Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2002, Publication: 90th ILC session (2002)

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

A Government representative, Minister of Labour and Social Security, indicated in respect of bringing Colombian labour legislation into conformity with the ILO Conventions that Act No. 584 of 2000 had reformed the labour system in several respects:

- it confirmed the right to organize and freedom of association, giving full freedom to the trade unions to draft their statutes;

- it removed from the Ministry of Labour the authority to intervene and investigate trade union organizations;

- it allowed trade union organizations to call strikes for non-payment of wages by employers;

- it broadened the guarantee of trade union rights to public servants;

- it granted public servants the right to time off for trade union activities; and

- it provided for the resolution of collective labour disputes by minority trade unions through arbitration tribunal.

For its part, the Constitutional Court, through various executive orders, had derogated several provisions of the Substantive Labour Code that had not been in conformity with the political Constitution and ILO Conventions. In this way, several provisions relating to the intervention of the Ministry of Labour into the internal affairs of trade unions, such as the adoption of their statutes and intervention in trade union meetings, had been declared inapplicable in order to strengthen the principle of trade union autonomy. It also permitted workers to join several trade unions. Applying the principle of equality, the provisions that made a distinction between the activities of trade unions of enterprises and those of professions and industries had been derogated. In case of the coexistence of a number of minority trade unions in one enterprise, all of them could be represented in collective bargaining. The rights to hold sympathy strikes and to strike, not only for the non-payment of wages, but also for non-observance of any contractual obligation by the employer, were provided for. The Labour Appeals Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Justice, in its decision of 1998 interpreting the provision, had recognized the existence of circumstantial rights for all workers involved in collective labour disputes.

He indicated that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security had held a number of seminars with the territorial directors and labour inspectors in order to bring their competency and functions into conformity with the Conventions. Furthermore, several directives relating to the observance of the principles of freedom of association had been adopted. For example, the administrative act that provided for registration in the register of trade unions was not subject to appeal and, in the event of disputes, the usual jurisdiction was applicable. The same rule was applicable to the resolutions which prescribed the rotation of trade union office. Similarly, directives concerning the mandatory character of collective bargaining for public employees had been issued, in conformity with Conventions Nos. 151 and 154. Protest actions by workers had been respected and none of them had been declared illegal. Arbitration tribunals had only been convened at the request of trade union organizations. Social dialogue and collective bargaining had been promoted as a mechanism to resolve disputes and conflicts. The 200 or more collective agreements, arbitration awards or agreements signed over the past 12 months illustrated this dialogue.

The Ministry of Labour had defended the trade union activity as a fundamental element of democracy, had condemned the assassinations and death threats against trade unionists, had publicly demanded the paramilitary groups to stop this assassination in the same way as it had demanded guerrilla groups to release numerous persons being held in captivity.

He emphasized that, in respect of the protection of the life of trade unionists, the national Government, at the initiative of the President and with the participation of delegates of trade unions, was developing a national programme of protection for trade unionists under the responsibility of the Minister of Interior. On the other hand, the Congress of the Republic, at the initiative of the Government, and with previous consultation with trade unions of public employees, had adopted, on 12 June 2001, the new Act on administrative careers, which provided mechanisms for entry, promotion and work in the public administration which were much more favourable and democratic for workers.

With respect to regulation of the right to strike in essential public services, the Government hoped that the legislation governing this right would be the result of a process of dialogue between employers, workers and the Government. He emphasized that the right to strike and to social protest were guaranteed by the national Constitution, and that the Government fully respected this right and had not declared illegal any type of strike or work stoppage.

The Minister of Labour indicated that he was approaching the end of his tenure and expressed his gratitude to all the members of the Committee for its collaboration in endeavouring to bring the labour legislation in Colombia into conformity with the democratic principles of the ILO and freedom of association including the life of trade unionists which needed to be respected, not only as an integral part of democracy, but also as a guarantee for the establishment of a new type of labour relations. He indicated that in the current conditions of acute and degrading violence, worsened by the criminal activities of the paramilitary groups, drug traffickers and organized crime, the best contribution that the ILO could make would be to strengthen the programme of tripartite cooperation with Colombia and encourage workers, employers and the Government to have the political will to put the objectives of this programme into practice.

The Employer members recalled that the Committee had examined the application of the Convention for a number of years and that a long debate had been held on the subject the previous year. The case raised two issues. The first related to law and practice, which were contrary to the principles set out in the Convention concerning freedom of association, and the second related to the climate of violence which existed in the country and which constituted a very serious obstacle to the exercise by employers and workers of their rights under the Convention. The situation also raised the question of the relationship between a climate of violence and legislation which was not in conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It was clear that inadequate labour legislation did not of itself generate violence. However, the existence of a climate of violence did not encourage the amendment of the legislation. Although the question of violence was not directly within the mandate of the Committee and the ILO was not in a position to take the necessary measures to put an end to the violence, the Committee was faced with a dilemma, since the actual development of labour legislation was influenced by the overall situation prevailing in the country.

