Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 328, June 2002

Case No 2167 (Guatemala) - Complaint date: 21-DEC-01 - Closed

Allegations: Failure of the Government to maintain dialogue with employers; harassment and repression of employers and their leaders owing to a stoppage of activity in the manufacturing sector; threats against employers’ leaders

1. 265. The complaint is contained in a communication from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) dated 21 December 2001. The Government replied in a communication of 18 January 2002.
2. 266. Guatemala 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 complainant’s allegations

1. 267. In its communication of 21 December 2001, the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), on behalf of itself and the Coordinating Committee of Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial and Financial Associations (CACIF), alleges that the Government of Guatemala has taken repressive measures against Guatemalan employers and their leaders, with a view to intervening in, restricting and hindering the freedom of association of employers in defence of their interests and in exercise of the right to peaceful demonstration. The repressive measures include the physical and psychological harassment of Guatemalan employers, targeting their leaders in particular.
2. 268. The complainant alleges that the current Government of Guatemala has consistently shown its authoritarian character. It has systematically ignored all of the endeavours to maintain dialogue made by employers, especially in forums where their participation is guaranteed by law, such as the Tripartite Committee on International Affairs (COTAI) and the Joint Committee on Minimum Wages for Agricultural Activities (CPSMAA). In the COTAI, the Government has delayed examination of the draft code of labour procedure proposed in 2000 and, in the CPSMAA, it has unilaterally overruled the agreements reached between workers and employers. Moreover, it should be noted that CACIF has repeatedly requested the Government to endeavour to reach a consensus on taxation policies, within the framework of the Fiscal Pact, the body appointed under the peace accords to discuss taxation issues. The authorities have never responded to this request.
3. 269. The complainant further states that the organized employers’ movement joined other groups of society, such as the ecclesiastical sectors, cooperative movements and universities, in calling for the people of Guatemala to bring manufacturing activity to a standstill on 1 August 2001, in protest at the corruption, insecurity, abuse and imposition of national policies. It also draws attention to the participation of the following trade unions: the General Workers’ Confederation of Guatemala (CGTC) and the Rural Workers’ Central (CTC), among others. The initiative was supported by most of the private sector in Guatemala, as well as by other groups which, taking advantage of the stoppage of activity, took to the streets of the capital and the various towns of Guatemala in peaceful and orderly demonstration, in full compliance with the law. It should be pointed out that the employers gave special emphasis to the obligation not to affect the rights and interests of workers, in order that the latter should not be prejudiced in any way by the stoppage of activity.
4. 270. However, following the stoppage of activity in the manufacturing sector, the Government carried out acts of harassment and repression against employers and their leaders. On the day of the stoppage, the Minister of Labour accused the members of the executive committee of the CACIF of the crime of insurrection, making clear the threat of possible arrest. The accusation was made in the official journal of Central America (Diario de Centro América), the official information channel used by the Government, on 31 July (a cutting is contained in the annexes). It was later announced that warrants for the arrest of two members of the executive committee of the CACIF had been issued. The situation was particularly dangerous at that time, owing to the fact that a state of emergency had been declared by the Government, which had suspended the constitutional guarantee requiring law enforcement authorities to take detained prisoners before an investigating judge within six hours of their arrest.
5. 271. On the day that manufacturing activity was brought to a standstill, the Ministry of Labour ordered labour inspectors to visit some of the enterprises supporting the stoppage, to announce that they were being closed down as a penalty for the illegal stoppage of activity. This measure constituted a violation of the freedom of association in several enterprises, including the following: Piedriteca, Agua Salvavidas, S.A., Inmecasa, Talleres Maco, Talleres Ojeda, Sistek, Gica, S.A., Constructora Saens, Tecnoin, Cervecería Centroamericana, S.A.
