Definitive Report - REPORT_NO98, 1967

1. 28. The complaint by the World Federation of Trade Unions is contained in a communication dated 26 September 1963. It was transmitted to the Government, which sent its observations on 29 February 1964.
2. 29. Mexico has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but not the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 30. The complainants alleged that at the beginning of August 1963 a group of labour leaders including most of the former members of the national executive committee of the Union of Railwaymen of the Mexican Republic, as well as its General Secretary, Demetrio Vallejo Martinez, were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment; that Mr. Vallejo received a 16-year sentence which was confirmed on appeal; and that the said sentences were really a repressive act directed against the right to strike and other trade union rights which the convicted persons had exercised (in March 1959, the complainants explained, the railway workers had gone on strike after negotiations for higher wages and better conditions of work proved fruitless; the Government had taken violent repressive action against the strikers, 5,000 workers being arrested; the leaders of the union had been imprisoned and prosecuted; hundreds of railwaymen had been dismissed; Mr. Vallejo and other leaders had been accused of subversive acts and left in prison for four years pending the judgment).
2. 31. The Government stated in its reply dated 29 February 1964, as a preliminary issue, that the Union of Railwaymen of the Mexican Republic was not affiliated to the World Federation of Trade Unions, that the latter organisation could not claim a representative character which it did not possess, and that the complaint was therefore not receivable.
3. 32. On the substance of the case, the Government alleged that when Mr. Vallejo and the other accused became officers of the above-mentioned union they took the opportunity of promoting a series of disturbances, unlawful movements and acts of violence tending to weaken the national economy and subvert established institutions. Consequently, it continued, considering that the offence of social subversion (disolución social), offences against the economy, the offence of disturbing public communications, etc., had been committed, the Government asked the judicial authorities to intervene. The above offences were punishable under common law provisions and the persons mentioned were accused as common law criminals. In the proceedings which followed, they were found to be criminally liable by the courts of first and second instance. However, the Supreme Court of Justice, the highest judicial organ of the country, had at that time not yet pronounced on the matter. The accused had individual defending counsel chosen by themselves and had not been in close or solitary confinement; the hearings were public, and the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the time limits provided by legislation.
4. 33. The Government attached to its reply the text of the sentence pronounced by the Second District Judge (Criminal Court) of the Federal District in the proceedings against the persons mentioned above. It also furnished a certificate from the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare to the effect that the Ministry received the records of the meetings held in January 1962 at which the members of the various committees, particularly the national executive committee and national committee of supervision and inspection, of the Union of Railwaymen of the Mexican Republic were elected. Lastly, the Government also furnished a copy of a letter dated 27 December 1963 from the General Secretary of the same union to the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare in which he replied to several questions put by the Ministry.
5. 34. It appears from the replies contained in the said letter, inter alia, that the Union of Railwaymen of the Mexican Republic is the only union organising railway workers in Mexico and has concluded collective agreements on their behalf; that the union does not belong to any national or international federation and consequently is not affiliated to the World Federation of Trade Unions; that the union has at no time empowered the W.F.T.U to make a complaint against the Government of Mexico for violation of freedom of association; that the Government has never infringed freedom of association in relation to the workers, including railwaymen; that at no time have 5,000 railway workers been arrested; that Mr. Vallejo and others had been convicted for criminal offences by a court of first instance and had instituted an appeal.
   • Preliminary Question as to Receivability of the Complaint
6. 35. When the Committee examined the case at its 37th Session (June 1964) it recalled that, on a previous occasion, the Secretary-General of the United Nations had transmitted to the I.L.O a complaint by the Local Railway Workers' Council at Tierra Blanca (Veracruz, Mexico) relating to the arrest of Mr. Vallejo. That complaint had been communicated to the Mexican Government, which stated that at the time of lodging it the signatories were not, as they claimed, President and Secretary of the said council and therefore had no right to make the complaint. In those circumstances the Committee had asked for the information which it required in order that the situation might be clarified; as this was not received, it reached the following conclusion:
   • Since the Committee has not been able to obtain the information it requested about the complaining organisation, and since furthermore it has not been able to ascertain the real status of the signatories of the complaint, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the complaint is not receivable under the procedure in force.
7. 36. In the present case, observed the Committee at its 37th Session, the Government argued that, as the Union of Railwaymen of the Mexican Republic was not affiliated to the World Federation of Trade Unions, the latter organisation could not claim a representative character which it did not possess and that the complaint it presented was therefore not receivable.