With reference to the long list of points covered by the comments of the Committee of Experts in the past, the Conference Committee had noted at its session last year the progress achieved by the Government. With regard to the remaining limitations on the right to strike, the Government representative had indicated that draft legislation had been prepared to resolve the problem. However, recalling their position on the right to strike in relation to the Convention, the Employer members believed that no legislative action was required by the Government to bring its law into line with the Convention. The outstanding problem was therefore the climate of violence in the country. As illustrated by the long list of victims read out the previous year, the trade unions were principally affected by the personal attacks, murders and kidnappings, although other sectors of the population, including employers, judges, doctors and the police were also affected. Over the past six years, there had been 200,000 victims, which was a truly horrifying figure. As its name suggested, freedom of association presupposed a minimum degree of freedom and could not prosper in a climate of threats and violence. The Committee would therefore need to express its deep concern and sympathy for the victims and their families in its conclusions, and should call on the Government once again to do everything within its power to achieve a lasting improvement in the situation, which was indispensable if freedom of association was to flourish.

The Worker members thanked the Minister for his speech. Exactly one year ago, figures had been provided for the number of trade union leaders murdered in Colombia. Between January and May 2001, 46 trade unionists had lost their lives. In 2002, the information received was a matter of grave concern: 72 trade unionists had already been murdered. Between June 2001 and May 2002, 176 women and men who were active as trade union leaders had been murdered, without counting the attacks and various crimes committed in relation to trade union activities. Between 4 and 6 June, three more trade unionists had been killed. The level of violence in Colombia was unequalled and principally affected trade union leaders. One Colombian trade unionist had indicated that "the best trade unionist appeared to be a dead trade unionist. The best trade union was the trade union that no longer existed". There could be no doubt that this violence was intended to undermine the trade union movement by preventing any expression of discontent towards policies of exclusion. Attempted murders, kidnappings and disappearances, death threats, persecution, detentions, dismissals, failure to pay the wages due to trade union leaders, restrictions on access to workplaces, and worse, murders and impunity, were the principal cases addressed by the Committee on Freedom of Association over recent years and in respect of which it had constantly urged the need for the full application of the guarantees set out in the Convention. The Committee of Experts cited the Committee on Freedom of Association that regretted that "in most cases of murder, murder attempts or disappearances of trade union officials and members, those responsible have not been arrested and punished". Impunity persisted in the immense majority of cases. Attacks against trade union leaders were increasing further in numbers. The alarming figures provided reflected an increase that was extremely worrying. Last March, the Committee on Freedom of Association had expressed its deep concern:

The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not answered the recommendations of the Committee, nor has it sent its observations on the serious allegations presented by the complainants, concerning a serious increase in the violence. The Committee also deeply regrets that it cannot but conclude that, since this case was last examined at its March 2001 meeting, there has been no sign of progress in reducing the violence against the trade union movement, its representatives and members. (...) The Committee repeats once again that "freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental human rights, and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed" and that "the rights of workers' and employers' organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected". (...) The Committee stresses that impunity, whether it is perpetrated or condoned by governments or others in relation to extreme or widespread violations of fundamental rights of freedom of association, is a clear threat to essential trade union rights and the very basis of democracy itself. (...) The Committee also requests the Government to relate all the facts available to it which could help to explain the impunity of the acts of violence against trade union members. The Committee once again reminds the Government of its responsibility for the protection of workers against acts of violence and for a responsible factual and analytical assessment of each and every crime committed.

The Committee on Freedom of Association had also emphasized the need for the Government to provide information to shed light on the motives and circumstances in which acts of violence had been committed. Based on the numerous complaints received from workers' organizations in recent years, the Committee had emphasized specific sectors such as education, the oil industry, the health services and municipal and departmental administrations. These services were greatly affected by most restructuring policies and had a high social cost and a high level of social conflicts. Legal provisions infringing the essential prerogatives of freedom of association also remained, such as restrictions on the right to strike and the submission of disputes to arbitration. The Committee of Experts had been commenting on these points for many years without any change being made.

The Worker members indicated that it was possible to go into great detail on the situation in Colombia, which merited such treatment. The facts were accompanied by clear conclusions and precise demands from the ILO's supervisory bodies. They had been ascertained in the country the previous year by the Special Representative of the Director-General, representatives of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and many trade union missions and delegations sent by several ILO member States, and were sadly eloquent. In Colombia, the right to organize, to collective bargaining and to strike in the public sector and in private enterprises were almost impossible to exercise. Trade union leaders were murdered, received death threats, were unjustly dismissed or persecuted as delinquents, while the murderers of trade union leaders went completely free. Trade unionism in the country had been hit by a real wave of crime. Trade union organizations were weakened, disjointed and were often disappearing. Workers ran the risk of progressively finding themselves without any form of social protection or of organization.