6. 272. Furthermore, a smear campaign was launched against the President of the Chamber of Commerce of Guatemala. On 6 August 2001, the Vice-President of the Republic gave the order, through his personal assistant, for officials at the national printing works (an agency of the Ministry of the Interior) to print several hundred thousand posters and flyers, designed to discredit the President of the Chamber of Commerce (an affiliated member association of CACIF), through the use of adulterated reproductions of the association’s internal correspondence (of which copies are contained in the annexes). The following day, officials from the Office of the Vice-President of the Republic, including his personal assistant, collected the posters and flyers from the national printing works. On 8 August 2001, they were distributed all around the country in just a few hours, with the use of vehicles belonging to the Ministry of the Interior, as well as national army helicopters. This information has been corroborated by the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA). Moreover, an inquiry conducted by the Office of the Human Rights Procurator of Guatemala (the resolution is attached herewith) established "violations of the human rights to dignity and security, resulting from the abuse of authority and threats directed at the President of the Chamber of Commerce of Guatemala". With regard to the perpetrator of these violations, the inquiry found "the State of Guatemala institutionally responsible for the prevailing climate of insecurity in the country, which makes threats the modus vivendi of those who seek to gain from inspiring fear in others". It also found that the Vice-President of the Republic had abused his authority by ordering the posters and flyers to be printed.
7. 273. The President of the Chamber of Commerce was also the victim of harassment. On 2 August 2001, Mr. Juan Daniel Castillo and Mr. Edgar Arnoldo Medrano arrived at the Chamber of Commerce and asked to see the President, Mr. Jorge Briz. The two men identified themselves as national police officers, claiming to have been sent to offer protection to Mr. Briz. Given the atmosphere of distrust, the latter informed the Office of the Human Rights Procurator, which subsequently carried out the relevant inquiries. It discovered that the two men did not work for the national police force, as was confirmed by the police personnel department (the relevant documents are contained in the annexes).
8. 274. The IOE asserts that, in the light of the events described above, the Government of Guatemala has taken repressive measures against Guatemalan employers and their leaders, with a view to intervening in, restricting and hindering the legitimate activities carried out by employers in defence of their interests and in the exercise of their right to peaceful demonstration.
9. 275. The IOE requests the Committee on Freedom of Association to urge the Government of Guatemala to provide its effective cooperation to ensure that the relevant inquiries are carried out in exhaustive fashion, in order to determine and sanction those responsible for violating the freedom of association of employers’ associations and their leaders, and to abstain from repression of the legitimate activities of employers’ associations in future.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 276. In its communication of 18 January 2002, the Government states that it abides by the precedence of ratified international treaties over domestic law, which includes the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). It is therefore surprised by the complaint presented by the International Organisation of Employers on behalf of the Coordinating Committee of Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial and Financial Associations (CACIF), and by its attempt to misuse the mechanisms provided by the International Labour Organization by making unfounded allegations.
2. 277. Ever since the current Government came to power, Guatemalan employers have set out to oppose the decisions taken by the Executive with a view to streamlining the economy, enhancing tax collection, improving the efficiency of public administration and ensuring strict compliance with the law, particularly with regard to labour legislation. They have attempted to block the adoption of necessary measures leading to free competition among employers, by opposing steps taken by the Government to liberalize sugar, cement and chicken imports, distribute fertilizers to low-income farmers, and raise taxes through the reform of legislation in accordance with the peace accords. The Government has also pledged to pursue a policy of wage increases, by raising the minimum wage and introducing bonuses for Guatemalan workers with a view to recovering the lost purchasing power of their wages. The Government has also continued its policy of revising labour standards and introducing the necessary reforms for the enhanced protection of labour rights; in this regard, streamlining measures have been taken to improve the activity of the Ministry of Labour in the following areas:
   • - an increase in the number of labour inspectors, in both the capital and the provinces;
   • - creation of the Office of the Workers’ Protection Procurator, the role of which is to give advice to low-income workers;
   • - setting up of a telephone hotline to receive complaints concerning violations of labour rights;
   • - plans to appoint a public prosecutor with special responsibility for offences against journalists and trade unionists;
   • - organization of the National Occupational Health and Safety Council (CONASSO);
   • - creation of the Directorate of Vocational Training and Development, the role of which is to provide workers with human resource development services, vocational training, employment promotion and the official certification of employment skills;
   • - drafting of a code of labour procedure, the discussion and adoption of which remains pending, designed to increase the speed and efficiency of legal proceedings;
   • - opening of an office for dealing with affairs related to the application of ILO Convention No. 169, with the appointment of a head official of Maya ethnic origin;
   • - acquisition of vehicles to enhance the efficiency of the work of the Ministry; 63 motorcycles assigned to the 21 provinces of Guatemala and three minibuses for the capital city;
   • - revision under way of the substantive part of the Labour Code, with the participation of agricultural workers’, disabled persons’, women’s, children’s, adolescents’ and general workers’ organizations;
   • - drafting of a government agreement to afford protection to agricultural workers who migrate internally towards farming areas, especially during the coffee and sugar harvest periods.
