Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 230, Novembre 1983

1. 271. The complaint is contained in a communication from the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) of 21 February 1983. The Government replied in communications of 5 May and 17 August 1983.
2. 272. Chile has not ratified 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 273. In its communication of 21 February 1983, the WFTU alleges the arrest of Messrs. Luis Caro Molina, Juan Cunuecán and Lino Contreras Espinoza, leaders of the Colbún-Machicura Hydroelectric Complex Construction Union, who are currently in the custody of the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals.
2. 274. According to the WFTU, the three leaders were arrested in Maipú while soliciting trade union support for the strike in which the workers of the Colbún-Machicura Hydroelectric Complex have been engaged for over a month. The WFTU indicates that it fears for the physical well-being and the life of the three leaders.

B. The Government's reply

1. 275. The Government states in its communication of 5 May 1983 that on 3 February 1983 Messrs. Luis Rafael Caro Molina, Juan Cunuecán Alvarez and Lino Alberto Contreras Espinoza, were arrested and turned over to the courts on charges of violating Act No. 12.927 on State Security. According to the Government, there is no proof that these persons were trade union leaders of the Colbún-Machicura Hydroelectric Complex Construction Union.
2. 276. The Government adds that the Court of Appeals of Santiago appointed one of its members as examining magistrate to investigate the facts and determine responsibility therefore. The examining magistrate issued an indictment by which, having questioned the accused, he committed them for trial on the grounds that the existence of the crime under investigation had been established and that there was sufficient evidence of involvement of the accused as authors, accomplices or accessories after the fact. The defence appealed to a higher court which, having considered the plea, upheld the indictment issued by the magistrate.
3. 277. The Government further indicates that, notwithstanding the indictment of the persons concerned, the judge in charge of the case released them on bail on 24 February 1983. Consequently, the complainant's allegation that the defendants are in jail is not accurate.
4. 278. In its communication of 17 August 1983 the Government indicates that on 14 July 1983 the Supreme Court upheld an appeal brought by the defence stating that the existence of the offences in question had not been proved. Consequently, the charges against those concerned have been dropped and they enjoy complete freedom.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 279. The Committee notes that the allegations refer to the arrest on 21 February 1983 of three leaders of the Colbún-Machicura Hydroelectric Complex Construction Union while soliciting trade union support for the strike of the workers of the hydroelectric complex.
2. 280. The Committee takes note of the Government's statements and, in particular, that the examining magistrate in the case against the aforesaid persons released them on bail on 24 February 1983 and committed them for trial on the grounds that the existence of crimes in violation of Act No. 12.927 on State Security had been established and there was sufficient evidence that the accused had taken part in such crimes. The Committee also notes that since 14 July 1983 those concerned have enjoyed complete freedom as the Supreme Court found that there was no proof of the existence of the crimes of which these persons had been charged.
3. 281. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government has not indicated the specific acts of which the three leaders of the Colbún-Machicura Hydroelectric Complex Construction Union were accused, whereas the complainant organisation has indicated that the arrests were related to the conduct of trade union activities (seeking trade union support for a strike). The Committee also notes that Act No. 12.927, the basis for the charges, contains penal provisions relating to acts such as paralysing electrical, water and similar services, or unlawful work stoppages and strikes in public services or utilities which upset public order or disrupt public utilities or services the functioning of which is required by law or damage any essential industries.
4. 282. In these circumstances, the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that one of the bases of the principles of freedom of association is that there should be no recourse to measures depriving an individual of his liberty for the mere fact of organising or participating in a peaceful strike. Furthermore, the imposition of penal sanctions for such strikes is incompatible with the principles of freedom of association.)