One year ago, it had been decided to establish an ILO programme in Colombia. This had not yet been established, which was highly regrettable in view of the critical situation that had just been described. The Worker members called for the programme to be launched as rapidly as possible and urged the Government to accept the Office's proposal of technical assistance to undertake a factual evaluation of cases of violence, which should make it possible to overcome the issue of impunity and ascertain the real causes of the violence. The previous year, the Worker members had called for a Commission of Inquiry to be sent to Colombia. They reiterated this call once again this year. The Commission of Inquiry should not be an end in itself, but a mechanism of extreme importance in improving respect for trade union freedoms in Colombia. It was needed to respond without any further delay to the many demands and conclusions made by the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts concerning the application of the Convention in law and practice.

A Worker member of Colombia indicated that the exercise of trade union activities in his country had never been easy due to the continuously hostile attitude of employers and governments. From the beginnings of the twentieth century, there had been a massive number of murders of workers, including the massacre of hundreds of workers in 1928. The most recent stage of anti-union persecution had begun in 1979 with the adoption of the so-called Security Charter, which encouraged the violation of premises and the detention and torture of many trade unionists. At the end of the 1980s, the assassinations had begun. During its 15 years of existence, the Workers Central of Colombia (CUT) had recorded the murder of over 3,500 leaders, activists and members. In the year 2000, there had been 128 murders, and the figure had risen to 192 in 2001. During the Conference in 2001, a list had been read out of the 46 trade union leaders murdered during the first five months of that year. In 2001, over the same period, there had been 85 murders. Since the departure of the Colombian delegation to attend the 90th session of the Conference, three more leaders had been killed. To this should be added an interminable list of threats, attacks, displacements, exiles, kidnappings and disappearances which painted a picture of horror for the Colombian trade union movement. In short, during the period between the 89th and 90th Sessions of the Conferences, 420 acts of violence had been perpetrated against the right to life, physical integrity and personal freedom of trade unionists. As an explanation for this dramatic situation, the Government and employers affirmed that there was a general situation of violence in the country which affected many citizens, including trade unionists, and that the Government was making every effort to prevent it. Although the gravity of the violence and its impact on practically all the activities of the country could not be denied, the Government could not use that situation to avoid its responsibilities.

The crimes were shrouded in a thick cloak of impunity. In comments sent to the Committee of Experts this year by the CUT, the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association had been endorsed and it was pointed out that the issue of impunity was aggravating the situation of trade union members. The figures spoke for themselves: there had been over 3,500 murders and only five convictions between August 1986 and April 2002.

The measures taken by the Government to protect trade unionists were very precarious. The programme adopted by the Ministry of the Interior for the protection of trade unionists and human rights defenders was dysfunctional in view of the bureaucratic procedures and lack of resources. The persistent calls for the programme to be restructured, decentralized, the risk evaluation systems modified and sufficient resources allocated, had fallen on deaf ears. The same had occurred with the Inter-Institutional Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Human Rights of Workers, established in 1997, in view of the lack of support by the various State bodies of which it was composed. He considered that, even though important protection measures were taken (and it was hoped that they would be improved in all respects), on their own they were inadequate. A state policy was required to reduce impunity and dismantle the paramilitary groups which were responsible for most of the crimes committed. In practice, the paramilitary groups formed part of a campaign intended to eradicate the trade union movement and prevent any form of resistance to the tenets of neo-liberalism.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, NGOs, various intergovernmental bodies, the Committee on Freedom of Association, international trade union confederations and all those with direct knowledge of the reality in Colombia, agreed on the gravity of the situation and called upon the Government to take effective measures to bring an end to the barbarity. However, the results obtained up to now had been very disappointing.

He affirmed that Colombian workers were firmly attached to peace with social justice and a negotiated solution to the internal conflict and were opposed to any type of external interference through programmes such as the so-called Plan Colombia, which was aggravating the conflict and threatening to extend it beyond the frontiers of the country. He said that he could not hide the great concern of the workers at the policy announced by the new Government which, in his view, would result in an escalation of the war, the aggravation of the country's economic, political and social problems and would make the situation of workers still more critical. He expressed concern at the tendency for the Government to make use of repression to an increasing extent, as illustrated by the reforms to the Single Disciplinary Code, under which acts which had led to the imprisonment of various workers were criminalized, as well as the emergency legislation announced by the new Government. He welcomed the efforts made by the ILO up to now, including the special paragraphs in the report of the Committee, the two direct contacts missions and the sending of a Special Representative of the Director-General. However, he regretted that the special programme for cooperation with Colombia, approved by the Governing Body a year ago, had not commenced due to lack of resources, and he called for the necessary financing to be allocated as soon as possible to initiate it. In view of the fact that the situation was deteriorating in an alarming manner and the Government was not meeting the various requirements of the ILO adequately, he called upon the Committee to place its conclusions on this case in a special paragraph and expressed his concern to the Governing Body at the delay in addressing the complaint submitted by the Workers in 1998 under article 26 of the Constitution. He reiterated his call for the appointment of a Commission of inquiry, even though the Government and the Employers were undertaking a broad campaign to prevent such a measure, using the argument that it would involve economic sanctions for the country which would aggravate the situation, thereby placing Colombian trade unionists in a difficult situation that could have grave consequences for them.

