Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2003, Publication: 91st ILC session (2003)

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

A Government representative said that this was the first meeting of the Committee that he had attended and he hoped to establish a sincere and direct communication making it possible to identify problems so that they could be resolved. With reference to Convention No. 87, he noted that of the 141 States which had ratified the Convention, the cases of 97 had been covered by the reports of the Committee of Experts. In the case of Colombia, the Committee of Experts had been making comments since the beginning of the 1990s. Some 20 discrepancies had been identified between the Convention and the national legislation. Subsequently, following the adoption of Act No. 50, the number of discrepancies had fallen to 13, as recognized by the Committee of Experts in 1994. With the technical assistance of the ILO and the direct contacts mission in 2000, Act No. 584 of the same year had been approved, resulting once again in recognition of the progress made by the Committee of Experts. There currently remained only three aspects to resolve. Nevertheless, he added that the case of Colombia had been on the ILO's agenda for many years in view of the violence perpetrated against the trade union movement. He expressed the intention of demonstrating the positive results of government action. While during the first five months of 2002 there had been 86 murders of trade unionists, over the same period this year the figure had fallen to 14, which amounted to a reduction of 84 per cent. He expressed the Government's conviction of the need to combat violence constantly, irrespective of its origins. For this purpose, the Democratic Security Programme was being carried out in parallel with the protection programme of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, both intended for the protection of persons at risk. The Democratic Security Programme was currently endowed with more resources, which had made it possible to adopt 1,357 security measures. This, combined with sincere and direct cooperation with the trade unions, had contributed to the achievement of the above results. However, he recalled that violence in Colombia affected priests and bishops, mayors and governors, ministers and former ministers, boys and girls, entrepreneurs and workers, whether or not they were unionized. He expressed his commitment to fight for a solution to this complex and difficult problem. He also wished to refer to the means of resolving the problem. For this purpose, the Members of the ILO had proposed two alternatives: on the one hand, the Special Technical Cooperation Programme, and on the other, the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. With regard to the Special Technical Cooperation Programme, he emphasized that it needed to be supported, strengthened and improved. In his view, this should be considered the real solution and he believed that supporting and financing the programme would contribute to resolving the problems in his country. He emphasized the need to change the approach and analysis of the problems through real and effective collaboration.

With regard to the Commission of Inquiry, he said that, in his view, if such a Commission had been sent to Colombia some years ago, the number of trade unionists who had died would not have changed. A Commission of Inquiry was not a real solution to the problem. Indeed, he believed that it complicated analysis and diverted attention from the real problem, thereby putting off and delaying its resolution. He emphasized that for five years this subject had been discussed regularly every four months, thereby preventing workers, employers and the Government from putting forward alternative solutions. He believed that much progress would have been made if action had been taken rather than words. Moreover, discussing poverty in Geneva was very different from experiencing it and suffering it in his country. There were grounds for wondering whether some people did not prefer to keep discussing the "Colombian problem" rather than committing themselves to resolving it. It was necessary to reflect upon the real contribution of the discussion to benefiting workers and employers. In any case, the prime responsibility for seeking a solution lay with Colombians.

He called upon the trade union leaders in his country to change their attitudes, although he recognized that this required courage and political sacrifices, and that it involved thinking of the country and of those who had died in the hope of preventing future deaths by working together. He reiterated his conviction that the real solution for Colombia lay in cooperation programmes rather than a Commission of Inquiry or a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission. He hoped that words, analyses and recommendations would be transformed into effective action and assistance for his country. Colombia more than ever needed strong and democratic trade unions which ceased to be sectarian and sought to become participatory. He called upon NGOs, governments and multilateral organizations to provide all the necessary support to trade unions so that workers, employers and governments understood that change was necessary in the new globalized world. Finally, he expressed concern at the processing of information by the Office.

The Worker members stressed that Colombia was once again on the list of cases to be examined before this Conference because of the situation regarding freedom of association and the protection of union rights in the country. They recalled that the Committee of Experts once again pointed out profound discrepancies between Convention No. 87 and national legislation. Federations and confederations still did not have the right to strike. Striking continued to be prohibited in non-essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Labour Minister continued to assume the right to impose the use of arbitration whenever he judged that a conflict had lasted too long.

