Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1998, Publication: 86th ILC session (1998)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Colombia (Ratification: 1976)

A Government representative, Minister of Labour, stated that his Government accepted the observations of the Committee of Experts, but deemed it necessary to present certain reflections about the labour legislation in force with respect to the mandate and the Conventions of the ILO.

Since 1991, with the adoption of the new political Constitution of Colombia by the National Assembly of the most pluralistic character, unprecedented progress had been made in all that pertained to the world of work. Suffice it to say that according to the Constitution, international labour Conventions duly ratified by the Congress of the Republic become part of the internal legislation, which meant that 51 Conventions ratified by Colombia were of direct application. In addition, according to the Constitution these Conventions have a priority in the internal order as regards the instruments concerning human rights, which was the case regarding ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Section 53, paragraph 4, of the political Constitution stipulates that "duly ratified international labour Conventions form part of the internal legislation". Section 93 of the Constitution states also that "the international treaties and Conventions which recognize human rights and prohibit their limitation in exceptional situations, have a priority in the internal order. The rights and duties established in this charter shall be interpreted in conformity with international treaties on human rights ratified by Colombia". These principles of labour law have been guaranteed also by means of a special judicial mechanism (accion de tutela) which permits any person affected by the violation of a fundamental right to approach any judicial authority and solicit protection through an expedited procedure. Through this mechanism, numerous cases of the violation of trade union rights were resolved and freedom of association received an effective guarantee of legal protection.

The Government remained convinced of the importance of the standard-setting activities of the ILO and of the social benefits which, by the incorporation of the international labour standards into internal legal order to the workers, were brought to workers, employers and the society at large. Recently, the Congress of the Republic had considered and approved Conventions (No. 144 on tripartite consultations, No. 151 on labour relations in the public service, No. 161 on occupational health services, No. 162 on the safe use of asbestos, and No. 174 on the prevention of major industrial accidents), which were now in the process of ratification. Before the Constitution of 1991, one could speak of certain limitations of the exercise of freedom of association in Colombia. This situation no longer existed: the right to free association provided in Convention No. 87 was elevated to a constitutional principle, as well as the right of workers and employers to establish unions and associations without government interference and with immediate legal recognition (article 38 of the national Constitution).

With respect to the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning Convention No. 87, the speaker stated that measures to implement them were delayed due to the problems of legal order. In 1996, there was an important technical assistance mission on freedom of association which had jointly elaborated draft laws to bring national legislation into line with ratified Conventions which were submitted to the Congress of the Republic but which had not yet gone through the process of approval. Nevertheless, they have served as a model to adopt administrative measures and to prepare a draft implementing decree which regulates Acts 26 and 27 of 1976 concerning the ratification by Colombia of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. It is important to inform this Committee that while certain laws, which were considered to be contrary to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, were still in force, the Government considered, in accordance with its previous arguments, that they were to be repealed and that with this in mind it would solicit the necessary action to proclaim their unconstitutionality. All possible means of action were explored: presentation of the draft law which took account of the Committee of Experts' observations, the adoption of an implementing decree and the beginning of the court action concerning unconstitutionality.

Referring to the observations of the Committee of Experts on Convention No. 87, the speaker indicated that the report mentioned the following Colombian labour standards which contradict the provisions of this Convention:

-- Section 365(g) on the requirement that, in order for a trade union to be registered, the labour inspector must certify that there is no other union. This provision aimed at preventing parallel trade unions in the undertakings, and workers would no doubt agree with its implementation in order to strengthen the labour movement.

-- Colombian legislation on the need to be of Colombian nationality to hold executive office in a trade union, on the requirement that in order to form a union, two-thirds of its members must be Colombian (section 365(g) and section 384 of the Substantive Labour Code). It would be hard to find another Constitution in the world which would be as generous in recognizing the rights of foreigners and giving Colombian nationality to foreigners as the present Colombian Constitution. Suffice it to look at some European constitutions to appreciate that the Colombian Constitution starts by proclaiming the possibility of obtaining a Colombian nationality on the basis of principles ius soli and ius sanguinis. It is also provided that foreigners could obtain Colombian nationality without being obliged to renounce their original nationality. Such provisions were unprecedented and few countries in the world could claim the same generosity. This legislative activity was not due to any specific motive, as there were no significant groups of foreigners engaged in employment in Colombia. The political Constitution of Colombia extended to foreigners the same civil rights which Colombians had, but for reasons of public order, the law could regulate those rights. However, the national legislation did not violate the Constitution or the Convention; foreigners could join trade unions but could not control a trade union or hold executive office in it.

