Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 81, 1965

1. 54. The Committee has already examined this case, in November 1964, when it submitted an interim report which forms paragraphs 258 to 291 of the 78th Report of the Committee. This was approved by the Governing Body at its 160th Session (November 1964).

55. No final recommendations were made at that time regarding the allegations relating to the detention of trade unionists, the raiding of private premises and the seizure of trade union publications. The complainants had stated in their communication of 31 March 1964 that the fiscal authorities and the chief political officer of Quepos (Aguirre Canton, Punta Arenas Province) broke up a meeting of farmers affiliated to a trade union which was being held on private premises. They seized books belonging to the union and arrested one man. In February 1964, because a local committee of the Limón Agricultural Workers' Union (UTRAL) had been formed at Estrada, an agent of the military intelligence service, accompanied by the local chief of police, carried out a search of the residence of Mr. Juan Arias, organising secretary of the above trade union, and seized the membership list of the union. In consequence of the seizure of this list five foreign workers were arrested on the charge of promoting subversive activities and an application was made for their deportation. The accused - Enrique Leal, Santiago Mendoza, Enrique Duarte, Salvador Varela and Rafael Zúñiga - were in prison for a week. They were not deported but had to leave the union.

1. 56. Since the Government had not submitted its observations on these allegations the Committee recommended the Governing Body in paragraph 291 of the above-mentioned report:
2. ......................................................................................................................................................
3. (d) to request the Government to furnish its observations as soon as possible on the allegations relating to the raiding of the home of Mr. Juan Arias, the seizure of the membership list of the Limón Agricultural Workers' Union, the seizure of books belonging to the Quepos Farmers' Union and the detention of the workers Enrique Leal, Santiago Mendoza, Enrique Duarte, Salvador Varela and Rafael Zúñiga;
4. ......................................................................................................................................................
5. 57. The Government sent its observations on 26 December 1964, in which reference was made to a commission that had been set up for the purpose of examining and investigating the various complaints presented regarding alleged violations of freedom of association. The Government had already reported on the activities to be undertaken by that Commission, as stated in paragraph 239 of the 78th Report (Case No. 379, Costa Rica). The Government now maintains that there has been a marked tendency to exaggerate and even to distort the facts. On the other hand, although the Ministry of Labour gave the complainants an opportunity to formulate all the complaints they considered relevant and to supply the necessary evidence, and consequently representatives of each of the trade unions were able to appear before the Commission (composed of officials of the Ministry of Labour) at the respective hearing, few such representatives gave detailed accounts of facts which could be taken seriously. The complaints were not supported by evidence and most of the complainants were unable to give the names or addresses of the persons they referred to. All this made the Commission's work difficult.
6. 58. As regards the raiding of the home of Mr. Juan Arias the Government states in its communication that the Commission did not investigate this complaint because UTRAL had made no denunciation in this respect. The Government adds, however, that the Commission investigated other facts related to the meeting which according to the complainants gave rise to the raid, but that nothing could be proved. On the other hand, the police officer accused of seizing the union's membership list flatly denied the charges. The person from whom, according to the complaint, the list had been seized, could not be found by the inspectors entrusted with gathering evidence, mainly because the complainant had failed to indicate that person's address or to provide other particulars that would facilitate the investigations.
7. 59. The Committee notes that the complaint presented by the General Confederation of Workers of Costa Rica is exceedingly clear, stating that at Estrada in February 1964 two agents, one of the military intelligence service and the other of the police, searched the residence of Mr. Juan Arias, organising secretary of UTRAL, where they seized the union's membership list. For its part, the Government states on the one hand that the Commission appointed to investigate the complaint did not examine the case relating to the raiding of Mr. Juan Arias's home and, on the other, that the police officer accused of having seized the union's membership list denied the charges and that the person from whom the list had been seized could not be found because his address was not known.
8. 60. The Committee observes that the statements of the Government amount to saying that the Commission was unable to verify the alleged facts concerning the raiding and the seizure of the membership list.
9. 61. In these circumstances, in view of the contradictory opinions of the complainants and of the Government, the Committee is unable to reach a conclusion on the alleged facts. However, it recommends the Governing Body, on taking note of the Government's communication, to draw its attention to the principle set forth on many occasions that, while trade unions, like other associations or persons, cannot claim immunity from search of their premises, such a search should only be made following the issue of a warrant by the ordinary judicial authority after it has been satisfied that evidence exists on the said premises material to a prosecution for an offence under the ordinary law and that such a search is restricted to the purposes for which the warrant was issued.
10. 62. As regards the allegation that a meeting of agricultural workers was broken up and books belonging to the Quepos Farmers' Union seized, the Government states that no mention was made of this allegation by any of the unions lodging complaints and, according to the investigation carried out at the General Fiscal Inspectorate, the competent official declared that he had no knowledge of such an event.
11. 63. The Committee observes that here too a contradiction exists between the statements of the complainants and those of the Government and considers that no conclusion can be reached on the basis of the data made available to it. However, taking into account that the complainants' statements failed to give precise details on the alleged occurrences, that the complainants did not supply further information thereon and that apparently neither the Quepos Farmers' Union nor the other organisations which appeared before the Investigating Commission mentioned this complaint, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
12. 64. As regards the detention of the workers Enrique Leal, Santiago Mendoza, Enrique Duarte, Salvador Varela and Rafael Zúñiga, accused of promoting subversive activities, the Government states that an appeal (recurso de amparo) was made on 15 February 1964 and dismissed by the Supreme Court in view of information provided by the Director-General of Migration to the effect that these workers were Nicaraguan nationals arrested for promoting subversive activities, were members of the Communist party and possessed no documents legally permitting them to remain in the country. The Court therefore requested the Executive to examine the case in order to decide whether they should be deported or released.
13. 65. The Committee observes that the case of the above workers was examined by the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal made by them on grounds that were unrelated to trade union rights. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.