Interim Report - Report No 216, March 1982

Case No 1084 (Nicaragua) - Complaint date: 21-OCT-81 - Closed

1. 5. The complaint is contained in a communication from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) dated 21 October 1981 alleging the detention of several employer leaders prominent in the Nicaraguan employers' organisations. The TOE sent further information in communications of 27 and 28 October, 2 and 6 November 1981 and 15 February 1982.
2. 6. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the Director-General of the ILO firstly sent a telegram to the Government on 23 October 1981 requesting it to communicate whatever steps had been taken towards the rapid release of the prisoners and then addressed a further telegram on 30 October 1981 to the Government expressing the wish to send a high-ranking official to Nicaragua at a near date to discuss this matter with the government authorities. In a communication of 13 November 1981, the Government stated that it accepted the sending of a mission.
3. 7. The Government sent its observations on the allegations in letters dated 21 January and 15 February 1982.
4. 8. Nicaragua has ratified both 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. Allegations of the complainant

1. 9. The IOE alleges that after a denunciation by the Public Prosecutor, and in an effort to smash management sector institutions, state security agents arbitrarily and unjustly arrested, on 21 October 1981, Enrique Dreyfus, Gilberto Cuadra, Benjamin Lanzas and Enrique Bolános, the President and Vice-President respectively of the Supreme Council of Private Enterprise in Nicaragua (COSEP). They had allegedly violated the provisions of the Act concerning the Maintenance of Public Order and Security (sections 4(c)(1), (2), (3) and (4)) and the Act declaring a State of Economic and Social Emergency (section 3(c) and (h)) by signing and publishing a letter on 19 October 1981 addressed to Commander Daniel Ortega, Co-ordinator of the Junta of the Government of National Reconstruction, which criticises the Marxist-Leninist direction taken by the Sandinist Revolution and the contents of which appear to represent the general opinion of the Nicaraguan private sector.
2. 10. The complainant points out that, in violation of Convention No. 87, the legal provisions upon which the Public Prosecutor based his charges unacceptably limit freedom of expression which is necessary for the normal exercise of trade union rights and violate the principle of freedom of information which is vital to freedom of association.
3. 11. The complainant adds that after a summary investigation, the employer leaders of COSEP, Enrique Dreyfus, Gilberto Cuadra and Benjamin Lanzas were sentenced to seven months' imprisonment and compulsory labour, a decision which was solely aimed at decapitating the employers' movement. A copy of the court's decision, dated 29 October 1981, is supplied by the complainant.
4. 12. According to the complainant's communication of 27 October 1981, the imprisoned COSEP leaders have been subjected to inhumane treatment. In particular they have not been allowed to receive necessary medication, nor visits and they are kept in extremely unclean and unhygienic conditions. The complainant points out moreover in this communication that the bases of the private sector have been mobilised and are signing the letter sent to Commander Daniel Ortega on 19 October 1981.
5. 13. Lastly, in its telegram of 15 February 1982, the IOE announces the release of Messrs. Dreyfus, Cuadra and Lanzas and expresses its deep gratitude to the ILO for its efforts taken towards their release.

B. The Government's reply

1. 14. In its communication of 21 January 1982, the Government states that on 19 October 1981, COSEP broadcast through the Managua Radio Corporation the text of a letter addressed to Commander Daniel Ortega, Co-ordinator of the Junta of the Government of National Reconstruction, signed by several COSEP members and which was allegedly published later in the daily newspaper "La Prensa" - which gave rise to a series of criticisms from various sectors of the country - monstrously accusing the revolutionary leaders of preparing "a new wave of genocide in Nicaragua". It states that this was a new attempt by COSEP to create artificially confrontation between private enterprise and the revolutionary power and people, only because Commander Humberto Ortega Saavedra, the Minister of Defence, had urged them to join in the defence of the revolutionary process. The Government points out that, obstreperously, the COSEP ordered its followers to refuse to participate in the process of national reconstruction which was an attempt to invalidate the firm wish of the Sandinist National Liberation Front to maintain political pluralism and a mixed economy which for the last two years has kept them happy. It also points out that, in the letter, the COSEP members, alarmed to the deepest of their selling-out-the country interests by the Minister of Defence's statements, instead of responding with a positive patriotic attitude against the dangers of aggression and intervention in Nicaragua, persisted in their lies of "lack of liberty" while sending copies of their letter to international organisations - such as the IOE - in an interventionist eagerness to show their difficulties.