3. 278. These measures have naturally upset the most powerful sector in the country, which has been running a systematic smear campaign against the present Government.
4. 279. According to the Government, the complaint is false, and the recent history of Guatemala demonstrates, as everyone well knows, that Guatemalan employers enjoy complete freedom to arrange meetings of their associations wherever and whenever they wish, without any attempt having been made by the Government to restrict that freedom.
5. 280. The complainants allege that the endeavours of the employers to maintain dialogue have been ignored, for instance in the Tripartite Committee on International Affairs; it should be pointed out that this Committee, as the ILO knows, has a set of rules and procedures, according to which agenda items must be adopted unanimously. The code of labour procedure is still in its drafting stage, which means that employers still have the right to enter into a relevant discussion, in accordance with articles 103 to 115, Chapter II of the Labour Code (contained in the annexes). The Joint Committee on Minimum Wages for Agricultural Activities is one of three bodies involved in setting the new minimum wage. However, in the present case, employers and workers conducted negotiations outside of the Joint Committee on a range of issues besides just the minimum wage, as the (attached) document signed by workers and employers testifies. The document and the agreement were declared illegal by the National Wage Commission, the second body with responsibility for setting the wage (more precisely by the workers’ delegation at the Commission), because the discussion did not take place on a tripartite basis. Consequently, the discussion was reopened. Eventually, as the parties failed to reach an agreement, the Executive, the third body in the process, was called on to take the decision. In real terms, this amounted to an attempt to recover the purchasing power of the quetzal, which had been under pressure from inflation during the year in question, rather than an increase in the minimum wage as such. Thus, the Government has acted consistently with the legal framework by which it is bound. The most telling evidence to counter the allegations made by the complainant is that the agreement signed between employers and workers outside of the Joint Committee froze the agricultural workers’ wage at a 4 per cent increase until April 2002, whereas the Government introduced increases of 8 and 9 per cent on 1 January 2002; subsequently, after the decision taken by the Executive, the same workers who had signed the bipartite agreement complained that the declared increase was insufficient to provide for the needs of their families (documentation sent in the annexes).
6. 281. With regard to the alleged threats to members of the executive committee of CACIF, the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare simply acted in accordance with his mandate to protect labour, by issuing a warning to employers to remind them of their obligation to pay wages and benefits for the day of the stoppage organized by the employers. This cannot be interpreted as a threat, either to the life or the freedom of a single employer, and it is well known that the Minister enjoys an excellent reputation for his respect for human rights and life. In any case, the Ministry of Labour does not have the authority to issue warrants of arrest. This complaint was also brought by the employers to the Supreme Court of Justice, in an application for habeas corpus. The Supreme Court ruling of 15 October, notified to the Ministry on 13 November, declared the application for habeas corpus against the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare by the CACIF officials inadmissible, owing to the lack of evidence of harassment of the employers in question. Once again, this demonstrates that the allegations are false (the Government attaches the Supreme Court ruling as an annex, which contains a statement by the Minister of Labour, claiming that at no time did he "threaten or denounce the employers as they allege", and maintaining that he never uttered the threats they suggest he made).
