D. The Committee’s conclusions

667. The Committee observes that this case concerns allegations of violent police repression of strikes, protests and the May Day 2004 rally in Saqez; the arrest, detention and conviction of several trade union leaders and activists for their trade union activities; the arrest of trade union leaders of the Teachers’ Guild Association; interventions in a strike at the Kurdistan Textile Factory and subsequent harassment of the workers’ representatives; and the proposal and adoption of legislation that would restrict the trade union rights of a large number of workers.

Khatoonabad and Shahr-e-Babak

668. With regard to the violent repression of a strike and protest at the copper complex in Khatoonabad on 24 January 2004, the Committee recalls that in its previous examination of this case, regretting that it had insufficient information to determine whether the use of force in respect of the protesting workers was justified or not, requested the Government to provide further information on any criminal charges brought and court judgements rendered in respect of the threats of violence and arson to which the Government had made general references in its report, and which, according to the Government, left the police with no choice but to use tear gas and water cannons.

669. The Committee notes in this respect that the complainant forwarded a press communiqué issued by the High Centre of Islamic Labour Councils on 27 January 2004 soon after the incidents in Khatoonabad and Shahr-e-Babak, which would seem to indicate that the authorities used excessive force against workers in the Province of Kerman (Khatoonabad and Shahr-e-Babak belong to this province). Although the communiqué appears to refer to protests concerning the Mirrok Mines, according to the complainant, it refers in reality to the incidents in Khatoonabad (showing some confusion on behalf of the Council as to where the incident took place). The communiqué reads in part: “We have witnessed till now, labour protests, strikes, sitting strikes and labour rallies to achieve [the workers’] legal rights, but unfortunately now, we notice that the just actions of the workers are met out with firearms, and unfortunately considerable numbers of them get killed or injured. The Governorate of Kerman, unable to give convincing answers to the workers of the Mirook Mines of Kerman, resorts to violence and utilizes the Special Guards Forces to counter them. Are the workers foreign enemies and should every protest be answered with a gun?”

670. The Committee notes that the Government largely reiterates previously provided information on the incidents, emphasizing that there was no agreement as to the granting of permanent status to the protesting casual workers whose contracts were terminated at the completion of the smelting plant built by a subcontractor for the National Iranian Copper Industries Company.

671. The Committee notes with regret that the Government advances no further information on the purported threats of violence and arson made by the workers in Khatoonabad. The Committee deplores the absence of information which could have assisted it in evaluating whether the recourse to force in respect of the protesting workers at the copper complex in Khatoonabad was justified or not. The Committee recalls that authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened. The intervention of the forces of law and order should be in due proportion to the danger to law and order that the authorities are attempting to control and governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the danger entailed by the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations which might result in a disturbance of the peace [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 137].

672. With regard to the violent clashes in Shahr-e-Babak, which took place on the same day as the incidents in neighbouring Khatoonabad, the Committee recalls that in its previous examination of this case it had requested the Government to provide further details concerning the circumstances in which four persons were killed as well as the believed reasons for their involvement in these events, given that the Government had indicated that these persons were not workers of the Khatoonabad smelting plant and that they were actually involved in a political protest lacking social or economic grounds.

673. The Committee notes in this respect that according to the complainant, the four victims were workers and two years after their death nobody has been held responsible, and their families have not received any compensation.

674. The Committee further notes that according to the Government, after carrying out an inquiry, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that violence only broke out in Shahr-e-Babak when “rioters” started attacking public property, banks and office buildings, leading to the regretful killing of four citizens and temporary arrest of dozens more pursuant to extensive civil disorder. None of those killed were workers of the smelting plant. The legal proceedings since instituted to examine the incident rejected the allegations that the four people who were killed were amongst the rioters and found the police forces guilty and sentenced them to pay indemnity for the loss of life of innocent citizens. However, the military court subsequently decided to terminate the prosecutions of the police force involved in the dispersal of the demonstrations and the inadvertent killing of four people. The families of the killed objected to this decision and the court of justice of Kerman Province referred the case to the National Supreme Court where it is pending under File No. 15/4/85/2/83.

