Interim Report - Report No 70, 1963

Case No 323 (Peru) - Complaint date: 22-JAN-63 - Closed

1. 377. The complaint by the W.F.T.U is contained in a communication dated 22 January 1963 addressed directly to the Director-General of the I.L.O. By a letter dated 1 February 1963, the complaint was communicated to the Government for its observations. The Government replied by a communication dated 15 March 1963, transmitted by the Permanent Delegation of Peru on 25 March 1963. The complainants, who have been informed of their right to submit further information in support of their complaint, have not exercised this right.
2. 378. Peru has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 379. The W.F.T.U alleges in its complaint that, under the pretext of having discovered a subversive plot, the Military Government of Peru decreed on 5 January 1963 the suspension of Constitutional safeguards throughout the country and unleashed a campaign of repression against the labour movement. The complainants also allege that the police occupied the headquarters of a number of unions and that over a thousand persons were arbitrarily detained and, in particular, a large number of trade union leaders and officials. The complainants mention among those detained Messrs. José Luis Alvarado, General Secretary of the Federation of Bank Employees, Emiliano Huamatica, President of the Cuzco Departmental Workers' Union, Guillermo Sheen, an official of the Salaried Employees' Union, and all the officials of the Lima Building Workers' Union. Still according to the complainants, many persons were sent to the El Sepa prison in the heart of the Amazonian Forest. The complainants further allege that this is not the first time that the Peruvian Military Junta has used these methods against the trade union movement: in December 1962 the strike by the miners of the Cerro de Pasco Corporation was harshly suppressed and many strikers were killed and injured in the process; the Peruvian Peasants' Confederation publicly denounced the murder, at the end of December 1962, of 43 peasants whose bodies were flung into the Vilcota by the forces of repression. Lastly, the complainants allege that on 5 January 1963 the workers at El Callao, who were on strike for higher wages, were attacked by the police who killed one person and injured three more and that, since the coup d'état of July 1962, over 80 workers and peasants have been killed by the forces of repression.
2. 380. In its communication of 15 March 1963 the Government states first of all that it is inadmissible for a body such as the W.F.T.U, which prides itself in exercising vigilance over the exercise of trade union rights, to do so without carrying out the necessary check on the information it receives, merely serving blindly as a channel for its transmission, and that a denunciation of this kind is likely to affect the spirit of goodwill and co-operation that governments may be able to show in committing themselves by the acceptance of instruments if, subsequently, without the necessary clarification, and even in an untenable form as in the present case, they may be used to exert pressure on the moral and legal conduct of the States parties to them. The Government adds that the issue in the present case is not a negation of the international obligations assumed by the Government of Peru, particularly under the labour Convention, which represents the contribution of the spirit of legislative progress and international co-operation on the part of the Government of Peru, as the Government has launched no attack on the principles of this or other labour Conventions and as there is no sign of a reaction against workers' rights. The Government goes on to point out that the real issue is the defensive stand taken by the Peruvian Government in the face of situations and acts contrary to the legal order, which have a history going back to a time prior to that of the complaint made by the W.F.T.U. For instance, the Government states, in the light of the serious incidents at Oroya, the Government was obliged to avail itself of its powers under article 70 of the Constitution and suspend the safeguards for the individual; this measure was not directed against the workers but against persons disturbing public order, and its aim was to restore, in the disturbed area, the legal safeguards required if the public and private affairs that had thus been disturbed were to resume their normal, peaceful course. The Government also states that these disturbances were part of an organised plan to carry out subversive activities on the territory of the Republic, in accordance with instructions from abroad, with a view to creating an atmosphere of nation-wide chaos and violence.
3. 381. In its communication of 15 March 1963 the Government also states that, despite the temporary suspension of Constitutional safeguards, organised labour activities continued normally, without impediment, as indicated by the following facts: (a) the organisation of new unions; (b) the recognition of unions previously formed; (c) claims by several trade unions for better wages and working conditions, and their settlement; (d) strikes called during this period, which were dealt with by strictly labour procedures; (e) conciliation activities by the central and regional agencies of the Ministry of Labour; and (f) absolute freedom of leaders of workers' organisations to intervene in all matters of interest to them.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 382. The Committee notes that, of the allegations made by the complainants, some, and precisely the most serious, such as those concerning the death of over 80 workers and peasants, were expressed in the complaint in extremely vague terms and that, notwithstanding the opportunity granted the complainants to supply further information, they have not contributed more factual data in support of their serious accusations. The Committee therefore considers that these allegations do not call for further examination.
2. 383. The Committee further notes that though the Government in its reply rejects in a general manner what it considers to be unfounded accusations, asserting that the real issue was a defensive stand taken by the Government of Peru in face of situations and acts contrary to legal order, and quoting a series of facts to show that the trade union movement continued without any impediment whatsoever, the reply makes no reference to other accusations of a more precise nature formulated by the complainants, i.e. the detention of the trade union officials Messrs. José Luis Alvarado, Emiliano Huamatica, Guillermo Sheen and all the officials of the Lima Building Workers' Union and the imprisonment of many of the arrested persons, including trade union leaders, in the prison of El Sepa.
3. 384. When in previous cases allegations that trade union leaders or workers had been detained on account of trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the persons in question had been detained for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security, or for common law crimes, the Committee has always followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the detentions in question and the exact reasons for them. If, in certain cases, the Committee has concluded that the allegations concerning the arrest or detention of trade union leaders did not call for further examination, this has been after it has received information from the governments showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that these arrests or detentions were in no way occasioned by trade union activities but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere, which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature.
4. 385. In the present case the Government has confined itself to stating that the measures it was obliged to take were not directed against the workers but against persons disturbing public order.
5. 386. The Committee considers that, in order to be able to form an opinion in full knowledge of the facts, and to ascertain whether or not the allegations are justified, it would be necessary to obtain from the Government more precise information on the reasons for the detention of Messrs. Josh Luis Alvarado, Emiliano Huamatica and Guillermo Sheen, relating in particular to the acts or precise activities for which these persons are held responsible, and to ask it whether there have been or still are trade unionists detained in the prison of El Sepa.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 387. In all the circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to decide that the allegations referred to in paragraph 382 above do not, for the reasons indicated in that paragraph, call for further examination;
   • (b) to request the Government of Peru to supply more precise information on the reasons for the detention of Messrs. José Luis Alvarado, Emiliano Huamatica and Guillermo Sheen, relating in particular to the acts or precise activities for which these persons are held responsible, and to ask it whether there have been or still are trade unionists detained in the prison of El Sepa, and to decide, meanwhile, to defer the examination of this case.