Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 44, 1960

1. 21. The complaint of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions is contained in three communications dated respectively 30 July, 3 August and 10 September 1959, and that of the World Federation of Trade Unions in two communications dated 4 July and 15 August 1959.
2. 22. When it adopted the 29th Report of the Committee at its 140th Session (November 1958), the Governing Body decided I that it would thenceforth draw a distinction between urgent and less urgent cases and would, in respect of urgent cases, take an immediate decision on reports submitted to it by the Committee. As a general but not exclusive criterion, the Governing Body adopted the principle that matters involving human life or personal freedom, or new or changing conditions affecting the freedom of action of a trade union movement as a whole, should be regarded as urgent. In order to ensure that urgent cases shall be handled with proper expedition, the Governing Body decided:
   • (a) that the special attention of the government would be called, when the complaint was communicated to it, to the fact that the case falls within the category of cases regarded by the Governing Body as urgent and that the government would be specially requested on behalf of the Governing Body to furnish for this reason a particularly speedy reply in regard to the urgent aspects of the case ;
   • (b) that cases of urgency would be dealt with by the Committee on a priority basis ;
   • (c) that the Committee would at each session adopt as early as possible in the course of the session its report on urgent cases to facilitate the immediate consideration of the report by the Governing Body ;
   • (d) that, while the case remained under consideration, the Committee would be authorised in urgent cases to make appropriate provisional recommendation for the protection of the parties concerned.
3. 23. As the complaints referred to in paragraph 1 above contain allegations concerning matters involving human life and personal freedom, they were communicated to the French Government on 28 July and 21 September 1959 in accordance with the above procedure for dealing with urgent cases.
4. 24. At its meeting in Geneva on 9 and 10 November 1959, the Committee, not then having received the French Government's observations, submitted certain conclusions to the Governing Body in its 38th Report, with a view to their being examined immediately by the Governing Body at its 143rd Session (Geneva, 17-20 November 1959), in accordance with the procedure for dealing with urgent cases. On 16 November 1959, the French Government forwarded its observations, received by the Office on 17 November. The Committee met again on 19 November 1959 and submitted its 42nd Report to the Governing Body. In these circumstances, the Governing Body did not discuss or pronounce upon the conclusions contained in the Committee's 38th Report, but adopted the Committee's 42nd Report, in paragraph 7 of which the Committee stated that, having made a preliminary examination of the reply of the French Government and considering it necessary to examine more fully the reply which had been received and certain further information which the Committee proposed to seek from the French Government, it would continue to treat the case as one of urgency, and recommended the Governing Body to consider it further at its next session on the basis of a further report from the Committee. The Committee's request for further information on certain aspects of the case was conveyed to the French Government by the Director-General in a letter dated 24 November 1959. The French Government furnished further information in a communication dated 22 January 1960. The Committee, therefore, is now in a position to resume its consideration of the case and to report thereon to the Governing Body.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Detention and Death of Mr. Aïssat Idir, General Secretary of the U.G.T.A.
  25. 25 In its communication dated 4 July 1959, the World Federation of Trade Unions declared that Mr. Aïssat Idir, General Secretary of the U.G.T.A, was interned in May 1956 on account of his trade union activities and transferred in May 1957 to Algiers, where he was interrogated and tortured before being moved on to other camps, finally being moved and held in the civil prison in Algiers, in September 1958, on a charge of endangering the external security of the French State. On 12 January 1959, declares the W.F.T.U, he was brought to trial before the Permanent Tribunal of the French Armed Forces in Algiers and, on 13 January, was acquitted. Nevertheless, even though acquitted, he was not set free. The complainant declares that in the two following months neither his family nor his lawyers were allowed to contact him, all representations made to obtain permission to visit him being refused by the French authorities, and that when his lawyer at last saw him he found that his legs had been burned by torture. The complainant asked for immediate I.L.O intervention on the ground that Mr. Aïssat Idir's life was in danger.
  26. 26 On 28 July 1959 the complaint of the W.F.T.U was transmitted by the Director-General to the French Government for its observations. In his letter, the Director-General pointed out that under the procedure for the examination of allegations of infringements of trade union rights cases involving human life or personal freedom, such as the present case, are classified as falling within the category of cases regarded by the Governing Body as urgent. In accordance with the procedure laid down for dealing with such cases, the Director-General requested the Government to furnish a particularly speedy reply.
  27. 27 On 30 July 1959, the I.C.F.T.U informed the I.L.O that Mr. Aïssat Idir had died in the military hospital in Algiers in circumstances which required impartial investigation. This communication was amplified by the I.C.F.T.U in its later communications dated 3 August and 10 September 1959.
  28. 28 The I.C.F.T.U refers, in its communication dated 3 August 1959, to the same points as does the W.F.T.U in connection with events up to the acquittal of Mr. Aïssat Idir on 13 January 1959, and in turn alleges that he was still detained after his acquittal and that no contact with him was permitted and that the authorities refused to permit the entry of the General Secretary of the Swiss Federation of Trade Unions, whom the I.C.F.T.U had requested to go to Algiers to see him. The I.C.F.T.U claims that Mr. Aïssat Idir's lawyer was at last told by the authorities that Mr. Aïssat Idir had been transferred to the military hospital in Algiers, various contradictory reasons for this being given-that he had tried to commit suicide by opening a vein, that he had set fire to his bed, and that he had contracted tuberculosis. When his lawyer saw him, it is alleged, he found that Mr. Aïssat Idir had serious burns on his legs but denied having made any attempt to commit suicide. The complaining organisation declares that all its representations to the President and the Prime Minister of France to secure the liberation of Mr. Aïssat Idir and his transfer to a hospital in France met with no response. Mr. Aïssat Idir died on 26 July 1959. According to the complainants the authorities in Algiers put out a statement that on 17 January 1959 Mr. Aïssat Idir's bed caught fire and he suffered burns, that he said that he had accidentally set fire to the bed, and that he died despite every effort by the doctors to save him.