675. The Committee notes, therefore, that following an investigation, it has been found that the four killed persons in the Shahr-e-Babak events were not involved in a political protest, as previously indicated by the Government. The Committee deeply regrets the loss of innocent life and once again emphasizes that the intervention of the forces of law and order should be in due proportion to the danger to law and order that the authorities are attempting to control. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the danger entailed by the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations which might result in a disturbance of the peace. The Committee notes that the issue of the killing of four innocent persons by the police force during the incidents in Shahr-e-Babak is currently pending before the Supreme Court and requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress of the proceedings and to communicate the final decision once it has been handed down.

676. The Committee further recalls that during the previous examination of this case, it had requested the Government to establish an independent investigation into the arrests of some 80 persons and provide further information on whether any persons arrested in connection with the incidents in Khatoonabad and Shahr-e-Babak were still being detained or charged in relation to these two incidents and, if so, to provide details in this respect.

677. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in this respect that although dozens of people were arrested in Shahr-e-Babak and Khatoonabad incidents, almost all were immediately set free. However, six defendants were found guilty of civil disorder and commotion by the general court in Shahr-e-Babak (File No. 124/83/3) and received each six to 12 months’ imprisonment sentences. In the court of appeal held on 14 January 2006 in the city of Kerman, the penalties of the defendants were suspended for three years and their imprisonment terms were further shortened as well. One of them was later set free against a bail of US$110.

678. The Committee regrets that the Government provides no information on the names, occupations and any trade union affiliation of the six convicted persons, the specific acts with which they are accused, as well as the grounds on which they were convicted. The Committee requests the Government to communicate information in this respect, including the court decisions handed down against the six persons convicted of civil disorder and commotion in Shahr-e-Babak.

Saqez

679. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee requested the Government to reply to the complainant’s allegations concerning serious breaches of due process in the trials of Messrs. Salehi, Hosseini, Divangar, Abdlpoor, Hakimi, Khodkam and Tanomand; to ensure that all charges against them related to the organization of the 2004 Labour Day March and the peaceful participation therein, even if it took place without prior approval, are immediately dropped; to provide precise and detailed information on the specific charges brought against them and to transmit copies of the judgements in their cases as soon as they are handed down.

680. The Committee notes that according to the complainant: (1) the seven trade union leaders and activists (Mahmoud Salehi, Jalal Hosseini, Mohsen Hakimi, Borhan Divangar, Mohammad Abdlpoor, Esmail Khodkam and Hadi Tanomand) were arrested on 1 May 2004 because of their labour rights activism; they were subsequently charged with cooperation with the banned political party Komala; (2) they were arrested even before the May Day Rally started on 1 May 2004, when security forces and plain-clothes officers attacked the participants and arrested about 50 of them; (3) during the court hearings, (on 1 February and 18 April 2005) the prosecution accused Mahmoud Salehi of writing an article entitled “Preparing a cost of living index for a family of five in Iran” as well as a statement condemning the killing of several striking workers by security forces in Khatoonabad in January 2004; the prosecution included the meeting between Mr. Salehi and the ICFTU mission on 29 April 2004 in the reading of the indictments; false charges were also brought against Mr. Salehi during the hearings; (4) Mahmoud Salehi was arrested once again on 4 August 2005 for one hour for participating in one of the many protests that followed the shooting of Shivan Qaderi, a Kurdish opposition activist, in July 2005; before his release he was warned against any participation in further demonstrations and strikes in Saqez; (5) on 9 November 2005, Mahmoud Salehi was sentenced by the Court of First Instance to five years’ imprisonment and three years in exile in the city of Ghorveh under article 610 of the Islamic Punishment Act, which prescribes penalties from two to five years of imprisonment for congregating to conspire to commit crimes against national security; (6) Mahmoud Salehi has also been informed that he has been charged with “public opinion disturbance” because of his article “Preparing a cost of living index for a family of five in Iran” and his case is pending before the competent public court; (7) Jalal Hosseini was also sentenced by the Court of First Instance to three years’ imprisonment on the same day as Mahmoud Salehi under the abovementioned article 610 of the Islamic Punishment Act for congregating to conspire to commit crimes against national security; Hadi Tanomand and Esmail Khodkam were acquitted; (8) on 11 November 2005, Mohsen Hakimi, Borhan Divangar and Mohammad Abdlpoor were also sentenced by the Court of First Instance to two years’ imprisonment for “attempting to endanger national security by participating in an illegal gathering”; (9) access to the court hearings was denied to the complainant (ICFTU); (10) the Court of Appeal overturned the verdicts against Messrs. Salehi, Hosseini, Hakimi, Divangar and Abdlpoor handed down by the Court of First Instance in respect of the charges of participation in riots and unlawful assembly in Saqez, while remanding the charges brought under article 610 of the Islamic Penal Code back to the first-level court for review.

