Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 375, Juin 2015

1. 560. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2015 session, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 374th Report, paras 874–930, approved by the Governing Body at its 323rd Session (March 2015)].
2. 561. On that occasion, it requested the Government [see 374th Report, para. 930, recommendation (g)] to complete its response on certain issues and indicated its intention to consider them in detail at its May 2015 meeting.
3. 562. In a communication dated 19 May 2015, the IOE and FEDECAMARAS provided additional information.
4. 563. The Government sent additional observations in a communication dated 21 May 2015.
5. 564. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has ratified 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 565. In its previous examination of the case at its March 2015 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations on the matters still pending [see 374th Report, para. 930]:
   • (a) While expressing its deep concern at the various and serious forms of stigmatization and intimidation by the Bolivarian authorities, groups and organizations directed against FEDECAMARAS, its member organizations, their leaders and affiliated companies, including threats of imprisonment, statements of incitement to hatred, accusations of conducting economic warfare, the occupation and looting of shops, the seizure of FEDECAMARAS headquarters, etc., the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the importance of taking strong measures to prevent such actions and statements against individuals and organizations that are legitimately defending their interests under Conventions Nos 87 and 98, which have been ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
   • (b) The Committee notes with regret that the criminal proceedings relating to the bomb attack on FEDECAMARAS headquarters on 26 February 2008 and the abduction and mistreatment in 2010 of the leaders of that organization, Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Ms Albis Muñoz (the latter sustained three bullet wounds) have not yet been completed (FEDECAMARAS appealed against the ruling ordering the closure of the case concerning the bomb attack on its headquarters), again expresses the firm hope that they will be concluded without further delay, and requests the Government to keep it informed. The Committee reiterates the importance of ensuring that the perpetrators receive sentences that are in proportion to the seriousness of their crimes, with a view to preventing any recurrence of the latter, and that FEDECAMARAS and the leaders concerned are compensated for the damage caused by these illegal acts. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the issues raised by FEDECAMARAS with regard to the bomb attack on its headquarters.
   • (c) As regards the allegations of the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders, the Committee requests that those current or former leaders of FEDECAMARAS be compensated in a just manner. At the same time, the Committee refers to the decision of the Governing Body in March 2014, in which it “urged the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to develop and implement the Plan of Action as recommended by the high level tripartite mission, in consultation with national social partners”, which involved, as mentioned by the mission, “the establishment of a round table between the Government and FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO, to deal with all pending matters relating to the recovery of estates and the expropriation of enterprises and other related problems arising or that may arise in the future”, and regrets that the Government stated in its last communication that establishing a dialogue round table on questions of recovery of estates and holding consultations on legislation are not viable. The Committee urges the Government to implement this request along the lines described in the conclusions and to report thereon. Finally, like the high-level tripartite mission, the Committee emphasizes “the importance of taking every measure to avoid any kind of discretion or discrimination in the legal mechanisms governing the expropriation or recovery of land or other mechanisms that affect the right to own property”.
   • (d) As regards the structured bodies for bipartite and tripartite social dialogue which need to be established in the country, and the plan of action in consultation with the social partners, involving the establishment of stages and specific time frames for its implementation with the technical assistance of the ILO, as recommended by the Governing Body, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has not yet concluded the process of consultation with different sectors and organizations and requests the Government to ensure that FEDECAMARAS is included in all these processes. The Committee recalls that the conclusions of the mission refer to a round table between the Government and FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO, and a tripartite dialogue round table, with the participation of the ILO and an independent chairperson. The Committee urges the Government to immediately adopt tangible measures with regard to bipartite and tripartite social dialogue as requested by the high level tripartite mission. Noting that the Government has not yet provided the requested plan of action, the Committee urges the Government to implement without delay the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission endorsed by the Governing Body and to report thereon. The Committee urges the Government to promote social dialogue and initiatives taken in this area, such as the meeting held between the authorities and FEDECAMARAS in February 2015, and to immediately implement tripartite consultations.
   • (e) Finally, the Committee, in line with the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission, urges the Government to take immediate action to create a climate of trust based on respect for employers’ and trade union organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any measures taken in this regard. The Committee further requests the Government, as a first step in the right direction that should not pose any problem, to enable a representative of FEDECAMARAS to be appointed to the Higher Labour Council.
