mr. Salehi had further stated that the prosecution has based its accusations of his sympathizing with the “Komala” on documentation retrieved from his computer, which had been seized during the search of his home. Mr. Salehi denied having any such documents and informed the judge that no such documents were found in the presence of his legal representative. He did not want to assume responsibility for documents that may have been placed on his computer after the authorities had seized it.
27. 947. While initially the seven arrested labour leaders were to appear in court on 24 August 2004, the first hearing did not take place until 25 December 2004. This first case concerned Borhan Divangar. Although the trial was held behind closed doors, the complainant understood that Mr. Divangar was represented by his lawyer, Ms. Mahshid Hadad, who pleaded that the charges be withdrawn. During the trial, his lawyer referred to mistreatment and torture endured by Mr. Divangar during his 12-day detention in May 2004. She also requested that a representative of the Intelligence Ministry be called to testify in order to shed light on the charges brought against her client, but the judge rejected the request, indicating that the intelligence authorities would provide their evidence in writing. The complainant has not yet been informed of any verdict in this case.
28. 948. Mohsen Kahimi was put on trial on 16 January 2005, behind closed doors. A revolutionary guard was however present until the defence counsel, Mr. Sharif, objected. According to information provided to the complainant, Mr. Hakimi was not even given the opportunity to provide a final defence statement. The complainant asserted that this was a serious breach of due process, which raised serious concerns about the fairness of these trials.
29. 949. Mahmoud Salehi was put on trial on 1 February 2005, also behind closed doors. Again, his lawyer rejected the charges brought against him. A so-called “additional evidence” was brought against Mr. Salehi, including two texts which he had written in 2004, namely an article entitled “Preparing a cost of living index for a family of 5 in Iran” and a statement condemning the killing of several striking workers by security forces in Khatoonabad in January 2004. Mr. Salehi stated that these two texts were not only public documents and not illegal in any sense, but that he had actually also sent them to the authorities concerned at the time they were published. Moreover, the prosecution held Mr. Salehi’s contacts and meeting with an ICFTU mission on 29 April 2004 against him as further evidence of his alleged crimes. While the prosecution brought up Mr. Salehi’s past arrests and periods of detention, the complainant insisted that all of these arrests were directly related to his independent trade union activities, such as his involvement with the Saqez Bakery Workers’ Association and organizing independent Labour Day demonstrations. Nevertheless, he was charged in each case with sympathizing with “Komala”, an accusation routinely used by the Iranian judiciary against progressive labour, social and human rights activists.
30. 950. Mohammad Abdlpoor’s hearing was held on 6 February 2005. The judge announced that the trial was open to the public, but only his lawyers, Ms. Mahshid Hadad and Ms. Mohammadi were allowed to enter the courtroom along with their client. In addition to the two charges brought against the seven labour leaders, Mr. Abdlpoor faced the charge of contacting members of the central committee of “Komala” and participating in “Komala’s” Anniversary Day and the gathering of information for “Komala”. He denied these allegations, stating that they were fabrications to justify the authorities’ arrests of people before the start of Labour Day celebrations in May 2004. His lawyers pleaded that all charges be withdrawn.
31. 951. The complainant was informed that a second hearing for the seven labour activists was scheduled to take place after the Iranian New Year in April. While the complainant was making arrangements to apply for a visa to observe the trials still scheduled, it recalled that it had not received a reply to its previous formal requests made in August, September and December 2004 and January 2005.
32. 952. The complainant stated that the trials have become a symbol of the repression of workers in the Islamic Republic of Iran and have prompted workers from 17 factories and a group of workers from Sanandaj to declare their support for the seven labour leaders in an open statement issued by the Labour Committee of Tehran’s Production Factories on 10 September 2004, denouncing the court cases and calling for a five-minute work stoppage in solidarity with the Saqez seven. The statement also denounced the lack of freedom to organize Labour Day events, the widespread use of temporary contracts and the poor living conditions of workers in the country. The statement was supported by workers from: Iran Khodro, Shahab Khodro (Auto Manufacturing), Gorohe Sanati Minoo (Minoo Industrial Group), Pars Metal, SaiPa, Kashi-Irana, Pump Industries of Tehran, Sazeh Gostare Saipa, Petoshimi Mahshahr (Mahshahr’s Petrochemical Plant), Khavar Press, Vitana, Follade Khuzestan (Khuzestan’s Steal), a Group of workers from Sanandaj, Tabriz Tractor-Manufacturing Plant, Bolberingsazi Tabriz, Sugar Cube Plant of Miandoab, Iran Khodro Diesel Company and Vazneh.
33. The arrest of teachers
34. 953. The complainant organization also submitted new allegations concerning the arrests of teachers. It indicated that, according to reports from the official Iranian news agency – the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) – the General Secretary of the Teachers’ Guild Association Mahmoud Beheshti Langarudi and the spokesperson Ali-Ashgar Zati were arrested on 12 July 2004. According to official sources, their arrests were not connected to their trade union activities, notably organizing strikes on non-payment of wages in March 2004. Trade unionists believed, however, that they were arrested for their trade union activities and strikes that they organized in June 2004. The complainant added that it had been informed that the Teachers’ Guild Association was linked to one of the fractions of the Government from which it was now allegedly distancing itself.
35. 954. The complainant stated that, in May 2004, Mr. Langarudi was summoned to court on charges linked to the strikes in March 2004. He was accused of entering a school illegally, leaving his job during working house and mobilizing “agitating” teachers to strike. The March strike was attended by 200,000 people, a third of all teachers.
36. 955. The complainant understood from the IRNA that the arrest in July could result in charges of violation of national security and organization of two protests in June. The protesters were demanding higher wages and wage arrears of 5.2 billion rials (US$620 million). The arrest of Mr. Langarudi and Mr. Ali-Asghar Zati prompted teachers in Tehran and other cities to gather for a demonstration on 19 July in front of the main entrance of Majles (the Iranian Parliament) in Tehran, to protest against their arrests and the intimidation by security forces and the Ministry of Education they had been subjected to. According to the ICFTU sources, the teachers’ union has been intimidated into silence and has thus not issued any statements on these arrests.
37. 956. Messrs. Mahmoud Beheshti Langarudi and Ali-Asghar Zati were only released on bail in mid-August. Mr. Zati had to pay a bail of 70 million tomans and Mr. Beheshti 50 million tomans. However, reportedly, other members of the same association had been arrested in the northern province of Mazandaran.