-- Section 486 on the supervision of the internal management of trade unions and meetings of unions by public servants. The presence of public servants had for its purpose to ensure respect of the qualified majority provided for in trade union statutes, for example in case of strikes. It was often members of the trade unions themselves who asked for the presence of public servants in case of internal conflicts, in such cases the mission of the public servant consisted in collecting evidence which would eliminate conflicts in the future. It was believed that such activities had no impact on the independence and autonomy of the trade unions.

-- Section 380(3) which provided for the denial of the right of trade union association up to three years to any trade union executive who had been responsible for the dissolution of a union. Act No. 50 of 1990 abolished the administrative authority of the Government to deny the right in the above-mentioned cases; it lay now with the judicial authority when it was proved that the trade union executive was responsible for the dissolution or suspension of a union. Taking into account that such dissolution had to be declared legally, section 380(3) of the Code did not violate the Convention.

-- Section 422(1)(c) on the need to have exercised the activity, occupation or position characteristic of the trade union in order to hold a trade union office. This provision did not carry a risk of jeopardizing trade union rights, because in the first place it was applied to the industrial trade unions and, secondly, one could belong to the activity, occupation or position characteristic of the trade union, without actually exercising this activity. The administrative authorities only required certification of the years worked in the undertaking and of belonging to the respective sector of activity. The nature of a trade union required that its executives had the same profession as members. Another serious question to be studied was the possibility of becoming a career trade union executive.

-- The right to strike of federations and confederations. The Ministry of Labour consulted all social partners on the question of developing and strengthening the trade union movement by promoting industrial unionism, which would entail broadening the rights of federations and confederations. Also, the draft implementing decree extended the same rights which were attributed to basic unions to their associations of the second and third levels.

-- The power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security and of the President of the Republic to intervene in case of conflicts (sections 448 and 450 of the Code). During the present Administration, this power had not been used, except at the request of the trade union. His Government acknowledged, however, that this provision effectively violated Convention No. 87.

-- The possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Code). The ILO supervisory bodies recognized the legitimacy of dismissal in case of an unlawful strike and the Convention requires workers' organizations to respect the law. Therefore, this provision did not violate the Convention. With respect to the right to strike and certain administrative restrictions applied to it mentioned on page 187 of the Spanish version of the Committee's report, the speaker stated that the new political Constitution of Colombia of 1991 recognized the power of the Congress of the Republic to determine public services to be considered essential, and this legislative work was in process. For the time being the situation was covered by five laws: Act No. 100 of 1993, section 4: with respect to the general social security system in health and pensions, the essentials were the activities directly related to the establishment and payment of pensions; Act No. 142 of 1994, sections 1 and 4: applied to the public domestic services for the maintenance of water supply, waste disposal, electric energy, distribution of gas, and basic telephone services, both fixed and mobile in the local and rural sectors; Decree No. 407 of 1994, section 11: the functions pertaining to the national custodial services and prisons; Act No. 270 of 1996, section 125: administration of justice considered to be an essential public service; Decree No. 336 of 1996: public transportation by air, sea, railway and road. It appeared that the right to strike belonged to the category of constitutional rights in Colombia, which required corresponding adjustment of the labour legislation, making inapplicable certain sections of the code actually in force and giving the possibility to repeal those which contradict those rights.