8. 37. The Committee pointed out at its 37th Session that, according to the procedure in force for the examination of complaints of alleged infringements of freedom of association, allegations are receivable only if they are submitted by a national organisation directly interested in the particular matter, or an international organisation of employers or workers having consultative status with the I.L.O, or another international organisation of employers or workers where the allegations relate to matters directly affecting an organisation affiliated to it.
9. 38. In the present instance, the Committee noted, the complaint was presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions, an international organisation of workers which has consultative status with the I.L.O. This being so, it was not necessary, under the rules set out above, for the said organisation to have the Union of Railwaymen of the Mexican Republic among its affiliates in order to be able to present a complaint respecting matters affecting that union and its former officers.
10. 39. In these circumstances the Committee decided that, for the reasons given above, the complaint presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions was receivable under the procedure in force.
11. 40. This decision was brought to the notice of the Government by a letter dated 19 June 1964.
    • Allegations concerning Sentences Imposed on Trade Union Leaders
12. 41. The complainants alleged that most of the former members of the national executive committee of the Union of Railwaymen of the Mexican Republic were sentenced as an act of repression against a strike. The Government maintained that the sentences in question were imposed for the commission of criminal and particularly of subversive acts. As evidence in support of this statement, the Government transmitted the judgment handed down by the court of first instance, setting out the acts alleged to have been committed by the accused and stating the legal basis for conviction and sentence.
13. 42. When it examined the case at its 37th Session (June 1964), the Committee recalled that in previous cases " in which allegations that trade union leaders or workers were arrested for trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests were really made for subversive activities, reasons of internal security or common law crimes, it had always followed the rule that the governments should be requested to submit further information, as precise as possible, concerning the arrests and the exact reasons for them. If in certain cases the Committee had concluded that allegations relating to the arrest and detention of trade union militants did not call for further examination this had been after it had received information from the governments showing with sufficient clarity and detail that the arrests, etc., were in no way occasioned by trade union activities but resulted from acts outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature.
14. 43. The Committee observed that, according to what the Government stated in its reply, the persons mentioned in the complaint had been convicted, in first and second instance, of common law crimes. In the bulky judgment of the court of first instance transmitted by the Government, the actions of the respective accused persons and their share in the acts which they were charged with are analysed at length. Mr. Vallejo was convicted of the offence of social subversion (disolución social), the offences of disturbing the public communications, and an offence equivalent to that of individual rebellion. The other persons implicated were also charged with some or all of these offences.
15. 44. After analysing the abundant evidence recorded in relation to the case, the Judge reached the conclusion that there remained no possibility of doubt, either regarding the close relationship between Communist political groups and the activities of the accused, or regarding the latter's aims, since, he said, they did not act with the specific object of supporting the claims of workers as such, but principally in order to bring about a subversive political movement. The Judge went on to declare that: " Commission of the offence of social subversion (disolución social), that is, any kind of action which induces or incites a person or persons to perform acts of provocation with the object of disturbing the peace, has been amply proved in the proceedings," since the Communist leaders against whom they were brought and some of the other accused, using means of agitation which are specified in the judgment, induced and incited the railwaymen, the members of the other workers' organisations to whom the accused appealed for solidarity and support on behalf of the railwaymen, and the proletariat in general, to perform acts of provocation with the object of disturbing the peace and public order, and those acts resulted in paralysis of the country's rail transport system consequent on the work stoppage in which all the railwaymen were persuaded to engage " in the manner very clearly established in the present judgment".
16. 45. The acts submitted for examination by the Judge were also considered to constitute the offences of interference with general public communications, disturbing the economy and coercing the authorities (regarded as equivalent to individual rebellion). The first of these was committed, in the Judge's opinion, by the suspension of the country's rail communications consequent upon the accused's incitement of the workers to subvert the institutional life of the nation and perform acts of provocation with the object of disturbing the peace and public order. The offence against the economy was considered to consist in disturbing the domestic market by improper means. Lastly, the offence of coercing the authorities was considered to consist in the accused's use of strike action to obtain the intervention of the authorities, not only without due process of law but contrary to what had been decided by the Federal Board of Conciliation and Arbitration.
17. 46. The Government stated in its communication dated 29 February 1964 that " the Supreme Court of Justice, the highest judicial organ of this country, has still to give a ruling; it will be called upon to decide finally what action shall be taken ". The Committee understood from this statement that the case was still pending before the Supreme Court.
