Interim Report - Report No 72, 1964

Case No 294 (Spain) - Complaint date: 27-AUG-62 - Closed

1. 93. This case was examined earlier by the Committee at its 32nd Session (October 1962), when it submitted an interim report in paragraphs 472 to 495 of its 66th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 153rd Session (November 1962), and at its 33rd Session (February 1963), when it submitted another interim report in paragraphs 126 to 152 of its 68th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 154th Session (March 1963). This latter report contains the Committee's final conclusions regarding some of the allegations, and in it the Committee also asks the Government for certain additional information. The case was further examined at the 34th Session (May 1963) when the Committee submitted an interim report in paragraphs 285 to 326 of its 70th Report which was approved by the Governing Body at its 155th Session (May-June 1963). This report contained conclusions concerning some of the allegations and a further request for certain additional information.
2. 94. The conclusions and recommendations of the Committee are contained in paragraph 326 of the 70th Report, which reads as follows:
3. 326. As regards the case as a whole the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to reaffirm the importance, in cases in which the crux of the matter is whether or not the offences alleged to have been committed were related to the exercise of freedom of association, of this question being determined by an independent and impartial judicial authority affording all the normal guarantees of due process and fair trial;
   • (b) to note the statement of the Spanish Government that there has recently been submitted to Parliament a Bill which, firstly, makes an exception to certain penal provisions, and, secondly, transfers to the ordinary courts of law competence in respect of certain offences for which a special judicial authority has hitherto been competent;
   • (c) to note that the Committee has postponed until its next session further consideration of the allegations relating to arrests and deportations arising out of the strikes of 1962, in order to give the Spanish Government an opportunity of furnishing the judgments handed down in the proceedings instituted against the 47 persons referred to in the communication from the Spanish Government dated 14 January 1963, stating clearly whether the judicial authority which rendered those judgments was the special judicial authority from which the Spanish Government has now announced its intention of withdrawing jurisdiction in respect of certain offences and, if so, indicating what arrangements are now envisaged which would permit of the revision of sentences imposed by the special judicial authority or the release of the persons concerned;
   • (d) to request the Spanish Government to furnish further observations on this question as a matter of urgency.
4. 95. The 70th Report of the Committee, as approved by the Governing Body, was transmitted to the Government by the Director-General by a communication dated 11 June 1963.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to Detentions and Deportations on Account of the Strikes of 1962
  96. 96 The I.C.F.T.U and the I.F.C.T.U stated in their joint complaint that the Government had detained and deported some thousand workers, and had fined the strikers and had taken other intimidating and violent action against them. The Government denied that fines had been imposed or individuals arrested solely on the ground of participation in the strikes, and added that, in the case of those arrests in which no evidence of an offence was found, the individuals concerned were immediately released, and that the 94 persons committed for trial and the six who were subject to compulsory residence orders were punished because of their activities on behalf of the Communist Party or the People's Liberation Front.
  97. 97 At its 32nd Session (October 1962) the Committee recalled that in the past, where allegations that trade union leaders or workers had been arrested or detained for trade union activities, or that their arrest or detention had restricted the exercise of trade union rights, had 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, it had followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests or detentions, and that if, in certain cases, the Committee had concluded that allegations relating to the arrests or detentions of trade union militants did not call for further examination, this had been after it had received information showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the arrests or detentions were in no way occasioned by trade union activities but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere, which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature s
  98. 98 The Committee observed at its meeting in October 1962 that in the present case the Government confined itself to stating that the reason why the individuals concerned had been arrested or subjected to compulsory residence was that they had been guilty of political subversion on account of their Communist or pro-Communist activities.
  99. 99 The Committee considered at its meeting in October 1962 that if it were to have a full picture of the case and decide whether the allegations were justified or not, it would need more precise information from the Government about the grounds for the arrest of 94 persons and the deportation of six more to other parts of the country, especially as regards the specific actions or exact activities for which they were alleged to be responsible. It accordingly recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government for this information and in the meantime decided to postpone its examination of this aspect of the case.