   • (f) The Committee notes with concern the new allegations by the IOE and FEDECAMARAS of 27 November 2014 concerning: (i) the detention of Mr Eduardo Garmendia, president of CONINDUSTRIA, for 12 hours; (ii) the shadowing and harassment of Mr Jorge Roig, president of FEDECAMARAS; (iii) an escalation of the verbal attacks on FEDECAMARAS by high-level state officials in the media; and (iv) the adoption by the President of the Republic, in November 2014, of 50 decree laws on important economic and production-related matters without consultation of FEDECAMARAS. The Committee requests the Government to send complete observations on these allegations.
   • (g) The Committee notes with concern the new allegations from the IOE and FEDECAMARAS and takes note of the recent Government observations on some of the allegations. The Committee requests the Government to complete its response and intends to review the issues raised therein in a detailed manner at its next meeting in May 2015.
   • (h) The Committee draws the special attention of the Governing Body to the extremely serious and urgent nature of this case.
2. 566. In respect of recommendation (g), the report on the previous examination of the case only contains a very brief summary of the allegations and the responses from the Government as these were only received shortly before the Committee’s March 2015 meeting. Accordingly, a detailed account of the said allegations and the responses from the Government is provided below.

B. The complainants’ new allegations

1. 567. In a communication of 3 March 2015, the IOE and the Venezuelan business association FEDECAMARAS denounce once again the continuing harassment of the country’s free employers by the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and protest to the Committee on Freedom of Association of the ILO about new attacks on the private sector and on private Venezuelan companies, many of which are members of FEDECAMARAS, the county’s most representative employers’ organization. This tactic comprises new acts of aggression and public vilification by the Venezuelan Government targeted against Venezuelan companies and employers, which in the month of February 2015 alone resulted in the sudden detention of more than 15 employers and managers of companies distributing food and medicines and of private union organizations providing in-patient care, supermarket servicing and meat distribution, along with the de facto seizure, by the Government, of a private food-distribution company, accusing it of conspiring against the Government, without due process or respect for their right to defence, incidents which have been widely publicized by the media.
2. 568. The complainant organizations recall that, one year ago, in March 2014, the ILO officially requested the Venezuelan Government to urgently adopt an action plan to launch a social dialogue in the country based on respect and the absence of intimidation against independent and representative employers’ and trade union organizations. This insistent request was prompted by concerns relating to violation of the right to freedom of association and the freedom to form trade unions of employers and workers in the country and was reflected in detail in the report submitted by the ILO high-level mission on its visit to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in January 2014, which was approved by the Governing Body on 27 March 2014. In that report, the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was also requested to ensure that rapid and effective steps were taken to prosecute acts of violence against representatives of employers’ and trade union organizations. That notwithstanding, the new attacks in February 2015 are cause for serious concern, demonstrating that the launch of a social dialogue in the country based on respect and the absence of intimidation against independent and representative employers’ and trade union organizations is far from being a reality in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
3. 569. The IOE and FEDECAMARAS allege that, on 1 February 2015, four of the owners and managers of the FARMATODO pharmacy chain, including the Executive President of the chain, Pedro Luis Angarita and his operations Vice-President, Agustín Antonio Álvarez Costa, were detained in connection with the queues formed by consumers at the doors of their distribution centres for medicines and other personal hygiene items which are in short supply in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The Government saw this as a deliberate delaying tactic designed to undermine and discredit the Government in the eyes of consumers, and accused them of “conspiracy” and “waging an economic war against the Government”. The President of the country went on radio and television to inform the public that the owners of FARMATODO had been detained and were being held in the cells of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN) and that charges against them had been lodged with the Office of the Attorney-General. The offences with which the FARMATODO directors were charged carried penalties of ten to 12 years’ imprisonment.
4. 570. On 2 February 2015, the company issued a statement to its workers emphasizing its willingness to cooperate with a view to ensuring the prompt availability of essential items and to continue providing services to its clients.
5. 571. On 3 February, the President of FEDECAMARAS, Jorge Roig, condemned the actions taken by the Venezuelan Government against the management of FARMATODO. He declared that measures of that kind taken by the authorities formed part of a campaign of “absolute and exclusive persecution against Venezuelan private enterprise”. The President of FEDECAMARAS deplored the “demonizing” of the business sector, which was being put “on trial without any conclusive evidence and without letting us hear the injured parties’ side of the story”. He stressed that the pharmacy chain must be given a fair trial, noting that “we’ve heard nothing from the injured party” and that “these investigations have degenerated into summary trials”.
