Interim Report - Report No 101, 1968

Case No 485 (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) - Complaint date: 15-JUN-66 - Closed

1. 269. The Committee examined this case previously at its session in February 1967, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report contained in paragraphs 271 to 290 of its 95th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 168th Session (February-March 1967).
2. 270. By a communication dated 26 May 1967 the Government replied to the request made in paragraphs 277, 282 and 290 of the 95th Report for additional information on certain aspects of the case.
3. 271. Venezuela has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to Acts of Repression and Discrimination against Certain Trade Union Organisations and to Infringement of Trade Union Privilege
  272. 272 In the complaint of the Sole Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (C.U.T.V.) of 15 June 1966, which was supported by the World Federation of Trade Unions, it was alleged that there had been frequent raids by the police without judicial authority on trade union premises, such as that on the headquarters of the C.U.T.V in 1964, when the police seized files and other property of the organisation. This is also said to have happened repeatedly at the offices of the regional federations in the states of Lara, Zulia, Monagas and Carabobo and on the premises of trade unions in various parts of the country. Even at workplaces the workers were constantly supervised and threatened by police officers attached to the staff of the undertakings. In this way discriminatory action was taken against members of the trade unions belonging to the C.U.T.V, who, on being identified as such, were dismissed. For their part, the labour inspectorates and other labour authorities impeded the activities of trade union organisations which did not support the Government and joined forces with the employers to damage the interests of the workers.
  273. 273 In paragraph 277 of its 95th Report the Committee observed that the Government, in its reply dated 29 November 1966, categorically denied that the authorities resorted to force or unlawful action against workers' organisations, that any form of discrimination was practised in the legal approval of trade unions or that bias was shown by labour officials. It noted, however, that the Government made no comment on the allegations in the complaint concerning the raiding of trade union premises, police intervention at workplaces or the dismissal of workers for the sole reason, according to the complainants, of their trade union membership. The Committee therefore considered it necessary to request the Government to furnish its observations on these three points.
  274. 274 The complainants also maintained that there had been infringement of the privileges conferred on members of the committees of federations, trade unions and works committees by the labour legislation and by collective agreements to protect them from arbitrary and unjust dismissal. They added that in many cases not only had employers dismissed trade union leaders who should have been protected by these privileges but the labour authorities themselves had condoned this practice in their subsequent rulings, which were nearly always unfavourable to the workers in question. As the Government did not refer specifically in its reply to this aspect of the case, the Committee considered, in paragraph 282 of its 95th Report, that the Government should be requested to be good enough to forward its observations in this connection.
  275. 275 In its communication of 26 May 1967 the Government replies, with respect to the raiding of trade union premises, that the public security measures taken by the police have always been strictly within the bounds of the Constitution and the laws on procedure. In seeking to disguise their illegal behaviour as trade union activity, the Government continues, the terrorists have done immense harm to certain workers' organisations by storing on their premises documents, material or printing equipment intended for purposes which are clearly subversive. Apart from a very few raids about which the Government feels concern, " since they unintentionally affect genuine trade unionists or workers belonging to the Confederation which is unlawfully made use of by the terrorists ", the police do not interfere with trade union activities. The Government states that, after compliance with the legal formalities and on every occasion in the presence of an official from the Public Prosecutor's office, the C.U.T.V headquarters were visited on 30 September 1963, as were branches of the same organisation at Maturin (in the state of Monagas) on 7 April 1965, at Maracaibo (in the state of Zulia) on 30 September 1964 and at Barquisimeto (in the state of Lara) on 23 April 1965.
  276. 276 The fact that only two of the visits took place in the same month and year, the Government continues, disposes of the idea that a politically motivated, anti-union plan was involved. In 1963, the year of the fiercest attacks by the terrorists, there was only one raid in Caracas. The raid carried out at Maracaibo in 1964 resulted in the seizure of explosive equipment, terrorist propaganda and documents indicating the connection of some persons with the guerilla bands. In the raid carried out at Barquisimeto the terrorist Manuel José Lucker Ruiz was captured, and in that carried out at Maturin, a large quantity of subversive material was seized as well as " medical supplies intended for the bandits, and documents on the links between the terrorist groups of Maturin and those of the mountains ".
  277. 277 With regard to the alleged police checks at workplaces and the supposed dismissals of workers for the sole reason of belonging to the C.U.T.V, the Government expressly states that it has not employed police or security officers to keep watch on trade unionists inside undertakings and that the allegations regarding dismissals of workers solely for taking an active part in the C.U.T.V are false.
  278. 278 The Committee observes, with respect to the raiding of trade union premises mentioned by the complainants, that the Government denies that this was done out of hostility to the trade unions and states at the same time - contradicting the declarations of the complainants -that the appropriate legal safeguards were complied with in advance and that the raids were carried out in the presence of an officer from the Public Prosecutor's office. In previous cases the Committee, while recognising that trade unions, like other associations or persons, cannot claim immunity from search of their premises, has emphasised the importance that it attaches to the principle that search should only be made following the issue of a warrant by the ordinary judicial authority after that authority has been satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for supposing that evidence exists on the said premises material to a prosecution for an offence against the law and provided that the search is restricted to the purposes for which the warrant was issued.