2. 15. The Government also states that the COSEP leaders appeared before the Criminal Court of First Instance in Managua on 24 October 1981 accused by the Public Prosecutor of violating the Act concerning the Maintenance of Public Order and Security (section 4(c)(1), (2), (3) and (4)) and the Act declaring a State of Economic and Social Emergency No. 812 (section 3(c) and (h)).
3. 16. According to the Government, on 26 October 1981, the trial was opened for the presentation of evidence and the defendants gave their statements unanimously rejecting the charges against them, after which the Public Prosecutor withdrew all charges against Mr. Bolános Geyer who had proved that he had not signed the letter. The Government adds that in view of forensic medicine examination of Mr. Bolános Geyer, he was referred by the judge of the Criminal Court to the Bautista Hospital of Managua since, according to the legal medical opinion, he was unable to remain in prison because of his oesophageal hernia and gastric ulcer.
4. 17. The Government states that, according to the judgement handed down on 29 October 1981 concerning the arrested COSEP members (of which it supplies a copy), Enrique Bolános Geyer was acquitted as there was no case for him to answer. Enrique Dreyfus Morales, Benjamin Lanzas Delva and Gilberto Cuadra Solórzano were acquitted as regards the charges under section 3(c) and (h) of the Act declaring a State of Economic and Social Emergency because the judge considered that the charges had not been substantiated; they were nevertheless sentenced to seven months' imprisonment and compulsory labour for violating section 4 of the Act concerning the Maintenance of Public Order and Security for attacking firstly the national security and economy, and secondly the maintenance of order and prevention of crime.
5. 18. The Government points out that the above-mentioned judgement was appealed on the grounds that it was not in conformity with the law and adds that on 26 November 1981 the Court of Criminal Appeal of Masaya confirmed the sentence of seven months' imprisonment and compulsory labour against the three COSEP leaders and the acquittal granted by the judge at First Instance to Enrique Bolános Geyer, a member of the executive board of COSEP. The Government supplies a copy of this decision.
6. 19. Lastly, in its communication of 15 February 1982, the Government states that Messrs. Dreyfus, Cuadra and Lanzas have been released.

C. The direct contacts mission

1. 20. As has been pointed out above, the Director-General - in accordance with the procedure in force - sent a telegram on 30 October 1981 to the Government requesting it as a matter of urgency to consent to an ILO mission to discuss the questions relating to this case with the Nicaraguan authorities, a request which was agreed to by the Government in its communication of 13 November 1981.
2. 21. The mission was carried out on 29 November to 4 December 1981 by the Director-General's representative Mr. Ian Lagergren, Chief of the International Labour Standards Department, and Mr. Manuel Araoz, Chief of the Freedom of Association Branch, who were accompanied by Mr. Daniel de Patoul, an ILO associate expert.
3. 22. Before proceeding to Managua, the mission stopped over for a few days in San José, Costa Pica, where it was able to track down two Nicaraguan employer leaders in self-imposed exile in Costa Rica: Mr. Ramiro Gurdián, Vice-President of COSEP, and Mr. Jaime Bengoechea, Director of the Nicaraguan Chamber of Industries (CADIN). Messrs. Gurdián and Bengoechea confirmed that three of the four persons referred to in the IOE's complaint (Enrique Dreyfus, Gilberto Cuadra and Benjamin Lanzas) were under detention for having put their signatures to a letter of 19 October 1981 addressed by the boards of the different private sector organisations grouped within COSEP to Commander Daniel Ortega Saavedra, Co-ordinator of the Government of National Reconstruction; this letter had, inter alia, been seriously critical of the economic and social policies pursued by the Government of Nicaragua. The fourth person referred to in the IOE's complaint (Mr. Enrique Bolános) had been released from detention since he had not been amongst the signatories to the letter in question.