6. 572. The complainant organizations also allege that, on 1 February 2015, the President of the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, the Vice-President for Food Security and Self Sufficiency, Carlos Osorio, the Minister for Food, Yván Bello, and officials from the National Fair Pricing Authority (SUNDDE) inspected the storerooms of the Día a Día supermarket in Caracas, which, according to a declaration by Mr Cabello, were seized by the Government because of irregularities detected in the sale of products and the large inventory that they contained. On instructions from the President of the Republic, according to Mr Cabello, seizure of the entire network of Día a Día supermarkets was ordered, from the warehouses, to the distribution areas and sales outlets, all of which were then transferred to the State food distribution service, the Venezuelan Food Production and Distribution Board (PDVAL). On 4 February, the Governor of the State of Aragua announced that four more storerooms of the Día a Día chain had been seized in that state, full of “hoarded” supplies.
7. 573. On 5 February 2015, at the warehouses of the Día a Día minimarket chain, situated in Caracas, eight lorries from the national Government Food Mission, escorted by PDVAL officials, inspectors from SUNDDE and the Bolivarian National Guard, loaded up goods for delivery to 36 branches of the chain and to PDVAL premises.
8. 574. On 6 February 2015, the President of the Republic announced that, as from 7 February, the PDVAL state-owned network would be taking over all the services of Día a Día, accusing the latter of waging war against the Venezuelan people. He also urged the judicial authorities and the Public Prosecutor’s Office to initiate proceedings against those responsible for offences against the people in this economic war, from this chain in particular, which had now been taken over by the PDVAL, and to ensure that they paid in full and “to show no mercy to these mafias which are harming our people”. He also instructed the Public Prosecutor’s Office to determine the material damage caused to society and the State through the conduct of “economic warfare by this group”.
9. 575. On 6 February 2015, Día a Día issued a communiqué explaining that it was quite normal for most of the company’s stock to be stored in its central warehouse, and that this stock generally only covered a few days of sales. Where staples were concerned, and in particular maize meal, the warehouse generally held no more than three days of stock for sales in all the chain’s outlets of 197 tonnes per day. It insisted that there was neither any hoarding nor a boycott.
10. 576. Francisco Martínez, the First Vice-President of FEDECAMARAS, maintained that the unremitting attacks against the private sector were a source of concern to FEDECAMARAS, which was alarmed that it should be deemed an offence to hold three days of stock.
11. 577. On 8 February 2015, the President of Día a Día explained that the legal arrangements for the company’s incorporation into the State food distribution network, PDVAL, still had not been worked out. “We do not know”, he said, “if this is expropriation, or interference, or what. All we know is that our director-general is in prison. … Our supplies have been taken and are being invoiced by PDVAL”.
12. 578. The complainant organizations further indicate that, on 1 February 2015, SEBIN detained the directors of the Día a Día supermarket chain and Luis Rodríguez, President of the National Association of Supermarkets and Self-Services (ANSA). They were detained as they left a meeting which had been called by the Government in the Palace of Miraflores, with the Vice-President for Food Security and Self-Sufficiency, Carlos Osorio, to discuss the issue of supplies in the country.
13. 579. The complainant organizations add that, on 1 February 2015, the Government seized the meat distributor Corporación Cárnica 2005 and detained its owners. The head of SUNDDE announced the detention of five managers from the company in the State of Falcón, for having sold meat, chicken and fish at a mark-up of up to 1,000 per cent, and on suspicion of the offence of hoarding. At a meeting with representatives of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), the State President announced that the company had been seized by the Government and that it would now become part of the PDVAL network. During the extended plenary meeting of the PSUV, Diosdado Cabello, President of the National Assembly, requested President Maduro personally to preside over the Corporación Cárnica take-over operation in the State of Falcón. The Head of State announced that the company would be handed over to the PDVAL State network.
14. 580. The IOE and FEDECAMARAS allege that, on 5 February 2015, eight SEBIN officials detained the President of the Venezuelan Association of Clinics and Hospitals, Dr Carlos Rosales Briceño, in his practice in the city of Valencia, in Carabobo State. The SEBIN officials ordered the doctor to accompany them to the regional headquarters. It is assumed that Dr Rosales’s detention was prompted by recent statements that he had made regarding the shortage of medicines and supplies necessary to protect the lives and health of Venezuelans in clinics and hospitals, in which he had urged the Venezuelan authorities to respond to the emergency. Dr Rosales said, after his release, that SEBIN had informed him that his statements to the media “might have caused alarm among the population and were not objective”.