681. The complainant emphasizes that all of the accused were found not guilty with regard to the charges pertaining to association with the banned organization Komala. Thus, according to the complainant, the verdicts issued by the Court of First Instance could only be due to their trade union activities given that the initial arrests were made in connection with their participation in May Day 2004 celebrations and that during the court hearings concerning Mr. Salehi in particular, his trade union activities were explicitly held against him, including a meeting he had with an ICFTU delegation.

682. The Committee notes that, according to the Government: (1) the holding of First May celebrations and rallies is not considered illegal provided that the corresponding approvals are obtained from the Ministry of Interior in advance; (2) the legal proceedings instituted against the seven defendants merely focused on the charges of illegal and prohibited assemblies and insurgencies leading to disorderly civil unrest and violation of public security; five defendants were convicted for unlawful and violent demonstrations and civil disorder rather than attending the First May celebrations or carrying out trade union or labour-related activities; (3) the concern expressed by the complainant as to the arrest of the defendants because of their meeting with its mission seems unsubstantiated, since the mission met with many other people who were not even contacted by the police or security forces; (4) the demonstrations were quite unrelated to labour-related activities and in apparent breach of the provisions laid down in statutory law; (5) all court hearings were held in public except in one instance when some people attending the court deliberately tried to disturb the proceedings, making the judge order a non-public session; (6) Mahmoud Salehi was initially convicted by the Court of First Instance of instigating “civil unrest” and “illegal demonstrations” and sentenced to a total of eight years’ imprisonment of which three years to be spent in exile in the city of Ghorveh as a leniency token (File No. Sh/263/83); (7) Jalal Hosseini was convicted by the Court of First Instance to three years’ imprisonment for instigating “illegal and violent demonstrations” (File No. Sh/254/83); (8) Borhan Divangar, Mohammad Abdlpoor and Mohsen Hakimi were sentenced by the Court of First Instance to two years’ imprisonment for instigating “illegal and violent demonstrations” (Files Nos. Sh/260/83, Sh/258/83 and Sh/255/83, respectively); (9) all five were acquitted of the charges of sympathizing with subversive groups and acquitted by the Court of Appeal of the charges of illegal assembly and social unrest for which they had been sentenced by the Court of First Instance; (10) Esmail Khodkam and Hadi Tanomand were acquitted of all charges (Files Nos. Sh/262/83 and Sh/261/83).

683. The Committee welcomes the latest information received from both the complainant and the Government that Messrs. Salehi, Hosseini, Hakimi, Divangar and Abdlpoor have been acquitted of certain charges that had led to their conviction and sentencing to from two to five years’ imprisonment. The Committee also observes, however, that the charges under article 610 of the Islamic Penal Code, assembly and collusion to act against the Internal and external security of the country, appear to remain pending and have been remanded to the Court of First Instance for re-examination. The Committee must recall from the previous examination of the case that according to the Government, these persons had been arrested because they were suspected of being members and advocates of two banned political groups (the “Komala” Party and the Communist Party) who purportedly joined the marchers and disrupted the ceremony, turning the rally into a political movement rather than a labour one [see 337th Report, para. 1037]. In the absence of a conviction on these political grounds, the Committee has great difficulty in seeing how the remaining charges could be related to anything other than their trade union activities.

684. Furthermore, the Committee notes once again that the Government has not provided any specific information as to the manner in which the peaceful rally in Saqez became violent, nor as to the actual necessity of intervention by the security forces. The Committee must therefore once again emphasize that in cases where the complainants alleged that trade union leaders or workers had been arrested for trade union activities, and the Government’s replies amounted to general denials of the allegation or were simply to the effect that the arrests were made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security or for common law crimes, the Committee has followed the rule that the Government concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests, particularly in connection with the legal or judicial proceedings instituted as a result thereof and the result of such proceedings, in order to be able to make a proper examination of the allegations [see Digest, op. cit., para. 98].

685. With regard to the Government’s comment that the rally was unrelated to labour-related activities, the Committee would recall once again that the organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic interests and occupational interests should be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and standards of living [see Digest, op. cit., para. 480].