  100. 100 In its communication dated 14 January 1963 the Government stated that, as its earlier communication dated 23 May 1962 had been sent before the end of the labour disputes in question, the figure of 94 persons arrested and six deported to other parts of the country should be amended, since the total number of arrests now amounted to 119. The Government added that of these 119 persons, 72 had been released, a further 47 were awaiting trial and the six persons sentenced to be deported to other parts of the country had also been set free. The Government stated that of the 119 persons arrested 68 were in Asturias, 15 in Vizcaya, 15 in Guipuzcoa and 21 in Barcelona. The Government repeated in its latest communication that no one had been arrested simply for reasons of an industrial character, and it added that the grounds for the arrests had nothing whatever to do with the industrial disputes, which extremist agitators tried to exploit for the purpose of undermining law and order, and solely as a means of attacking the Government politically. The Government added that members of these groups engaging in subversive agitation were arrested and committed on concrete charges, the offences being specified and punishable in accordance with Spanish law, and that all concerned were brought before the appropriate judicial authority with the periods prescribed by law. To prove that the authorities had no intention of taking reprisals, the Government stated that three of those committed in Asturias province, viz. Bernardo Arranz Ramos and Ernesto Losa Fernández from the Mieres basin, and Florentino Lafuente Cuesta from Gijon applied for and obtained passports to go abroad; the first two went to France and the third to Belgium. The Government added that the 47 who had been committed for trial would be dealt with in accordance with the normal procedure under the relevant Spanish legislation and would have all the safeguards and facilities for defence that the law allows.
  101. 101 At its meeting in February 1963 the Committee recalled that in the past it had followed the practice of postponing examination of matters which were the subject of pending national judicial proceedings, where such proceedings might make available information of assistance to the Committee in appreciating whether or not allegations were well founded.
  102. 102 Following these precedents, the Committee at its session in February 1963 recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to be good enough to notify it of the results of the proceedings in the Spanish courts against the 47 persons who were still in custody and to supply it with the full texts of the verdicts, together with the grounds for them, and, pending this, to postpone examination of this aspect of the case.
  103. 103 In its communication of 3 May 1963 the Government states that the principle that every citizen accused of an offence shall enjoy prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases is traditional in Spanish legislation, which continues to maintain it in full force; that accordingly trade unionists, like any other Spanish citizens, all of whom are equal before the law, are judged by the competent judicial authorities in independent courts of law when charged with offences for which provision is made by current legislation; and that a rapid procedure is applied. The Government adds that it has recently submitted to Parliament a Bill which, first of all, makes an exception to certain penal provisions, and secondly transfers to the ordinary courts of law competence in respect of certain offences for which a special judicial authority has hitherto been competent.
  104. 104 The Government also asserts in its statement of 3 May 1963 that, as already explained in previously given information, there has been no charge or proceedings of any kind against trade unionists as such and on account of their participation in labour conflicts and that the only measures taken were against persons who performed acts of a subversive nature listed, with their punishments, in current law. The Government concludes by stating that, in these circumstances and bearing in mind that none of the judgments passed in this matter affect trade unionists, " there is no reason to forward the texts of the judgments in question because they neither affect nor have any connection with trade unionists or workers as such and by reason of their participation in labour disputes, which is the only presumption that could give relevance to the request of the Committee on Freedom of Association for the transmission of such data ".
  105. 105 The Committee noted the statement by the Spanish Government that it had recently laid before Parliament a draft law which, first of all, makes an exception to certain penal provisions and, secondly, transfers to the ordinary courts of law the competence in the respect of certain offences for which a special judicial authority had hitherto been competent.
  106. 106 In a number of previous cases, the Committee has pointed out that measures of a political nature, even if their objective is not to restrict trade union rights as such, may nevertheless impede the exercise of those rights. Moreover, the question of whether the reasons for the adoption of such measures stem from activities that have no connection with the exercise of trade union rights cannot, as the Committee has pointed out on other occasions, be decided unilaterally by the government concerned.
