Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 87, 1966

Cas no 363 (Colombie) - Date de la plainte: 11-OCT. -63 - Clos

1. 78. The Committee has already examined this case at its 36th Session in February 1964. On that occasion the Committee presented to the Governing Body an interim report containing its final conclusions on the majority of the allegations relating to the case, recommending it at the same time to request the Government to supply additional information on other allegations. These conclusions and recommendations, which are contained in paragraphs 201 to 241 of the 74th Report of the Committee, were adopted by the Governing Body at its 159th Session (Geneva, June-July 1964).
2. 79. The following paragraphs deal only with the allegations which remained in abeyance and which refer to violations of trade union rights committed when a demonstration by strikers at Puerto Boyacá was broken up, one worker being killed and others injured.
3. 80. Colombia has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 81. In its complaint dated 11 October 1963 the World Federation of Trade Unions maintained that on 24 August of that year a meeting of strikers at Puerto Boyacá was attacked by forces of repression, one worker being killed and others wounded. In its reply the Government stated that the meeting had taken place in spite of the prohibition on the holding of public demonstrations, that the demonstrators had attacked the forces of law and order and that with a view to ascertaining responsibility an inquiry had been opened under a criminal investigating magistrate and the Military Judge Advocate's Office.
2. 82. Examining the case at its February 1964 session the Committee observed that in similar cases in which it had been alleged that people had been killed when the police opened fire on strikers the Committee had pointed out that, in cases in which the dispersal of public assemblies, etc., by the police on grounds of public order or similar grounds had involved loss of life, it attached special importance to the circumstances being fully investigated by an immediate and independent special inquiry and to the regular legal procedure being followed to determine the justification and responsibility for the action taken by the police. The Committee noted that in the present case the Government had denied that the forces of law and order were responsible for the alleged occurrence. In view of the fact that the Government had stated that the necessary judicial inquiries had been started, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to be good enough to inform it of the result of these inquiries.
3. 83. At its sessions in November 1964 and February, May and November 1965 the Committee postponed examination of the case as it was awaiting the information requested from the Government.
4. 84. By a communication dated 11 January 1966 the Government furnished the text of the verdict at the hearing of second instance delivered by the Military High Court on 28 September 1965 in the case opened in order to investigate the occurrence and determine responsibilities.
5. 85. In the part relating to the grounds of the Military High Court's verdict it is stated that the investigation of the facts was originally entrusted to a municipal police inspector of Puerto Boyacá but was taken over " successively " by a criminal examining magistrate and two military penal examining magistrates.
6. 86. The text of the document sent by the Government gives a summary of the conclusions of the inquiry and extracts from the statements of many people who were present at or took part in the incident. In brief, the facts as they emerge from these conclusions originated in a strike declared by the workers of the Texas Company. The activities of the strikers had given rise to fears of breaches of the peace, to avoid which the Military Governor of Puerto Boyacá issued Decree No. 044 of 20 August 1963, which ruled that as from that date and until further notice permission to organise demonstrations of any nature whatsoever within the town limits was entirely suspended. Notwithstanding the prohibition, on 24 August a meeting, organised by Mr Italo Daza, a member of the Chamber of Representatives, was held in the main square of the town. On being informed of this occurrence, the Governor sought the collaboration and help of the military patrols which had been detached to deal with disturbances or difficult situations. When an army captain personally requested Mr. Daza to stop the speech which he had begun, the latter replied that nobody was going to get him down from where he was. The participants in the demonstration protested and one of them, Mr. Adondi Avila, went so far as to seize and strike the captain. In view of the threatening attitude of the demonstrators another officer and a patrol, under the command of a lance-corporal, intervened, the officer overpowering and arresting Mr. Avila and the patrol attempting to disperse the demonstrators. At this point, it was alleged, the officers left, taking Mr. Avila with them, and were stoned by the demonstrators as they went. Mr. Avila himself confirmed in his statements that the vehicle in which he was taken away was hit by objects which he could not identify. According to the statements of several of its members, the patrol attempted to disperse the demonstrators, first by verbal orders, then with their rifle butts, and then by throwing tear-gas grenades, which were tossed back by the demonstrators before exploding. Then a number of shots, apparently 17, were fired by the patrol. According to the members of the patrol, these shots were fired in the air with the object of intimidating the demonstrators. The evidence showed that Mr. Martiniano Romero was killed, Mr. Siervo Galeano wounded and Mr. Carlos Trejos suffered contusions.
7. 87. On the basis of the investigation, the Military High Court concluded, among other points, that the patrol had acted in accordance with its instructions and the orders governing the conduct of troops sent to maintain public order, in first giving verbal warnings, then using their rifle butts, then throwing tear-gas grenades and finally shooting. With regard to the rifle shots, the Court deduced that they were not fired directly at the demonstrators, because in that case the victims would have been much more numerous and that " owing to circumstances which it is impossible to ascertain, one or two of the shots fired might have been deflected " as a result of the pressure and contact which the demonstrators were exerting on the members of the patrol. The Court concluded that the soldiers had legitimately made use of their firearms and that their action was justified, and it confirmed the judgment of non-suit, though it applied this to the preliminary proceedings as a ruling on their probatory value and not as a verdict on the members of the patrol, as these had not been indicted in the proceedings.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 88. The Committee notes that the inquiry, which was first entrusted to the ordinary police and judicial authorities, was concluded by the military penal authorities, through hearings of first and second instance.
2. 89. The Committee has always applied the principle that allegations relating to the exercise of the right to strike are within its competence, in so far but only in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights, and on many occasions has recommended the Governing Body to affirm that the right to strike of workers and workers' organisations constitutes an essential means of promoting and defending their occupational interests. The Committee, however, has rejected allegations relating to strikes by reason of their non-occupational character, or where they have been designed to coerce a government with respect to a political matter, or have been directed against the government's policy and not "in furtherance of a trade dispute ".s On the other hand, in many cases laid before its, the Committee has emphasised that freedom of meeting is an essential element in trade union rights. In Case No. 62 (Netherlands), however, the Committee affirmed that, although the right of holding trade union meetings is a basic requisite of the free exercise of trade union rights, the organisations concerned must observe the general provisions relating to public meetings, which are applicable to all.
3. 90. The Committee notes the Government's statement that, in the present case, the prohibition on demonstrations constituted a local measure based on grounds of public order and did not relate only to the meeting of members of the trade union which was on strike, and that the meeting to which the complaint relates was not held on trade union premises but in a public square, in spite of that prohibition. Further, it appears to have been called by a Member of Parliament, whose connection with the trade union is not explained.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 91. In these circumstances, with regard to the allegations the examination of which had remained in abeyance in this case, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to take note that, in regard to the incidents during which a worker was killed, another was wounded and a third suffered contusions, these happened on the occasion of a public meeting held in connection with a strike and that an inquiry into the incidents mentioned has been carried out by the military penal authorities;
   • (b) to draw the Government's attention to the importance which it has always attached, in circumstances similar to those of the present case, to a full investigation of the facts through an immediate and independent inquiry, and to the regular legal procedure being followed.