Interim Report - REPORT_NO93, 1967

202. The Committee considers that it would be useful and convenient to deal in a single document with these two cases referring to Bolivia, which it now has under examination. Case No. 409 deals with the assault that, according to a complaint by the Bolivian Workers' Confederation, was made in August 1964 on Mr. Juan Lechín, head of this Confederation. Case No. 456 deals with the complaints made by the Bolivian Workers' Confederation and the World Federation of Trade Unions concerning alleged repressive measures taken in May 1965 by the Military Junta against trade union organisations and leaders.

1. 202. The Committee considers that it would be useful and convenient to deal in a single document with these two cases referring to Bolivia, which it now has under examination. Case No. 409 deals with the assault that, according to a complaint by the Bolivian Workers' Confederation, was made in August 1964 on Mr. Juan Lechín, head of this Confederation. Case No. 456 deals with the complaints made by the Bolivian Workers' Confederation and the World Federation of Trade Unions concerning alleged repressive measures taken in May 1965 by the Military Junta against trade union organisations and leaders.
2. 203. Bolivia 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

• Allegations concerning the Assault on Mr. Juan Lechín in August 1964
  204. 204 In a telegram dated 8 August 1964 to the I.L.O, the Bolivian Workers' Confederation (C.O.B.) complained that its head, Mr. Juan Lechín, former Vice-President of the Republic, had been criminally assaulted and abducted by government forces. C.O.B requested the intervention of the I.L.O with a view to obtaining his release.
  205. 205 The complaint was forwarded to the Government, which replied in a communication dated 7 October 1964 that those who had assaulted Mr. Juan Lechín Oquendo in an incident that was of a political and not a trade union nature were being prosecuted in accordance with the law. The Government said that Mr. Lechín Oquendo had not been abducted and enclosed a press cutting stating that C.O.B had announced that its leader was " in a safe place ". The Government stated further that Mr. Lechín Oquendo was the head and founder of an extremist political organisation, which endeavoured to identify the trade union struggle with a strictly political struggle. Another press cutting enclosed with the communication stated that five political service agents had been arrested and prosecuted for the assault on Mr. Lechín Oquendo.
  206. 206 In the past the Committee has followed the practice of not proceeding to examine matters which are the subject of pending national judicial proceedings where such proceedings might make available information of assistance to the Committee in appreciating whether or not allegations are well-founded and has requested governments to furnish information on the judicial proceedings and their results.
  207. 207 In accordance with this practice, the Committee at its November 1964 session asked the Director-General to obtain detailed information from the Government on the result of the proceedings instituted against those who had carried out the assault, and reserved its conclusions on the case until it should be in possession of this detailed information. The request was transmitted to the Government by a letter dated 21 November 1964, and the Government answered on 9 December 1964 that it had asked the courts for the necessary information.
  208. 208 On 9 April 1965 the Government forwarded a further communication announcing that the file of the case had disappeared from the court-room and added that it must have been removed or destroyed during the revolutionary outbreak of 4 November 1964. The High Court of Justice had, however, brought the necessary facts to the attention of the Public Prosecutor, so that he should order a new trial and proceed with the case against the persons responsible.
  209. 209 At its May 1965 session the Committee decided to ask the Government to inform it of the results of the new proceedings. At each of its November 1965, February 1966 and May 1966 sessions, the Committee, in the absence of the information requested, decided to postpone consideration of the case. The Director-General informed the Government of the postponements, repeating the request of the Committee each time, but so far the information has not been received.
  210. 210 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to express its regret that, in spite of the numerous requests addressed to it by the Committee, the Government has sent no information since April 1965 concerning the judicial proceedings instituted against those who had assaulted Mr. Juan Lechín Oquendo, and to request the Government to be good enough to furnish the necessary information as soon as possible.
• Allegations concerning the Events of May 1965 in Bolivia
  211. 211 The complaints relating to this question are contained in the following three communications: one dated 16 July 1965 sent direct to the I.L.O by the Bolivian Workers' Confederation in exile; one dated 21 October 1965 sent to the United Nations from La Paz by the National Executive Committee of this organisation and forwarded to the I.L.O by the Secretary-General of the United Nations; and one dated 13 December 1965 sent direct to the I.L.O by the World Federation of Trade Unions. Each complaint was communicated to the Government for observation as soon as it was received.
  212. 212 The complaints refer in part to the adoption of various decrees tending to bring the trade union movement under government control. The Committee examined this aspect of the question at its November 1965 session while studying Case No. 451 concerning a complaint of the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unionists dated 26 July 1965. On this occasion the Committee submitted to the Governing Body an interim report, appearing in paragraphs 126 to 154 of its 86th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 164th Session (February-March 1966). Accordingly, in respect of these allegations of C.O.B and W.F.T.U, the Committee refers to its 86th Report.
  213. 213 The other allegations of C.O.B and W.F.T.U concern the crushing of a general strike and a workers' resistance movement in May 1965 and the resulting measures of persecution, arrest and exile taken against many trade union leaders and workers.