  107. 107 For the reasons explained in the paragraph above, the Committee, in its 68th Report, requested the Spanish Government to be good enough to transmit the text of the decisions handed down in the proceedings before the national courts against the 47 persons stated by the Government, in its communication of 14 January 1963, still to be detained. The Committee was unable to accept the declaration of the Government that there was no purpose in sending the text of the judgments in question because it considered that they did not affect and had no connection with trade unionists or workers as such or by reason of their participation in labour conflicts. The principle that nobody can act as judge in his own case, stated the Committee, is of basic importance, both in the work of the Committee and any other proceeding of a judicial nature; the Committee therefore was unable, only on the basis of a declaration by the Government, to indicate to the Governing Body that the sentences in question had no reference to trade union activities, unless it had previously had the opportunity of examining the text of the judgments and thus convincing itself by reading them that no such relationship existed.
  108. 108 In these circumstances, the Committee decided to defer until its next session the examination of the assertion of the Spanish Government that these judgments-which seemed to concern persons who, the Government alleged, had committed crimes against the common law in connection with labour conflicts-were not, in fact, based on the participation of those persons in those conflicts; the purpose of this deferment being to give the Spanish Government a further opportunity to furnish the judgments in question as a necessary step in furnishing objective proof of this assertion, stating clearly whether the judicial authority which rendered those judgments was the special judicial authority from whom the Spanish Government has announced its attention of withdrawing jurisdiction in respect of certain offences, and, if so, indicating what arrangements were envisaged which would permit of the revision of sentences imposed by the special judicial authority or the release of the persons concerned.
  109. 109 The Government of Spain, in its communication of 29 July 1963, provided some additional information pursuant to the request in paragraph 326 (d) of the 70th Report of the Committee and made some observations regarding the recommendations contained in that paragraph.
  110. 110 The Government maintains that the sentences passed on the persons involved in this present case were handed down by an impartial and independent judicial authority, under normal judicial procedure as laid down by law, and were imposed for crimes also normally coming under the Spanish Penal Code. None of the acts involved in the crimes for which sentence was passed was in connection with the exercise of trade union rights. The Government confirms the information it has already given that it has laid before Parliament a draft law, the text of which has been published in the Boletin Oficial of the Spanish Parliament dated 1 July 1963 (a copy of which was transmitted by the Government), under which certain criminal acts that previously have been within the competence of special law courts will come before ordinary courts.
  111. 111 As regards the Committee's request that the Government should send the text of the decisions handed down in the proceedings against the 47 persons referred to in the communication from the Spanish Government dated 14 January 1963, the Government reaffirms the position it took up before and points out that " it does not appear that in other cases the Committee on Freedom of Association has extended its functions to an examination of the texts of judgments, to confirm information provided by the governments of States Members ". The Government also declares that the judicial authority that handed down these judgments is the special judicial authority whose competence is to be changed under the draft law already mentioned and that the means by which the sentences pronounced by that authority are to be received will be such as may be determined by the administration on the basis of that draft law. The Government adds that a decree dated 24 June and an order of 19 July 1963 have granted an extensive amnesty under which the persons concerned in this case have recovered their liberty or have had their sentences substantially reduced.
  112. 112 The Committee regrets that the Government persists in its refusal to submit the text of the decisions as requested. It is also surprised at the assertion by the Government that " it does not appear that in other cases the Committee on Freedom of Association has extended its functions to an examination of the texts of judgments ". The Committee must point out that it has repeatedly asked governments to send information on judicial proceedings and their results. The cases mentioned above in paragraphs 97 and 101 are examples of this practice. In some of them it specifically asked governments to send copies of the decisions handed down. In a number of cases such copies were transmitted by governments.$ In one case (Case No. 191 (Sudan)) in which the Government refused to send the text of judgments given, stating that the matter in no way related to the trade union activities of those concerned, the Committee pointed out that the Governing Body, has, on the recommendation of the Committee, always rejected such arguments, stating that the question whether the formulation of charges of having committed crimes on the basis of facts and allegations involving the exercise of trade union rights is to be regarded as a matter relating to a criminal offence or a matter related to the exercise of trade union rights is not one which can be determined unilaterally by the government concerned, in such a manner as to prevent the Governing Body from inquiring further into it. The request for the transmittal of the judgments therefore, is not a singular proceeding for the Committee to follow in the present case but is its normal practice, to which it has recourse in order to assess to the full the facts contested in a complaint.