He stated that taking into account the new legal situation in the country which determined the priority of the Conventions over the internal legislation and their direct application, the Minister of Labour and Social Security had convened a group of the specialists in the legal sciences under the head of the expert in labour law and interpretation of the ILO standards, in order that it initiated the procedure before the Constitutional Court of Colombia to declare unconstitutional the provisions of the Substantive Labour Code and other labour laws which were contrary to the letter and spirit of the ILO Conventions ratified by Colombia. In this way, the constitutional procedure avoided the complexity of the legislative debate or the risk that once the regulating decrees referred to had been adopted, legal obstacles could impede their future application. The situation was still not ideal with respect to the legislation and because of this, the Government would try to contact workers' organizations to reach agreement on better provisions.

Referring to the problems of violence in Colombia, he indicated that the situation with respect to the violation of human rights was neither desired, nor sought by the social actors represented here -- government, workers and employers. This situation however had degenerated in a prolonged armed conflict from which there was no escape for the various social and human groups: the society at large was affected including trade union members and their leaders. In this complex and extremely delicate situation, the Colombian Government established and applied consistent policy in matters of peace, human rights and international humanitarian law, which pursued a double aim to find a negotiated solution out of the armed conflict and to protect and promote respect for human rights and for the humanitarian law in favour of the civil population. With respect to the peace policy, it was important to mention the creation of the National Peace Council composed of the state bodies and the organizations of civil society, including the catholic church, which had acquired considerable respect from the conflicting parties and the support from the Government to the network of initiatives of citizens for peace and against the war which had obtained the support of 10 million Colombians. Being conscious of the importance of the cooperation of the international community in facing the problem of violence, the Colombian Government had requested the establishment in Colombia of the office of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, which started its activities in April 1997.

He referred to the declaration on Colombia adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights during its 54th Session celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights: "The Commission (of human rights) recognizes a set of important policies and measures adopted and implemented by the Government of Colombia in the area of protection and defence of human rights and its will to cooperate with the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bogotá, with the special reporters and working groups of the Commission, as well as its readiness to continue and reinforce these relations." Neither the international community nor Colombia could have arrived, in this respect, at a decision different from that adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights after a long period of study and consultation.

As regards the human rights of workers, the Colombian Government and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security in particular have pledged their full support to the promotion of fundamental rights to life, personal freedom and freedom of association. The Colombian Government paid special tribute to this topic not only as part of the exterior image of the country, but rather as an effective political will to introduce corrections in the situation recognized as unacceptable and incompatible with the democratic and civil character of Colombian institutions. An advisory group in human rights was established directly under the minister with the mandate to assist and advise the Inter-Institutional Commission for the human rights of the workers. Since its establishment, progress had been made in the design of the information system on acts of violence against trade union leaders which would provide a foundation for the supervision and fight against impunity. Nevertheless, murders and horrible crimes against trade union leaders occurred and threats continued to be directed towards trade union leaders and activists. The Government condemned such acts and offered to take action to capture and punish the guilty. The Government considered that trade union organizations occupied an important place in society, and that the search for a more real and concrete peace and social justice should carry on. Finally, he indicated that he identified himself with the just cause of trade union organizations.

The Workers' members declared that the case of Colombia was a case which caused extremely serious concerns. The Committee had already discussed the application of Convention No. 87 in this Committee in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997. In 1989 and 1990 this case was mentioned in a special paragraph. It should be noted that the comments by the experts also referred to problems raised in relation to Convention No. 98. In 1996 a direct contacts mission to Colombia was conducted. Five cases were presently pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Workers' members recalled that last year, when this case was examined by the present Committee, two major concerns had been expressed: on the one hand, with the assistance of the ILO, the Government had prepared two Bills which would conform to the comments by the experts. The comments made in the report of this year concerned discrepancies between law and practice and both Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. On the other hand, this Committee had expressed its serious concerns regarding the condition of violence and lack of enforcement of laws which prevailed in the country and which was specifically directed against workers and trade unionists.

The Committee of Experts noted that the Government stated in its report that the Congress of the Republic had decided to shelve the Bill intended to ensure compliance with the Convention and that it was going to resort to other legal means to do so. Furthermore, the second draft bill concerning essential public services did not seem to have been pursued either.

