Informe provisional - Informe núm. 85, 1966

1. 525. This case was examined by the Committee at its sessions in February and May 1965 when it made interim reports. In the 83rd Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 162nd Session (May 1965), the Committee made definitive recommendations on allegations relating to the intervention of the authorities in a conflict which had arisen on the Huayllamba estate. In the present report the Committee examines the remaining allegations, which relate to the detention of a number of trade union officers and to the infringement of trade union rights by the authorities in the province of Chimborazo.
2. 526. The original complaint was submitted by the Latin American Confederation of Christian Trade Unionists (C.L.A.S.C.) on 24 November 1964. It was then forwarded to the Government, which sent in its observations on 5 January 1965. The complainants submitted another complaint in a letter dated 23 December 1964, which was also forwarded to the Government.
3. 527. Ecuador has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

Allegations regarding Detention of Trade Union Officers

1. 528. In its communication dated 24 November 1964 C.L.A.S.C declared, inter alia, that the Ecuadorian Federation of Catholic Workers (C.E.D.O.C.) was being systematically subjected to discrimination and prosecution which constituted an infringement of freedom of association. In September 1964 trade union leaders Francisco Checa and Carlos Aroca were incarcerated at Machachi on being apprehended attending a meeting of peasants convened to found a peasants' league for that locality. At approximately the same time, at Naranjito, trade unionists Pedro Moreno Rocha, Carlos Idovro Vergara and Mesias Zamora Pérez were imprisoned for distributing leaflets to peasants with the aim of convening a meeting to found another peasants' league.
2. 529. In its reply dated 5 January 1965 the Government declared that C.E.D.O.C had never been subjected to any discrimination, nor had its leaders been persecuted. The organisation concerned enjoyed the same safeguards for pursuing its trade union activity as other workers' associations formed in compliance with the law and recognised by the Government.
3. 530. When examining the case at its 39th Session in February 1965 the Committee observed that the Government had referred neither to the specific allegations contained in the original complaint regarding the imprisonment of Francisco Checa, Carlos Aroca, Pedro Moreno Rocha, Carlos Idovro Vergara and Mesias Zamora Pérez, nor to the allegations contained in the complainants' letter of 23 December 1964, according to which Hugo Espinosa, a C.E.D.O.C leader, had been arrested and was being kept incommunicado and other leaders, Luis Cajas and Teodoro Reinoso, had also been arrested, although they were subsequently released. The Committee considered that the elements submitted by the Government in its reply were not sufficient to enable the situation to be evaluated in the light of the allegations presented by the complainants; consequently it recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish its detailed observations on the various events mentioned in the original complaint and in the complainants' letter of 23 December 1964.
4. 531. The Government sent two further communications relating to this case on 6 and 8 April 1965. However, since neither of these contained observations on the arrest of the trade union officers whose names had been cited, the Committee, having examined the case further at its 40th Session in May 1965, recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government once more to send its observations thereon. The relevant passage of paragraph 386 of the 83rd Report reads as follows:
5. In all the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
6. ......................................................................................................................................................
7. (b) with respect to the allegations relating to the arrest of union leaders Francisco Checa, Carlos Aroca, Pedro Moreno Rocha, Carlos Idovro Vergara, Mesias Zamora Pérez, Hugo Espinosa, Luis Cajas and Teodoro Reinoso ... to request the Government once more to furnish its observations at the earliest possible date.
8. 532. By letter dated 27 August 1965 the Government replied to the above reiterated request with the statement that the arrests in question had not been made on the ground of trade union activities, since such activities were fully guaranteed, but on the ground of penal offences such as were sanctioned in all legal systems.
9. 533. The Committee observes that in its brief communication the Government does not deny that all the persons named by the complainants were indeed arrested, but rather appears to confirm this. However, the Government does not agree with the complainants when it states that the arrests were due to penal offences, whereas they claim that the object was to victimise the arrested persons for their trade union activities. Nor does the Government explain the specific character of the offences or other acts ascribed to the arrested persons, or whether judicial proceedings have been taken against them, or, if so, what was the result in each case.
10. 534. On many occasions when allegations that trade union leaders or workers had been arrested or detained on account of trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests or detentions were made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security or for common law crimes, the Committee has followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests or detentions and the exact reasons therefor. If in certain cases the Committee has concluded that allegations relating to the arrests or detentions of trade union militants did not call for further examination, this has been after it has received information from the governments showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the arrests or detentions were in no way occasioned by trade union activities but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political character. In cases where trade unionists have been sentenced, the Committee has also followed the practice of asking governments to communicate the texts of the judgments, with their grounds.
11. 535. Moreover, the Committee has also observed on previous occasions that where persons had been sentenced on grounds having no relation to trade union rights the matter would fall outside its competence, but has emphasised that the question as to whether such a matter is one relating to a criminal offence or to the exercise of trade union rights cannot be determined unilaterally by the government concerned.
12. 536. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of the statements made by the Government in its letter of 27 August 1965 and, having regard to the contents of paragraphs 534 and 535 above, to ask the Government to send as soon as possible more complete information on this aspect of the case, including an account of the offences with which each of the trade unionists whose names are cited has been charged, the result of the proceedings and the text of any judgments given with their grounds.
13. Allegations respecting Infringement of Trade Union Rights in the Province of Chimborazo
14. 537. The complainants' letter of 23 December 1964 referred also to problems which had arisen regarding the peasants in the province of Chimborazo, where the attitude taken by the civil and military chief of the province had prevented the workers from organising and proclaiming their rights, including payment of over four years' arrears of wages. At its 39th and 40th Sessions the Committee deferred examination of this aspect of the case because it had not received the Government's observations. The relevant parts of paragraph 386 of the 83rd Report read as follows:
15. In all the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
16. ......................................................................................................................................................
17. (b) ... with respect to the allegations relating to infringements of trade union rights in Chimborazo province, to request the Government once more to furnish its observations at the earliest possible date.
18. 538. In its above-mentioned letter of 27 August 1965 the Government states only, with respect to this allegation, that all workers' organisations have enjoyed and continue to enjoy freedom in exercising their rights within the framework of the law.
19. 539. The Committee considers that the complainants' allegations in this regard do not contain sufficiently definite statements, specifying acts ascribed to the authority against which the complaint is made, which could provide substance for the examination of this aspect of the case. For instance, the complaint does not contain such allegations as refusal to register a union, or dissolution of a union, or prohibition of meetings, nor does it allege any specific act which might prevent or hinder the free exercise of the right to organise or to bargain collectively. The Committee recalls that other allegations made in this case, regarding the intervention of the authorities in a conflict which had arisen on the Huayllamba estate in the province of Chimborazo, have already been the subject of a definitive recommendation by the Committee. Accordingly, and without prejudice to any complaints which may be made in the future with regard to this same matter, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of the Government's reply and to decide, with the above reservation, that there is no object in continuing to examine this aspect of the case.