Definitive Report - REPORT_NO147, 1975

1. 99. The complaint of the Trade Unions International of Agricultural, Forestry and Plantation Workers is contained in a communication dated 19 December 1973. This complaint was duly transmitted to the Government which submitted its observations in three communications dated 28 February, 30 April and 14 May 1974 respectively.
2. 100. 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. 101. In their communication dated 19 December 1973, the complainants state that, on 23 July 1973, a large group of police arrested at his home, Ramón Danzós Palomino, Secretary-General of the Independent Peasants' Union and Vice-President of the Trade Unions International of Agricultural, Forestry and Plantation Workers. According to the complainants, he was taken from Mexico City to the prison at Atlixco in the state of Puebla where he was charged with "occupation of land and incitement to crime". The complainants add that although bail of 50,000 pesos was paid, another case with the same charges was brought against Ramón Danzós Palomino at Tecamachalco, which is also in the state of Puebla.
2. 102. The complainants state that the judges refused to merge these two cases, a fact which, they state, could lead to the accused being kept in prison for a long time. This suspicion, continue the complainants, is strengthened by a report from Mexico that the judicial authorities in other states are bringing similar charges against the accused.
3. 103. The complainants explain that the charges against Danzós Palomino are based on assertions that some peasants, having been expelled from the land they had occupied and on being arrested by the army, admitted belonging to an organisation headed by Palomino. The complainants add that certain statements made by Palomino in speeches also led to his arrest. According to the complainants, Palomino has been arrested and charged several times in his capacity as peasant leader. The complainants allege that these arrests constitute flagrant violations of trade union freedom and of citizen's rights. The complainants made a number of requests to the President of the United States of Mexico to expedite the release of Palomino; they add however that up to the date of lodging the complaint they have only received an acknowledgement of their last letter which was dated 5 September 1973.
4. 104. The complainants add that another leader of the Independent Peasants' Union, Samuel Sánchez-Torres, is in prison at Morelia on account of his trade union activities, and fifteen other peasants are in prison at Atlixco and Tecamachalco.
5. 105. In its first communication in reply to the allegations, dated 28 February 1974, the Government confirmed that Ramón Danzós Palomino was imprisoned in the municipal prison at Atlixco in the state of Puebla, charged with abusive occupation of land, incitement to crime and resistance to due process of law. The Government added that investigation of the case had revealed a number of prima facie offences not mentioned by the complainants. According to the Government, before Ramón Danzós Palomino was arrested, proceedings had already been brought against him by one Esteban Schiavan Braccinni on 24 July 1973. This Braccinni, Mexican by birth, had complained to the representative of the Ministry of the Interior for the Atlixco district that a group of peasants had illegally taken over a plot of land called Xaxalpa, of which he, Braccinni, was the legal owner, as could be seen from the contract of purchase entered into with Maria Ofelia Fernández Ruiz de Calles and dated 29 June 1956. The plaintiff stated that from the date in question he had been peacefully and usefully farming the plot in question, and indeed possessed a certificate of inalienability, No. 21,342, delivered by the Department of Agriculture on 1 July 1948. The Government explains that, in Mexico, there coexist what is known as the "ejido" (common land), and small private property. The small landowner farming his land in accordance with the law can obtain a certificate of inalienability to protect him from any future apportionment of land. A group of peasants, the Government continues, led by Ramón Danzós Palomino, invaded the plot known as Xaxalpa. They were armed with machetes, but did not, it seems, intend to attack the owner. Apparently they wanted to create a de facto situation which would force the owner to negotiate with them. This being so, and in view of the complaint already lodged the authorities decided to enforce the law and maintain the peace and ordered the arrest of Ramón Danzós Palomino.
6. 106. The Government stated that because the Constitution guarantees freedom of association and opinion, there is no ban on the Independent Peasants' Union and other extremist associations; nor are they persecuted in any way. Thus, the Independent Peasants' Union has many agencies throughout Mexico, where meetings are organised; these latter could sometimes be described as violent, since attacks are launched therein against Mexican institutions, the Government and private individuals. Nevertheless, those who organise such meetings are never molested by the authorities, unless their conduct goes beyond the norms established by Mexican criminal law.
7. 107. The Government explained that, owing to the division of powers in Mexico, the Executive Power (i.e. the Government) was unable to pronounce on the criminal responsibility of Danzos Palomino and his co-accused, these proceedings being sub judice. It would be for the courts to decide whether accused are guilty or not of the charges brought against them. The Government stated, however, that it was in a position to give an assurance that the accused enjoyed all the guarantees set forth in article 20 of the Federal Constitution.
8. 108. The Government considered that there was no foundation for the complaint lodged by the Trade Unions International of Agricultural, Forestry and Plantation Workers. Ramón Danzós Palomino and the other accused were being tried in exactly the same way as any other persons against whom similar charges are brought, and it was for the courts to decide whether or not the accused were guilty of any offence.
