Definitive Report - Report No 24, 1956

Case No 142 (Honduras) - Complaint date: 13-MAR-56 - Closed

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 97. The allegations made in a letter, dated 13 March 1956, of the Confederation of Latin American Workers, as supplemented by its second letter of 6 April 1956, are as follows.
   • Allegations relating to Trade Union Policy and General Policy
2. 98. The Government of Honduras is said to have initiated a policy of repressing the trade union movement, and to have attacked the democratic Press, the students and the " representatives of democratic movements fighting for democratic and trade union rights ". Hundreds of patriots are claimed to have been imprisoned without reason. The University is stated to have been occupied by police on 21 February 1956 and a number of students to have been arrested and beaten up. The Government is said to have issued a series of decrees prohibiting public meetings, ordering forcible entry into private houses and permitting the seizure and violation of private correspondence. Members of the Government and of the foreign undertakings are said to have declared that they would " shoot up " any movement by workers in support of their claims, and to have organised punitive expeditions, with forces from the Basic Military School, against the banana workers. The Government is alleged to have declared its intention of seeking the armed intervention of the United States to stifle any attempt at national liberation. The Basic Military School is claimed to be under the command of United States officers and to have been established with funds from the United Fruit Company.
3. 99. In its second letter, dated 6 April 1956, the Confederation of Latin American Workers adds-in connection with the specific allegations described later in this paper-that " trade union and democratic rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of movement and respect for human life are being subjected to serious limitations in Honduras ".
   • Allegations relating to Legislative Decree No. 206, dated 3 February 1956, respecting the Defence of the Democratic System
4. 100. The complainant organisation alleges that Legislative Decree No. 206, dated 3 February 1956, was aimed principally at the working class and other democratic forces, and that through it " the precarious individual and social guarantees have been totally liquidated ".
   • Allegations relating to the Detention of Trade Unionists and Other Persons
5. 101. According to reports published in the daily El Cronista of 6 February 1956, the police in Tegucigalpa detained on 4 February 1956 and thereafter tortured Carlos M. Velázquez, official of the Tegucigalpa Butchers' Union, Guadalupe Reyes, General Secretary of the Building Workers' Union and Samuel Aguilera, General Secretary of the Tegucigalpa Tailors' Union. On 5 February, Humberto Laitano of the Boot and Shoe Industry Union is said to have been detained and " savagely beaten up " by the Tegucigalpa police. The " workman " Parker, a trade union official, is stated to have been also detained and tortured by the police of the same town.
6. 102. According to reports in the weekly Jornada of 6 February 1956, Professor Julio C. Rivera of the Teachers' Union is alleged to have been arrested in Tegucigalpa on that day, Francisco Rios of the Tela Railroad Company Workers' Union is said to have been detained in La Ceiba on 25 January 1956, Francisco Aguilar Martinez, Rubén Rodriguez, Santos Velázquez and Rodolfo López, all workmen, are reported to have been arrested in Tegucigalpa at the end of February.
7. 103. Medardo Garcia, Efrain Irias Durón and Héctor Romero, officials of the Standard Fruit Company Workers' Union, are stated to have been detained and tortured at La Ceiba on 22 February 1956 and have later been imprisoned in the Tegucigalpa penitentiary.
8. 104. Raúl E. Estrada, Roberto Panchamé, Céleo González, Rufino Sosa and José Cubas Gross, members of the executive committee of the Tela Railroad Company Workers' Union (a union affiliated to the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers), are said to have been detained at the Port of Tela at the end of February 1956.
9. 105. At the end of the same month the engineer Francisco Milla Bermúdez, " Dr. " Paredes, and a university graduate named José Pineda Gómez, persons belonging to " militant democratic and liberal circles " were detained ; Manuel de Jesús Pineda, a journalist, is reported in the local press to have been mortally wounded in reprisal for criticisms of the Government ; León Adalberto Custodio and the " poet " Pompeyo del Valle, both progressive newspaper men, are stated to have been beaten up by the police of Tegucigalpa ; Buda Gautama Fonseca, university student, and other leaders of the Honduras University Students' Federation are said to have been threatened by the military commandant of Tegucigalpa because of a student meeting.