4. 23. When in Nicaragua, the mission had talks with the Minister of Justice, Mr. Ernesto Castillo (on two occasions), the Minister of Labour, Sr. Virgilio Godoy, the Public Prosecutor, Sr. Alberto Gámez, and with the President of the Court of Appeal of Masaya, Sr. Rafael Chamorro Mora and a number of his co-judges. The mission also held talks with Monsignor Miguel Obando y Bravo, Archbishop of Managua, with defence counsel for the three arrested leaders, with the Nicaraguan Permanent Commission for Human Rights, and with various trade union organisations. A meeting also took place with COSEP at its headquarters, COSEP's main spokesman being Sr. Ismael Reyes Icabalceto, Acting President. The mission paid a two-hour visit to the prisoners in jail in the absence of any outside witnesses. Finally, the mission was received by Dr. Rafael Córdova Rivas, member of the Government Junta and responsible for matters relating, inter alia, to the judiciary, a meeting at which the Ministers of Justice and Labour were also present.
5. 24. The situation of Messrs. Dreyfus, Cuadra and Lanzas was as follows at the time when the mission arrived in Nicaragua. Arrested on 21 October, charges were brought against them by the Public Prosecutor on 24 October who contended that by signing and giving widespread publicity to the letter of 19 October they had acted in contravention of section 3 of Act No. 812 of 9 September 1981 declaring a State of Economic and Social Emergency, which reads as follows:
   • Section 3. For purposes of this Act, the following are regarded as offences against national economic and social security and are punishable by imprisonment of from one to three years:
   • Paragraph c) - Spreading false information intended to bring about changes in prices, wages, provisions, produce, merchandise, shares, securities and moneys.
   • Paragraph h) - Incitement of foreign governments and international credit institutions to encash securities or to take decisions damaging to the national economy.
   • as well as violation of section 4 of Act No. 5 of 20 July 1979 concerning the Maintenance of Public Order and Security, which reads as follows:
   • Section 4. The following offences are punishable with detention and compulsory labour of from 10 days to 2 years:
   • Paragraph c) - Spreading by word of mouth or in writing statements, publications or public declarations attacking:
6. 1. national security and standing public security and the national economy;
7. 2. the maintenance of order and prevention of crime;
8. 3. the protection of the health, morals, personal dignity, reputation and rights of others;
9. 4. the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
10. 25. On 29 October 1981 the Court of First Instance in Managua upheld the charges brought under the Public order and security Act and sentenced Messrs. Dreyfus, Cuadra and Lanzas to seven months' imprisonment and compulsory labour. However, the charges brought under the economic and social emergency legislation were dismissed. Release on bail was refused. On 26 November 1981 the Court of Appeal at Masaya rejected the appeal from defence counsel and confirmed the sentence of the Court of First Instance.
11. 26. In the discussions held with the Minister of Justice and with the Minister of Labour it was pointed out that the purpose of the mission was not to express views on the economic, social and political system prevailing in Nicaragua. The ILO's sole concern was with the repercussions of the prevailing system and of legislation introduced on the exercise of freedom of association. On that particular score, serious allegations had been made by the IOE which, if substantiated, would constitute gross violation of the ILO's standards and principles in this field. It appeared to the mission from the material available to it that the recent enactments to which reference has been made placed serious restrictions on the right to express opinions freely through the press or otherwise, thereby severely restricting one of the essential elements of trade union rights. The fact that three prominent leaders of the employers' organisations were serving prison sentences for having expressed their views on the manner in which the country was being governed gave rise to very serious concern, as did certain allegations received concerning inhumane treatment of the prisoners (no right to receive visitors, denial of medical care, etc.).
12. 27. The general thrust of the Government's replies was as follows. The mission was surely aware of the political upheavals that had taken place in Nicaragua, bordering on civil war and leading to the overthrow of the Somoza regime and the coming into power of the Sandinists. The country was in a difficult period of national reconstruction, was subjected to political pressures from the outside world, and was suffering also from political tensions at home that threatened to destabilise the country. Therefore the Government considered it absolutely necessary to introduce certain emergency enactments to safeguard public order and security. Such measures were, however, only of a temporary nature and would be abolished as soon as the situation became stabilised. In this process of stabilisation, COSEP had not been playing a constructive but a destructive role. It had become a political rather than a professional organisation. No government would accept the defamatory statements contained in COSEP's letter of 19 October 1981, such as the one accusing the Government of preparing "a new wave of genocide in Nicaragua, the victims of which will be all those who exercise their right to disagree". The three leaders of COSEP, signatories to the letter in question had freely chosen their defence counsel, had been tried and convicted under due process of law and were sentenced to seven months' imprisonment and compulsory labour. Under Act No. 372 of 11 April 1980 persons sentenced to public works could have the obligation to work replaced by a fine. In fact, Messrs. Dreyfus, Cuadra and Lanzas were not forced to carry out any kind of forced or compulsory labour.
