ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Governing Body

GB.273/15/2
273rd Session
Geneva, November 1998

FIFTEENTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA

Report of the Officers of the Governing Body

Second report:
Complaint concerning the non-observance by Colombia of 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), made by
delegates to the 86th (1998) Session of the Conference
under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO

1. During the 86th Session of the Conference, the Director-General of the ILO received a letter dated 17 June 1998, signed by Mr. W. Brett, Workers' delegate from the United Kingdom and Chairman of the Workers' group, in his own name and in the name of the following Workers' delegates: Mr. C. Agyei (Ghana), Mr. A. Alvis Fernández (Colombia), Mr. K. Ahmed (Pakistan), Mr. L. Basnet (Nepal), Mr. M. Blondel (France), Mr. U. Edström (Sweden), Mrs. U. Engelen-Kefer (Germany), Mr. R. Falbr (Czech Republic), Mr. I. Mayaki (Niger), Mr. J. Miranda de Oliveira (Brazil), Mr. P. Mpangala (United Republic of Tanzania), Mr. P. O'Donovan (Ireland), Mr. J.C. Parrot (Canada), Mr. W. Peirens (Belgium), Mr. F. Ramírez León (Venezuela), Mr. Z. Rampak (Malaysia), Mr. I. Sahbani (Tunisia), Mr. A. Sánchez Madariaga (Mexico), Mr. M. Shmakov (Russian Federation), Mr. G. Sibanda (Zimbabwe), Mr. L. Trotman (Barbados), Mr. T. Wojcik (Poland) and Mr. J. Zellhoefer (United States), presenting a complaint under article 26 of the Constitution, to the effect that the Government of Colombia had failed to adopt measures to ensure the satisfactory implementation of 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). The text of this communication and its appendices are appended. The Director-General informed the Governing Body, during its 272nd Session, that he had received the complaint.

2. Article 26 of the ILO Constitution provides as follows:

  1. Any of the Members shall have the right to file a complaint with the International Labour Office if it is not satisfied that any other Member is securing the effective observance of any Convention which both have ratified in accordance with the foregoing articles.
  2. The Governing Body may, if it thinks fit, before referring such a complaint to a Commission of Inquiry, as hereinafter provided for, communicate with the government in question in the manner described in article 24.
  3. If the Governing Body does not think it necessary to communicate the complaint to the government in question, or if, when it has made such communication, no statement in reply has been received within a reasonable time which the Governing Body considers to be satisfactory, the Governing Body may appoint a Commission of Inquiry to consider the complaint and to report thereon.
  4. The Governing Body may adopt the same procedure either of its own motion or on receipt of a complaint from a delegate to the Conference.
  5. When any matter arising out of articles 25 or 26 is being considered by the Governing Body, the government in question shall, if not already represented thereon, be entitled to send a representative to take part in the proceedings of the Governing Body while the matter is under consideration. Adequate notice of the date on which the matter will be considered shall be given to the government in question.

3. 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), were ratified by Colombia on 16 November 1976 and thus have been in force for that country since 16 November 1977. All the authors of the complaint were Workers' delegates of their respective countries to the 86th Session of the Conference on the date of filing the complaint. They accordingly had the right to file a complaint, under article 26, paragraph 4, of the Constitution, if they were not satisfied that Colombia was securing the effective observance of these Conventions.

4. The authors of the complaint have requested that it be referred to a Commission of Inquiry, as provided for in article 26, paragraph 3, of the Constitution. It is for the Governing Body to decide on this request.

5. No discussion on the merits of the complaints is admissible at this stage. Indeed, it would be inconsistent with the judicial nature of the procedure provided for in article 26 and the following articles of the Constitution that there should be any discussion in the Governing Body on the merits of the complaint while a proposal to refer the complaint to a Commission of Inquiry is pending before the Governing Body and until the Governing Body has before it the contentions of the government against which the complaint is filed, together with an objective evaluation of these contentions by an impartial body.

6. It is now for the Governing Body to adopt the necessary decisions as to procedure regarding the complaint submitted under article 26 of the Constitution.

7. It will be recalled, in this connection, that the Committee on Freedom of Association has been examining a number of complaints submitted by workers' organizations alleging violation of union rights in Colombia. In some of these cases, the Governing Body has approved the provisional conclusions drawn up by the Committee. Other cases have been held in abeyance by the Committee to await the contentions of the Government. It will also be remembered that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations recently drafted observations to the Government of Colombia regarding the observance of the Conventions referred to in the complaint submitted under article 26 of the Constitution and that in 1998 the Committee on the Application of Standards of the Conference discussed some matters relating to the observance, in practice and under law, of Convention No. 87.

8. The Governing Body had previously agreed (154th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraph 33) that, in cases such as the present one, where various complainants have had recourse to the different procedures established by the Organization concerning the implementation of Conventions and the protection of freedom of association, it would be desirable to coordinate these procedures and to take account of the Committee's mandate to examine complaints in this connection. In the present case, the complaint filed by a number of delegates to the Conference, under article 26 of the Constitution, largely concerns matters which are already before the Committee in the context of the special freedom of association procedure. The Committee is proceeding with the examination of the cases pending under this procedure. In deciding on the appropriate measures to be taken regarding this latest complaint, it would be useful if the Governing Body had the recommendations of the Committee on the pending cases and on the complaint submitted under article 26.

9. The Officers therefore recommend that the Governing Body take the following decisions at its present session:

  1. the Government of Colombia, as the Government against which the complaint has been filed, should be requested by the Director-General to communicate its observations on the complaint so as to reach him not later than 15 January 1999;
  2. that the Governing Body, during its 274th Session, should decide, in the light of: (i) the information provided by the Government of Colombia in connection with the complaint; and (ii) the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association regarding the complaint and the cases which are still pending, whether they should be referred as a whole to a Commission of Inquiry.

10. The Officers envisaged that, in the event of a Commission of Inquiry being appointed, its members would be designated in accordance with the same criteria, and would serve in the same conditions, as the members of Commissions previously appointed under article 26 of the Constitution. They would serve as individuals in their personal capacity, would be chosen for their impartiality, integrity and standing, and would undertake by a solemn declaration to carry out their tasks and exercise their powers as members of the Commission "honourably, faithfully, impartially and conscientiously". A solemn declaration in these terms would be in the nature of that made by judges of the International Court of Justice. The Officers will make proposals concerning other arrangements at the appropriate stage.

Geneva, 10 October 1998.

Point for decision: Paragraph 9.