10. 106. The officials of the Melcher Estate Committee in Tela (La Lima area), which is a unit of the Tela Railroad Workers' Union, are stated to have been detained on 12 March 1956 by order of the military commandant of the town. On 11 March Arturo Cardona and Daniel Ramos, railway workers who are General Secretary and Secretary of Minutes respectively of Section 1 of the Standard Fruit Company Union, are stated to have been detained at Los Planes (La Ceiba area). On 12 March three workmen, Abraham Castillo Flores, Conrado Zúñiga Zepeda and Rubén Rodriguez Andrade, are stated to have been detained in Tegucigalpa and sent to the Central Penitentiary. On the same day a warrant of commitment was issued by Criminal Court No. 1 of Tegucigalpa, for the alleged offence of " subversive activity ", against the trade unionists Rodolfo Lopéz, Abraham Castillo Flores, Conrado Zúñiga Zepeda, Francisco Aguilar Martinez, Samuel Aguilera Bohórquez, Carlos Martinez Velázquez, Guadalupe Reyes Guzmán and Rubén Rodriguez Andrade (all already mentioned in connection with their detention).
    • ANALYSIS OF THE REPLY
11. 107. The Government of Honduras presented its comments on the above allegations in letters dated 18 May and 27 June 1956 ; the second of these letters consists of an analysis of the documentary evidence transmitted by the Government. The following is a combined summary of the Government's comments and the documentary evidence submitted.
    • Allegations relating to Trade Union Policy and General Policy
12. 108. The Government states on this point that it has at no time carried out a policy of repressing the trade union movement and that on the contrary it is the only government in the history of the country which has promoted social progress ; it has brought Honduras into the International Labour Organisation ; issued laws, such as the Charter of Labour Guarantees and the Trade Unions Law prepared with the technical advice of the I.L.O, which provide for a trade union system of the most authentic liberal pattern ; moreover, since the time of the alleged occurrences mentioned in the complaint of the Confederation of Latin American Workers it 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). This legislation, including the provisions relating to freedom of association, has been fully implemented and it is hardly likely that the Government would ratify international Conventions if it were unable to apply them, or would repress a trade union movement which it had encouraged itself. The Government points out that the complainant organisation has not cited a single fact which can be regarded as an actual violation of the above national and international provisions.
13. 109. As regards the other allegations of a general character (apart from those relating to university matters which the Government-while rejecting them -considers to be outside the question of free exercise of trade union rights) the Government states that in Honduras both nationals and aliens enjoy and exercise all the liberties of the person in the same way and to the same extent as in the other democratic countries. A glance at the local papers would show the extent to which the right of assembly and freedom of speech are exercised, and no case of their limitation has been reported. It would be inconceivable, continues the Government, that any authority should issue decrees, as the complainant organisation maintains, ordering forcible entry of private houses, violation and seizure of correspondence, etc. Such acts may be carried out but only a cynical and ignorant dictatorship would issue decrees on the subject.
14. 110. The Government emphasises that the allegations of the Confederation of Latin American Workers respecting alleged declarations by " individuals in the Government and foreign undertakings " on the shooting up of any movement by workers in support of their claims are entirely unspecific. Who are these " individuals " in the Government and foreign undertakings ? Where are the victims of the alleged " punitive " methods practised ? The allegation that the Government has asked for the open armed intervention of the United States to suppress any attempt at national liberation represents a gratuitous insult against a free and independent State whose citizens will never accept intervention from a foreign power. The United Fruit Company has nothing to do with the Basic Military School. The only schools maintained by this undertaking are those prescribed by the law for the education of the workers' children, such as the Pan American Agricultural School in El Zamoramo.
    • Allegations relating to Legislative Decree No. 206, dated 3 February 1956, respecting the Defence of the Democratic System
15. 111. The decree in question which is entitled " Law for the Defence of the Democratic System Prevailing in the Republic " has no relationship whatever to trade union matters. None of the guarantees enjoyed by workers' organisations as such, and none of the guarantees against discrimination on the grounds of trade union membership, are diminished in the least through the operation of the decree. The scope of the decree cannot come into conflict with the scope of the Trade Unions Law. If in a concrete case any question of this sort were to arise, the case would be settled in the following manner : since the Trade Unions Law is a special law it must be applied to the case in question, thus excluding the application of Legislative Decree No. 206, which is a general law of the penal type.
16. 112. The Government states, nevertheless, that it must be recognised that the promulgation of the law for the defence of the democratic system is the fundamental cause of the hostility shown by the Confederation of Latin American Workers towards the Honduras authorities. That law is not directed against the working class and democratic forces, as the complaint alleges, but against international communism. Its aim is limited to the prohibition of the Communist Party and related organisations and to defining acts constituting an offence against national security.