  29. 29 The complainant goes on to refer to certain other developments subsequent to the death of Mr. Aïssat Idir and to statements made by Mr. Aïssat Idir's lawyer, Maitre Henri Rolin, Attorney of the Court of Appeal in Brussels, Belgian Minister of State and member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. According to the complainants, Maitre Rolin has revealed that at the beginning of 1957 Mr. Aïssat Idir confessed under torture that he had belonged to the " National Committee of the Algerian Revolution ", that the confession was put in a file but then withdrawn by the authorities when they realised that he could not have attended meetings of this body because he was in prison at the time, that the authorities refused to produce the file at his trial and that they made no attempt to maintain such a charge against him. The complainants declare that the French Delegate-General in Algeria has given no valid reason for the solitary confinement of Mr. Aïssat Idir and no explanation of why various differing reasons for his hospitalisation were given, why he was sent to a screening camp the day after his acquittal, why he was sent to a military hospital instead of to a civilian hospital as is customary and why his family were denied news of him or the right to visit him. The complainant alleges that the French Delegate-General in Algiers accepts sole responsibility for keeping Mr. Aïssat Idir in internment after his acquittal, justifying his decision by referring to " the right of the administration to detain a person independently of the judicial authorities ". This means, in the view of the complainants, that the Government takes no account at all of the recommendations made by the Governing Body; they contend that the whole case relating to Algeria should be re-examined.
  30. 30 Finally, the I.C.F.T.U states that, at the request of the President of the French Safeguards Committee, a judicial investigation into the causes of the death of Mr. Aïssat Idir has been opened by the Procurator-General of the French Republic, while the Prime Minister has agreed to the holding of an inquiry by the Safeguards Committee itself. In the view of the complainants, this is not sufficient. They contend that the situation warrants an independent inquiry, under the auspices of an international organisation " whose objectivity could never be called into question ".
  31. 31 The W.F.T.U, in its communication dated 15 August 1959, calls upon the I.L.O to set up an international fact-finding committee, with the participation of all the international trade union organisations, to carry out an inquiry in Algeria into the death of Mr. Aïssat Idir and also into the position of other trade unionists who are imprisoned or interned and into the situation of the trade union movement.
  32. 32 In its communication dated 16 November 1959, the French Government began by stating that Mr. Aïssat Idir was interned by administrative order in May 1956. He was charged before a military court in 1958 with endangering the safety of the State, but acquitted on 13 January 1959. However, he remained in forced residence in an internment camp. Mr. Aïssat Idir, declared the Government, accidentally suffered serious burns on 17 January 1959, and was immediately taken to the Maillot Hospital, where he died " on 28 June 1959 ".
  33. 33 The Government stated that during the first half of 1959 the I.C.F.T.U had sought and obtained permission to send an observer to the trial of Aïssat Idir, and that permission to visit Aïssat Idir was given to Mr. Garrigues, who represented one of his defending counsel, Maitre Rolin, in Algiers, as well as to Mr. Vust, delegate of the International Red Cross.
  34. 34 Further, declared the Government, in order to find the true cause of death of Aïssat Idir, the Public Prosecutor's Office of Algiers had instituted proceedings, and the Committee for the Safeguard of Individual Rights and Liberties had been required to investigate the circumstances of his death. The Public Prosecutor's Office of Algiers had not yet submitted its conclusions, but the Committee for the Safeguard of Individual Rights and Liberties had presented its report. Principally on the basis of the report of this Committee, said the Government, the following indications could be supplied on the circumstances in which Aïssat Idir was placed in forced residence and died at the Maillot Hospital following the accident of which he was a victim.
  35. 35 Aïssat Idir, declared the Government, was an active militant in the Algerian People's Party (P.P.A) and subsequently in the Movement for the Triumph of Democratic Liberties (M.T.L.D), and came to notice from 1947 onwards for the violent anti-French propaganda in which he indulged. In 1951 he was dismissed, after 12 years of service, from the Ateliers Industriels de l'Air, on account of " statements, activities and writings incompatible with an employment in an undertaking working for National Defence ". He obtained new employment with the Algerian Building and Public Works Family Allowance Compensation Fund, and at the same time was appointed by the Central Committee of the M.T.L.D to head the Central Trade Union Affairs Committee of the party. In February 1956, he founded, together with several others - including Ben Khedda (now minister of Social Affairs in the " G.P.R.A") - the General Union of Algerian Workers (U.G.T.A) and became its Secretary-General.
  36. 36 However, continued the Government, the F.L.N sympathies or ties of the leaders of the U.G.T.A soon led the authorities to invoke the Special Powers Act against them : Aïssat Idir was placed in forced residence and brought to the internment camp at Berrouaghia. Subsequently, he was transferred successively to the camps at Saint-Leu, Arcole and Bossuet (30 August 1957). While in internment, Aïssat Idir was appointed a member of the " National Council of the Algerian Revolution " (C.N.R.A) at the first congress held by the F.L.N on 20 August 1956 in the Soummam valley. In February 1957 Aïssat Idir was brought to Algiers where the police wished to interrogate him on this point. Referring to Maitre Rolin's statement that violence was used during this questioning, the Government declares that it would appear from the report of the Committee for the Safeguard of Individual Rights and Liberties that Aïssat Idir made no complaints about this, and that, on the contrary, the questioning was directed in his favour. During this interrogation, Aïssat Idir said that he was astonished to learn that his name was included among the members of the C.N.R.A and among the members of the C.C.E, and supposed that this had been done automatically by reason of his position in the U.G.T.A without his consent.
