Informe provisional - Informe núm. 108, 1969

Caso núm. 526 (Bolivia (Estado Plurinacional de)) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 12-JUN-67 - Cerrado

118. These three cases have already been examined at previous meetings of the Committee, when it submitted to the Governing Body a number of interim reports containing the Committee's conclusions on various aspects of the questions raised.

1. 118. These three cases have already been examined at previous meetings of the Committee, when it submitted to the Governing Body a number of interim reports containing the Committee's conclusions on various aspects of the questions raised.
2. 119. This report refers only to those aspects which are still outstanding and on which the Governing Body, at the Committee's recommendation, had requested certain additional observations and information from the Government.
3. 120. In a communication dated 29 July 1968 the Government replied to these requests.
4. 121. Bolivia 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. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Dissolution of Trade Unions
  122. 122 The only aspect of Case No. 451 which remained outstanding (see paragraphs 261 to 267 of the 101st Report) concerned a legislative amendment introduced by Decree No. 07204, which included sabotage among the grounds on which trade unions could be dissolved. It had been alleged that this was open to a wide variety of interpretations and would provide the Government with yet another powerful means of intervention in trade union affairs.
  123. 123 The decree in question amended expressly section 129 of the decree issuing regulations for the administration of the General Labour Act. According to the amendment, trade unions could be dissolved only by a final judgment with executory force given by a labour court at the conclusion of summary proceedings on one of a number of grounds (which included proved sabotage).
  124. 124 The Government had not supplied its comments on this matter but, at its meeting in November 1967, the Committee observed that Decree No. 07204 had been repealed. Nevertheless, noting that the former text of section 129 of the decree issuing regulations for the administration of the General Labour Act empowered the Government to dissolve trade union organisations, contrary to the terms of Article 4 of Convention No. 87 (according to which workers' and employers' organisations are not liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority), the Committee, in paragraph 268 (d) of its 101st Report, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to specify as early as possible the provisions now in force concerning the dissolution of trade unions and, should sabotage still be a ground for dissolution, the penalties now in force in the country with respect to that offence.
  125. 125 In its observations of 29 July 1968, the Government confirms that Decree No. 07204 was repealed, together with other emergency provisions which had been promulgated in May and June 1965 and May 1966. In addition, the Government states that section 43 of Decree No. 07823, of 23 September 1966, modifies the powers previously vested in the Government in providing that " only the judges of the appropriate labour court can decide on the dissolution of a trade union organisation. Appeal against the judge's decision can only be made to the National Court of Labour and Social Security ".
  126. 126 Since the provision relating to sabotage, which the complainants had called in question, has now been repealed and having regard to the information supplied by the Government to the effect that trade union organisations can only be dissolved by a court decision, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of this information and to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to the Imprisonment or Exile of Trade Unionists in 1965
  127. 127 The allegations made by the Bolivian Workers' Confederation in exile and by the World Federation of Trade Unions in Case No. 456 referred both to the crushing of a general strike and of a workers' resistance movement, and to the persecution, arrest and exile of trade union leaders and workers. With regard to the first point, the Committee submitted its conclusions to the Governing Body at its meeting in November 1966 (see paragraphs 211 to 227 and 233 (b) of the 93rd Report).
  128. 128 With regard to the alleged imprisonment or exile of the persons whose names and trade union functions appeared in the complaints, the Government had made no comments except in respect of Mr. Juan Lechín Oquendo. According to the complainants, Mr. Oquendo had been arrested and exiled before the general strike. In its observations, the Government confined itself to stating that his arrest and deportation had been motivated by " acts of a criminal nature punishable under the Penal Code, the proofs of which are irrefutable ".
  129. 129 At its meeting in November 1967, the Committee examined certain additional information supplied by the Government, according to which two other persons named in the complaints were at liberty after having been subjected to compulsory residence in 1967. Another of the persons concerned, Mr. Ortiz, was in prison awaiting trial by the ordinary courts on charges of agitation and terrorism. In these circumstances, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to repeat its request to the Government for information on the nature of the offences which, according to the Government's previous statement, had motivated the measures taken against Mr. Lechín Oquendo, as well as on the present position before the law of the other persons named by the complainants. The Committee also requested the text of any sentence passed on Mr. Ortiz.