  113. 113 The Committee consequently recommends the Governing Body, when requesting the Government's full co-operation in the examination of the present case, to repeat its request to be furnished with the text of the judgments given in the case against the 47 persons referred to in the communication of the Spanish Government dated 14 January 1963.
  114. 114 The Committee notes that the judgments in question were given by a special judicial authority and that a review of them will depend on what is agreed by the administration on the basis of the draft law before parliament. This draft, however, refers only to causes " in which judgment has not been given ", so it does not appear to cover the review of the sentences in the cases concerned. Furthermore, the Committee also notes that this draft law provides for the creation of a special judicial branch, that is, a judge and an appeal court for offences against the State (de Orden Publico), which are to have " a competence excluding that of the ordinary courts of law " to try certain criminal acts. The Committee recommends that the Governing Body should take note of these facts and request the Government to keep it informed as to the text as finally passed by the legislature.
  115. 115 As regards the amnesty granted by the Government, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to note these measures, which affect the 47 persons whose sentences are in question, and to ask the Government to inform it as to the present position of these persons as a result of the amnesty measures.
• Allegations relating to Compulsory Residence Orders and Dismissals for Trade Union Activities
  116. 116 In a joint communication dated 21 August 1963 the I.C.F.T.U and the I.F.C.T.U allege that of the hundreds of Asturian workers who were arrested or deported during and after the strikes in April, May and August 1962, some continue to be subject to compulsory residence. The names of these workers are as follows: Jesús Carrión Iglesias, Adolfo Rodriguez Fernández, Antonio Pérez Palacios, Martin Fraga Tasende, José Manuel Gutiérrez Ardura, Remigio Hernández Zapico, Manuel Garcia González, José Carrasco Moragón, César Rodriguez Fernández, Luis Cuervo González, Vicente Gutiérrez Solés and Rodrigo Alvarez Vazquez, all from the Langreo district; and Manuel Alvarez Abin, Valentin Losa Fernández, Valentin Garcia Alvarez, Amador Menéndez Garcia, Manuel Foz Coré, Nicolás Casas Pueyo, Francisco González Martinez, Porfirio Fernández Muñiz, Honorino Alvarez Fernández, Constantino Alonso González, César Garcia Fernández and Manuel Alonso Ania, all from the Mieres district. These workers are said to have been deported to the province of León.
  117. 117 The complainants also allege that hundreds of workers have been dismissed for having taken part in the strikes and that many have suffered the loss of acquired rights and benefits when they were re-engaged. The complainants request that the Committee on Freedom of Association should intercede on behalf of these workers so that they are granted compensation for loss of wages and hardships suffered through dismissal.
  118. 118 The Government replies to these allegations in a communication dated 16 October 1963. The Government admits that certain persons continue to be in compulsory residence outside the Asturias, although the great majority have been allowed to return to their homes. This situation has its origin in the orders issued by the Government in pursuance of the provisions of the Public Order Act. The Government further points out that the complaint contains certain inexactitudes. For instance, Jesús Carrión Iglesias has gone to France with a contract of employment; Nicolás Casas Pueyo returned to the Asturias a long time ago, while Manuel Foz Coré, Manuel Alonso Ania and others are also not now subject to residence orders. With regard to the dismissals which took place, the undertakings concerned acted by virtue of the powers vested in them by the Employment Contracts Act of 1944.