    • Allegations relating to the Detention of Trade Unionists and Other Persons
17. 113. As regards the detention of Carlos M. Velázquez, Guadalupe Reyes and Samuel Aguilera, the Government states that Messrs. Velázquez and Aguilera cannot be officials of the alleged Butchers' and Tailors' Unions respectively, as there is no record of the existence of these unions in the register of workers' organisations kept in the Labour Department of the Office of the Secretary of State (of which the Government submits duly legalised documentary evidence). The status of these persons as trade union officials is merely affirmed by the Confederation of Latin American Workers without proof or foundation. Guadalupe Reyes is, indeed, the General Secretary of the Building Workers' Union, but his status as a trade union official does not exempt him from ordinary criminal liability. A legalised document issued by Criminal Court No. 1 of the Francisco Morazán Department, dated 23 May 1956, shows that the three persons in question were prosecuted on 14 January 1956 in that Court by the Office of the Director-General of Police, for the offence of Communist activity. The same Court, on 22 February 1956 (as shown by a document also issued on 23 May 1956), issued an order for the preventive detention of the same persons " by reason of the offence of Communist activity for the purpose of establishing a Communist system in Honduras, the acts being committed in Tegucigalpa in the last months of last year (1955) and the first months of this year ". The detention order is based on Legislative Decree No. 206 of 3 February 1956 and the ordinary legislation on judicial procedure. The Government stated that these proceedings are matters within the normal jurisdiction of the judiciary and that the head of the State has no power to intervene in them owing to the separation of powers. The three persons in question are at present held at the pleasure of the judge in the Central Penitentiary.
18. 114. As regards the alleged detention of Humberto Laitano, the Government submits a document issued by the same Court on 23 May 1956, showing that information against this person was lodged by the Office of the Director-General of Police for the offence of Communist activity and that he is now a fugitive from justice. On the other hand there is no " Boot and Shoe Industry Union " in Honduras and therefore Laitano cannot be regarded as a militant worker for a non-existent organisation. As regards the alleged detention and torture of the "workman " Parker (whose full name and trade union are not given by the complainant organisation), the Government states that this is probably a man named Douglas Parker who was tried in Criminal Court No. 1 at San Pedro Sula (Cortés Department) for the attempted kidnapping of a minor. Because of the infrequency of this offence in Honduras the local press devoted considerable space to it, and the Government feels that the Confederation of Latin American, Workers extracted these references from the newspapers, adding the words "workman" and "trade union official" to the name of the offender.
19. 115. The Government has been unable to obtain any information on the alleged seizure of Professor Julio C. Rivera, except that the weekly Jornada (the source mentioned by the complainant organisation) and the Teachers' Union (of which Professor Rivera is stated to be an official) are unknown in Honduras. Mr. Francisco Rios does not appear in the books of the Tela Railroad Company Workers' Union according to a certificate issued by the secretary of this organisation on 28 May 1956. Messrs. Francisco Aguilar Martinez, Rubén Rodriguez and Rodolfo López (the person called " Santos Velázquez " is probably Mr. Carlos M. Velázquez already mentioned) do not appear in the membership lists of the trade union organisations and are detained at the Central Penitentiary under imprisonment orders made by Criminal Court No. 1 of the Francisco Morazán Department on 22 February and 6 March 1956 for the offence of Communist activity. According to the relevant documents issued by that court, they were prosecuted by the Office of the Director-General of Police on 14 January 1956.
20. 116. As regards the allegation relating to the detention and torture of Medardo Garcia, Efrain Irias Durón and Héctor Romero, officials of the Standard Fruit Company Workers' Union, the Government states that there is no such person as Medardo Garcia among the officials of this union. Durón and Romero submit affidavits (which the Government encloses after legalisation), both dated 25 May 1956. Durón stated " It is true ... that I was detained on 21 February but it is not a fact that I was tortured by the Director of Police or by any other authority ". Romero states "We were not beaten by the Director of Police ; on the contrary, we were treated with great consideration and were not interfered with by any of the authorities". The Government explains that when these officials attempted to start a strike last February before carrying out the mediation and conciliation procedures prescribed by law, they were summoned to the office of the Director of Police in La Ceiba and informed that the authorities would not permit illegal strikes. When the Ministry of Labour learned of this, it took the necessary action to ensure that Durón and Romero were not interfered with in their trade union activity and an official of the Ministry was sent to La Ceiba. With the assistance of this official an agreement was reached between the union and the undertaking, and both trade union officials took an active part in the negotiations. The Government emphasises that paragraph III of this agreement signed in La Ceiba on 30 January 1956 states that " the discussions took place in complete harmony and both sides were able to express their points of view quite freely ". The Government has submitted a copy of the agreement and states that Messrs. Durón and Romero are continuing to act as trade union officials.