Appendix I

Complaint concerning the non-observance by the Government
of Colombia of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, made under
article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO

Mr. M. Hansenne
Secretary-General
86th Session of the
International Labour Conference

Geneva, 17 June 1998

Dear Mr. Hansenne,

I have been authorized by the following Workers' delegates to the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference to submit, on their behalf, a complaint under article 26.4 of the Constitution against the Government of Colombia for non-observance of 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), both of which have been ratified by Colombia:

Mr. C. Agyei, Workers' delegate from Ghana
Mr. A. Alvis Fernández, Workers' delegate from Colombia
Mr. K. Ahmed, Workers' delegate from Pakistan
Mr. L. Basnet, Workers' delegate from Nepal
Mr. M. Blondel, Workers' delegate from France
Mr. W. Brett, Workers' delegate from the United Kingdom
Mr. U. Edström, Workers' delegate from Sweden
Mrs. U. Engelen-Kefer, Workers' delegate from Germany
Mr. R. Falbr, Workers' delegate from the Czech Republic
Mr. S. Ito, Workers' delegate from Japan
Mr. Y. Kara, Workers' delegate from Israel
Mr. I. Mayaki, Workers' delegate from Niger
Mr. J. Miranda de Oliveira, Workers' delegate from Brazil
Mr. P. Mpangala, Workers' delegate from the United Republic of Tanzania
Mr. P. O'Donovan, Workers' delegate from Ireland
Mr. J.C. Parrot, Workers' delegate from Canada
Mr. W. Peirens, Workers' delegate from Belgium
Mr. F. Ramírez León, Workers' delegate from Venezuela
Mr. Z. Rampak, Workers' delegate from Malaysia
Mr. I. Sahbani, Workers' delegate from Tunisia
Mr. A. Sánchez Madariaga, Workers' delegate from Mexico
Mr. M. Shmakov, Workers' delegate from the Russian Federation
Mr. G. Sibanda, Workers' delegate from Zimbabwe
Mr. L. Trotman, Workers' delegate from Barbados
Mr. T. Wojcik, Workers' delegate from Poland
Mr. J. Zellhoefer, Workers' delegate from the United States.

The substantive part of the complaint is contained in the appended documents and the authors reserve the right to submit additional information in accordance with the established procedures.

Yours sincerely,
W. Brett,
Chairman of the Workers' group,
86th Session of the
International Labour Conference.

Appendix II

Director-General
of the International Labour Office
Geneva

Geneva, 12 June 1998

Dear Sir,

The undersigned Workers' delegates to the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference file a complaint under article 26 of the Constitution against the Government of Colombia for its failure to adopt appropriate measures for the satisfactory observance of Conventions No. 87 (on freedom of association and the right to organize) of 1948 and No. 98 (on the right to organize and collective bargaining) of 1949.

Colombia has been a Member of the ILO since 1919 and, as such, has been bound to comply with the Constitution of the Organization since that time. It has also been party to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 since their ratification in 1976.

The facts underlying the complaint are as follows:

FIRST: In regard to ILO Convention No. 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organize.

A. Cases reported to the Committee on Freedom of Association

Since 1988, the Committee on Freedom of Association has been informed of 26 cases of violation of this instrument. Some of these cases also involve violations of Convention No. 98.

The violations of freedom of association reported to the Committee include numerous cases of violence endangering the lives and physical integrity of union members and against their freedom and right not to be transferred.

In 1987, the Committee examined Case No. 1343. In its conclusions, it advised the Government of Colombia that trade union rights can only be exercised in a context of respect for basic human rights, "... in a climate free of violence, pressure, fear and threats of any kind".(1) 

Cases Nos. 1434, 1477, 1761 and 1787 likewise related to violence against trade union members.

In 1989, the Committee's 265th Report stated that "... without doubt, it finds itself confronted with one of the most serious cases it has received concerning the respect for the right to life... , and that the dramatic situation of violence facing Colombia impedes the full exercise of trade union activities".

In 1997 alone, violent action had caused the death of 156 trade union members and officials, the forced disappearance of ten, the obligatory forced transfer of 342, the kidnapping of nine and a further nine attempts against the life of trade union members and officials. The figures for the period of 1998 that has elapsed are equally discouraging. On 27 February, Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, President of the Human Rights Committee of Medellín, a well-known defender of trade union and other popular leaders, was murdered in the offices of his legal practice in that city; on 18 April the lawyer Eduardo Umaña Mendoza, who was defending a number of officials of the Workers' Trade Union (USO) who are currently being tried by the so-called faceless justice system, was murdered in his home in Bogota. A few days prior to Umaña's murder, María Arango, formerly an activist of popular causes, was murdered by hired assassins in her home; over the last three months, ten massacres have taken place, for the most part of rural workers.

In its 309th Report, corresponding to its first meeting of 1998, the Committee on Freedom of Association stated that the Colombian case (No. 1787), as it related to freedom of association, was one of the most serious in the world.

The above demonstrates that the Government of Colombia has not in fact taken the necessary and appropriate measures to guarantee the free exercise of freedom of association and has allowed crimes against trade union members and officials to go unpunished, with continued threats, forced transfers, murders, disappearances and other violations which render impossible the free exercise of this right, thereby failing to comply with its duty to provide protection and guarantees.

B. The observations of the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations

For over a decade, the Committee of Experts has been dealing with Convention No. 87 and has made repeated observations and direct requests with a view to encouraging the Government of Colombia to bring its domestic legislation into conformity with this instrument.

In 1987, the Committee of Experts stated that "... it would be grateful if the Government would indicate in its next report the measures it could adopt to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention in the light of the above comments".

In 1989, the Committee of Experts "concludes that the legislation is contrary to the provisions of the Convention on many points".

In 1990, the Committee noted that "... the assurances given by the Government in its last report concerning the creation of a special committee to examine the whole of the legislation, which is now outdated in the light of its comments, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with ILO Conventions".(2) 

In 1991 and 1992, workers in general and the Committee of Experts were interested to learn of the promulgation of the new Constitution of the Republic of Colombia, article 53 of which provided for the incorporation into domestic legislation of duly ratified labour agreements, and article 93 of which stated that the instruments of international law -- which could not be curtailed or suspended in states of emergency -- took precedence over domestic law. However, since the Government has failed to take the necessary steps to harmonize Colombian legislation with the Conventions, the expectations engendered by the entry into force of the new Constitution have subsequently evaporated.

