Interim Report - REPORT_NO236, November 1984

1. 540. The complaints are contained in communications from the Revolutionary Trade Union Federation (FSR) and Permanent Congress of Trade Union Unity of Latin America (CPUSTAL), dated respectively 5 and 9 April 1984. The FSR sent additional information in a communication dated 27 April 1984. The Government replied in a communication dated 16 July 1984.
2. 541. Prior to the submission of the complaints, a number of trade union organisations requested the Director-General of the ILO to approach the Government in connection with the very matters raised in the allegations presented in this case. The Director-General immediately contacted the Government which sent certain observations in communications dated 26 January and 7 February 1984.
3. 542. El Salvador has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 543. The complainants allege that on 19 January 1984, when the FSR was holding its Fifth Regular Federal Congress on the premises of the General Confederation of Trade Unions to elect a new Federal Executive Board, heavily armed members of the national police force broke into the premises and forcibly abducted a large number of union leaders and members.
2. 544. The complainants add that, after fierce interrogation and ill-treatment, some of the detained union leaders and members were released but that José Jeremías Pereira (Secretary-General of the FSR), Juan José Vargas Lemus, Juan Salvador Ramos, Cruz Alfaro Escalante (Minutes Secretary of the FSR), Salvador Chávez (Relations Secretary of the FSR), Oscar Armando Benavides, Esteban González (Secretary-General of SETIVU), Dinora Ramírez de Pereira (Organisation Secretary of the FSR) and Amanda Ramos de Villegas are still in custody.
3. 545. Finally, the complainants state that the Government's claim that the arrests were made because a meeting had been held in the "Loyola" home for spiritual retreats with the participation of members of the People's Liberation Forces (FPL), which have set up a, Revolutionary Workers' Movement, is false.

B. The Government's reply

1. 546. The Government states that on 19 January 1984 members of the national police force went to the "Loyola" home for spiritual retreats where a trade union congress was in progress and arrested 15 persons there in order to investigate reports that a meeting of the FSR was being held on the premises with the participation of members of a clandestine terrorist group known as the People's Liberation Forces which has set up a Revolutionary Workers' Movement.
2. 547. The Government adds that between 23 and 27 January 1984, after careful investigation, six persons were released. The nine remaining trade unionists (those names were cited by the complainants) were placed under provisional arrest by the first military examining magistrate and sent to Mariona prison pending trial.
3. 548. In its latest communication the Government states that, according to its investigations, of these nine persons Oscar Armando Benavides, Juan José Vargas Lemus, Dinora Ramírez de Pereira, Esteban González Pérez and Amanda Ramos de Villegas were arrested for being members of a mass mobilisation organisation of the FMLN in the course of a meeting with José Jeremías Pereira Amaya, Cruz Alfaro Escalante and Salvador Escalente Chávez to study an FPL plan of action entitled "A decisive battle".

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 549. The Committee observes that, according to the complainants, members of the national police force broke into premises where a congress of the Revolutionary Trade Union Federation (FSR) was being held on 19 January 1984 and arrested union leaders and members, some of whom were released a few days later. The Government has confirmed that members of the national police force went to the place where the FSR congress was being held and, for investigation purposes, arrested 15 persons, six of whom were later released. According to the Government, charges have been brought against the nine remaining persons for membership of a terrorist group known as the People's Liberation Forces (denied by the complainants) or for having links with this group and were taken by surprise while studying an FPL plan entitled "A decisive battle".
2. 550. In this connection, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided detailed information on the FLP plan of action entitled "A decisive battle", which it claims the nine trade union leaders or members currently detained and awaiting trial were studying when captured and, in particular, on the objectives of the plan and the means envisaged to achieve them. The Committee requests the Government to send this information along with details of developments in their current trial and the text of any judgment handed down so that it can have sufficient information at its disposal on which to base its conclusions on the allegations. However, in view of the fact that six other trade unionists belonging to the same organisation were arrested during the aforementioned trade union congress and released a few days later without any charges being brought against them, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that the arrest and detention of union leaders and members for activities connected with the exercise of their trade union rights are contrary to the principles of freedom of association [see, for example, 233rd Report, Case No. 1007 (Nicaragua), para. 233.].
3. 551. Finally, the Committee wishes to draw attention to the fact that the Government's reply makes no reference whatsoever to a warrant to search the premises in which the FSR was holding its fifth trade union congress. In this connection, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle that the right of inviolability of union premises necessarily implies that the public authorities cannot demand entry into such premises without having obtained a legal warrant to do so [see, for example, 230th Report, Case No. 1200 (Chile), para. 610.].