Definitive Report - REPORT_NO279, November 1991

1. 26. The Committee examined this case at its February 1990 meeting and presented an interim report to the Governing Body which is contained in paragraphs 358 to 368 of the Committee's 270th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 245th Session (February-March 1990). Since then the Government sent further comments on the matter in a communication which reached the ILO on 21 January 1991. Although the complainant has been asked to send its observations on the Government's reply, it has not yet done so.
2. 27. The Dominican Republic has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 28. In this case the ICFTU alleges that although during the 48-hour strike called as from 19 June 1989 by most of the trade union organisations of the country (including the National Confederation of Dominican Workers (CNTD), affiliated to the ICFTU) to protest against the Government's economic policy the workers demonstrated peacefully, the police and armed forces reacted with extreme violence. They fired on demonstrators, killing three, wounding dozens and arrested over 3,000 people throughout the country. The ICFTU called for an inquiry into the death of the workers and the unconditional release of all those under arrest.
2. 29. The Government had noted that this general strike was essentially a political protest aimed at destabilising the Government in which a number of trade union organisations, including the Unified Workers' Confederation (CUT), were set up as guinea-pigs. According to the Government, it had respected the decision to call a general strike as it believed that opposition groups of workers and of the people had a legitimate right to protest in a country that recognises their full democratic rights, provided they do not pose a threat to public law and order. However, instead of the strikers holding a peaceful demonstration, the general strike degenerated within 20 hours into street fighting, public disorder and the destruction of public and private property. The national police and the armed forces therefore found themselves obliged to intervene in order to restore law and order in some parts of the city of Santo Domingo and of other towns in the interior of the country. The persons who were caught disturbing the peace or breaking into private premises were arrested and handed over to the courts of justice. However by a decision of the President of the Republic, most of these people were released unconditionally just a few hours after the strike ended. Only a small number of persons were actually charged with committing acts of violence.
3. 30. Furthermore, the Government had confirmed that on 19 and 20 June, during the general strike, deaths had occurred; however, it had claimed that these deaths were totally unrelated to the strike. On the other hand, it did admit that several persons had been wounded while resisting arrest.
4. 31. At its February 1990 meeting, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to approve the following interim conclusions:
   • (a) The Committee deplores that the acts of violence of 19 June 1989, the day of the general strike, resulted in three deaths and a considerable number of wounded.
   • (b) So that it has sufficient information at its disposal to be able to reach conclusions on the allegations, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of developments and of the outcome in the criminal proceedings initiated in connected with the aforementioned deaths and against those persons who are still under arrest (including the text of the judgement handed down).

B. The Government's reply

1. 32. In a communication dated 21 January 1991, the Government pointed out that the three deaths which occurred during the general strike called on 19 and 20 June 1989 were isolated incidents totally unrelated to the general strike, contrary to the statements made by the complainant in this respect. It appended to its communication evidence (inquiry and autopsy reports recording violent deaths which had occurred in bars following a heated discussion which led to a brawl) in corroboration of its statements.

C. Subsequent developments in the case

1. 33. At its February-March 1991 meeting, in view of the contradiction existing between the complainant's and the Government's descriptions of the three violent deaths in this case, the Committee asked the Office to request the complainant confederation to send its comments on the Government's reply (see 277th Report of the Committee, para. 8).
2. 34. Since then, despite several requests, the complainant has furnished no comments on this matter.

D. The Committee's conclusion

1. 35. The Committee considers that in view of the contradiction existing between the versions of the complainant confederation and the Government concerning the violent deaths which occurred on 19 and 20 June 1989 and since the complainant, although invited to do so, has not furnished its comments on the Government's reply, the case does not call for further examination on its part.