Afficher en : Francais - Espagnol
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
- 160. The Committee last examined this case, concerning the alleged mass dismissal of workers at the Congress of the Republic and the repression of workers’ demonstrations, detention of trade union members and raids on trade union headquarters during the state of emergency declared by the Government on 28 May 2003, at its meeting in June 2006 [see 342nd Report, paras 892–905], when it made the following recommendations:
- (a) As regards the mass dismissal of 1,117 workers at the Congress of the Republic, of whom 257 have lodged a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Committee, while noting the report of the Commission published in October 2004, requests the Government to inform it whether the workers in question have availed themselves of the judicial remedies to which the Commission refers – and, if that is the case, to inform it of the final outcome of any such proceedings – or whether an amicable agreement has been reached by the parties.
- (b) As regards the declaration of a state of emergency on 28 May 2003, which is claimed to have involved the suspension of the right to assemble, the brutal repression of demonstrations, the carrying out of investigations and searches of trade union headquarters without the authorization of trade union officials or judicial warrants, and the detention of more than 150 trade union officials and members of SUTEP, SIDESP, SUTASE, FENTASE and the National Board of Irrigation Users, the Committee firmly expects that all the detainees have been released, and once again urges the Government to carry out an independent investigation into all these allegations and to keep it informed of the outcome.
- 161. In its communication dated 25 October 2006, the Government states that, with regard to the alleged dismissal of workers at the Congress of the Republic, an official note No. 619-2006-MTPE/9.1 was sent to the executive secretary of the National Council of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice with a request for information on the current status of the complaint submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH) by the 257 former employees of the Congress of the Republic following their dismissal in 1992. In report No. 97-2006-JUS/CNDH-SE-SESAPI of 24 August 2006, the office of the executive secretary of the National Council of Human Rights states that, in response to the appeal lodged with the CIDH, the Peruvian State recognized that during the reorganization of the staff of the Congress some legal and administrative provisions were in force that contravened certain provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State adds that, aware of the irregularities that occurred during this period, it had taken a number of steps to identify and compensate the workers who had been improperly dismissed and that Act No. 27803 provided for the implementation of the recommendations of the committees established under Acts Nos 27452 and 27586 to review the collective dismissals ordered by State enterprises engaged in the promotion of private sector investment and by public sector bodies and local governments. The Government adds further that the state had indicated its willingness to seek an amicable solution with the workers dismissed from the Congress, and specifically with those who had lodged a complaint with the CIDH; it was understood that such an agreement would reflect the principles embodied in the aforesaid Act No. 27803 (so far, no amicable agreement has been concluded with the 257 former Congress workers, but the State has signified its readiness to do so). The Government also adds that on 14 August 2006 it asked the Office of the Congress of the Republic to inform it whether legal proceedings had been brought against the Congress by any of its 257 former workers. The director of human resources of the Congress replied that no such legal proceedings had been brought against it. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to continue taking steps to bring the parties together in an amicable agreement on the dismissals and to keep it informed in this respect.
- 162. With regard to the allegations concerning the declaration of a state of emergency on 28 May 2003 which is said to have involved the suspension of the right of assembly, the brutal repression of demonstrations, the carrying out of investigations and searches of trade union headquarters without the authorization of trade union officials or judicial warrants, and the detention of more than 150 trade union officials and members of SUTEP, the Peruvian Union of Higher Education Teachers (SIDESP), the Single Trade Union of Education Sector Administrative Workers (SUTASE), the National Federation of Education Administrative Workers (FENTASE) and the National Board of Irrigation Users (JNUDRP), the Government states that during the days preceding the declaration of the state of emergency there had been demonstrations, work stoppages, marches, strikes, street blockades and other disturbances that had caused serious difficulties in some parts of the country. The disturbances posed a threat to people’s physical integrity, to public transport and therefore to food supplies in certain departments. Considering that these incidents constituted a “disturbance of the peace or of law and order”, as defined in section 137, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, the Government decided to decree a state of emergency in the departments of Piura, Lambayeque, La Libertad, Ancash, Lima, Ica, Arequipa, Monquegua, Tacna, Huánco, Junín and Puno and in the Constitutional Province of Callao and called on the armed forces and the national police to restore law and order. The Government stationed a detachment of the army in front of the headquarters of the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP) and the CGTP planned and called a number of meetings and peaceful demonstrations, such as the day of protest that was held on 3 June 2003. The Legislative urged the unions involved in the dispute and the Government to pursue their talks in order to overcome the crisis facing the country and to restore a climate of industrial harmony. In a communiqué issued in the afternoon of 28 May 2003, the Ministry of Defence announced that the enforcement of law and order by the armed forces was limited to defending “law and order” as defined in the legislation, without otherwise interfering in the activities of local or regional governments. Secondly, the Ministry wished to make it clear that the purpose of the intervention of the armed forces was to maintain the constitutional and democratic state of law. The president of the JNUDRP thereupon announced the suspension of the indefinite national strike it had called, so as not to endanger the lives of its members. The social security workers (EsSalud) likewise agreed to suspend their strikes, declaring that the decision had been taken in order to contribute to democratic stability and to guarantee compliance with the agreements entered into with the highest authority of EsSalud. The same decision was taken by other organizations affiliated to the CGTP – the SIDESP, the SUTASE, the FENTASE and the Transporters Federation of Peru, among others. For his part, the director general of the national police stated on 30 May 2003 that, since the start of the state of emergency, a total of 248 people had been arrested for disturbing the peace and holding demonstrations; he added that most of the arrests had been in the departments of Lima, Chiclayo, Huancayo, Cajamarca, Ayacucho and in Puno. Under article 200 of the Constitution, persons arrested following the declaration of a state of emergency are entitled to present writs of habeas corpus and to seek constitutional protection of the four rights that were restricted by the state of emergency (personal freedom and safety, inviolability of the home, freedom of movement and freedom of assembly); under this provision, the judge is explicitly required to examine the reasonableness and proportionality of the restrictive act. The “right of defence” following the arrests – a right that is not restricted by a state of emergency – was thus respected; consequently anyone who had been arrested was entitled to the assistance of a lawyer from the very moment of his or her arrest, in accordance with article 139, paragraph 14, of the Constitution. A number of officials, including the representative of the Ombudsman’s Office of Puno, the regional president and his advisers, the president of the Supreme Court and other authorities, as well as student leaders, sought a meeting with the commander general of the armed forces in Puno to request the release of the detainees. The authorities of the departments of Lima, Chiclayo, Huancayo and Cajamarca likewise called for their release. The Government, which obtained the release of most of the detainees in the various departments by 6 June 2003, was generally conceded to have acted wisely. According to a communiqué, the Executive officially sought dialogue with the officials of the trade unions that were demonstrating from the moment the emergency was declared; eventually, on 26 June 2006, the President’s press secretary stated that the Head of State had decided to lift the state of emergency and on the same day supreme decree No. 062-2003-PCM was published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” “in view of the fact that a climate of normality has returned almost throughout the national territory”. With law and order thus restored, the rights whose exercise had been suspended were accordingly re-established and the Ombudsman welcomed the ending of the state of emergency.
- 163. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to inform it whether trade union officials were arrested and charged and, if so, to indicate the nature of the charges brought against them and the judgements that were handed down.
