Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 214, Mars 1982

1. 149. The Trade Unions International of Workers in the Metal Industry (TUIWMI) presented its complaint in a communication dated 23 February 1981. The Government replied in a communication dated 24 November 1981.
2. 150. Ecuador has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 151. The TUIWMI alleges that Aristóbulo Marciales, a member of its secretariat who had represented the organisation at the Second Conference of Workers in the Electrical Industry of Latin America in Quito on 29 and 30 January 1981, was arrested by immigration officials at Quito airport on 2 February 1981 as he was about to catch a plane to Lima to make a connection with an Aeroflot flight to Moscow, which is the headquarters of TUIWMI.
2. 152. The complainant further states that he was imprisoned by the military police and that members of the intelligence service interrogated him while he was blindfolded, after having threatened, with no explanation, to "make him disappear" if he did not tell the truth.
3. 153. According to the complainant, during his interrogation, the military police insisted that Aristóbulo Marciales must know that the Peruvian army was equipped by the Soviet Union and that the latter had stationed military advisers with the Peruvian armed forces with a view to an attack on Ecuador.
4. 154. Finally, the complainant states that on 5 February 1981, after four days during which he received only two meals, he was told that he ought to leave the country as soon as possible, and was put on to a plane leaving for Colombia, though this was against his will as he planned to travel to Lima to catch an ongoing flight to Moscow.

B. The Government's reply

1. 155. The Government states that the incident referred to in the complaint occurred at a time when the internal situation of the country was extremely delicate and a state of national emergency had been declared during which the President of the Republic, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution, had assumed special temporary powers in response to the armed conflict with Peru, as a result of which the national territory had been declared a security area.
2. 156. The Government adds that, under the state of national emergency, instructions had been given to check the movements of foreign citizens in and out of the country and that Aristóbulo Marciales, who was of Colombian nationality, had accordingly been detained at Quito airport on 2 February 1981.
3. 157. According to the Government, the necessary verification of Mr. Marciales' situation had begun on 3 February 1981 and was concluded the following day, whereupon he was placed at the disposal of the immigration authorities so that arrangements could be made for his immediate departure from the country and the continuation of his journey towards his destination. However, since flights between Ecuador and Peru had by then been suspended on account of the armed conflict referred to above, the immigration authorities were obliged to put him on a plane to Bogotá.
4. 158. In conclusion, the Government states that at no time did Mr. Marciales suffer any physical mistreatment and that his detention was solely the outcome of the circumstances described.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 159. The Committee observes that the complaint relates to the detention of Aristóbulo Marciales, a representative of the TUIWMI, on 2 February 1981 as he was about to leave Ecuador after attending the Second Conference of Workers in the Electrical Industry of Latin America.
2. 160. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, Aristóbulo Marciales was detained in accordance with provisions governing the immigration control of foreign citizens that had been introduced because of the state of national emergency and the fact that the national territory had been declared a security area as a result of the armed conflict with Peru. The Committee observes, however, that the Government has not given any specific reason why the authorities should have detained Aristóbulo Marciales or why, as would appear from the allegations, the purpose of his detention should have been to interrogate him. The Committee therefore regrets that the authorities should have chosen to detain Mr. Marciales when they could have achieved the same end by less severe action.
3. 161. The Committee further observes that, although the Government declares that at no time did Mr. Marciales suffer any physical mistreatment, it states nothing about the threats that were allegedly made against him, nor about the number of meals he received, nor about whether he was in fact blindfolded when interrogated. The Committee also notes that, according to the complainant, Mr. Marciales was unable to leave the country until 5 February 1981, three days after his detention. Consequently, the Committee draws the attention of the Government to the importance which it attaches to the principle that preventive detention should be accompanied by safeguards and limitations and, in particular, that the period of detention is not longer than is strictly necessary and does not involve any form of intimidation.
4. 162. Finally, the Committee notes that, after his period of detention, Mr. Marciales was put on to a plane leaving for Colombia and not for Lima as he had intended, owing to the suspension of flights between Ecuador and Peru.