  37. 37 In 1958 it was decided to bring proceedings against several leaders of the U.G.T.A for endangering the external safety of the State and for associating with evil-doers. Sufficient charges having been brought, the persons concerned - including Aïssat Idir - were brought before the judicial authorities. The trial of the trade union militants of the U.G.T.A took place before the Armed Forces Tribunal of Algiers in January. Among the charges brought against Aïssat Idir, there was no mention of his membership of the C.N.R.A, and the Tribunal was not called upon to pronounce on this particular point. The trial resulted in ten persons being convicted, ten persons being acquitted and one person being granted provisional liberty. Aïssat Idir was among those acquitted.
  38. 38 Aïssat Idir, however, remained subject to the administrative order restricting his liberty which had been issued against him prior to his being charged. He was therefore brought to the Birtraria transit camp pending his return to the internment camp at Bossuet.
  39. 39 The decision not to free Aïssat Idir, declared the Government, was carefully considered. The Government queries whether it was in effect possible to free someone whom the " external organisation of the rebellion " had placed on the list of members of the C.N.R.A, even if this had been done without his prior consent. A similar decision was also taken, in exercise of the powers granted by the Special Powers Act, in respect of the other nine trade unionists acquitted in the same trial. After their files and their intentions had been checked eight of these were ultimately freed and the ninth placed in compulsory residence at his home.
  40. 40 The Government stated that it was at the Birtraria camp on 17 January, four days after his arrival at the camp, that Aïssat Idir had an accident which was to prove fatal. His legs were burned as a result of his bedding catching fire. The allegation that he was tortured, declared the Government, is not based on a single fact. On this vital point, according to the Government, it appears from the report of the Committee for the Safeguard of Individual Rights and Liberties that it had acquired the conviction that during the four days which Aïssat Idir spent in this camp he suffered no ill-treatment and, moreover, was never interrogated. The Government claimed that, according to the result of the extremely meticulous inquiry carried out by the Committee for the Safeguard of Individual Rights and Liberties, the very serious burns which he suffered were caused only by carelessness on his part, and stated that, immediately after the accident, Aïssat Idir was taken to the Maillot Hospital, where he was cared for with great devotion. In effect, while the skin-grafting treatment which had failed in March gave satisfactory results in May and June, local suppurations affected the patient at the beginning of July and his general condition deteriorated in an alarming way. He died of a collapse " on 27 July " without the treatment which had been undertaken being able to prove effective. The French army doctors, stated the Government, feel that they employed all the means at their disposal for saving Aïssat Idir's life, but the burns were very serious and the normal treatment remained ineffective because of an infection against which the organism was unable to resist in the normal way. This was the decisive cause of Aïssat Idir's death and it could not be checked, in spite of the use of large doses of almost all the known antibiotics, together with careful revitalising treatment involving in particular the use of almost 25 litres of blood.
  41. 41 Following Aïssat Idir's death, the Deputy Prosecutor-General at the Algiers Court of Appeal required an autopsy to be carried out. Four medical experts, a university professor, two civilian doctors and a military medical officer carried out this autopsy, which revealed no abnormality but led to the conclusion that death was due to the infection of the burns which Aïssat Idir had suffered.
  42. 42 At its meeting in November 1959 the Committee decided to request the Government to furnish further information on certain aspects of the allegations analysed above. More specifically, having noted the Government's statements that Mr. Aïssat Idir had not been liberated after his acquittal because his name figured on the list of members of the National Council of the Algerian Revolution, even if it had not been placed there with his prior consent, and that the special powers enabling the administrative authorities to have recourse to measures restricting personal liberty were applied against persons who deliberately placed themselves outside the law, the Committee requested information as to the precise reasons for which Mr. Aïssat Idir was held in detention after having been acquitted. Noting also the Government's statement that, in order to find the true cause of the death of Mr. Aïssat Idir, the Public Prosecutor's Office in Algiers had instituted an inquiry but had not yet submitted its conclusions, the Committee requested information concerning such conclusions when it should become available. Further, the Committee asked whether it would be possible to furnish information as to whether, in the event of the evidence revealing responsibility in respect of the death of Mr. Aïssat Idir, the imposition of sanctions against any person or persons was contemplated and whether it was intended to provide for any compensation to the dependants and relatives of Mr. Aïssat Idir. The Committee also asked for more detailed information concerning the findings of the Committee for the Safeguard of Individual Rights and Liberties and, if possible, for a copy of its report. The Committee stated further that it would be grateful for information as to any precautions that might have been taken to ensure that there would be no recurrence of the circumstances alleged.
  43. 43 This request for further information by the Committee was conveyed by the Director-General to the French Government by a letter dated 24 November 1959. The Government furnished further observations in a communication dated 22 January 1960.
  44. 44 In its communication dated 22 January 1960, the Government states that Mr. Aïssat Idir, although acquitted, nevertheless remained under the order restricting his freedom which had been issued against him prior to his being deferred to the judicial authorities. The decision not to suspend this order was taken by the Delegate-General in Algeria after a thorough personal review of the case of Mr. Aïssat Idir. This decision was predicated mainly on a consideration of the risks which the release of Mr. Aïssat Idir might involve, viz. the possibility either that he would rejoin the external organisation of the rebellion immediately on his release, or that he might be made the butt of reprisals by that organisation.
  45. 45 With regard to the Committee's request for information as to the findings of the Public Prosecutor's Office in Algiers, the Government states that, under the mandatory provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure requiring the investigation and preliminary examination of cases to be conducted in secrecy, it is not possible to divulge all or part of these proceedings. According to the Government the investigation was conducted in accordance with the normal rules of procedure by an examining magistrate acting at the instance of the Public Prosecutor attached to the Algiers Court of Appeal. These proceedings culminated in a determination that no prosecution was warranted ; it is thus established, states the Government, that no criminal guilt or civil liability was involved in connection with Aïssat Idir's death.