9. 109. In its further communication dated 30 April 1974, the Government transmitted copies of documents relating to Case No. 81/973 of the Civil and Social Defence Court in Atlixco, concerning Ramón Danzós Palomino and other persons charged with him.
10. 110. As for Mr. Samuel Sánchez Torres, a leader of the Independent Peasants' Union, the Government stated that he was being held at the disposal of the First District Judge, at Morelia, Michoacán, for contravening section 181 of the Federal Water Act having deliberately displaced a hydrant belonging to the State. He seriously damaged the said hydrant and also caused considerable damage to crops in the area. The Government added that section 181 of the above-mentioned Act is worded in the following terms: "Any person who harms or destroys hydraulic equipment belonging to the nation shall be liable to imprisonment for one to ten years and to a fine corresponding to the amount of the damage caused." Mr. Sánchez Torres was also at the disposal of the judge for stealing padlocks and other movable parts of the said hydrant belonging to the Hydraulic Resources Department. The case had now reached the stage where evidence was being submitted by the defence counsel chosen by Mr. Sánchez Torres. At the end of this stage, judgment would be passed. The Government explained that the documents in the case, together with the committal order which had been issued on 23 June 1973, constituted a very bulky file, but the Secretariat of the Court of the First Instance of Morelia would forward to the Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association, as soon as possible, certified copies thereof.
11. 111. In its latest communication, dated 14 May 1974, the Government states that the judge of the Court of First Instance in Atlixco, Puebla, had confirmed that Mr. Palomino is imprisoned in that city for the offence of abusive occupation of land, unlawful association, the illegal possession of arms, incitement to crime and resistance to due process of law in the jurisdiction of Tecamachalco. The Government adds that Mr. Palomino committed similar offences in Atlixco, Puebla, and that although he had been released on bail, he had still to be tried. Since there is no prison in Tecamachalco the judge had requested his counterpart in Atlixco to keep Palomino in prison there. The Government goes on to explain that, under article 18 of the Mexican Constitution, offenders in preventive detention must be separated from those actually serving sentences; they do not necessarily have to be kept in a prison in the area in which the offence was committed, but in a place to be determined by the competent authority.
12. 112. According to the Government the offences committed in Atlixco and Tecamachalco differed in character. In the former, Palomino had incited a group of persons to take possession of land by force, this land being lawfully owned, whereas in the latter he had incited persons in speeches to commit offences of an openly subversive nature, by taking the law into their own hands. These, state the Government, are offences punishable by the Constitution and by the Penal Code. The Government adds that the accused was being tried solely for offences under the ordinary law and that only the courts were competent to judge whether the accused was guilty or innocent. If there were any doubts as to the responsibility of Mr. Palomino for the offences of which he had been charged, he could still, under article 19 of the Constitution, be imprisoned since the probability of responsibility was sufficient to entail imprisonment.
13. 113. The Government states that if these persons were convicted of offences under the common law the corresponding penalty would be imposed. There existed, however, a right of appeal against sentence.
14. 114. In connection with the trial of Samuel Sánchez Torres before the First District Court of the state of Michoacán in Morelia, the Government transmits certified court documents for examination by the Committee. The Committee notes from these documents that this person was imprisoned on charges of resistance to due process of law, contravention of section 181 of the Federal Water Act, damage to property and theft.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 115. The Committee has pointed out on a number of occasions' that in cases of allegations relating to the prosecution and sentencing of trade union leaders the only question to be decided is the real reason for the measures complained of being taken, and only if these measures have been taken by reason of legitimate trade union activities can there be any infringement of freedom of association. Furthermore, in all cases in which trade union leaders are preventively detained, these measures may involve a serious interference with the exercise of trade union rights, and the Committee has always emphasised the right of all detained persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment.
2. 116. The Committee has taken note of the detailed explanations supplied by the Government concerning the arrest, detention and trial of the two trade union leaders mentioned in the complaint, and of the precise charges brought against them by the authorities. In the case of Mr. Ramón Danzós Palomino, these charges relate to the forcible occupation of lawfully owned land, unlawful association, illegal possession of arms, resistance to due process of law and incitement to crime; in the case of Mr. Samuel Sánchez Torres the charges relate to an offence under the Federal Water Act, resistance to due process of law, damage to property and theft. The information supplied by the Government in connection with the offences with which the above persons were charged is substantiated by the court documents transmitted by the Government. In addition, the persons concerned were brought to trial within a reasonable period and the Committee is satisfied that the accused appear at all times to have had the benefit of all rights available under the normal judicial procedure. The Committee also considers that the charges against the trade union leaders concerned, and which led to their arrest and imprisonment, do not relate to acts which could be considered to be normal trade union activities. Accordingly, the action of the authorities in arresting detaining and subsequently bringing these persons before the courts did not, in the opinion of the Committee, constitute an infringement of trade union rights.