13. 28. In this connection, the mission stated that it was not calling into question the manner in which the proceedings against the three prisoners in question had been conducted, but the compatibility of the legislation under which they had been convicted with ILO standards and principles in the field of freedom of association. It. was understandable that the Government had resented the accusations regarding a new wave of genocide, but the strong language used by the employers should be seen as their understandable reaction to a statement made a few days earlier by the minister of Defence, Commander Humberto Ortega, according to which the nation must establish a list of potentially counterrevolutionary individuals, "who will be the first to be left hanging in the streets". The Government had repeatedly stated that it wished to maintain a "mixed economy" in co-operation with the private sector employers. It did not appear conducive to such cooperation to throw these same employers into jail for having expressed their views on the state of the country, albeit in strong terms. The mission very much hoped that the present confrontation between the Government and COSEP would cease, and that a measure of common ground could be found in the interests of the country as a whole. Early release of the three prisoners would be a highly desirable step in the right direction,
14. 29. The mission subsequently visited Messrs. Dreyfus, Cuadra and Lanzas in their prison. The meeting took place in the absence of any outside witnesses and lasted for close to two hours. The prisoners stated that during the first 11 days of detention they had been kept in isolation from each other in minute cells with little or no light, their diet had consisted solely of rice and black beans which they had to eat with their hands; they could visit the toilets only 3 times every 24 hours, at predetermined times. Since then their conditions had improved and were now quite tolerable. Access to medical care was available, if needed, and they could now receive visits from their families once a week. Sanitary conditions were now adequate. At no time had they been physically maltreated. They were not required to carry out any kind of labour. They felt, however, that they had access to their defence counsel too seldom, only two visits having been authorised in five weeks. The mission raised this matter with the Minister of Justice at a later meeting, who promised to see to it that no obstacles were placed in the way of contacts between the prisoners and defence counsel. All three prisoners were greatly encouraged by the visit of the mission and by the efforts being undertaken by the ILO on their behalf.
15. 30. A meeting was held with several leaders of COSEP at their headquarters. They, too, were highly appreciative of the ILO's efforts to intervene on behalf of their colleagues. In their view, it was not COSEP but the Government which had sought the confrontation that had arisen and which placed their own liberty and security in peril. The action taken by the Government against their colleagues violated not only ILO standards and principles, but also the basic Constitutional laws of Nicaragua and the American Convention on Human Rights. They considered that procedural irregularities had led to the refusal to release their colleagues on bail, and were concerned about the difficulties they claimed that defence counsel were encountering in gaining access to the prisoners.
16. 31. The visit to the President of the Court of Appeal at Masaya and a number of his co-judges produced no useful results. In particular, it did not prove possible to obtain any clear information as to the position in Nicaragua when national law enters into conflict with the terms of a ratified international treaty, or as to the extent to which the judiciary in exercising its functions takes into account the terms of such treaties or Conventions.
17. 32. During the meeting with Dr. Rafael Córdova Rivas, member of the Government Junta, and the Ministers of Justice and of Labour, Dr. Córdova Rivas was asked whether he would, in the interests of restoring a climate of dialogue rather than confrontation, taking into account the good relations that had always existed between Nicaragua and the ILO, and considering the obligations undertaken by Nicaragua in ratifying Convention No. 87, he ready to provide his good offices in ensuring the early release from prison of Messrs. Dreyfus, Cuadra and Lanzas. In reply, Dr. Córdova Rivas stated that he had himself been in prison several times during the Somoza regime, but he had never served the full sentence. However, he could not assure the mission that the prisoners would be released "tomorrow", but he would use his powers to ensure their release.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 33. The Committee takes note of the complainant's allegations, the Government's reply and the information obtained by the direct contacts mission which took place in Nicaragua from 29 November to 4 December 1981. The Committee further notes with satisfaction that the Government of Nicaragua accepted the proposal of the Director-General of the ILO to have an ILO mission examine with the Nicaraguan authorities the questions at issue in this case.