On a more practical level, the Worker members recalled that they had been continuously denouncing the numerous infringements of freedom of association: the reduction in the number of trade unions, the prevailing violence in particular against unionists, the various obstacles to the legitimate exercise of the right to strike and the complicity of public authorities and paramilitary organizations against strikers, the total impunity regarding the perpetrators of assassinations, and, finally, the lack of implementation of the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Worker members noted the various initiatives announced by the Government concerning institutions, but considered that the Minister of Labour was the main authority of a country responsible for enforcing respect for the principles of Convention No. 87. The combining, however, of the Ministry of Labour with the Ministry of Health in Colombia did not appear to be conducive to this goal. The Worker members believed that the persistence of a climate of violence, and especially of the total impunity for the crimes perpetrated against unionists, reflected the crude and cruel reality of Colombia, but also the true position of the Government in matters of protection of union rights. In a situation in which these rights were so flagrantly trampled, the Worker members expressed their wish that the conclusions of this case be included in a special paragraph of the report. They also recommended that the Governing Body appoint a Commission of Inquiry, which was the only body which could, in the view of the Worker members, help change the situation and achieve harmony between labour legislation and the Convention, as well as promote a genuine respect for the principles of freedom of association in practice.

The Employer members, recalling that the case of Colombia had been on the agenda of the Conference Committee for some time, noted that the observation of the Committee of Experts contained two main elements: comments on legal provisions and on the violence prevailing in the country. With regard to the legal provisions, the Employer members noted that the number of provisions mentioned by the Committee of Experts had diminished considerably over the years. For well-known reasons, they did not support the views of the Committee of Experts on the remaining three provisions on the right to strike, which, in their view, was not contained in Convention No. 87. They believed that most of the countries called before the Committee concerning this Convention had much more serious problems with regard to their labour laws. The reason why Colombia had been invited for a discussion in the Conference Committee was rather related to the second part of the Committee of Experts' observation dealing with the problem of continuing and widespread violence which was at the core of the current situation. The phenomenon of violence and counter-violence was going far beyond the issue of freedom of association and labour legislation. Stressing that kidnappings, death threats and murder were most serious criminal offences destabilizing society, the Employer members expressed their deep regret for every single victim. However, the current situation was not due to the existence of some legal provisions. The situation was far more complex; cause and effect should not be confused.

In 2002, the Committee received a credible commitment to combat violence from the then Minister of Labour of Colombia, himself a trade unionist, and the statement made by the Government representative this year was credible as well. The reported decrease in the number of murders was noted, but every remaining victim was to be regretted. It was hoped that the measures taken to improve the security situation would soon show results. The ILO Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia should be continued and intensified. It was important that the Conference Committee would bear in mind the political environment in the country and that it should strengthen the position of the Government that undertook to combat violence. Anything else would play into the hands of the perpetrators of violent acts. The Government should be urged to reinforce its efforts, particularly with regard to impunity.

A Worker member of Colombia stated that he had listened carefully and with great respect to the information provided by the Government. His intention was not to weaken the Government but to find solutions. Referring to the concerns of the Committee of Experts reflected in its observation, the speaker recalled that the Ministry of Labour had disappeared in Colombia as a result of restructuring: the combining of the Ministry of Labour with that of Health had had a negative impact on health, labour and social security policies. Structural adjustment policies led to the disappearance of trade unions.

The speaker explained that the Government negotiated with the financial sector, which had led to privatization of key sectors of the economy, including the oil industry and telecommunications. The poorest sectors suffered from the impact of labour, pension and tax reforms. Dismissals and unemployment were on the rise - in such circumstances the Minister should not authorize the dismissal of workers.

The speaker also expressed his concern about the statements of the President of the Republic on 4 June 2003, which suggested that the relevant provisions of international Conventions could be used in order to denounce them. The Colombian employers should adopt a new type of labour culture, one which respects union activities. In conclusion, the speaker suggested that the Government should consider the appointment of a commission of inquiry as a positive step given that it might contribute to solving the problems at hand.

Another Worker member of Colombia stated that violations against the fundamental human rights of workers persisted, and threats, forced displacements and the intimidation of union leaders continued. Such violations interfered with the full exercise of freedom of association. The speaker pointed out that the reduction in the number of assassinations of unionists did not imply that there had been progress. He denounced the murder of 121 unionists as of June 2002 and the situation of generalized impunity, which implicated the Government. The speaker also referred to the statements of the President of Colombia on 4 June 2003 on the possible denouncing of international treaties and Conventions and emphasized that no country had the right to ignore the fundamental rights of workers and much less justify itself in doing so by means of an alleged popular mandate. In conclusion, he demanded greater political will on behalf of the Government to halt the anti-union climate and clear commitments by the Government to refrain from abrogating the fundamental rights of workers. He requested the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry and the inclusion of a special paragraph on Colombia in the Committee's report.

