Interim Report - Report No 87, 1966

Case No 360 (Dominican Republic) - Complaint date: 15-NOV-63 - Closed

164. The Committee examined this case previously at its 38th Session (November 1964), when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. This is contained in paragraphs 171 to 196 of the 78th Report of the Committee, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 160th Session (November 1964). The Government of the Dominican Republic was requested to furnish further information on certain aspects of the case, as indicated in paragraph 196 of that report, in which the Committee recommended the Governing Body:

1. ......................................................................................................................................................
2. (b) to call the attention of the Government to the importance that the Committee attaches to the guarantee of due legal process when trade unionists are accused of offences of a political nature or of common law crimes, and to the fact that the granting of his freedom to a trade unionist on condition that he leaves the country is not compatible with the free exercise of trade union rights; and to request the Government as soon as possible to send its observations on the position of Mr. Henry Molina in view of the urgent nature of this part of the case, and also on the legal position of Mr and Mrs. Monegro and the possibilities they have of returning legally to the country;
3. (c) to reaffirm the principles set forth in paragraph 183 above and to request the Government to furnish its observations on the allegations concerning the raiding and closure of the premises of the National Dominican Confederation of Workers (FOUPSA-CESITRADO) and in particular on the present de facto and de jure position of that organisation;
4. (d) to request the Government, in view of the lack of direct information from it concerning the other allegations referred to in paragraph 193 above, which relate to matters considered as urgent under the procedure in force, to furnish its observations thereon as speedily as possible, and, in particular, in respect of the alleged murder or detention of the trade union leaders named;
5. (e) to take note of the present interim report, it being understood that the Committee will report further to the Governing Body when it has received the additional information requested.
6. 165. In its report the Committee also requested the Government directly to keep it informed as to the outcome of the legal proceedings then taking place to ascertain the facts relating to the murder of the trade union leader Mr. Benito Acevedo, which occurred on 24 or 25 December 1963, and meanwhile postponed the formulation of its conclusions on that aspect of the case.
7. 166. The Government furnished additional information in two memoranda despatched on 12 March and 22 April 1965. In examining the case at its present session the Committee had taken due account of the fact that there has been in the meantime a change of government in the Dominican Republic. Nevertheless, in order to enable it to formulate conclusions on the different aspects of the case, the Committee considers it necessary to request the new Government to furnish further information on certain points indicated in the present report.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations concerning the Arrest of the Trade Union Leader Henry Molina
  167. 167 In the complaints presented by the Christian trade unions referred to above on 15, 19 and 21 November 1963 and 16 April 1964 the Government was accused of having arrested the trade union leader Mr. Henry Molina, who, according to the complainants, was threatened with deportation. Since the Government had furnished no observations on the accusation, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish its observations as soon as possible on the situation of Mr. Molina.
  168. 168 The Government does not mention Mr. Henry Molina in its communication of 12 March 1965. However, at its 41st Session (November 1965), the Committee examined another case relating to the Dominican Republic (Case No. 411), which related to the legal proceedings brought against Mr. Molina and other trade union leaders for matters arising after the above-mentioned complaints.
  169. 169 In these circumstances the complaint referred to would appear to be superseded by other events, and the Committee therefore considers that it would be purposeless to pursue the examination of this complaint and refers, with regard to Mr. Molina's situation, to its report on Case No. 411.E The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations concerning the Raiding and Closure of the National Dominican Confederation of Workers and the Exile of the Trade Union Leaders Mr and Mrs. Monegro
  170. 170 In a communication dated 20 January 1964, written in exile, the General Secretary of the National Dominican Confederation of Workers (FOUPSA-CESITRADO) declared that its premises had been raided and that various objects belonging to the workers of the Dominican Republic, including documents of the Confederation, had been removed. On 31 March 1964 the Confederation sent a new communication, this time from Santo Domingo, in which it referred to the destruction of its furniture and the closing of its premises. The Autonomous Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (C.A.S.C.), having been invited by the Secretary of State for Labour to make any comments it thought fit concerning this accusation, confirmed that the premises of FOUPSA-CESITRADO had been broken into by the national police and that the Confederation had been expelled from them, but had no information on the fate of the documents and furniture of the Confederation.
  171. 171 At its November 1964 session the Committee noted that the position regarding the raiding and closure of the premises of the Confederation was not sufficiently clear from the documents that had been sent to it. The various complaints agreed in respect of the raid on the premises, the destruction of furniture, the disappearance of documents and the closing down of the Confederation. The Committee also noted, however, that it was the Confederation itself that had sent the communication dated 31 March 1964, which had on its letter heading the address of the organisation and included among the signatories of its leaders that of its President, Mr. Miguel Soto. It was thus not clear whether the premises of the Confederation had reopened or what its de jure and de facto position was. The Government had sent no observations on this aspect of the case.
  172. 172 The Committee, while recognising on various occasions that trade unions, like other associations or persons, cannot claim immunity from search of their premises, has emphasised the importance it attaches to the principle that searches should be made only when the judicial authority has issued a warrant after satisfying itself that there are reasonable grounds for supposing that evidence exists on the premises material to a prosecution for offence under the ordinary law and provided that they are restricted to the purposes in respect of which the warrant has been issued. The Committee also noted that the Dominican Republic has ratified Convention No. 87, which provides, among other things, that workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.