As regards the second main concern, that is the measures the Government envisaged to undertake to curb the violence exerted against workers and trade unionists, the Committee of Experts made no reference to any new information. This seemed to imply that no such information had been reported by the Government. However, the news transmitted by Colombian trade unionists, as late as during the present session of the Committee, evidenced extremely serious conditions. Only last week, 26 workers had been captured and found assassinated. According to information provided by the UN Committee on Human Rights, 127 trade unionists had been murdered in 1997 for political reasons. Several trade unionists had been abducted and had disappeared; in addition, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights had condemned the legal system and, in particular, the regional courts. According to the High Commissioner these courts had confirmed the arrests of trade unionists without respect for the legal procedures. These regional courts condemned the trade unionists solely because they exercised their trade union rights.

As in the previous year, it should be reiterated that an interaction between the ILO instruments and the principles contained in the Constitution was an indispensable condition for the creation of, to cite the direct contacts mission of 1996, "a climate of social peace and a progressive elimination of the social conditions causing injustice, poverty and deprivations".

The Workers' members remarked that no progress had been noted regarding the bringing into conformity of legislation with the Convention. On the contrary, it seemed that this process had to be re-initiated. As regards the troublesome situation concerning anti-trade union violence, no information had been provided by the Government regarding the measures it intended to take in order to halt the anti-trade union violence and, more specifically, the attacks against trade unionists.

In view of this double challenge, the Workers' members proposed that the Committee in its conclusions invited the Government to accept a direct contacts mission in order to: (1) assist the Government of Colombia as well as other political decision-makers, such as the Congress of the Republic, with a view to eliminating, without delay, the obstacles which impeded the adoption of regulations which would bring the legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention; and (2) obtain information on the serious acts of anti-trade union violence and, together with the competent authorities as well as worker and employer organizations, identify the measures required to halt the crimes committed against trade unionists to create a climate of social peace and to set up and maintain the rule of law.

The Employers' members recalled that this case had been examined eight times in the last ten years. In 1996, an ILO mission on freedom of association had taken place where a Bill had been elaborated which in the end was not adopted by Congress. The Employers' members pointed out that the 12 points which were the subject of the observations of the Committee of Experts would have been remedied to a great extent through the adoption of the Bill. Turning to the observation of the Committee of Experts on the legislative provisions concerning the right to strike, they referred to their position which was different from the position of the Committee of Experts. Despite the difference of opinion in this respect, they said that the other points which had been noted by the Committee of Experts had demonstrated that freedom of association was not being respected. Turning to the Government representative's suggestion to examine whether the proposals established under the Bill could be inserted into the national Constitution, the Employers' members felt that this procedure would not lead to a positive outcome in view of the fact that not a single Bill had been adopted thus far. However, the Government representative had provided a lot of information on a large number of points mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts. The Government representative had indicated that Conventions, once they had been ratified, were directly applicable at the national level and had priority over other laws. However, Convention No. 87 enshrined principles which should be adopted into national legislation and also implemented in practice which had been particularly difficult. Referring to the Government's intention to examine those legal provisions which were contrary to the requirements of Convention No. 87 and to declare these provisions to be unconstitutional, the Employers' members doubted that the executive body was empowered to do this. Furthermore, the Employers' members pointed out that the problem not only concerned Convention No. 87 but also the entire society which was characterized by an atmosphere of violence. In addition, trade union activists as well as managers of enterprises had been discriminated against, abducted or murdered. This situation showed that freedom of association did not exist in this country. The Employers' members concluded that this Committee should express its deep concern in its conclusions in which not all the individual points raised by the Committee of Experts needed to be reflected in order to illuminate the grave situation as a whole. The Government should be urged to take the appropriate action and supply a report in the very near future.