  46. 46 With regard to the Committee's request concerning the findings of the Committee for the Safeguard of Individual Rights and Liberties, the Government states that the investigations of this body are conducted at the behest of the French Government and for its sole information ; the reports submitted to the Government as a result of these inquiries are, therefore, not made public. In deference to the Committee, however, the Government says that it has been thought possible to give the substance of the main findings of the Committee for the Safeguard of Individual Rights and Liberties.
  47. 47 The Government declares that its report indicates that Mr. Aïssat Idir had never been interrogated under duress and that the accident which befell him and which was to prove fatal occurred four days after his arrival at the internment centre (centre d'hébergement). The Committee for the Safeguard of Individual Rights and Liberties satisfied itself that during these four days he did not undergo any ill-treatment and was not subjected to any interrogation, and its report states that the general opinion is that in all probability Mr. Aïssat Idir set fire to his blanket wilfully, possibly with the intention of inflicting on himself some trifling injury, or perhaps in order to create an incident which would single him out to the authorities.
  48. 48 The Committee for the Safeguard of Individual Rights and Liberties concludes that "the very severe burns suffered by Mr. Aïssat Idir on 17 January are due to his own rashness ".
  49. 49 The Committee notes that the Government, while willing to give the substance of the main findings of the Committee for the Safeguard of Individual Rights and Liberties, points out that its investigations are conducted at the behest of the French Government and for its sole information and that its reports to the Government are not made public, and declares also that it is unable to give any details as to the findings of the Public Prosecutor's Office in Algiers.
  50. 50 The Committee recognises that it is for the French Government to decide whether or not it is prepared to make available the findings of an inquiry conducted for its own information, but considers that, when a government is not prepared to disclose in full the findings of such an inquiry, the Committee must consider how much weight it should attach, from the evidential point of view, to a summary of the main findings of such an inquiry furnished by the government when, because the government is not prepared to furnish the full text of the report, those findings are divorced from their full contexts and are not accompanied by the complete survey of the evidence on which they are based. This is a question of evidence to be considered in the light of principles of universal application and in no way reflects upon the integrity, capacity, impartiality or high qualifications of the eminent members of the Committee for the Safeguard of Individual Rights and Liberties, which consists of the following persons: Messrs. Maurice Patin (President of the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation and Member of the Constitutional Council) (President); Damour (Judge of the Court of Cassation); Daure (Rector of Caen University); Combaldieu (Prosecutor in the Paris Court of Appeal) ; André François-Poncet (Ambassador of France) ; Grevisse (Maitre des Requêtes of the Council of State) ; Paul Haag (Honorary Prefect of the Seine) ; Ledoux (Judge of the Court of Cassation); Meignie (former President of the Bar Association of the Douai Court of Appeal); Jean Molierac (Counsel in the Bordeaux Court of Appeal, former President of the Bar Presidents' Conference); Marcel Oudinot (Honorary Councillor of State); Charles Richet (Honorary President of the International Free Federation of Resistance Deportees and Internees, Member of the Academy of Medicine); Roger de Segogne (former President of the Council of the Bar Association in the Council of State and Court of Cassation); Robert de Vernejoul (President of the National Council of the Medical Association); Voizard (Councillor of State); Army General Henri Zeller (former Military Governor of Paris).
  51. 51 In this connection, the Committee notes that both the Administrative Tribunal of the United Nations and the Administrative Tribunal of the I.L.O have had to consider analogous problems. The Administrative Tribunal of the United Nations, in the case of Robinson against the Secretary-General of the United Nations', held that, while it could not require the Secretary-General to produce certain information, " when the Respondent does not, of his own initiative, produce such information and evidence ... the Tribunal is left with no option but to proceed to a conclusion in the absence of such information and evidence ... The Appellant cannot be penalised because certain information is regarded by the Respondent as confidential and the Appellant has no opportunity either of knowing what the reason is or of challenging it." Similarly, the Administrative Tribunal of the I.L.O, in the Case of McIntire against the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, held that " the existence of a secret document concerning the complainant, the content of which is unknown to him and against which he is consequently powerless to defend himself, obviously vitiates the just application of the (Staff) Regulations to the complainant and affects not only the interest of the staff as a whole but also the interests of justice itself ".
  52. 52 While the Committee on Freedom of Association is not in any sense a tribunal; it considers that the circumstances are sufficiently analogous for the same general principle to be applicable to its work, and that, while it cannot call upon a government to disclose the report of an inquiry undertaken by that government for its own information, a government which is unwilling to communicate the complete text of such a report cannot expect the Committee to accept extracts from the conclusions of the report as conclusive proof when the Committee does not have full knowledge of the circumstances in which the report was made, of the opportunities for ascertaining the facts available to the persons making it and of any reservations which the report may or may not contain.
  53. 53 In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the version of the circumstances of Mr. Aïssat Idir's death given by the complainant, who does not furnish any decisive proof but alleges a lack of opportunity of ascertaining the full facts, and the account given by the Government, which relies on inquiries made on its behalf but is not in a position to place before the Committee the full evidence on which the conclusions accepted by the Government are based, are inconsistent with each other and raise an issue of fact which it is impossible for the Committee to determine.
  54. 54 The Committee nevertheless considers that it should draw attention to the fact that Aïssat Idir would not have died as he did but for the fact that he was held in continued detention after his acquittal by a competent court.
