Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 108, 1969

1. 331. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 5 May 1968 from the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions to the I.L.O. A copy was forwarded to the Government, which replied on 28 May 1968.
2. 332. Libya has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 333. In their communication, the complainants state that in June 1967 the Government of Libya embarked on a series of repressive acts intended to cripple the Libyan trade union movement. In Tripoli, the Government illegally arrested over 100 trade unionists, and several officers of the Libyan Federation of Professional Trade Unions were subsequently sentenced to terms of imprisonment of from two to four years. They included the following persons: Mr. Ezeddin El Ghadamsy, member of the Executive Council; Mr. Ahmed Aburukhais, Secretary of the Federation; Mr. Ragab Oraiby, Executive Secretary; Mr. Walid Salem, member of the Cultural Committee; Mr. Ali Osman El-Tasawy, President of the affiliated Petroleum Workers' Union; Mr. Issa El-Somali, Vice-President of the Union; Mr. Aly El-Lafy, member of the Union's Board; Mr. Abdel Salem El-Zakar, member of the Union's Board; Mr. Isaa El-Kabalawy, member of the Union; Mr. Mokhtar El-Masaraty, member of the Board of the affiliated Alcoholic Drinks and Mineral Waters Workers' Union.
2. 334. It is also stated in the complaint that the anti-union measures adopted by the Government included the dismissal of many active trade union members, specific mention being made of Mr. Abdalla Mansour, of the Alcoholic Drinks and Mineral Waters Workers' Union. Finally, it is stated that the headquarters of the Federation were raided, searched and closed down by the police.
3. 335. The Government states in its reply that trade union activities are permitted and organised by the labour legislation and that no penalty is imposed if they are carried on within the law. Referring specifically to the complaint in question, the Government states that the persons mentioned by name were not tried for their trade union activities but for having committed offences laid down in the Criminal Law. Sentence was pronounced by the Criminal Court of Tripoli on the grounds that the accused persons had established, organised and managed a secret organisation during the period from 1960 to August 1967, the aims of the organisation being to use force and terrorism in order to carry out a coup d'état, and so change the Constitutional principles of Libya by illegal means. The persons in question, the Government states, have circulated and promoted their illegal principles among students, teachers, workers and others, through secret meetings of small groups and by collecting membership fees from the members of the organisation which they formed and sending the amounts collected outside the country. Many other persons joined this organisation and they were accused with those mentioned in the complaint. All these persons have committed offences laid down in various sections of the Libyan Criminal Law and in one of the provisions of the Emergencies Law.
4. 336. The Criminal Court of Tripoli investigated the case in respect of all these persons, who were judged in public and had absolute freedom to defend themselves, in accordance with the provisions of the national Constitution. The Court reached the conclusion that all the actions in question were related together and so it sentenced the accused persons in accordance with the legislation in force. The Government concludes by saying that the sentences passed on the persons named in the complaint are by reason of the fact that they have committed crimes defined in the Criminal Law and not on the ground of their trade union activities. Their trade union activities have had no influence whatever on the decision of the Court.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 337. On many occasions', where allegations that trade union leaders or workers have been arrested or detained on account of trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests or detentions have been carried out because of subversive activities or crimes under ordinary law, or for reasons of internal security, the Committee has always followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to supply further information, which should be as precise as possible, concerning the arrests or detentions and the exact reasons therefor. If, in certain cases, the Committee has concluded that allegations relating to the arrest or detention of trade union militants did not call for further examination, this has been after it has received information from the governments showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the arrests or detentions were in no way occasioned by trade union activities but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political character.
2. 338. Moreover, in many cases where a matter has been submitted to a national court of justice offering full guarantees of due process of law, the Committee has requested the governments concerned to supply the texts of the judgments together with the reasons therefor, as the proceedings in question might make available information of assistance to the Committee in examining the allegations presented.$
3. 339. In its reply the Government has made no comment on the allegations of antiunion measures taken against certain persons and the raiding, searching, and closing down of the headquarters of the Libyan Federation of Professional Trade Unions. With regard to the latter question, the Committee wishes to point out that while it has recognised in various previous cases that trade unions, like other associations or persons, cannot claim immunity from searches of their premises, it has emphasised the importance that it attaches to the principle that a search should be only made following the issue of a warrant by the ordinary judicial authority after that authority has been satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for supposing that evidence exists on the said premises material to a prosecution for an offence against the law and provided that the search is restricted to the purpose for which the warrant was issued.