21. 117. As regards the detention of members of the executive committee of the Tela Railroad Company Workers' Union at the end of February in the port of Tela, the Government states that Messrs. Raúl Edgardo Estrada, Roberto Panchamé, Céleo González, Rufino Sosa and José Cubas Gross were detained by the Tegucigalpa police for six days, which is the term permitted by the Honduras criminal procedure legislation for inquiries in cases of reported attempts to subvert public order. It was found that, despite the statutory provisions prohibiting the intervention of trade unions in political activities, " these persons had been having lengthy interviews with the director of the anti-Government campaign for the purpose of successfully co-operating in an armed revolt or in a general strike of a political character ". When the Ministry of Labour learned of this detention, it intervened in view of the fact that the detainees were trade union officials, so that they might be freed at the end of the time allowed for inquiry. As certified by the Director of the Central Penitentiary, they were released and are continuing to carry out their trade union functions. The Government adds that the police, as the authority responsible for public order, makes no distinction between presumed offenders according to membership or non-membership of trade unions.
22. 118. Although these cases have nothing to do with the exercise of trade union rights, as is apparent from the text of the complaint, the Government offers the following explanations as regards Messrs. Francisco Milla Bermúdez, "Dr. " Paredes, José Pineda Gómez, Manuel de Jesús Pineda, Léon Adalberto Custodio, Pompeyo del Valle and Buda Gautama Fonseca, who are " all politicians of the Opposition ". Mr. Bermúdez, ex-Councillor of State, has at no time been imprisoned ; Mr. Pineda Gómez is at liberty ; Mr. Manuel de Jesús Pineda, lawyer at Santa Rosa de Copán, was attacked by a personal enemy ; Mr. Pompeyo del Valle is at complete liberty in San Pedro Sula and there is no record of his ever having been detained ; and Mr. Fonseca is working freely in Tegucigalpa as a student leader. It has not been possible to identify the person cited by the complainant as " Dr." Paredes. Léon Adalberto Custodio (or José Léon Custodio) is a fugitive from justice, as certified by the Secretary of Criminal Court No. 1 of the Francisco Morazán Department, following the laying of information against him (and the other persons already mentioned) by the police on 14 January 1956 for the offence of Communist activity.
23. 119. As regards the detention of the officials of the Melcher Estate Committee in Tela, on the orders of the local military commandant, the Government states that the investigations (as evidenced by the police records and other documentary proof) showed that on 10 March 1956 the foreman Santiago Olivera of the Melcher Estate was assaulted by the secretary of the union of that Estate and by three other men in the local police station during a discussion. The assaulted man asked the authorities to intervene, and they ordered the attackers to be apprehended and held for the competent criminal judge. The documents submitted show that on 26 March the persons detained had already been released. This was therefore a detention for the purpose of clearing up an ordinary misdemeanour of armed aggression.
24. 120. As regards the detention of Arturo Cardona and Daniel Ramos of the Standard Fruit Company Union, the Government states that the local subcommandant at La Paz detained them when he found them holding a trade union meeting in preparation for a labour congress to be held in La Ceiba. When the Minister of Labour was informed by telegram by another trade union official on 12 March 1956 he communicated with the commandant of the armed forces in the Department, asking him to release the detained persons and to order sanctions to be taken against the subcommandant. On the same day an order was given for the release of the detained persons and the subcommandant responsible for the illegal detention was removed from his post. The released trade union officials themselves thanked the Minister of Labour for his intervention in a telegram dated 14 March 1956. This fact, adds the Government, constitutes proof of the confidence felt by the trade union officials in the authorities.
25. 121. Lastly, as regards the allegation that the workmen Abraham Castillo Flores, Conrado Zúñiga Zepeda and Rubén Rodriguez Andrade were detained on 12 March 1956 and sent to the Central Penitentiary, and that on the same day a warrant of commitment was issued for the offence of subversive activity against the trade unionists Rodolfo López, Francisco Aguilar Martinez, Samuel Aguilera Bohórquez, Carlos Martinez Velázquez and Guadalupe Reyes Guzmán, the Government refers to the document issued by Criminal Court No. 1 of the Francisco Morazán Department on 23 May 1956, showing that all the persons are undergoing preventive detention in the Central Penitentiary in virtue of orders dated 22 February and 6 March 1956. The Government emphasises that the Executive has no power to intervene in acts of the judiciary since judges and courts are subordinate exclusively to the High Court of Justice and are completely independent in their functions.

122. Since the occurrences alleged by the Confederation of Latin American Workers, Honduras 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). The instruments of ratification were deposited on 27 June 1956 and the Conventions accordingly come into force for Honduras on 27 June 1957.

