Informe provisional - Informe núm. 236, Noviembre 1984

1. 391. The Committee has already examined this case on two previous occasions [See 226th Report, paras. 181 to 191 and 233rd Report, paras. 449 to 462] presenting interim conclusions to the Governing Body which were approved at its 223rd (May-June 1983) and 225th (February-March 1984) Sessions respectively. The Government supplied certain further information in relation to this case in a communication dated 31 August 1984.
2. 392. Thailand has not ratified either the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examinations of the case

1. 393. The World Confederation of Labour (WCL), in its original communications of 26 January and 27 May 1982, alleged the death by shooting, on 14 October 1981, of two trade union leaders of the Saha Farm Labour Union and the injury of a third trade union leader after negotiations with the management of the Saha Farm Company Limited had broken down. The Government stated that, after a police inquiry into the murders, two individuals were charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced to death by the Thai Criminal Court on 13 December 1982. According to the Government, the Court found that the employers had paid for the killings because they were displeased with the victims' leading role in the establishment of a trade union within the undertaking.
2. 394. The Committee, at its first examination of the case, deeply deplored the two murders, expressing its indignation at the events which called for extremely severe measures also being taken against the employers who were originally responsible for them. It strongly urged the Government to supply information on the legal proceedings instituted against the owners of Saha Farm Company Limited and to communicate the text of any judgment handed down against them.
3. 395. In a later communication the Government stated that the observation as to the employers' role in paying for the murder of the two trade union leaders should not be taken as the "Government's own words" because it was merely an observation based on circumstantial evidence gathered by the Thai authorities. It also pointed out that the Labour Department was not in a position to undertake any action against the Saha Farm Company Limited as that was beyond the scope of its authority. According to the Government, the responsibility for the case rested entirely upon the police authorities and the Court and, since no suit had been filed by any party against the Saha Farm Company Limited, further legal action could not be pursued by the police and the Court.
4. 396. The Committee, at its second examination of the case, requested the Government to send it the text of the judgment relating to the murders in view of the contradiction between the Government's various statements. It also requested the Government to examine further the steps that are available to prosecute the instigators of this crime and to keep it informed of the results of any further inquiries that might be carried out by the police or the courts in connection with the deaths and also of any action taken by the Labour Department to ensure that the trade union rights of the workers in the Saha Farm Company Limited are fully respected. It drew the Government's attention to the principle that freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental human rights, and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed; it requested the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure that the right to personal safety of trade unionists is fully guaranteed.

B. Further developments

1. 397. In a communication dated 31 August 1984, the Government states that after studying the Court judgment it has been found that the allusion to the owner of Saha Farm Company Limited as having hired the two accused to commit the murder of the two trade union leaders in question was merely the verbal account which the uncle and aunt of one of the accused told the police officer who investigated the case, and this was not substantiated nor confirmed by the testimony of the accused. Moreover, continues the Government, the evidence gathered by the Thai authorities further revealed that, prior to the murders, there had been conflicts involving physical violence between one of the accused and one of the victims.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 398. The Committee notes the Government's explanation that the Criminal Court judgment concerning the murder of the two trade union leaders did not, in fact, find that the owner of the Saha Farm Company Limited had paid for the killings, but it regrets that the Government's explanation was not given to the Committee earlier. It again requests the Government to supply a copy of the judgment in question which the Committee had earlier requested.
2. 399. The Committee notes that the Government supplies no information - as was requested by the Committee - on any action taken by the Labour Department to ensure that the trade union rights of the workers in the Saha Farm Company Limited are fully respected. This omission is particularly regrettable in view of the fact that the union in the undertaking lost two of its leaders over three years ago and no information on the continuation or even the existence of the union has been forthcoming. In these circumstances, the Committee can only repeat its earlier conclusion that freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental human rights, and in particular those relating to the inviolability of human life and personal safety, are fully guaranteed and respected. [See, for example, 234th Report, Case No. 1252 (Colombia), para. 282.]