Definitive Report - Report No 131, 1972

Case No 396 (Guatemala) - Complaint date: 01-OCT-64 - Closed

1. 15. The last time the Committee examined this case was at its session in November 1971, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report, contained in paragraphs 151 to 157 of its 127th Report. The report was approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (November 1971).
2. 16. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 17. The Committee recalls that in the complaint dated 1 October 1964 the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions had alleged that Mr. Eustaquio Paz Muralles, the leader of the Guatemalan Federation of Peasants, had been unjustly held in prison for a considerable time. The Government stated in reply that, according to information received from the Federation of Peasants, Mr. Paz Muralles had left his post in the said organisation in April 1964 to take up a position in a political party, and that he was in fact on trial for the murder of two people.
2. 18. In accordance with the practice followed by the Committee in similar cases in which pending proceedings might make available information of assistance to it in appreciating whether or not allegations were well founded, the Committee, when it examined the case in February 1965, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to supply a copy of the judgement pronounced in the case against Muralles and the grounds on which it was based. This recommendation was approved by the Governing Body at its session in March 1965, and it was subsequently forwarded to the Government.
3. 19. On 7 December 1965 the Government transmitted a copy of a report, dated 19 August of the same year, which had been submitted by the Court Martial Judge of the Military Base of Puerto Barrios. The said report stated that on 6 April 1964 Federico Guillermo Padilla Garcia and his brother José Nery were attacked, robbed and murdered, and it named as perpetrators of the act a group of persons who were thought to have been aided by Mr. Paz Muralles. All concerned were then in custody and their cases were being dealt with by the Military Court of Puerto Barrios. The report added that during the investigations, which were now in their final phase, not one of the accused had been able to refute the evidence justifying his detention.
4. 20. Accordingly, at its session in February 1966, the Committee decided to request the Government once again to forward the text of the judgement and the grounds on which it was made as soon as it became available, and meanwhile to postpone its examination of the case.
5. 21. Since that session, despite repeated requests, the Government has failed to forward the information. The Committee re-examined the case at its session in November 1971 and, as no information had been received from the Government, it recommended the Governing Body to request, as a matter of urgency, the text of the judgement and the grounds on which it was made.
6. 22. Finally, the Government forwarded, on 13 March 1972, the information that had been requested.
7. 23. The text of the judgements forwarded by the Government shows that Mr. Paz Muralles was tried, with some other persons, in courts of first and second instance, and was acquitted in both for lack of conclusive evidence. The proceedings began on 8 May 1964, and judgement in the first instance was pronounced on 4 June 1966, and in the second instance on 19 August 1966. In the latter, amnesty Decree No. 1605 was applied and a definitive ruling was given that no case could be found against the accused on the charge of having participated in subversive activities. The court ordered that the defendants should be released from custody.

24. The Committee observes that the case against Mr. Paz Muralles closed almost six years ago and regrets that the Government has taken so long in sending the relevant information, despite repeated requests. With this reservation and in the light of the information received, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination on its part.