Despite the mandate embodied in the Constitution, national legislation has still not been brought into conformity with international law. The Bills drafted by the Government -- some with the assistance of ILO technical missions -- have in some cases been shelved during the legislative process in the absence of any steps by the Government to employ the instruments provided for by the Constitution to promote them. Other Bills, such as that relating to the definition of essential services in connection with the right to strike, have not been submitted to Congress for its consideration, seven years after the entry into force of the new Constitution.

The report of the Committee of Experts to the 86th Session of the Conference noted developments relating to the draft reform of the Code, prepared by the direct contacts mission in 1996, stating that "... the Committee therefore stresses the need to amend or repeal with the utmost dispatch the above-mentioned provisions of the Substantive Labour Code in order to bring the legislation into compliance with the Convention".(3) 

In the light of the above, it may readily be concluded that ILO Convention No. 87 is systematically violated.

SECOND: Regarding Convention No. 98 (on the
right to organise and collective bargaining)

A. Cases before the Committee on Freedom of Association

As stated in the first part, of the 26 cases that have been brought to the attention of the Committee since 1987, a considerable number involve violations of Convention No. 87, for which reason we will make specific reference only to Case No. 1916 and Case No. 1925 which are among those most recently examined. In the former instance, the Committee has urged the Government to reinstate 209 workers who were dismissed for participating in a strike at a municipal-level state enterprise and asked it to take measures to ensure that declarations on the legal status of strikes are made by an independent body and not by the administrative authority. Despite the fact that the Government has been aware of these decisions since early March 1998, it has failed to take the necessary steps to comply on the pretext that municipal autonomy must be respected.

This is not the first time that the Government has failed to comply with decisions of this type, as it will be possible to verify during the Commission of Inquiry.

The Government has likewise failed to take any steps to comply with the decision of the Committee in regard to Case No. 1925. Many trade union organizations in Colombia have been destroyed on the basis of the so-called "non-unionization" statute which provides better conditions to workers who are not covered by collective agreements. The Government has the duty to ensure that legislation is amended in order to prevent this practice. Likewise, it should take administrative steps with a view to imposing sanctions on employers who obstruct the right to collective bargaining.

It may readily be inferred from these cases that the Colombian Government does not comply with its duty to protect and guarantee rights relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining.

B. The observations of the Committee of Experts

As stated in its most recent report, to the 86th Session of the Conference, the Committee of Experts has for many years been concerned by the divergence between domestic legislation and Convention No. 98, and has insisted that the appropriate steps should be taken to bring legislation into compliance. The points most frequently raised in observations and direct requests refer to the right of public servants to bargain collectively, and the right of federations and confederations to bargain collectively and to take strike action, the right to strike in public services which are not essential in the strict sense.

Despite the sustained endeavours of the Committee of Experts to urge the Colombian Government to comply with the Convention and to promote the necessary reforms, the situation today is as it was ten years ago. The Government continues to fail in its duty to adhere to Convention No. 98.

THIRD: The deliberations of the Conference

Briefly, we would like to draw attention to the fact that over the past decade, the Conference's Committee on the Application of Standards has repeatedly invited the Government to discuss difficulties in complying with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and has twice devoted a section specifically to the Government of Colombia, most recently in 1990. The involvement of the Conference and of the Committee of Experts have not succeeded in persuading successive governments to heed the requests of the international community in these areas to which this complaint refers.

The ILO's interest in contributing to improving the situation in regard to freedom of association has prompted it to send three direct contacts missions to Colombia over the last ten years, resulting in commitments by the Government which have subsequently not been fully carried out.

Legal basis of the complaint

The undersigned base this complaint on article 26, paragraph 4, of the Constitution and act in the capacity of delegates to the 86th Session of the Conference.

Since the Government of Colombia has ignored the recommendations of the ILO Governing Body's Committee on Freedom of Association and those of the Committee of Experts, we request that the complaint should be examined by a Commission of Inquiry which would draw up its report as provided in article 26, paragraph 3, of the ILO Constitution. We further request that the matters pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association and before the Committee of Experts should be dealt with by the Commission of Inquiry.

We append a 17-page appendix containing the report submitted by the Colombian workers to the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference, and which should be considered as part of the complaint.

Appendix III

Report of the union confederations to
the 86th International Labour Conference

Introduction

The Colombian trade union delegation to the 86th International Labour Conference, composed of the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT), the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) and the General Confederation of Democratic Workers (CGTD), has agreed to submit for the consideration of the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference, a report on freedom of association in our country, which focuses on demonstrating the lack of political will on the part of the Colombian State and of commitment on the part of successive governments to complying with the obligations assumed by Colombia as a member of the International Labour Organization and as State party to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. For many years, the Organization's supervisory bodies have issued decisions requiring the Government to take concrete action, in response to which the Government representatives to the Conference have made a commitment to take action which is never honoured.

This report focuses on the matter of the impunity of the perpetrators of violations of the rights of trade union members and officials. Violence against trade union officials and members is certainly the main factor obstructing freedom of association in Colombia, exacerbated by increasing impunity and the absence of the political will to eradicate it.

Nineteen ninety-seven marked the tenth anniversary of a painful and continuous bleeding of the trade union movement which began in 1987 with an escalation of murders, disappearances, torture and ruthless persecution of trade union members and officials. As a result, Colombia won the sad distinction of being the most dangerous country for the exercise of fundamental rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining.

Acts of violence against trade unionism may be attributed to state agents, members of paramilitary forces and action by guerilla groups. In 1998, far from improving, the situation has deteriorated significantly.

Society as a whole has been permeated by the intolerance demonstrated by the protagonists in the prolonged armed conflict. The exercise of the right to promote the organization of workers or to be a trade union member is considered to be subversive by certain public servants or by members of the paramilitary forces who view trade unionism as an ally of insurgency, while some guerilla groups pursue as "traitors" former sympathisers who have subsequently espoused alternative political options.

While the confluence of these circumstances make for a complex situation, it is by no means confused. We have no doubt that, if the political will existed to do so, it would be possible to identify the intellectual authors of the crimes which we have for many years denounced before the ILO supervisory bodies and before this forum of the International Labour Conference, which is the supreme authority of the Organization.

Some of us on this stage today have been threatened merely for engaging in our trade union activities. We claim our right to testify, as eye witnesses of the situation that exists in Colombia today in this regard.

In addition, our report focuses on the manner in which Colombia has ignored the requirements of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to adapt domestic legislation and national practice to the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

I. The country: Location and characteristics

The State of Colombia is situated at the north-western end of South America, and borders with Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador and Panama. The Atlantic Ocean lies to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the west. According to the Constitution adopted in 1991, Colombia is a lawful societal State organized in the form of a unitary republic.(4)  Public power is divided among the executive, judicial and legislative branches.