  214. 214 A long communication dated 16 July 1965 from the Bolivian Workers' Confederation in exile is summarised below. When the Military Junta had seized power at the time of the revolutionary outbreak of November 1964, C.O.B submitted to it a 38-point memorandum setting forth demands reflecting the concerns of the working class, the intellectuals, the peasantry, the professions and other sectors of the nation. The workers, whose wages had been frozen since December 1956 despite the constant rise in the cost of living, once again submitted claims from the various trade union sectors. A number of these, in compliance with the General Labour Act, had completed or nearly completed all the stages in the compulsory conciliation and arbitration procedure, with absolutely no result. The only course left to them to further their requests was to go on strike. The new Government had raised the pay of the armed forces by 400 per cent, whereas the workers had asked for increases of only 20 to 60 per cent.
  215. 215 In this atmosphere of popular discontent C.O.B organised the labour demonstrations of 1 May 1965. During the first half of that month, the miners, factory workers, building workers, schoolteachers and workers in the food and drink industries signed an inter-union pact laying down a plan of campaign and providing for the co-ordination of the stoppages of work, and set up a committee to negotiate with the authorities. On 15 May Mr. Juan Lechín Oquendo, Executive Secretary of C.O.B and of the Bolivian Mineworkers' Federation, who had returned home in view of the guarantees for his personal freedom offered to him by the Minister of Labour, was arrested by the police. His arrest was a violation of the trade union immunity established in the Constitution.
  216. 216 As one of the clauses of the inter-union pact provided that the signatory unions should start a general strike in certain events, including an infringement of trade union immunity, armed attacks on trade union premises and interference with the workers' radio stations, C.O.B called a nation-wide general strike to begin on 17 May. This strike was carried out in support of the following claims: the immediate return to the country of the Executive Secretary (who had been deported to Paraguay), the respecting of trade union immunities and wage and salary increases of the size demanded in the pay claims.
  217. 217 On the first day of the strike two large peaceful demonstrations were held, one in La Paz and the other in Oruro. Attacks were made on both demonstrations with firearms, a number of persons being killed and many wounded. Later the military forces attacked Radio Continental and Radio Excelsior, both of which belong to the trade unions. The General Secretary of the La Paz Building Workers' Union, Adrián Arce Quispe, was seized and murdered on the premises of Radio Excelsior. The funeral of this trade union leader was the occasion for another demonstration, which was also attacked by the army. On 22 May the army occupied the whole city of La Paz, breaking into the C.O.B premises and arresting many trade union leaders, of whom some were deported and others taken to the concentration camp at Puerto Rico in the Bolivian Amazon region.
  218. 218 C.O.B goes on to state that the army then attacked the mining centres, and describes the fighting that took place there and in the city of La Paz. On 23 and 24 May some 600 persons were killed and hundreds more wounded. On 24 May the Mineworkers' Federation asked C.O.B to propose a truce of 48 hours to the Military High Command. A " truce pact " was signed on 25 May, providing for a cease-fire, consultation between the Government and the trade union organisations to seek a final settlement to the dispute, and the calling off of the strike, among other things.
  219. 219 The C.O.B complaint states that the workers had captured their arms, which were of an antiquated type, by defeating the army in 1952 and that they had kept them as the surest means of guaranteeing democracy, freedom, the sovereignty of the country and the emancipation of the people. C.O.B terminates this part of its allegations by explaining that one of the reasons for the defeat of the workers was the absence of adequate political leadership capable of understanding the violent upheaval that had taken place in the national situation and converting the spontaneous uprising in La Paz and the resistance of the mining centres into a revolutionary triumph of the entire Bolivian people.
  220. 220 After these events the Government organised a campaign to destroy the trade union movement, arresting or exiling its freely elected leaders and many of its members.
  221. 221 The communication of 21 October 1965 addressed to the United Nations by C.O.B from La Paz and forwarded to the I.L.O is in essence a petition to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to send a delegation to Bolivia to investigate the alleged violations of human rights, including trade union rights. In its communication of 13 December 1965 the World Federation of Trade Unions refers in particular to the arrest and deportation of Mr. Juan Lechín and other leaders whose names it supplies, and states that at the beginning of the dispute the Government declared a state of emergency, suspended the Constitutional guarantees and arbitrarily prohibited trade union activities, besides decreeing compulsory military service for all men between the ages of 19 and 50.
  222. 222 The Government sent observations on this case in a communication dated 5 May 1966, which arrived too late to be examined by the Committee during its May 1966 session, and in another communication dated 3 August 1966. In the first, which refers to the arrest and deportation of Juan Lechín Oquendo, it states that the measures were taken as a result of " acts of a criminal nature punishable under the Penal Code, the proofs of which are irrefutable ". The Government states that the allegations of lack of freedom and other violations of trade union rights are false, since Mr. Lechín Oquendo and other trade union leaders, before their banishment, enjoyed all safeguards and full freedom of action in trade union matters. The Government adds that Decree No. 07612 of 3 May 1966 declared a general political amnesty in view of the elections that were to be held on 3 July.
