Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 76, 1964

1. 30. This case was examined by the Committee at its 34th Session (May 1963) when it submitted an interim report which is to be found in paragraphs 377 to 387 of its 70th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 155th Session (June 1963).
2. 31. In paragraph 387 of its report the Committee, after examining the allegations and the Government's reply, made a number of recommendations and a request for information in the following terms:
   • In all the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
     • (a) to decide that the allegations referred to in paragraph 382 above do not, for the reasons indicated in that paragraph, call for further examination;
     • (b) to request the Government of Peru to supply more precise information on the reasons for the detention of Messrs. José Luis Alvarado, Emiliano Huamatica and Guillermo Sheen, relating in particular to the acts or precise activities for which these persons are held responsible and to ask it whether there have been or still are trade unionists detained in the prison of El Sepa, and to decide, meanwhile, to defer the examination of this case.
   • 32. At its 35th Session (November 1963) the Committee decided to postpone its examination of the complaint because it had not yet received the information requested from the Peruvian Government.
3. 33. The Government supplied certain additional information in a letter dated 13 April 1964.
4. 34. Peru has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but not the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 35. With regard to the outstanding allegations referred to in paragraph 387 (b) quoted above, the Committee recalls that the complainants had alleged that the Peruvian Military Government, under the pretext of having discovered a subversive plot, issued a decree in January 1963 suspending Constitutional safeguards and launched a campaign of repression against the working-class movement. The police are alleged to have occupied the offices of a number of unions and to have arrested more than 1,000 people arbitrarily, including large numbers of union leaders and officials. The arrested persons included José Luis Alvarado, General Secretary of the Federation of Bank Employees, Emiliano Huamatica, President of the Cuzco Department Workers' Union, Guillermo Sheen, an official of the Salaried Employees' Union, and all the officials of the Lima Building Workers' Union. Still according to the complainants, many persons were sent to El Sepa Prison in the heart of the Amazonian forest. In its reply to the complaint by the World Federation of Trade Unions, the Government makes no reference to the foregoing allegations.
2. 36. The Committee recalled, when examining this aspect of the complaint and the Government's reply, that when, in previous cases allegations that trade union leaders or workers have been arrested or detained for trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests or detentions were made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security or for common law crimes, the Committee has always followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests or detentions and the reasons for them. If, in certain cases, the Committee has concluded that allegations relating to the arrests or detentions of trade union militants did not call for further examination, this has been after it has received information from the government showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the arrests or detentions were in no way occasioned by trade union activities but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere, which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature.
3. 37. In a further letter dated 13 April 1964 the Government states that the events giving rise to the complaint occurred before the present Government came to power and that they are now a thing of the past.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 38. As regards this statement by the Government to the effect that the complaint refers to events which took place under the previous authorities, the Committee must point out that in other cases it has taken the view that there is a degree of continuity between successive governments of the same State and that, while the government in power cannot be held responsible for events which took place under its predecessor, it clearly is responsible for any continuing consequences which they may have had since its accession to power.
2. 39. The Committee notes that the Government also states that the events which gave rise to the complaint are now a thing of the past, i.e. the trade unionists referred to by the complainants in their allegations have now been set free.