  55. 55 In many previous cases', which have come before the Committee, in which it was alleged that trade union leaders or members had been preventively detained, the Committee had expressed the view that measures of detention may involve a serious interference with the exercise of trade union rights, which it would seem necessary to justify by the existence of a serious emergency and which would be open to criticism unless accompanied by adequate judicial safeguards applied within a reasonable period, and that it should be the policy of every government to take care to ensure the observance of human rights and, especially, of the right of all detained persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment. It was in the light of the principle that the Committee, examining the case relating to Algeria in its 27th Report, recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the French Government to the importance which it attaches to the principle that, when trade unionists are accused of political or criminal offences which a government considers to be outside the scope of free trade union activities, they should be judged promptly by an independent judicial authority.
  56. 56 The Committee considers, moreover, that a situation permitting of the further detention of any such person after his acquittal by the competent court of the charges brought against him is not compatible with the principle enunciated above.
  57. 57 The Committee requested the Government to indicate whether, in the event of the evidence revealing responsibility in respect of the death of Mr. Aïssat Idir, the imposition of sanctions against any person or persons was contemplated and whether it was intended to provide for any compensation to his dependants and relatives. In the absence of any evidence permitting the Committee to reach a conclusion based on a full knowledge of all the circumstances, the Committee considers that it should confine itself to noting the Government's statement that no criminal guilt or civil liability was involved in connection with Mr. Aïssat Idir's death.
  58. 58 In the circumstances, therefore, the Committee, while not pronouncing on the different versions of the death of Mr. Aïssat Idir given by the complainants and by the Government, recommends the Governing Body:
      • (a) to draw the attention of the French Government once again to the importance which it attaches to the principle that when trade unionists are accused of political or criminal offences which a government considers to be outside the scope of their trade union activities, they, like all other persons, should be judged promptly by an impartial and independent judicial authority;
      • (b) to express its view that a situation permitting of the further detention of any such person after his acquittal by the competent court of the charges brought against him is not compatible with the principle enunciated above.
  59. Allegations relating to the Detention of Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid, Mr. Rabah Djermane and Other Trade Unionists
  59. 59 The I.C.F.T.U, in addition to its detailed allegations concerning the detention and death of Mr. Aïssat Idir, makes allegations relating to the detention of many other trade union leaders.
  60. 60 In its communication dated 3 August 1959 the I.C.F.T.U furnishes a list, giving names and trade union offices held, of trade union leaders alleged to have been held in detention for from two to three years and to be still so held as recently as June 1959. The list contains 36 names but the I.C.F.T.U states that this is far from complete. The W.F.T.U, in its communication dated 15 August 1959, declares that a great many trade unionists have been held in prisons or concentration camps, some for more than four years, either without ever having been charged or tried or even after examining magistrates have decided that there are no grounds for prosecution or courts have pronounced their acquittal.
  61. 61 The I.C.F.T.U gives further information in its communication dated 10 September 1959 regarding certain of the persons mentioned in its list of detainees.
  62. 62 The complaining organisation declares that Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid, a National Secretary of the U.G.T.A arrested on 23 May 1956 and held ever since in various camps, is in danger of death. After more than three years of detention, declares the complainant, no charge has ever been brought against him, but he is still held in the Paul Cazelles camp, which is so bad from the climatic and health point of view that the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Commission against Concentration Camps have requested that it be closed, the French authorities having promised in 1957 to close it but never having given effect to that promise.
  63. 63 The complainant declares that, according to reports from the U.G.T.A, another of the detainees listed, Mr. Rabah Djermane, a National Secretary of the U.G.T.A held in the same camp, was shot in the stomach by a French soldier in March 1957. In another camp, it is alleged, French soldiers, at about the same time, beat up the trade unionists and other persons detained and shot at a number of them, so that several were seriously wounded and sent to military hospitals, nothing having been heard of them since that time.
  64. 64 By a letter dated 21 September 1959, the Director-General transmitted the communication from the I.C.F.T.U dated 10 September 1959 to the French Government, drawing its attention to the fact that the case fell within the category of cases regarded by the Governing Body as urgent cases and requesting a speedy reply in accordance with the procedure laid down for dealing with such cases. The Government furnished observations on the matters raised in the allegations in its communication dated 16 November 1959.
  65. 65 With respect to the arrest and internment of Mr. Ali Yayia, former deputy to Aïssat Idir, the Government gave the following explanations.
  66. 66 The behaviour of Mr. Ali Yayia during his detention in the Paul Cazelles camp, where he was assigned his residence, gave rise at the beginning of August to the opening of judicial proceedings and the person concerned was charged at the end of September with wilful assault and endangering the safety of the State.
  67. 67 In August 1959, the Government continued, an inquiry made in the Paul Cazelles camp revealed the existence in the camp of an F.L.N cell, which attempted by all possible means to exercise influence over the persons interned there and, among other things, set up a so-called tribunal which subjected internees who were not amenable to the discipline of the organisation to varied punishments, including corporal punishment, one of the heads of this organisation being Ali Yayia Abdel-Madjid, an active leader of the U.G.T.A, who had been assigned a compulsory residence because of his subversive activities on behalf of the rebellion. The Government claimed that the evidence given by internees established clearly the part played by Ali Yayia and that he himself admitted having inflicted penalties on certain of his co-religionists.
  68. 68 Proceedings were instituted before the Examining Magistrate in Blida against Ali Yayia and 27 other persons to whom a residence had been assigned on the ground that they had endangered the external safety of the State and committed wilful assault, after which Ali Yayia was charged on 24 September 1959.
  69. 69 The Government contended that the allegations made by the I.C.F.T.U that the measures taken against the U.G.T.A and its principal officials in 1956 were infringements of the Conventions relating to trade union rights ratified by France are the same as those which it made in its first complaint in 1957. In these circumstances, the French Government could not be expected to repeat the arguments which it then made and which still remained valid. The Government, however, wished to make certain observations with regard to the question of assignment of forced residence by administrative decision and the question of internment centres.