Colombia has a surface area of 1,141,748 km2 with a population of approximately 35 million inhabitants. Under 8 per cent of the economically active population (EAP) is unionized.

As we stated last year, the fact that the confederations' report centres on freedom of association does not mean that the Colombian Government is complying fully with the other Conventions to which it is party. We have decided to concentrate on the violations of freedom of association because we believe that if this right is not guaranteed, then other workers' rights cannot be fully defended by their representatives.

In Colombia, over the last decade, violence has been brought to bear on trade union members and officials because of their activities, as the supervisory bodies of the ILO and other international entities are aware. Colombian labour legislation, which was enacted prior to the promulgation of the Constitution of 1991 restricts the exercise of the population's rights, while the legal structure is not ideally suited to settling the problem of the impunity protecting those who have engaged in violence against persons exercising their trade union rights and against the population as a whole.

II. A different report: The situation of trade union
leaders and members continues to deteriorate
and the Government remains indifferent

Unlike the previous reports submitted by Colombian trade union confederations to the International Labour Conference, our report today does not contain a detailed list of events since the last Conference. We consider that it serves no purpose endlessly to recount in detail the dramatic events which prevent the full exercise of freedom of association in Colombia when the Colombian State, over and above the Government in power, has demonstrated no will to resolve the divergence between practice and international obligations in this sphere, just as it has failed to show the will to bring domestic legislation into conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, despite the insistence of the ILO and of the international community as a whole.

We do not exaggerate when we state that the representatives of the Colombian Government have, for the last ten years, systematically deceived the international community year after year, making promises that they fail to keep.

This year we wish to draw the attention of the International Labour Conference to the most serious aspects of the complex situation of freedom of association violations in Colombia, namely:
(a) impunity of the perpetrators of murder, disappearances, torture and other crimes against trade union members and leaders in Colombia;
(b) absence of the political will to bring legislation into conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

For this purpose, we will list the ILO's requirements and actions over the last ten years and compare them to the actions of the Colombian Government.

III. Colombia: A long history of impunity and
contempt of the ILO

Since 1987, over 2,000 trade union members and officials have been murdered in Colombia. In 1997, 156 were murdered; nine were the targets of attempted murder; nine were kidnapped; 342 were subject to obligatory transfer; ten disappeared and torture has been reported.(5) 

In drafting this report, we have reviewed the cases reported to the Committee on Freedom of Association, in conjunction with the observations of the Committee of Experts since 1987, using official ILO source documents.

1. 1987: The Committee on Freedom of Association requests
that criminals be punished

As far back as 1987, in examining Case No. 1343, in the light of the Government's claim that criminal proceedings had been brought "... and that in certain cases the provisional filing of the dossier had been ordered because the guilty paries could not be identified", the Committee's conclusions expressed "... the hope that it will be possible to conclude these proceedings in the near future and that they will make it possible to identify and punish those responsible for the crimes. The Committee wishes to refer to the general conclusions which it formulated regarding the present case on a previous occasion [246th Report, Case No. 1323, para. 408], and in which it stated that "all appropriate measures should be taken to guarantee that trade union rights can be exercised in normal conditions, with respect for basic human rights and in a climate free of violence, pressure, fear and threats of any kind".(6)  In its 248th Report, the Committee likewise expressed the hope that "the investigations undertaken will make it possible to determine who is responsible, punish those who are guilty and establish the whereabouts of those who have disappeared" and, in connection with Case No. 1376, it deeply deplored the death of a trade union member and the disappearance of a further two and asked the Government for information on the inquiries instituted.

For over a decade, appropriate conditions have not existed in Colombia for the exercise of trade union freedoms. Civil and political rights of the Colombian population and of trade union members and leaders in particular, such as the right to life, integrity and personal liberty are violated with impunity. The mere exercise of the legitimate right to establish trade unions and actively to participate in them and of the right to collective bargaining, are sufficient reason for shady hired assassins to make attempts upon the life of those who exercise them or to deprive them of their personal liberty.

2. 1989: The Cahier mission and the Committee on Freedom
of Association call for the disbanding of paramilitary groups

In its 259th Report, the Committee's conclusions on Case No. 1434 stated:

At that time, in line with the Cahier mission report, the Committee requested "vigorous measures to dismantle the paramilitary groups, and a radical strengthening of the financial and human resources of the judiciary".(7)  The Cahier report, which is appended to the examination of the case in question, states that "the main reproach levelled at the Government is its failure to act. The authorities have recently stated in public their commitment to peace and their desire to enforce the law. But this does not seem to lead to action with any convincing results.

As regards justice, the trade unions have repeatedly stressed the fact that investigations yield no results and that no legal action is taken against persons guilty of committing crimes. Everyone I met emphasized the impunity with which the murderers operate. This impunity generates more violence".(8) 

Indeed, violence has since escalated in Colombia and the number of victims who are trade union members or officials has continued to rise.

3. Colombia: One of the most serious cases in regard
to the right to life. The Committee expresses its
disappointment at the Government's inaction

Still in 1989, in its 265th Report in which it examined Case No. 1477, the Committee "pointed out that, without doubt, it found itself confronted with one of the most serious cases it had received concerning the respect for the right to life, and that the dramatic situation of violence facing Colombia impeded the full exercise of trade union activities".

Consequently, the Committee expressed "its disappointment, reiterates the conclusions and recommendations it reached at its November 1988 meeting and is obliged to conclude at its present meeting that the Government has not yet adopted all the necessary and appropriate measures required from it to guarantee the right to life to trade union leaders and unionists, which is a fundamental prerequisite for the exercise of the rights contained in Convention No. 87".(9) 

Ten years have subsequently elapsed and none of the governments in power during that period has taken appropriate measures to protect the life of trade unionists, trade union leaders and social activists and, far from dismantling and controlling paramilitary groups, as demanded during that period, they have grown stronger and larger, particularly in areas with a substantial military presence, and they have extended their geographical presence to virtually the entire country.

4. The need for measures to eradicate paramilitary
activity, to identify and punish the murderers of
trade unionists and to avoid a repetition of
violent acts against trade union members and leaders

The Committee on Freedom of Association has taken timely, persistent, repeated and energetic action against impunity in Colombia. The Government has continued its traditional stance of paying lip-service to action but, in practice, it shows no political will to remedy the serious matter of the impunity of the murderers of trade union members and trade union leaders and, instead of effectively combating paramilitary activity, it has allowed it to increase, to the point where today members of paramilitary groups exercise their criminal activities throughout virtually the entire country.