  119. 119 The Committee observes that in an earlier letter dated 14 January 1963, the Government mentioned only six persons placed under residence orders on account of the 1962 strikes, and said that they had been set free. In its further communication dated 16 October 1963 the Government recognises that a number of workers are still subject to compulsory residence orders, in application of the Public Order Act. In the light of the foregoing and in accordance with its usual practice, the Committee considers it necessary that the Government should state what are the specific acts of which the various persons named are held to be guilty, and recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to supply this information and to indicate what procedure was applied in issuing compulsory residence orders in respect of these persons.
  120. 120 With regard to the request by the complainants that the Committee should make representations to the Government for the grant of compensation to the workers dismissed as a result of the strikes, the Committee must point out that allegations relating to the right to strike are within its competence in so far, but only in so far, as they affect the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee considers that the measures referred to in this case are general measures that have been taken under the domestic legislation on employment contracts, which do not come within its competence, and not acts of discrimination against trade unions. The Committee consequently recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to the 1963 Strikes
  121. 121 The I.C.F.T.U and the I.F.C.T.U have sent various joint communications containing allegations relating to the strikes in the Asturias in 1963. The first of these communications is dated 16 August 1963 and denounces the shutting down of various Asturian mines on government orders in connection with an industrial dispute, and the arrest of strikers. The complainants request the despatch of a commission of inquiry. In another letter dated 21 August 1963 the complainants declared that on 20 July 1963, 3,000 miners in the Mieres area, in the province of Oviedo, began a strike in support of their demands. The National Trade Union Confederation (Central Nacional Sindicalista) is said to have shown itself to be hostile to these demands and favourable to the employers. This led to an extension of the dispute in the Caudal-Aller Basin. As a retaliatory measure the Government decreed the closure of certain pits and the dismissal of 5,000 miners. Ten thousand miners and metalworkers in the Nalón Basin came out on a sympathy strike in support of the demands. On 7 August police detachments were sent to a number of pits in order to intimidate the workers. When the latter refused to go back to work, the Government ordered more pits to be shut down and the workers to be dismissed.
  122. 122 The complainants allege that the police made a large number of arrests and deported many strikers. In an article published by the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Police (Jefatura Superior de Policia) in the newspaper La Nueva España for 30 July 1963 it is reported that the following workers had been arrested: Pedro León Alvarez, residing at Mieres, Leonardo Velasco Garcia, residing at Brañanoveles, Gerardo Alvarez Garcia, residing at Valdecuna, José Cuesta Garcia, residing at Mieres, Antonio Paredes Fernández, residing at La Rebollada, César Fernández Fernández, residing at Santa Marina, Faustino Rodriguez Garcia, residing at Santa Marina and Francisco Rubio Casa, residing at Seana. All these persons were accused of being ringleaders of the strike and of engaging in subversive propaganda activities. The complainants request that the Spanish Government should be asked to restore freedom of association and to ensure the free exercise of the right to strike.
  123. 123 In a letter dated 24 September 1963 the complainants provided further information in substantiation of their complaint. In this letter it is stated that scores of workers have been arrested and taken to the barracks of the Guardia Civil or to the police stations, where they have been brutally beaten up. On several occasions the wives of workers had been maltreated at Lada-Langreo and Soecara-Sama. A worker from the first-mentioned locality is said to have been tortured during questioning and to have died as the result of the treatment he received. A dozen workers from the La Camocha mine, near Gijón, have been taken into custody. The complainants declare that the workers arrested are being held in Guardia Civil barracks, police stations, the provincial prison of Oviedo and in Carabanchel prison in Madrid.