  223. 223 With its communication of 3 August 1966 the Government sends various documents and press cuttings, all of an earlier date than the events referred to in the complaints, except one report of July 1966, which refers to the work of the National Housing Council. The Government letter states that these documents give the background of the Bolivian trade union situation from April 1952 to November 1964, when the Military Junta took over the government. It adds that during this period those who denounced alleged violations of trade union immunities were actively responsible for the conduct of Bolivian trade unionism, and that the Military Junta had to overcome the difficulties of the workers by means of a new trade union policy based on the strict observance of the laws and of the benefits and rights gained by the workers within the framework of democracy and respect for human rights.
  224. 224 The Committee observes that the Government's reply of I September 1965 to the allegations made in Case No. 451, already mentioned in paragraph 212 above, is relevant to certain important aspects of the present case. In a passage of this reply, which the Committee examined at its November 1965 session, the Government states that the Military Junta had to assume power at a time when the demagogy and dominating position of the government party was threatening to reduce the country to anarchy and the trade unions were wielding a rigid dictatorship over the mass of workers, whom they did not legitimately represent. The Government adds that the trade unions had modern means of propaganda, such as powerful radio stations, through which they incited the working classes to rebel against the new Government, and that the leaders urged the people to make use of the arms that they had kept since the time when the workers were armed for the purpose of securing absolute political domination.
  225. 225 The Committee has always applied the principle that allegations relating to the right to strike are within its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee has pointed out in various earlier cases that the right of workers and their organisations to strike as a legitimate means of defending their occupational interests is generally recognised. Nevertheless, in various cases the Committee has considered that it was not within its powers to examine allegations concerning strikes that were not of an occupational character, strikes intended to coerce the Government on a political question or strikes directed against the policy of the Government and not " in furtherance of a trade dispute".
  226. 226 In the present case the Committee observes that the extremely serious events referred to in the complaints appear to have occurred in an atmosphere of grave national crisis. Besides, although the complainants state that their action was prompted by the indifference of the Government to the workers' claims in defence of their occupational interests, in particular those relating to wages, the information sent by the complainants themselves makes it difficult to separate the general strike from the movement of armed resistance, which undoubtedly exceeded the limits of strike action and whose purpose, to judge by the declarations of C.O.B referred to in paragraph 219 above, seems to have been the realisation of far wider aims in the economic, social and political field.
  227. 227 These events, that is to say the strike and the movement of armed resistance intended to exercise pressure on the Government to adopt measures in the economic, social and political field, lead the Committee to the conclusion that the action taken by the Government to crush this resistance does not justify the allegation made in the present case of a violation of trade union rights within the meaning of the principles applied by the Committee in this connection and outlined in paragraph 225 above.
  228. 228 Nevertheless, C.O.B in its communication of 16 July 1965, and W.F.T.U in its communication of 13 December 1965, report that many trade unionists, whose names they supply, have been imprisoned or exiled, and the Committee observes that the Government has sent no observations on these measures, except in respect of Mr. Juan Lechín Oquendo, who, according to the complainants, had been arrested and exiled before the general strike and the other events mentioned above and who, according to the Government, had committed proved offences under the Penal Code.
  229. 229 The Government also refers to the adoption, by a decree of May 1966, of a political amnesty, but it does not explain whether this amnesty applies to Mr. Lechín Oquendo and the other trade unionists who have been arrested or exiled on account of the events referred to in the complaints.
  230. 230 With respect to the case of Mr. Lechín Oquendo the Committee observes that in previous cases where allegations that trade union leaders or workers have been arrested for trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the persons in question have been arrested for subversive activities, reasons of internal security or common law crimes, the Committee has followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to furnish further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests and the precise reasons for them. If in certain cases the Committee has concluded that allegations relating to the arrests or detentions of trade union leaders did not call for further examination, this has been after it has received information from the governments showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the arrests or detentions were in no way occasioned by trade union activities, but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature.
  231. 231 On the other hand, the Committee has always emphasised that, when trade unionists are detained for political or other offences, they should receive a fair trial as quickly as possible by an impartial and independent judicial authority.
  232. 232 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of the statements made by the Government on the detention and deportation of Mr. Juan Lechín Oquendo and to request the Government to be good enough:
       • (a) to inform it of the exact nature of the offences with which Mr. Lechín Oquendo was charged and to state whether he was tried for them before an impartial and independent judicial authority;
       • (b) to furnish its specific observations on the detention or exiling of the other trade unionists named in the complaints; and
       • (c) to state whether the political amnesty adopted in May 1966 affects Mr. Lechín Oquendo and the other trade unionists mentioned or not and, if it does, to say how this measure has affected the exercise by these persons of their trade union rights.