The Worker member of Colombia stated that this was not the first time that the Minister made promises and a year after broke his word. He hoped, however, that in this case full adherence would be given to the promises made to the workers and to the international community. He stated, with regret, that the situation with respect to human rights had not improved in Colombia. The proliferation of violence affected the whole of the Colombian society but particularly workers and the civil population, each time increasing concern for the impunity for the violence committed. The persistent policy of threats and attacks on social activists formed part of the strategy to demoralize and demobilize workers' organizations. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Colombians (more than 98 per cent) were good, peaceful, hard-working people, whose only objectives were to bring peace to the country, to establish freedom, democracy and development in which all Colombians would have access to education, basic needs, health, social security and employment. In reality, it was a tragedy to observe that more than 1 million people had fallen victim to the violence and that more sacrifices were still expected in the future. The issue of trade union rights was intimately related to the question of human rights, and the report of the Committee of Experts contained very detailed references to the very important violations of Convention No. 87. The present Minister of Labour, who had held office for only a few months had assumed the responsibility to respond today for those who had been irresponsible in harmonizing Colombian labour legislation with ILO Conventions and Recommendations, and who had not kept their word. The right to collective bargaining was nullified for public employees and the draft act referred to in this Committee had no effect and placed public employees in a very disadvantaged position; in this respect, it was very important that the Colombian Government said that real possibility exists for it to assume a serious commitment in this matter. On the other hand, the report of the Committee of Experts stated, as it had already stated a few years ago, that Colombia had promised to modify its labour legislation to guarantee freedom of association and today also mentioned the possibility of adopting a labour statute under the Constitution, but Colombian workers had no knowledge either about the draft of such a statute, or about the fate of the draft presented by the workers with more than 1 million signatures. Conversely, Colombian workers were concerned by the practice of some enterprises which were literally engaged in liquidating workers and their organizations by persecution, plans of "voluntary resignation", temporary contracts and the enforcement of what was now being called "the statute of non-unionized" -- a very dangerous instrument against the trade union movement which guaranteed different rights for non-unionized workers with the aim of decreasing the rate of unionization as in the aviation sector. There were other enterprises which resorted to this unacceptable practice as, for example, in certain social clubs which put pressure on their syndicalized workers to resign and replace them with small cooperatives working on a subcontractor basis, undermining the application of the labour law, the presence of the trade union movement and leaving the workers with no trade union protection and social security. In this context, it was also very important that the Government committed itself to defending trade union rights preventing the appearance of such anti-union practices. He also expressed his disagreement with the information provided on the significant progress in labour legislation and the system of health protection and social pensions, because the situation in reality was completely different. Finally, he requested the minister to state clearly what would be done for the thousands of workers dismissed during the past years, including those dismissed by the governors and mayors without the application of any sanction. He asked that this Committee establish and send a commission of inquiry which would be very useful in the actual situation.

Another Worker member of Colombia stated that the most important reason for which the Colombian Government was being asked to reply to this Committee, was the serious attacks on human rights in his country. More than 2,500 trade unionists had been assassinated in the last ten years without anyone being imprisoned for those crimes; a high number of displaced persons and refugees in the neighbouring countries and the profound cuts in the social, family and labour issue attested to the gravity of the situation. This Committee had repeatedly heard the accusations made by the representatives of Colombian workers of the practices called "penalization for the social struggle". One could easily show how the legislation which pretended to suppress terrorism and drug-trafficking always ended up being used against trade union activists, social and political leaders. This legislation did not permit a due process, admitted secret evidence, witnesses with a hidden identity testifying against the same person, called "cloned witnesses", and above all, which permitted the negotiation of light sentences to those who were truly responsible and the infliction of much more severe sentences on the innocent who had been declared culpable in an arbitrary and unjust way. While a debate had been opened concerning the application of this type of justice, with more and more people adhering to the demand of its dismantlement, the Workers were preoccupied with the fact that it had led to the wide use of all types of manipulations which "justify" or pretended to "justify" action threatening freedom and integrity of the trade union leaders, members of NGOs on human and political rights.

While Mrs. Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, launched an important call for the defence of human rights in the plenary sitting of the Conference with respect to the report concerning Colombia presented to the 54th Session of the Committee on Human Rights two months ago, certain security organs of the Colombian Government claimed that, 15 of 100 guerrilla groups continued to be active militarily and 85 provided a logistic and political support to the rebellion forces integrated in social and trade union organizations, legal political movements and organizations in defence of human rights. One could imagine the consequences of such an absurd appraisal of the situation on the part of the national security organs for a country with conditions such as in Colombia.