  124. 124 In its communications dated 16 and 19 October 1963 the Government furnished its comments on the allegations contained in the three letters from the complainants. According to the Government, the collective stoppages of work in the Caudal-Aller Basin took place without the statutory procedure laid down for collective labour disputes being complied with. Furthermore even before 20 July it had already been announced that a Negotiating Committee had been set up to negotiate a new collective agreement to replace that of 1961. The above-mentioned collective stoppages in the Nalón Basin also took place without compliance with the established procedure for this purpose. In the first-mentioned basin the employers proceeded to dismiss the workers, but as the result of a request by the competent bodies the workers were allowed to return to their jobs. The Government had authorised a lockout in the pits, but the latter had then gradually been reopened, thereby marking a return to the present position, which to all intents and purposes was one of normal working in the Asturias. It was untrue that the police had used the slightest coercion to compel workers to return to their jobs. The article which appeared in the newspaper La Nueva España demonstrates that the arrests, as on previous occasions, were prompted exclusively by the subversive activities of the persons concerned. The Government states that, for reasons explained at length on earlier occasions, it is impossible for it to accept the commission of inquiry proposed by the complainants.
  125. 125 The letter from the Government dated 19 October 1963 refers specifically to the complaint lodged on 24 September 1963. The Government maintains that the so-called additional information supplied by the complainants is a mere enumeration of rumours and not of proven facts. If there was any substance in the allegations, any acts which might constitute punishable offences could be reported to the courts of law in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Act.
  126. 126 By a letter dated 8 October 1963 the complainants furnished further additional information in which they supply a series of concrete data on the allegations made in their earlier communications. The Government has not yet replied to this letter.
  127. 127 The Committee observes that this case is concerned with a series of allegations relating to a wave of strikes in the province of the Asturias, in connection with which the Government is said to have adopted a series of measures which include the detention of a large number of workers and police coercion to make them go back to work. The complainants also alleged that some workers and their wives have been subject to ill-treatment. The Government points out that the workers did not present their demands in the form laid down by law for collective disputes; it denies the alleged coercion on the part of the police, admits to certain arrests, attributing them to the subversive activities of the persons involved, and considers that the complainants have based themselves on rumours as regards the allegations of torture and ill-treatment.
  128. 128 In view of the fact that the Government admits the detention of the persons named by the complainants, even though it alleges that this was due to the subversive activities in which these persons engaged in connection with the labour disputes in the province of the Asturias, the Committee, having regard to the principles consistently applied by the Committee in similar cases which are set forth in paragraph 97 above, recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish information as to the outcome of the proceedings instituted against the eight arrested persons referred to in paragraph 122 above, and, in particular, to forward the text of the judgments that have been or may be handed down, and to postpone examination of this aspect of the case pending receipt of this information.
  129. 129 With regard to the request by the complainants that the Government should be invited to restore freedom of association in Spain and to ensure the free exercise of the right to strike, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to point out once again to the Government, as it has done on previous occasions, that in its present form Spanish legislation on the subject of strikes can be interpreted as providing for their absolute prohibition, which would not be in harmony with generally accepted principles concerning freedom of association; and that, in these circumstances, it may wish to consider the desirability of submitting to the competent national authorities proposals for appropriate amendment of this legislation.
  130. 130 The communication from the complainants dated 24 September 1963, which contains a series of allegations concerning arrests and ill-treatment without giving further details, has been supplemented by a later letter dated 8 October. The Government has not yet furnished its observations on the latter communication, and the Committee accordingly requests it to forward its reply as soon as possible.
• Despatch of a Commission of Inquiry
  131. 131 In their communication of 27 April 1962 the I.C.F.T.U and the I.F.C.T.U urgently requested the despatch of a commission of inquiry to Spain to investigate repressive measures allegedly taken by the Spanish Government during the strike. This request was reiterated in the second communication, dated 23 May 1962, from the I.C.F.T.U and the I.F.C.T.U. In its reply of 31 July 1962 the Government declared that this demand, " made in such categorical and vexatious terms ", was " unacceptable ", and added that reference should be made in this connection to the very different tone of the draft resolution submitted to the last session of the International Labour Conference, in which it was suggested to the Governing Body that it should consider the desirability of amending the existing procedure of the Committee on Freedom of Association and of authorising the Committee, in certain conditions, to " ask the government concerned to invite representatives of the Committee to make an investigation ". " This draft resolution ", the Government added, " on which the Conference took no decision, is drawn up in terms which show much more respect for national sovereignty, and makes a significant contrast to the recommendation in the complaint."