2. 34. The Committee notes that this complaint involves allegations that Messrs. Dreyfus, Bolaños, Cuadra and Lanzas, President and vice-Presidents respectively of COSEP, were arbitrarily and unjustly arrested on 21 October 1981, received inhumane treatment during their detention and were later sentenced - with the exception of Mr. Bolaños who was acquitted as there was no case for him to answer - to seven months' imprisonment and compulsory labour for having signed and given wide publicity to a letter addressed to Commander Daniel Ortega, Co-ordinator of the Junta of the Government of National Reconstruction, which denounced the Government's Marxist-Leninist trend and which reflected the general opinion of the Nicaraguan private sector.
3. 35. In this connection, the Committee notes the Government's statement that the COSEP employer leaders in question were released on 14 February 1982 and that in referring to the release of these persons, the IOE expressed its deep gratitude to the ILO for its efforts taken towards their release. In this connection, the Committee hopes that the release of these leaders will contribute positively to the restoration of a climate of dialogue rather than confrontation between the authorities and the employer sector. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that although the allegations revolved around the imprisonment of the COSEP employer leaders who are now free, it must examine the substance of these allegations in so far as they can be described as violations of freedom of association.
4. 36. In view of this reasoning, the Committee observes that the COSEP employer leaders were arrested because they signed and gave wide publicity to a letter on 19 October 1981, this being alleged by the Public Prosecutor to be grounds for charges under section 4(c)(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Act concerning the Maintenance of Public Order and Security and under section 3(c) and (h) of the Act declaring a State of Economic and Social Emergency. In this connection, after having carefully examined the Act declaring a State of Economic and Social Emergency, the Committee considers that several of its provisions involve serious restrictions on freedom of association and specifically on the freedom of action of the workers' and employers' organisations (see, for example, section 3(a) and (f)). Similarly, some of the types of crimes set out in the Act concerning the Maintenance of Public Order and Security are conceived in very general terms which may give rise to wide interpretations contrary to the full respect of the principle of security before the law - which is a fundamental objective of all legal systems -, this danger being reinforced by the description given of the types of crimes in section 4(c)(1), (2), (3) and (4) by the Appeal Court in its decision of 26 November 1981 sentencing the COSEP employer leaders in which the crimes are listed as "crimes of abstract danger" in that - according to the decision - "For the completion of the crime, it is sufficient that the acts of propaganda or diffusion laid down in the Act be carried out, without it being necessary that the actions of diffusion in writing of unlawful statements and manifestos whose distribution is prohibited produce any real damage to the juridically protected object". The Committee further notes that the mission considered that the legislation referred to imposed serious restrictions on the right to express opinions freely through the press or otherwise, thereby severely restricting one of the essential elements of trade union rights. Accordingly, while noting that the government authorities stated to the mission that the above-mentioned Acts were of a temporary and emergency nature having been adopted during the difficult period of national reconstruction, and taking into account their consequences for the exercise of trade union rights and the civil liberties which are related to these rights, in particular the right to express and circulate ideas and opinions, the Committee would recall that according to Article 8(2) of Convention No. 87, "The law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention". It requests the Government to take steps towards the prompt amendment of these legislative provisions in accordance with the principles contained in Convention No. 87 and the Resolution on Trade Union Rights and their relation to Civil Liberties (adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1970) and would draw this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
5. 37. As regards the sentence of the COSEP employer leaders to seven months' imprisonment and compulsory labour for violating section 4(c)(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Act concerning the maintenance of Public Order and Security, the Committee notes that the judgement handed down by the Criminal Court of First Instance on 29 October 1981 cited the following opinions from the letter signed and published on 19 October 1981 as a basis for the sentence: "Our national economy is collapsing; there are no signs of a production revival; social peace is still not a reality; our foreign debts are increasing daily ... and mixed economy - which the government continues to say it advocates - is shunted as private property is taken over by the State, to the ignorance of the people ... We see a very clear Marxist-Leninist trend, which furthermore is confirmed in the statements made by leaders of the government ... You must understand that those whom you consider reactionaries on the domestic or international scene are not against the people of Nicaragua; they are opposed to the Marxist-Leninist programme you are imposing without the knowledge of the people. If other nations cut us off, it is for this reason ... We are almost at the point of no return, when the government will have difficulty in claiming legitimacy to the people ... What is worse, is that we can only interpret these statements as the preparation of a new wave of genocide in Nicaragua, the victims of which will be all those who exercise their right to disagree." In this connection, the Committee notes that the mission stated that it was understandable that the Government had resented the accusations regarding a new wave of genocide, but the strong language used by the employers should be seen as their understandable reaction to a statement made a few days earlier by the Minister of Defence, Commander Humberto Ortega, according to which the nation must establish a list of potentially counter-revolutionary individuals "who will be the first to be left hanging in the streets". In these circumstances, the Committee, taking into account the telegram sent by the Director-General to the Government on 23 October 1981 requesting the leaders to grant an early release to the prisoners, and in view of the above comments on the Act concerning the Maintenance of Public order and security - upon which the sentences were based - in particular those made by the mission to the effect that serious restrictions were placed on the right to freely express opinions, can only express its deep regret at the conviction and detention as well as the length of time the employer leaders had to spend in prison.