Another Worker member of Colombia agreed with the previous speakers, which showed there was a common sentiment among the Colombian trade union movement. The speaker recommended that the Conference Committee took the following steps: (1) urge the Government to immediately enforce the international Conventions it had ratified, according to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, and in particular Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 151 and 154; (2) require the Government to revoke the power to declare strikes illegal from the executive power, and vest this power in the judiciary; (3) request the Government to refrain from adopting or amending legislation, including reforms to the Constitution, which are contrary to its international obligations, in both labour rights and human rights; (4) request the Government to comply with the recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO and, in particular, with paragraph 506 of the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, which had been delivered to the Governing Body in March 2003; (5) exhort the Government to strengthen its programme for protection of trade unionists by implementing the recommendations of the above report; and, finally, (6) require the Government to empower the Inter-Institutional Committee for the Promotion and Protection of the Human Rights of Workers by providing them with the resources necessary for them to implement the plan which had already been approved for 2003.

The speaker emphasized the need to follow up the complaint against the Government of Colombia and to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, the ideal mechanism available to the international community to contribute to solving the serious problems raised in the complaint. It requested that this issue be taken up at the next sitting of the Governing Body. It endorsed the request for the Committee to dedicate a special paragraph to the non-compliance of Convention No. 87.

Finally, the speaker explained that, on 4 June 2003, at a hearing in the Constitutional Court of Colombia, called to define the constitutionality of a law which would call for a referendum on constitutional reform, the President of the Republic stated that Conventions were not eternal and that, in the event that the population approved, by referendum, legislation contrary to the ILO Conventions, then he would take this as an indication that the people were mandating him to denounce the Convention. This, according to the speaker, meant that the incompatibility between national law and the fundamental right to collective bargaining could possibly lead to the denunciation of an international Convention and challenged the Government's claim that it respected the fundamental principles and rights enshrined in ILO Conventions.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Worker members of the Nordic countries, stressed that Colombia was still the most dangerous country in the world for workers who wished to organize. Over 90 per cent of the unionists killed each year had been killed in Colombia, with 184 alone in 2002. During the first half of 2003 the Government, police and the military had been responsible for an increasing number of human rights violations against labour activists, including violence against women unionists which had increased by 50 per cent. In the last months the paramilitary had been targeting families of unionists, and Carlos Castaño, the leader of a paramilitary organization, had publicly announced that the children of the leaders of the oil workers' union USO would be killed. As evidence of this the speaker cited two kidnapping attempts of the daughter of the head of the human rights office of the national organization CUT.

The speaker stated that the Government's protection programme for unionists was not functional, due to lack of funds, excessive time spent on processing requests for protection and a paucity of labour inspectors - only 271 to cover more than 300,000 companies in 1,097 municipalities. The dismissal and blacklisting of union leaders was commonplace. Furthermore, Colombian law was in violation of Convention No. 87 and favoured non-union workers over unionized workers by allowing non-union workers and employers to sign "collective agreements". Workers' rights were further threatened by the proposed referendum concerning labour law, which would eliminate Sunday and holiday benefits, cut severance pay, freeze wages in the public sector and make the labour force more flexible. The speaker urged the Committee to demand that Colombia be included in a special paragraph and that the Governing Body appoint a Commission of Inquiry to be sent to the country.

The Worker member of the United States stated that this was the case which was the greatest challenge to the Committee, as the violations of the Convention by Colombia challenged the authority of the ILO. If the Committee and the Governing Body would not act effectively and resolutely, the institutional integrity of the ILO would be compromised. More trade unionists were killed in Colombia than in all other countries combined (184 during 2002 and over 1,900 since 1991). He deplored the argument made by the Government representative that the situation was getting better as there was a relative decrease of homicides in the first quarter of 2003. The relative increase in assaults, death threats, kidnappings and unjustified detentions and the 32 assassinations this year were no accomplishment. The speaker also rejected the argument that the Government could escape its responsibility under the Convention since the human rights violations suffered by trade unionists were the consequence of a general climate of violence that affected all segments of society. This argument fell apart for several reasons. Firstly, there were a high number of offences committed against unionists and there were sectoral concentrations of offences, as well as direct linkages to collective bargaining. Secondly, the Government was responsible for the assassinations because paramilitary groups operated with the open support and tolerance of the armed forces. Thirdly, the Government was directly responsible because of acts of omission and commission related to the protection of trade unionists and the entire issue of impunity. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had publicly expressed concerns over the delays in the funding of the Government's Programme for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Trade Unionists, which had a direct impact on effective implementation of security measures. The speaker also recalled that according to the Committee of Experts there were still no convictions of those responsible for assassinations. The Attorney-General of Colombia was known to have derailed key human rights prosecutions.