15. 581. In their communication dated 19 May 2015, the IOE and FEDECAMARAS reiterate their previous allegations and submit press clipping summaries of statements of an intimidating nature made by the President of the Republic and other authorities against FEDECAMARAS and its leaders, in which they are also accused of criminal offences and carrying out an economic war. These press clippings include statements that were also made in the month of April 2015.

C. The Government’s replies

1. 582. In its communication dated 10 March 2015, the Government stated that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was currently suffering from threats and sanctions imposed from abroad with a view to destabilizing the country. Clear evidence of these destabilizing threats had been provided to various community organizations and international agencies such as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our America – Peoples Trade Treaty (ALBA–TCP), the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), which took a unanimous position against these attempts to interfere in the country and to destabilize its democratic system.
2. 583. As part of this economic war, blatantly conspiratorial political and economic groups had expended huge sums of money buying essential items which were then sent out of the country, hidden away or simply destroyed to prevent them being distributed to the population. In the month of January 2015 alone, there was a difference of 35 per cent in the quantity of such items distributed than in the same month of the previous year. This sabotage of the country’s economy had led to the emergence of a black market in commodities and to turmoil in the population, comparable to that which developed in Chile in the months preceding the coup d’état against President Allende that led to the Pinochet dictatorship.
3. 584. The political aims of this economic sabotage were clear and were demonstrated by countless political statements calling for sedition, for acts of looting and violence or, quite blatantly, for the overthrow of the legitimate Government of President Nicolás Maduro.
4. 585. The incitements to acts of violence had fallen on deaf ears, because the population had stoically endured the queues necessary for controlled items, caused by their withdrawal from distribution and disappearance.
5. 586. Despite the attacks, the people had firmly maintained their attachment to democracy, independence and to the gains that had been made to uphold the Bolivarian revolution and the legacy of the Supreme Commander, Hugo Chávez Frías.
6. 587. Thanks to organized action by trade unions and local councils, which had set up inspection, investigation and information-gathering teams to combat hoarding and speculation, the country was successfully resisting the economic war and was able to detect semi-clandestine stashes of commodities and instances of the buying up of commodities so that they could be taken out of circulation and reappear outside the normal distribution channels at inflated prices.
7. 588. The Government stated that that action has led to the arrest of many unscrupulous traders, who – regrettably – were “employers” engaged in speculation, hoarding and the smuggling of goods for profiteering purposes, all designated as offences under the law, as they were in many other countries. Some of those “employers” were managers or owners of large distribution companies belonging to important economic groups. Despite their membership of those important economic groups, they had been treated exactly the same as small-scale employers, and they had been accorded their constitutional right to defence and due process.
8. 589. In October 2014, 60 kilometres from Caracas, several storehouses had been found containing medical, surgical and pharmaceutical equipment sufficient to supply the needs of the hospital network for six months. To give an idea of the hoard, it had included 14 million syringes and 9 million pairs of gloves, at the very time when the media, both national and international, were highlighting “the absence of medical and surgical equipment” in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, specifying in particular syringes and gloves. The medical supply companies Javoy and Suplidora Hospimed 2004 had received $236 million from the Venezuelan Government for the import of supplies that had then been withheld from the public. The owners of those companies were now fugitives from justice.
9. 590. In January 2015, the company Distribuidora Herrera CA had been seized, with more than 1,000 tonnes of essential foodstuffs. In both cases, many of the items had been distributed to businesses and then, anomalously, had gone back into storage and were being repackaged to be illegally spirited out of the country. The main shareholder of that company was the firm Diamond Trading Investments Ltd., based in Barbados, whose owner was Ms Peggy Ordaz, now a fugitive from justice, an activist in the Voluntad Popular party, which had been linked to the coup attempts in 2002 and whose main leader was currently in detention, charged with provoking the violent activities known as “guarimbas” during 2014.
10. 591. While both cases had been reviewed extensively in the national press, they had been omitted from the press clippings accompanying the communication from FEDECAMARAS, despite their direct link with the facts being reported. Investigations and intelligence operations had led to the arrest of the owners of the pharmaceutical and food distribution chains, FARMATODO and Día a Día. That was not action taken against some trade union activity by the accused – there had not in fact been any such activity – but a normal and legal response to offences connected with organized crime.
