Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 131, 1972

Caso núm. 672 (República Dominicana) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 12-JUN-71 - Cerrado

1. 114. The Dominican Republic 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).
2. 115. The complaint made by the International Metalworkers' Federation is contained in a communication dated 12 June 1971 addressed direct to the ILO.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 116. The complainants allege that, according to information provided by their affiliated organisation in the Dominican Republic, the National Union of Heavy Machinery Operators, the headquarters of the UNACHOSIN and POASI unions have been broken into and ransacked, and that Féliz Albuquerque, General Secretary of UNACHOSIN, and 39 other workers belonging to this union have been arrested. This action, the complainants state, has been taken by members of the national police force together with a private organisation linked to the Government and called the " Juventud Democrática Reformista Anticomunista ".

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 117. On 18 June 1971, this complaint was forwarded to the Government, which has made no comments on it. Accordingly, at its session in November 1971, the Committee urged the Government to supply the information requested (127th Report, paragraph 7). This appeal having proved fruitless, the Committee, at its session in February 1972, and by virtue of the procedure set forth in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, informed the Government that it might submit a report on the substance of the matter at the Committee's present session, even if the information requested from the Government had still not been received. This information has not yet been received.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 118. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to recall the observation made by the Committee as early as its First Report, namely that the purpose of the whole procedure is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact, and the Committee is confident that, if it protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side should recognise the importance for the protection of their own good name of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies to such detailed factual charges as may be put forward;
   • (b) to note that the allegations made involve a number of principles relating to the free exercise of trade union rights;
   • (c) recognising that trade unions, like other associations or persons, cannot claim immunity from search for their premises, to emphasise the importance which the Committee attaches to the principle that such a search should only be made following the issue of a warrant by the ordinary judicial authority, after that authority has been satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for supposing that evidence exists on the said premises material to a prosecution for an offence under the ordinary law, and provided that such search is restricted to the purposes in respect of which the warrant was issued;
   • (d) to draw attention to the fact that the international Labour Conference at its 54th Session (Geneva, 1970) in its resolution on trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, expressed the view that the right to protection of trade union property was one of those civil liberties which are essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights;
   • (e) to recall that in all cases involving the arrest, detention or sentencing of a trade union official, the Committee and the Governing Body, taking the view that individuals have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty, have considered that it was incumbent upon the Government to show that the measures it had taken were in no way occasioned by the trade union activities of the individual concerned;
   • (f) to recall that in cases of this kind, while the Committee and the Governing Body have reached the conclusion that allegations relating to the arrest, detention or sentencing of trade unionists did not call for further consideration this was only after considering observations from the governments concerned indicating the specific measures taken against such persons and showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the measures were in no way occasioned by the exercise of trade union freedoms but by activities outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature;
   • (g) to note that in this particular case the Government has failed to supply information showing that the allegations made by the complainants are unfounded;
   • (h) to draw attention to the principle that it should be the policy of every government to ensure observance of the rights of man and, especially, of the right of all detained or accused persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment; and
   • (i) to request the Director-General to maintain all appropriate forms of contact with the Government in order to obtain information concerning the situation of the trade unionists, mentioned in paragraph 116 above, who were arrested.