The conclusions adopted by the Conference Committee in 2002 provided that in the event that the Government did not fully avail itself of technical cooperation programmes, the Committee would be obliged to consider stronger possibilities. According to the three Colombian union centrals, the ILO Special Technical Cooperation Programme had never been fully implemented and neither the Government nor the Colombian entrepreneurs had shown a real engagement with the programme. Accordingly, the speaker joined with the Worker members in calling for a special paragraph in this case.

The Worker member of Indonesia expressed serious concern at the extreme violence against trade unionists in Colombia, as well as the interference by the Government in trade union affairs. He supported the proposals made by other Worker members in order to promote peace, social justice and respect for Convention No. 87 in Colombia.

The Worker member of Mexico recalled that the Worker members attending the 86th Session of the Conference held in June 1998 had submitted a request, by virtue of article 26 of the ILO Constitution, invoking the violation by Colombia of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. He pointed out that the violation of the above Conventions was due to the responsibility of the State for the actions of government agencies and for having failed to safeguard and protect fundamental rights. The Government continued to publicly assault freedom of association of the trade union movement, through its mass media, and claimed that the trade union movement was responsible for the economic crises undergone by the private and public sectors. Furthermore, the Government had set up mandatory arbitration tribunals to resolve collective conflicts with employers in charge of non-essential services. He added that the administrative authority had the power to qualify the legality of the strikes - recently, it had declared illegal a strike that took place in the banana sector.

The speaker highlighted the violations relating to the Trade Union of the Telephone Company of Bogotá, in an attempt against privatization, when massive dismissals occurred, and trade union leaders were threatened in addition to the violation of Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 135 and 154. He further indicated that the Government had convened a mandatory arbitration tribunal, violating thereby the collective agreement and Convention No. 154. He added that the Government intended to restructure a company of the petroleum sector to eradicate the right to freedom of association, contrary to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Furthermore, the trade union leaders of oil refineries were prohibited from access on account of their militant attitude in industrial plants, which led to a lockout. The Trade Union of Bavaria (SINALTRABVARIA) indicated the annulment of contracts of more than 40 trade union leaders, resulting in unilateral dismissals without a just cause. The collective agreement which was imposed through this intimidation attacked the trade union organization. Thus, in the span of three years, trade union membership decreased from 3,500 members to 300. The speaker joined other speakers in requesting a special paragraph on this case, and exhorted the Government to prevent the attacks on the lives and integrity of trade union leaders and workers.

The Worker member of Côte d'Ivoire expressed his profound concern at the delay in approving the setting up of a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission. He indicated that labour legislation continued to violate many provisions of Convention No. 87: the number of trade unions continued to decrease; trade union leaders were subjected to programmed dismissals; and militants received death threats. The ILO could act. It could encourage the creation of decent jobs and help save human lives in Colombia. In view of the violence, the liberalization of social legislation and the assaults made on trade union freedoms, the least one could do was to endorse the proposal of a Commission of Inquiry in Colombia.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom stated that the TUC paid close attention to the grave situation in Colombia and had developed close relations with the national confederations. It would soon launch a scheme to provide temporary respite to Colombian trade unionists in danger of assassination. Colombian working people had a desire for a social, democratic and peaceful Colombia, but everyone who spoke out for that alternative was in danger. It was true that unionists were not the only victims, but just as journalists were murdered for writing the truth or prosecutors when they investigated political assassinations, trade union leaders and members were murdered precisely because they worked to represent the interests of Colombian working people. All victims had in common that they represented an alternative peaceful and social model for the country, a society based on dialogue and progress through democratic participation.