7. 282. With regard to the alleged harassment of private enterprises, the Government recalls that, in accordance with article 281, paragraph 1, of the current Labour Code, "whenever they discover violations of labour laws or regulations, labour inspectors or social workers shall issue an official warning to the employer or legal representative of the enterprise responsible that he or she is required to bring the situation into conformity with the law within the time frame they establish. If, once that period has elapsed, the enterprise responsible has failed to comply with the demand, they shall make an official denouncement of the violation, seeking an explanation from the guilty party, and call for the administrative sanction provided for in this Code. In cases where a warning would not be appropriate, they shall make the official denouncement immediately. However, the guilty party may prove that it has complied with the demand before the corresponding administrative sanction is imposed, in which case the lowest administrative sanction may be imposed, subject to the decision of the General Labour Inspectorate". The General Labour Inspectorate, in the interests of protecting workers’ rights, visited some of the enterprises closed for the day of the stoppage of activities promoted by CACIF, with a view to reminding enterprises of their obligations towards their workers, particularly since some workers had lodged complaints concerning allegations of threats and the deduction of wages or leave to account for the day of the stoppage. It should be recalled that the employers had widely publicized the fact that they were planning to carry out an employers’ strike, and that such a step can only be taken within the framework of domestic labour legislation, with significant repercussions on workers. Thus, the authorities took action in order to protect workers’ labour rights, irrespective of the fact that the stoppage was part of the employers’ political campaign against the Government.
8. 283. In response to the allegations that a smear campaign took place against the President of the Chamber of Commerce of Guatemala, the Government states that, as it informed the ILO in September 2001, the case has been examined in the law courts; the Vice-President of the Republic, who has always maintained his innocence, has been the most prominent protagonist in efforts to resolve the case as quickly as possible, and has been fully vindicated by the ruling of amparo (enforcement of constitutional rights) in his defence taken by the Constitutional Court. The Government draws attention to the fact that the employers are trying to involve the ILO in the affair now that they have failed to achieve a favourable verdict in the courts, and to the fact that the Vice-President has not been found guilty of any offence and should therefore be considered innocent until proven otherwise.
9. 284. The Government contends that the allegations of harassment are no more than part of the publicity campaign currently being waged by Mr. Jorge Briz Abularach, President of the Chamber of Commerce, with a view to achieving his well-known aspirations to becoming President of the Republic. Further evidence of this campaign came in a recent poll to name the personality of the year, organized by one of the national daily newspapers. Mr. Briz Abularach used this poll to gain overnight celebrity, tricking the public by his use of the following strategy: first, he invited the public to respond by telephone to one of two simple questions; if they rang the number corresponding to the correct answer, they were greeted automatically by a recorded message, informing them that they had registered a vote for Mr. Briz Abularach in the poll for personality of the year. Thus, he deceived the public in order to achieve celebrity by his subsequent election as personality of the year (an annex is attached containing the relevant evidence). He even emphasized that each individual caller should call from a different telephone in order to ensure that their call was properly registered. We should be aware, therefore, that the present complaint might be just another ruse, designed to deceive the ILO.
10. 285. Thus, the Government hopes to have made it clear that the employers’ allegations of a violation of ILO Convention No. 87 by the State of Guatemala are false, precisely because the employers themselves have been responsible for violations of the Convention, in view of their failure to respect the workers’ freedom of association and right to collective negotiation. The fundamental problem that the complainants fail to mention, and that the rest of Guatemalan society can see quite clearly, is the fact that the employers, who for so long dictated economic, taxation and labour policy in the country, have decided to resist all endeavours to modernize labour, taxation and banking legislation. This resistance is in contrast to the determination of the present Government to pursue measures designed to combat poverty, secure the rule of law, and fulfil the commitments given by the State in the peace accords of December 1996 that followed the end of armed conflict.
11. 286. The complainants’ allegations concerning the refusal of the Government to engage in dialogue are also false, since the Government has always been open to dialogue with the legitimate representatives of civil society (an annex is attached containing press cuttings attesting to this openness).
12. 287. At the ceremony in December 2001 to commemorate the signing of the peace accords in Guatemala, the President of the Republic made an appeal for dialogue through the Ministry for Strategic Analysis under the Office of the President. The Minister met personally with various civil society organizations, including representatives of the complainants, and continues to maintain a transparent process of dialogue. In this light, it is difficult to see on what grounds the above allegations have been made.