  279. 279 In the present case the Committee has no proof that this principle has not been observed. In these circumstances, subject to the principle mentioned in paragraph 278 above, the Committee considers that there would be no point in pursuing the examination of this aspect of the case.
  280. 280 With regard to the alleged interventions of the police in workplaces and the alleged dismissals of workers and even of leaders protected by trade union privilege solely on account of their membership of a particular organisation and the alleged partiality of labour officers, the Committee observes that these allegations, the truth of which is denied by the Government, are couched in general terms, the complainants having provided no specific facts in support of them (for example the names of the persons concerned, or the place or date of the alleged incidents).
  281. 281 The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide, subject to the principles set out in paragraph 278 above, that the allegations referred to in paragraphs 272 to 280 above call for no further examination.
• Allegations relating to the Detention of Trade Union Leaders
  282. 282 The allegations concerning this aspect of the case are summarised in paragraphs 283 to 286 of the 95th Report of the Committee. The complainants supplied the names of 30 persons who, they alleged, had been arrested as a result of a repressive policy carried out by the Government against a section of the trade union movement. They also alleged that the arrested persons were national or regional leaders of the C.U.T.V.
  283. 283 In its reply dated 29 November 1966 (see paragraph 287 of the 95th Report) the Government stated that none of the persons named by the complainants had been detained for carrying on lawful activities, whether connected with trade unionism or not, and that most of them had never been trade union officials, but had been charged, tried and sentenced for proved offences under civil and military law before judges on whom the Government had exerted no influence.
  284. 284 In accordance with the practice that it has always followed in cases where allegations that trade union leaders have been arrested or detained for trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests or detentions were made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security or for common-law crimes (see paragraph 288 of the 95th Report), the Committee recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 290 (c) of that report, to request the Government to be good enough to furnish the precise reasons for the detentions and to state whether each of the persons in question had been brought to trial on the charges laid against him, and to communicate the results of the respective legal proceedings.
  285. 285 This recommendation was adopted by the Governing Body, and the request therein was communicated to the Government. In its reply, dated 26 May 1967, the Government provides information on the measures taken against nearly all the persons named in the complaint after repeating that none of them was detained for trade union activities. The Government states that Venezuela has been subjected to a terrorist onslaught and that, in its opinion, it is not surprising that persons taking part in acts prejudicial to national security should have resorted to the expedient of describing themselves as trade unionists.
  286. 286 In the information supplied by the Government it is expressly stated that six of the persons detained have been released (Julio Cabello Ojeda, Samuel Guidón Gallegos, Aura Gamboa, Juan Pablo Crespo, Fidias José Marcano Millán and Marco Aurelio Alegria) and that the proceedings taken against Mr. Eleazar Diaz Rangel before the Permanent Court Martial of Caracas for the offence of rebellion were discontinued on the instructions of the President of the Republic. The four persons first named were brought to trial before various ordinary criminal courts for offences such as subversion, violence against authority, carrying of weapons and offences against the safety of transport. Messrs. Alegria and Marcano Milán, who were arrested by the police, had subversive pamphlets confiscated and the latter also had leaflets containing formulae for the preparation of explosives. (With respect to Mr. Fidias José Marcano Milán, the Committee observes that the complaint refers in one place to José Marcano, " Member of the National Secretariat of the C.U.T.V and President of the National Salaried Workers' Federation of Venezuela ", and elsewhere to Fidias Marcano without further identifying particulars.)
  287. 287 With regard to Eloy Torres, the Government states that, having taken part in a rising in the town of Carúpano, he was sentenced by the Ad Hoc Court Martial of Ciudad Bolivar to eight years' imprisonment, a sentence that was commuted to deportation on 11 November 1966.
  288. 288 The Government states that Luis Felipe Ojeda, leader of a rising in the state of Carabobo, was sentenced by the Caracas Military Court to 18 years' imprisonment; that Efrain Blanco was imprisoned in October 1963 by order of the Caracas Permanent Court Martial, the case now being before the Supreme Court; and that Leoncio Granda, who was arrested for his part in the storming and capturing of a police headquarters in the state of Yaracuy, where the commandant and two other police officers were killed, was sentenced in May 1964 by a criminal court of first instance to a sentence of from 20 to 30 years' imprisonment.
  289. 289 It also appears from the information supplied by the Government that the military courts have at their disposal Humberto Arrieti, Justo Rafael Galíndez, Gustavo Villaparedes, Manuel José Lucker Ruiz (called Manuel Luckert in the complaint) and Jesús Alberto Márquez, who were accused of various offences of rebellion and subversion, and that the last named is also accused of possessing weapons, kidnapping and murder.
