Interim Report - REPORT_NO101, 1968

236. The Committee has found it convenient to deal in a single paper with these three cases concerning Bolivia, in which, following the Committee's submission of certain conclusions to the Governing Body in earlier reports which were approved, certain allegations' are still outstanding and additional information on them has been sought from the Government.

1. 236. The Committee has found it convenient to deal in a single paper with these three cases concerning Bolivia, in which, following the Committee's submission of certain conclusions to the Governing Body in earlier reports which were approved, certain allegations' are still outstanding and additional information on them has been sought from the Government.
2. 237. As regards Cases Nos. 409 and 456, the Government furnished certain information in a letter dated 31 August 1967.
3. 238. 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).

Allegations concerning the Assault on Mr. Juan Lechin in August 1964

1. 239. In brief, the complaint by the Bolivian Workers' Confederation (C.O.B.) dated 8 August 1964, which was examined in Case No. 409, concerned a criminal assault alleged to have been made on Mr. Juan Lechin, a leader of the complaining organisation. The Government stated that the incident was of a political and not a trade union nature and furnished information to the effect that the five political service agents concerned had been arrested and prosecuted for assault. The Committee reserved its conclusions pending receipt of information which might be available as a result of the trial. On 9 April 1965 the Government explained why the records of the case had had to be reconstituted.
2. 240. At its meeting in November 1966 the Committee recommended the Governing Body, while deploring that the Government had sent no information since April 1965 concerning the judicial proceedings in question, to request the Government to be good enough to furnish the necessary information as soon as possible.
3. 241. This recommendation was approved by the Governing Body and a request for the additional information was brought to the attention of the Government and repeated at the Committee's subsequent meetings.
4. 242. The only reference to this question in the Government's letter of 31 August 1967 consists of a statement to the effect that it was the previous Government which persecuted the leaders of the C.O.B, while it was the Government in power in 1963 which " had persecuted Lechin Oquendo and had him beaten in the street ".
5. 243. In view of the fact that it has not been possible to obtain details of the results of the judicial proceedings in question, despite repeated requests to the Government from the Committee and the Governing Body and in view of the apparent absence of any outcome to these judicial proceedings, relating as they did to an event which occurred a fairly long time ago and in itself undoubtedly constituted a common law offence, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that no useful purpose would be served by continuing its examination of this question.
6. Allegations concerning the Arrest of Trade Unionists in 1965
7. 244. The allegations made by the Bolivian Workers' Confederation in exile and the World Federation of Trade Unions in Case No. 456 related to the suppression of a general strike and a workers' resistance movement in May 1965 and to the persecution, imprisonment and exile of union leaders and workers. After examining these complaints and the Government's observations at its meeting in November 1966, the Committee came to the conclusion that " 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".
8. 245. However, both the C.O.B in its letter of 16 July 1965 and the W.F.T.U in its letter of 13 December 1965 stated that many trade unionists, whose names they supplied, had been imprisoned or exiled, and the Committee noted that the Government had sent no observations on these measures except in respect of Mr. Juan Lechin Oquendo. According to the complainants, the latter had been arrested and exiled before the general strike. In its observations the Government confined itself to stating that his arrest and exile were due to " acts of a criminal nature punishable under the Penal Code, the proofs of which are irrefutable ".
9. 246. The Committee observed that, in previous cases where allegations that trade union leaders or workers had been arrested for trade union activities had been met by governments with statements that the persons in question had been arrested for subversive activities, reasons of internal security or common law crimes, the Committee had 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.
10. 247. The Committee likewise recalled that it had always emphasised that when trade unionists were detained for political or other offences they should receive a fair trial as quickly as possible by an impartial and independent judicial authority.
11. 248. In the circumstances the Committee recommended to the Governing Body, inter alia, that, having regard to these principles, it request the Government to be good enough to inform it of the exact nature of the offences with which Mr. Juan Lechin Oquendo was charged and to state whether he was tried on those charges before an impartial and independent judicial authority; to request the Government to furnish specific observations on the alleged detention or exiling of the trade unionists named in the complaints by the C.O.B and the W.F.T.U.; and to request it further to state whether the political amnesty which, according to the Government, was declared on 3 May 1966 affected Mr. Lechin Oquendo and the other trade unionists referred to.