The speaker deplored that the ILO had been prevented from taking the necessary measures to support Colombia in dealing with the impunity. It was of little comfort for the families of the 32 colleagues murdered this year that the number of murders of trade unionists was falling. Primarily because the Colombian employers had blocked consensus in the Employers' group, the Governing Body had failed to agree on a Commission of Inquiry to do the job the Colombian State had failed to do. Not even agreement on a special paragraph last year or on a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission could be found, while 184 trade unionists had been murdered. According to the speaker, this was because there were too many companies implicated in the violence and repression and because governments also guilty of serious violations of fundamental ILO Conventions feared to be next. In addition, some governments believed the claims that Colombia remained a fully functioning democracy, a view not shared by the speaker. If Colombia was to be a functioning democracy it needed peace, and to achieve peace it must break the cycle of impunity. As the State had proven itself incapable of doing so unaided, that task still needed the support of a Commission of Inquiry. Stating that those who preferred repression and violence to dialogue and compromise benefited from the ILO's inaction, the speaker noted that 15 families controlled Colombia's capital. However, the ILO should put the interests of the working people, free thinking people, democratic and peace loving people, the poor and the unemployed, the socially excluded and the displaced before the interests of the elites who had been responsible for the disaster for decades.

The Government member of the United States stated that her Government was deeply concerned about the violence against trade unionists in Colombia and that it supported efforts to find solutions, including the ILO's Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia. It was urgently important to protect the lives of trade unionists, to promote social dialogue, to combat impunity, and to bring Colombia's labour legislation and its implementation fully into conformity with the Convention. Her Government believed that the Government of Colombia was committed to restoring the rule of law and to ensuring that all members of society could exercise their rights under conditions in which personal safety was guaranteed. There were indications that efforts to implement that commitment were beginning to meet with some successes, but much more needed to be done. The Government of Colombia was urged to continue to cooperate with the ILO and to implement without delay the recommendations of the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of Mexico stated that the information supplied by the Minister of Labour had not only provided a detailed reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts but had also revealed the constructive attitude of the Government which every four months and every year reported on the measures adopted and the efforts made in order to guarantee the exercise of trade union rights in conformity with Convention No. 87. Although the results might have not fully met the Committee's wishes, the speaker acknowledged the positive trends presented by the Government representative. The speaker also noted that the domestic situation in Colombia was well known, which was an obstacle to the implementation of measures for the full enjoyment of trade union rights. While she shared the concerns of the Worker members on the victims of violence, she associated herself with the point of view of the Government representative that violence did not concern exclusively trade unionists but affected all sectors of Colombian society. The speaker considered that the Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia represented an ideal instrument for the ILO to reach a solution to the problems affecting workers in Colombia in the framework of its competence and in close collaboration with the Government and workers' and employers' organizations. The speaker concluded by affirming that her delegation considered that a Commission of Inquiry would not be appropriate at this moment since the Special Technical Cooperation Programme was in the process of being implemented and had begun to produce results, thanks to the financial resources provided by the ILO and other donors as well as the obvious willingness of the Government to implement this project.

The Government member of Denmark, also speaking on behalf of the Government members of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, regretted that the Government had failed to adopt the draft legislation prepared by the direct contacts mission in February 2000. This called into question the will and ability of the Colombian authorities to make significant progress to safeguard trade union leaders' rights to life, physical safety and freedom of association. The Nordic countries continued to monitor closely the implementation of the ILO's special cooperation programme for Colombia and recognized the important role the ILO could play. She regretted that the Governing Body had to deal with new and serious allegations of violence, as reported in Case No. 1787 of the Committee on Freedom of Association, while, at the same time, acknowledging a certain progress in the last year. But still, 14 trade unionists killed were 14 too many. She firmly condemned the continuous murders and kidnappings of officials and members of trade unions and urged the Government to take every possible measure to change the situation of impunity that the perpetrators of these violations enjoyed, in line with the recommendations of the June 2002 report of the Committee on Freedom of Association. She endorsed the suggestion, to have the case mentioned in a special paragraph.

The Government member of the Dominican Republic expressed great distress at the assassinations of trade unionists and other Colombian citizens. He recalled that the case had been discussed by the Conference Committee on several occasions and that the Government continued to indicate its interest in putting an end to the violation of Convention No. 87 by informing the Committee of the efforts deployed to resolve the situation. He stressed the importance that the ILO continue to strengthen the Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia as he considered it as a vital measure which would resolve the problem prevailing in Colombia.