1. Allegations relating to Trade Union Policy and General Policy
2. 123. The allegations made by the complainant organisation under this heading are of a general character and do not specify the place and date of the alleged occurrences except as regards the occupation of the University by police on 21 February 1956. It is alleged that the Government initiated a policy of repressing trade unions, attacked the Press and " representatives of democratic movements ", that members of the Government and foreign undertakings announced their intention of " shooting up " any movement by the workers in support of their claims, that punitive expeditions against workers were organised, that a request was made for the armed intervention of the United States, that decrees were issued to prohibit public meetings, to order forcible entry into private houses, and to permit violation of correspondence and other personal effects, and that the freedom of the Press, freedom of association and freedom of movement are restricted.
3. 124. The Government points out in the first place that these allegations of a general character are unsupported by any evidence whatever. Some of them such as those relating to an attack on the University, a supposed request for foreign armed intervention, etc.-are completely unrelated to the exercise of trade union rights. Those relating to violations of human rights are expressly rejected by the Government, which points out the inappropriateness of supposing that any government would promulgate decrees ordering such acts. The allegations relating to attacks on workers and the organisation of punitive expeditions are completely inaccurate. According to the Government, it is untrue that the Basic Military School is financed by a foreign company. As regards the alleged policy of repressing trade unions, the Government points out that it is absurd to accuse it of intending to destroy the very things established by the Government itself through laws such as the Charter of Labour Guarantees and the Trade Unions Law, which provide for a liberal system of trade unions on the model laid down in the international Conventions. It also points out that, subsequently to the complaints, the Government has ratified the international Conventions on freedom to organise.
4. 125. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the allegations relating to the occupation of the University by police, to a request for armed intervention by a foreign power, and to the system of administering and financing the Basic Military School, are matters which are not related to the exercise of trade union rights and which are therefore outside its competence. As regards the alleged attacks on movements in support of workers' claims, the organisation of punitive expeditions with military forces against workers, and the alleged de facto and de jure violations of freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of the Press, freedom of movement, the privacy of the home and of correspondence, the Committee considers that the allegations submitted are too vague for examination and that, when the complainant organisation submitted further particulars under the current procedure, it offered no new information to substantiate these charges. In view of all the above circumstances, the Committee considers that this series of allegations does not call for further examination.
5. Allegations relating to Legislative Decree No. 206, dated 3 February 1956, respecting the Defence of the Democratic System
6. 126. The complaint merely states that this enactment is directed against the working class and that it completely " liquidates " the precarious individual and social guarantees. The Government states that the decree does not affect trade union matters because, as it is a law of general scope, the specific legislation must be applied in trade union matters in the event of conflict of interpretation, that is to say, the Trade Unions Law. Moreover, none of the guarantees possessed by the organisations or workers individually can be weakened by it ; the decree is solely directed against communism and defines certain offences against the national security.
7. 127. Legislative Decree No. 206, dated 3 February 1956, contains the following provisions:
8. Article 1. The following are hereby prohibited, namely the existence or organisation of the Communist Party in this country or of any organisation, body or movement, regardless of the name assumed, which by spoken or written word or any other means endeavours to establish in Honduras a system opposed to the prevailing democracy or makes an attempt on its Government.
9. ......................................................................................................................................................
10. Article 3. The formation of any of the illegal associations mentioned in the preceding articles shall constitute an offence, and any person belonging to such association shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in the next following article for breach of the prohibitions herein laid down.
11. Article 4. The following shall be guilty of an offence against national security and punished with penal servitude of the minimum degree:
12. (1) whoever incites, provokes or encourages in any way an act of rebellion endangering the national security or makes any attempt on the democratic system established in the Republic ;
13. (2) whoever by spoken or written word or any other means propagates or encourages any doctrine tending to destroy the social order, public tranquillity or the political or juridical organisation of the country ;
14. (3) whoever maintains relations with foreigners or foreign associations for the purpose of receiving instructions or help of any kind in order to carry out any of the punishable acts mentioned in this article ;
15. (4) whoever is found to be a member or associate of any association, body, group or party carrying on activities in pursuance of Communist doctrine in a foreign country, or assists any of these in preparing or carrying out acts prohibited by this legislative decree ;
16. ......................................................................................................................................................
