226/99 Union Nationale des Syndicats Autonomes du Sénégal (UNSAS) / Senegal Summary of Facts 1. The Complainant is a trade union congress Union Nationale des Syndicats Autonomes du Sénégal (National Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Senegal), known by its acronym UNSAS. It claims that on 20th July 1998, at 6:20 am, the Senegalese government caused the arrest of Mr. Mademba Sock, Secretary General of UNSAS and of the Syndicat Unique des Travailleurs de l'Electricité (C) (SUTELEC), as well as 25 delegates and members of SUTELEC's executive. According to the Complainant, these arrests were made in flagrant violation of labour freedoms. The detainees were kept for four days without the opportunity of communicating with their counsel or their relations. This, according to UNSAS, constitutes violation of the provisions of Article 10 × 1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 2. (a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons; (b) Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and brought as speedily as possible for adjudication. 3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status. of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is incorporated into Senegal??ÂÂs constitution. 2. UNSAS and other unions, joined by broad sectors of the labour world, mobilised themselves to push for the release of the detainees and their return to their posts, as well as for the opening of negotiations with the government with a strong concern for preserving social peace. Since then, the peaceful demonstrations that have been regularly declared have been subjected to unwarranted prohibitions on the part of the public authorities and "fierce" repression, which has spared neither the head office of the union (regardless of the principle of inviolability of trade union premises, as recognised in ILO conventions), nor private residences. 3. The Complainant also states that the legal action brought against the detainees has yet to show any sign of respect for the right of access to defence counsel. In support of this view, the Complainant states that the court had upheld its demands when it ordered the results of the preliminary investigation to be set aside and for the case to be withdrawn. According to the Complainant, the presentation of the case before the criminal court for a judgement expected to be handed down by 15th October 1998 did not permit the exhaustion of all local remedies. 4. Without citing any specific provision of the African Charter on Human and Peoples??ÂÂ Rights, the Complainant expresses the view that, in this case, the Commission should see to it that the socio-economic rights of the detainees and their families are respected. Procedure 5. The communication is dated 13th October 1998 and was received by the Secretariat at the 24th Ordinary Session. 6. On 11th January 1999, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant to request information regarding the progress of the internal procedure. As of the date of the 25th Ordinary Session of the Commission, no feedback had been received. 1