  132. 132 At its 32nd Session (October 1962) the Committee deferred examination of the desirability of an inquiry in either form pending receipt of the additional information for which it had recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government.
  133. 133 During the discussion on the 66th Report of the Committee at their 153rd Session of the Governing Body (November 1962), it was suggested on behalf of the Workers' group that, in view of the Spanish Government's statement referred to in paragraph 131 above, it might accept an on-the-spot inquiry, not by a mission representing the Committee on Freedom of Association, but by the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission, which would be composed of jurists of unquestionable impartiality.
  134. 134 The Government forwarded certain information in its communication of 14 January 1963.
  135. 135 Having recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to forward other additional information, the Committee, at its 33rd Session (February 1963), again deferred examination of this question pending receipt of the said information.
  136. 136 In its communication dated 27 March 1963 the W.F.T.U also requested the I.L.O to set up a commission of inquiry and stated that it was ready to participate in it. This request is reiterated by the I.C.F.T.U and the I.F.C.T.U in their letters of 16 and 21 August 1963. In its letter of 16 October 1963 the Government indicates that it is impossible for it to accept such a mission of inquiry.
  137. 137 Since the Committee has once again recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to forward further additional information, it has again deferred examination of this question pending receipt of the said information. In the event of not receiving such additional information, the Committee would feel itself obliged to examine, without further delay, the question of some form of full inquiry, such as reference to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association, into the matters raised in the allegations in this case.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 138. As regards the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to decide, with respect to the request by the complainants that the Committee should make representations to the Government for the grant of compensation to workers dismissed as a result of the strike, that, for the reasons indicated in paragraph 120 above, this aspect of the case does not call for further examination;
   • (b) to ask the Government to give its full co-operation in the examination of this case, and to request the Government once again to furnish the texts of the judgments handed down in the proceedings instituted against the 47 persons referred to in the communication from the Spanish Government dated 14 January 1963;
   • (c) to take note of the fact that, as regards the Bill submitted to Parliament, in the first place there does not appear to be any possibility of review of the sentences in question, and that in the second place it is proposed to set up a special judicial authority, the Public Order Court and Tribunal, which instead of the ordinary courts of law, would be given exclusive jurisdiction to try a series of offences, and to request the Government to keep it informed as to the text as finally passed by the legislature;
   • (d) to take note of the measures of clemency decree by the Government and affecting the 47 persons on whom the sentences in question were imposed, and to request the Government to be good enough to inform it as to the present position of the persons in question as a result of such measures;
   • (e) to point out once again to the Government, as it has already done on previous occasions, that in its present form the Spanish legislation on strikes can be interpreted as providing for their absolute prohibition, which would not be in harmony with generally accepted principles concerning freedom of association; and to suggest that in these circumstances the Government may wish to consider the desirability of submitting to the competent national authorities proposals for appropriate amendment of this legislation;
   • (f) to recommend the Government, with regard to the compulsory residence orders imposed on various workers mentioned by the complainants in connection with the 1962 strikes, to indicate the specific acts of which these persons were held to be guilty and what procedure was applied in issuing the compulsory residence orders;
   • (g) to request the Government, in connection with the detention of the persons named by the complainants in connection with the 1963 strikes, having regard to the principles consistently applied by the Committee in similar cases which are set forth in paragraph 97 above, to furnish information as to the outcome of the proceedings instituted against the eight persons referred to in paragraph 122 above and, in particular, to forward the texts of the judgments that have been or may be handed down, and to postpone examination of this aspect of the case pending receipt of the said information;
   • (h) to request the Spanish Government to furnish the information and observations requested of it as a matter of urgency;
   • (i) to take note of the present interim report of the Committee, it being understood that the Committee will report further on the case to the Governing Body when it has received the further information and observations requested from the Government.