17. 128. After reading the enactment and the explanation submitted by the Government, the Committee considers that Legislative Decree No. 206 is not prima facie an enactment directly related to the exercise of trade union rights but a general penal law prohibiting and penalising a certain type of political activity by individuals. Although, as the Committee stated in its First Report, it reserves the right in cases involving political questions to "form its own judgment in each case " when questions directly affecting the exercise of trade union rights are involved, it considers that the present allegation merely consists of an interpretation of a general enactment given by an international trade union organisation without showing that in fact any Honduran trade union organisation has been penalised or impeded in the exercise of its rights through the operation of the legislative decree. In view of this and of the formal statements of the Government of Honduras that " the operation of the legislative decree in no way diminishes the right of labour organisations to hold meetings without prior permission, to be formally constituted, to draft their Constitutions and administrative rules, to elect their representatives, to decide on their management and activities, to formulate programmes of action, to maintain their independence of political parties and religious bodies, to be neither dissolved nor suspended except in virtue of a court decision, to have proper protection against any interference by the authorities or by one organisation with another ; or the guarantee given to workers that their employment cannot be conditional on their not joining or quitting a union, that they cannot be dismissed or otherwise prejudiced in any way by reason of trade union membership or participation in lawful trade union activities, and that they cannot be forced by violence or intimidation to belong to or refrain from belonging to any organisation ", the Committee considers that, while reserving the right to examine any concrete cases of the operation of this law which may be submitted and any future allegations presented for its investigation, it should not undertake an examination of the general interpretation of a penal law of a political character in regard to which no concrete case of violation of trade union rights has been alleged, and that consequently this general allegation does not call for further examination.
18. Allegations relating to the Detention of Trade Unionists and Other Persons
19. 129. In view of the fact that the allegations on detentions refer to events on different dates and at different places, these will be divided into six groups.
20. Detentions under Legislative Decree No. 206 of 3 February 1956
21. 130. According to the complainant organisation, Carlos Martinez Velázquez (of the Tegucigalpa Butchers' Union), Guadalupe Reyes Guzmán (of the Building Workers' Union) and Samuel Aguilera (of the Tegucigalpa Tailors' Union) were detained by the Tegucigalpa police on 4 February 1956 and tortured ; Humber-to Laitano (of the Boot and Shoe Industry Union) was detained in the same town on 5 February 1956 ; Francisco Aguilar Martinez, Rodolfo López, Rubén Rodriguez Andrade and Léon Adalberto Custodio were detained at the end of the same month ; and Abraham Castillo Flores and Conrado Zúñiga Zepeda were detained on 12 March 1956. A warrant of commitment for subversive activities was issued by Criminal Court No. 1 of Tegucigalpa against all these persons except Humberto Laitano.
22. 131. The Government denies that the persons mentioned, except for Guadalupe Reyes, were officials or members of trade unions since none of the unions mentioned in the complaint (Butchers' Union, Tailors' Union, Boot and Shoe Industry Union) are known in the absence of any registration at the Ministry of Labour as required by the law. The status of these persons as trade union members is merely asserted without proof by the complainant organisation. As regards Guadalupe Reyes his status as a trade union official is recognised, but this does not relieve him of ordinary criminal liability. The documents issued on 23 May 1956 by Criminal Court No. 1 of the Francisco Morazán Department (which the Government submits as documentary proof) show that the Office of the Director General of Police, on 14 January 1956, brought proceedings for Communist activities against Aguilar Martinez, Reyes, Aguilera, Zúñiga Zepeda, Velázquez, López, Castillo Flores, Rodriguez Andrade, Laitano, Custodio and other persons not mentioned in the complaint. All these, except for Laitano and Custodio who are fugitives from justice, were committed by order of the Court to the Central Penitentiary. On 22 February and 6 March 1956 the same Court ordered (in virtue of the Law on the Organisation and Powers of the Courts, the Code of Procedure and Legislative Decree No. 206 of 3 February 1956) the preventive detention of the persons mentioned " for the offence of Communist activities directed towards the establishment of the Communist system in Honduras, the events having taken place in this town (Tegucigalpa) during the last months of last year (1955) and the first months of this year ".
23. 132. From the above data, the Committee notes in the first place that the complainant organisation only describes four of the detained persons (namely Martinez Velázquez, Reyes Guzmán, Aguilera and Laitano) as officials or members of specific unions. The Government recognises that Reyes Guzmán is a trade unionist and submits documentary proof that none of the other unions existed in Honduras as registered unions. Secondly, the complainant does not allege that these persons were detained by reason of trade union activities but for " subversive activities ", and this is confirmed by the warrant of preventive detention submitted by the Government. Thirdly, the Committee notes that the preventive detention was ordered by a professional judge in accordance with the ordinary legislative governing procedure. Nevertheless, it observes that the offences were committed before the promulgation of Legislative Decree No. 206 defining the offences against national security ; this seems to imply a retroactive application of penal law, which is incompatible with the principle of nulls poena sine lege.