  173. 173 The Committee finally recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish its observations on the complaint relating to the raiding and closure of the premises of the Confederation and, in particular, on the de facto and de jure position of that organisation.
  174. 174 In answer to the request the Government states in its communication of 12 March 1965 that the raid was carried out because there was strong evidence that the leaders of FOUPSA-CESITRADO were engaged in political activities punishable under criminal law, which threatened to cause a serious disturbance of the peace.
  175. 175 The Committee understands from the information supplied to it that FOUPSA-CESITRADO is now functioning and that the raid and closure complained of have accordingly been nullified. The Committee also notes with interest that the Government has taken due note of the recommendations relating to these measures " with a view to preventing such occurrences in the future ". In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
  176. 176 With regard to the trade union leaders Mr and Mrs. Monegro, who appear to have been compelled to leave the country in order to keep their freedom, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to supply information on the legal situation of these persons.
  177. 177 The previous Government furnished no information in this connection, and the Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to reply to the allegation that the two trade union leaders Mr and Mrs. Monegro have been obliged to go into exile in order to preserve their freedom.
• Complaints concerning the Murder of the Trade Union Leader Benito Acevedo
  178. 178 The complaints dated 20 January and 31 March 1964 submitted by FOUPSA-CESITRADO and the complaint dated 16 April 1964 submitted by C.A.S.C announced the murder of Mr. Benito Acevedo, a leader of the works union of the Central Romana Corporation, committed on 24 or 25 December 1963. In its first reply the Government sent the texts of the examinations by the authorities of various persons in connection with the death of Mr. Acevedo and stated that it had called on the competent judge to ascertain the facts of the case and report on them. Since the matter was the subject of pending judicial proceedings the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these proceedings and meanwhile postponed the formulation of its conclusions on this aspect of the case.
  179. 179 By its communication dated 12 March 1965 the Government sends copies of the various papers making up the legal file prepared in connection with the proceedings carried out to ascertain the facts relating to the death of Mr. Acevedo. Among the papers are the findings of the public prosecutor, the statements given in evidence and the judgment of non-suit given by the judge who presided over the proceedings.
  180. 180 The Committee notes that Mr. Benito Acevedo was found dead in a creek and that, according to the certificate issued by the forensic medical officer, death was due to drowning and the victim had bruises on the body and the face. From the judgment of non-suit it also appears that Mr. Acevedo's brothers claimed that the medical certificate did not mention all the injuries on the body, since it showed signs of wounds from a sharp instrument on both sides of the chest and other injuries and scratches and there had also been bleeding " from the mouth, ears and nose, which indicated that death was not due to an accident ". The same judgment, however, quotes the opinion of the public prosecutor in the following words: " We were also able to conclude in our investigations that almost the entire surroundings of the creek in question are slippery, on account of the mud, so that it is possible that the victim-as we have supposed up to now-slipped, received a knock that left him dazed and fell into the water of the creek as a result of this unfortunate occurrence, and thus died by drowning in the absence of help, since according to the accounts received he was alone."
  181. 181 In view of the information at his disposal the judge concluded that it was impossible to determine which person or persons were to be blamed for the death of Mr. Benito Acevedo, and therefore gave a judgment of non-suit and decided to file the case.
  182. 182 The statements of both the forensic medical officer and the victim's brothers respecting the way in which Mr. Acevedo may have met his death do not establish whether it was due to a mere accident or not. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of the information furnished by the Government and at the same time to express its regret that the investigation has not led to a concrete result.
• Other Allegations
  183. 183 In the complaints submitted by FOUPSA-CESITRADO dated 31 March 1964 and by C.A.S.C dated 16 April 1964 reference was also made to other events alleged to be in violation of freedom of association in the Dominican Republic. The former complaint referred to the murder of the trade union leaders Héctor Porfirio Quezada, Julio Anibal Garcia Dickson and Alberto Laracuent in the region of La Romana, a major sugar-producing area of the country. Reference was made in the second complaint to the imprisonment and threatened deportation of the trade union leader Rodolfo Sessman and the imprisonment of the trade union leader Luis Polivio Padilla. Another allegation related to the setting up of a company-dominated trade union by the city council of the national capital. The communication from C.A.S.C and that from the Monegros declared that the Government supported the CONATRAL Confederation, affiliated to the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (O.R.I.T.), that its leaders were the only ones to enjoy a certain measure of protection, and that any leader who opposed this body was accused of being a Communist.
  184. 184 The Committee recommends the Governing Body, in order to enable it to formulate its conclusions on these accusations, to request the Government to furnish its observations on this matter as soon as possible.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 185. With regard to the case as a whole the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to decide, for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 169 and 175 above, that the allegations relating to the arrest of the trade union leader Henry Molina and the raiding and closure of the premises of the National Dominican Confederation of Workers (FOUPSA-CESITRADO) do not call for further examination;
   • (b) to decide, with regard to the allegations concerning the murder of the trade union leader Benito Acevedo, to take note of the information furnished by the Government and at the same time to express its regret that the investigation has not led to a concrete result;
   • (c) to request the Government to be good enough to reply to the allegation that the two trade union leaders Mr and Mrs. Monegro have been obliged to go into exile in order to preserve their freedom;
   • (d) with regard to the other allegations set forth in paragraph 183 above, to request the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations as soon as possible;
   • (e) to take note of the present interim report, it being understood that the Committee will report further to the Governing Body when it has received the additional information requested in subparagraphs (c) and (d) above.