Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 214, Mars 1982

Cas no 1072 (Colombie) - Date de la plainte: 30-JUIL.-81 - Clos

1. 40. The complaint appears in a communication from the Trade Union of Public Undertakings of Manizales dated 30 July 1981. The Government replied in a communication of 16 December 1981.
2. 41. Colombia has ratified the Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948 (No. 87), and the Convention on the Right to organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 42. In its communication of 30 July 1981, the Trade Union of Public Undertakings of Manizales indicates that a criminal attack has been made against the liberty of the trade union leaders Carlos Rosario Pantoja, Carlos Moya Murrat and Norberto Citrón, and asks for them to be released.

B. The Government's reply

1. 43. In its communication of 16 December 1981, the Government states that Carlos Rosario Pantoja, Carlos Moya Murrat and Norberto Citrón have not been arrested and attaches a certificate of the competent authority which corroborates this. The Government adds that further inquiries were made into the situation of these people, proving that in reality they had never been detained at any time.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 44. The Committee notes that the Government denies that the leaders to which the complainant referred were detained, and submits a certificate of the competent authority which supports its statements. The Committee notes, on the other hand that the complainant, despite the invitation to submit additional information, has not indicated the reasons for the alleged arrests and, specifically, whether the latter were for trade union reasons. Consequently, and in view of the contradiction between the complainant's allegations and both the Government's reply and the documentary evidence which it submitted, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 45. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.