Informe provisional - Informe núm. 391, Octubre 2019

1. 74. The Committee last examined this case (submitted in March 2017) at its June 2018 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 386th Report, paras 69–85, approved by the Governing Body at its 333rd Session (June 2018)].
2. 75. Since there has been no reply from the Government, the Committee has been obliged to postpone its examination of the case on several occasions. At its meeting in June 2019 [see 389th Report, para. 6], the Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government indicating that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body (1972), it could present a report on the substance of the case, even if the requested information or observations had not been received in due time. To date, the Government has not sent any information.
3. 76. Afghanistan has not ratified 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 77. In its previous examination of the case in June 2018, the Committee made the following recommendations on the matters still pending [see 386th Report, para. 85]:
   • (a) The Committee urges the Government to provide its observations on the complainant’s allegations without delay so that it may examine this question in full knowledge of the facts and, in particular, to indicate the exact reasons for the alleged transfer of the complainant’s property under state ownership. In the meantime, in view of the significant risk that such measures can have on trade union activities, the Committee requests the Government to suspend the application of the August 2016 decree ordering confiscation of the complainant’s property pending any judicial review and to ensure that any property already seized without a valid court order is returned to the complainant.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the 2016 decree can indeed lead to administrative intervention in or control over trade union affairs and whether, in particular, administrative suspension or dissolution of a trade union could be a possible consequence of the review undertaken and, if so, invites the Government to amend the 2016 decree to ensure that this is not possible.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed observations on the allegations contained in the ITUC communication: intensified efforts of the Government to confiscate and take over the legitimately acquired properties of the NUAWE, including recent attempts at violent takeover and occupation of the NUAWE offices by the police and the armed forces, the freezing of the union’s bank accounts without a judicial authorization, failure to renew its license, as well as failure to engage with the union and the hindering of freedom of expression and press.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 78. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint in March 2017, the Government has still not replied to the complainant’s allegations even though it has been requested several times, including through two urgent appeals [see 384th Report, para. 6 and 389th Report, para. 6]. The Committee requests the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
2. 79. Hence, in accordance with the applicable procedural rules [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (1972)], the Committee is once again obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without being able to take account of the information which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 80. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for this freedom in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident that, if the procedure protects governments from unreasonable accusations, governments, on their side, will recognize the importance of presenting, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations made against them [see First Report, 1952, para. 31].
4. 81. The Committee recalls that this case concerns allegations of confiscation by the Government of legitimately acquired trade union premises and property without a court order, including attempts at violent takeover and occupation of the NUAWE offices by the police and the armed forces, as well as the freezing of the union’s bank accounts, failure to renew its licence and the hindering of freedom of expression and press. Given the seriousness of these allegations, the Committee wishes to emphasize that it is stated in the resolution on trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 54th Session (1970), that the right to adequate protection of trade union property is one of those civil liberties which are essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights. The confiscation of trade union property by the authorities, without a court order, constitutes an infringement of the right of trade unions to own property and undue interference in trade union activities. The occupation or sealing of trade union premises should be subject to independent judicial review before being undertaken by the authorities in view of the significant risk that such measures may paralyse trade union activities. The entry by police or military forces into trade union premises without a judicial warrant constitutes a serious and unjustifiable interference in trade union activities [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, paras 275, 288, 287 and 280]. The Committee also wishes to underline that workers’ organizations have the right to freely organize their administration and activities without interference from the authorities. It recalls that measures of suspension or dissolution by the administrative authority constitute serious infringements of the principles of freedom of association [see Compilation, op. cit., para. 986] and that the freezing of union bank accounts may constitute serious interference by the authorities in trade union activities [see Compilation, op. cit., para. 707].
5. 82. In the absence of information from the Government on the above allegations, the Committee finds itself obliged to reiterate the conclusions and recommendations it made when it examined this case at its meeting in June 2018 [see 386th Report, paras 69–85].