Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 151, Noviembre 1975

Caso núm. 718 (República Dominicana) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 28-JUL-72 - Cerrado

1. 69. The Committee considered this case at its sessions in February and May 1973, submitting interim reports on each occasion (paragraphs 211 to 221 of its 135th Report, and paragraphs 122 to 130 of its 137th Report).
2. 70. The Dominican Republic 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. 71. The Committee recalls that the allegations still outstanding concern the imprisonment of Mr. Fernando de la Rosa, Workers' Education Secretary of the Dominican National Workers' Confederation. According to the WFTU, he was imprisoned, although he had not been convicted by any court of law, in April 1971 and has remained in prison ever since, although his release was ordered in April 1972.
2. 72. The Government, in the observations it made on 19 October 1972, stated that trade union organisation was free in the Dominican Republic, provided that both in their rules and their activities the unions observed "a democratic organisation compatible with Constitutional principles and purposes pertaining strictly to the field of labour". The Government had always complied with the provisions of Convention No. 87, by authorising the development, without interference, of all trade union organisations conforming with national labour legislation. However, it submitted no observations concerning the allegations relating to Mr. Fernando de la Rosa.
3. 73. At its session in February 1973, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to comment on these allegations, indicating what had happened to Mr. Fernando de la Rosa and whether he had been brought before a national court of law; if he had been, then the Government should be asked to supply a copy of the verdict rendered.
4. 74. With its letter dated 14 April 1973, the Government sent a photocopy of the verdict rendered against Mr. Fernando de la Rosa. The latter, it said, had served his sentence, but the Secretary of State for Labour knew nothing of his whereabouts. At its session in May 1973, the Committee concluded from the verdict rendered that on 27 April 1972 Mr. Fernando de la Rosa had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment for breach of Acts Nos. 6, 70 and 71 of 1963. There was nothing in the verdict to indicate the nature of these Acts or the charges brought against the accused.
5. 75. In paragraph 130 of its 137th Report, the Committee noted that the accused was at liberty. Nevertheless, so as to be able to submit its conclusions in full knowledge of the facts, it recommended the Governing Body to request the Government for information about the legislation which the accused was said to have infringed, and about the events as a result of which he had been sent to prison for six months.
6. 76. In a letter dated 16 October 1973, the Government confined itself to sending a further copy of the verdict of the court of first instance on Mr. Fernando de la Rosa, together with a copy of the judgment given by the Appeals Court. This latter judgment, dated 20 July 1972, increased the sentence to one year's imprisonment, but it contained no more information than the first judgment about the content of the legislation infringed (Acts Nos. 6, 70 and 71 of 1963) or about the charges brought against the accused.
7. 77. In a letter dated 10 January 1975, the Government sent a copy of Act No. 6 dated 8 October 1963, as amended by Acts Nos. 70 and 71 dated 29 and 30 November 1963, on the basis of which the accused had been sentenced. This Act, as amended, outlaws the Communist Party and associations pursuing destructive ends or conspiring against the sovereignty of the nation. It prescribes terms of imprisonment for those who carry on propaganda on behalf of bodies banned by law.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 78. The Committee has always taken the view that it was not competent to consider purely political allegations, but that it could and should consider action of a political nature taken by governments in so far as such action might affect the exercise of trade union rights.
2. 79. In this particular instance, the Committee observes that the accused was sent to prison for a year on the basis of laws outlawing the Communist Party and making those who carry on propaganda in favour of banned associations liable to imprisonment. But there is nothing in the verdicts rendered to indicate the specific events for which the accused had been held responsible. This is the more regrettable in that the Government has not provided the information asked for about the actual circumstances which led to Mr. Fernando de la Rosa's conviction.
3. 80. In this connection, the Committee feels obliged to recall, as it has already done in another case concerning the Dominican Republic, that the aim of its procedure is to ensure respect for freedom of association in law as well as in fact. It is convinced that just as this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side should recognise the importance, for the protection of their own good name, of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies to such detailed factual charges as may be put forward.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 81. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the Government's attention to the principles and considerations set forth in paragraphs 78 to 80 above, and to deplore the fact that neither the Government's comments nor the verdicts rendered contain any specific information about the actual circumstances which led to Mr. Fernando de la Rosa's conviction, as a result of which the Committee is unable to reach its conclusions in full knowledge of the facts.