Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 87, 1966

1. 200. This case has already been examined by the Committee at its 38th, 39th and 40th Sessions, held respectively in November 1964, February 1965 and May 1965, on which occasions interim reports were presented to the Governing Body, which approved them, At its May 1965 Session the Committee examined the only allegation remaining outstanding, which related to the arrest of trade union leaders and militants.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 201. The complainants alleged that the Government had arbitrarily arrested a number of trade union leaders and militants. Among the persons arrested, it was stated, were Mr. Ulrick Joly, President of the Inter-Union Federation of Haiti (U.I.H.)-which had been dissolved -Messrs. Claude François and León Gabriel, members of the Executive Committee of the organisation mentioned and presidents of the cement and sugar unions respectively, Messrs. Alcius Cadet and Arnold Maisoneuve, of the Dockers' Union, and the trade union leaders Messrs. Prossoir and Guerrior.
2. 202. At its May 1965 Session the Committee took note of an extract, furnished by the Government, from the minutes of the Registry of the Port-au-Prince Civil Court, which indicated that, as the preliminary inquiry undertaken into the activities of the persons mentioned by name by W.F.T.U had shown that there were " sufficient charges and evidence against them ", the examining magistrate had decided on 7 January 1965 " to remand the accused to the court of competent jurisdiction ".
3. 203. In these circumstances the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to be good enough to communicate to it the text of the judgment concerning the persons concerned, when this had been delivered, and of its grounds.
4. 204. The Governing Body approved this recommendation at its 162nd Session, on 28 May 1965, and the complementary information mentioned in the preceding paragraph was requested from the Government in a letter dated 8 June 1965, to which the Government replied by a communication dated 3 September 1965.
5. 205. In this communication the Government states that no police measures have ever been taken against a workers' organisation or its members when their activities have been limited to genuine trade union action. However, it states that when under cover of trade union activities individuals receiving orders from abroad take it upon themselves to upset the established social order, it is necessary, in the common interest, to take the appropriate legal measures against them.
6. 206. As regards the case of the members of U.I.H, continues the Government, all persons who were found by the inquiry to have had nothing to do with the subversive plots of the Executive Committee of U.I.H have been released, the only ones detained being " those caught red-handed in collusion and complicity with enemies organising the invasion of the national territory ".
7. 207. The Government goes on to state that no action has as yet been taken under the order (mentioned in paragraph 202 above) made on 7 January 1965 by the examining magistrate " because under the fundamental laws the accused are judged each in turn by the criminal assizes held every year under an order of the senior judge of the civil court ". The Government adds that " if the accused are not discharged as an act of mercy before the court's verdict, the Secretariat of State will have pleasure in sending you, by way of complementary information, a copy of the text of the judgment as soon as it has been pronounced ".