Definitive Report - Report No 234, June 1984

Case No 1231 (Peru) - Complaint date: 07-SEP-83 - Closed

1. 116. The complaints are contained in communications from the Workers' Federation of Light and Electricity, the Trade Unions International of Workers in the Metal Industries and the World Federation of Trade Unions, dated 7, 8 and 14 September 1983 respectively. The Government replied in a communication dated 28 February 1984.
2. 117. Peru has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 118. The complainants allege that on 6 September 1983 Mr. Marco Porras Flores, General Secretary of the Workers' Federation of Light and Electricity of Peru was detained by security agents. According to the complainants, the detention occurred when Mr. Porras was disembarking from a plane which had come from the USSR, where, together with other national representatives, he had been attending a world trade union congress for peace and disarmament.
2. 119. The complainants explain that Mr. Porras is accused, together with 50 other trade union leaders, of organising a national work stoppage by the Peruvian trade union movement in 1981.
3. 120. The Workers' Federation of Light and Electricity of Peru concludes with the observation that the only possible explanation for this detention, two years after the national work stoppage referred to, was a desire to take direct reprisals against his trade union organisation for having submitted a complaint against the Government of Peru (Case No. 1206) to the Committee on Freedom of Association.

B. The Government's reply

1. 121. The Government states that on 1 January 1981, the General Workers' Confederation of Peru (which, inter alia, includes the Worker' Federation of Light and Electricity of Peru) planned a national work stoppage for 15 January. In the course of the above-mentioned stoppage, the Government continues, runways were blocked with stones and burning tyres, vehicles were stoned and lamp posts were knocked down. These acts were committed by picketing strikers. As a consequence of the violence Messrs. Raúl Delgado Navarro and Arturo Fabián Montoya died from gunshot wounds.
2. 122. The Government adds that among those detained for participation in acts of violence who, together with leaders of the CGTB (General Workers' Confederation of Peru), had distributed propaganda aimed at inciting violence, were Eduardo Castillo Sánchez, Manuel Diaz Salazar, Marco Porras Flores and others, who were deemed (in absentia) to have planned the crime in report No. 05-DISE, of 21 January 1983. This report, together with communication No. 264-DIRE-SEC of 27 January 1981, was submitted to the 17th Court of Criminal Investigation of Lima, for offences against life, physical safety and health and damage to State property amounting to 5 million soles for injury to the State. Consequently, on 6 September 1983, personnel from the PIP (Peruvian Internal Police) station at the "Jorge Chávez" international airport detained Mr. Marco Porras Flores when he returned to the country after attending an international meeting for peace, in view of the summons ordering him to appear before the 17th Court of Criminal Investigation in Lima. He was immediately placed at the disposal of the above-mentioned court, where his case was heard and he was released on 8 September 1983.
3. 123. Finally, the Government states that there were no hostile acts against the Workers' Federation of Light and Electricity of Peru.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 124. The Committee notes the Government's statements on the alleged acts and, in particular, the fact that Mr. Marco Porras was detained because this trade union leader had been summoned to appear before the 17th Court of Criminal Investigation of Lima due to the events which had taken place during the strike of 15 January 1981. The Committee further notes that Mr. Porras was released two days after his detention, as soon as his case had been heard before the 17th Court of Criminal Investigation in Lima.
2. 125. The Committee has insufficient information to ascertain whether Mr. Porras, who in January 1983 was deemed to have participated in the planning of the offences against life, physical safety and State property committed in connection with the national work stoppage of 15 January 1981, was formally accused during the criminal proceedings or whether he was merely summoned to appear by the 17th Court of Inquiry in Lima in order to make a statement.'' Whatever the case, the Committee notes that the court did not uphold any charge against Mr. Porras and that his two-day detention occurred over two years after the national work stoppage on 15 January 1981.
3. 126. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the explanations provided by the Government as regards the reasons for the detention of Mr. Porras do not appear conclusive, since there is no reason to suppose that he would have refused to appear before the court if he had been formally summoned to do so. Consequently, at the same time as regretting that the trade union leader in question, who had only been summoned to make a statement before a judicial authority, was unjustly arrested and detained for two days, the Committee draws the attention of the Government to the fact that the measures of preventive detention taken against trade union leaders imply a serious risk of interference in trade union activities [See 233rd Report, Cases Nos. 1007, 1129, 1169, 1185 and 1208 (Nicaragua), paragraph 292.]

The Committee's recommendations

1. 127. In the circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions:
   • (a) the committee regrets that the trade union leader, Mr. Marco Porras - who had only been summoned to appear before a judicial authority - was unjustly arrested and detained for two days;
   • (b) the Committee draws the attention of the Government to the fact that the measures of preventive detention taken against trade union leaders imply a serious risk of interference in trade union activities.