The speaker stated that about one-and-a-half months ago in Bogotá Dr. Eduardo Umana Mendoza was assassinated. He had been a resolute defender of human and trade union rights and had vehemently denounced the impunity and the lack of guarantees for the exercise of trade union activities in Colombia, and had ensured the legal defence of trade union leaders in the petroleum industry.

The Colombian workers thanked the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Committee of Experts and this Committee for the concern they had been expressing for more than ten years and for the action taken by various ILO bodies in order to make Colombia fulfill its obligation with respect to the observance of trade union rights. There had been so many trade unionists killed and forcefully displaced, so many victims of other violations, and impunity was so widespread that it made no sense to continue talking about statistics. The time had come for the international community and the ILO to take very concrete action to help the Colombian people to resolve the grave crisis of human rights in the country. In this respect he supported the request made by his fellow Worker member of Colombia, that a commission of inquiry be established with the mandate to consider everything related to trade union freedom in Colombia. In conclusion, in the memory of more than 2,000 trade unionists assassinated in Colombia in the last ten years, he invited the Committee to observe a minute's silence.

The Worker member of Argentina declared that, following demands by the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers (ORIT), his office had had to protect certain trade unionists who had been forced to leave their country because of reiterated death threats. He emphasized that the report of the Committee of Experts highlighted that the Congress of the Republic of Colombia had decided to shelve a legislative reform which was aimed at amending legislation in force with a view to bringing it into conformity with ILO standards and to guaranteeing freedom of association for Colombian trade unionists. The situation was all the more serious as workers and trade union leaders were presently deprived entirely of protection. In 1997, 156 workers and trade union leaders had been assassinated and approximately 100 had been forced to leave their homes because of the threats they had been subjected to. The authorities had not manifested any particular intention to investigate the innumerable killings, abductions and other attacks. Progress could not be noted either as regards the functioning of the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights that the Government of Colombia had undertaken to set up. No legislative developments concerning collective bargaining in the public sector could be noted. The trade unions which legitimately opposed employer abuses were subjected to legal repressions. Enterprises resorted to criminal pursuits against trade union leaders which were treated with a certain amount of complacency by the courts. The right to strike had been thwarted, although it was assured in the Constitution. Trade union leaders were dismissed following participation in strikes, and they were wholly unprotected. The Minister of Labour who was conferred with excessive powers that were used in a discretionary and arbitrary fashion, was authorized to declare a strike illegal. As was evident, the Government -- contrary to its undertakings -- had no interest in protecting the life, security and activities of workers and trade union leaders, nor in making any efforts to modify the legislation. The speaker therefore concurred with the proposals of the Colombian workers and insisted that the violence and the various attacks against human rights in Colombia be halted and that a commission of inquiry be accepted by the Government.

The Worker member of Germany said that he did not wish to go into the individual points since this case concerned the overall situation in Colombia. He pointed out that trade union leaders had been murdered or discriminated against in various ways, therefore this Committee should express its greatest concern about the situation in the country. He pointed out that not only trade union members but also attorneys representing them, had been victimised. This climate of violence was illustrated by the case of Dr. Mendoza, a well known attorney in the field of human rights, who had been murdered on 18 April 1998 in his office in Bogotá. Turning to the Government representative's statement he pointed out that no concrete measures had been taken but that the Government representative had restricted himself to calling the above acts "terrible and criminal". For this reason the Government representative should be asked to indicate what concrete measures had been taken to remedy the situation in his country.