11. 592. Representatives of the company Corporación Cárnica 2005 had been arrested because they were found to be selling meat and poultry outside regular distribution channels and at prices inflated to ten times the value of the product, the price of which is regulated because it is categorized as a basic necessity. In that case too, the owners of the meat distributor had not been engaged in any trade union activity but were carrying out reprehensible actions of hoarding and speculation, to the detriment of the Venezuelan people.
12. 593. All those cases related to specific events involving citizens suspected of the commission of an offence and it was now up to the judicial system to determine whether or not they were guilty. Their status as “employers” was entirely circumstantial. Almost all Venezuelan employers dissociated themselves from that situation and instead condemned the offences of hoarding and speculation which had been impeding the normal development of the country’s economy.
13. 594. Accordingly, the legal and judicial actions based on the country’s law which had been taken against some of the owners or representatives of those companies or chains had nothing to do with and were not in any way linked to their status as employers, but were prompted by their suspected involvement in offences established in Venezuelan law and for which they must be brought to justice, whether they were employers or not.
14. 595. The country’s worker President, Nicolás Maduro, had extended an invitation to all national and international businesses that believed in work – and they made up the vast majority. To date, in 2015, as part of efforts to resist the economic war, 327 meetings had been held with chambers, associations and various unions of employers, in a productive social dialogue that had served to isolate certain criminal groups which had been masquerading as businesses or employers.
15. 596. The communication from FEDECAMARAS was very specific, noting situations that had arisen, including between 1 and 5 February 2015. It was noteworthy that, in his communication, the President of FEDECAMARAS had omitted to mention that, on 10 February – namely, after the events in question – President Maduro had called all business sectors to a “national dialogue, to consider proposals on the economy” and for that purpose had appointed the employers’ leader, Miguel Perez Abad, President of FEDEINDUSTRIA, one of the main employers’ organizations in the country, as presidential commissioner for economic matters.
16. 597. On Thursday, 12 February, Mr Abad had met representatives of FEDECAMARAS. The importance of that meeting had been affirmed by Jorge Roig, President of FEDECAMARAS and one of the signatories of the communication in reference, who had said: “Maduro has made a positive decision to call all sectors to a dialogue on the economy .... We all undoubtedly share the aim of ensuring the adequate and continued supply of food to the country and meeting their daily material needs .... We also concur in our resolute and categorical rejection of all hoarding, speculation and smuggling, offences against commercial and business ethics which should be punished with the full force of the law.”
17. 598. The Government attached in full the statements by Mr Roig, President of FEDECAMARAS, and the statement issued by FEDECAMARAS the following week. They made no mention of situations like those described in the complaint currently before the Committee on Freedom of Association, even though they had occurred only the previous week.
18. 599. The Government stated that it did not understand how, just two weeks after those public statements by the civil association FEDECAMARAS, a communication could have been issued containing phrases like “assault on the business community”, “attacks on private companies”, “acts of aggression and discrediting the public”, which were quite inconsistent with the real situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and with the statements issued by the leaders of that same civil association. It was precisely that kind of ambiguous behaviour by FEDECAMARAS and its duplicitous political game which was undermining the confidence of the Venezuelan people in the sincerity of that civil association and of other such civil associations, and which regrettably had led it to withdraw from the social dialogue under way in the country, despite the numerous appeals by the President himself.
19. 600. What made that situation particularly serious, in the Government’s view, was that citizens engaged in business activity were the ones perpetrating the offences. It was not a matter of attacks against entrepreneurship, but the actions of a small group of citizens who were suspected of having committed offences and it was now up to the Venezuelan judicial authorities to establish responsibility. Nor was it a matter of union harassment, since the vast majority of those concerned were not attached to any union, but routine arrests of persons engaged in the commission of offences which were condemned by FEDECAMARAS itself. It was now up to the courts to determine whether or not they were guilty, while guaranteeing that all detainees received due process and the right to defence, as were guaranteed to every citizen of the country.
20. 601. The Government claimed that there was some motive behind the complaint to the ILO to follow up on judgments handed down in the country for offences committed by citizens against the Venezuelan people, and that these had nothing to do with persecution, harassment or aggression against businesses or employers.
21. 602. Where the request by the IOE was concerned, the country would have due respect for human rights, in accordance with the political obligation of those now running the Government, who stood in a long tradition in the country of active defenders of human rights and had themselves been the victims of violations of their own rights in the past. Furthermore, no ILO Convention stated that the punishment or liabilities incurred by such activities and offences as smuggling, speculation and hoarding could be described as persecution or the harassment of unions; quite the reverse, it was to defend the human rights of the people that the Government had acted against those offences.