  290. 290 The Government also supplies details, including dates and places, of the arrest by the police of Carlos Arturo Pardo Lugo, Juan Reyes Bidau (called Johny Bidú in the complaint), Máximo Gutiérrez, Héctor Landáez, Heli Saúl Puche Ferrer (called Eli Saúl Puchi in the complaint), Nicolás Colorado, Vladimir Acosta, Carlos Rafel Fariñas, Horacio Scott Power, Julio Casique and Luis Marcano. Some of these persons were arrested on various occasions on dates between 1959 and December 1966 on the grounds of subversive activities or in connection with inquiries relating to such activities. For example, the Government states that Mr. Scott Power was arrested in April 1965 in connection with inquiries into incitement to disorder and extremist agitation and that Mr. Carlos Arturo Pardo was arrested in February 1962, in 1963 and in December 1966 on grounds connected with the disturbance of public order or for the investigation of subversive activities.
  291. 291 The Government, on the other hand, does not refer in its reply to the case of Luis Emiro Arrieta (who, according to the C.U.T.V, was a leader of this organisation and died in prison after two years' detention), or to the case of Donato Carmona Natera (" a trade union leader in the building sector and a militant revolutionary ", according to the C.U.T.V, who disappeared in September 1965 and about whom the police have given contradictory information).

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 292. The Committee therefore observes that, of the persons about whom the Government has provided information, some have been released; others have been detained, temporarily it appears, though it is not clear whether they are all at present free, and others have been sentenced (one of them by an ordinary criminal court) for offences the precise nature of which is indicated by the Government, or are detained at the disposal of the military courts on grounds that the Government also indicates precisely.
2. 293. With respect to the persons whose names appear in paragraph 286 above, who were released and one of whom, Mr. Juan Pablo Crespo, according to the complainants, later died, the Committee considers that there would be no point in continuing its examination of the allegations relating to their detention.
3. 294. On the other hand, with respect to the persons whose names appear in paragraph 290 above, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would be good enough to confirm whether they are all at liberty.
4. 295. Moreover, in paragraph 288 of its 95th Report, relating to the present case, the Committee recalled that in matters that were the subject of judicial proceedings, where the Committee had considered that such proceedings might make available information of assistance to it in appreciating whether or not allegations were well founded, it had always followed the practice of requesting the governments concerned to supply the texts of the judgments given and the grounds adduced therein. Accordingly, in view of the contradiction existing between the statements of the complainants and those of the Government concerning the grounds for the detentions, the Committee considers that it would be desirable, with a view to reaching definitive conclusions, to have the text of the sentences pronounced on the persons named in paragraphs 287 and 288 above.
5. 296. With regard to the persons whose names appear in paragraph 289 above, the Committee wishes to recall that in all cases in which trade unionists have been detained, either for political offences or for common-law crimes, the Committee has emphasised the importance it attaches to the right of trade unionists, like all other persons, to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment by an impartial and independent judicial authority. The Government denies that the persons in question were acting as trade unionists in the circumstances leading to their arrest and indictment. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that it would be desirable to request the Government to be good enough to report on the stage reached in the trials in question and the rules of procedure applied by the military courts and also to communicate the text of the sentences handed down with respect to these persons as well as the motives adduced therein.
6. 297. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of the statement by the Government concerning the grounds for the detentions and to decide that the allegations relating to the detention of the persons named in paragraph 286 above do not call for further examination. It further recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to supply the additional information indicated in paragraphs 294 to 296 above.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 298. With respect to the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) subject to the principle set out in paragraph 278 above and for the reasons expressed in paragraphs 279 and 280, to decide that the allegations relating to acts of repression and discrimination against certain trade union organisations and to infringement of trade union privilege do not call for further examination;
   • (b) with regard to the allegations relating to the detention of trade union leaders:
   • (i) to take note of the statements by the Government that the measures in question have been taken on the grounds of criminal offences or subversive activities;
   • (ii) for the reasons expressed in paragraph 293 above, to decide that the allegations relating to the detention of the persons named in paragraph 286 do not call for further examination;
   • (iii) for the reasons expressed in paragraph 295 above, to request the Government to be good enough to send the text of the sentences passed on the four persons named in paragraphs 287 and 288;
   • (iv) with regard to the five persons whose trials are pending before military courts and whose names appear in paragraph 289 above, and for the reasons expressed in paragraph 296, to request the Government to be good enough to inform it of the rules of procedure applied by these military courts and on the stage reached in the trials in question and also to communicate the text of any sentences that may have been handed down;
   • (v) to request the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations on the measures that are alleged to have been taken against the two persons named in paragraph 291 above;
   • (c) to take note of this interim report, it being understood that the Committee will submit a further report when it has received the additional information requested from the Government in subparagraph (b) (iii), (iv) and (v) of this paragraph and the confirmation requested by the Committee in paragraph 294 above.