38. Restrictions to the application of the labour legislation
39. 957. The ICFTU has been informed that the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran has passed and is also about to pass legislation that would deprive different groups of workers of the protection of the labour legislation, thus depriving most workers of the right to organize workers’ organizations including trade unions. In 2004, the Parliament passed legislation exempting workers at workshops of less that ten employees from the scope of the labour legislation. This legislation would exempt workers at most carpet weaving workshops from the protection of existing labour legislation, thus depriving them of the right to organize. Furthermore, draft legislation exempting temporary workers from the scope of the labour legislation was to be considered by Parliament in November 2004. Such legislation would deprive about 90 per cent of the workforce in the Islamic Republic of Iran of the protection of the labour legislation including the right to organize, annual leave, pay rises, the right to benefit from public holidays, unemployment benefit and medical and social benefits.
40. The Kurdistan Textile Factory in Sanandaj
41. (Kurdistan Province)
42. 958. According to information received by the ICFTU, the Kurdistan Textile Factory was surrounded by armed security forces that cut off access to the factory during a sit-in strike that started on Sunday, 31 October 2004. The 75 workers started the sit-in strike to protest against the mass redundancy plans announced by management. On 1 November the strike was joined by workers from all sections of the factory until it finally covered the entire factory, with hundreds of workers participating in the sit-in. Workers from two other textile factories in the city (Shaho and Shinbaf), the bakery union and a number of others had reportedly declared that they supported the strike. Reportedly, workers from the textiles industry, aluminium, dairy, bakery and plastic industry and university students came out in support of the workers. Throughout the city of Sanandaj, a large number of people signed a petition in support of the striking workers and a fund to raise funds had been set up. Workers in Saqez also supported the strike.
43. 959. On 2 November, the Labour Ministry had reportedly called on Kurdistan’s Governor, the army and the management to put an end to the “rebellion”. The strike ended on 3 November when the employer and the government authorities agreed to improve severance pay. The agreement was negotiated when the factory was still besieged by armed forces. The agreement included four-and-a-half month severance pay for each year of employment as well as two years of unemployment insurance benefits for 75 workers who had been made redundant. Furthermore, management agreed to reinstate six workers who had been expelled and to pay full salary also on strike days to all workers. However, they did not want to commit to refrain from further redundancies. The negotiations were observed by one Sergeant Doosty, reportedly the localhead of the security service. According to some sources, Mr. Doosty, at one moment waived a leaflet, shouted and made threats against the workers’ representatives.
44. 960. According to the Iranian Labour News Agency (ILNA), the management later refused to improve severance pay. This led to further protest by the workers, who were also dissatisfied with the prospect of privatization. Allegedly, there were plans to privatize most, if not all, of the textile industry. This plan would also involve a reduction of the workforce. Workers’ representatives of the factory later informed the complainant that the promises made during the settlement have not been fulfilled.
45. 961. The complainant was informed that renewed strike action was taken on 22 December 2004 and that the workers at the factory had earlier been on strike on two occasions during the months of November and December. The strike on 22 December started after the employer decided to fire five workers named Yadullah Jafari, Ali Kheirabadi, Zahed Nasiri, Shahram Chenareh and Mohammad Kali. 350 workers participated in the strike. They wanted the employer to reconsider this decision, but the employer refused. This led to a strike, where workers protested against management’s plans to dismiss more active and senior workers and replace them with workers on short-term temporary contracts not covered by the labour legislation.
46. 962. The workers were demanding:
47. – recognition of their right to strike;
48. – payment of their full salary, without pay for strike days being deducted;
49. – reinstatement of the dismissed workers;
50. – an end to the policy of using temporary contracts;
51. – an end to the threatening of workers by the agents of management and government;
52. – cancellation of the regulations set up by the “Disciplinary Committee”;
53. – full implementation of an existing job classification plan;
54. – respect for the dignity and rights of workers in the workplace;
55. – a self-service canteen, serving one warm meal a day;
56. – a healthy and hygienic work environment, especially a replacement of the poor ventilation equipment that made many workers ill; and
57. – medical treatments for close to 100 workers who were ill due to the highly polluted and unhygienic work environment.
58. 963. The ICFTU was informed that workers feared that security forces would be deployed at the factory as they had been in November. According to information received by the ICFTU, the workers elected a committee of workers to defend their rights. However, security forces and the employer were pressuring the members of the committee, and in particular Mr. Shis Amani, the chair of the committee, to end the strike. He was interrogated and threatened several times and only workers’ support had prevented his detention. Other workers’ representatives such as Messrs. Hadi Zarei, Iqbal Moradi, Hassan Hariati, Farshid Beheshti Zad and Ahmad Fatehi were also threatened with dismissal and arrest. Many workers had reportedly been expelled and worker activists were put under “immense pressure”. However, the committee managed to organize a strike fund and a crisis committee in case measures would be taken against the Committee of Workers.
59. 964. On 2 January, while the strike was still ongoing, the Committee in Support of the Striking Workers informed the ICFTU that a commission created by the Department of Labour with representatives from security forces, the Department of Labour, the management and the Ministry of Information (public security) had been formed. On 1 January, the Commission had threatened the striking workers that it would expel them all. However, on 6 January, the Commission negotiated for more than five hours with the workers’ representatives and reached an agreement. The negotiations took place in the presence of an agent from the Ministry of Information who refused to identify himself.
60. 965. According to information provided to the complainant, the striking workers agreed to go back to work on the condition that the employer and government authorities honour and start implementing the agreement within one month. A statement issued by the Committee in Support of the Striking Workers indicated that the agreement included the following terms:
61. (1) All lay-offs by the employer be stopped. Lay-offs would have to be approved by a commission comprised of the representatives of the management, the Provincial Governor, the Labour Ministry and the Committee for the Settlement of Disputes, and workers’ representatives.
62. (2) Temporary contracts would be signed on a six-month basis instead of the current three months.
63. (3) Health and safety conditions of the workplace would be examined.
64. (4) Wage arrears would be paid to workers immediately, including their wages for the 16 days of strike. This promise was reportedly made by the Ministry of Labour.
65. (5) Instead of self-service canteen providing one hot meal, workers would be paid 30,000 rials instead of the former 15,000 rials daily for meals and they would also be served milk and cake on a daily basis.
66. (6) The demand for reinstatement of six sacked workers was rejected but it was agreed that they would receive redundancy pay equivalent to three months’ wages for each year of service at the factory, plus allowances.