In its third meeting in 1990, the Committee re-examined the situation of violence and impunity in Colombia, in the context of its study of Cases Nos. 1434 and 1477. In the recommendations contained in its 275th Report it stated that:

Moreover, on that occasion, the Committee expressed its concern because, according to the Colombian Government itself, "only with very rare exceptions have the judicial inquiries undertaken since 1986 made it possible to identify or condemn the persons allegedly responsible for the murders and disappearances".(11) 

In its examination of Cases Nos. 1434 and 1477 during its first meeting of 1993, the Committee regretted the difficult situation affecting the country and "deeply deplores once again the serious nature of the allegations concerning the death and disappearance of trade union officials and trade unionists" and "urges the Government to inform it whether judicial inquiries have been opened with the intention of clarifying the facts and judging and sentencing the guilty parties in order to prevent a recurrence of such situations".(12) 

In 1994, during its examination of Case No. 1686 against the Government of Colombia, the Committee in its 294th Report stated in paragraph 296 that "as regards the alleged murder of trade union officials and trade unionists, the Committee expresses its deep concern at the serious nature of these events which it deplores and repudiates". The Committee recalled that "trade union rights can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against trade unionists; it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected" [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1983, third edition, para. 70].

In 1995, when the Committee re-examined Case No. 1761 and Case No. 1787, as stated in its 297th Report, the Committee urged the Government "to take steps to ensure that judicial inquiries are carried out immediately to clarify all the alleged facts [crimes against trade unionists and trade union officials], determine responsibilities and punish the authors of the assassination of the trade union officials ..." which it went on to list.(13) 

The Committee reminded the Colombian Government that "it is the responsibility of governments to guarantee respect" for the principle that "the rights of workers' and employers' organizations can be exercised only in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind".

On that occasion, the Committee noted "that in previous cases judicial investigations were unable to identify the guilty parties in the case of acts of violence similar to those alleged" and that therefore the Committee "expresses the hope that in this case the facts will be clarified and the guilty parties punished" and reminded the Government that "the absence of judgements against the guilty parties creates in practice a situation of impunity which reinforces the climate of violence and insecurity ..." [see 292nd Report, Cases Nos. 1434 and 1477 (Colombia), para. 255].(14) 

5. The Government of Colombia: Between indifference and inaction.
Impunity continues

In 1997 and 1998, the Committee once more examined the case of violence against trade union members and trade union leaders in Colombia. In 1997, in paragraph 294(b) and (c) of its 306th Report, the Committee stated:

The Colombian Government's indifference prompted the Committee to draw the attention of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office to the Colombian situation, (in particular, Case No. 1787), as being one of the three most serious cases in regard to freedom of association, together with Nigeria and Sudan.(16) 

The Committee took note of the Government's communications of 29 May and 24 July 1997 and concluded: "First, before analysing the allegations and observations communicated by the Government, the Committee once again wishes to express its grave concern at the allegations which refer to a large number of murders, disappearances, as well as physical aggression, detentions and death threats against trade union officials, members and their families, as well as raids on trade union headquarters and trade union members' homes. In this respect, the Committee notes with alarm that for practically the whole of 1997 the complainants have presented allegations of violent acts against trade union leaders and members. The Committee deplores that in spite of the seriousness of the situation the Government's replies have been limited to a very reduced number of allegations. The Committee requests the Government to take steps to remedy this situation" (the bold does not appear in the original text).(17) 

Subsequently, in paragraphs 84, 85 and 86, the Committee refers to the grave situation of impunity and calls for concrete action by the Government to remedy it. The Committee stated:

These paragraphs, which are cited from the most recent examination of Case No. 1787 against the Government of Colombia demonstrate that the Government's indifference and inaction have played their part in exacerbating the impunity that reigns in Colombia. In Colombia today, the exercise of trade union activities poses a serious threat to life and personal integrity, despite the fact that the Constitution currently in force recognizes and guarantees the rights of freedom of association.

IV. Taking stock of the past year: Facts bear out the
Committee's conclusions

In giving a brief overview of the events of the past year, we must begin with a recent occurrence. On Saturday, 18 April, the lawyer Eduardo Umaña Mendoza was murdered in his home; he was not only a prominent defence counsel for political prisoners, having devoted his professional life to bearing the banner of human rights, but at the time of his death he was also defence counsel for members of the Workers' Trade Union (USO) who were being tried by the faceless courts. In 1997, he succeeded in proving that some of the cases had been based on false testimony by witnesses who testified several times as though they were different people, which was made possible by the fact that their identity was not revealed. The cowardly manner in which Umaña was murdered denotes the level of criminal involvement and intent which has generated increasing terror in the country.

Two days prior to Umaña's murder, a former popular activist who had ceased her involvement in organizational activities some years previously, was murdered in her home in Bogotá. On 27 February, the President of the Human Rights Committee of Medellín, Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, was murdered in his office; he was a well-known defence counsel for political prisoners and popular activists in his region.

A further ten massacres have occurred in the past four months, most of them directed against rural workers. On 16 May, 12 individuals were massacred in the urban area of the oil centre of Barrancabermeja and 34 persons disappeared during the same attack by paramilitary forces. That event gave rise to a strike by oil workers, in the broader context of a civic strike which received the general support of the citizens of Barrancabermeja.

Human rights violations against trade union members and leaders during 1997 are briefly outlined in Chapter III of this report.

V. The divergence between national legislation and
Conventions Nos. 87 and 98

The Substantive Labour Code entered into law in 1950. It is clear that a restrictive approach to freedom of association rights prevailed in the minds of the authors of the initial draft. For instance, standards relating to trade union membership and collective bargaining were not applicable to "public servants" simply because they were public servants, regardless of their level of responsibility in the state administration; trade unions were not permitted to engage in political activity in federations and confederations; they were denied the right to call or declare strikes and strikes were banned in "public services" which were understood in the broadest sense. The authors of the Code drafted legislation in such a way as to accommodate excessive interference by the administrative authorities in the establishment and activities of trade unions.

This restrictive attitude on the part of the first authors became more marked during the years of the military government (1953-57) which employed its powers under a state of emergency to introduce numerous amendments to trade union legislation, including the attribution to the administrative authority of decisions regarding the legality of strikes (Ministry of Labour), which had formerly been exercised by labour judges. Colombia lived for over 40 years under martial law in a state of emergency, and the civilian governments which succeeded the dictatorship adopted the method of introducing reforms to the Code under emergency powers. This entire body of regulations, which had originally been intended to serve an interim purpose, was subsequently adopted without further democratic discussion as permanent legislation.