  70. 70 With respect to the first point, the Government declared that the application of common law penal procedures in order to repress anti-national activity in Algeria had had to be supplemented by recourse to measures restricting personal liberty taken on the initiative of the administrative authorities, such as prohibition of continued residence and assignment of a forced residence. Such measures are taken pursuant to the special powers conferred on the authorities responsible for maintaining order in the Departments of Algeria by virtue of the Act of 16 March 1956, which was discussed and voted by the French Parliament and reintroduced on several occasions. These powers are used, stated the Government, without distinction as to persons, against all those who, whatever their status or functions, have deliberately placed themselves outside the law.
  71. 71 With respect to the question of internment centres, the Government stated that all persons who have been made the subject of measures assigning a forced residence are assembled in the internment centres. The case of every person so assigned is the subject of a periodic examination by a special commission under the chairmanship of a magistrate of the judiciary and meeting under the auspices of the Delegate-General of the Government in Algeria. The internees are subject to a system which is in no way comparable with a prison régime : they receive mail and visits, they have the chance to take courses and a library is provided in each centre for their use. They are medically examined frequently and regularly, declared the Government, and in no case are they subjected to forced labour ; some of them participate at their own request in the common services of the centres (hospital, accounting) and are remunerated accordingly.
  72. 72 The Government went on to state that an anti-tuberculosis hospital centre with one hundred beds had been set up at Beni-Messous ; only persons who have been assigned a forced residence are received there and some are examined and cared for who have never been treated previously. The internment centres are visited regularly by the members of the Safeguards Commission as well as by representatives of the International Red Cross.
  73. 73 After being liberated, stated the Government, the internees are generally replaced in their former employment on the intervention of the commandant of their centre ; local authorities and officers of the Specialised Administrative Sections also collaborate in their occupational reintegration.
  74. 74 In conclusion, the Government explained that the Paul Cazelles internment centre was until 1957 a temporary camp under canvas and, as such, was intended to disappear, but the following year the temporary installations were replaced by prefabricated buildings and the necessary collective amenities were successively installed (water, electricity, sanitary installations, etc.) and the centre continued to exist on its original site.
  75. 75 When it examined the case at its meeting on 19 November 1959, the Committee, noting the Government's statement that the case of every person assigned a forced residence is the subject of a periodic examination by a special commission, asked the Government to state on how many occasions this examination had resulted in the liberation of persons in the list of the 36 trade union leaders named by the complainants. The Committee also desired to know whether the authorities apply their special powers having regard, as the Government's reply appeared to indicate, to the opinions or affiliations of the trade union leaders. With regard to those of the trade unionists named by the complainants who had not been liberated, the Committee requested information as to whether the Government intended to take steps to ensure that they would be judged in the near future by an impartial and independent judicial authority. Having noted the allegations to the effect that Mr. Rabah Djermane, a National Secretary of the U.G.T.A held in the Paul Cazelles camp, was shot in the stomach by a French soldier in March 1957, and that, in another camp, French soldiers, at about the same time, beat up the trade unionists and other persons detained and shot at a number of them, so that several were seriously wounded, nothing further having been heard of them, the Committee requested the Government to furnish its observations on these allegations. Finally, the Committee requested the Government to furnish as a matter of urgency the information requested by the Governing Body when it adopted paragraph 293 (c) of the Committee's 27th Report at its 137th Session (October-November 1957), to which attention had subsequently been called in the 28th and 35th Reports of the Committee, approved respectively by the Governing Body at its 138th Session (March 1958) and its 142nd Session (May-June 1959).
  76. 76 The Government furnished further information in its communication dated 22 January 1960.
  77. 77 With respect to the question of the periodic examination of the cases of persons who have been assigned a forced residence, the Government declares that the Review Board appointed to advise the Delegate-General of the Government may recommend the release of internees where it considers such action appropriate, after making a complete review of the records of the persons concerned and the accusations laid to their door. Such recommendations are made without regard to whether the persons concerned are trade union leaders or members.
  78. 78 With respect to the application of the special powers enabling the authorities to take measures to restrict personal liberty, the Government states that the central or local authorities having the power to ordain internment (assignation à résidence) by the administrative fiat, have before them all the material facts required for their complete information. By reason of its very seriousness, any measure in restraint of individual liberty must be taken with a thorough knowledge of the case and must take into account all the facts which may enlighten the responsible authority as to the advisability and duration of the measure in question, having regard solely to the exigencies of law and order and public safety. Accordingly, adds the Government, membership of a trade union organisation is never regarded either as an aggravating or as an extenuating circumstance. In assessing the maximum duration of any individual assignment order, the only considerations are the requirements of public order and the security of life and property.
  79. 79 The Government declares that the case of each internee is periodically reviewed by a special committee under the chairmanship of a magistrate. The review thus instituted may result in the internee's release, his indictment on a charge of imperilling the safety of the State or his continued detention in an internment centre. Thus, continues the Government, trade unionists who have been the subject of internment measures have either been released after an examination of their cases by the Central Internment Order Review Board or have been committed to prison on a charge of imperilling the external safety of the State, or have been kept in an internment centre on the recommendation of the Committee which makes a review of their cases at regular intervals.
  80. 80 Further, the Government explains in its latest reply that the Review Board appointed to advise its Delegate-General may recommend the release of internees and that all cases are periodically reviewed by a special committee under the chairmanship of a magistrate. The result of this has been, declares the Government, that " trade unionists who have been the subject of internment measures have either been released after an examination of their cases by the Central Internment Order Review Board or have been committed to prison on a charge of imperilling the external safety of the State or have been left in an internment centre on the recommendation of the Committee which makes a review of their cases at regular intervals ".