18. 47. The Committee recalled at its 37th Session that in the past it had always followed the practice of not continuing to examine matters which were the subject of proceedings pending before a national court of law where the said proceedings might make available information of assistance to it in appreciating whether or not allegations were well founded." The Committee has pointed out on previous occasions that it had been its regular practice to ask the governments for information regarding such judicial proceedings and their result.
19. 48. In these circumstances the Committee noted with interest the judgment sent by the Government, but, since the matter was still pending before a court of law, it requested the Government to be good enough to communicate the result of the Supreme Court's proceedings and decided in the meantime to defer the formulation of its conclusions on the case.
20. 49. At its 38th, 39th and 40th Sessions (November 1964, February 1965 and May 1965 respectively) the Committee decided to adjourn its examination of the case since it had not received the information requested from the Government.
21. 50. In a communication dated 20 May 1965 the Government stated that in order to be able to send that information it had instructed the Public Prosecutor of the Republic to supply full details, from which it appeared that the ruling of the court of second instance (first circuit court of one judge) (Tribunal Unitario del Primer Circuito) had been made the subject of an appeal for amparo (protection of individual rights) to the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and that the case was still under consideration.
22. 51. Consequently, at its 41st and 42nd Sessions (November 1965 and February 1966), the Committee again adjourned its examination of the case. By a communication dated 4 March 1966 from the Permanent Delegation of Mexico in Geneva, the Government supplied the text of the ruling handed down by the first circuit court of one judge (Tribunal Unitario del Primer Circuito) on 20 May 1964 which confirmed nearly the whole of the ruling of the court of first instance although it acquitted the persons sentenced for the offence of individual rebellion. The court of second instance also confirmed that ten of the persons sentenced had in the meantime served the prison sentences relating to the other offences, which fact it noted in its ruling. It reduced Mr. Vallejo's sentence to 11 years and four months and gave the other persons involved prison sentences varying from two years and eight months to 11 years and two months.
23. 52. At its 43rd Session (May 1966) the Committee again postponed examination of the case in the hope of receiving the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice. By a communication dated 12 January 1967 from the Permanent Delegation of Mexico in Geneva, the Government supplied the text of two rulings of 24 March 1966, handed down by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in respect of appeals Nos. 6958/64 and 7634/64 against the ruling of the court of second instance by Mr. Vallejo and the other persons accused. It appears from the rulings of the Supreme Court that eight more similar appeals, lodged by the other persons sentenced, gave rise to similar rulings. In the enumeration of the grounds for its rulings the Supreme Court of Justice commented in detail on the elements which, according to the provisions of the Federal Penal Code, constitute each of the three offences proven before the court of second instance; it also commented on the charges themselves and the evidence brought.
24. 53. Among the grounds adduced was the fact that the offence of attempting to overthrow the State, defined in section 145 of the Federal Penal Code in the list of offences against the internal safety of the nation, was to be considered as coming under the heading of political crimes. It appears from the comments of the Supreme Court that the political offence for which Mr. Vallejo and other persons were sentenced consisted of promoting and executing programmes aimed at using the trade union movement to subvert the juridical and political structure of the State, established by the 1917 Constitution, and replace it by a Socialist régime
25. 54. The grounds for the ruling go on to describe various forms of agitation which it is claimed were provoked in 1955 and 1956, on the pretext of certain labour disputes, by political agitations in the trade union movement, as well as the strikes of railway workers that took place in 1959. These strikes, which originally affected the Mexican national railway company (Ferrocarriles Nacionales de Mexico) gave rise to negotiations during which wage increases were proposed by the Ministry of Labour, but were eventually declared unlawful (" non-existent ") since it had not been proven that they had been voted by the majority required by law. Although Mr. Vallejo, the Secretary-General of the Union, ordered the workers not to return to work, the Ministry of Labour pursued its conciliatory action and was able to settle the dispute and obtain a return to work. Strikes were subsequently declared in other railway companies (Ferrocarril Sudpacifico, Ferrocarril Mexicano and Compañia Terminal de Veracruz) which were also declared unlawful by the authorities since it could not be shown that they had been declared in conformity with the law. In all these cases the workers were ordered to return to work within 24 hours, which however they did not do because of instructions from their leaders not to return to work until the union's claims had been met. As work continued to be interrupted in the national company, Ferrocarriles Nacionales de Mexico, the police intervened and later, when the strike became general, the army was also called in, many trade union leaders and hundreds of workers being arrested. In the comments of the Supreme Court of Justice on the grounds for its rulings, statements and documentary proof are quoted which, it would appear, show the intervention of " Communist elements " in the dispute and the carrying out of political instructions by the leaders of the union.