The Government member of Germany took note of the statement made by the Government representative and stated that the situation with regard to violence committed against trade union leaders and members was still very serious. He understood why the Worker members perceived the information on the decrease of assassinations as cynical. However, he also noted that the Government representative had expressed his sincere regrets for every victim. With regard to the problem of impunity, he pointed out that there was no law providing that perpetrators of crimes against trade unionists should not be punished. Impunity was rather a problem in practice that had several causes, such as the intimidation of judges. Noting that several speakers had requested the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry, he stated that this question was not within the Conference Committee's competence. To conclude, he expressed his view that the Committee should take into account the clearly different attitude of the Government representative in comparison to that of the Government representative of Belarus discussed earlier, and as a result, the Committee should not reach the same conclusions.

The Government member of Chile welcomed the information presented by the Government member of Colombia. He shared the concern and preoccupation with regard to the situation in Colombia, as had been expressed by the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC). The speaker indicted that the Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia was the best contribution that could be made to ensure the application of Convention No. 87 in the country.

The Government member of Uruguay highlighted the importance of the information supplied to the Conference Committee by the Minister. The speaker was of the view that it was equally important to take note of the progress made, whilst bearing in mind the complexity of the situation. Cooperation with the ILO played a fundamental role in reaching real solutions to the difficult situation in Colombia.

The Government member of Peru (Vice-Minister of Employment Promotion), expressed his support for the society and the Government of Colombia with regard to the general violence, and the loss of Colombian lives from all social classes. The speaker outlined the priority attached by the Government to the protection of trade union leaders to whom large resources were allocated for their protection. It was necessary to strengthen the Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia undertaken by the ILO to give an impetus to the mobilization of the entire society in support of peace.

The Government member of Italy stated that the situation in Colombia was particularly preoccupying. He was of the view that it was not appropriate to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. He indicated that strengthening the technical cooperation programme with the ILO would be preferable. He equally recommended that clarifications be made with respect to the provisions of the legislation of Colombia on the right to strike in the public sector.

The Government member of Canada deplored the continuing serious situation in Colombia, while recognizing that the Government had achieved some progress in reducing violence against trade unionists over the past year. The Government was urged not to use emergency measures as an instrument to threaten and harass trade unionists, and to avoid accusations of subversive activity that de-legitimize trade union activity and expose trade unionists to attack. The Government should establish and strengthen the relevant institutions to end impunity. Failing to ensure full and impartial investigations perpetuated the violence. Further, the speaker urged the Government to bring the legislation into line with international labour standards and ensure its full implementation. She supported the ILO Special Technical Cooperation Programme, as social dialogue and appropriate legislative measures would promote social peace and she urged the Government of Colombia to cooperate fully with the ILO.

The Government representative stated that he had listened carefully to all the interesting and enriching interventions made during the discussion. Many of the interventions had to be interpreted in light of the information each one of the speakers was in a position to obtain and evaluate. In this respect, the speaker pointed out that a number of the interventions had referred to the convening of mandatory arbitration proceedings. The speaker indicated that the number of conflicts submitted to mandatory arbitration had indeed increased, but that their purpose was precisely to reduce the direct interference of the administration in the solution of conflicts. Those who had been most interested in these types of mandatory arbitration were the workers: of 50 compulsory arbitration proceedings, 47 had been at the request of the workers, and the Ministry had simply approved their request. The speaker suggested that the information, which the social partners wished to submit to the ILO, be organized in a way as to find constructive solutions to the problems.

The Government representative shared the deep concern about the violence in Colombia. His Government was making serious efforts to curtail the acts of violence against unionists. He pointed out that the budget allocated to the protection of unionists was 15 times higher than that allocated to the protection of judges. Taking into account the efforts made regarding security issues, he was confident that the progress observed in the last year would continue.

The speaker also reminded the Committee of the assassinations of and violence against politicians that had occurred in Colombia: the father of the President of the Republic had been assassinated, the Vice-President had been kidnapped, as well as relatives of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Culture. The list of civil servants, including judges, who had been targets of violence was considerable.

Regarding the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning pending legislative amendments, the Government representative pointed out that the number of discrepancies had been gradually reduced from 20 to 13 and that three legal issues were pending.

The Government representative emphasized that his Government was fully committed to the ILO and had great expectations for the strengthening of technical cooperation programmes. The Government was grateful to the Employer and Worker sectors, in spite of their differences, for the confidence they shared in the potential of Colombia, and entreated all to join forces so that future generations would inherit a better country.

