Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 168, Noviembre 1977

Caso núm. 774 (República Centroafricana) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 04-ENE-74 - Cerrado

1. 99. The Committee last examined this case in May 1976, when it submitted interim conclusions to the Governing Body in paragraphs 257-270 of its 158th Report. This report was approved by the Governing Body at its 200th Session (May-June 1976).
2. 100. The Central African Empire has ratified both 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 101. The allegations still outstanding concern the detention of Mr. Malikanga and Mr. Mapouka, trade union officials who have been in custody, apparently since December 1973. The Committee noted in May 1976 that the Government had not provided detailed information on the subversive activities which, it stated, had led to their arrest, and that, moreover, these persons did not seem to have appeared before a court.
2. 102. The Committee had emphasised the principles which have always guided it when examining cases similar to the present one In numerous cases where allegations had been made that trade union leaders or workers had been arrested for trade union activities, and where the governments concerned had denied these allegations or simply stated that the arrests had been made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security, or for common-law crimes, the Committee had followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit as precise information as possible concerning the arrests, particularly in regard to legal or judicial proceedings instituted as a result thereof and the results of such proceedings, so as to enable the Committee to make a proper examination of the allegations. When the Committee has considered, on the basis of the information supplied to it, that the persons concerned have been judged by a competent judicial authority, have enjoyed the benefit of a normal court procedure and have been sentenced for acts having no relationship to trade union activities or which go beyond the scope of normal trade union activities, the Committee has considered that the case did not call for further examination.
3. 103. Lastly, the Committee pointed out that although the fact of exercising trade union activity or holding trade union office did not confer any immunity as regards the criminal law, the prolonged detention of trade unionists without bringing them to trial might constitute a serious impediment to the exercise of trade union rights.
4. 104. In paragraph 270 of its 158th Report, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government, for the reasons set out in the two preceding paragraphs, to supply full information on the reasons which had led to the arrest of Mr. Malikanga and Mr. Mapouka, and to state whether charges had been brought against them and, if so, the results of such action.
5. 105. In February 1977, the Government having failed to supply this information in spite of repeated requests to do so, the Committee drew the Government's attention to the interim conclusions it had reached and requested the Government to transmit the information requested as a matter of urgency.
6. 106. The Government replied by a letter dated 13 April 1977. It stated that Messrs. Malikanga and Mapouka, officials of the Central African General Trade Union Congress, had been pardoned in pursuance of Imperial Decree No. 76/002 of 7 December 1976 and that since that date there were no longer any charges or legal proceedings pending against them.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 107. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to note with interest that Mr. Malikanga and Mr. Mapouka have been freed, but to draw the attention of the Government to the considerations and principles expressed in paragraphs 102 and 103 relating to the detention of trade unionists.