12. 249. These recommendations were approved by the Governing Body and the request for further information was brought to the attention of the Government by a letter dated 23 November 1966.
13. 250. At its subsequent meetings the Committee decided each time to postpone its examination of the case because it had not yet received the information requested from the Government.
14. 251. In its communication dated 31 August 1967 the Government gives a lengthy account of the political conditions and trade union irregularities which it states prevailed in the country under the previous régime and involved government intervention in trade union matters. The Government goes on to state that armed groups came into existence with subversive intentions and disorders were provoked in the towns and mining areas by extremist politicians. It indicates that as a result the authorities, exercising their legitimate powers, took a number of measures to restore law and order in accordance with the Constitution, the State Security Act and other relevant legislation.
15. 252. The Government declares that the State Security Act of 9 September 1965, which is similar in purpose to the corresponding legislation of other countries, is the main instrument (subject to the Constitution) employed by the authorities and one whose aims are essentially preventive, " as is obvious from the fact that the most usual procedure is to subject [subversive individuals] to temporary compulsory residence in towns some distance from the areas in which they have been operating " without imposing any of the other penalties provided for under the Act.
16. 253. The Government goes on to state that a compulsory residence order of the kind prescribed at the end of paragraph (h) of the Act does not constitute a penalty in the same way as the terms of imprisonment ranging from three months to six years provided for in the other paragraphs, but merely means that the individual concerned must reside in the place to which he is assigned for such time as is necessary to enable order to be restored and further outbreaks of violence prevented.
17. 254. Referring as an example to the cases of the 27 persons arrested or subjected to compulsory residence orders, almost all of them in January 1967, the Government states that at no time has any attempt been made to violate fundamental human rights or to use procedures other than those prescribed by law.
18. 255. The list supplied by the Government contains the names of three trade unionists who, according to the complaint, were arrested in 1965. These are Mr. Olando Capriles Villazón, who, according to the complaints, was a leader of the C.O.B, Mr. Arturo Crespo, a leader of the Miners' Federation, and Juan Alberto Ortiz, a senior official of the youth department of the C.O.B. As regards the present position of these three individuals, it would appear from the Government's letter that Mr. Crespo was arrested on 17 January 1967 for agitating in the mining towns, factories and university and, after being tried by an ordinary court of justice, was provisionally released by the judge on 12 June 1967. Messrs. Capriles Villazón and Ortiz were arrested in January 1967 and ordered to reside at Ixiamas, whereupon both applied for a writ of habeas corpus, which was refused by the Supreme Court of Justice; Mr. Capriles Villazón was set free on 15 March, and Mr. Ortiz is now in prison awaiting trial by the ordinary courts on charges of agitation and terrorism.
19. 256. With reference to the explanations given by the Government on the operation of measures concerned with the security of the State, especially the system of compulsory residence, the Committee wishes to recall that, when in similar situations it has had to examine the problem of the deportation or compulsory residence of persons who have committed acts contrary to law and order or the security of the State, it has considered that it had no competence to pass judgment on the procedure followed in such cases, while emphasising, however, the importance of ensuring that such procedures should be accompanied by all necessary safeguards, so that they could not be used as a means of impairing the free exercise of trade union rights.
20. 257. Since, according to the Government's observations, the compulsory residence measures provided for by the State Security Act are basically preventive in their aims and would therefore appear to rule out any prior court hearing, the Committee considers it necessary to recommend the Governing Body to emphasise to the Government in general terms the importance of the safeguards in question.
21. 258. The Committee also takes note of the information supplied by the Government concerning the situation of three of the persons mentioned in the complaints by the C.O.B and the W.F.T.U, but before continuing its examination of this aspect of the case, and in view of the fact that the Government has not furnished the observations and information requested in paragraph 233 (b) of the 93rd Report concerning the arrest and deportation of Mr. Juan Lechin Oquendo in 1965 and the arrest or deportation of the other persons named by the complainants, the Committee considers it necessary to know the present position of these persons before the law and, in those cases where they have been arrested, subjected to compulsory residence or exile, the exact nature of the actions which led to these measures and the outcome of any judicial proceedings instituted as a result.