In 1991, the new Constitution sought to remedy the contradictions between domestic legislation and international labour conventions. Article 53 of the Constitution provided that duly ratified international labour conventions were part of domestic law.(18) 

It would be only logical to conclude that any legal provisions which were contrary to the Conventions to which Colombia was party were relegated, or more accurately, replaced under the above-mentioned constitutional mandate. But the State did not view the matter in this light. The Ministry of Labour and Social Security continues to take the standards embodied in the Code as its reference, the judges of the Republic continue to treat the provisions which are contrary to the conventions as applicable and employers cling to many of the laws and decrees which are contrary to the body of international standards.

(a) The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations

This divergence between the law and practice, and Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 has been known to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations for over ten years, and it has addressed observations and direct requests to the Colombian Government which have not been complied with by any of the three Governments in power between 1987 and 1998.

(a) 1. The requirements of the Committee of Experts in 1987

We will continue the approach adopted in the first part and review the main observations of the ILO's Committee of Experts since 1987, in order to demonstrate how the Colombian authorities, which should have been responsible for acting on these observations, in fact ignored them.

In 1987, the Committee of Experts made observations which primarily related to those aspects of national legislation which implied interference in the internal administration of trade unions and those which hampered the right of trade unions to promote and defend the interests of workers, on the basis that such provisions were contrary to Convention No. 87.

In regard to interference in the internal administration of trade unions, the observation of 1987 stated: "The Committee has referred to the following points:" and went on to mention that the provisions of the Substantive Labour Code and associated standards which, among other things, allowed the Ministry of Labour to approve or reject amendments to the constitutions of unions, those under which public servants may exercise control over the internal management of trade unions, the strict regulation of trade union meetings, the presence of authorities at general assemblies convened to vote the calling of a strike, the obligation to be Colombian for election to trade union office, the requirement that the Ministry of Labour must approve the election of trade union officers, the suspension, with loss of trade union rights, of leaders who have been responsible for the dissolution of a union, etc. In conclusion on this point, having noted the statement by the Government relating to the scope of articles 485 and 486 of the Substantive Labour Code, "the Committee considers that section 486 confers on public officials excessively wide powers of intervention in trade union affairs, contrary to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, which provides that the public authority shall refrain from any interference which would restrict the rights recognised in the Convention", ending with the statement that "the Committee repeats its comments on the other provisions, to which the Government does not refer".

In regard to the restrictions on trade unions in promoting and defending the interests of workers, the Committee of Experts stated: "The Committee would also refer again to the following provisions on which it has already commented but which are not mentioned in the report of the Government" and went on to list, among others, the prohibition on trade unions from holding meetings on political matters, the prohibition of federations and confederations from calling a strike, the prohibition of strikes in non-essential services, the power of the President to order the termination of a strike affecting the interests of the national economy and to submit disputes to arbitration, the automatic dismissal of trade union leaders who have intervened or participated in an illegal strike.

It closed its observation by stating that: "the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate in its next report the measures it could adopt to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention in the light of the above comments".(19) 

It is clearly apparent from the substance of the observation that the Committee of Experts had been studying these matters prior to 1987.

(a) 2. Observations by the Committee of Experts between 1989 to 1991

In the light of the promulgation of the new Constitution in 1991, we will jointly review the statements of the Committee of Experts between 1989 and 1991 inclusive, given that the Committee issued no observations on Colombia in regard to the Conventions on freedom of association (Nos. 87 and 98) in 1988.

In 1989, the Committee of Experts not only took note of the Government's statement, but also of the comments by the CUT, the Government's response to the comments, and also the 259th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association.

On that occasion, the Committee of Experts supported the Committee on Freedom of Association's report. In regard to the murders and atmosphere of violence, "it refers to the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association" and "in particular, the Committee of Experts, as the Committee on Freedom of Association has already done, expresses its deep concern at the alarmingly violent situation confronting Colombia, which in general makes it impossible for the normal living conditions of the population to be maintained and prevents the full exercise of trade union activities".(20) 

The second part of the Committee's comments appears under the title "Provisions of the legislation criticized by the Committee in previous comments",(21)  with the observation divided into the two groups of standards identified in the observation of 1987, and covering the same points originally noted.

In 1989, the Committee of Experts "concludes that the legislation is contrary to the provisions of the Convention on many points" and, "requests the Government to consider the in-depth reform of the trade union legislation that is in force in order to bring it into conformity with the requirements of the Convention and to report on any measures that it adopts in this respect".(22)  (Bold does not appear in the original text.)

In the same year, the Committee of Experts examined Convention No. 98 and asked the Government: "to take measures to amend the legislation (sections 414 and 416 of the Labour Code) in order to grant public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State the guarantees set out in the Convention, which include the negotiation of collective agreements and adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination".(23) 

In 1990, the Committee of Experts examined Convention No. 87 in extenso and, using the formula "... the Committee recalls the divergences existing between the national legislation and the Convention:", and goes on to repeat all the points mentioned above, including reference to the violation of the Convention inherent in the requirement that 75 per cent of members of a trade union should be Colombian.

On that occasion, the Committee of Experts, "notes that the assurances given by the Government in its last report concerning the creation of a special committee to examine the whole of the labour legislation, which is now outdated in the light of its comments, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with ILO Conventions" and concludes by stating that the Committee "trusts that the revision of the legislation that has been announced will make it possible to achieve firm results as regards all the points that have been raised".(24) 

As early as 1991,(25)  the Committee of Experts was pleased to know that Act No. 50 of 1990 had "made a number of improvements to the previous provisions as regards freedom of association and collective bargaining", which it went on to list. "Nevertheless, the Committee regrets that Act No. 50 has omitted to take into account certain comments that the Committee has been making for many years on the provisions of the legislation that are incompatible with the Convention. These comments concern the following points:" and the report goes on to list all the observations made in previous years, with the addition of a major discrepancy with the Convention which Colombia had used to sanction social protest, namely "the prohibition of strikes when they are called for the purpose of requiring the public authorities to take action in relation to matters which fall within their exclusive preserve".

It emphasized that there remained "many provisions that are still not in accordance with the Convention" and invited the Government to "take the necessary measures as soon as possible to bring the law and practice into full conformity with the Convention".

In respect to Convention No. 98, the Committee of Experts repeated the importance of the right to collective bargaining and protection for public servants.

(a) 3. From the new Colombian Constitution to 1997,
six years of discrepancy between national
legislation and practice and Conventions on freedom of association

In 1992,(26)  the Committee noted the Government's report, the discussions at the Conference in 1991 and the report of the direct contacts mission in 1991. It noted with interest the provisions of the new Constitution and the repeal of particular legal provisions which were contrary to Convention No. 87.

