Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 396, Octubre 2021

1. 274. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 5 February 2020 sent by the Ecuadorian Confederation of United Workers’ Organizations (CEDOCUT) and the United Workers’ Front (FUT).
2. 275. The Government of Ecuador sent its observations on the allegations in a communication dated 24 April 2020.
3. 276. Ecuador has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 277. In their communication dated 5 February 2020, the CEDOCUT and the FUT denounce the criminal proceedings brought against Mr Manuel Mesías Tatamuez Moreno, president of the CEDOCUT and incumbent president of the FUT, following the protests that took place in the country between 3 and 13 October 2019. They also denounce the lack of social dialogue on the labour reforms proposed by the Government.
2. 278. The complainant organizations state that, in October 2019, the President of Ecuador, by Executive Decree No. 883, abolished fuel subsidies, which led to a hike in the price of  “extra” petrol – the most widely used type of petrol in the country – of just over US$0.50 per gallon.
3. 279. The complainant organizations state that the transport workers’ union called a strike, blocking highways and roads across the country, which triggered a series of protests in Ecuador, during which there were clashes between the police, who were trying to maintain public order, and thousands of protesters outraged by the economic measures that had a serious impact on their daily lives. They state that hundreds of indigenous communities and workers descended on Quito as the days went by to gather at these protests.
4. 280. The complainant organizations further state that: (i) in April 2019, before the introduction of the above-mentioned economic measures under Executive Decree No. 883, the Government had announced a package of labour reforms to enhance flexibility, including the creation of a new type of contract (the entrepreneurship contract), and the scrapping of the employer’s pension scheme, to be replaced by a monthly contribution corresponding to time worked; (ii) the Government had held a dialogue on this package of reforms only with organizations that were supportive of its policies, with no regard for the leaders of the country’s main trade union confederations; (iii) this situation was compounded by the instability felt by public sector employees as a result of the use of occasional service contracts; and (iv) because of the lack of dialogue, the trade union confederations had planned a national strike in April 2019 as a means of applying pressure in order to get the Government’s attention.
5. 281. The complainant organizations claim that, in the above-mentioned context, and in view of the economic measures adopted by the Government with the support of the International Monetary Fund, social sectors, indigenous organizations, trade unions and transport organizations held demonstrations in October 2019, leading to a national strike. Referring to a report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which found that excessive force was used by the security forces in keeping the protests under control, the complainant organizations claim that there were widespread clampdowns during the national strike and that many people were killed in clashes between protesters and the Ecuadorian police, and hundreds were injured and arrested.
6. 282. The complainant organizations state that Ecuador faced a serious crisis and that the Government declared a state of emergency throughout the country in response to the protests. They allege that the President of the Republic, despite initially refusing to engage with the organizations, had no choice but to enter into dialogue under the auspices of the United Nations and end the conflict by repealing Executive Decree No. 883 and introducing other measures, of benefit to the whole country. In this regard, they refer to the role played by the trade union confederations in calling for dialogue with the Government.
7. 283. The complainant organizations allege that, after the conflict, the Government disregarded the agreements reached under the auspices of the United Nations and filed a criminal complaint against the leaders of the October 2019 movement – both union leaders and indigenous leaders – for the kidnapping of public forces on public premises where an indigenous hearing was being held, attended by thousands of people, including union leaders who went to show their support for the objectives of the national strike that had been called before the month of October.
8. 284. The complainant organizations specifically claim that Mr Manuel Mesías Tatamuez Moreno, president of the CEDOCUT and incumbent president of the FUT, received an official request for information, dated 24 October 2019, in relation to the above-mentioned criminal complaint. They also report that, on 7 January 2020, Mr Tatamuez Moreno was summoned to the Prosecutor’s Office to give his version of events. He stated that he had not been involved in any kidnapping, and neither had he been aware of any intention to kidnap any police officer or journalist at that location, but that he had taken part in a peaceful demonstration. According to the complainant organizations, the aim of this action by the Government is to stop trade union leaders from fighting against labour reform policies in the country, which constitutes an anti-union act that is contrary to the provisions of Articles 1, 8 and 11 of Convention No. 87 and Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Convention No. 98. They claim that the Government has breached these Conventions by interfering in the criminal justice system with a view to restricting, through fear and intimidation, the exercise of trade union rights in general and the freedom of expression of trade union confederations in particular.
9. 285. The complainant organizations further allege that the Government has failed to fulfil its obligation to facilitate communication between the social partners in relation to the proposed labour reforms. In this regard, the complainant organizations: (i) claim that the Government held meetings to validate State policies only with trade unions associated with public enterprises that are dependent on the State, without any representation of workers in the private sector and that, consequently, there is not a climate of social dialogue; and (ii) request to be informed of the proposed labour reforms before their imminent submission to the National Assembly.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 286. In its communication dated 24 April 2020, the Government states that the present complaint bases its arguments largely around the issuance of Executive Decree No. 883 of 1 October 2019. It states that this Decree was issued because there was a clear need to reform the Substitute Regulations on the regulation of the price of hydrocarbon derivatives in accordance with the economic decisions adopted by the Government of Ecuador, which were aimed at setting new fuel prices to reflect the economic circumstances of the country in order to safeguard the interests of the State and prevent fuel smuggling. The Government states that it is a well-known fact that the adoption of this decision led to a series of demonstrations against the measure.
