Definitive Report - Report No 172, March 1978

Case No 789 (Guatemala) - Complaint date: 04-MAY-74 - Closed

1. 25. The Committee already examined this case at its session in November 1976 and on that occasion submitted an interim report. Since then, the Government has submitted a further two communications, dated 25 February and 25 April 1977.
2. 26. Guatemala has ratified the Freedom of Association and 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. 27. In its communication of 4 May 1974, the Latin American Central of Workers, on behalf of its affiliate in Guatemala, the National Central of Workers (CNT), alleged that, on the occasion of the demonstration on 1 May 1974, the forces of the national army and government police attacked the procession, causing the death of four people and seriously wounding many others, whose total number had not been determined. The CLAT added that the dead and wounded included members of the National Central of Workers and particularly Julio Celso de León, a national leader and member of the Executive Committee of CLAT, who had been seriously injured. Subsequently, CLAT submitted a list of three persons said to have been killed and fifteen others said to have been injured.
2. 28. In its reply of 18 June 1976 the Government referred to a report by the Ministry of the Interior, regarding the events of 1 May 1974. It was indicated in this report that the workers' parade had been authorised by the prefecture, at the request of the General Secretary of the Autonomous Trade Union Federation of Guatemala (FASGUA), throughout a large area of the city. During the parade, a group of 150-200 persons led by the leaders of the Guatemalian Christian Democrat Party had endeavoured to make the parade change its course.
3. 29. The national police had told the organisers that they must not depart from the authorised route. At that point, a hail of stones had been hurled at the police forces, injuring two policemen, damaging several shops and electric lighting. In addition, a group of persons had insisted on following an unauthorised route. The police had been forced to use tear gas. The demonstrators had then scattered, but shots had been heard, fired by persons who had infiltrated the procession. The meeting subsequently took place without further incident.
4. 30. The report rejected any responsibility on the part of the national police for the shooting, as they had been expressly ordered not to use fire-arms. According to the report, responsibility for the acts of violence lay with the persons who had infiltrated the demonstration. It was also stated in the report that a group of persons taking part in the procession had told the police that they regretted the interruption caused by persons who had nothing to do with the procession which they had organised.
5. 31. During its November 1976 Session, the Committee recommended the Governing Body, in particular:
   • - to call attention to various principles and especially to the fact that the institution of an impartial inquiry is a particularly appropriate means of elucidating the facts and determining responsibility when events occur which lead to the loss of human lives;
   • - to ask the Government whether an impartial inquiry was carried out regarding the events which allegedly caused the death of a number of trade unionists and injuries to others and, if so, to communicate the conclusions of the inquiry and indicate whether those responsible had been brought to trial.
6. 32. In its latest communications, the Government indicated, in particular, that a judicial inquiry is carried out on all punishable offences in order to bring to justice those responsible. The case before the ILO was no exception.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 33. The Committee notes this information from the Government, which seems to show that the events which gave rise to this complaint have been the subject of an inquiry. The Committee nevertheless regrets that the Government has not communicated the conclusions of the inquiry as requested. Consequently, the Committee is unable to take a decision in full knowledge of the facts.
2. 34. Nevertheless, it appears from the replies supplied by the Government that the police forces were expressly ordered not to use their fire-arms during this demonstration. The Committee also notes that the events in question took place almost four years ago.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 35. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (i) to express its regret that the Government has not communicated the conclusions of the judicial inquiry carried out concerning the serious events of 1 May 1974;
   • (ii) to decide that no purpose would be served in pursuing its examination of the case.