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. th 3. to defer the communication to its 24 Session for consideration of its merits. th st 71. At the 24 Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, from 22-31 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 th report. Consideration of these communications was thus deferred to the 25 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 within the prison courtyard, a “privilege” that was previously denied to them. However, they were still denied visits as a policy, while their Arabo-Berber compatriots had the right to receive anyone, including their spouses. 74. Immediately after the release of the Arabo-Berbers, the black Africans were thrust back to the difficult gaol conditions to which they had previously been subjected, which consisted, remarkably, of keeping them chained in pairs during the whole day, with all inconveniences arising from such a situation, hard labour, fetching water, etc. These inhuman prison conditions, coupled with poor nourishment and lack of hygiene are said to be the cause of the above-mentioned deaths of four of their co-detainees (two military and two civilians). 75. The Mauritanian Human Rights Association claims violation of the following provisions of the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights: 1. Article: “Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or other status”; 2. Article 4: “Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right”; 3. Article 5: “Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited”; 4. Article 15: “Every individual shall have the right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions, and shall receive equal pay for equal work” ; 5. Article 16: “1. Every individual shall have the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health; 2. “State Parties to the present Charter shall take the necessary measures to protect the health of their people and to ensure that they receive medical attention when they are sick”; ;