Definitive Report - REPORT_NO83, 1965

1. 31. The Committee last examined this case when it met in February 1965, at which time it submitted an interim report which appears in paragraphs 115 to 152 of its 81st Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 161st Session (March 1965). That report left outstanding certain allegations relating to the detention of trade unionists and the confiscation of trade union literature.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 32. The Golfito Workers' Union and the Workers' Union of Puerto González Víquez claimed in a communication dated 29 June 1964 that the authorities, after breaking up a union meeting, took into custody the workers Salomon Bustos Morales, Saturnino Alvarez Moreno, Efrain Quesada Chaverri and Esteban Fonseca Moraga, as well as the trade union officers Sabino Juárez and Guillermo Fuentes Ortega. At the same time the authorities in question confiscated a memorandum with nine signatures on the back of a list of claims, stub books of union subscription receipts and other trade union documents.
2. 33. In its reply of 26 December 1964 the Government made no comment on these allegations, and the Committee therefore recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish its observations on the matter, postponing in the meantime its examination of this aspect of the case.
3. 34. On 22 April 1965 the Government replied to the request that had been made concerning these outstanding points. In order to comply with the request the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare had sought information from the General Inspectorate of Finance, which in its turn contacted the authorities for the area in which the events referred to by the complainants had occurred. The Deputy Inspector of Finance at Puerto González Viquez stated that there was no record in the guard-room book of such events having taken place on the date mentioned by the complainants. Since the official who was Deputy Inspector at Puerto González Viquez at that time is now exercising the same functions at Golfito, the authorities asked him for information on the matters raised in the complaint. Once again, however, the Deputy Inspector's reply was that on the date in question no official action was taken of the kind alleged. Finally, the Commander of the Customs Police for the southern part of the country was consulted, and his reply in no way differed from that of any of the other authorities cited.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 35. The Committee observes that, on the one hand, the allegation made by the complainants appears to be rather specific, since it gives the names of the persons detained and the date on which they were arrested and the trade union documents confiscated while, on the other hand, the governmental authorities for the area disclaim all knowledge of the events in question. In view of the contradictory opinions expressed by the complainants and by the Government the Committee does not consider itself sufficiently well informed to be able to reach a final decision concerning this aspect of the complaint.
2. 36. The Committee recalls, however, that the representative of the Director-General who not long ago went to the same banana-growing area on the Pacific coast of Costa Rica to investigate a series of complaints of alleged infringements of freedom of association reported that " On several occasions the unions have complained that their leaders were arrested by the local police or by the Customs Police. It was often very difficult to find the records of such proceedings but, on the whole, the grounds for such detentions appear to be: the holding of public meetings without permission, engaging in political discussions during a trade union meeting and carrying allegedly subversive propaganda material.... These detentions are usually for a period of less than 24 hours and are of a preventive character. No further proceedings are generally instituted, either by the authorities or by the detainees, and so no authoritative interpretation of the law by judicial decision emerges."