  81. 81 With regard to the allegations relating to the shooting of Mr. Rabah Djermane and to the maltreatment of other trade unionists the Government states that the information available does not indicate that the persons concerned have been subjected to the treatment in question.
  82. 82 The Committee considers that this does not constitute a full reply to its specific request for information made having regard to the principles set forth in paragraph 55 above, as to the number of occasions on which the periodic examination of cases has resulted in the liberation of persons in the list of 36 trade union leaders named by the complainants. Nor does the Government state whether it intends to take steps to ensure that those still under detention will be judged in the near future by an impartial and independent judicial authority, nor, again, does the Government answer the request made by the Governing Body when it adopted paragraph 293 (c) of the Committee's 27th Report, deciding (in respect of persons alleged in the complaints then being examined, to be held in detention) " to draw the attention of the French Government to the importance which it attaches to the principle that when trade unionists are accused of political or criminal offences which a government considers to be outside the scope of their trade union activities they should be judged promptly by an impartial and independent judicial authority ; to express the hope that the Government will bear this principle in mind and inform it in due course as to the legal and judicial proceedings which may be taken in the case of those of the persons referred to by the complainants who are still interned and as to the results of such proceedings ".
  83. 83 Finally, in respect of the allegations relating to the shooting of Mr. Rabah Djermane and the alleged maltreatment of other detainees, concerning which the Committee requested information at its last session, the Government restricts its reply to a statement that the information available " does not indicate that the persons concerned have been subject to the treatment in question ".
  84. 84 In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
      • (a) to request the Government to furnish a speedy reply concerning the present position, in the light of the principles enunciated in paragraph 55 above, of those of the trade unionists alleged to have been detained who may still be in detention, including, in particular, Mr. Ali Yayia Madjid and Mr. Rabah Djermane and other persons listed in the I.C.F.T.U's communication dated 3 August 1959 ; to request the Government also to furnish information to the Governing Body as to the results of the legal or judicial proceedings taken or to be taken in this connection ;
      • (b) to request the Government to state on how many occasions the application of the procedure for the periodic examinations of cases of persons assigned a forced residence has resulted in the liberation of persons in the list of 36 trade union leaders named by the complainants and to state the names of those of them who may have been liberated ;
      • (c) to request the French Government to furnish as a matter of urgency the information requested of it by the Governing Body when it adopted paragraph 293 (c) of the 27th Report of the Committee at its 137th Session (October-November 1957) and concerning which reminders were addressed to the Government in the 28th and 35th Reports of the Committee, adopted by the Governing Body at its 138th Session (March 1958) and its 142nd Session (May-June 1959) respectively;
      • (d) to request the Government to furnish more detailed information as to the inquiries made into the alleged shooting of Mr. Rabah Djermane and the alleged maltreatment of other trade unionists referred to in paragraph 63 above and as to the results of such inquiries.
  85. Allegations relating to Withdrawal of Representative Status from Certain Trade Union Organisations
  85. 85 In its communication dated 10 September 1959, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions refers to the allegations examined by the Committee in paragraphs 252 to 266 of its 27th Report with reference to the withdrawal of representative status in 1956 from a number of Algerian trade union federations. The present allegations of the complainant relate more especially to the case of one of these federations-the General Union of Algerian Workers (U.G.T.A). The complainant alleges that in the reply which was submitted to the Committee when it examined the case in its 27th Report the French Government sought to justify this measure and to minimise its implications.
  86. 86 The complainant declares that the information furnished by the French Government in 1957 was to the effect that an Order of 22 December 1956 granted representative status to four federations, excluding the U.G.T.A, the General Federation of Algerian Trade Unions (U.G.S.A.) and the Algerian Workers' Trade Union Federation (U.S.T.A.), (The position of U.G.S.A. had already been affected by a circular of 6 October 1956 and Decree No. 56-276 of 26 November 1956.). For the true story of the matter as it affected the U.G.T.A, declares the complainant, it is necessary to consider events which took place earlier in 1956.
  87. 87 The complainant states that the U.G.T.A was founded on 26 February 1956 and was recognised as representative 20 days later and obtained 72 per cent of the votes in the election of members of the Disciplinary Council of the R.D.T.A. (Algerian Tramways). It then put up candidates in the elections for the Works Committee of the R.D.T.A. This poll was held on 30 April 1956. The complainant alleges that the ballot boxes were sealed up without the votes being counted and that, during a meeting of the former Works Committee on 14 May 1956, the tramways branch manager gave as the only explanation of the cancelling of the ballot the fact that the elections had been suspended for three months and the terms of office of the outgoing delegates extended for the same period. In support of this statement, continues the complainant, he produced no written instruction from the Office of the Governor-General, and the delegates' protest was recorded in the minutes of the meeting. In the view of the complainant, the arbitrary nature of this measure is proved by the fact that the Government itself mentions no official texts dated prior to 6 October 1956, several months after the events alleged above. By that time, adds the complainant, the U.G.T.A's leaders had been arrested, its funds confiscated, its premises occupied by the army and its newspaper seized and banned, so that in practice it could no longer function or institute any proceedings against administrative measures taken against it.
  88. 88 The complainant goes on to declare that during the trial of Mr. Aïssat Idir and other trade union leaders in January 1959 attempts were made to show that the U.G.T.A, had been subversive, but the prosecutor himself recognised that it was a lawful organisation. In the complainant's view the dismissal of the "felonious association" charge against Mr. Aïssat Idir, General Secretary of the U.G.T.A, refutes the Government's argument that the administrative measures taken against the U.G.T.A were justified by the fact that the U.G.T.A was an offshoot of the F.L.N and that its activities were therefore unlawful.