13. 288. The general consensus is that the sector of society responsible for this false complaint to the ILO is seeking to deny the State of Guatemala its sovereign right to govern. What they hope to achieve through their complaint, and what they propose a priori to impose on the people of Guatemala, would be equivalent to the destruction of the concept of democratic government. A recent newsletter published by the Inter-American Development Bank, entitled "Latin American Economic Policies, Volume 15, Third Quarter 2001" contained the results of surveys (on pages 11 and 12, attached in an annex) indicating "the percentage of employees that believe employers are honest" and "the quality of relations between employers and employees". Guatemala was rated as one of the worst countries in this regard. In the first table, it came 14th out of 17 countries, with only 9 per cent of employees responding positively and, in the second, it came in 15th place, with only 8 per cent of favourable replies, thereby confirming international opinion of Guatemalan employers.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 289. The Committee notes that in this case the complainant organization alleges the systematic failure of the Government to engage in dialogue with employers in the official forums intended for social dialogue, concerning the determination of the minimum wage in the agricultural sector and the draft code of labour procedure (according to the complainant, workers and employers had reached agreements on both of these issues), as well as the Government’s refusal to seek a consensus on taxation polices. The complainant makes further allegations concerning the harassment and repression of employers and their leaders, owing to the stoppage of activity in the manufacturing sector in August 2001 in protest at the corruption, insecurity, abuse and imposition of national policies.
2. 290. The Committee takes note of the Government’s general observation that Guatemalan employers are seeking to deny the State of Guatemala its sovereign right to govern, hoping to achieve through their complaint what they propose a priori to impose on the people of Guatemala, and that they have consistently opposed steps taken by the Executive with a view to reforming the economy, enhancing tax collection and streamlining public administration, particularly with regard to strict compliance with labour legislation, and to the pursuit of a policy of wage increases and reforms designed to afford greater protection to labour rights. The Government points out that the employers, who for so long dictated economic, taxation and labour policy, have been resisting the modernization and harmonization of labour, taxation and banking laws.
3. 291. The Committee intends to examine each of the allegations separately.
   • Allegations concerning the systematic failure of the
   • Government to engage in dialogue with employers
   • in the official forums intended for social dialogue
4. 292. The complainant alleges that the Government has consistently shown its authoritarian character, by ignoring all of the endeavours to maintain dialogue made by employers, by delaying examination of a draft code of labour procedure, proposed in 2000 by the Committee on International Affairs, by unilaterally overruling the agreements reached between workers and employers in the Joint Committee on Minimum Wages for Agricultural Activities and by refusing the request by CACIF to endeavour to reach a consensus on taxation policies within the framework of the Fiscal Pact (the body appointed under the peace accords).
5. 293. The Committee observes generally that the Government denies that it refuses to engage in dialogue, states that it has held meetings with various civil society organizations and sends press cuttings containing reports of an invitation to social dialogue extended to CACIF (December 2000) and the subsequent failure of CACIF to take part in that dialogue (January 2001). Responding to the allegations, the Government claims that: (1) according to the rules and procedures of the Tripartite Committee on International Affairs, agenda items must be adopted unanimously and, in any case, the code of labour procedure is still in its drafting stage, which means that the employers still have the right to enter into a relevant discussion; (2) the negotiations carried out between employers and workers outside of the Joint Committee on Minimum Wages for Agricultural Activities (first of three bodies responsible for setting minimum wages) were declared illegal by the National Wage Commission (second body); the negotiations exceeded the mandate of discussions on the minimum wage and did not take place on a tripartite basis; the workers’ delegation at the National Commission opposed their representatives on the Joint Committee and declared both the document and the agreement illegal; given the failure of subsequent discussions in the National Commission to reach an agreement, the Executive was called on to take a decision and, in real terms, this amounted to an attempt to recover the purchasing power of the quetzal, which had been under pressure from inflation during the year in question, rather than an increase in the minimum wage as such; the Government attaches a copy of legislation governing the determination of minimum wages, which establishes that the Joint Committee on Minimum Wages and the National Wage Commission are advisory bodies, but that the Ministry (of Labour) has sole responsibility for endorsing or rejecting the relevant agreement; (3) the employers have consistently opposed steps taken by the Executive with a view to enhancing tax collection and fulfilling its commitments under the peace accords.
