Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 243, Mars 1986

1. 49. The Committee has examined this case on several occasions, the most recent being in November 1985 when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body (See 241st Report, paras. 422-439, approved by the Governing Body at its 231st Session, November 1985). The Government subsequently sent observations in communications dated 25 November and 4 December 1985.
2. 50. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.87); it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 51. At its November 1985 meeting, the Committee expressed regret that the Government had not supplied the communiqué referred to in its reply of 30 May 1985, which, it stated, contained detailed information concerning the deaths and injuries which had occurred during the demonstrations of 20 June 1981. The Committee therefore requested the Government to transmit this document.

B. The Government's reply

1. 52. The Government states that the communiqué to which it referred was sent to the Committee on Freedom of Association by letter number 1126 from the Moroccan mission in Geneva dated 3 December 1981. It encloses another copy of the communiqué.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 53. The Committee observes that it had already taken note of the Government's communiqué sent by letter number 1126 from the Moroccan mission dated 3 December 1981.(See 214th Report, paras. 656 to 665).
2. 54. The Committee therefore observes once again that, in this communiqué, the Government alleged that the real motives behind the Democratic Confederation of Labour's general strike of 20 June 1981 were more to do with politics than with trade union matters and that an opposition party had issued the strike call along with this Confederation. The tracts distributed exhorted the activists to resist the Government, which was described as "reactionary" and "unlawful". According to the Government, the political nature of the strike had led other confederations (the Moroccan Union of Labour and the General Union of Moroccan Workers) to take a stand against it.
3. 55. The communiqué stated further that the increase in prices invoked to justify the strike was not a sufficient ground, the Government having decided, after consulting the political parties and trade union organisations, to reduce the amount of the increase by 50 per cent and to raise the salaries of public servants by 13 per cent, following an increase of 20 per cent in the guaranteed minimum interoccupational wage and the guaranteed minimum agricultural wage.
4. 56. The Government had stated that the strike of 20 June 1981 was not justified, as it had occurred only two days after a peaceful strike on 18 June which had been called by the Moroccan Union of Labour and with which the complainant federation had been associated.
5. 57. According to the Government, the instigators of the strike of 20 June 1981 had realised that their strike had been a failure and had proceeded to threaten and to commit acts of physical aggression against persons and property, inciting children to commit acts of vandalism (throwing stones at buses, threats and pressure against shopkeepers, violence against people who refused to take part in the strike, setting fire to public buildings, etc.). The Government admitted that these acts had resulted in the death of 66 persons, mostly, according to the Government, among the police force, as well as considerable material damage.
6. 58. The Government stated that, faced with the anarchy that had taken hold in certain quarters of Casablanca, the authorities had had to intervene to restore order and to bring before the courts the agitators and the instigators of the strike, who had proved to be incapable of controlling it.
7. 59. Lastly, the Government stated that 2,800 persons had been arrested, that 1,700 had been released and the remaining 1,100 had been brought before various courts according to the nature and seriousness of the charges against them. The majority of the persons prosecuted (over 70 per cent) had been brought before the criminal courts owing to the criminal nature of the acts committed. It concluded by stating that the accused had enjoyed the guarantees provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular those relating to the rights of defence, that they had been tried in public hearings and in the presence of their lawyers, that appeals had been lodged against the sentences given at first instance, and that on review many of the sentences had been reduced or quashed and the persons acquitted.
8. 60. The Committee observes that this reply does not shed any new light on the case. It must note with regret that the Government has not supplied sufficiently detailed information on the inquiries carried out into the deaths which occurred during the June 1981 demonstrations. It notes, however, that all of the trade union leaders arrested in this case were released in May 1983 by virtue of a Royal Amnesty (see 233rd Report, para. 337) and that the Democratic Confederation of Labour has resumed all of its trade union activities.
9. 61. The Committee expresses the firm hope that this tendency will continue and appeals once again to the Government to ensure, by means of dialogue with all the trade union forces in the country, including the Democratic Confederation of Labour, that economic and social problems are henceforth resolved through industrial relations machinery which has the confidence of those concerned.