22. 603. Lastly, the Government categorically rejected the claim to this international body that those acts were offences against the Venezuelan people, measures that “may create a climate of intimidation impeding the normal conduct of activities by employers’ organizations and their members and their exercise of their freedom of association and the rights enshrined in Convention No. 87”. It reaffirmed the full compliance by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with freedom of association and the right to organize and, specifically, with Convention No. 87; and it pointed out once again that the commission of offences punishable under the law by any citizens, regardless of their status or situation, if detected and proved by the judicial authorities, would incur the corresponding penalties.
23. 604. In its communication of 12 March 2015, the Government indicated that it had requested the Attorney-General’s Office to provide all details of the latest allegations by the complainants, so that it could urgently and promptly respond to those allegations, regarding the supposed detention without due process and without the right to defence, during the month of February 2015, of 15 employers and managers of companies distributing food and medicines or providing in-patient hospital care.
24. 605. The Attorney-General’s Office gives updates of the proceedings against suspects in the following cases:
    • – FARMATODO pharmaceutical chain: Proceedings have been initiated against the citizens Pedro Luis Angarita and Agustin Alvarez, who were apprehended in the act, for the offences of boycotting and destabilizing the economy, and their preventive judicial detention has been authorized by Control Court No. 41 of the criminal judicial circuit of the Caracas metropolitan area (Supervisory Court). The case is currently at the investigation stage.
    • – Día a Día supermarket and minimarket chains: Proceedings have been instituted against the citizens Manuel Andrés Morales Ordosgoitti and Tadeo Arriechi, the first of whom was apprehended in the act and the second taken into custody under an arrest warrant for the offences of boycotting and destabilizing the economy, and their preventive judicial detention has been authorized by Control Court No. 36 of the Caracas metropolitan area (Supervisory Court). In addition, the governing body of SUNDDE has ordered the administrative measure of temporary seizure of the Día a Día facilities, under an administrative order dated 7 February 2015, and the case is currently at the investigation stage.
25. 606. With regard to the ANSA, it confirms that there is no criminal investigation against the citizen Luis Rodríguez, who holds the position of president of the said association.
    • – Corporación Cárnica: Proceedings have been initiated against the citizens Tania Carolina Salinas (apprehended in the act and placed in judicial preventive detention), Delia Isabel Ribas (apprehended in the act and taken into precautionary pre-trial custody), Angelly Lopez Graterol (apprehended in the act and taken into precautionary pre-trial custody), Ernesto Luis Arenas Pulgar (apprehended in the act and taken into precautionary pre-trial custody) and Yolman Valderrama apprehended in the act and taken into precautionary pre-trial custody), on charges of boycotting, hoarding, fraudulently misrepresenting the quality of goods, price rigging, selling expired foodstuffs, criminal conspiracy and speculation. The case is currently at the investigation stage with Circuit Court No. 2 with jurisdiction for economic and cross border offences in the judicial district of Falcón State (Supervisory Court) and Circuit Court No. 1 with jurisdiction for Falcón State (Supervisory Court). In addition, the governing body of SUNDDE has ordered the administrative measure of temporary seizure, under an administrative order dated 28 January 2015).
26. 607. Where the Venezuelan Association of Clinics and Hospitals is concerned, the Attorney General’s Office indicates that there is no criminal investigation against the citizen Rafael Guerra Méndez, President of the Venezuelan Association of Clinics and Hospitals. On 6 February 2015, however, he was questioned at the headquarters of the SEBIN in connection with statements that he had made to the media.
27. 608. The Attorney-General’s Office concludes by emphasizing that, in accordance with the principles of law and justice enshrined in the Venezuelan Constitution, the right to defence is conceived as a guarantee of due process, which is applicable to all judicial and administrative proceedings; accordingly, when citizens are being prosecuted for the alleged commission of acts defined as punishable under law, not only are their rights recognized, the exercise of those rights is also guaranteed.
28. 609. In its communication dated 21 May 2015, the Government states that it confirms its reply sent on 25 February 2015 concerning this case since what had been asked was sufficiently answered on that occasion. Moreover, the Government confirms each of its previous replies pertaining to the recommendations contained in the report of the ILO tripartite mission which visited the country in January 2014, as well as any other reply which is relevant to this case.