  130. 130 Furthermore, it appeared from the Government's comments that the measures of compulsory residence, provided for in the State Security Act, are applied essentially for preventive purposes, apparently without a trial being necessary. In accordance with the principles which it had invoked in previous cases, the Committee emphasised the importance of having the necessary safeguards to ensure that such a procedure could not be used as a means of impairing the free exercise of trade union rights.
  131. 131 In its communication of 29 July 1968, the Government states that restriction or compulsory residence (a purely temporary measure) is applicable to any person identified as the promoter or perpetrator of acts contrary to the law, the principle of authority, internal order and the stability of the Republic, the defence of which is constitutionally the responsibility of the Government. This preventive measure is designed to forestall acts of violence and to restore peaceful conditions when law and order have been disrupted. Its application is not intended to impair trade union or other rights and guarantees.
  132. 132 With regard to the case of Mr. Ortiz, the Government states that he was arrested in July 1967 for offences against the State Constitution and was released in December of the same year under the Amnesty Act. Mr. Lechín Oquendo is being prosecuted for trafficking in narcotics and also for dual nationality. The first case has been submitted to the Senate for its permission to proceed with the matter, in view of the government post which the person in question at one time held. The second case is before the law courts. With regard to the other persons, the Government states that 22 of these, whose names are given, were neither arrested nor imprisoned. On the other hand, Mr. Paulino Quispe (referred to as Quispo in the complaint) has been detained since 27 November 1967, charged with murder. Mr. Irineo Pimentel and Mr. Simón Reyes have been detained since August and November 1967 respectively for causing economic loss to the Mining Corporation of Bolivia, charges against them having been brought by the National Investigating Committee.
  133. 133 The Committee notes, on the one hand, that the additional observations of the Government on the application of compulsory residence or restriction measures contain no elements to change the previous conclusions mentioned in paragraph 130.
  134. 134 On the other hand, the statement that the majority of the persons named by the complainants had neither been arrested nor imprisoned should not necessarily lead to the conclusion that some of these persons had not been exiled, since the leaders of the Bolivian Workers' Confederation appeared to be in this position when they sent their complaint. The Committee regrets that the Government should have refrained from furnishing its observations on this particular point and on the present position before the law of the persons who, according to the complainants, were the subject of these exile measures in 1965.
  135. 135 With regard to Mr. Lechín Oquendo, who, according to the allegations, was Executive Secretary of the Bolivian Workers' Confederation and of the Mineworkers' Federation, the Government now specifies the nature of the charges relating to the common law offences on which the proceedings against Mr. Lechín Oquendo are based. On the other hand, Mr. Quispe, Mr. Pimentel and Mr. Reyes are in prison charged with offences which, from the Government's statement, would appear to have taken place in 1967, that is to say long after the complaints were submitted. At a previous stage in its examination of this case, the Committee recalled that it had always emphasised that, when trade unionists are detained for political or other offences, the persons in question, in the same way as all other persons, should receive a fair trial as quickly as possible.
  136. 136 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
       • (a) to note that Mr. Ortiz was released under an amnesty;
       • (b) to reaffirm the importance which it attaches to ensuring adequate safeguards in order to prevent compulsory residence measures from being used as a means of impairing the free exercise of trade union rights;
       • (c) to note the information supplied by the Government according to which the majority of the persons named in the complaints had neither been arrested nor imprisoned and only Mr. Lechín Oquendo, Mr. Quispe, Mr. Pimentel and Mr. Reyes are awaiting trial, charged with common law offences, and to request the Government to be good enough to keep it informed of the results of the proceedings instituted against these four persons;
       • (d) to request the Government to be good enough to inform it as soon as possible of the position before the law of the trade unionists who, according to the complainants, were exiled in 1965, as well as on their possibilities of legally re-entering the country.
  137. Allegations relating to the Events in June 1967 in Which Workers Are Alleged to Have Been Killed
  137. 137 In Case No. 526, which the Committee previously examined at its meeting in November 1967 (see paragraphs 504 to 524 of the 101st Report), allegations were made concerning the deaths which had occurred, according to the complainants, when military forces attacked a meeting of mineworkers in June 1967. The complainants alleged that the trade union leaders, Mr. Tarqui, Mr. Apaza, Mr. Cumboza and Mr. Chacón, had been arrested. In paragraph 524 (a) of the report in question, the Committee, in accordance with its practice in similar cases, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to inform it whether any investigation had been carried out, followed by due judicial proceedings, in order to determine the responsibility for the events and, if so, to inform it of the results of such investigation.