The Worker members were of the view that their analysis had been quite clear and that their legal reasoning was sufficiently developed for their voices to be heard. They underlined that spokespersons of quality were needed for the establishment of continued social dialogue, but they stressed that it was of utmost importance to keep those spokespersons alive. The Worker members recalled that they had repeatedly denounced the fact that labour legislation was not in conformity with Convention No. 87, which was further aggravated by the adoption of new legislation, which was particularly retrogressive. In practice, a retreat in trade unionism was noted in Colombia: persistent attacks on trade union freedoms; obstacles to collective bargaining; continued violence affecting the trade union movement in particular, and a gross impunity of crimes committed against workers. Whilst fully aware that the decision with regard to a Commission of Inquiry was not up to the Conference Committee, the Worker members requested the immediate discussion by the Governing Body of the proposal to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for Colombia and stressed the importance of ensuring that all efforts be made aimed at reaching the acceptance of this proposal. They expressed the view that a Commission of Inquiry rather than technical cooperation was the only measure that would lead to an improvement of the situation. Finally, they requested that the conclusions reached on the case be inscribed in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

The Employer members stated that improvements in several areas were necessary in the present case, mainly with regard to the prevailing violence, which was at the core of the problem. In particular, the issue of impunity needed to be addressed, a problem of practice and not of law which had many causes. The Employer members supported neither the proposal to include a special paragraph in the report of the Conference Committee nor the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry by the Governing Body in order not to weaken the position of the Government in solving the problem of violence.

The Worker members wished to stress two points. First, they did not consider it appropriate to mention in the conclusions that various views had been expressed with respect to the measures to be proposed to the Governing Body and they considered that the Commission of Inquiry remained the only measure to put an end to the climate of violence in the country. Furthermore, the reticence of the Employer members to firmly condemn the situation, which had damaging effects for trade unions as for employers, seemed to be incomprehensible, mostly in view of the gravity of this case in comparison with other cases, where the use of a special paragraph had been made. They expressed in the most unequivocal terms that the ILO could not have double standards.

The Employer members again emphasized that they did not support the proposals of a special paragraph, nor the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry by the Governing Body, because they believed that technical cooperation was the better instrument to attain the objectives. They reiterated that their position could not have come as a surprise, as the Employer members had already expressed this view the year before. The situation could not simply be improved by changing laws, but was much broader and the ILO's Special Technical Cooperation Programme should be supported.

Following the adoption of the conclusions on the application of Convention No. 87 in Colombia, the Worker members wished to make a statement and asked that this be transmitted to the Director-General and included in the report as an explanation of their support, in a spirit of cooperation proper to this tripartite body, of the conclusions on the case discussed.

The Worker members remained convinced that it would have been appropriate, despite the statements made by the Government representative, if the Governing Body could have asked the Office to establish a Commission of Inquiry in Colombia. This was not meant as an act of hostility towards the Government but as a reflection of a profound concern about the impunity, the violence and the assassinations that militants and trade union leaders were victims of. It was deplorable that the politicization of this case had led to the acceptance of the fact that the continuous loss of lives of people, including those of trade unionists, had become an ordinary point on the agenda of this Committee every year. It should be clear that it would never become an ordinary agenda item on this Committee for the Worker members.

The Worker members deeply regretted that the adopted conclusions were not taken up in a special paragraph. With such conclusions, it seemed that double standards were being used, undermining the moral authority of this Committee and the supervisory system. The fact that this was actually a barely hidden objective for some only aggravated the incapacity of this Committee to judge in this case. The continuous failure to implement the Convention was the absence of the adoption of adequate measures to guarantee respect for elementary freedoms, such as the right to life, which were sine qua non for freedom of association. This was a case of continuous failure that had cost the lives of hundreds of people per year and affected thousands of others in their professional lives.

The Worker members welcomed the commitment of all those trade unionists but also the employers concerned about the production of goods and services respectful of social rights, civil servants and politicians, who continued to fight against the violence and the impunity, and in favour of freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to strike. A special paragraph would have been, rightly so, an encouragement and an act of solidarity with those who were fighting on a daily basis in their own area for another kind of world. This other kind of world remained possible but, without doubt, it should have been stated more loudly.

The Employer members noted the views of the Worker members. They said that they stood by their earlier statement and considered that some concrete proposals made during the discussions of the day before were not useful in helping the Government of Colombia in its efforts to improve the situation. They were convinced that the steps the Employers had proposed were more appropriate in the situation.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion which followed. The Committee noted that the comments made by the Committee stressed the very large number of assassinations of and acts of violence against unionists and the absence of prosecution of their perpetrators on the one hand, and specific legal infringements to the right of workers organizations to freely exercise their activities, on the other. The Committee noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association had examined the complaints concerning assassinations and acts of violence against unionists. The Committee noted with deep concern the dramatic situation of violence.