67. (7) A committee for implementation of a plan of job classification would be established and the workers on temporary contracts would be included in the plan. Underpayment from previous years would also be compensated.
68. Aftermath of the strike
69. 966. The ICFTU indicated that it has since been informed that representatives of the workers at the Kurdistan Textile Factory have been harassed and brought in for interrogation on 19 January by the Intelligence Ministry, following the agreement reached on 6 January. Mr. Shis Amani, the chair of the Workers Committee in Support of the Striking Workers and Mr. Hadi Zarei, have both been threatened. Mr. Fashid Beheshti Zad was threatened and accused of having ties with opposition political parties. Around the same time, Mr. Amani was also accused of having ties with political parties. The complainant was also informed that the authorities and the employer were trying to find excuses not to honour the agreement.
70. B. The Government’s replies
71. 967. In its communication dated 2 May 2004, the Government indicates that there were a certain number of ambiguities in the complaint concerning the incident in the village of Khatoonabad and the city of Shahr-e-Babak, which needed clarification. Given the sensitivity of the case, an independent inquiry team was set up under the mandate of President Khatami to investigate the case and report its findings directly to the President.
72. 968. With its communication dated 11 August 2004, the Government transmitted additional information on the situation surrounding the incidents in Shahr-e-Babak and Saqez, as well as on the efforts made by the Government to improve freedom of association and collective bargaining.
73. 969. The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs made inquiries about the incident through concerned governmental bodies so as to have access to details in order to communicate to the ILO a comprehensive report. These concerned bodies prepared and submitted reports, the summary of which is as follows.
74. Incident of Shahr-e-Babak
75. 970. In the course of constructing Khatoon Abad industrial copper complex (located some kilometres far from Shahr-e-Babak, in Khatoonabad village), some local inhabitants of the village were working for the above construction project as temporary construction workers. Over the past few years, these workers gradually began to expect to be permanently recruited once the complex was operative.
76. 971. As the construction project terminated and the subcontractors began to leave the site, temporary labour contracts also came to an end. Workers were informed of the termination of their temporary contracts. Their endeavours to become permanently recruited in the complex remained intact. Parallel to the settlement of the construction project by subcontractors, employment of skilled and specialized manpower was pursued and therefore the above local inhabitants who had worked as construction workers, were prevented from entering the complex.
77. 972. In reaction to this measure taken by the complex authorities to decrease the previous workforce, serious violence broke out in the area. Thus, preliminary nuclei of objection and opposition, mainly consisting of local inhabitants of Khatoonabad, were formed. The local inhabitants frequently gathered in front of the complex in protest of new employment policies and blocked the roads leading to the site preventing the entrance and exit of the employees. Complex authorities met with protestors and asked them to bring the case to the dispute settlement boards.
78. 973. Some protestors, who had not been patient enough to refer the matter to the dispute settlement boards, began to threaten to set the complex on fire. The police had no other choice but to use tear gas and water cannons to scatter them. With much regret, some protestors were gas-poisoned and some others injured; they were immediately taken to hospitals.
79. 974. In the course of this event and parallel to the violence inside the industrial complex, some opportunists, pursuing political considerations, concurrently tried to misuse the situation and shift the move toward political purposes and attacked the Governor’s Office in Shahr-e-Babak, broke the windows and destroyed some part of the office.
80. 975. This chaos later continued on main avenues of the city where rioters broke the windows of 12 banks and seriously damaged some residential buildings, the police station and cars. The invaders then moved toward the gas station and threatened to set it on fire. It was at this point that the police force had to come to the scene to defend public and private properties and safeguard the lives of citizens. The chaos was so great that the police had to use tear gas. At this point, some of the citizens were injured and later taken to the hospital. Some of the rioters were also arrested. Some of the detainees were released after investigations.
81. 976. A close look at the events in retrospect signifies the necessity to separate the workers’ protest in front of Khatoonabad industrial copper complex (located some kilometres from Shahr-e-Babak) from the chaos and riots happening inside Shahr-e-Babak. The latter, which was political in nature, followed non-democratic and non-work-related purposes.
82. 977. The Government observed in general that, like many other developed and developing countries, it was now facing the challenge of unemployment. To tackle this problem, the Government made its best efforts to effectively plan for job creation. Encouragement of foreign direct investment coupled with modification of relevant legislation, encouragement of domestic investment, facilitation of privatization, execution of policies encouraging employers to recruit more and various other plans were amongst policies and plans of the Government to increase job opportunities and expand supportive measures for the workforce. Although the Government considers the problems faced by workers as important and makes its best effort to settle them, it is fully aware of any political-based movements which are raised in support of workers’ rights.
83. 978. The Government has continuously facilitated the legitimate protests of the workers’ community and has seriously requested the police not to interfere in the above gatherings. Unfortunately, there have been some riotous elements in the past few years who stick to wrath and destruction of public properties. By misusing the workers’ demands, they try to deviate from their legitimate objection to their own political-based purposes. In the course of such events, the police had to intervene in order to prevent the destruction of public property.
84. 979. The Government has strengthened tripartism enormously over the past few years, reinforcing the role of social dialogue in its tripartite mandate. In this connection, technical cooperation on social dialogue with the ILO has taken place in the form of several seminars and training programmes.
85. 980. The Government has not and will not consider any work stoppage or strike on behalf of workers demanding labour-related rights as crisis, turbulence or disorder. In fact, in similar instances of dispute between workers and their employers, the Government has intervened itself to peacefully remove obstacles and has solved the problems. To this end, the fundamental principle of constructive dialogue has always been viewed by the national authorities as the starting point of dispute settlement.
86. 981. Recalling that during the strike a conflict began with a number of anti-regime insurgents who had misused the protest and destroyed public property, the Government states that the security forces decided to disperse the crowd with tear gas to ease the tension and prevent further disorder. However, the security forces were resisted by illegally armed insurgents and hence faced with no other choice but to resort to the use of force and gunshots in the situation where national security and order were indeed seriously threatened.
87. 982. The Government indicated that it fully considers the right to organize public meetings and processions as an important aspect of trade union rights, and wishes to assure that it has paid attention to the social and economic demands of workers and will certainly continue making endeavours to meet their requirements on a fair basis.
88. 983. In addition, during the incident of Shahr-e-Babak, a number of hooligans who caused disorder and clashed with security forces were arrested. It should be noted that none of the detainees were among the workers rallying in protest against the termination of their labour contracts. The arrested individuals were indeed the key instigators of violence with absolutely political purposes, not social or economic ones.
