Mauritania. It alleges that during the bloody political events that troubled Mauritania between 1986 and 1991, those who have now joined together under the umbrella of CRADPOCIT were arrested, along with other Mauritanian citizens of black African stock and detained in the Nouakchott civil prison, and later transferred to various gaols where they were subjected to torture and other inhuman and degrading forms of treatment; this is alleged to have led to the death of some of their co-detainees. 64. After more than fifteen days of detention, some of them were released, while others were charged [in] court and held in the civilian prisons. 65. Following a number of court cases, some of those on remand were released and others were given suspended sentences, while yet others were sentenced to prison terms varying from three months to five years. These verdicts were aggravated with loss of civic rights, heavy fines and banishment after release. 66. In 1993, members of the armed forces who had been subjected to the same treatment as those who came together under CRADPOCIT were granted pension benefit coupons. Imbued with the hope raised by this measure, they addressed a letter to the President of the Republic on 3rd November 1993, in which they demanded their rehabilitation, in line with what had been provided to their compatriots of Arabo-Berber origin and the military personnel of black African origin. This move yielded no results. 67. Two years later, they addressed a second letter to the Head of State, with the same demands, without achieving any better results than in 1993. It was after this second failure that they decided to constitute themselves into a collective in order to better defend their rights. Application for the official recognition of the said collective (CRADPOCIT) was addressed to the Ministry of Interior. At the same time, its founding documents were sent to the Head of State, the Presidents of the Senate and the National Assembly, as well as the Mediator of the Republic, with the same demands annexed in all cases. 68. The complainant claims that as of the time of the arrest of the members of CRADPOCIT, the majority of them were civil servants who had each accumulated ten to twenty years of service. Furthermore, the complainant claims that at present they are subject to the most precarious living conditions, aggravated by unemployment and onerous family responsibilities. Some of them have even seen their homes broken following divorces that they were unable to prevent. Procedure*** 69. The communication was received by the Secretariat of the Commission on 26th January 1998. 70. At the 23rd Ordinary Session, held from 20-29th April 1998 in Banjul (The Gambia), the Commission decided: 1. to notify the Mauritanian government representative at the session of the communication (with signed acknowledgement); 2. to combine it with the ongoing procedure for communications 54/91, 61/91, 96/93, 98/93 and communication 164/97 to 196/97. It took the view that the reaction of the Mauritanian government to the various Notes Verbales from the Secretariat, as contained in Note No. 075/MAEC, dated 1 October 1997, was valid for the case under consideration. 3. to defer the communication to its 24th Session for consideration of its merits. 71. At the 24th Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, from 22-31st October 1998, it was decided that the members of the Commission who had undertaken the mission to Mauritania should consider the communications, taking into account the response of the Government of Mauritania to their mission report. Consideration of these communications was thus deferred to the 25th Session. Provisions of the Charter alleged to have been violated 72. Members of CRADPOCIT are complaining of discriminatory practices on the part of the Mauritanian government, which they accuse of operating "a policy of double standards" , since the officials of Arabo-Berber origin who had been subjected to the same situation had been reintegrated into their various workplaces, while the members of the collective who are of Black African origin saw their pleas rejected. 73. They further point out that while they were in detention, in September 1987, when about fifteen pro-Iraqi Ba'athist Arabo-Berber military men (charged [with] belonging to a criminal organisation, participation in unauthorised meetings and kidnapping of children) joined them in the same prison, their arrival led to a notable improvement in their conditions of detention. They claim that they were then allowed to take walks 7