The Worker member of Iceland, speaking on behalf of the Workers' members of the Nordic countries, indicated that the Colombian Government seemed determined to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Convention No. 87 by taking no measures whatsoever to ensure the proper implementation of this instrument in its country. Once again this Committee had heard terrible stories of violence carried out against trade unionists. A few examples were as follows: in 1997, it had been reported that 156 trade union leaders and members had been murdered in Colombia. The climate of violence still appeared unchanged this year. The Government could say that these murders were isolated incidents of crimes committed by criminal groups and that it could not be held responsible. However, in order to be able to accept this as an explanation, evidence needed to be brought to this Committee to the effect that the Government was doing something to better the situation. Regrettably, nothing seemed to indicate that this was the case. On the contrary, evidence seemed to reveal that instruments of the Government were being used to undermine trade union activity. In March, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had condemned the regional justice system of Colombia for violating guarantees of due process and Amnesty International had expressed serious concerns of a similar nature in its recent report. Therefore the real problem in relation to the failure of the Government to abide by the obligations arising from the ratification of Convention No. 87 seemed to be the complete absence of political will. All over the world, democratic forces and respect for human rights were ensuring the peaceful overthrow of dictatorships and creating a better society for all. In order for such a development to occur, courage was needed; courage to let go of the old system of social repression and courage to allow the people of a country to enjoy their basic human rights. It was quite obvious that such progress and democratic developments could not occur under circumstances such as those that still prevailed in Colombia.

The Worker member of France emphasized the strong feelings that this case aroused and which justified the high number of interventions. He noted that the statement by the Government member of Colombia sought to be reassuring but the facts and realities stood in contradiction thereto. He considered that the basic problem was the absence of the rule of law and of traditional means of law enforcement. The speaker recalled that the promising developments in 1996 (which the ILO contributed to), aimed at amending various provisions in the major labour code had been rejected by the Congress of the Republic. The Minister of Labour was considering the possibility of re-submitting to Congress the above-mentioned provisions amending the labour law. The speaker questioned, however, the credibility of such a proposal, as the Congress of the Republic had already rejected the first draft. The speaker proceeded to recall certain statistics: in 1997, 156 trade union leaders had been assassinated. He noted that this figure included 61 teachers, in addition to the four who had disappeared which represented more than 50 per cent of the murdered trade unionists. He also cited the example of the events that took place on 7 March 1996 when the Secretary-General of the FENSUA-GRO was killed in his office. In addition, he mentioned that on 26 March, the Prosecutor General threatened to arrest eight trade union leaders on charges of forgery of documents and fraud. With reference thereto, the speaker considered that the non-application of Convention No. 87 could only help to serve the paramilitary groups which attacked trade unionists as even the public authorities did not seem to respect the provisions of Convention No. 87.

The Worker member of Spain stated that the principal problems did not concern the legislation or the Constitution, but resided in the absolute impunity enjoyed in relation to the crimes which were being committed. It had been pointed out that not one of those responsible for the offences had been convicted. The commission of inquiry that had been proposed during this discussion could be of use if it was committed, with valour, generosity and courage, to contributing to making peace possible. The ILO and the United Nations could not stand by passively when faced with the violence going on in Colombia. After deploring the massive murders of trade unionists that had recently occurred, he payed homage to the CUT for its struggle in favour of human rights and trade union rights.

The Government member of Norway made the following statement on behalf of 12 countries: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and his own country, Norway. He pointed out that the situation in Colombia had been discussed at the Committee's meeting the previous year. The Committee had expressed profound regret at the climate of violence which affected the lives and physical integrity of trade unionists. He stressed that in recent years Colombia's deepening human rights crises had been the focus of increasing international attention. The Government had not supported the necessary legislative measures in respect of bargaining, as reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts. He supported the Committee of Experts' call for the Government to provide reports clarifying the situation in this regard. However, as serious as these restrictions were, they existed in an overall context of extreme violence, which included many trade unionists among its victims. He expressed his firm hope that substantial progress would soon be noted concerning civil and political rights, which were essential for the exercise of trade union rights, inter alia, through the co-operation with the Office representing the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bogotá and with the continued assistance of the ILO. Finally, he expressed the hope that the Government would soon take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation and practice into full conformity with the Convention.

The Worker member of Guatemala stated that it was sad and worrying to note that the very year of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Convention No. 87 and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, these instruments remained wholly unapplied in Colombia. The Government did not ensure that the life of its citizens was protected although this was its prime responsibility. In this context, the repression and systematic persecution of the trade union movement in Colombia should be condemned. Impunity and social injustice prevailed in Colombia, without any prospects for improvement. The workers were tired of the unkept promises. The Government representative should clarify which policies it intended to follow, in order to resolve the problems mentioned, to ensure an effective application of Convention No. 87 and to guarantee peace as well as democracy.