  89. 89 Referring to the Committee's statement in paragraph 266 of its 27th Report that it would appear that the organisations from which representative status had been withdrawn had " engaged in political activities of a nature and scope exceeding those normally associated with the activities of trade unions ", the complainant expresses the view that there is no contradiction between the terms of the Resolution concerning the Independence of the Trade Union Movement adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 35th Session in 1952 - cited by the Committee in the paragraph mentioned-and " the right, nay the duty, of a trade union organisation to pronounce on occasion on political questions of direct concern to the interest of its members ". The U.G.T.A, declares the complainant, " had taken a stand in favour of Algerian independence, being convinced that only political independence would make it possible to put an end to the economic and social exploitation against which it was struggling ".
  90. 90 Finally, contends the complainant, the recommendations contained in paragraph 265 of the Committee's 27th Report should be reconsidered because they have remained without effect, no " procedure offering every guarantee of impartiality " having been instituted to restore to the U.G.T.A the possibility of recovering its premises, records and confiscated funds so that it may function freely as an organisation with representative status.
  91. 91 The Government states that the U.G.T.A, U.G.S.A. and U.S.T.A have never been dissolved and that they continue to be lawful because their Constitutions and rules conform fully to statutory requirement. The Constitutions and rules of all three federations, according to the Government, state that they are constituted "within the framework of the laws and institutions " and that they " shall refrain from any controversy of a political or religious nature ". The Government adds that the conditions for representative status are defined by the Act of 11 February 1950 for the purposes which that Act seeks to attain, and that " the fact that a trade union is not recognised as being representative constitutes no impediment to the execution of trade union rights ".
  92. 92 While the actual question of the withdrawal of representative status from the three organisations in question was examined by the Committee in paragraphs 252 to 266 of its 27th Report, the complainant in the present cases adduces a number of further points on which the Committee has never pronounced and on which the Government has made no observations. Thus, in addition to the contention that the recommendations made in the Committee's 27th Report have had no effect, the complainant refers (see paragraph 79 above) to events in 1956 (prior to the withdrawal of representative status) connected with the election of union representatives on certain bodies, and also to the confiscation of the funds of the U.G.T.A. Before considering these allegations further, therefore, the Committee has decided to request the Government to furnish its observations on the points in question.
• Allegations relating to the Seizure and Banning of Trade Union Publications
  93. 93 The complainant begins by referring to the fact that when the Committee examined allegations of a similar nature in paragraphs 276 to 280, the Government's observations and the Committee's considerations were confined to the case of the Travailleur Algérien, the organ of the U.G.S.A. The complainants are now concerned with the alleged seizure and banning of the Ouvrier Algérien, organ of the U.G.T.A. They state that one of the main accusations against Mr. Aïssat Idir was that, as the " responsible editor ", he had signed articles in favour of Algerian independence and the struggle of the F.L.N, but that his acquittal by the military court demonstrates that these articles were not considered punishable; Mr. Aïssat Idir, moreover, was the one trade unionist in the trial not charged with being a member of the F.L.N. Hence, concludes the complainant, the reasons for the seizure and banning of the newspaper were recognised as unwarranted and this measure was a violation of the organisation's trade union right of publication.
  94. 94 The Government states that the majority of the issues of the newspaper have been confiscated on the orders of the local administrative authorities, these measures being justified by the nature and contents of its articles, viz. " repeated incitement to violence and insurrectional strikes, the dissemination of orders from the rebel forces, slanderous charges against government officials and civil servants, and (even more frequently) the publicity given in its columns to acts which gravely imperilled public order and the security of life and property ".
  95. 95 It is true, as the complainants contend, that the only case considered in detail by the Committee in its 27th Report was that of the Travailleur Algérien, organ of the U.G.S.A. Only a brief reference was made to the confiscation of the Ouvrier Algérien on some occasions. The Committee reached its conclusions in paragraphs 278 to 280 of its 27th Report, after considering reasons for its banning given by the Government-these reasons in many respects being substantially similar to those given in the present case. But in the case of the Travailleur Algérien, the Government's arguments were supported by a number of extracts from issues of that newspaper, and this was a material factor in enabling the Committee to form its appreciation of the matter, as it had been in an earlier case in which the Committee had had to pronounce on similar issues. Before formulating its conclusions in the present case, therefore, the Committee has decided to request the Government to furnish extracts from banned issues of the Ouvrier Algérien, in the light of its observations as cited in paragraph 94 above.
• Allegations relating to Restrictions on the Activities of Trade Union Leaders
  96. 96 In the complaint now before the Committee, the I.C.F.T.U confines its allegations to one particular instance. It is alleged that Mr. Delouvrier, the French Delegate-General, in a statement on 7 August 1959, declared that he had received many requests to visit Mr. Aïssat Idir at the Maillot Hospital, but that he had " screened " them, " refusing in particular to allow a visit by the representative of the I.C.F.T.U, whose attitude had been particularly violent ". This reference, declares the complainant, was to Mr. Bernasconi, General Secretary of the Swiss Trade Union Federation, delegated by the complainant to contact Mr. Aïssat Idir. The complainant declares that this constituted a violation of the right of national trade union organisations freely to maintain contact with the international organisations to which they are affiliated.
  97. 97 In its communication dated 16 November 1959, the Government states that the I.C.F.T.U had been given permission early in 1959 to send an observer to the trial of Aïssat Idir and that permission to visit him had been given to Mr. Garrigues, representing the Counsel, Maitre Rolin, in Algiers, as well as to Mr. Vust, delegate of the International Red Cross. The Government, however, makes no reference to the case of Bernasconi nor to the statement regarding him alleged to have been made by Mr. Delouvrier on 7 August 1959. In these circumstances, the Committee has decided to request the Government to furnish its observations on this aspect of the matter.