24. 133. In an earlier case relating to India, and in many other cases since, when the Committee examined the question of measures of preventive detention under public safety laws, it considered that these " may involve a serious interference with the trade union activities ... unless accompanied by adequate judicial safeguards applied within a reasonable period ". In Case No. 63 relating to the Union of South Africa, in which the Committee had to examine allegations relating to a law prohibiting communism, it reached the conclusion that, since the South African Act was enacted " purely for a political reason ... the matter is one of internal policy with which it is not competent to deal, and on which it should therefore refrain from expressing any view. However, in view of the fact that measures of a political nature may have an indirect effect on the exercise of trade union rights ", the Committee decided to draw the attention of the Government to the need to guarantee free exercise of trade union rights and to ensure that detained persons have the safeguards of due process.
25. 134. In the present case the Committee considers that it should repeat its earlier observations. It is apparent from an examination of the text of the law under which the persons mentioned in the complaint were detained, from the court orders for preventive detention and from the Government's explanations of the scope of Legislative Decree No. 206 of 3 February 1956, that this is a case of measures of internal policy, which the Committee is not competent to judge and which has no apparent direct relation to the exercise of trade union rights. However, in view of the fact that, in the case of Mr. Guadalupe Reyes Guzmán, an official of the Building Workers' Union, the operation of Legislative Decree No. 206 may have indirectly hindered the free exercise of trade union rights, the Committee, while thanking the Government for the detailed information presented, draws its attention to the need to ensure that political measures do not indirectly affect the exercise of trade union rights and that detained persons have the full benefit of due process, including safeguards against the retroactive application of any criminal law. In view of these considerations, the Committee, while requesting the Government to keep it informed as to the final judgment handed down in the case of Mr. Guadalupe Reyes Guzmán, considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
26. Detention of Officials of the Standard Fruit Company Workers' Union in La Ceiba
27. 135. The Confederation of Latin American Workers alleges that Messrs. Medardo Garcia, Efrain Irias Durón and Hector Romero, officials of the Standard Fruit Company Workers' Union, were detained and tortured on 22 February 1956 at La Ceiba and were later imprisoned in the Tegucigalpa penitentiary. The Government replies that Irias Durón and Romero are at present at liberty and carrying on their trade union duties, that it is untrue that they were tortured as can be seen from the written statements submitted from the persons concerned, and that it has not been possible to identify a person of the name of Medardo Garcia. When an attempt was made at the end of last February to call an illegal strike, the officials mentioned were summoned to the office of the Director of Police in La Ceiba, and informed that the authorities would not permit strikes in violation of the law. When the Ministry of Labour learned of this fact it took the necessary action to prevent interference with their trade union activities. The dispute with the undertaking was settled amicably and both officials took part in the negotiations. In the agreement signed (of which a copy is enclosed by the Government) it is stated that the negotiations took place in a peaceable manner.
28. 136. In these circumstances, the Committee-while observing that the agreement mentioned by the Government does not appear to be related to the alleged occurrences, since it is dated 30 January 1956 while the detention of Irias Durón and Romero took place at the end of February-considers that the Government's explanations are adequate, that the Government took the necessary precautions in this case to prevent interference with the trade union functions of the two officials, and that, since both persons are now at liberty and are freely performing their trade union functions, this aspect of the complaint does not call for further examination.
29. Detention of Officials of the Tela Railroad Company Workers' Union
30. 137. The complainant organisation alleges that Messrs. Raúl E. Estrada, Roberto Panchamé, Céleo González, Rufino Sosa and José Cubas Gross, of the Executive Committee of the Tela Railroad Company Workers' Union (a union affiliated to the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers), were detained at the end of February 1956 in the port of Tela. The Government explains that the persons mentioned were detained by the Tegucigalpa police for six days, which is the period allowed by Honduran law for inquiries. Despite the statutory prohibition of trade union intervention in politics, these persons " had lengthy interviews with the director of the anti-Government campaign, for the purpose of successfully co-operating in an armed revolt or in a general strike of a political character ". When the Ministry of Labour learned of this fact, it intervened and the detained persons were released at the end of the period allowed, as confirmed by a certificate of the Director of the Central Penitentiary.
31. 138. The Committee notes in the present case that the detention of these persons was based on the fact that they were trade union members, as is shown by the certificate issued on 26 May 1956 by the Office of the Director-General of Police, and that they were suspected of political activities which are regarded as subversive and which may not be carried on by trade unions. Legislative Decree No. 101 of 6 June 1955 (Trade Union Law), provides in article 2 that trade union organisations shall abstain " from any intervention in political or religious activities ". This prohibition refers exclusively to trade union organisations as such and does not prohibit the members or officials from taking part in politics.
32. 139. In view of the fact that the Government took the necessary steps to secure the release of the detained persons, who are at present enjoying their trade union rights in full freedom, the Committee considers that this aspect of the complaint has become purposeless and does not, therefore, call for further examination.