22. 259. In addition to Mr. Juan Lechin Oquendo, the trade unionists who, according to the complaints by the C.O.B dated 16 July 1965 and the W.F.T.U dated 13 December 1965, were arrested in 1965 and concerning whose position before the law the Government has not supplied any information are the following: Sinforoso Cabrera, a leader of the Miners' Federation; Paulino Quispo, a leader of the Peasants' Confederation; Alberto Jaime Robles, a leader of the Handicraft Workers' Federation; Hugo Cruz Quispo, a leader of the Handicraft Workers' Federation; Jorge Sanzetenea, a leader of the Railway Workers' Federation; Nelson Capelino, a leader of the Co-operative Movement; Edgardo Vásquez, a leader of the broadcasting workers, and Telmo Siles, a leader of the Office Workers' Federation. According to the complainants, the individuals exiled were Daniel Saravia, General Secretary of the C.O.B, and José Maria Palacios López, Secretary of the C.O.B.; Alberto Patty, Executive Secretary of the National Confederation of Industrial Workers; Ireneo Pimentel, Federico Escobar and Simón Reyes, miners' leaders; Alcides Monasterios, Secretary of the C.O.B.; Oscar Sanjinés, Stanley Camberos, Pedro Montesinos, Ernesto Gusmán, José Zembrana, Jaime Benavidez, Armando Morales, Alberto Morales, Pedro Garcia, Jaime Santa Cruz and Eulogio Sánchez.
23. 260. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to emphasise to the Government in general terms the importance of ensuring that the compulsory residence procedure is accompanied by all necessary safeguards, so that it cannot be used as a means of impairing the free exercise of trade union rights; to take note of the Government's statement concerning the present position as regards Mr. Orlando Capriles Villazón, Arturo Crespo and Juan Alberto Ortiz and to request the Government in the case of the latter to forward a copy of any verdict that may be given, together with the grounds adduced therein; and to request the Government to be good enough to forward as soon as possible the information requested in paragraph 258 above concerning the other persons named by the complainants.
24. Allegations relating to the Dissolution of Trade Unions
25. 261. Case No. 451 was examined by the Committee at its November 1965 meeting, when it submitted its conclusions to the Governing Body on various aspects thereof, leaving outstanding only its examination of the allegations made by the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unionists to the effect that one of the grounds on which trade unions could be dissolved under the terms of Decree No. 07204 was sabotage, which in its opinion was open to a wide variety of interpretations and placed in the hands of the Government yet another powerful means of intervention in trade union affairs.
26. 262. The Government made no comment on this point, but the Committee noted that section 21 of Decree No. 07204 contained the following provision:
27. Section 129 of the Decree issuing regulations for the administration of the General Labour Act shall read:
28. " Trade unions may be dissolved only by a final judgment with executory force given by a labour court at the conclusion of summary proceedings, on one of the following grounds:
29. ......................................................................................................................................................
30. (d) proved sabotage."
31. 263. Accordingly, on the recommendation of the Committee contained in paragraph 154 (e) of its 86th Report, the Governing Body requested the Government to inform it what were the exact provisions in force in the country as regards penal sanctions for sabotage and decided in the meantime to postpone examination of this aspect of the case.
32. 264. This request was forwarded to the Government, which has not yet furnished the information requested, with the result that the Committee has postponed its examination of the question at each meeting, and on each occasion has repeated its request to the Government.
33. 265. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that the report submitted by the Government by virtue of article 22 of the Constitution of the I.L.O concerning the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), states that Decree No. 07204 was abrogated by Presidential Decree No. 07822 dated 23 September 1966.
34. 266. Accordingly, the question arises whether the rescinding of Decree No. 07204 implies that the amendment to section 129 of the Labour Regulations Decree is left without force and whether or not sabotage is therefore now a ground for dissolving a trade union. On this same subject the Committee notes that the former wording of section 129 of the decree issued under the General Labour Act 2 also empowered the Government to dissolve trade union organisations, contrary to Article 4 of Convention No. 87, which states that workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.
35. 267. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to specify the provisions now in force concerning the dissolution of trade unions and, should sabotage still be a ground for such dissolution, the penal provisions now in force in the country with respect to this offence.