  138. 138 In its communication of 29 July 1968, the Government repeats and enlarges on the observations it submitted in the previous stage of the examination of the case. The Government states that, faced with the prospect of an outbreak of violence, it decreed a state of siege in Cabinet session on 7 June 1967, in accordance with its Constitutional obligations. No labour problem existed in the areas indicated as likely centres of subversion; the labour situation was absolutely normal and no disputes or strikes had been recorded-as is still the case. In the Government's opinion the complaints were groundless " since the events of 24 June 1967 relate to nothing other than the exercise of sovereignty by the State, Government and people of Bolivia ".
  139. 139 The Government maintains that the events in question were " undeniably part of a foreign and extremist plot ", which took the form of guerrilla warfare on Bolivian territory, the main objective of which was subversion in the mining centres. The state of siege was binding on everyone. The text of the complaints proved that meetings had been convened in spite of this measure being in force. The Government goes on to refute the statement that those attending the meeting were strikers. The situation had nothing to do with trade union matters; otherwise the workers would have respected the state of siege and would not have put up armed resistance or started shooting, acts which typify the offence of subversion and justify the measures taken by the Government.
  140. 140 In reply to the request for further information the Government states that a judicial investigation into the events has been ordered. Mr. Tarqui, Mr. Apaza and Mr. Gomboza (referred to as Cumboza in the allegations), according to information supplied by the Public Prosecutor's Office, were at no time detained. Mr. Chacón has been in custody since 31 July 1967 for causing economic loss and theft, following accusations by the Bolivian Mining Corporation. The case is now proceeding before the court.
  141. 141 In other cases in which complaints had been made of alleged infringements of freedom of association under a state of siege or emergency or by virtue of national security legislation, the Committee, while indicating that it is not called upon to comment on the necessity for or desirability of such legislation, which is a purely political consideration, has always taken the view that it must consider what repercussions the legislation might have on trade union rights. Furthermore, in a number of cases, the Committee has emphasised that the right to hold trade union meetings constitutes one of the fundamental elements of freedom of association. In some cases', nevertheless, the Committee pointed out that while the right to hold trade union meetings is a basic requisite of the free exercise of trade union rights, the organisations concerned must observe the general provisions relating uniformly to all public meetings. The Committee also considered that the enactment of emergency regulations empowering the Government to place restrictions on public meetings applicable not only to public trade union meetings but to all public meetings and occasioned by events which the Government considered so serious as to call for the declaration of a state of emergency, did not in itself constitute a violation of trade union rights.
  142. 142 In the present case, one of the complainant organisations maintained that those at the meeting were strikers, though they did not furnish any further details. In the additional observations it supplied, the Government denies that the meeting was connected with genuinely trade union matters and appears to state that all meetings were banned by virtue of the state of siege. While refraining from expressing an opinion on the political aspect of the state of siege, but taking into account the loss of life and the practice which it has followed in such cases (see paragraph 520 of the 101st Report concerning this same case), the Committee considers that it is important to know the results of the judicial investigation ordered by the Government.
  143. 143 On the other hand, the Committee takes due note of the information supplied by the Government to the effect that three of the persons whose arrest had specifically been alleged have been neither arrested nor imprisoned. However, Mr. Chacón, who, according to the allegations, was a miners' leader, was imprisoned shortly after the events mentioned and proceedings were instituted against him on the grounds of his having committed various offences. The Committee considers, as it has done in previous cases, that the text of the judgment given and the grounds on which it is based could make available useful information enabling the Committee to reach its conclusions in full knowledge of the facts.
  144. 144 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to keep it informed of the results of the judicial investigation ordered into the events of June 1967 and, furthermore, to be good enough to furnish the text of the judgment in the case against Mr. Chacón, together with the grounds for this judgment, as soon as it is passed.
• Allegations relating to the Occupying of Trade Union Premises and the Closing Down of Trade Union Radio Transmitting Stations
  145. 145 With regard to the events of June 1967, the complainants also alleged that trade union premises and radio transmitting stations had been occupied by the army.
  146. 146 The Government states in this respect that the trade union premises temporarily occupied by the Government have now been restored to the workers. As for the radio transmitting stations, the Government quotes the text of the Legislative Decree of 14 June 1967, whereby some 60 radio transmitting stations were closed down, of which more than 30 appeared to have belonged to trade union organisations, judging by the list contained in the Decree. It also provided that broadcasting stations which were able to give conclusive proof " that their objectives are of cultural, artistic and informative interest " and which had the " technical, economic and administrative capacity " to provide programmes of a certain level, could request a licence within 30 days, subject to the general regulations in respect of radio services.