29. 610. With regard to the trial held in relation to the bombing of the FEDECAMARAS headquarters on 26 February 2008, the Government states that the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic has notified that, as regards the criminal case on the attack of the FEDECAMARAS headquarters, the 28th Court of First Instance of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the metropolitan area of Caracas issued an acquittal verdict of the accused, Ms Ivonne Gioconda Márquez Burgos, on public intimidation charges and misuse of identification. However, following an appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor, a hearing was held on 29 April 2015 and the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit used the delay granted by law to render a decision. The court decision is still pending.
30. 611. With regard to the trial concering acts committed against Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Ms Albis Muñoz, the Government states that the accused, despite having been duly notified, failed to appear in Court. The Government adds that the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic has indicated that once the continuation of the oral and public proceedings before the Eleventh Court of First Instance of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas metropolitan area was scheduled to commence, it had to be interrupted on 21 January 2015 due to the decision of the accused to dismiss his lawyer. The Court will therefore set a new date for the commencement of the oral and public proceedings, once the accused appoints his new legal representative.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 612. With regard to the Committee’s recommendation (g), in its previous examination of the case, the Committee recalls that, in its March 2015 conclusions:
   • … The Committee notes with concern the allegation contained in the recent joint communication from the IOE and FEDECAMARAS, that 15 entrepreneurs from various sectors, including the President of the Venezuelan Association of Clinics and Hospitals and the President of the National Association of Supermarkets and Self-Services, Luis Rodríguez, were detained in February 2015 without due process and in violation of the right of defence, as well as other allegations (seizure of company premises, threat of expropriation). The Committee notes the Government’s communications of 10 and 12 March 2015 denying attacks on business and stating that there are no criminal proceedings against the two employer leaders mentioned by the complainants, (Luis Rodríguez and Rafael Guerra Méndez), reporting the prosecution of eight enterprise managers for offences of an economic nature, and reporting also that, as regards the eight enterprise managers, the judicial authority has taken measures for their preventive detention or alternative precautionary measures [see 374th Report, para. 929].
2. 613. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not sent the supplementary information that the Committee had requested in relation to the allegations of the IOE and FEDECAMARAS mentioned in recommendation (g) and that it has not even sent information on developments in the criminal proceedings initiated against most of the leaders or employers whose arrest has been alleged, despite the Committee having deemed the case to be extremely serious and having therefore drawn the Governing Body’s special attention to it. The Committee expresses its concern, noting that it is alleged that some detainees might be condemned to 10–12 years of imprisonment.
3. 614. Since the Government’s most recent reply limits itself to confirming its previous statements concerning the allegations of detention of business persons and employers’ leaders, the occupation of business premises and the seizure of goods, the Committee emphasizes the importance of having the supplementary information requested, given the contradiction between the allegations and the Government’s response as to whether or not it has complied with the rules of due process, whether or not economic offences have been committed, whether or not there has been an attack on employers and their officials and, whether or not there are ulterior motives which have nothing to do with defending the interests of employers’ organizations and their members. The Committee stresses in particular the important need for the Government to indicate the specific allegations against each of the employers or leaders mentioned in the complaint, and not to limit itself to an indication of the general criminal offences (boycott, hoarding, smuggling, speculation, etc.). The Committee urges the Government to provide this information together with information on developments in the respective criminal proceedings. The Committee also requests the Government to forward its observations regarding the latest additional information on these questions that the IOE and FEDECAMARAS have transmitted in their communication dated 19 May 2015. The Committee calls on the authorities to consider lifting the precautionary custodial measures imposed on employers and business leaders pending trial.
4. 615. With regard to the recommendation (b), the Committee observes with concern from the Government’s statements that the criminal proceedings in question have not yet been completed. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous recommendations.
5. 616. With regard to recommendations (a) and (c)–(f), that it issued in relation to other aspects of the case, the Committee expresses its deep concern, observing the lack of information and lack of any progress; reiterates its previous conclusions and recommendations and urges the Government to take the requested measures without delay. More particularly, the Committee expresses its deep concern, observing that in their allegations of 19 May 2015, the IOE and FEDECAMARAS indicated new acts of intimidation and stigmatization against the latter and its leaders by the authorities, including in April 2015.
6. 617. In general, the Committee expresses its grave concern at the specific situation regarding the rights of freedom of association of FEDECAMARAS, its leaders and its members.