subject to the most precarious living conditions, aggravated by unemployment and onerous family responsibilities; some of them have 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 26 January 1998. 70. At the 23rd ordinary session, held from 20 – 29 April 1998 in Banjul (The Gambia), the Commission decided : a) – to notify the Mauritanian government representative at the session of the communication (with signed acknowledgement); b) – to combine it with the ongoing procedure for communications 54/91, 61/91, 96/93, 98/93 and 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 n° 075/MAEC, dated 1st October 1997, was valid for the case under consideration. c) – to defer the communication to its 24th session for consideration of its merit. 71. At the 24th 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 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 for 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. 12