89. 984. The Government indicated that it would be grateful for any information that would demonstrate to the contrary that these had been arrests of ordinary workers, demanding labour-related rights, and it will investigate any such cases and report back to the Committee. Nevertheless, the Government considered that there should be a consensus on the distinction between political purposes and worker-related rallies. Economic and social grounds should not be misused for political purposes, as had been done by the instigators in the Shahr-e-Babak incident.
90. City of Saqez event
91. 985. Regarding the Saqez event, the Government considered that the Committee has not been well informed on specific aspects of the incident. The truth of the matter is that, on 1 May 2004, hundreds of workers and their families staged a peaceful rally and marched in the city of Saqez in order to celebrate the International Labour Day.
92. 986. However, according to the Government, a long time before the approach of 1 May, a number of members and advocates of the two non-elected and non-democratically banned political groups (the “Komala” Party and the Communist Party, both located in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Kurdistan and having a long history in opposing the Islamic Republic), had misused the International Labour Day and provoked workers’ sentiments in order to fan the flame and create tension.
93. 987. On 1 May, the members affiliated to these two groups mentioned above, joined the marchers in public gathering and disrupted the ceremony. In so doing, the public rally turned into a political movement rather than a labour one.
94. 988. The Government reiterated that it valued the right to organize public gatherings, particularly on the occasion of May Day, as an important aspect of human rights at work. However, during the May Day rally, the main advocates and also key figures of these politically banned organizations considered the labour gathering as a safe haven for inflaming tension and hence materializing their anti-regime objectives. They marched through the city of Saqez, clashed with police forces and created tension and disorder.
95. 989. In view of the gravity of the situation, and in order to ease tension, security forces intervened and arrested the individuals identified as the key figures of causing violence and crisis. All detainees were, however, released several days after the May Day rally.
96. 990. The Government asserted that it has always respected the principle of freedom of association and freedom of organizing labour-related gatherings and has taken great strides to improve workers’ social and economic lifestyle. As assured in respect of the Shahr-e-Babak event, no use of force towards work-related gatherings was made by the security forces in the May Day march and if even one single case of arrest of a labourer rallying on the occasion or for his or her fundamental rights at work is reported to the Committee, the case will be investigated and the results communicated to the Committee.
97. 991. The Government strongly considered that the basis for good governance in all labour-related issues was a well-functioning democratic system that ensures respect for human rights in general, and notably for basic civil liberties such as the right to enjoy security, integrity and collective freedoms, including freedom of expression and of association. The Government stated that it continued to make every effort to remove obstacles impeding the growth of representative organizations of workers and also employers and to promote fruitful social dialogue between its social partners. These are, in fact, fundamental conditions for the development of a vibrant civil society that reflects full diversity of views and interests.
98. 992. To this end however, the Government considered that top priority should be given to ensuring the appropriate framework within which labour-related concerns may promptly be settled through a legal merit system. To mitigate labour-related concerns, the Government is assisting workers’ and employers’ organizations to strengthen their capacities to play a greater and stronger role in prompting labour relations and the rights involved. In this line, a number of tripartite workshops and seminars in collaboration with the ILO have been held in Teheran and some other industrial cities particularly during the past three years. Furthermore, the Government has placed the question of crystallization of existing trade unions as a top priority of its agenda and is continuing to try to bring the legislation concerned into full conformity with international labour standards.
99. 993. Despite the efforts made and progress achieved, the Government shared the view that it needed to carry out much further work in this respect, including through joint projects with the ILO. In this respect, the Government recalled that over the past few years it has demonstrated a growing readiness and willingness for good cooperative relations with the ILO based on mutual respect, rapport and understanding. It further referred to visits it has and will receive from officials of the Standards and Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work Sector and assured the Committee that specifically during recent years the Government has spared no efforts, and will continue to do so, to materialize all fundamental rights at work. This is the natural result of its sincere commitment to uphold the rule of law and to empower civil society with civil liberties, including the rights of freedom of association and expression.
100. 994. In closing, while welcoming the ongoing cooperation trend, the Government reiterated that any further collaboration from the ILO on how best to upgrade fundamental principles and rights at work, including freedom of association, was highly welcomed and appreciated.
101. 995. In a communication dated 24 October 2004, the Government reiterated much of the information provided in its earlier communication and provided some more details. In this communication, the Government emphasized that the incidents occurring at each of these villages are of a very different nature and therefore set them out separately.
102. 996. As regards Khatoonabad, the Government recalled the background to this dispute and the difficulties arising from the temporary nature of the work of the first contractor, Consersium Contracting Company, and its engagement of unskilled construction workers on fixed-term temporary labour contracts, which had been mutually agreed between the employer and the workers concerned.
103. 997. The Government stated that as early as the year 2000, these casual workers engaged in industrial action demanding the conversion of their contracts into permanent ones. Conciliatory measures had been proposed to the casual workers, including unemployment benefits and re-recruitment for other phases of the project. Despite these envisaged measures, the employer legally terminated their contracts in 2003 at the completion of the plant’s construction. The Government argued that such action on the part of the employer in no way breached Iranian labour law or international labour standards and it would have been totally unacceptable to compel the employer to re-hire these workers.
104. 998. Regardless of the full settlement of entitlements, the unskilled casual workers organized further sit-ins and work stoppages at the plant for several days, blocking the main entry routes and preventing access to the plant’s staff. While the protesting workers were summoned to discuss the issue peacefully, they showed no interest and continued to block the main entry doors and routes leading to the plant and threatened to set the complex on fire. This created an unusually severe situation associated with an entire lack of security.
105. 999. The Government stated that the seriousness and the urgency of the matter led the police forces to intervene in the crisis, which stretched beyond the village of Khatoonabad to the city of Shahr-e-Babak. The Government asserted that the atmosphere of labour-related protest switched into a politically motivated one, which was both unprovoked and unpeaceful. The incitement of destruction and disruption of private and public facilities causing damage or trouble to ordinary people, whether it is for social, economic or political activity, has no justification whatsoever. The strike became violent when the tension exceeded the scope of the labour-related grievance and was driven by political motivations by some non-labour individuals who, with a pre-orchestrated objective, misused the unrest and stirred unpleasant feelings among workers, provoking them to resort to immoral tactics and violence.