However, it also emphasized those provisions of the legislation which remained in force and were incompatible with the Convention. In keeping with the usual manner in which it grouped its observations regarding Colombia in connection with Convention No. 87, it made reference, among others, to the following: the requirement that two-thirds of the members should be Colombian to establish a trade union; the supervision of the internal management and meetings of unions by public servants; the presence of the authorities at general assemblies convened to vote on the calling of a strike; the prohibition on federations and confederations from calling a strike; the prohibition of strikes in non-essential services; the possibility of dismissing trade officers who have intervened or participated in an illegal strike.

It urged the Government to continue to take measures to adapt its legislation to the requirements of the Convention.

In 1992, the central issue in connection with Convention No. 98 continued to be collective bargaining by public servants and the protection against persecution, for trade union activity in the same sector.

The following year,(27)  the Committee of Experts noted that there had been some progress in 1992, "but pointed out that there were still a number of provisions which were not in conformity with the Convention" and listed those which it had previously indicated in earlier years and which, despite the introduction of the new Constitution in 1991, continued to be implemented, and it repeated its request to the Government to continue to take measures with a view to adapting legislation to the Convention.

In 1994,(28)  the Committee of Experts confined its attention regarding freedom of association to the submission of observations to Colombia regarding Convention No. 98, emphasizing the right of public employees who were not engaged in the direct administration of the State to negotiate collectively and to protection against acts of discrimination. It asked the Government in its next report "to provide information on any changes in the legislation in this respect".

In 1995 and 1996, the Committee of Experts made further observations on the discrepancies between domestic legislation and Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. In 1995,(29)  its observation related to Convention No. 87 and repeated what it had been saying since 1987, stating that "the Committee again expresses the hope that the Standing Tripartite Committee provided for in the National Constitution will be set up in the near future", and "asks the Government to ensure that the amendments made to labour legislation by the above Committee takes account of all the comments that the Committee of Experts has been making for many years" (bold not in the original text). In 1996,(30)  the Committee's observation dwelt on Convention No. 98 and restated the right of public servants to negotiate their working conditions collectively.

In 1997, after reviewing its earlier comments,(31)  the Committee of Experts noted with interest the Government's statement that "it has prepared a Bill envisaging the repeal or amendment of various provisions of the Substantive Labour Code criticized by the Committee, and that the authorities of the Ministry of Labour have undertaken to submit this Bill to the Congress of the Republic during the current legislative period" (bold does not appear in the original text).

In connection with Convention No. 98, the Committee restated the right of public employees who were not engaged in the administration of the State to benefit from collective bargaining. "The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Congress will adopt the Bill as soon as possible to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention."

(a) 4. On how the Bills passed by the Government
to adapt legislation to the Conventions on
freedom of association were shelved

In its report to the 86th Session of the Conference, the Committee of Experts recalled that in its previous observation it had noted that the Government had prepared a Bill with the assistance of the ILO mission on freedom of association which visited the country in October 1996, and identified the provisions to be repealed or amended under that Bill. It also recalled that the Government had prepared a preliminary draft of a Bill defining the concept of essential public services and containing other provisions for the peaceful settlement of collective labour disputes with a view to adapting legislation to international standards.

On that occasion "the Committee notes that the Government has indicated that the Congress of the Republic decided to shelve the above-mentioned Bill and that, in these circumstances, the Ministry of Labour is studying the possibility of submitting to Congress the Labour Statutes referred to in article 53 of the Constitution and to include in it the amendments embodied in the shelved Bill. The Committee therefore stresses the need to amend or repeal with the utmost dispatch the above-mentioned provisions of the Substantive Labour Code in order to bring the legislation into compliance with the Convention".(32) 

With regard to the preliminary draft on essential public services, the Committee "observes that the Government has not mentioned in its report whether the preliminary draft Bill in question has been finally drafted with the aim of presenting it to the Congress of the Republic". The Government naturally made no mention of this draft since it was never presented to Congress.

With respect to Convention No. 98, the "Committee recalls that for many years it has been emphasizing the need for public employees who are not engaged in the administration of the State to benefit from the right to collective bargaining, and that in its previous observation it noted that a Bill guaranteeing this right for public employees had been submitted to the Congress of the Republic" and "in this respect, the Committee regrets to note that the Government states that the Congress of the Republic decided to shelve the Bill in question".(33) 

"The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will, as soon as possible, take measures to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention."

Furthermore, it recalled that it had previously requested the Government to keep it informed regarding the need for industrial or branch unions to comprise more than 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise in order to be able to bargain collectively and on the right for federations and confederations to bargain collectively. It observes that the Government had not responded to that observation and requested it to take measures to amend the legislation so as to guarantee industrial or branch unions which did not compromise more than 50 per cent of the workers concerned the possibility to bargain collectively.

VI. The International Labour Conference of 1997.
Colombia: Promises that are not kept

The discussions within the Conference's Committee on the Application of Standards over the last ten years in examining Colombia's failure to comply with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 regarding freedom of association might likewise be reviewed. However, the discussion will be confined to the debate which occurred during the 85th Session, 1997.

In connection with the draft Bill drawn up with assistance of the mission which visited the country in 1996, a Government representative stated that "the Bill was not an isolated act of the Government, much less a simple announcement as a way to escape criticism in this forum. On the contrary, it was an indication of a government policy oriented towards the promotion and respect of human rights, with special emphasis on the international labour Conventions which Colombia would fulfil".(34) 

The speaker also referred to the punishment of social protest and indicated that a committee had been established to revise of the penal laws and to lift summary discretion concerning certain penal processes related to workers. He went on to refer to a Bill on collective bargaining and collective contracts in the public sector, 18 articles which had been agreed upon by the social partners. In fact, the Bills referred to by the Government representative of Colombia were shelved by the Congress of the Republic. Despite the fact that the Government had at its disposal constitutional instruments to urge the Congress to discuss and approve the Bills, the Government failed to do so, abandoning them and failing to show the interest claimed in the discussion before the Conference's Committee on the Application of Standards.

In addition, a full year elapsed during which the Bill on essential services and the right to strike was not submitted for discussion by the Congress of the Republic.

Lastly, while it is true that a committee exists that is responsible for reviewing provisions punishing social protest, the fact of the matter is that after 11 months of work, the trade union federations and human rights NGOs left the negotiating table on account of the Government representatives' determination to scupper all progress and agreements achieved, thereby returning to square one. This breakdown of talks happened in March, and the Government has made absolutely no sign that it wishes to recognize the progress achieved previously or to clarify with the trade union movement the differences set down in writing.