The ILO had at its disposal standards and measures which could be taken in such critical cases as that of Colombia. He called for the standards to be complied with and the measures adopted to ensure that human rights and trade union freedoms were respected.

Another Worker member of Colombia expressed agreement with the Worker members who had spoken previously and thanked the Minister of Labour for his comments. He indicated that while he had been the Minister he had prevented even more serious acts being committed against workers. He observed that the adoption of the neo-liberal model, with its structural adjustment programmes, privatization, reduction in protection and absence of incentives for national production, the imposition of labour reforms involving greater flexibility, the loss of stability, more precarious employment and the dismantling of social security, had pushed his country backwards in the concert of nations.

He supported the special emphasis placed on the issue of violations of the right to life, personal security and physical and moral integrity of trade union leaders, which were basic requirements for the exercise of the rights set out in Convention No. 87. Nevertheless, he expressed concern at other aspects of freedom of association in the light of the above Convention and other fundamental ILO Conventions. At the present time, it was extremely difficult to establish a trade union organization in view of the anti trade union policy of certain employers, who sought to dismiss anyone who promoted the establishment of a trade union. Furthermore, the deregulation of labour and the proliferation of civil contracts for the performance of services did not facilitate the establishment of trade union organizations. The decline in unionization rates was in large part due to the climate of terror among those who wished to establish a trade union. In practice, there was a policy to eradicate trade unionism by pointing the finger at trade unionists as being those responsible for the economic crisis confronting the country, thereby making them the perfect target for murders of all types.

There were also other violations of trade union rights, such as the undue interference of the authorities in the establishment of trade union organizations and the legalization of intervention by employers in the registration of trade unions, through the acceptance of employers providing resources for the registration of trade union organizations. Mass redundancies for alleged economic reasons were also used to promote the so-called "cooperatives of associated work", consisting of non-unionized workers based on the argument that the workers owned the enterprise and did not therefore need a trade union. It was impossible to enumerate all the violations of the exercise of freedom of association perpetrated on a daily basis in Colombia, and which had been the subject of a large number of complaints to the Committee on Freedom of Association. Indeed, there were currently ten cases before the Committee, and another four that were being followed up, including allegations from many trade union organizations. This demonstrated the difficult situation confronting Colombian workers, not only with regard to fundamental human rights, but also the exercise of freedom of association.

The right to collective bargaining was substantially restricted. Many employers proposed alternative pacts, both in the public and private sector, as a means of undermining collective agreements. The fact that, after much effort on the part of the workers, Convention No. 151 had been ratified, despite the fact that the Constitutional Court had declared that organizations of public employees did not have the right to collective bargaining, was a clear illustration of the current situation.

The situation of workers in many public and private enterprises, municipal authorities and departments, in the health and judicial sectors in the country, gave rise to great anxiety, particularly since the new economic team had announced greater flexibility, more privatizations, a regressive reform of the pensions system and new sacrifices for workers. The future was not promising. Colombia urgently needed to adopt measures to lay the basis for the development of a new country in which peace was the product of justice.

The Worker member of the United States referred to his statement to the Committee the previous year concerning his special responsibility and burden to intervene in this case, as a trade unionist and citizen of the United States. Although it was Colombia and not the United States whose case was under consideration, it was his Government's military assistance implemented through Plan Colombia which was contributing to the armed conflict, thereby augmenting the physical terror directed against Colombian trade unionists. Under Plan Colombia, financial assistance was provided to the Colombian armed forces, some of whose personnel and resources were interchangeable with the paramilitary forces responsible for many of the assassinations of Colombian citizens and trade unionists. He emphasized the special responsibility of the Conference and the Governing Body in solving the problems in Colombia.

He referred to the conclusion of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1787 on Colombia, in which the Committee had deplored that no significant progress had been achieved in the cases pending before it and trusted that the Governing Body would take this into account when coming to its decision on whether a Commission of Inquiry should be established. Since November 1999, the Committee on Freedom of Association had reached this conclusion. This Committee had reviewed the case of Colombia, the Governing Body had considered it in nearly all of its sessions, a direct contacts mission had been dispatched and the special technical cooperation programme had been designed. Over 128 Colombian trade unionists had been assassinated in 2000, over 194 in 2001 and over 80 in the first six months of this year, not to mention more than 3,500 murdered since 1985, according to the estimates of the Colombian Confederation of Trade Unions. Yet, between 1986 and 2002, the Colombian National Prosecutorial Unit on Human Rights concluded that guilty verdicts had been found in only five of these cases.

