Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 336, Mars 2005

1. 479. The complaint is contained in communications from the Haitian Trade Union Coordination (CSH), dated 28 January 2004, and from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), dated 31 January 2004. The ICFTU provided additional information in a communication dated 1 March 2004.
2. 480. Despite that, in paragraph 9 of its 335th Report, the Committee has drawn the attention of the Government to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of the case, even if the Government’s observations or information had not been received in due time, it has yet to receive any observations from the Government.
3. 481. Haiti has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant organizations’ allegations

1. 482. In their communications of 28 and 31 January 2004 respectively, the CSH and the ICFTU bring a complaint alleging that numerous violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 have been committed in Haiti.
   • Incident of 24 January 2004
2. 483. In their communications of 28 and 31 January 2004 respectively, the CSH and the ICFTU allege that, around 2 p.m. on 24 January 2004, a group of armed, uniformed police officers burst into the CSH premises, where a trade union meeting was in progress, without a search warrant. The police officers then proceeded to search the premises, claiming that they were looking for weapons and for the Secretary-General of the CSH, Mr. Charles Fritz. They also threatened to kill all those present, as well as the Secretary-General, who was absent. Failing to find what they wanted, the police then arrested ten men and one woman, including several trade union members, and took them to Port-au-Prince police station, where they were detained without seeing a judge or being charged with any offence. The ICFTU also alleges that the 11 detainees were seriously attacked during their detention at Port-au-Prince police station and that they were not allowed any outside contact, even with lawyers or fellow trade unionists.
3. 484. According to the ICFTU, the names of the 11 individuals arrested by the police are: David Dorme, Ludy Lapointe, Ernst Toncheau, Riginal Saint-Jean, Eloi Weche, Roselere Louis, Cédieu Dorvil, Jean Douleau Joseph, Stephen Guerrier, André Saurel and Norval Fleurant. The ICFTU states that only Mr. Norval Fleurant had been freed by 31 January 2004.
4. 485. The ICFTU claims that, on 28 January 2004, the ten remaining detainees were transferred to the national penitentiary, which normally holds common criminals after they are sentenced, still without having been taken before a judge or charged with any crime. Allegedly, the police had only made verbal accusations against the ten detainees of “plotting to destabilize national security”. The ten detainees appeared before a tribunal on 30 January 2004.
5. 486. In its communication of 1 March 2004, the ICFTU states that the ten remaining detainees, who had been held since 24 January 2004, were freed on 29 February 2004, after more than a month of arbitrary detention.
   • Incident of 27 January 2004
6. 487. In its communication of 31 January 2004, the ICFTU states that two trade unionists (Mr. Timothée Faduel, Secretary-General of the youth section of the Autonomous Confederation of Haitian Workers (CATH) and Mr. Jean-Luc Toussaint, a CATH member), were arrested by police officers from the General Security Unit of the Palais national and detained without charge after a peaceful demonstration in Port-au-Prince on 27 January 2004, which had been carried off without incident. The ICFTU claims that these two trade unionists were severely beaten by the police during their detention. The two trade unionists had been released by 31 January 2004.
   • Threats against trade union members
7. 488. In its communication of 28 January 2004, the CSH states that, besides the threats made by the police officers during the incident of 24 January 2004 at the CSH headquarters, Mr. Charles Fritz, Secretary-General of the CSH, has suffered serious intimidation from violent groups close to the Government, which has forced him to remain in hiding since November 2003. The CSH states, moreover, that although it has reported this intimidation many times, no steps have been taken to protect Mr. Fritz’s person or to bring the guilty parties to justice.
8. 489. In its communication of 1 March 2004, the ICFTU also states that, even before the incident of 24 January 2004, threats had already been made against the 11 individuals arrested on that occasion and their families, as well as against other union leaders. The ICFTU claims that several Haitian trade unionists chose to go into hiding on 29 February 2004 for fear of reprisals by the “Chimères” and other armed “criminal” elements.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 490. The Committee regrets that, despite the time which has passed since the presentation of the complaint, to date the Government has not responded to the allegations made by the complainant organizations, although the Committee has urged it to send its observations or information on the case on several occasions, including through an urgent appeal launched at the Committee’s June 2004 meeting. Under these circumstances, in accordance with the procedure established in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report as approved by the Governing Body, the Committee stated that it would present a report on the substance of this case at its next session, even if the observations or information requested had not been received in due time.
2. 491. The Committee reminds the Government, firstly, that the aim of all the procedures established by the International Labour Organization in relation to the examination of allegations related to violations of freedom of association is to ensure that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations are respected, in fact and in law; the Committee thus believes that though this procedure protects governments from unfounded accusations, those same governments should in turn recognize the importance of providing detailed and precise responses concerning the substance of the alleged facts for objective examination [see First Report, para. 31].
3. 492. The Committee observes that the complainant organizations’ allegations in this case concern various violations of the fundamental principles of freedom of association laid down in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The Committee considers that these violations can be grouped into four main types.
4. 493. First, the Committee notes the allegation of the complainant organizations that, at the incident of 24 January 2004, the group of police officers who carried out the search of the CSH premises had no judicial warrant. In this regard, the Committee recalls that 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 Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 176]. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that, in the future, searches carried out on trade union premises do not take place without the provision of an appropriate judicial warrant, and that they are restricted to the purposes which are the reason for the provision of the warrant.
5. 494. Secondly, the Committee notes the complainant organizations’ claim that, during both the incident of 24 January 2004 and that of 27 January 2004, the police arbitrarily arrested and detained several trade unionists, without bringing them before a judge or charging them with any offence. In regard to this, the Committee is compelled to recall that measures that deprive trade union leaders and members of their freedom entail a serious risk of interference in trade union activities and, when such measures are taken on trade union grounds, they constitute an infringement of the principles of freedom of association [see Digest, op. cit., para. 74]. While noting that all of the trade unionists involved in this complaint have now been freed, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that, in future, no trade unionists are arrested or detained without benefiting from normal judicial proceedings and having the right to due process, and in particular, the right to be informed of the charges brought against them, to communicate freely with counsel of their own choosing, and to a prompt trial by an impartial and independent judicial authority.
6. 495. Thirdly, the Committee notes the allegation of the ICFTU that, during their detention, the trade unionists involved in the incidents of 24 and 27 January 2004 were victims of ill treatment including physical attack. The Committee is compelled to recall in this respect that, as regards allegations of the physical ill-treatment of trade unionists, governments should give the necessary instructions so as to ensure that no detainee is subjected to ill-treatment and apply effective sanctions where cases of such treatment are found. It has also emphasized the importance that should be attached to the principle laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights according to which all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect of the inherent dignity of the human person [see Digest, op. cit., para. 59]. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to specify the measures it intends to take to identify and punish those responsible for the ill-treatment which, according to the allegations of the ICFTU, has been inflicted on several trade unionists during their detention by the police force.
7. 496. Lastly, the Committee notes the complainant organizations’ claim that many trade unionists are the victims of constant threats and intimidation from certain violent groups, and that this has led some of them to go into hiding for fear that these groups might carry out their threats. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders or members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected [see Digest, op. cit., para. 47]. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures it intends to take to ensure that leaders and members of workers’ organizations are able to carry out their activities freely, without facing violence, pressure or threats of any kind.