  147. 147 From the preamble of the Decree, it may be deduced that, among grounds on which the Decree is justified, are the facts that a large number of broadcasting stations had been operating without fulfilling the statutory requirements (such as that of possessing the compulsory licence) and that many of these stations had been using frequencies reserved for essential communication services.
  148. 148 The Committee recalls that on a number of previous occasions it had maintained that the right to express opinions through the press or any other media is certainly one of the essential elements of trade union rights.
  149. 149 In a previous case, the Committee considered the question whether, by the imposition on the proprietors of trade union newspapers of the obligation to request government authorisation, a restriction on the free exercise of the right of trade union publication was being introduced. The Committee stated that " the reply to this questions appears to depend essentially on the conditions governing the granting of authorisation and on the reasons for which it may be accorded or refused ". In another case, the Committee considered that the publication and distribution of news and information of special interest to trade unions constitutes a legitimate trade union activity and that the application of measures for the control of publication and information may involve a serious interference by administrative authorities in such activities. The Committee was of the opinion that it should be the policy in such cases to make the exercise of administrative authority subject to judicial review at the earliest possible moment.
  150. 150 In the present case, in accordance with the Decree in question, the text of which has been supplied by the Government, the persons concerned were given the opportunity of requesting licences. The granting of licences was subject to the fulfilment of technical requirements and, furthermore, to other conditions such as the interest and quality of the programmes; the latter conditions, in view of their nature, would appear to leave the administrative authorities wide powers of discretion. In these circumstances, it is obviously of the greatest importance that guarantees should exist against arbitrary or ill-founded decisions and, in particular, that those concerned should be able to appeal against the administrative decision.
  151. 151 The complainants have not specified whether the trade union organisations concerned availed themselves of the opportunity of requesting licences, a condition which applied to all broadcasting stations and not only to those belonging to the trade unions.
  152. 152 In the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
       • (a) to take note of the Government's statement to the effect that the trade union premises which had been temporarily occupied have now been returned to the workers;
       • (b) to decide, subject to the principles and considerations set forth in paragraphs 148 to 150 above, that the allegation relating to the closing down of trade union radio transmitting stations does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 153. In these circumstances, with regard to these cases as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) with regard to the allegations concerning the dissolution of trade unions, to note the information supplied by the Government, according to which, on the one hand, the provision-called in question by the complainants-whereby sabotage was included in the grounds for dissolving trade unions has been repealed, and, on the other hand, by virtue of a decree of 1966 trade union organisations can only be dissolved through a court, and to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination;
   • (b) with regard to the allegations concerning the arrest or exile of trade unionists in 1965:
   • (i) to note the fact that Mr. Ortiz, against whom legal action was being taken, was released under an amnesty;
   • (ii) to reaffirm the importance which it attaches to ensuring adequate safeguards in order to prevent compulsory residence measures from being used as a means of impairing the free exercise of trade union rights;
   • (iii) to note the information supplied by the Government according to which the majority of the persons named in the complaints had neither been arrested nor imprisoned and only Mr. Lechín Oquendo, Mr. Quispe, Mr. Pimentel and Mr. Reyes are awaiting trial, charged with common law offences, and to request the Government to be good enough to keep it informed of the results of the proceedings instituted against these four persons;
   • (iv) to request the Government to be good enough to inform it as soon as possible of the position before the law of the trade unionists who, according to the complainants, were exiled in 1965, as well as on their possibilities of legally re-entering the country;
   • (c) with regard to the allegations concerning the events of June 1967, in which workers were killed, to request the Government to be good enough:
   • (i) to keep it informed of the results of the judicial investigation as soon as this has been concluded;
   • (ii) to supply the text of the judgment in the case against Mr. Chacón, together with the grounds for this judgment, as soon as it is passed;
   • (d) with regard to the allegations concerning the occupying of trade union premises and the closing down of trade union radio transmitting stations:
   • (i) to take note of the Government's statement to the effect that the trade union premises which had been temporarily occupied have now been restored to the workers;
   • (ii) to decide, subject to the principles and considerations set forth in paragraphs 148 to 150 above, that the allegation concerning the closing down of radio transmitting stations does not call for further examination;
   • (e) to take note of this interim report, it being understood that the Committee will submit a further report as soon as it has received the additional information requested from the Government in this paragraph.