686. In light of the above, the Committee must once again recall the importance it attaches to the principle that the right to organize public meetings and processions, particularly on the occasion of May Day, constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights. Although trade unions should respect legal provisions which are intended to ensure the maintenance of public order, the public authorities should, for their part, refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of trade unions to organize the holding and proceedings of their meetings in full freedom [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 134 and 144.] The Committee further expects that, upon re-examination, the Court of First Instance will take fully into account all of the abovementioned principles and Messrs. Salehi, Hosseini, Hakimi, Divangar and Abdlpoor will be fully acquitted of all remaining charges rapidly. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.

687. The Committee also notes with concern that the Government has not responded to the allegations that two of the documents used as evidence against Mr. Salehi during his trial included an article he had written on preparing a cost of living index and a statement he had made condemning the killing of several striking workers in Khatoonabad in January 2005, both of which constitute the exercise of legitimate trade union activities. In addition, the Committee notes with grave concern the complainant’s new allegations according to which Mr. Salehi has been charged with “public opinion disturbance” because of his article “Preparing a cost of living index for a family of five in Iran” and his case is pending before the competent public court. The Committee urges the Government to drop all charges against Mr. Salehi related to his article “Preparing a cost of living index for a family of five in Iran”, which the Committee considers constitutes a legitimate trade union activity. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this respect.

688. Finally, the Committee notes with concern the additional information provided by the complainant with regard to the arrest, detention, alleged severe beating and court summons of Borhan Divangar in August 2005 who was charged among other things with membership of the Coordinating Committee to Form Workers’ Organizations (established by Mahmoud Salehi and Mohsen Hakimi on 4 May 2005), membership of the newly formed unemployed workers’ organization, managing a labour website in Iran called “Tashakol” and participating in the wave of demonstrations in Saqez that followed the shooting of Kurdish opposition activist Shivan Qaderi. The Committee requests the Government to communicate immediately its comments in this respect.

Other allegations

689. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided information in reply to the additional allegations made by the complainant in its communication dated 7 February 2005, despite the Committee’s previous request to this effect. These allegations concerned: (1) the arrest of trade union leaders of the Teachers’ Guild Association; (2) interventions in a strike at the Kurdistan Textile Factory and subsequent harassment of the workers’ representatives; and (3) the proposal and adoption of legislation that would restrict the trade union rights of a large number of workers [see 337th Report, paras. 957-966]. In this regard, the Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations concerning violations of freedom of association is to ensure respect for the rights of employers’ and workers’ organizations in law and in fact. If this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side should recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed factual replies concerning the substance of the allegations brought against them [see First Report, para. 31].

690. With regard to the allegations concerning the arrest of trade union leaders of the Teachers’ Guild Association, the Committee recalls that the complainant referred to information from the official Iranian news agency, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) that Mahmoud Beheshti Langarudi, General Secretary of the Teachers’ Guild Association and Ali-Ashgar Zati, spokesperson of the same organization, were arrested on 12 July 2004. The complainant further alleges that they were arrested for their trade union activities and strikes that they organized in March and June 2004 for the non-payment of wages. Mr. Langarudi was summoned to court in May 2004 on charges linked to the strike staged in March 2004 which was attended by 200,000 workers. He was accused of entering a school illegally, leaving his job during working hours and mobilizing “agitating” teachers to strike. The complainant understood from IRNA that the arrest in July 2004 could result in charges of violation of national security and organization of two protests in June in demand of higher wages and wage arrears of 5.2 billion rials (US$620 million). According to the complainant, the teachers’ union has been intimidated into silence and has thus not issued any statement on the arrests despite a protest by teachers on 19 July 2004 in front of the main entrance of Majles (the Iranian Parliament) in Tehran. The complainant added that Messrs. Mahmoud Beheshti Langarudi and Ali-Asghar Zati were only released on bail in mid-August 2004. Mr. Zati had to pay a bail of 70 million tomans and Mr. Beheshti 50 million tomans. However, reportedly, other members of the same association had been arrested in the northern province of Mazandaran.