VII. The numerous endeavours of the ILO

It should be made clear that, in addition to the action taken by the supervisory bodies of the ILO, as mentioned, the International Labour Office has made numerous attempts to assist the Government of Colombia in bringing legislation into conformity with international labour Conventions and, in so doing, to comply with the mandate of article 53 of the Constitution.

Hence, over the last ten years, the following direct contacts missions on the subject of freedom of association have been made to Colombia:

The reports of the missions were duly reviewed by the supervisory bodies.

In addition, the Lima Regional Office has always been available to provide advisory assistance to the Colombian Government.

Conclusions

On the basis of the contents of this report, we may conclude in summary that:

  1. Over the last 11 years violence has been the main obstacle to the exercise of freedom of association, taking over 1,500 lives and causing several thousand obligatory geographical transfers and several hundred disappearances of workers.
  2. The main problem in connection with the exercise of freedom of association in Colombia lies in the impunity protecting criminals who murder, cause to disappear, torture, impose geographical transfer and harass trade union members and leaders. This impunity has long existed and the State has taken no effective measures to eliminate it. The Government has shown no genuine political will to promote the identification, prosecution, trial and punishment of the criminals involved.
  3. Colombian labour legislation and certain provisions of the Penal Code are contrary to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.
  4. The Colombian State, represented by the Government, does not honour the international commitments ensuing from its position as a Member of the International Labour Organization and, ignoring the principles of international law of pacta sunt servanda and good faith, fails to abide by the decisions and recommendations of the supervisory bodies.

1. See 251st Report on the Committee on Freedom of Association in Official Bulletin, Vol. LXX, 1987, Series B, No. 2, pp. 86-92, paras. 323-333, and the 246th Report, in Official Bulletin, Vol. LXIX, 1986, Series B, No. 3.

2. See report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Report and observations concerning particular countries. Report III (Part 4A) of the International Labour Conference, 77th Session 1990.

3. See report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Report and observations concerning particular countries, Report III (Part 1A) to the International Labour Conference, 86th Session, 1998, pp. 171-172.

4. Constitution: "Article 1. Colombia is a lawful societal State democratic, participative and pluralistic, organized in the form of a unitary republic, decentralized with the autonomy of its territorial units, based on respect of the human dignity, on the work and solidarity of the individuals who belong to it, and the prevalence of the general interest."

5. Source: Escuela Nacional Sindical. "Los derechos humanos de los trabajadores en 1997", Cuaderno de Derechos Humanos No. 5, ENS, Medellín, 1998. See table No. 2, p. 27. According to the same source, between 1991 when the new Colombian Constitution was promulgated and 1997, 1,083 workers were murdered, 865 of whom were trade union officials.

6. See 251st Report in Official Bulletin, Vol. LXX, 1987, Series B, No. 2, pp. 86-92, paras. 323-333. The 246th Report was published in Official Bulletin, Vol. LXIX, 1986, Series B, No. 3.

7. See Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXI, 1988, Series B, No. 3, pp. 236 ff., paras. 653 to 655.

8. See report by Professor Philippe Cahier regarding the mission to Colombia on 31 August-7 September 1988, published in Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXI, 1988, Series B, No. 3, pp. 255 ff. as appendix of the 259th Report.

9. See 265th Report, in Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXII, 1989, Series B, No. 2, p. 150, paras. 491 and 493.

10. See 275th Report, in Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, 1990, Series B, No. 3, p. 67, para. 203(a).

11. See 275th Report, in Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, 1990, Series B, No. 3, p. 67, para. 203(b).

12. See 286th Report, in Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXVI, 1993, Series B, No. 1, para. 359.

13. See 297th Report, in Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXVIII, 1995, Series B, No. 1, paras. 464 and 483.

14. See 297th Report, in Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXVIII, 1995, Series B, No. 1, paras. 477 and 478.

15. See 306th Report, in Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXX, 1997, Series B, No. 1, para. 294.

16. See para. 9 of the 309th Report, adopted by the Governing Body in March 1998.

17. See para. 82 of the 309th Report.

18. Constitution, article 53, paragraph 4: "International labour agreements duly ratified are part of domestic legislation."

19. See the report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Report and observations concerning particular countries. Report III (Part 4A) to the International Labour Conference, 73rd Session, 1987. All the quotations in this chapter correspond to pp. 160-162 of this document.

20. See report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Report and observations concerning particular countries. Report III (Part 4A) to the International Labour Conference, 76th Session, 1989, pp. 142-143.

21. op. cit., p. 144.

22. op. cit., pp. 145-146.

23. op. cit., p. 268.

24. For all references to 1990, see report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Report and observations concerning particular countries. Report III (Part 4A) to the 77th Session of the International Labour Conference, 1990.

25. For all references to 1991, see report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,General Report and observations concerning particular countries. Report III (Part 4A) of the International Labour Conference, 78th Session, 1991.

26. For all references to 1992, see report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Report and observations concerning particular countries, report III (Part 4A) to the International Labour Conference, 79th Session, 1992.

27. For all quotations referring to 1993, see report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Report and observations concerning particular countries, Report III (Part 4A) to the International Labour Conference, 80th Session, 1993.

28. For all references to 1994, see the report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General report and observations concerning particular countries, report III (Part 4A) to the International Labour Conference, 81st Session, 1994.

29. For all references to 1995, see report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Report and observations concerning particular countries, Report III (Part 4A) to the International Labour Conference, 82nd Session, 1995.

30. For all references to 1996, see report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Report and observations concerning particular countries, Report III (Part 4A) to the International Labour Conference, 83rd Session, 1996.

31. For all references to 1997, see report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Report and observations concerning particular countries, Report III (Part 1A) to the International Labour Conference, 85th Session, 1997.

32. See report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Report and observations concerning particular countries, Report III (Part 1A) to the International Labour Conference, 86th Session, 1998, pp. 171-172.

33. See report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Report and observations concerning particular countries, Report III (Part 1A) to the International Labour Conference, 86th Session, 1998, pp. 229-230.

34. See International Labour Conference, 85th Session, Provisional Record, p. 19/81.


Updated by VC. Approved by RH. Last update: 26 January 2000.

For further information, please contact the Official Relations Branch at Tel: +41.22.799.7732, Fax: +41.22.799.8944 or by e-mail: RELOFF@ilo.org

International Labour Conference: [ Home ]

© 1996-2022 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Copyright and Permissions | Privacy policy | Disclaimer