6. 294. The Committee concludes that the issues raised concern matters that need to be resolved by law or, in the case of minimum wages, by the application of procedures provided for by law and that require consultations.
7. 295. The Committee strongly emphasizes that employers’ and workers’ organizations should be consulted fully by the authorities on matters of mutual interest, including the preparation and application of legislation which affects their interest and the determination of minimum wages. This helps to give laws, programmes and measures adopted or applied by public authorities a firmer justification and helps to ensure that they are well respected and successfully applied. The Government should seek general consensus as much as possible, given that employers’ and workers’ organizations should be able to share in the responsibility of securing the well-being and prosperity of the community as a whole. This is particularly important given the growing complexity of the problems faced by societies. No public authority can claim to have all the answers, nor assume that its proposals will naturally achieve all of their objectives.
8. 296. In this particular case, the Committee observes that, even though the Government denies its refusal to engage in dialogue, the complainant claims that the public authorities have no genuine desire to listen to their views or to take them into account. The Committee underlines the importance of consultations taking place in good faith, confidence and mutual respect, and of the parties having sufficient time to express their views and discuss them in full with a view to reaching a suitable compromise. The Committee requests the Government to take these principles into account on social and economic matters, particularly with regard to setting minimum wages, drafting the code of labour procedure and developing tax laws, and to ensure that it attaches the necessary importance to agreements reached between workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee underlines the importance it attaches to the principle of consultation and cooperation between public authorities and employers’ and workers’ organizations at the industrial and national levels. In this connection, the Committee has drawn attention to the provisions of the Consultation (Industrial and National Levels) Recommendation, 1960 (No. 113) [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 933].
   • Harassment and repression of employers owing to
   • a stoppage of activity in the business sector
9. 297. As regards the harassment and repression of employers and their leaders owing to the stoppage of activity in the manufacturing sector in August 2001 (the Minister of Labour’s accusation of the executive committee of CACIF of the crime of insurrection; the IOE has sent press cuttings to support its allegation in this respect) with the threat of possible detention; visits by labour inspectors to certain enterprises with a view to imposing sanctions for the allegedly illegal stoppage of activity; a smear campaign against the President of the Chamber of Commerce, following the order issued by the authorities (Vice-President of the Republic) for state officials to print and distribute thousands of flyers and posters (500,000 flyers and 20,000 posters, according to documentation sent by the IOE), using adulterated reproductions of the Chamber’s internal correspondence; and the harassment of the President of the Chamber of Commerce through a visit from two individuals falsely claiming to be national police officers, the Government states that: (1) the accusations of threats against CACIF members are untrue, since employers were simply warned of their obligation to pay wages and benefits for the day of the stoppage organized by employers; (2) on 15 October 2001, the Supreme Court of Justice declared the application for habeas corpus (an application to prevent the violation of fundamental rights) against the Minister of Labour, presented by members of CACIF, inadmissible (the Government attaches the text of the court ruling, declaring the application inadmissible owing to insufficient evidence); (3) labour inspectors visited several of the enterprises closed on the day of the stoppage of activity because a number of workers had lodged complaints concerning allegations of threats and the deduction of wages or leave to account for the day of the stoppage; (4) with regard to the alleged smear campaign against the President of the Chamber of Commerce carried out at the order of the Vice-President of the Republic, the Constitutional Court has issued a (provisional, according to the press cutting provided by the Government) ruling of amparo (enforcement of constitutional rights) in defence of the Vice-President, who has denied any involvement in the events alleged by the complainant; moreover, the case has been examined in the law courts; (5) the allegations concerning the harassment of the President of the Chamber of Commerce are no more than part of the publicity campaign currently being waged by Mr. Briz with a view to achieving his well-known aspirations to becoming President of the Republic.
10. 298. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the Government’s observations on the various aspects of this complaint (accusation of CACIF leaders of the crime of insurrection, labour inspections of enterprises, smear campaign against the employers’ leader Mr. Briz, harassment of Mr. Briz) but observes that they differ from the allegations.