6. 38. Lastly, as regards the alleged inhumane treatment suffered by the COSEP employer leaders while in detention, the Committee notes that they themselves told the mission that during the first 11 days of detention they had been kept in isolation from each other in minute cells with little or no light enduring food and hygiene deficiencies as well, and they stated that they had only rarely been able to see their defence counsel. In this connection, while noting that after the first 11 days the conditions of detention were quite tolerable, the Committee draws to the attention of the Government the importance which it attaches to the fact that preventive detention should be accompanied by a set of safeguards and limitations to ensure that it cannot be used for purposes other than -hat for which it is designed and in particular to give protection against situations where the detention is unsatisfactory from the point of view of sanitation, unnecessary hardship or the right to defence.

The Committee's recommendations

• The recommendations of the Committee
  39. 39 In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and in particular the following conclusions:
      • (a) The Committee notes with satisfaction that the Government of Nicaragua accepted the proposal of the Director-General of the ILO to have an ILO mission examine with the Nicaraguan authorities the questions at issue in this case.
      • (b) As regards the detention and sentencing of the COSEP employer leaders:
      • (i) The Committee notes that Messrs. Dreyfus, Cuadra and Lanzas, who had been detained since 21 October 1981 and sentenced to seven months' imprisonment and compulsory labour under the Act concerning the maintenance of Public Order and Security, were released on 14 February 1982. The Committee hopes that the release of these leaders will contribute positively to the restoration of a climate of dialogue rather than confrontation between the authorities and the employer sector. The Committee also notes that the COSEP employer leader, Mr. Bolaños, was acquitted as no crime had been proved against him.
      • (ii) While recalling that under Article 8(2) of Convention No. 87 "The law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention" and noting that the Act concerning the Maintenance of Public Order and Security and the Act declaring a State of Social and Economic Emergency - the legal texts upon which charges were brought against the COSEP leaders - are of a temporary and emergency nature and were adopted in the difficult period of national reconstruction, the Committee requests the Government, taking account of the consequences for the exercise of trade union rights and the civil liberties related to them, in particular the serious restrictions imposed by the former Act on the right to express opinions freely, to take steps towards the prompt amendment of these Acts in accordance with the principles contained in Convention No. 87 and in the Resolution concerning Trade Union Rights and their relation to Civil Liberties adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1970. The Committee would accordingly bring this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
      • (iii) In view of the above comments on the Act concerning the maintenance of Public Order and Security - the text on which the sentences of the COSEP leaders were based -, the statements of the direct contacts mission on this Act, and the fact that the Director-General sent to the Government on 23 October 1981 a telegram requesting the leaders to free the COSEP members, the Committee expresses its deep regret at their conviction and detention as well as the length of time that they had to spend in prison.
      • (b) As regards the alleged inhumane treatment suffered by the COSEP employer leaders in their first 11 days of detention, the Committee, while noting that subsequently their conditions of detention improved, draws to the Government's attention the importance which it attaches to the fact that preventive detention should be accompanied by a set of safeguards and limitations to ensure that it cannot be used for purposes other than that for which it is designed and in particular to protect against situations unsatisfactory from the point of view of sanitation, unnecessary hardship or the right to defence.
  40. Geneva, 26 February 1982. (Signed) Roberto AGO, Chairman.

Z. ANNEX

• (Translation)
• Managua, 19 October 1981
• Commander Daniel Ortega Saavedra Co-ordinator Government of National Reconstruction
• Sir,
• The boards of the private sector organisations grouped within COSEP, meeting today in extraordinary session, have decided to submit the following considerations to the Government:
• More than two years have passed since the people of Nicaragua's victory over the Somoza regime.