The Worker member of the United States stated that given the systemic, structural and chronic violations of freedom of association in Colombia and given the continued barbaric and despicable violations of the physical integrity of trade unionists in Colombia, the United States Workers' delegation joined with the Colombian and other Workers' delegates in demanding the despatch of a commission of inquiry. Anything less would be shamefully inadequate.

The Government representative of Colombia thanked all the speakers who took part in the discussion. He supported the statements made by the workers of various countries when they expressed their solidarity as well as condolences with the Colombian workers and the people of Colombia in general regarding the recent murders of workers perpetrated by paramilitary groups. He also showed his appreciation for the observance of a minute of silence requested by the Workers who wanted to express their discontent with regard to the violence in Colombia. While he noted some inaccuracies in the statements of certain speakers regarding legislative matters, he decided not to comment on those statements since he felt that the main problems were of another nature. Concerning the statements regarding human rights violations, he reiterated that the special body of the United Nations for Human Rights recognized that the Government of Colombia had adopted a set of important policies and measures in the area and defence of human rights. Taking into account this declaration, he considered that the specialized bodies on human rights should be the competent authorities to deal with such issues. Nevertheless, he did not deny the existence of human rights violations in Colombia. In this respect, state agents who had committed such violations had been sanctioned. Moreover, he asked the question as to whether, facing such violence by paramilitary and guerilla groups, other countries would have been able to maintain the state of law as well as Colombia did. Concerning the possibility of declaring unconstitutional certain provisions of the Labour Code, he stated that this was proof of the good will of the Government to comply with the observations of the Committee of Experts. Regarding the Workers' request for the establishment of a commission of inquiry, he hoped that the appropriate procedures would be referred to the Governing Body of the ILO. If the Governing Body were to decide on such a course of action, after an examination of the government reply, he assumed that such a commission of inquiry would receive the cooperation of the Government.

The representative of the Secretary-General answered the Workers' members' request for information on the commission of inquiry. After reading out the relevant provisions of article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO, he indicated that a complaint had to be presented in writing or, in the present case, by a delegate to the International Labour Conference. The Secretary-General of the Conference would subsequently present the complaint to the Officers of the Governing Body, and then to the Governing Body itself for a decision on the receivability of the complaint and on the adoption of any measures considered useful or necessary. In any case, the complaint should identify the facts clearly and indicate which provisions of the Convention or Conventions were allegedly not being fulfilled. In conclusion, he pointed out that this Committee had no competence to pronounce on the admissability of complaints under article 26 of the ILO's Constitution.

The Committee took note of the oral information supplied by the Minister of Labour and the long discussion which followed. The Committee recalled with great concern that the longstanding and major discrepancies between law and practice and the provisions of the Convention had been discussed by the Conference Committee on a number of occasions. It deeply deplored that from the cases brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association it appeared that anti-trade union violence continued, including the death of a great number of union leaders and activists. The Committee expressed its deep concern that the rights regarding the freedom of association Conventions were violated in their very essential aspects. It noted, with regret, that no progress had been made in ensuring greater conformity with the Convention despite the assistance provided by an ILO mission on freedom of association in 1996. The Committee recalled that a Bill was then prepared to repeal and amend a number of provisions which were not compatible with the requirements of the Convention but that this Bill had been shelved by the Congress. The Committee once again urged the Government to take concrete steps to bring the provisions of the Substantive Labour Code and the corresponding decrees, which contradicted Articles 2, 3 and 10, into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It insisted, in particular, on the need to lift the wide powers of supervision over union affairs granted to the administrative authorities, the prohibition on setting up more than one union at the plant level, the excessively high number of Colombian workers required to form a trade union, the important restriction on the eligibility of trade union officials and on the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes for furthering and defending the interests of workers. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the concrete progress made both in law and in practice to ensure the application of this fundamental Convention ratified more than 20 years ago. It took note of the statement made by the Government representative that there was readiness to communicate with the Governing Body if a written complaint for a commission of inquiry was transmitted to the Governing Body.

During the discussion, the Committee observed a minute of silence in memory of those trade unionists who had been murdered in Colombia.