The destruction of Colombian trade union organizations was also being carried out by the application of flexibilization and the inadequate enforcement of labour laws, often driven by IMF prescriptions for structural adjustment and the lobbying and pressure of employers. He indicated that Colombian law permitted the conclusion of direct collective pacts between employers and groups of individual employees, effectively thwarting trade union organizations. Massive lay-offs, followed by the creation of cooperatives in which the workers were made into so-called "owners" was another effective tactic used for the destruction of Colombian unions. Section 46 of Act No. 50 of 1990 gave the Colombian Labour Ministry and the administrative authorities the power to deny otherwise legitimate registration requests for new trade unions, while the administrative authorities often permitted employers to challenge trade union registrations.

Referring to the issue of the physical destruction of trade unions and assassinations of trade unionists, he indicated that the Interior Ministry's protection programme had proven to be dysfunctional for reasons of budgetary constraints, administrative inefficiency and bad faith on the part of the administrative and enforcement personnel. He referred to a recent UNHCR report confirming that the Government had adopted policies and measures which made the judicial apparatus weaker and more ineffective, thereby further contributing to the extremely high levels of impunity for those responsible for the violence committed against trade unionists. Further powers were also being sought to interfere in investigations of those who had murdered trade unionists.

He called upon the ILO and the Governing Body to seize the moment and apply all available means and mechanisms, including the dispatch of a Commission of Inquiry. The Committee should also place its conclusions on the case in a special paragraph of its report.

The Worker member of France stated that he would make a brief intervention so as to allow the Committee to examine all the cases before it. He deplored that the members of the Committee made excessively lengthy interventions and called upon the Chairperson to make sure that such abuses did not recur.

The violations of the Convention in Colombia were extremely serious and no progress had been made. The laws in Colombia did not respect the ratified Conventions. Furthermore, the violence that prevailed in Colombia was so widespread that the right to life could not be safeguarded and other rights, including the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining, were jeopardized. All the successive Governments of the country had put the blame on armed and paramilitary groups, drug mafias or organized crime. And, even though they had sometimes undertaken to adopt laws to prevent violations of trade union rights, such draft laws were never submitted to Congress. Impunity persisted and, without counting the eventual role of the International Penal Court, it was up to the Government to make every effort to bring its law and practice into conformity with its international obligations set out in Conventions. French workers expressed their solidarity with the Colombian trade union movement and with its brave militants. Their actions contributed, along with those of other actors of civil society, to the strengthening and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law through their active defence of workers' rights. It was necessary to bring an end to a fully fledged genocide of the trade unionists of Colombia.

The Worker member of Cuba expressed the solidarity of Cuban workers with Colombian workers in view of the serious situation under discussion by the Committee. This situation should give rise to the unconditional provision of any necessary assistance. He indicated that he fully agreed with the statements made by the Worker members who had preceded him.

The Worker member of Switzerland observed that the case of Colombia continued to cause consternation to democrats and trade unionists throughout the world. Swiss workers were extremely worried and had expressed their solidarity with the trade unionists of Colombia. The Swiss Trade Union had been approached on several occasions by its members over recent months on the question of what the ILO would be able to do, and what it could not do so as to help recreate the conditions needed to re-establish the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining. The violence against, and murders of, Colombian trade unionists had lasted far too long and, sadly, were perpetuated in complete impunity. It had to be noted that the procedures followed up to now had had little impact. The assistance programme envisaged had still not been carried out. It was unacceptable to do nothing when the right to life, ILO Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were violated in Colombia. The ordinary procedure should be taken up again and a Commission of Inquiry should be sent to Colombia without delay. The assistance programme should be implemented as soon as possible. It was unacceptable to further delay its implementation under the pretext that its finance was not ensured.

The Worker member of Pakistan reaffirmed that the situation in Colombia, where innocent trade unionists were being brutally murdered, remained of great concern to the people of Colombia and to the international community. There had been no improvement in the observance of the basic rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining. With reference to workers in the public services in particular, he recalled that trade unions were banned in a wide range of services, which were not necessarily essential. Moreover, the legislation provided for the possibility to dismiss trade union officers who called or participated in unlawful strike action. Although the Government had given an undertaking to the Committee to amend the legislation, the relevant provisions remained unchanged. Moreover, recent decisions by two constitutional courts ran counter to the right of collective bargaining. As a result, a large number of workers employed in such public services as banks, financial institutions, transport, telecommunications, electricity, education and public hospitals were unable to present their demands at a time when staff numbers in the public service were being reduced, often within the context of privatization measures. Workers in these services had every right to present their demands and engage in collective bargaining, particularly when their jobs were at threat. However, instead of promoting an agreed solution, workers in non-essential services who took strike action, faced dismissal. This issue had repeatedly been raised by the Committee of Experts.