11. 299. Nevertheless, the Committee observes that the complainant has transmitted a resolution by the Human Rights Procurator, finding:
    • I. Violations of the human rights to dignity and security, resulting from the abuse of authority and threats directed at the President of the Chamber of Commerce of Guatemala, Mr. Jorge Eduardo Briz Abularach, as well as the flyers and posters distributed to the Guatemalan people with a view to damaging his image. While it is true that most of the document (the flyer) is original, it is also true that annotations have been added on both sides of the paper, and that Mr. Jorge Briz has been alluded to at the bottom of the page, constituting an affront to his private life and personal image. II. A violation of the human right to security and abuse of authority against the former Director of the national printing works, Ms. Silvia Josefina Méndez Recinos, who fled the country as a result of the threats she received; and Members of the National Congress, Ms. Gladis Anabella De Léon Ruiz and Ms. Magda Estela Arceo Carrillo, who also received threats from unknown persons. III. A misuse of administrative capacity by the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Byron Humberto Barrientos Díaz and by Mr. Carlos Rafael Soto Rosales, Director of the national printing works and of the daily newspaper Diario de Centro América, for having misused state resources in order to print libellous material and undermine the image of Mr. Jorge Eduardo Briz Abularach. IV. The institutional responsibility of the State of Guatemala for the prevailing climate of insecurity in the country, which makes threats the modus vivendi of those who seek to gain from inspiring fear in others, in view of the abuse of authority by Mr. Juan Francisco Reyes López, Vice-President of the Republic, who was responsible for ordering the aforementioned flyers and posters to be printed; the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Byron Humberto Barrientos Díaz, whose Ministry is responsible for the activity of the national printing works; and the private secretary of the Vice-President of the Republic, Mr. Luz Arminda Barrios Méndez, who took part as an intermediary in the printing of the flyers and posters.
12. 300. The United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) had previously informed the Human Rights Procurator (according to documents sent by the IOE) that "the series of tasks taken together show clear signs that the national printing works was used for the design and printing of the flyers and posters denounced by Mr. Briz" (President of the Chamber of Commerce of Guatemala), supporting that assertion with a range of evidence. The Committee awaits the findings of the judicial authorities on these issues.
13. 301. The following comments are made in the findings of the inquiry carried out by the Office of the Human Rights Procurator of Guatemala:
14. On 31 August 2001, staff from this Office visited the Chamber of Commerce of Guatemala, where they conducted separate interviews with each of the two receptionists, Ms. Doro Elizabeth Olmedo and Ms. Denise Cotón. They confirmed that, on 2 August 2001, two strangers arrived, introducing themselves as Mr. Juan Daniel Castillo and Mr. Edgar Arnoldo Medrano, according to photocopies of the visitors’ book, and asked to speak to Mr. Jorge Eduardo Briz Abularach, supposedly to offer him protection, in their capacity as national police officers. However, staff from this Office later confirmed with the personal department of the national police force that the two individuals did not belong to that institution.
15. 302. In this context, the Committee deplores the harassment and intimidation of employers, and draws the Government’s attention to the fact that employers’ and workers’ organizations must be allowed to conduct their activities in a climate that is free from pressure, intimidation, harassment, threats or efforts to discredit them or their leaders, which includes the adulteration of documents. The Committee requests the Government to ensure respect for this principle in future.
16. 303. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any judicial decisions taken with regard to this case.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 304. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) Strongly emphasizing the importance that employers’ and workers’ organizations should be consulted by the authorities on matters of mutual interest, including the preparation and application of legislation which affects their interest and the determination of minimum wages, as well as the importance of consultations taking place in good faith, confidence and mutual respect, and of the parties having sufficient time to express their views and discuss them in full, the Committee requests the Government to take these principles into account on social and economic matters, particularly with regard to setting minimum wages, drafting the code of labour procedure and developing new tax laws, and to ensure that it attaches the necessary importance to agreements reached between workers’ and employers’ organizations.
   • (b) Deploring the harassment and intimidation of employers, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that employers’ and workers’ organizations must be allowed to conduct their activities in defence of their interests in a climate that is free from pressure, intimidation, harassment, threats or efforts to discredit them or their leaders, which includes the adulteration of documents. The Committee requests the Government to ensure respect for this principle in future.
   • (c) Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any judicial decisions taken with regard to this case.