• During these two years, the government policy we have seen develop is very different to that announced in the Government Programme of National Reconstruction.
• We analysed this process of change, and warned you against the dangers of the path you intend following in order to push forward the revolution.
• Our national economy is collapsing; there are no signs of a production revival; social peace is still not a reality; our foreign debts are increasing daily and we see no end to this increase; and mixed economy - which the Government continues to say it advocates - is shunted as private property is taken over by the State, to the ignorance of the people.
• Analysing the way in which the Government runs its national affairs and its foreign policy, we see a very clear Marxist-Leninist trend, which furthermore is confirmed in the statements made by leaders of the Government.
• The comportment of members of the present Government, and statements made within and outside the country, show an obstinacy to follow an ideological international campaign which has almost totally isolated us from the friendly countries which had supported the true Nicaraguan revolution right from the beginning. The Government now appears to be less concerned about maintaining the support of countries like Costa Rica and Venezuela than about obtaining that of Libya or Cuba. This attitude makes it very clear from where our country takes its cue and exposes it to the consequences.
• The statements made at the international level by government leaders appear to follow more closely the guidelines of the international Marxist-Leninist movements than the principles which prompted and must guide our revolution.
• Recently, the Minister of Defence and member of the National Council of the Sandinist National Liberation Front, Commander Humberto Ortega, declared that the nation must establish a list of "potentially counter-revolutionary" individuals. He added that anybody who consciously or unconsciously (meaning non-communist Nicaraguans) supports the plans of imperialism and does not actively defend the country the day it is attached will be the first to be left hanging in the streets.
• What was said by the Minister of Defence and later confirmed by Dr. Sergio Ramirez, member of the Government of National Reconstruction, illustrates to us that a programme has been put into motion, the consequences of which we are unable to forecast. What is worse, is that we can only interpret these statements as the preparation of a new wave of genocide in Nicaragua, the victims of which will be all those who exercise their right to disagree.
• We in Nicaragua are on the edge of destruction. We are almost at the point of no return, when the Government will have difficulty in claiming legitimacy to the people.
• The nationalism of a whole nation is threatened by the internationalism of a radical and fanatic minority.
• Some parts of the Declaration made on 17 October 1981 by the National Council of the Sandinist National Liberation Front could be considered very positive if the ideas expressed in this Declaration were reflected in reality in the words and attitudes of those who make up this National Council.
• However, all this Declaration does in fact is accentuate the marked ambiguity which characterises the present Government.
• What is the point of this Declaration appealing to all sectors of the population if, whenever you consider it appropriate, you treat them as traitors?
• What is the point of advocating a mixed economy when you continue to illegally confiscate enterprises?
• What is the point of proclaiming that freedom of the press is guaranteed when you continue to shut down newspapers?
• What is the point of proclaiming political pluralism when you prevent the political parties from meeting peacefully when your "divine" (your own word) followers mob them with the aim of turning over the country into a turmoil of chaos and violence.
• What is the point of saying you guarantee ideological pluralism when you sabotage the activities of independent trade unions and imprison their leaders?
• What is the point of saying you guarantee the physical freedoms of the people when the Minister of Defence threatens to hang particular individuals?
• What is the point of solemnly declaring that Nicaragua supports the Governments of Central America in their efforts for economic recovery when you attack them and call them guerrillas?
• What is the point of proclaiming human rights when you issue decrees restricting these rights?
• You must understand that those whom you consider reactionaries on the domestic or international scene are not against the people of Nicaragua; they are opposed to the Marxist-Leninist programme you are imposing without the knowledge of the people. If other nations cut us off, it is for this reason. If we are opposed to the programme, it is also for this reason.
• We want it to be very clear, to you and for history, that the private sector of Nicaragua supports and will continue to support the legitimate Nicaraguan revolution, as described in the Programme of the Government of National Reconstruction, but that the private sector in no way approves a programme which is aimed at transforming the revolution into a Marxist-Leninist adventure which can but lead to bloodshed and suffering for our people.
• This is the truth. Rules and threats are not important. This is the truth and this is how it is seen by all those who supported us in the beginning and who today look upon us suspiciously, because of what our Government is doing and because of the ideologies behind its action. All that we hope is that it is not too late to mend the mistakes and that you realise it.
• Yours faithfully,
• (Signed)
• President and Vice-Presidents, supreme Council of Private Enterprise of Nicaragua (COSEP)