Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 254, Marzo 1988

Caso núm. 1190 (Perú) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 23-MAR-83 - Cerrado

1. 30. The committee last examined Case No. 1190 at its meeting in November 1987 when it presented interim conclusions to the Governing Body (see 253rd Report, paras. 246 to 256, approved by the Governing Body at its 238th Session (November 1987)).
2. 31. Following the latest examination of the case, the Government on 11 January 1988 sent additional information on the allegations that were still under consideration.
3. 32. Peru has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to organisation Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case.

1. 33. When the Committee last examined the case in November 1987, allegations relating to the arrest of trade unionists as a result of the national strike of May 1983 were still pending. More specifically, the Committee had requested the Government to provide additional information on the situation of trade union leaders Jorge Rabines Bartra and Juan Calle Mendoza (specifying, in particular, whether they had been charged, and the stage the proceedings, if any, had reached) and to send precise observations concerning the alleged detention of 84 unionists.

B. The Government's reply

1. 34. In its communication of 11 January 1988, the Government sent additional information on this case and, specifically, on the detention of 84 people as a result of the national strike of 10 May 1983 and on the state of proceedings against Jorge Rabines Bartra and Juan Calle Mendoza. The government states that trade union leaders Jorge Rabines Bartra and Juan Calle Mendoza, among others, were summoned before the Fourth Provincial Office of the Public Prosecutor which found that a misdemeanour had indeed been committed but that the responsibility of the accused had not been established; Jorge Rabines Bartra and Juan Calle Mendoza were therefore not detained.
2. 35. The Government added that the case had been brought before the 19th investigating court and had been passed on to the tenth magistrate's court, which stated that no ruling was called for inasmuch as those responsible for the misdemeanour had not been identified and ordered that the case be dismissed. This decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice in a ruling of 14 October 1987, whereupon the judicial proceedings were terminated and the original examining magistrate ordered the closure of the file.
3. 36. Finally, the Government notes that with the foregoing information it has given effect to the Committee's recommendation that it supply additional details of the proceedings initiated against the trade union leaders Jorge Rabines Bartra and Juan Calle Mendoza, and specific observations concerning the alleged detention of 84 trade unionists, and that there are therefore no longer any grounds for a complaint.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 37. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government regarding the outstanding allegations in this case, and specifically concerning the alleged detention of trade union leaders Jorge Rabines Bartra and Juan Calle Mendoza and of 84 trade unionists.
2. 38. The Committee further notes that, although the judicial authority found that a misdemeanour had indeed been committed, the responsibility of the accused has not been established and that Jorge Rabines Bartra and Juan Calle Mendoza, among others, have therefore not been detained. The Committee also understands from the information supplied, and particularly from the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice to order the original examining magistrate to close the file on the case since those responsible for the misdemeanour have not been identified, that no one is under detention.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 39. In light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendation:
   • The Committee, taking into account the information supplied by the Government, considers that this case does not call for further examination.