106. 1000. In the case of Shahr-e-Babak, the city Governor’s office was attacked and windows broken. This chaos stretched to the main avenues of the city where rioters broke the windows of 12 banks and caused serious damage to some residential buildings, the police station and cars. They then moved toward the petrol station, which they threatened to set on fire. At this point, the police came to the scene to defend public and private property and to safeguard the lives of citizens. Due to the strong resistance of the mixed group of workers and ‘invaders’, the security forces were compelled to intervene and use force to defuse the growing tension and unrest, but only in cases where law and order and public interest were seriously threatened.
107. 1001. The Government specified that, while it is true that this unfortunate incident in the violence-wrecked city of Shahr-e-Babak left four dead, none of these were among the workers employed in the plant’s construction project. According to the Government, this was further proof that the incident erupted on the basis of pre-orchestrated political objectives, lacking social or economic grounds.
108. 1002. In addition, the Government referred to the outcome of the investigations, which demonstrated that one of the main reasons for the flare-up of the riot was also the existence of local and ethnic challenges among the people of Khatoonabad and Shahr-e-Babak. While stating that it was an incontrovertible fact that the workers engaged in the construction work of the plant had first social and economic grievances, the Government added that the labour protest shifted into an ethnic conflict, with many culprits behind the violence having political motives. Furthermore, the Government stated that the protests and their subsequent unrest was coincident with the election campaign for the Iranian Parliament, which was touched, influenced and inspired by the local ethnic challenges and the general political atmosphere in the country.
109. 1003. As regards the detention of seven individuals involved in the rally in Saqez on May Day, the Government reiterated that neither the disruption of the rally, nor the subsequent related arrests occurred for anti-trade union reasons, but rather for the creation of great and serious social discomfort and destabilization of the city. The Government pointed out in this respect that thousands of Iranian workers and their families in many large cities carried out peaceful rallies on May Day without interference.
110. 1004. There are, however, particular circumstances in respect of the city of Saqez due to the various tribes and religious minorities with different languages, religions and ethnic origins in the Kurdistan province. These huge ethnic and tribal challenges carry enormous potential for social unrest. In addition, the organization of the May Day rally was pre-orchestrated well ahead of time by a non-elected group, which calls itself the ‘Workers Council for May Day’. This action was associated with some unusual moves and atrocities aimed at challenging the Government and signalling their preferred political approach. Thus, the Iranian intelligence was observing the indicators to determine whether this was a normal activity and discovered that this event was a pretext for holding a protest meeting with political purposes.
111. 1005. Intelligence also revealed the involvement of many of the Workers Council members in the banned “Komala” Party and the Communist Party, which have a long history of opposition with the Islamic Republic and have been trying to fan the flame of discord throughout post-revolutionary times. By tapping into public concern over social difficulties, the key figures of the Workers Council were busy convincing people, including the working strata, to attend its politically motivated demonstrations.
112. 1006. On 1 May 2004, the events in Saqez were peaceful until a number of political opposition figures staged a political public meeting and started to chant anti-regime slogans, without any social or economic background. This sparked widespread tension and violence. The Government emphasizes that politically motivated issues have to be marginalized from social or economic grounds. Nevertheless, the Workers Council still makes no clear demarcation between labour-related activities and politically motivated moves, which is also the case for the two banned political parties.
113. 1007. In addition, while national law requires that political action obtain prior approval from the competent authorities, the Workers Council dropped all attempts to obtain permission for the meeting. The security forces were obliged to intervene and due to the strong confrontation on behalf of the political opposition groups, 40 individuals were arrested, although many of them were released that same day. None of the ordinary workers or their relatives were among the remaining detainees, while seven individuals referred to by the complainant have been held in custody, as they were truly responsible for contributing to create insecurity and tension. The detentions were made on political grounds and not for anti-union or even social reasons. This was further corroborated by the fact that Iranian intelligence has uncovered evidence showing that four of the detainees are active clandestine agents of the banned political parties. Their files were pending before the Iranian public court, the required investigations were under way, and their natural and legal rights will be upheld during the trial, the outcome of which will be communicated in due course.
114. 1008. In conclusion, the Government gave its assurances that it will uphold the principle of democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association, but added that irrational and unreasonable tactics used to express political views did not comply with Iranian laws or with international labour standards and should be condemned. While the Government held international Labour Day in high regard as an important aspect of human rights at work, no one should be allowed to exploit labour-related occasions for political purposes.
115. 1009. While the Government has not ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, it affirmed its commitment to respect and promote fundamental principles and rights at work. To this effect, the question of bringing related legislation into full conformity with international labour standards was a top priority of the Labour Ministry’s mandate and the Government has been in regular contact with the Office as to the measures necessary in this regard.
116. 1010. In a communication dated 16 February 2005, the Government indicated that it had contacted the Public Prosecutor’s Office and National Police in December 2004 in order to obtain additional and follow-up information on the Saqez incident and on the state of investigation. The Government also requested the Public Prosecutor’s Office to ensure that an independent and thorough investigation was carried out into the allegations concerning alleged suppression of the rally and the detention of demonstrators in May 2004.
117. 1011. The Public Prosecutor’s Office and National Police supplied the following additional information on the incident. According to the judicial authority, on 1 May 2004, 50 persons were arrested for instigating illegal and violent anti-regime demonstrations. The law concerned provided that in order to hold demonstrations and rallies prior permission from the Interior Ministry needed to be obtained. Forty-three of those arrested were released by the investigating authority, after being questioned. Seven individuals suspected of being engaged in a variety of banned activities, remained in custody. The Public Prosecutor’s Office indicated that the engagement of the seven persons concerned was, based on political motivations, organized and cunning.
118. 1012. According to the judiciary, the pre-trial investigation indicated that these individuals were suspected to be part of the politically banned group of “Komala”, a proscribed sect of ultra-leftists violent groups in the Islamic Republic of Iran who had instigated a number of social unrests and incidents in the past. The “Komala” is at present affiliated to a banned Communist Party.
119. 1013. The investigating body was convinced, by investigating past cases concerning “Komala”, that the seven suspects of this case were at the rally as a pretext for their continued political agenda. They held an assembly in Saqez on 1 May 2004 under the pretext of the Labour Day merely to protest against the regime in an effort to discredit the ruling establishment. The body responsible for investigation reiterated that the politically motivated demonstration had been carried out in violation of the law, as prior permission should have been obtained.