He therefore strongly urged the Government to amend its labour legislation so as to remove restrictions on trade union activity, including collective bargaining. He also called upon the Government not to undertake restructuring measures in public services, such as hospitals and telecommunications, without providing the necessary safety nets. Workers should not be penalized for taking trade union action. The protection provided for workers should include the prohibition of their being forced to sign contracts in which they undertook not to join unions. He urged the ILO to provide technical assistance to help improve the situation and hoped that the Committee would place its conclusions on this case in a special paragraph of its report.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom recalled that his Colombian trade union colleagues were confronted with violence, murder and grief on a daily basis. Yet, they continued to try to organize and represent their members. Indeed, it was when they performed those basic trade union activities that they were the most likely to be attacked. He recalled that the previous year he had read out the names of the 46 Colombian trade union colleagues murdered in the preceding five months. He would not on this occasion read out the names of all the 192 colleagues who had been murdered in 2001, nor the 85 killed since January 2002. The increasing level of violence against trade unionists in Colombia had been described as an attempt to completely eradicate the trade union movement in the country. To give an idea of the level of brutality facing Colombian trade union leaders and members, he described incidents which had occurred during his visit on a TUC mission to the country in February 2002. Moreover, he had been told of teachers shot in classes in front of their pupils and threats to people connected with the trade union movement. Despite all the Committee's discussions of the case, the violence was not abating, but indeed was increasing. The limited Ministry of the Interior protection programme had come to an end on 31 May for lack of funds. Unfortunately, Governments had not kept their pledge to contribute to the ILO Special Cooperation Programme, which included a protection programme, and had been presented as an alternative to a Commission of Inquiry.

He emphasized that the murders continued with impunity. Since 1986, a total of some 3,500 trade unionists had been murdered. Investigating magistrates risked murder, or were removed, as they investigated their cases. The Office of the Prosecutor-General reported that only 376 investigations had been initiated, of which only three had reached the courts, with a few more being referred to military courts. In only five cases had sentences been passed. This constituted almost total impunity. Regardless of the workers' goodwill towards the country, the fact was that its institutions had proved incapable of dealing with the problem of impunity. Systematic weaknesses undermined efficient and democratic government and there was insufficient will in the body politic. The security forces did not appear to be under the clear control of the Government, and there were links between the paramilitary and some sections of the security forces, even though the nature of such links remained unclear. The Committee needed to ask itself what it could best do to help the Government and the social partners break the hellish cycle of impunity. In this respect, he expressed the firm conviction that only an ILO Commission of Inquiry could help. However, such a measure should not be regarded as a threat or a punishment, but as the most powerful procedure in the ILO's supervisory structures. Such a Commission of Inquiry would undoubtedly uncover truths that were horrible and difficult. But without truth, there could be no reconciliation, and without reconciliation, there could be no lasting peace.

The Worker member of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the workers of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, expressed her solidarity with the workers of Colombia and reiterated their commitment to continue cooperation with the Colombian trade unionists. She stated, with a mixture of fury and profound pain, that the situation of violence was worsening and the number of killings of trade unionists was increasing every day. Despite the promises and apparent goodwill expressed by the Government the previous year in the Committee, the assassinations had continued and the murderers remained free on the streets. There was no doubt that the trade unionists were victims of systematic terror. This constituted a tragedy and in essence represented a far-reaching failure of the Government. Her organization, the Swedish Trade Union Confederation, had on several occasions visited the country. It was difficult to understand and describe the situation of permanent tension in which the trade unionists were living. She expressed her admiration and deep respect for them. This year a decisive step had to be made in order to change the situation of terror and death. The establishment of a Commission of Inquiry and the development of an extensive programme of ILO technical assistance were key elements in starting this process. Her organization called upon the Government of Sweden to speak up in the next session of the Governing Body in favour of the need for full financing of the technical programme for Colombia adopted the previous year. There were ways to bring an end to the violence in Colombia and to guarantee the full exercise of freedom of association. The Government of Colombia had to make the first step and should not shirk its responsibility.