2. 287. The Government reports that, as a result, on 3 October 2019, by Executive Decree No. 884, the President of Ecuador declared a nationwide state of emergency on account of the circumstances of serious domestic unrest, as the blockades in various parts of the country had disturbed public order by impeding normal vehicular traffic, leading to outbreaks of violence that jeopardized the security and safety of individuals. In accordance with the provisions of section 1 of that Executive Decree, it also warned of a possible radicalization of the mobilizations throughout the national territory, as the various groups were continuing to call for ongoing protests of indefinite duration.
3. 288. The Government explains that section 3 of Executive Decree No. 884 suspended the right to exercise freedom of association and assembly throughout the national territory, strictly on grounds related to the state of emergency and State security, in accordance with the principles of proportionality, necessity and appropriateness, and in strict compliance with other constitutional guarantees. The Government reports that this suspension involved the restriction of gatherings in public spaces at any time of day in order to prevent the rights of other citizens from being violated.
4. 289. The Government also indicates that, as a result of the protests that lasted for several days in the country and the dialogue between the Government and the leaders of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador, the Ecuadorian Council of Evangelical Indigenous Peoples and Organizations, and the Confederation of Peasant, Indigenous and Black Organizations, the President of Ecuador, by means of Executive Decree No. 894 of 14 October 2019, decided to rescind Executive Decree No. 883, which led to the end of the demonstrations that had taken place in Ecuador.
5. 290. On this point, the Government states that the Committee, in accordance with its own decisions, is not competent to deal with allegations of a purely political nature and that, in the present case, there is no evidence of violation of the labour or trade union rights of any member of the CEDOCUT or the FUT.
6. 291. Regarding the supposed plan mentioned by the complainant organizations to promote precarious employment, the Government emphasizes that: (i) one of the policies that is planned by the Government and is aimed at promoting employment is the introduction of a type of entrepreneurship contract for newly established businesses, which would include all the labour rights that are already recognized for workers, with a view to boosting employment in Ecuador; (ii) the employer’s pension would be maintained, as the State is the guarantor of rights; and (iii) occasional service contracts are part of the labour system established under the Organic Law on the Public Service since the publication of that law on 6 October 2010 and are a type of contract to cater for non-permanent institutional needs in the public sector.
7. 292. The Government goes on to state that the proposed labour reforms mentioned by the complainant organizations have not been submitted to the National Assembly of Ecuador and that social dialogues have been held on an ongoing basis with various actors in the employer and worker sectors, involving representatives of both employers and workers and including the CEDOCUT and the FUT. It claims that the complainant organizations are expressing their disagreement only because the proposals have not been formally shared with their representatives, which does not represent the reality of the situation, as the Ministry of Labour held working groups, including with the complainant organizations, and has publicized the proposals through the media.
8. 293. The Government adds that, since the complainant organizations’ allegations refer to draft legislation that has no legal force, the Committee has not got sufficient grounds to pronounce itself on this matter. The Government further states that the complainant organizations’ allegations do not reflect the reality of the labour reforms led by the Ministry of Labour. The Government indicates that, in an effort to enhance employment promotion in order to reduce rates of unemployment and underemployment, it analyzed certain proposals at the time. However, it reiterates that these proposals were not submitted to the National Assembly.
9. 294. With regard to the prosecutor’s investigation into the allegations of kidnapping made against Mr Tatamuez Moreno, the Government stresses that, under the constitutional rule of law, the branches of government are duly separated and independent. Accordingly, the Prosecutor-General’s Office is responsible for public prosecution proceedings, especially when the offence is reported in a complaint filed under section 421 of the Basic Comprehensive Penal Code (COIP).
10. 295. The Government states that, based on the submission of the complainant organizations, it is apparent that the Prosecutor-General’s Office, in accordance with its remit and powers, is conducting a preliminary investigation into the events that took place in the context of the social protests of October 2019 in order to gather evidence, either incriminatory or exculpatory, that will allow the prosecutor to decide whether or not to bring charges. According to the Government, it appears that Mr Tatamuez Moreno has been notified in order to give a voluntary and unsworn deposition, as a person who can shed light on the facts, in accordance with section 582 of the COIP. It reports that, for these reasons and in accordance with the provisions of section 584 of the COIP, the preliminary investigation will have confidential status.
11. 296. The Government specifies that giving a statement before a duly appointed prosecutor does not mean that a person is under suspicion or being prosecuted. It also states that, without prejudice to the above, the Government has been a guarantor of rights to freedom of association, which are completely unrelated to a complaint being pursued for the alleged offence of kidnapping.
12. 297. With regard to the Articles of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 invoked by the complainant organizations, the Government states that the complainant organizations mistakenly argue that there has been interference by the Government in the criminal investigation. It maintains that there is no evidence to suggest that any action has been taken that constitutes a violation of Mr Tatamuez Moreno’s rights on account of his status as a trade union leader. It also states that it is perfectly clear that the Government has not undermined trade union rights through national legislation.
13. 298. The Government concludes by reiterating that the claims of the complainant organizations do not concern violations of trade union rights and that, on the contrary, they are based purely on political aspects that are beyond the Committee’s remit.