Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 118, 1970

1. 20. The Committee examined this case for the first time at its meeting in November 1968, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report which appears in paragraphs 331 to 340 of the Committee's 108th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body.
2. 21. In a communication dated 9 February 1970 the Government replied to the request for information and further observations made in paragraph 340 of the above-mentioned report. In addition the complaining Organisation, in a letter dated 24 February 1970, referred to recent developments in the situation giving rise to the complaint and expressed its desire to withdraw the latter.
3. 22. 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

• Allegations relating to Anti Trade Union Measures Taken in 1967
  23. 23 In the original complaint it was alleged that in June 1967 the Government of Libya had embarked on a series of repressive acts intended to cripple the Libyan trade union movement. It was alleged that in Tripoli the Government had illegally arrested over a hundred trade unionists and that several officers of the Libyan Federation of Occupational Unions had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment of from two to four years. They included Mr. Ezeddin El Ghadamsy, Mr. Ahmed Aburukhais, Mr. Ragab Oraiby, Mr. Walid Salem, Mr. Ali Osman El-Tassawy, Mr. Issa El-Somali, Mr. Aly El-Lafy, Mr. Abdel Salam El-Zakar, Mr. Isaa El-Kabalawy and Mr. Mokhtar El-Masaraty (see paragraph 333 of the 108th Report). The complaint also alleged that the anti-union measures taken by the Government included the dismissal of many active union members, special mention being made of the case of Mr. Abdalla Mansour; finally, it was stated that the headquarters of the Federation had been raided, searched and closed down by the police (paragraph 334 of the 108th Report).
  24. 24 The Government stated-to summarise its reply-that trade union activities were permitted and regulated by labour legislation and that the persons mentioned by name were not tried for their trade union activities but for having committed offences laid down in the Penal Code. Sentence was pronounced by the Criminal Court of Tripoli on the grounds that the accused persons had established, organised and managed a secret organisation with the aim of carrying out a coup d'état. According to the Government, the persons in question had circulated and promoted their illegal principles among students, teachers, workers and others through secret meetings and the collection of membership fees, which they sent out of the country. The Government added that the accused were tried in public and had absolute freedom to defend themselves (see paragraphs 335 and 336 of the 108th Report).
  25. 25 At its meeting in November 1968, after examining the facts summarised above and recalling certain principles which it has observed in similar cases, the Committee recommended the Governing Body (see paragraph 340 of the 108th Report)
      • (a) in respect of the sentences passed on various trade unionists, to request the Government to be good enough to supply the text of the sentences pronounced, together with the reasons therefor;
      • (b) in respect of the allegations concerning the dismissal of active trade unionists and the raiding searching and closing down of the headquarters of the Libyan Federation of Occupational Unions, to request the Government to be good enough to present its observations on these aspects of the complaint and on the present situation concerning the closure of the headquarters.
  26. 26 The Government's communication dated 9 February 1970 stated that " even if the restrictions and infringements mentioned in that claim had actually existed, the revolution Of 1 September came to do away with injustices and to break down chains and restrictions, and to establish social justice under the main principles announced by our revolutionary leaders the moment they took power ". Accordingly, the Government considered that all parties should treat this question as automatically closed by reason of the overthrow of the previous monarchical government of Libya and that there was no reason why the question should be discussed further.
  27. 27 For its part, the complaining organisation, in its letter dated 24 February 1970, stated that following the change of régime which had occurred through the revolution of 1 September 1969 all the arrested trade unionists had been released and the premises in question had been reopened. The same letter stated that the new Government had given its support to the trade union movement and had doubled the workers' minimum wages. In view of these changes it had expressed its profound gratitude to the Libyan Government. It concluded by stating that it wished to withdraw the complaint.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 28. In accordance with the principles observed by the Committee in previous cases, a change of political régime is not in itself sufficient reason for the Committee to decide not to pursue its examination of allegations relating to events occurring under the previous governments. In other cases the Committee has taken the view that, although the government in power can obviously not be held responsible for events which took place under its predecessor, it is clearly responsible for any continuing consequences which they may have had since its accession to power.
2. 29. In the present case, however, the Government's statements, which are couched in general terms, are confirmed by the information supplied by the complainants concerning developments with regard to the events constituting the grounds for the complaint. The Committee concludes from this information that the persons named by the complainants who had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment have now been released and that the trade union premises in question have been reopened. The International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions, which submitted the complaint, now wishes to withdraw it.