Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 131, 1972

1. 79. There are already three interim reports by the Committee on this matter (112th Report, paragraphs 191 to 206; 116th Report, paragraphs 276 to 315; and 124th Report, paragraphs 81 to 87).
2. 80. 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. 81. When the Committee last considered this matter at its session in May 1971, two series of allegations remained outstanding, namely those relating to the arrest of Mr. Barrisueta, a leader of Bolivian Trade Union Action (ASIB), and those concerning elections in the Siglo XX mines.
2. 82. Despite repeated requests by the Committee and Governing Body, the Government has not provided the information requested of it in connection with these allegations (which concern events that took place in 1968). Accordingly, at its session in November 1971, the Committee urgently requested the Government to supply this information (127th Report, paragraph 7). No reply having been received to this request, the Committee, at its session in February 1972, in accordance with the rule of procedure set forth in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, informed the Government that it might submit a report on the substance of the case at the present session, even if the information asked for had not been received. To date, this information has still not been received.
3. 83. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that, before examining the allegations made, it would be appropriate to recall what it said as early as its First Report (paragraph 31) namely: " The purpose of the whole procedure is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact, and the Committee is confident that, if it protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognise the importance for the protection of their own good name of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies to such detailed factual charges as may be put forward ".
   • Allegations concerning the Imprisonment of Mr. Barrisueta
4. 84. In a telegram dated 23 December 1968, the plaintiffs had alleged that Alejandro Barrisueta, a leader of Bolivian Trade Union Action (ASIB), had been incarcerated at La Paz with other miners' trade union leaders, and held incommunicado. Later, in a communication dated 23 January 1969, they explained that Alejandro Barrisueta had been arrested on 19 December 1968 and that on the 24th of that month the ASIB had applied for a writ of habeas corpus with a view to obtaining his release, since in the meantime the other arrested persons had been released. Following this application, the authorities had informed the ASIB that Barrisueta had been banished to Ixiamas. " What is clear " add the complainants " is that according to the authorities, comrade Barrisueta was released on the night of 24 December. The information we have received shows that he was subjected to severe physical torture during his imprisonment, but the most serious part of the affair is that his whereabouts are unknown. All the signs suggest that Barrisueta is being held by the police so that the lamentable state he has been placed in by the torture shall not be known."
5. 85. In its first reply, the Government merely confined itself to stating that Mr. Barrisueta was not registered as an officer of any trade union organisation in the country. Later, it said that Mr. Barrisueta " was detained only for 24 hours during investigation of the possibility of his having taken part in the murder of a citizen, which is a crime under ordinary law in accordance with the general legislation of all countries ".
6. 86. At its session in May 1969, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to urge the Government to reply to the statements made in the complaint, especially that concerning the mistreatment inflicted upon Mr. Barrisueta, and to state the whereabouts of Mr. Barrisueta. At its session in February 1970, and again for the last time at its session in May 1971, the Committee made similar recommendations to the Governing Body.
7. 87. The Government has so far not provided the information requested.
   • Allegations concerning Elections in the Siglo XX Mines
8. 88. In a communication dated 30 December 1968, the complaining organisation, making use of information provided by the ASIB, stated that on the occasion of the elections held in the Siglo XX mines, four groups had been seeking leadership of the union: the Independents, the official list, the ORIT, and the Christian Democratic Party. The representatives of the four groups had appeared before the Regional Labour Inspector for the Llallagua District to establish an agreement under which the winning group, whichever it might be, would be recognised by the Ministry of Labour in the exercise of its functions. According to the complainants, there was a breach of the agreement after the elections (won by the Independents); the Ministry of Labour had refused to recognise it and had insisted that the losing party (the official list) " which was to be incorporated in the leadership to the extent of 50 per cent " should represent the minority groups. The workers had refused to accept that arrangement and despite all efforts it had proved impossible to reach a peaceful settlement since the Ministry of Labour maintained an uncompromising attitude.
9. 89. Despite repeated appeals to the Government for its comments on this aspect of the case, none have been forthcoming.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 90. The Committee is aware that, since the events alleged to have taken place, there have been several changes of government in Bolivia.
2. 91. In this connection, the Committee recalls the principle which it has always emphasised, namely that there exists a link of continuity between successive governments in the same State and that although a government cannot be held responsible for events which took place under a preceding one, it has a clear responsibility for any consequences which those events might have produced since its accession to power. Furthermore, should there be a change of government or political system in a country, the government of the day should take all the necessary steps to remedy any continuing effects which the events on which the complaint is based may have had since its accession to power, even though those events took place under its predecessor.