Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 142, 1974

Cas no 701 (Colombie) - Date de la plainte: 16-MAI -72 - Clos

1. 104. This case has already been examined by the Committee, at its meeting in November 1973. An interim report on it submitted to the Governing Body at that time is contained in paragraphs 482 to 489 of the 139th Report of the Committee.
2. 105. 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. 106. The Committee recalls that the complaints of the Workers' Federation of Santander (FESTRA) and of the World Federation of Trade Unions were contained in two communications dated 16 May and 8 June 1972. These complaints were transmitted to the Government, which forwarded its observations thereon on 29 January 1973.
2. 107. With its complaint, the FESTRA enclosed a copy of a communication dated 10 May 1972, sent to it from Bucaramanga Prison by thirteen petroleum workers who had been sentenced to several years' imprisonment for having taken part in a strike in August 1971. According to the complainants, these workers were some of the thirty-six strikers sentenced by courts martial for alleged offences of edition and seizure of property. The complainants maintained that these trade unionists were all innocent of the offences with which they had been charged. These allegations were supported by the WFTU.
3. 108. In the first observations it made, the Government stated that the workers in question were in prison for having committed offences that came within the jurisdiction of the military courts. Anything connected with public order, declared the Government, was outside the labour sphere. Moreover, the Government concluded that relations between the employers and the Workers' Trade Union Federation (USO) - an organisation that appeared to have been involved in the aforementioned strike - were excellent and that a new collective agreement, of which it enclosed the text, had just then been signed.
4. 109. At its 63rd Session (19 February 1973), the Committee took note of the Government's observations, but considered that more detailed information was necessary to enable it to express an opinion in full knowledge of the facts. It consequently requested the Director-General to ask the Government to furnish detailed information on the charges brought against the imprisoned workers and the procedure followed before the military courts, together with the text of the judgements rendered with reasons annexed.
5. 110. In a communication dated 5 July 1973, the Government supplied the following information. The proceedings in which the workers were involved did not fall within the competence of the ordinary courts. The acts for which they had been tried had been committed while a state of siege was in force and were considered to be crimes of seizure of property and against the national economy, punishable by the military judicial authorities which had jurisdiction at the time and place where the events occurred. Consequently, the Ministry of Labour was not competent to intervene on any matter connected with the case.
6. 111. The Committee considered that the Government's observations still had not gone far enough to enable it to examine the substance of the case. It pointed out that, even if the matters raised in the complaint did not fall directly within the competence of the Ministry of Labour, the procedure for the protection of freedom of association was intended to ensure respect for such freedom in fact as well as in law in every context and that, in consequence, irrespective of the conditions under which these workers had been sentenced, the legislation in pursuance of which sentence had been pronounced or the authorities pronouncing sentence, the Committee must be in possession of the necessary information in order to be able to reach conclusions in full knowledge of the facts.
7. 112. The Committee accordingly recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to provide, through the competent authorities, additional information as to the facts which had led to the prosecution of these workers on charges of seizure of property and crimes against the national economy, the text of the provisions governing these offences and the procedure followed before the military courts, together with the text of the judgments rendered with reasons annexed.
8. 113. Two communications have been received from the Government, dated 31 October 1973 and 18 January 1974 respectively.
9. 114. In the first of these, the Government states that what occurred on 5 August 1971 was that the employees of the Ecopetrol Refinery in Barrancabermeja went on an all-out strike over a dispute regarding management's failure to implement one of the terms of the collective agreement then in force. The strike was not, the Government continues, peaceful and the workers occupied the refinery. This occupation necessitated the intervention of the army garrison in Barrancabermeja and the company suffered considerable loss both in man-hours and damage to property. As a result several of the workers involved were charged before military courts in conformity with the law prevailing at the time the criminal acts took place.
10. 115. In its communication dated 18 January 1974, the Government forwards the text of Act No. 24 of 19 December 1973, which reads:
11. "1. Those who were sentenced by the military Criminal Court for acts committed at the Refining and Petrochemical Industrial Complex in the El Centro Production District, under the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Barrancabermeja on the 5th and 6th days of August 1971 are hereby granted a full remission of sentence.
12. "2. In return for the granting of the benefit extended in the present Act, the Government shall require those affected to give the pledge of good conduct provided for in section 55 of the Penal Code.
13. "3. The orders giving effect to the above-mentioned remission of sentence and ordering the release of those concerned, shall be communicated to the Supreme Military Tribunal and the Supreme Court of Justice."

116. The Committee regrets that the Government has not supplied all the information requested, thereby making it impossible for the Committee to reach its conclusions on the matter in full knowledge of the facts. The Committee notes, however, that a full remission of sentence has been granted to the persons in question and it therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that it would serve no useful purpose to pursue the case any further.