The Government member of Denmark also speaking on behalf of the Government members of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, referred to the statement made by the European Union in the Committee the previous year, which had called upon the Government to take urgent and effective steps to ensure the legal and physical protection of those affected by the extensive violence in the country. The European Union had taken up this grave matter again at the Governing Body sessions in November 2001 and March 2002. She reiterated her deepest concern at the climate of violence in Colombia. Trade unionists continued to suffer attempts on their lives, physical integrity and security, and on their freedom of movement. In most of the cases of murder, attempted murder or disappearances of trade unionists, those responsible had neither been arrested nor charged. She expressed alarm at the high degree of impunity. The guarantees set out in international labour Conventions, in particular those relating to freedom of association, could only be effective if the civil and political rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were genuinely recognized and protected. The Government needed to take immediate and adequate measures to guarantee trade unionists the right to life, integrity and freedom of association, including the implementation and respect of the ILO's fundamental Conventions. In this connection, she emphasized the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. For many years, the Government's attention had been drawn to certain provisions of the Labour Code. During the direct contacts mission carried out in February 2000, draft legislation had been prepared to amend these provisions. However, even though the Government had undertaken to submit these draft texts to Congress, this had not yet been done. She therefore called on the Government to ensure that the draft legislation was submitted to Congress for adoption without delay. It was also very important to take measures to give effect to the legislation. Finally, she requested the Government to keep the Committee of Experts informed of the progress made in its next report to the ILO.

The Government member of the United States stated that this case had a long history of review by the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee. There was progress regarding legislative inconsistencies with Convention No. 87 over a period of years, and the Government had demonstrated a commitment to promoting measures recommended by the Committee of Experts. However, the situation of violence against trade unionists remained serious. Many have died violently, and the death toll continued to mount. The special technical assistance programme for Colombia was designed to promote social dialogue, improve labour relations and protect trade unions at risk. The United States fully supported this programme and endorsed the use of the existing cash surplus to fund it. Freedom of association had a key role to play in Colombia's path to peace, social justice, reconciliation and democracy. The speaker hoped that the incoming Government would continue, with help from the ILO and as a matter of urgency, to take the necessary steps - in both law and practice - to fully protect freedom of association and the right to organize.

The Government representative stated that he had listened attentively to the statements of the Employer and Worker members, as well as those made by the Government members. It was not possible to hide the violent situation in Colombia - the assassination of thousands of Colombians, trade unionists, and children. Thousands had also been kidnapped - six parliamentarians, a governor, 45 members of the armed forces, a presidential candidate. Priests had been assassinated, including the Bishop of Calí, as well as dozens of journalists. Many entrepreneurs had been kidnapped or killed, and threats had been made against judges and mayors. The heightened violence was an affront to human dignity.

The international community had followed the peace efforts under which the President had used all of his prestige to try to engage in dialogue with the FARC and ELN, but the process was eroding. The speaker acknowledged the existence of vigilante and self-defence groups associated with the extreme right.

During the 23 months in which the speaker had been Minister of Labour there had never been a denial of a trade union registration. His Government had abstained from presenting to Parliament a draft law regulating the right to strike in the public services for fear that it would be amended in a way that was contrary to the agreements that should be reached through tripartite consultation.

The speaker stated that he understood the initiatives taken by the Conference Committee, and he had no intention of ruling out any of them. He only wanted to insist that the spirit of the special paragraph adopted by the Conference Committee in 2001 remained in force. During his administration, he had worked in this spirit. A Commission of Inquiry would not end the violence and would create false expectations without stopping the genocide taking place in Colombia.

To stop the genocide, it was necessary to complete political and social agreements between the inhabitants of Colombia. Political agreements should be reached between the State, unions, employers, guerrillas and paramilitaries, together with Colombian society. In the current conditions, a Commission of Inquiry could give an misleading message that could fuel the process of violence.

Trade unions were an important institution in a democracy. Many Colombian employers were also in favour of peace and social dialogue, and some were inspired by the actions of Swedish employer and worker organizations.

The speaker appealed for the special Technical Cooperation Programme cash surplus to be strengthened in order for Colombia to make full use of the resources available from the Office and support a global approach to the problem. The speaker recognized and appreciated the efforts of the Office to tackle the problems in Colombia and pressed for finding a way to overcome the violence and establish lasting peace and social justice.

The Worker members stated that it was difficult to have a debate on a situation for which one could hardly speak of freedom of expression. If, evidently, the present case caused some deep emotions, it was clear that certain facts were at the heart of this. The legislation concerning trade unions remained in contradiction to Convention No. 87. Trade unionists continued to be murdered because of their activities; others were subjected to threats or persecution. The total impunity surrounding the criminal acts perpetrated against the trade unionists flouted freedom of association. The line followed by the Government amounted to criminalizing freedom of association. Therefore, the Worker members asked the Government to agree to an ILO Commission of Inquiry, which could have an important impact. They also supported the proposal made by the Government member of Denmark on behalf of the Government members of the Nordic countries, to allocate the cash surplus of the Organization to the programme on the protection of freedom of association. In their view, the failure by the Government to apply Convention No. 87 justified the inclusion of the case in a special paragraph of the Conference Committee report.