120. 1014. The judicial authority further referred to Convention No. 87, which states that “in exercising the rights provided for in this Convention, workers, employers and also their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the law of the land”. The judiciary rejected the complainant’s assertion that the arrest of the defendants was illegal or unjust, as such arrest was conducted in conformity with the provisions of the law and was on the basis of objective evidence which proved that there was a reasonable cause to suspect that the acts of the defendants constituted a breach of law and order. The judiciary particularly drew attention to the fact that the suspects were arrested not for carrying out trade union activities but for committing violent assemblies. They are charged with acting against and insulting the Islamic system. They also have a history of repeatedly acting against the Government and its policies. According to the judicial authority, the seven defendants were released on bail and are now free. Their trial has been ongoing at a local court in Saqez.
121. 1015. According to the National Police, the application for detention was due to the unreasonable and violent behaviour of the seven individuals who intended to unleash public demonstrations at national level, involving roadblocks and closure of streets aiming at causing social chaos and disorder. The police report on these events stated that the individuals in question, associated to the “Komala”, indulged in violent acts leading to disruption of law and order. Its report provided details that the police had intervened in a timely manner and had taken appropriate action to maintain law and order.
122. 1016. Both the Judiciary and the police have ascertained that allegations of misconduct by them were false and baseless. The investigating authorities wish to draw the attention of the Government as well as the ILO to the political aspects of this case. Additional information had also been received from the High Central for Islamic Labour Councils about the detention of the seven individuals, which confirmed the reports of the Judiciary and National Police.
123. 1017. As regards the search of the residence of one of the defendants (Mr. Mahmoud Salehi) and the confiscation of items and documents to which reference was made by the complainant, the investigating authority acknowledged that it searched some places, including the residence of the suspect, in the process of investigating this case and that each place searched was believed to be where the material evidence concerning the case existed. All places that were searched were specified in the search warrant. The investigating authority acknowledged that it seized a computer and documents during the course of the abovementioned searches and added that each item seized was specified as an item in the search warrant, as these items were believed to have something to do with the case.
124. 1018. Furthermore, the investigating authority stated that giving consideration to the fact that the seizure inevitably entailed restrictions on property, it paid the required attention to the rights of the person involved in this case. Thus, the investigating authority reiterated that it never seized any goods or documents for which there was no need for seizure. According to judiciary, all searches and seizures were completely lawful and proper. Therefore, the investigating authority rejected the assertion of the complaint that the defendants were being prosecuted simply for their participation in the 1 May rally.
125. 1019. There was reasonable and firm suspicion, based on their past activities, that the individuals in question were and still are engaged in unlawful anti-government activities and are associated to the politically banned “Komala” group. The investigating authority noted that the judicial system was currently considering the cases of the seven defendants and assured that the process would be conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
126. 1020. Mr. Mohsen Hakimi is charged with being associated to the illegal “Komala” party. He also has links with the leaders of a banned Communist Party and has taken part in an illegal gathering, with political motivations. His case was posted for hearing in October 2004, by the local court and postponed in order to further consider all aspects of the allegations. Mr. Mohsen Hakimi’s hearing was held on 17 January 2005 in the First Circuit of Saqez Court in Kurdistan Province. At this point, no definitive decision has been reached by the court.
127. 1021. The body responsible for the investigation reassured that no one would be subjected to sanctions for the mere fact of organizing or participating in May Day celebrations and activities. In fact, on the same day, a number of different official and non-official gatherings and events took place in various parts of the country to mark Labour Day, none of which was subjected to restrictions and sanctions.
128. 1022. The Islamic Republic of Iran has ratified neither Convention No. 87 nor Convention No. 98; however, it should be noted that the Government was undertaking appropriate consultations with workers’ and employers’ organizations with regard to further elaboration and adaptation of the relevant labour legislation (for example, the amending of Chapter 6 of the Labour Law). The Government reiterated that during recent years, efforts had been made to enhance the trade union environment, with increased respect for trade union pluralism. The Government concluded that it would follow up this matter and transmit any further developments in the case that are received from the investigating authorities.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1023. The Committee recalls that the allegations in this case concern two separate clashes with government security forces. The first incident occurred on 24 January 2004 with respect to a strike in Khatoonabad, extending out to Shahr-e-Babak. Several workers were arrested and at least four were killed during the clashes, with a number of others seriously injured. The second incident refers to a peaceful May Day rally in Saqez, which ended in the arrest and detention of some 50 people. New allegations were received from the complainant concerning the arrest of trade union leaders of the Teachers’ Guild Association and interventions in a strike at the Kurdistan Textile Factory in Sanandaj. Finally, the complainant alleges the proposal and adoption of legislation that would restrict the trade union rights of a large number of workers.
2. Khatoonabad and Shahr-e-Babak
3. 1024. The Committee notes that the complainant’s allegations and the Government’s reply basically concord in respect of the circumstances surrounding the strike undertaken by the workers at the copper smelting plant in Khatoonabad prior to the police intervention and the social nature of the demands that were made by the workers. The complainant further alleges that, due to the persistence of the sit in, the Provincial Security Council decided to bring in special police forces. The complainant adds that, according to certain sources, these forces had been brought in to break up the strike and they had attacked the workers in Khatoonabad. Later the confrontation spread to Shahr-e-Babak where four workers were killed and others injured. The complainant also refers to contrary indications coming from Iranian workers’ organizations in exile, which stated that the workers were shot dead in front of the plant at Khatoonabad.
4. 1025. The Committee notes that the complainant considers there is sufficient reason to believe that the confrontation began when the police used force to break the strike. In addition, the complainant raises the concern that subsequent demonstrations protesting these clashes led to further arrests. Eighty people were said to have been arrested and 15 kept for interrogation.
5. 1026. As regards the incidents at Khatoonabad, the Government first recalls that the demands of the casual workers in Khatoonabad revolved around their desire to convert their temporary contracts into permanent ones and argues that the employer had legally terminated their contracts at the completion of the plant’s construction and had not breached any national or international law. It further asserts that the situation became serious when some protesters who had been blocking the roads leading to the complex prevented the employees from entering and exiting the site and began to threaten to set the complex on fire. Thus, according to the Government, the police had no choice but to use tear gas and water cannons. The Government regrets that some of the protesters were injured and states that they were immediately taken to hospitals.
6. 1027. The Government adds, however, that the incidents in Shahr-e-Babak, distinct from the labour protests at Khatoonabad, were caused by certain opportunists who were pursuing political considerations and who damaged property in the city. In light of the damage caused and following threats to set the gas station on fire, the police force was obliged to protect the lives of citizens and had no choice but to use tear gas. According to the Government, given that the security forces were resisted by illegally armed insurgents, they had no choice but to use force and gun shots to defuse the growing tension and unrest, but only in cases where law and order and public interest were seriously threatened. Some citizens were injured. Rioters were arrested and some detainees were released after investigation.