691. The Committee emphasizes that it has always recognized the right to strike by workers and their organizations as a legitimate means of defending their economic and social interests and that it has also recognized that workers should enjoy the right to peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 132 and 475]. The Committee considers that a strike aimed at an increase in wages and payment of wage arrears clearly falls within the scope of legitimate trade union activities. The Committee emphasizes that the arrest of trade unionists may create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear prejudicial to the normal development of trade union activities; moreover, the detention of trade union leaders or members for reasons connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers constitutes a serious interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 71 and 76]. Noting that the two trade union leaders remained in detention for one month, the Committee emphasizes that measures of preventive detention may involve a serious interference with trade union activities which can only be justified by the existence of a serious situation or emergency and which would be open to criticism unless accompanied by adequate judicial safeguards applied within a reasonable period [see Digest, op. cit., para. 85]. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on any charges brought against Mahmoud Beheshti Langarudi, General Secretary, and Ali-Ashgar Zati, spokesperson of the Teachers’ Guild Association, as well as any court decisions handed down, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that where these charges are related to their trade union activities, they are dropped or re-examined by the competent authorities in light of the abovementioned principles. The Committee requests to be kept informed in this respect.

692. With regard to the allegations concerning interventions in a strike at the Kurdistan Textile Factory in Sanandaj, the Committee notes that according to the complainant, the factory was surrounded by armed security forces that cut off access to it during a sit-in strike to protest against mass redundancy plans announced by management. The strike started on Sunday, 31 October 2004 and by 1 November it had covered the whole factory and had drawn wide support from other factories, unions, workers and citizens. On 2 November 2004, the Labour Ministry reportedly called on Kurdistan’s Governor, the army and the management to put an end to the “rebellion”. The strike ended on 3 November when the employer and the government authorities agreed to improve severance pay, although they refused to commit to refrain from further redundancies. According to the complainant, the factory was besieged by armed forces while the negotiations were taking place and the local head of the security service observed the negotiations and at one moment waived a leaflet, shouted and made threats against the workers’ representatives.

693. The complainant explains that renewed strike action was taken on 22 December when the employer decided to dismiss five workers. The strikers made various demands related to their terms and conditions of employment, including reinstatement of the five dismissed workers. Fearing that security forces would be deployed at the factory as they had been in November 2004, the workers elected a committee to defend their rights. However, security forces and the employer were pressuring the members of the committee, and in particular Shis Amani, the chair of the committee, to end the strike. He was interrogated and threatened several times and only workers’ support had prevented his detention. Other workers’ representatives such as Messrs. Hadi Zarei, Iqbal Moradi, Hassan Hariati, Farshid Beheshti Zad and Ahmad Fatehi were also threatened with dismissal and arrest. Many workers had reportedly been expelled and worker activists were reportedly put under “immense pressure”.

694. According to the complainant, on 6 January 2005, a commission created by the Department of Labour with representatives from the security forces, the Department of Labour, the management and the Ministry of Information (public security) negotiated for more than five hours with the workers’ representatives and reached an agreement (on 1 January 2005, the commission had threatened the striking workers that it would expel them all). The striking workers agreed to go back to work on certain conditions, including the payment of redundancy pay to the five dismissed workers equivalent to three months’ wages for each year of service at the factory plus allowances. Since the end of the strike following the agreement reached on 6 January, the representatives of the workers have been allegedly harassed and brought in for interrogation on 19 January 2005 by the Intelligence Ministry. Messrs. Shis Amani and Hadi Zarei have both been threatened. Fashid Beheshti Zad was threatened and accused of having ties with opposition political parties. The employer and the authorities were also allegedly trying to find excuses not to honour the agreement.

695. The Committee must once again recall the principle enunciated above that it has always recognized the right to strike by workers and their organizations as a legitimate means of defending their economic and social interests [see Digest, op. cit., para. 132]. The Committee requests the Government to ensure full respect for this principle in the future. In addition, the Committee notes with deep concern that, according to the complainant, notwithstanding the agreement reached on this matter between the workers’ representatives and the Department of Labour, the Ministry of Information (public security) and the factory management in January 2005, the Intelligence Ministry has subsequently interrogated, threatened and harassed Shis Amani, Hadi Zarei and Fashid Beheshti Zad. 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 leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected [see Digest, op. cit., para. 47.]. It urges the Government to institute an independent inquiry into these allegations and to keep the Committee informed of the outcome.

696. Finally, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided any information with respect to its previous request concerning the allegations relating to the proposal and adoption of legislation that would restrict the trade union rights of a large number of workers (i.e. the exemption from the labour legislation of workshops of less than ten employees and proposals to exempt temporary workers) and requests it to do so without delay.