The Employer members noted that it was apparent from the discussion that the present problem was a wide-ranging one with diverse causes. It was not limited to issues of labour law, but affected all sectors. As such, they cautioned, the problem did not lie entirely within the remit of the ILO, nor did the ILO have the right or the means to undertake to solve it. They noted that, as solutions to the problem were yet to be found, in spite of the measures taken by the Government, proposing new measures may possibly prove counterproductive. They felt it was difficult to identify the correct approach to the problem. In conclusion, they stated that the situation needed to be described in clearer, more objective terms, and the Government should be allowed to develop a proposal, without prejudice.

The Worker members agreed to the conclusions, as presented by the Chair of the Committee, and severely condemned the attitude of the Employer members, which prevented a consensus on the inclusion of a special paragraph. They felt that by this attitude, the Employer members implicitly refused to recognize the worsening of the climate of violence in this country. They requested that immediate measures be taken to ensure respect for freedom of association. Finally, the Worker members referred to their previous intervention on the protection of the personal security of the trade unionists and on the use of the cash surplus of the Organization to finance the activities of the special technical assistance programme in Colombia.

The Employer members reserved their position on the previous statement.

The Employer members continued to oppose the inclusion of the case of Colombia in a special paragraph. They protested against the Workers' allegations. The Worker members' declaration was contradictory and wrong in substance. The Employer members had accepted without reservations the conclusions on the case of Colombia which they had elaborated together with the Worker members. They therefore firmly rejected the Worker members' assertion that the Employer numbers would not recognize the realities in Colombia. They observed that for 12 years, a spirit of cooperation, and not one of confrontation, had reigned in the Committee. But it also was with this spirit that one occasionally had to agree to disagree. The Employer members warned against giving up cooperation and jeopardizing this spirit. The consequences would be regretted by all.

After the Chairperson's indication that, in essence, the case had already been closed, the Worker members took note of the situation and did not wish to re-open the debate.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and of the discussion which ensued. The Committee observed with deep concern that the grave situation of violence continued to prevail in the country. It recalled that this dramatic situation has been and continues to be the subject of numerous complaints before the Committee on Freedom of Association and that a complaint by virtue of article 26 of the ILO Constitution was presented in June 1998. The Committee once again condemned in the strongest terms the murders and abductions of trade unionists, as well as the kidnapping of employers. The Committee recalled that workers' and employers' organizations can only exercise their activities freely and meaningfully in a climate that is free from violence. It urged the Government to take the necessary measures urgently to bring an end to this situation of insecurity by restoring respect for fundamental human rights and, in particular, the right to life and security of persons so that workers' and employers' organizations could fully exercise their rights recognized by the Convention. To this end, the Committee urged the Government to establish and strengthen the institutions necessary to put a stop to the intolerable situation of impunity prevalent in the country and which was a serious obstacle to the free exercise of trade union rights. The Committee also noted that the questions concerning the application of the Convention have been placed before the Consultative Commission on Salary and Labour Policies. The Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government to take the necessary measures immediately with a view to guaranteeing full application of the Convention both in law and in practice. It requested the Government to submit a full report in this respect to the Committee of Experts so that it could once again examine this situation at its next meeting. The Committee expressed the hope that the complaint lodged in June 1998 under article 26, which was still pending, would be re-examined by the Governing Body with a view to using all appropriate means at its disposal, especially technical cooperation programmes, which could contribute to the full respect of Convention No. 87 in law and in practice. In the event that the Government did not fully avail itself of this technical cooperation, the Committee would be obliged to consider stronger possibilities when it examines this case next year. The Committee took note of the Government's statement to the effect that the spirit of the special paragraph adopted last year still prevails.

The Worker members agreed to the conclusions, as presented by the Chair of the Committee, and severely condemned the attitude of the Employer members, which prevented a consensus on the inclusion of a special paragraph. They felt that by this attitude, the Employer members implicitly refused to recognize the worsening of the climate of violence in this country. They requested that immediate measures be taken to ensure respect for freedom of association. Finally, the Worker members referred to their previous intervention on the protection of the personal security of the trade unionists and on the use of the cash surplus of the Organization to finance the activities of the special technical assistance programme in Colombia.

The Employer members reserved their position on the previous statement.

The Employer members continued to oppose the inclusion of the case of Colombia in a special paragraph. They protested against the Workers' allegations. The Worker members' declaration was contradictory and wrong in substance. The Employer members had accepted without reservations the conclusions on the case of Colombia which they had elaborated together with the Worker members. They therefore firmly rejected the Worker members' assertion that the Employer numbers would not recognize the realities in Colombia. They observed that for 12 years, a spirit of cooperation, and not one of confrontation, had reigned in the Committee. But it also was with this spirit that one occasionally had to agree to disagree. The Employer members warned against giving up cooperation and jeopardizing this spirit. The consequences would be regretted by all.

After the Chairperson's indication that, in essence, the case had already been closed, the Worker members took note of the situation and did not wish to re-open the debate.