7. 1028. The Government insists that the incident at the copper complex and the incident in Shahr-e-Babak must be looked at separately, as the latter was political in nature. It further emphasizes that none of the detainees had been among the workers rallying over the termination of their labour contracts and those who were arrested were the key instigators of the violence with purely political purposes. While the Government admits that the unfortunate incident in Shahr-e-Babak left four dead, it asserts that none of these were among the workers employed in the plant’s construction project. The Government adduces with this further proof that the incident erupted on the basis of pre-orchestrated political objectives, lacking social or economic grounds.
8. 1029. While taking due note of the reply made by the Government and the distinction it makes between the incident at the copper complex and that which occurred in Shahr-e-Babak, the Committee regrets that the information provided is not sufficiently detailed to permit it to glean a full picture of what actually occurred. As regards, in particular, the clashes at the Khatoonabad copper complex that the Government confirms stemmed from a labour dispute, the Committee notes that the police resorted to the use of tear gas to disperse the protesters. The Committee recalls that, in cases in which the dispersal of public meetings or demonstrations by the police for reasons of public order or other similar reasons has involved loss of life or serious injury, it attaches special importance to the circumstances being fully investigated immediately through an independent inquiry and to a regular legal procedure being followed to determine the justification for the action taken by the police and to determine responsibilities [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 148]. While noting with interest that the Government did institute an investigation into this matter, the Committee regrets that the information provided in the Government’s reply refers only to an unspecified threat of arson, without any details as to who may have made these threats, alternative measures initially used to control the situation, any subsequent charges for criminal acts or court judgements relating to such charges. Regrettably, in these circumstances, the Committee has insufficient information to determine whether the recourse to force in respect of the protesting workers at the copper complex was justified or not and requests the Government to provide further information on any criminal charges brought and court judgements rendered in respect of the threats of violence and arson at Khatoonabad.
9. 1030. As regards the four persons killed during these clashes, the Committee notes that the information provided by the complainant and that of the Government do not concur as to whether these persons were actually workers involved in the protest over social demands, or whether they were involved in a political protest, as stated by the Government. In the absence of any clarity as to the circumstances surrounding these regrettable deaths, the Committee recalls that, in cases in which the dispersal of public meetings by the police has involved loss of life or serious injury, the Committee has attached special importance to the circumstances being fully investigated immediately through an independent inquiry and to a regular legal procedure being followed to determine the justification for the action taken by the police and to determine responsibilities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 52]. Noting that the Government has investigated this matter, the Committee requests it to provide further details concerning the circumstances in which these four persons were killed, as well as the believed reasons for their involvement in these events.
10. 1031. It wishes further to draw the Government’s attention to the general principle that the authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened. The intervention of the forces of law and order should be in due proportion to the danger to law and order that the authorities are attempting to control and governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the danger entailed by the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations which might result in a disturbance of the peace [see Digest, op. cit., para. 137]. The Committee trusts that all necessary measures will be taken in the future to ensure that excessive force is not used when controlling demonstrations.
11. 1032. As regards the events at Shahr-e-Babak, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that these protests were parallel to those which took place at the copper complex and, contrary to the latter, were undertaken for purely political purposes and resulted in important damage to public property. Indeed, while confirming that it is an incontrovertible fact that the workers engaged in the construction work of the plant first had social and economic grievances, the Government adds that the labour protest shifted into an ethnic conflict, with many culprits behind the violence having political motives.
12. 1033. In light of the complainant’s references to public information that some 80 persons had been arrested overall and 15 kept for interrogation following further protests against the police intervention, the Committee requests the Government to establish an independent investigation into the matter and to provide further information on whether any persons arrested in connection with the incidents in Khatoonabad and Shahr-e-Babak are still being detained or charged in relation to these two incidents and, if so, to provide details in this respect. The Committee further requests the complainant to provide any additional information available to it which might link the spread of the protest action to Shahr-e-Babak with the workers’ demands on social and economic matters.
13. Saqez
14. 1034. The Committee notes that the complainant’s allegations concern the arrest and detention of some 50 participants in a peaceful May Day rally in Saqez. In particular, the complainant refers to Mahmoud Salehi, labour leader of the Trade Association of Saqez Bakers, and Mr. Hakimi, a well-known member of the Iranian Writers’ Association, who had met with representatives from the complainant organization just two days before their arrest.
15. 1035. Following their arrests on 1 May 2004, Messrs. Salehi, Jalal Hosseini, Borhan Divangar and Mohammad Abdlpoor and three other labour leaders were only released on 12 May after heavy international pressure. The complainant states that, at that time, they had been mainly accused of illegal assembly. Although their release was contingent on bail being paid, no known charges had been brought. Subsequently, on 30 June 2004, summonses were served on Messrs. Salehi, Hosseini, Divangar and Abdlpoor, charging them with collaboration with the banned leftist political organization “Komala” based in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Kurdistan. Summonses concerning the same charges were served upon Mohsen Hakimi, Esmail Khodam and Hadi Tanoumand, also arrested while celebrating Labour Day. The complainant asserts that, to the best of its knowledge, these seven labour leaders and independent labour activists do not have any links with political parties. The complainant adds that it is deeply concerned that their prosecution may be directly related to the contacts they had with representatives from its organization.
16. 1036. According to the complainant, the charges brought against these seven labour leaders merely represented an indirect way of victimizing them for their labour rights activism. The charges of sympathizing with “Komala” are routinely used by the judiciary against progressive labour, social and human rights activists. The Committee notes the detailed information furnished by the complainant on the professional and trade union background of these arrested labour leaders, as well as on their current roles within the trade union movement. It further notes the complainant’s allegation that these leaders have been continuously harassed for the exercise of their trade union activities.
17. 1037. For its part, the Government confirms that hundreds of workers and their families had initially staged a peaceful rally and march in Saqez on May Day. The Government adds, however, that the organization of the May Day rally was pre-orchestrated well ahead of time by a non-elected group, which calls itself the “Workers Council for May Day”. Iranian intelligence discovered that this event was a pretext for holding a protest meeting with political purposes. The Government emphasizes that such action must also be considered within the framework of the huge ethnic and tribal challenges in the region that carry enormous potential for social unrest. In addition, the Government states that Iranian intelligence has also revealed the involvement of many of the Workers Council members in the banned “Komala” Party and the Communist Party, which, it adds, have a long history of opposition with the Islamic Republic. Thus, members and advocates of two non-elected and non-democratic banned political groups (the “Komala” Party and the Communist Party) joined the marchers and disrupted the ceremony, turning the rally into a political movement rather than a labour one. According to the Government, in order to ease tension, the security forces intervened and arrested individuals identified as the key figures of causing violence and crisis. The Government adds that all detainees were released several days later.
