Interim Report - Report No 101, 1968

1. 504. The complaints are contained in communications from the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions (C.L.A.S.C.), the World Federation of Trade Unions (W.F.T.U.) and the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions (I.F.C.T.U.) dated 12 June, 24 July and 28 July 1967 respectively, which were sent directly to the I.L.O. In a communication dated 16 August 1967 the C.L.A.S.C made new allegations relating to the case. All of these communications were transmitted to the Government.
2. 505. By a communication dated 18 July 1967 the Secretariat of the Latin American Workers' Permanent Congress for Trade Union Unity submitted allegations concerning the same questions as those referred to by the organisations mentioned in paragraph 504 above. In a letter dated 25 July 1967 the Director-General requested the said Secretariat to state whether the Latin American Workers' Permanent Congress for Trade Union Unity has any affiliates in Bolivia. Despite the time that has passed since then, this letter has remained unanswered.
3. 506. In a communication dated 25 September 1967 the Government sent its observations relating to the complaints, the texts of which had been transmitted to it.
4. 507. Bolivia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 508. In its communication of 12 June 1967 the C.L.A.S.C asked the I.L.O to intervene in order to obtain the release of a miners' leader, Mr. Waldo Tarqui, and other trade union leaders who, it stated, had been imprisoned. In its communication of 16 August 1967 the C.L.A.S.C stated that Mr. Waldo Tarqui (trade union leader at the San José mine), Mr. Constancio Apaza and Mr. René Cumgoza (trade union leaders at Catavi) were being held in a concentration camp and that Mr. René Chacón (trade union leader at Siglo XX), who had been arrested with the others on 24 June, had since been obliged to leave the country.
2. 509. The W.F.T.U, the I.F.C.T.U and the C.L.A.S.C, in their communications of 24 July, 28 July and 16 August 1967 respectively, all state that military forces attacked the mineworkers in June 1967. According to the I.F.C.T.U, a group of miners who, accompanied by their wives and children, were waiting for a workers' meeting to begin on 24 June were surprised by a military detachment which fired on them and killed a large number of people. It is further alleged that Mr. Tarqui, one of the leaders of the Bolivian Trade Union Action Movement, was arrested on that occasion. According to the W.F.T.U, the persons at the meeting on 24 June were strikers and 22 of them were killed and 76 wounded, while 60 trade union leaders were arrested.
3. 510. The complaints also refer to the alleged occupation of trade union premises and radio transmitting stations by the army. The I.F.C.T.U asserts that, far from improving, the situation of the Bolivian workers appears to be worsening owing in particular to the repressive measures taken " by the military Government ".
4. 511. In its communication of 25 September 1967 the Government states, " in order to avoid distortion of the truth ", that, in view of indications of disturbances, the Government was compelled to declare a state of siege at the beginning of June, thus suspending individual rights and guarantees. It goes on to indicate that this preventive measure was not respected in the mining centres of Huanuni, Catavi and Siglo XX where subversive activity even increased. Some mining districts had declared themselves " free territories ", which the Government describes as a false notion that led to resistance against legal measures and against the entry of the forces of order into the mining areas arbitrarily and unlawfully declared free.
5. 512. The Government continues by stating that the right to strike is embodied as a Constitutional right in Bolivia but that subversion disregards law and order, which was what happened on 25 and 26 June, since the entry of troops into the mining areas, on orders received from the authorities, was opposed by the agents of subversion, who " immediately used firearms and caused casualties among the forces of order ", thus explaining the armed confrontation in which the troops " answered force with force in justifiable self-defence ". The Government states that the regrettable casualties were the consequence of ideas and aims totally foreign to trade union interests and that several of those arrested have long since ceased to work in the mining centres of Catavi, Siglo XX and Huanuni and cannot therefore be considered as trade union members or leaders.
6. 513. The Government further states that trade union privilege does not protect acts which constitute offences under the Penal Code.
7. 514. The Government adds that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, in accordance with its powers, is engaged in defending the legitimate rights of all workers and is at present devoting the utmost attention to improving the living conditions and legal protection of workers in the mining sector.
8. 515. The Government rejects the allegation contained in the complaints that it has violated trade union rights and democratic freedoms recognised by international Conventions. It also protests at the terms used in the complaints transmitted to it, which it considers improper.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 516. As regards this last point, the Committee wishes merely to point out, as it has done in other cases, that the character of the task entrusted to it demands that both governments and complainants should avoid using language calculated to embitter rather than to elucidate controversy and that, in replying to a request for observations on a complaint, a government is not acknowledging the propriety, still less the validity, of the complaint, but is simply co-operating with the Committee and the Governing Body in making possible an impartial examination of the matter.
2. 517. The Committee recalls that, in examining on a previous occasion Case No. 456 relating to Bolivia, it had before it allegations relating to similar events that had occurred in the Bolivian mining centres in May 1965. On that occasion, on the basis of the evidence available (partly supplied by the same complainants), from which it appeared, inter alia, that the armed resistance movement accompanying the strike had exceeded the limits of strike action, the Committee did not consider that the measures adopted by the Government in order to overcome such resistance permitted any allegation of violation of trade union rights to be made in the case mentioned.
3. 518. In the present case, with regard to the serious events which, according to the complainants and the Government, did in fact take place in June 1967, the Committee notes that, in answer to the complainants' allegation that a meeting of workers and members of their families was attacked by military forces, the Government replies that, at a time when a state of siege had been declared and Constitutional rights were therefore suspended, the miners had proclaimed " free territories " in certain districts and resisted the entry of the forces of order, opening fire on them.
4. 519. The question raised in the present case does not therefore appear to refer specifically to the strike but to the deaths and arrests alleged to have resulted from the intervention of the armed forces.
5. 520. In similar cases a in which it has been alleged that people have been killed when the police opened fire on strikers the Committee has recalled that, where the dispersal of public assemblies, etc., by the police on grounds of public order or similar grounds has involved loss of life, it attaches special importance to the circumstances being fully investigated by an immediate and independent special inquiry and to regular legal procedure being followed to determine the justification and responsibility for the action taken by the police.
6. 521. On the other hand, the Government has not sent any specific observations concerning the arrest of the four trade union leaders mentioned in the complaints and has merely stated that some of the persons arrested cannot be considered as trade union members or leaders, no longer being mineworkers. The Government's assertion, even if proved to be true, would not automatically imply that the persons in question can no longer be considered as trade union leaders if the workers had selected them as their leaders. When it examined on a previous occasion Case No. 451 relating to Bolivia r, the Governing Body, on the recommendation of the Committee, drew the Government's attention to the fact that certain provisions requiring that the election of trade union leaders should be subject to their being actively employed by the undertaking concerned and stating that a trade union leader should forfeit his right to office upon ceasing to be an employee of the undertaking were inconsistent with the right of all workers to elect their representatives in full freedom that is guaranteed by the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which Bolivia has ratified.
7. 522. The Committee therefore considers it necessary to request the Government to provide specific observations as soon as possible with regard to the arrest of Mr. Waldo Tarqui, Mr. Constancio Apaza, Mr. René Cumgoza and Mr. René Chacón and, in particular, to state the present situation of those persons before the law.
8. 523. In conclusion, the Committee notes that the Government has made no observations regarding the allegations that the Government has occupied trade union premises and radio transmitting stations.