The Committee firmly condemned once again the assassination and abduction of unionists and the abduction of workers and employers, and recalled that workers' and employers' organizations could only exercise their activities freely and effectively in a climate devoid of violence. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government once again to reinforce the necessary institutions in order to put an end to the situation of impunity, which is a serious obstacle to the free exercise of the freedom of association guaranteed by the Convention.

The Committee urged the Government to immediately take the necessary measures to put an end to this situation of insecurity so that workers' and employers' organizations could fully exercise the rights they are entitled to under the Convention, by restoring respect for fundamental human rights, in particular the right to life and security.

Noting the complaint filed in June 1998 under article 26 of the ILO Constitution, which referred in particular to the climate of violence against unionists, the Committee expressed the hope that the Governing Body would take the appropriate measures - as to the nature of which various opinions were expressed - in order to contribute to restoring a climate of non-violence which is a prerequisite for the full exercise of freedom of association.

The Committee addressed an urgent call to the Government to immediately take the measures necessary to guarantee the full implementation of the Convention in both law and practice. The Committee requested the Government to provide a detailed report, including an exhaustive reply to the comments made by trade unions, so that the Committee of Experts could once again examine the situation at its next meeting, and expressed the hope that it would be able to observe tangible progress in the very near future.

The Worker members wished to stress two points. First, they did not consider it appropriate to mention in the conclusions that various views had been expressed with respect to the measures to be proposed to the Governing Body and they considered that the Commission of Inquiry remained the only measure to put an end to the climate of violence in the country. Furthermore, the reticence of the Employer members to firmly condemn the situation, which had damaging effects for trade unions as for employers, seemed to be incomprehensible, mostly in view of the gravity of this case in comparison with other cases, where the use of a special paragraph had been made. They expressed in the most unequivocal terms that the ILO could not have double standards.

The Employer members again emphasized that they did not support the proposals of a special paragraph, nor the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry by the Governing Body, because they believed that technical cooperation was the better instrument to attain the objectives. They reiterated that their position could not have come as a surprise, as the Employer members had already expressed this view the year before. The situation could not simply be improved by changing laws, but was much broader and the ILO's Special Technical Cooperation Programme should be supported.

Following the adoption of the conclusions on the application of Convention No. 87 in Colombia, the Worker members wished to make a statement and asked that this be transmitted to the Director-General and included in the report as an explanation of their support, in a spirit of cooperation proper to this tripartite body, of the conclusions on the case discussed.

The Worker members remained convinced that it would have been appropriate, despite the statements made by the Government representative, if the Governing Body could have asked the Office to establish a Commission of Inquiry in Colombia. This was not meant as an act of hostility towards the Government but as a reflection of a profound concern about the impunity, the violence and the assassinations that militants and trade union leaders were victims of. It was deplorable that the politicization of this case had led to the acceptance of the fact that the continuous loss of lives of people, including those of trade unionists, had become an ordinary point on the agenda of this Committee every year. It should be clear that it would never become an ordinary agenda item on this Committee for the Worker members.

The Worker members deeply regretted that the adopted conclusions were not taken up in a special paragraph. With such conclusions, it seemed that double standards were being used, undermining the moral authority of this Committee and the supervisory system. The fact that this was actually a barely hidden objective for some only aggravated the incapacity of this Committee to judge in this case. The continuous failure to implement the Convention was the absence of the adoption of adequate measures to guarantee respect for elementary freedoms, such as the right to life, which were sine qua non for freedom of association. This was a case of continuous failure that had cost the lives of hundreds of people per year and affected thousands of others in their professional lives.

The Worker members welcomed the commitment of all those trade unionists but also the employers concerned about the production of goods and services respectful of social rights, civil servants and politicians, who continued to fight against the violence and the impunity, and in favour of freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to strike. A special paragraph would have been, rightly so, an encouragement and an act of solidarity with those who were fighting on a daily basis in their own area for another kind of world. This other kind of world remained possible but, without doubt, it should have been stated more loudly.

The Employer members noted the views of the Worker members. They said that they stood by their earlier statement and considered that some concrete proposals made during the discussions of the day before were not useful in helping the Government of Colombia in its efforts to improve the situation. They were convinced that the steps the Employers had proposed were more appropriate in the situation.