33. Detention of Officials of the Melcher Estate Committee
34. 140. The complainant organisation alleges that the officials of the Melcher Estate Committee in Tela (La Lima area), a unit of the Tela Railroad Company Workers' Union, were detained on 12 March 1956 by order of the local military commandant. The Government explains, on the basis of the police reports submitted, that a foreman was attacked on 10 March 1956 by the secretary of the trade union and three other persons at the local police station during a discussion. The attacked man asked for the assistance of the authorities, who held the attackers at the disposal of the competent judge. At the end of March the detained persons were already at liberty.
35. 141. In view of the detailed explanations offered by the Government and accompanied by documentary proof, the Committee considers that this allegation relates to an offence under the ordinary law which is not connected with the exercise of trade union rights, and that it does not, therefore, call for further examination.
36. Detention of Officials of the Standard Fruit Company Workers' Union at Los Planes
37. 142. The complainant organisation alleges that Messrs. Arturo Cardona and Daniel Ramos, officials of Section No. 1 of the Standard Fruit Company Workers' Union, were detained on 11 March 1956 at Los Planes. The Government explains that the local subcommandant of La Paz detained these two persons when he found them holding a trade union meeting. When the Minister of Labour was informed he sent a telegram to the subcommandant's superior officer and obtained the immediate release of the two persons. The officer responsible for the wrongful detention was punished with removal from his post ; the released trade union officials communicated with the Minister of Labour on 14 March thanking him for his assistance.
38. 143. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the Government's explanations are satisfactory and that the allegation does not call for further examination.
39. Detention of Persons Other Than Trade Unionists
40. 144. The complaining organisation alleges that the following were detained in February 1956 : Professor Julio C. Rivera of the Teachers' Union, Francisco Rios of the Tela Railroad Company Workers' Union, the " workman " Parker, Francisco Milla Bermúdez (engineer), " Doctor " Paredes, José Pineda Gómez (university graduate), Manuel de Jesús Pineda (journalist), the " poet " Pompeyo del Valle, and also Buda Gautama Fonseca (student) and other officials of the Federation of University Students. The Government states that it has not been possible to identify Mr. Julio C. Rivera although it is possible to show that neither the " Teachers' Union " nor the periodical from which the complainant organisation states that it obtained the information exists. According to a certificate issued by the Tela Railroad Company Workers' Union there is no person of the name of Francisco Rios among the members of the organisation. The " workman" Parker appears to be a person tried in San Pedro Sula for attempted kidnapping of a minor. As regards the other persons, the Government states that all these are at liberty, while pointing out that it is clear from the complaint itself that these cases are not related to the exercise of trade union rights. Mr. Manuel de Jesús Pineda was attacked by a personal enemy. It has not been possible to identify " Doctor " Paredes since this is a common name in Honduras.
41. 145. In these circumstances, having regard to the detailed explanations given by the Government, the fact that the complainant has submitted no further details on the persons mentioned, and the fact that the complaint itself and the evidence offered show that the detained persons were not trade unionists and were not detained because of trade union activities, the Committee considers that these allegations do not call for further examination.
42. 146. In conclusion, the Committee notes that, at a date subsequent to the period relevant to the matters which it has examined, Honduras 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). The Committee also notes that in connection with two particular matters-the detention of leaders of the Tela Railroad Company Workers' Union and of the Standard Fruit Company Workers' Union-the Ministry of Labour has recognised the need to draw the attention of the police to the question of safeguarding freedom of association by intervening to protect trade unionists against certain abusive measures which had been taken against them. In this connection, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will consider whether the administrative authorities (police, etc.) are now sufficiently informed as to the provisions contained in the two Conventions ratified by Honduras and in the relevant national legislation and what measures it might be appropriate for it to take in order to bring those provisions to their knowledge.
43. 147. With regard to certain other allegations relating to the detention of trade unionists, the Committee observes that the complaining organisation has neglected to make use of the opportunity afforded to it under the existing procedure to furnish evidence in substantiation of allegations which have remained vague. Moreover, while recalling, as it has done in several earlier cases, the importance which it attaches to the principle that when trade unionists are placed in preventive detention they should enjoy all the guarantees afforded by due process of law, the Committee notes that in the present case the persons who were placed in preventive detention were so placed in accordance with the normal judicial procedure ; nevertheless, the Committee draws the attention of the Government to the fact that such a procedure might imply a retroactive application of the penal law which would be contrary to normal judicial guarantees.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 148. Having regard to all these considerations, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to take note of the ratification by Honduras of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) ;
   • (b) to decide that, subject to drawing the attention of the Government of Honduras to the observations contained in paragraphs 134, 146 and 147 above, the case as a whole does not call for further examination.