26. 55. Essentially, the Supreme Court of Justice considered that the conclusion reached by the District Judge, which was confirmed by the court of second instance, was in accordance with the law since it had been proven that the persons sentenced had incited the workers to undermine the institutional life of the country by strikes and interruptions of work outside the bounds of the law and by direct resistance to the authority of the State, which is a breach of section 145 of the Penal Code, as already mentioned; this section makes it punishable for any Mexican national or alien to incite or induce others to perturb the institutional life of the country. In this connection the rulings supplied by the Government stress the fact that the action of the persons involved was not aimed at obtaining benefits for the working class, but at undermining the authority of the State for subversive ends.
27. 56. With regard to the offence of obstructing public communications, the Supreme Court of Justice points out that all the rolling stock of the national railway network was immobilised as a direct consequence of and in execution of the instructions telegraphed by Mr. Vallejo. The Supreme Court points out that for the offences defined in subparagraph VII of section 167 of the Penal Code to be committed it is not necessary to damage the rolling stock by force or violence.
28. 57. As regards the offence against the national economy, the Supreme Court considered that this too was fully proven, since the activities of the persons accused had undeniably caused serious perturbance in the economy of the country by immobilising thousands of tons of products and raw materials, depriving many areas of normal supplies, causing the cost of living to rise and impeding many commercial operations of vital importance to the country's economic life, all of which constitutes the offence contemplated in subparagraph III of section 254 of the Federal Penal Code, which makes it punishable to perturb the domestic market by any means other than the publication of false, exaggerated or tendentious news.
29. 58. The Supreme Court of Justice stressed the fact that the penalties inflicted did not violate individual safeguards since they were applied in conformity with the provisions of sections 51 and 52 of the Federal Penal Code within the minimum and maximum limits established and were proportionate to the degree of seriousness of the acts committed by the persons charged. Lastly, the Supreme Court of Justice declared that the claim of unconstitutionality made in the appeals was unfounded and refused to grant the appeal for amparo (protection of individual rights).
30. 59. The Committee notes that, in reply to the allegations made by the complainants, according to which the arrest and sentencing of former members of the national executive committee of the Railway Workers' Union of the Republic of Mexico constituted an act of repression tending to restrict the right to strike and other trade union rights, the Government has supplied the full text of the rulings of the courts of first and second instance and the full text of two rulings handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice in respect of the appeals lodged by Mr. Vallejo and the other persons charged. From these documents it appears that the competent judicial authorities, which seem to offer full procedural safeguards, considered that the acts committed by Mr. Vallejo and the other persons charged were offences under the Federal Penal Code.
31. 60. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
    • (a) to note that it appears from the Court rulings, whose full text, including the grounds adduced therein, have been supplied by the Government, that Mr. Vallejo and the other persons charged were brought to trial before the ordinary courts, apparently with all the safeguards of judicial procedure, and sentenced on account of various offences contemplated in the Penal Code;
    • (b) to note that the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the appeal for protection of individual rights (amparo) lodged by the persons concerned against the court sentences;
    • (c) in view of the information contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) above and in accordance with the principles referred to in paragraph 42 above, to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
      • Allegation relating to the Arrest and Dismissal of Strikers
    • 61. With regard to the other allegations, according to which 5,000 workers were arrested and many hundreds dismissed from their jobs following the strike in 1959, the Committee notes from the documents supplied by the Government that hundreds of workers were effectively arrested in connection with that dispute (see paragraph 54 above), for having maintained the strike in obedience to unlawful instructions (from their leaders) and in spite of the official pronouncements to the effect that the strikes were unlawful (" inexistentes "). Moreover, by its communication dated 29 February 1964, the Government supplied the text of a statement made by the General Secretary of the Railway Workers' Union of the Republic of Mexico in answer to a questionnaire from the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare in December 1963, that is to say, after the events in question and after the elections held by that trade union in 1962 (see paragraphs 33 and 34 above). From this statement it would appear that the trade union directly concerned was not making any complaints against the Government for infringing freedom of association, which seems to show, no matter what the circumstances, that by that date the situation had returned to normal.
32. 62. In view of the information supplied by the Government and referred to in paragraph 61 above, and considering that the allegations were formulated in general terms and no specific details supplied, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.