18. 1038. The Committee further notes that the Government contacted the Public Prosecutor’s Office and National Police in December 2004 in order to obtain additional and follow-up information on the Saqez incident and on the state of investigation. According to the judicial authority, on 1 May 2004, 50 persons were arrested for instigating illegal and violent anti-regime demonstrations; 43 were released, whereas the seven persons referred to above were suspected of being involved in banned political activities, using the rally as a pretext for their political agenda.
19. 1039. The Committee notes that the Government has provided only very general indications that the rally and march that started out as a celebration of International Labour Day, ultimately turned into a political movement. The Government has not provided any specific information as to the manner in which this peaceful rally became violent, nor as to the actual necessity of intervention by the security forces. No specifics were given as to the violent nature of these demonstrations. As to the illegality, the Committee notes that the Government refers to the law providing that the prior approval of the Interior Ministry is necessary in order to hold demonstrations and rallies and the judiciary states generally that the demonstration was a pretext to protest against the regime. As to the general assertions by the Government that these actions were political in nature and not social and economic, the Committee recalls that the organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic interests and occupational interests should be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and standards of living [see Digest, op. cit., para. 480]. While the information available to the Committee is insufficient for it to determine whether the May Day rally in Saqez actually evolved into a purely political rally beyond the Committee’s mandate, asserted by the Government, the Committee wishes to recall the importance it attaches to the principle that the right to organize public meetings and processions, particularly on the occasion of May Day, constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights [see Digest, op. cit., para. 134] and trusts that the Government will ensure full respect for this principle in the future.
20. 1040. As regards the charges brought against Messrs. Salehi, Hosseini, Divangar, Abdlpoor, Hakimi, Khodkam and Tanoumand – all of whom had participated in the May Day rally and been arrested at the time – for collaborating with a banned political organization, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the seven individuals referred to by the complainant have been held in custody, as they were truly responsible for contributing to create insecurity and tension. According to the Government, these detentions were made on political grounds and not for anti-union or social reasons, a fact which the Government states, is further corroborated by evidence uncovered by Iranian intelligence showing that the detainees are active clandestine agents of the banned political parties. The Government adds that their cases are before the courts, the required investigations are under way, and their natural and legal rights will be upheld during the trial, the outcome of which will be communicated in due course.
21. 1041. The Committee notes, however, the complainant’s allegations concerning the closed nature of the trials and the serious breaches of due process. The Committee recalls that the absence of guarantees of due process of law may lead to abuses and result in trade union officials being penalized by decisions that are groundless. It may also create a climate of insecurity and fear which may affect the exercise of trade union rights. [See Digest, op. cit., para. 106.] The Committee requests the Government to reply to the complainant’s allegations in this respect and to ensure that due process is fully guaranteed during these trials.
22. 1042. As regards more specifically the allegations of search and seizure of documents in the home of Mr. Salehi, the Committee notes the concerns raised by the complainant that this search may have been related to its visit just a few days before to Mr. Salehi’s home. The Committee notes on the other hand from the Government that the search of Mr. Salehi’s home and the seizure of documents found there were carried out in full conformity with the search warrant. The Committee notes with concern, however, that, according to the complainant, two of the documents used as evidence against Mr. Salehi included an article he had written on preparing a cost of living index and a statement he had made condemning the killing of several striking workers in Khatoonabad in January 2005, both of which constitute the exercise of legitimate trade union activities. The Committee further notes with deep concern the allegations that the prosecution had held Mr. Salehi’s contacts and meeting with an ICFTU mission against him as further evidence of his alleged crimes, as well as the complainant’s more general fears that the arrest of these individuals might be linked to their contacts with representatives of the complainant organization when they were in the country.
23. 1043. While noting the Government’s indication that Messrs. Salehi, Hosseini, Divangar, Abdlpoor, Hakimi, Khodkam and Tanoumand were charged in relation to their activities in a banned political organization, the Committee further observes that the Government also refers to matters directly related to the Labour Day demonstration and, in particular, to the lack of required approval for this march from the Interior Ministry. In these circumstances, and given from the paragraph above that some of the proof used in some of these trials was clearly related to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities, the Committee cannot conclude that the arrests of Messrs. Salehi, Hosseini, Divangar, Abdlpoor, Hakimi, Khodkam and Tanoumand and the trials currently under way are wholly unrelated to their trade union activities. In this respect, and recalling that workers should enjoy the right to peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests [see Digest, op. cit., para. 132], the Committee requests the Government to ensure that all charges related to the organization of the Labour Day march and the peaceful participation therein, even if it took place without prior approval, are immediately dropped.
24. 1044. Finally, as regards the Government’s indication that these persons are being charged with association with a banned political organization and the complainant’s contention that such charges are merely a pretext for victimizing labour rights’ activists, the Committee wishes to emphasize that in cases where the complainants alleged that trade union leaders or workers had been arrested for trade union activities, and the Government’s replies amounted to general denials of the allegation or were simply to the effect that the arrests were made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security or for common law crimes, the Committee has followed the rule that the Government concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests, particularly in connection with the legal or judicial proceedings instituted as a result thereof and the result of such proceedings, in order to be able to make a proper examination of the allegations. [see Digest, op. cit., para. 98.] While noting that the Government has made an effort to obtain information from the judicial authorities and the police in respect of the incidents involved in this case, the Committee can only observe that the indications provided remain quite general. In light of the contradiction between the Government and the complainant as to the true reasons behind these arrests and their eventual link to trade union activities, the Committee requests the Government to provide it with precise and detailed information on the specific charges brought against Messrs. Salehi, Hosseini, Divangar, Abdlpoor, Hakimi, Khodkam and Tanoumand and, in particular, to transmit copies of the judicial sentences in their cases as soon as they are handed down.
25. 1045. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information in reply to the additional allegations made by the complainant in its communication dated 7 February 2005 concerning the arrest of trade union leaders of the Teachers’ Guild Association, interventions in a strike at the Kurdistan Textile Factory and subsequent harassment of the workers’ representatives and the proposal and adoption of legislation that would restrict the trade union rights of a large number of workers.